Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTunes 5 and DRM?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's a difference between being audible and being noticeable. I've done lots of research and testing in subliminal messages in audio recordings and can tell you that it's very easy to mix in signals to an audio file in such a way that it would go completely unnoticed by all I tested it with. I did this with messages as well as with data which I could then extract from the audio file. The data I was mixing in was far more complex than just some copy flag bits.
I understand that when I buy a CD I don't buy the music, but what sucks is that it's the record companies that are restricting what I really want to do with it...and that is to mix songs to use in videos, make custom compilations or custom mix versions of songs all for personal use. As far as the artist is concerned, there is no harm in me doing this...there's really no harm to the record companies either, but they don't care about any of this...they just want to have absolute control over everything. They're greedy, corrupt and deserve to be stolen from.
If we don't "fight" the system, we can expect 10 artists a year that are all Britanny Speers and ever evolving formats where we have to purchase new copies all the time for every format and every device and can't do any customizations.
DRM is NOT inevitable, it's impossible...especially when it comes to audio. I had thought that CSS seemed like a real barrier to copying, but OMG that did not take long at all.
Audio is far more difficult to protect...actually it's is impossible to protect without eliminating current audio devices. They want to watermark audio...I say, "bring it on!" The watermarking systems I've seen to date are very easy to get around.
I *LOVE* those CDs! I get all "copy-protected" CDs that are issued...not so much that I like the music (it usually sucks), but I never pass up a freebie. All you have to do is buy the CD (more like leave a deposit) and then take the disk home and copy it (current "protection" is a joke and anyone who can surf the web knows how to disable it). Then return the disk for a refund because it doesn't play in your CD player! Only once did they ask to see what type of player I had, and I invited them out to my car (which happens to have a CD-ROM for the CD player).
If you are refering to the Fair Use section of copyright law it does not give you permission to make personnal copies let alone distribute complete versions of copyrighted materials to your friends i.e. mixing a tape for a friend. In short, Fair Use covers news, reviews, academic/educational, and research uses. And even those exceptions are limited to using just segments of the original work. For example, a local news channel could not air all of T3 then review the movie and try to hide behind Fair Use. The amount of material you can use varies and depends on the original work. I know that CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) avoids confusion/gray areas w/news channels/stations by specifying<sp?>, in writing, that only 3 or 4 minutes of race footage/hi-lights can be aired w/in a 24hr period (I can't remember the exact amount).
Lethal
I'm no lawyer, but everything I've read about Fair Use says that you are allowed to make personal copies of copyrighted material without the consent of the owner.
If this means you can't burn downloaded songs, that sucks, and there'll be a way around it - just far less convient than iTunes... If it means you can't burn mp3's of stuff you own, that more than sucks, and again, there'll be a way around it... I think the majority of folks out there will try to be honest with their purchases and stuff... Who does this thing hurt? Not pirates, because they'll get the stuff no matter what... Hurts the ordinary honest consumer in my opinion...
Originally posted by Raiden
I agree 100% with that statement.
Ok, I get annoyed when I hear this DRM palladium type stuff. I dont have many CDs because they are so expensive. In my area, 17 bucks for new CDs. Its damn near rediculous. Im a bag boy at a grocerie store. I dont make much cash. So when corperate big-whigs tell me that I cant (as someone said before) burn a CD for my girlfriend, or I cant trade a few of my fav songs with a friend, or I cant add "x" song to my PC that I payed 2000 bucks for, I get will get really pissed!
I swear, I will boycott to hell this kind of stuff. I will stop buying CDs, I will not buy any computer that has any type of hard DRM on it (and I will think reeeal hard if it has soft DRM), and I will personally send emails, letters, etc to any and all DRM associated companies. I would even go so far to protest publically in front of buildings if I have to.
Man is my blood boiling right now!!
Me too!! Like I said, it hurts the average consumer... Someone pirating songs (or software for that matter) will find ways around this sort of thing... I always have
... and they won't be able to stop me (or the million others like me)! OMG, is the RIAA reading this now??? JUST KIDDING!!!
Straight from the horses mouth.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
No mention of personal uses as far as I can tell.
