iTunes Conference Call

[rueyeet]

Hs anyone ever burned the 10 limit of CDs for any legal reason? I don't see any need for anymore than a few copies, and even 7 is much more than I need. Can someone shed some light on why a person might legally be burning that many copies of a single playlist?

I can see someone making custom song mixes and giving it to friends, for example. When I did up the playlist for my neighbor's yearly kick-ass Halloween shindig last year I was debating making copies of the mix to put in the goodie bags she always gives out to everyone. It was only the lack of a printer to make cool Halloween-theme CD inserts, and the fact that the playlist ended up being two CDs, that stopped me. So there's one legitimate and legal (though grey-area) use for you.

However, that's the only time I've ever even wanted to make more than one copy, and as someone elsewhere pointed out, someone really out to make large numbers of copies would make one master copy, and then duplicate from that. So I agree with our Mr. Jobs: the reduction to 7 burns is a complete non-issue. Authorization of five computers is a MUCH bigger deal.

 

[irmongoose]

But giving your music to someone else, even if it it your friend... dots illegal! Bah gah bah!



irmongoose

 

[Exponent]

Regarding the addition of a lossless encoder, I think this is cool. Now, at the cost of a large hard drive, I can encode all my CDs in my collection once . Then I can let the computer create a lossy version when the need arises, in the best format for that application, using the encoders available at that time.

However, I have a big problem with the switch in CD burning policy. While for me this is a better deal (I use computers for playback far more often than CDs), it is greatly troubling that they switch policies on the fly, AND HAVE IT AFFECT MUSIC ALREADY PURCHASED!!!

We purchased music under one particular agreement. Steve Jobs makes a big deal out of the fact that with iTMS, you own, not rent the music. This is great - unless the original seller can change the terms of the sale after the transaction's been done. This appears to be the case.

As much as I admire what Apple has done for the music industry with iTMS, I feel that changing the terms of the DRM post-sale isn't right, and probably isn't legal. I hope that this can be resolved without a court case....

 

[nagromme]

AAC now improved via QuickTime

Anyone else notice that in addition to Apple Lossless, the new QuickTime also improves conventional AAC too? Higher quality at the same bitrates apparently--although I doubt I'd notice since I never noticed any loss with AAC to begin with.

Not worth re-ripping anything for me, but some will like this. Apple already had better quality than WMA and MP3:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-05.html

 

[stoid]

Yeah, the distribution method is the only reason I would see needing more than a few burns, but I don't see that as legal. It's like buying a CD, making a bunch of copies and handing it out at a party or to your friends or something. Not legal.

 

[nagromme]

However, I have a big problem with the switch in CD burning policy.

What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs? If it was something legal, then you'll be glad to know that you can still can make as many as you want. Just replicate one of the 7. And you can still burn songs an UNLIMITED number of times--but can only burn 7 (formerly 10) IDENTICAL CDs without changing somethine--at least the order of tracks--to prove that you are not an automated mass-piracy operation.

Who does this actually inconvenience? Who needs more than 1 or 2 copies of a CD in addition to the master library and iPods?

Meanwhile, playback on five simultaneous computers is something some households will appreciate, saving them the re-authorization step that used to be needed. And THAT's retroactive too, which is very good

 

[jimboboc82]

I switched too ... purely because of my ipod, and due to me being an obesessed mac freak now, i'm sure i'll buy powermacs adn powerbooks regularly. (just need to finish uni and get some cash!)

Plus two of my friends are now about to switch because of my adoration for macs - you wouldn't find a pc user getting so enthusiastic!

 

[nagromme]

Lots new

Quick run-down of all the iTunes news today--pretty good I'd say:

* Play on 5 computers at once in stead of 3 (and still store on unlimited others)
* Higher-quality AAC at the same bitrates
* Apple Lossless (on iPod too)
* Convert unprotected WMAs
* Free weekly downloads
* iMix community playlist sharing/rating
* Send music recommendation emails with art
* Easy CD art printing including mosaics of album covers and track listings
* Party Shuffle (Tutorial)
* Save song previews in "wish list" playlists
* Radio station playlists from around the country
* Quick links to Music Store music similar to your own music
* Expanded catalog, 700,000 songs with many exclusives (70% market share)
* Music videos and movie trailers linked to soundtracks and audiobooks
* New marketing program for campuses

 

[Exponent]

What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs?[\QUOTE]

I've burned maybe 5 CDs total in the past year. It isn't that this would inconvienence me - actually, the 5 computer playback addition is of great value.

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

 

[stoid]

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

You were under no obligation to accept the new terms. They were not forced on you. You have NO case in a court of law. Period. End of story.

