Is this ethical and legal?

[sidmehta]

Many people think it is ethical and legal for Apple to make it difficult to copy music from say, your iPhone to your PC. Look deeper.

Apple charges 99 cents a song, so if I want 5000 songs over time I pay roughly 5000 dollars. This is too much. Everyone, rich or poor, should be able to get to music in a fair way. I believe fair pricing should be 10 cents a song or less. IOW, one's music library shouldn't cost more than 500 bucks.

5000 bucks for music is not ethically valid pricing.

Earlier, when cassette tapes were around, it was fully legal to copy music off the air. In fact: radio cassette players were made to automatically record the song playing on your radio the moment you hit the record button. This was legal. Yet Apple makes it difficult to the equivalent of this today.

So my conclusion is, Apple's policy on music is neither ethically nor legally valid.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Then get a zune. Microsoft doesn't try and stop you, and in fact I've pulled mp3's off my WP7 onto my laptop using the Zune software. Try doing that with iTunes!

 

[eljanitor]

Well when Cd's came out, they were $15.00 - $25.00 depending on what it was. People paid more for boxed sets, for a booklet and a fancy case. The artists got paid, whatever was in their contract by the label. You had anywhere from 6 - 14 songs for about $15.00 roughly.

Then came the MP3. With file sharing programs you could download all your favorite songs from whoever had them for free. The artists didn't see any of that. The record labels cared, and so did Metallica. Because when you rip mp3's and hand them out the musicians don get paid. When they don't get paid, like almost anyone else they aren't happy.

So now you have iTunes store. A musician friend of mine was telling me a few years ago that the artists do not see one cent of that 99 cent download from Apple if anyone is getting paid for that its the label. I don't know if that's true anymore, but if it is then that's pretty crappy by itself.

The musicians are the ones who are doing most of the work here, and they should get paid.

 

[Jolly Giant]

what if it isn't Apple but the greedy, filthy rich content-owners that make your digital life difficult ?

 

[sidmehta]

what if it isn't Apple but the greedy, filthy rich content-owners that make your digital life difficult ?

But its Apple that made it difficult to copy music for personal use. As said in another post, Zune allows that...so do many other companies, including phones by Sony Ericsson.... a Sony company. Its not like Sony Music told them they couldn't allow this copying.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

But its Apple that made it difficult to copy music for personal use.

And it was the record companies that made them put in restrictions like that.

As said in another post, Zune allows that...so do many other companies

Completely different business model.

including phones by Sony Ericsson.... a Sony company. Its not like Sony Music told them they couldn't allow this copying.

How about you do a little research into what Sony actually does in regards to selling and controlling music distribution. Does rootkit mean anything to you?

 

[*LTD*]

Many people think it is ethical and legal for Apple to make it difficult to copy music from say, your iPhone to your PC. Look deeper.

Apple charges 99 cents a song, so if I want 5000 songs over time I pay roughly 5000 dollars. This is too much. Everyone, rich or poor, should be able to get to music in a fair way. I believe fair pricing should be 10 cents a song or less. IOW, one's music library shouldn't cost more than 500 bucks.

5000 bucks for music is not ethically valid pricing.

Earlier, when cassette tapes were around, it was fully legal to copy music off the air. In fact: radio cassette players were made to automatically record the song playing on your radio the moment you hit the record button. This was legal. Yet Apple makes it difficult to the equivalent of this today.

So my conclusion is, Apple's policy on music is neither ethically nor legally valid.

Thank you, counselor. Now go argue that with the courts and see how far you get.

They *will* tell you that you're entitled to your opinion. But that's about it.

 

[Consultant]

But its Apple that made it difficult to copy music for personal use. As said in another post, Zune allows that...so do many other companies, including phones by Sony Ericsson.... a Sony company. Its not like Sony Music told them they couldn't allow this copying.

WRONG.

If you have the original files, then it's not difficult at all to copy them.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

WRONG.

If you have the original files, then it's not difficult at all to copy them.

But if you don't have the original files, Apple makes it ridiculously hard to copy them, which, I do believe, was the OP's original point.

 

[AdrianK]

WRONG.

If you have the original files, then it's not difficult at all to copy them.

^What he said

But if you don't have the original files, Apple makes it ridiculously hard to copy them, which, I do believe, was the OP's original point.

What "original" files?

Anything that's been purchased on the iTunes store in that last one and a half years is DRM free, on those files there are zero/none/el-zilcho restrictions.

Anyway, this is why I buy CDs. I have a wishlist list of about 15 albums at the moment on HMV.com, if I don't 'need' an album now I'll wait for a sale, sooner or later most albums drop to ~£5 (45p/$0.74 for an 11 track album).

 

[roadbloc]

Many people think it is ethical and legal for Apple to make it difficult to copy music from say, your iPhone to your PC. Look deeper.

You do realise they only do that to prevent you from taking your songs off your iPhone, to someone else's PC, thus, preventing piracy? Just as the record companies will have demanded when they agreed to let iTunes sell songs. Any songs purchased via iTunes on an iOS device is automatically transferred to your PC the next time you sync it.

Not to mention, a quick google search brings up plenty of solutions to recover the songs off your iPod to your PC if you ever need it.

 

[Killyp]

Apple charges 99 cents a song, so if I want 5000 songs over time I pay roughly 5000 dollars. This is too much.

How have you come to that conclusion?

Seems to me you want to own a large music collection, but don't have the money to do so.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Everyone, rich or poor, should be able to get to music in a fair way.

No, freedom to own music is not guaranteed by the constitution.

I believe fair pricing should be 10 cents a song or less. IOW, one's music library shouldn't cost more than 500 bucks.

5000 bucks for music is not ethically valid pricing.