What you might be thinking of, however, is something that some people call a consumer's bill of rights. For example, back in the 80's the courts ruled that it is legal for people to use their VCRs to tape TV shows for later personal viewing. Or other things such as these.
While the courts have ruled that consumers do have the right to, for example, dub their CD so they can listen to it on their walkman or iPod this sort of proteciton is not provided by Fair Use. It's like citing the 2nd Amendment when debting Freedom of Speech. Yes we have Freedom of Speech, but no it's not covered under the 2nd Amendment.
The distincion between Fair Use and the "consumers bill of rights" must be made because they are two seperate things that provide very different protections.
Lethal
EDIT:
No he's not.
Re: Let's See....
Sharing with friends is fair use and legal under the Home Recording Act.
This was the loophole that mp3.com tried to slip through on, but couldn't because the courts found that the sharing was not just restricted to friends.
Sharing with friends is fair use and legal under the Home Recording Act.
This was the loophole that mp3.com tried to slip through on, but couldn't because the courts found that the sharing was not just restricted to friends.
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Straight from the horses mouth.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
No mention of personal uses as far as I can tell.
What you might be thinking of, however, is something that some people call a consumer's bill of rights. For example, back in the 80's the courts ruled that it is legal for people to use their VCRs to tape TV shows for later personal viewing. Or other things such as these.
While the courts have ruled that consumers do have the right to, for example, dub their CD so they can listen to it on their walkman or iPod this sort of proteciton is not provided by Fair Use. It's like citing the 2nd Amendment when debting Freedom of Speech. Yes we have Freedom of Speech, but no it's not covered under the 2nd Amendment.
The distincion between Fair Use and the "consumers bill of rights" must be made because they are two seperate things that provide very different protections.
Lethal
EDIT:
No he's not.
Same difference.... When you purchase a cd you can do whatever you want with the music personally, but don't have the right to distribute it - this is my understanding... Soooo, you can burn comp cd's of cd's you already own for yourself, use them on your computer, make tapes, etc.... Again you just don't have the right to distribute or resell these cd's... What, you work for the copyright office??? Then I HAVE TO TALK TO YOU - I have some copyrights that are taking FOREVER to get back
!!!! (Just kidding - SMILE - it's a joke!!!)
Actually I was referring to both the "fair use" provisions and the additonal protections under the Home Recording Act.
And as I mentioned, things that are commmercial (reviews) are indeed limited to excerpts (segments). Last I looked the HRA did not make the same restrictons on non-commercial use.
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Same difference.... When you purchase a cd you can do whatever you want with the music personally, but don't have the right to distribute it - this is my understanding... Soooo, you can burn comp cd's of cd's you already own for yourself, use them on your computer, make tapes, etc.... Again you just don't have the right to distribute or resell these cd's... What, you work for the copyright office??? Then I HAVE TO TALK TO YOU - I have some copyrights that are taking FOREVER to get back
Nope, don't work for the copyright office but I do work in post production so copyrights come up every now and then.
The problem seems to be that people, when talking about copyrights, are using the term "Fair Use" as a general term when in fact it has very a specific, legal definetion (which is what I posted in my previously).
Making personal copies is allowed by law, but it's not covered under Fair Use. When people discuss the rights they have it usually helps if they understand those rights and where they come from. As I said before, if we were discussing Freedom of Speech and you kept saying that the Fourth Amendment grants us Freedom of Speech you would be wrong.
Forgive me if I seem a bit irritated but this is just a major, major pet peeve of mine. Is it too much to ask for people to use the correct terminology and understand what parts of the law give them what protections?
Lethal
I wasn't aware you were refering to both sense you only mentioned one. I guess I'm so used to people not knowing what they are talking when it comes to stuff like this that I no longer give people the bennifit of the doubt and I've become rather anal about the whole thing.
Lethal
Wrong! I don't want anything for free. I want the ability to use what I've bought in a way I can predict for the life of the product. I don't want to have to buy one copy for my car, one for my computer, one for my iPod and an extra license to mix a tape for my girlfriend.
I don't use file sharing services and never have. Just don't like 'em.
Oh my... No. The ability to do anything is not illegal. You have the ability to crack a Louisville Slugger over anyones head but we don't confiscate it.
Doing is illegal.