 

[nagromme]

Re Exponent

Understood. But three things to look at:

1. The letter of the agreement, legally. I suspect the music labels and Apple DID follow the fine print we agreed to with the DRM. It's a shame pirates make DRM and such agreements a reality. A change in iTunes operation would seem to be legal. If it IS illegal as you suggest, then yes, punish it.

2. The effect of the agreement, in practice. What we can do with our music has now just INCREASED. The change includes a minor reduction and a major improvement.

3. What happens to your files you've bought. Nothing. Your computer will play them the same forever, and they are copyable to other computers, and burnable etc. under the OLD rights forever. Until you CHOOSE to upgrade iTunes. So if you are afraid that some future iTunes update will do some terrible thing, just back up your music to lossless form--like CD--before performing that update. You have a hypothetical way out of whatever scenario you're worried about.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you have to worry.

 

[dongmin]

In a small way, I think the iPod's success is definitely helping the Mac by boosting Apple's brand image. Most PC users used to have this feeling that Apple customers were just rogue hippies using out-of-date computers. My girlfriend would never even consider a Mac until she fell in love with her iPod last year. She just bought her first PowerBook 12" last week, turning down the Dell Latitude X300 she had had her eyes on for the past year. Go Apple! ¡Viva la revolución!

For sure the iPod and the Apple Stores are helping Apple's image. But they're still hurt by the same issues they've always suffered: slow CPU development & expensive hardware. That's why the marketshare is stagnant at best (not that I'm complaining about marketshare--I am a happy Mac user and will be for a while).

 

[SilentPanda]

What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs?[\QUOTE]

I've burned maybe 5 CDs total in the past year. It isn't that this would inconvienence me - actually, the 5 computer playback addition is of great value.

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the original agreement it would say that they can modify the agreement. Which was probably that new agreement that you saw today in iTunes 4.5. Yeah maybe you didn't click it yet etc etc... yes your rights are being restricted. But... there are a ton of restrictions on things that we buy that we never ever encounter. Same thing with this. I never worry about if I've hit the CD burning limit because I burn 1 CD from a playlist. I guess if you have 8 places you have to keep the CD then you're in trouble but... yeah... don't buy them I guess... stick it to the man...

 

[idkew]

What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs?[\QUOTE]

I've burned maybe 5 CDs total in the past year. It isn't that this would inconvienence me - actually, the 5 computer playback addition is of great value.

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

i am pretty sure you accepted this new policy when you installed iTunes 4.5 and clicked agree. did you actually read what you were agreeing to?

 

[Exponent]

You were under no obligation to accept the new terms. They were not forced on you. You have NO case in a court of law. Period. End of story.

Nope. Terms of sale can't change post sale, especially via a program update.

Some of you guys are neglecting to notice some fundamental changes the concept of ownership. Any precident set here, via a change that is favorable for many (and as noted by a poster earlier, not favorable to all) will pave the way for the content owners to yank our chain in the future.

(Edit: I erased "...a program update that doesn't warn you", because while I've downloade the update, I'm not sure if it warns you to a DRM change.)

 

[stoid]

Nope. Terms of sale can't change post sale, especially via a program update.

Some of you guys are neglecting to notice some fundamental changes the concept of ownership. Any precident set here, via a change that is favorable for many (and as noted by a poster earlier, not favorable to all) will pave the way for the content owners to yank our chain in the future.

(Edit: I erased "...a program update that doesn't warn you", because while I've downloade the update, I'm not sure if it warns you to a DRM change.)

Yes, when downloading the update you have to accept new terms of service which includes the modified.

If you think about it this way, before you had 3 computers burning 10 times (30 CDs) now you have 5 computers burning 7 times (35 CDs). That's 5 extra copies of the CD.

If you didn't want to change your terms of service you simply don't update and stop using the service while still enjoying to your music under the original DRM.

And until someone says they have legal desire to burn more than 7 copies of one playlist (hell, I challenge anyone to even present a legal scenario!) then your 'best for most' argument is moot, it's 'best for all'.

 

[Dahl]

I'm just glad iTunes now has videos, I'm sure they will have a huge library in no time. It's about time too, since Yahoo's Launch is anti Mac.

 

[ropbo]

Go Apple! ¡Viva la revolución!

Revolution ? Well, when you buy a song on the ITMS, you keep paying 99% to the record labels that use the money to advertise artists like Britney Spears, 50 Cents and others. So, to me that's not revolution.

Revolution is gonna happen when the artists deal direct with the online music stores. Then you'll be paying .50 a song, which is fairer, and the artists will earn what they deserve. Everybody wins.

The way it goes today, just the record labels win ( and Apple off the iPod ). You're still spending lots of money on songs.