That's your opinion and definately not a legal issue.

Earlier, when cassette tapes were around, it was fully legal to copy music off the air. In fact: radio cassette players were made to automatically record the song playing on your radio the moment you hit the record button. This was legal. Yet Apple makes it difficult to the equivalent of this today.

By that logic, you're arguing because we can record music for free off the radio, any music that isn't free is unethical. Pretty funny argument for many reasons

Also, when cassettes were around, a cassette album cost between $10 and $12, putting the cost per song at close to a dollar. You also had cassette singles (remember those?) which cost $3 and were basically one song and a crappy B-Side or remix or instrumental. If there's one thing I'm grateful to iTunes for, it's not having to spend $15 on an LP when there's only one song I want on it, or $3 for a single. Because that's what you had to do back in the days.

 

[strider42]

5000 bucks for music is not ethically valid pricing.

How do you figure this. Music is not medecine necessary for life. Ethics doesn't figure into pricing for a product. This is supply and demand, balancing profits per unit with units shipped. The market clearly supports 99 cent pricing (and always has, albums have historically cost more than 99 cents per song anyway)

As for the recording of the radio thing...yeah, that wasn't legal, sorry. You might have been ABLE to do it, but you had not legal right to copy free music. Fair use rights gave you a right to make mix tapes, record vinyl onto cassettes, etc with music you already owned, but no, you didn't have the right to jsut steal music.

Your self of entitlement is astounding.

 

[Ommid]

I heard once you buy 5000 songs you get a free apple voucher for $2500 ?

 

[notjustjay]

Many people think it is ethical and legal for Apple to make it difficult to copy music from say, your iPhone to your PC. Look deeper.

[... snip snip ...]

Earlier, when cassette tapes were around, it was fully legal to copy music off the air. In fact: radio cassette players were made to automatically record the song playing on your radio the moment you hit the record button. This was legal. Yet Apple makes it difficult to the equivalent of this today.

Pricing of music aside, I don't buy your argument. Apple sells music which is DRM-free which means you CAN copy it to other devices for your own personal use. You CAN make "mix tapes", burn CDs, pop them onto other mp3 players, play them in your car, use them as soundtracks for your home movies. Nothing is preventing you from doing so!

What you're not allowed to do is give a copy of the music to other people who didn't buy it -- but nothing, technically, stops you from doing so.

When you buy a track on an iPod touch or iPhone, the music will get synced to iTunes for you. Yes, Apple makes it difficult to copy the music through any means other than iTunes syncing -- but they make it difficult to access ANY files off your iPhone outside of iTunes syncing. But as long as you keep backups of your music files, you shouldn't need to worry about this in everyday use.

 

[Eigtball]

Wait aren't albums less expensive? I guess the .99 is for the choice of a single song convenience.

 

[Tharian]

The OP's ignorance made me smile

Thanks for the chuckle!

-d

 

[rdowns]

5000 bucks for music is not ethically valid pricing.

WTF?

 

[ender land]

groove shark ftw?

pandora?

As someone heavily involved in a local music scene, what you are suggesting would basically kill small music scenes from having any chance of producing "full time" musicians. I purchase CDs (at $5-10 a pop) at nearly all the shows I go to from groups I would want to see again, because I know that it supports them.

Not to mention the idea is completely ridiculous to begin with lol.

 

[eawmp1]

OP, what an entitled little snot of an opinion.

1) Prior to digital music, all copies you made (tape to tape, tape from vinyl, tape from air) resulted in a lesser quality product. And while it was common to share music, it technically was a copyright violation.

2) Enter digital music (the CD). CD duplication wasn't really common, so one didn't share "master" copies between friends.

3) Enter mp3/digital files. Apple didn't invent the DRM. It was a requirement of the music labels for fear people would no longer buy music, just pirate it. Eventually Apple was able to increase file quality (though still not at master/CD quality and offer music DRM free).

You can use your music all you want. You still shouldn't pirate copies off to your friends. You want free music, listen to broadcast and don't purchase it. I my day we had AM and the FM (yeah). You have radio, satellite, internet streaming. Stop complaining about having to purchase music!

OBTW - One of the great things this has done is allow independent labels and musicians more exposure. The days of the big labels ruling the airwaves and homogenizing music is over.

 

[snberk103]

....
Apple charges 99 cents a song, so if I want 5000 songs over time I pay roughly 5000 dollars. This is too much. Everyone, rich or poor, should be able to get to music in a fair way. I believe fair pricing should be 10 cents a song or less. IOW, one's music library shouldn't cost more than 500 bucks.

5000 bucks for music is not ethically valid pricing.
...

How about "Every artist, rich or poor, should be able to make a living in a fair way?" If you want all the music you can collect for free, adopt a musician. Feed them, house them, provide them with the space and the equipment to create their music. I'm sure if you adopted a musician like this, they would give you all the music you wanted. Don't know you'd be ahead, financially, but you wouldn't have to spend a dime for their music.

There is an old story about a fellow who calls a booking agency, and is told it would cost $2000 to book a band for his wife's birthday. The fellow is aghast, and tells the agent that even his plumber doesn't charge those rates. The agent told the fellow to get a quote for 6 plumbers to work Friday night, 6pm to 1am - and that the band would work for half of that.

 

[Naimfan]

If you think it is too much, you are free to not buy it. Problem solved.

 

[ucfgrad93]

If you think it is too much, you are free to not buy it. Problem solved.

Agreed. Sorry OP but you are not guaranteed the right to free music.

 

[TheSideshow]

Its as simple as 99-1.29 a song for each song. There's always things like Zune Pass which are nice at $15/month for unlimited downloads to keep until you end the service and 10 mp3 downloads to keep forever per month.