The ability to do is not.
Very, very important difference.
Then I get to the end of your post and start to wonder if you don't see the irony yourself...
Better not use anything but that 5.1 out or you're stealing, plain and simple!
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I wasn't aware you were refering to both sense you only mentioned one. I guess I'm so used to people not knowing what they are talking when it comes to stuff like this that I no longer give people the bennifit of the doubt and I've become rather anal about the whole thing.
Lethal
No worries, we all get anal about different things. I've been trying to not capitalize and to use quotes around "fair use" to use it as shorthand for a body of protections-- all of which I consider "fair".
If I wind up in court I'll try to get more specific.
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Nope, don't work for the copyright office but I do work in post production so copyrights come up every now and then.
The problem seems to be that people, when talking about copyrights, are using the term "Fair Use" as a general term when in fact it has very a specific, legal definetion (which is what I posted in my previously).
Making personal copies is allowed by law, but it's not covered under Fair Use. When people discuss the rights they have it usually helps if they understand those rights and where they come from. As I said before, if we were discussing Freedom of Speech and you kept saying that the Fourth Amendment grants us Freedom of Speech you would be wrong.
Forgive me if I seem a bit irritated but this is just a major, major pet peeve of mine. Is it too much to ask for people to use the correct terminology and understand what parts of the law give them what protections?
Lethal
OK, my bad - so be it!!!
Like I said, I'm no lawyer, but I just found a dozen credible sources on the web that say making personal copies of legally purchased multimedia is permitted under the "Fair Use" terms in copyright law.
Here's a link to a page on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website that explains Fair Use.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
If that source is not credible enough, let me know and I'll post some more. But I really don't have to. You can do a Google search yourself.
Why do I have to Google to search for someone else's interpurpitation of the law which I quoted, and linked to the exact legal definetion of "Fair Use" as defined by the Copyright Act? Did you read my other posts where I talked about people misusing terminology?
Like I said before... Many people have started using the term"fair use" as a generic phrase for consumer rights in regards to media copying/xfering, usage, ownership, ect., when, in fact, the term "Fair Use" has a very specific, legal definetion under copyright law (which is the text and link I posted a few posts up). Some people don't mind that the term Fair Use is becoming a watered down, generic phrase but I do (again, something I mentioned in previous posts) and I will usually correct people whenever I see them misuse the term, as mentioned in a previous post, it's a pet peeve.
Now, Fair Use isn't the end all be all of consumer rights regarding media so a lot of rights we do have, like ones mentioned in the link you provided, get shoved under the Fair Use umbrella, even though they don't belong, because it's easier to summerize and condense everything under a single catch phrase than it is explain all the different laws, acts, and court decissions that make up our rights as consumers seperately and in their entirety.
Lethal
If you read the page about Fair Use in the EFF, they state that making copies for personal use is covered under the Fair Use part of the Copyright law. It seems it's quite vage, and the cases stated by it are not limiting...
About DRM, I think they have to find a way to ensure all the customers rights are respected, but I also think DRM should be optional. Were I to sell my music on the iTunes store, I'd only do it if the files were DRM free, and I'm sure there are more artists that feel this way.
Keep reading the EFF page, their Open Audio License is nice, and I strongly feel this is the way to go with music.
About DRM, I think they have to find a way to ensure all the customers rights are respected, but I also think DRM should be optional. Were I to sell my music on the iTunes store, I'd only do it if the files were DRM free, and I'm sure there are more artists that feel this way.
Keep reading the EFF page, their Open Audio License is nice, and I strongly feel this is the way to go with music.
If you are refering to the page that frozenstar linked to I did read it and they are not entirely correct. They have included personal uses such as space shifting and time shifting as part of the Fair Use law when it is not. You do have the legal right to time shift and space shift media, but those rights are not covered under Fair Use as stated in copyright law. Time and space shifting are legal protections covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (which has roots from the "Betamax" case from 1984). I assume they lumped those uses under the Fair Use protections in an attempt to better summerize and simplify what people's rights are in these situations.
As I said before, I think part of the confusion also stems from the fact that the people use the words "fair use" as a generic phrase when in fact Fair Use has a specific legal definition in copyright law.
Lethal