Rodrigo Otavio Paes de Barros Otaviano

 

[nagromme]

New solution for importing PROTECTED WMAs

The few people who have bought Microsoft-protected WMA music have always had options if they wanted to switch to iTunes and iPod: 1) burn to CD then re-rip as AAC/MP3 (double-compression loss may be noticeable) or 2) re-rip as lossless WAV/AIFF (pure original sound, but takes up lots of space on HD or iPod).

Now there's a great new compromise: Burn your WMA purchases to CDs (a lossless step), then import into iTunes as Apple Lossless (another lossless step). You have the exact original WMA sound--at a file size bigger than AAC, but half what a normal lossless CD rip would be. A good option.

(PS... If you have a legal reason (?) to burn more than 7 there are SO many ways to do it, with iTunes alone. Re-import one of the 7 and it has NO DRM. Or shuffle the songs, burn 1, shuffle them back to original, and you get a fresh 7 burns. It's 7 IN A ROW that's the limit. Hardly a limit! And no, giving free music to your friends is not legal--it's piracy.)

EDIT: Can't you just get the best of the old AND new terms if you want? Since the 5 authorizations is managed outside iTunes, that should apply even to people using the OLD iTunes--who will still get the old 10-burns-in-a-row too. So keep the old iTunes on a machine if you wish. The 10 burns is a non-issue on so many levels...

EDIT AGAIN: ONE of the methods to get around the CD limitations has been removed: re-shuffling the playlists. If you legally need more than 7, your best bet is to re-import losslessly.

 

[stoid]

Revolution ? Well, when you buy a song on the ITMS, you keep paying 99% to the record labels that use the money to advertise artists like Britney Spears, 50 Cents and others. So, to me that's not revolution.

Revolution is gonna happen when the artists deal direct with the online music stores. Then you'll be paying .50 a song, which is fairer, and the artists will earn what they deserve. Everybody wins.

The way it goes today, just the record labels win ( and Apple off the iPod ). You're still spending lots of money on songs.

I think the revolution referenced was Apple's come back into more respectable market share since people were buying Mac's because of awesome iTunes/iPod experiences.

Apple did announce today that they have 450 contracts with independent artist labels, so you can't say they aren't trying.

[The following is said in utter ignorance of how the market _actually_ functions]
Question: What would happen if artist would not sign with the "Big 5" and go with independent (less greedy?) labels? Wouldn't that be another solution to the poor-artist-getting-ripped-off dilemma?
[/ignorant statements]

I think that overall, this is great day for Apple and Apple fans!

 

[powermac]

In a small way, I think the iPod's success is definitely helping the Mac by boosting Apple's brand image. Most PC users used to have this feeling that Apple customers were just rogue hippies using out-of-date computers. My girlfriend would never even consider a Mac until she fell in love with her iPod last year. She just bought her first PowerBook 12" last week, turning down the Dell Latitude X300 she had had her eyes on for the past year. Go Apple! ¡Viva la revolución!

I made the decision to switch about 24 hours after my girlfriend got me an iPod.

 

[cxny]

Anyone got a link to the conference call?

 

[idkew]

Nope. Terms of sale can't change post sale, especially via a program update.

Some of you guys are neglecting to notice some fundamental changes the concept of ownership. Any precident set here, via a change that is favorable for many (and as noted by a poster earlier, not favorable to all) will pave the way for the content owners to yank our chain in the future.

(Edit: I erased "...a program update that doesn't warn you", because while I've downloade the update, I'm not sure if it warns you to a DRM change.)

you are wrong. simply wrong.

you agreed apple could change the terms at its will. you agreed again when you clicked "accept" after installing 4.5.

you never owned any of the music you purchased. you are licensed to use it. you do not own it.

select items from Terms of Sale:

CONTENT USAGE RULES
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.

You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.

You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.

You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.

Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.

The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.

Refer to Terms of Sale for more detailed information on Usage Rules.

and finally:
Apple reserves the right to change the terms and conditions of sale at the iTunes Music Store at any time. Customers are encouraged to review the Sales Policies on a periodic basis for modifications.

 

[stoid]

Anyone got a link to the conference call?

Yep.

 

[Mr. G4]

I heard once Elton John said that he always buy CDs in multiple copy because he wants to have the same music in all his houses. Of course, if you are Sir Elton John you can afford to do that

So lets say that you have 8 houses around the world this new limitation is an inconvenient

What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs? If it was something legal, then you'll be glad to know that you can still can make as many as you want. Just replicate one of the 7. And you can still burn songs an UNLIMITED number of times--but can only burn 7 (formerly 10) IDENTICAL CDs without changing somethine--at least the order of tracks--to prove that you are not an automated mass-piracy operation.

Who does this actually inconvenience? Who needs more than 1 or 2 copies of a CD in addition to the master library and iPods?

Meanwhile, playback on five simultaneous computers is something some households will appreciate, saving them the re-authorization step that used to be needed. And THAT's retroactive too, which is very good