Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iTunes Sharing at Colleges

Re: Re: Re: It has nothing to do with censorship

Originally posted by Wash!!
I don't think so even if they are no as many "Bad apples" there is more honesty in the mac community that I seen in the PC world, most of the PC user I deal with and Know always try to find a way to get something for "free" it's just the way the Pc culture is compare to the Mac community, at least in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Who says though? What are your sources?

Who said Mac users don't try to get things either free or with a discount? Thousands of people get their Apple products with the educational discount, as with the buisness and governmental discounts.

This is your opinion, which is fine, it's just not exactly accurate.
 
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Yes.

WSU was too, and to an extent still is.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. 🙂

Incidentally, someone just popped up on my source list and I'm listening to their library right now. This is hella cool. 😀

Now I know why everyone loves this feature! I agree with those who don't understand what the freakin' RIAA is up in arms about. I never would have heard some of this music if I hadn't been able to stream it. I'm much more likely to hit up the iTMS if I know what's available, rather than never having heard of it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It has nothing to do with censorship

Originally posted by Wash!!
True plenty use because there were not alternative to legally buy music on line as most the other service are PC only, hence the reason apple created the itms..But we (mac users) will try to do the "right thing" first as most pc user will not even consider it.
Click to expand...

That's because Apple was the first and only to put out an online music store.🙄
 
Re: Re: mytunes is besides the point

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
The business model will no longer be a winner if it turns into another kazaa. The labels will not support Apple if they let users turn iTunes into a pirates paradise. If the labels don't support Apple there is no more iTMS. If there is no iTMS iTunes, the iPod, and Apple take a major hit. IIRC the major labels only signed up for a 1 agreement w/Apple and iTMS so if Apple does not keep things ship shape the labels will just drop iTMS.

...

Since it's already a piece of cake to pirate music via other means why doesn't everyone just do that and not f**k up iTunes for the rest of us?
Click to expand...

what i mean by a winning business model is that DESPITE the current availability of kazaa and other file sharing programs that allow easy downloading of files (a piece of cake according to you), the current music store is STILL a success (online singles currently sell better than cd singles), proving that there are people out there that will buy music instead of downloading it if it's easy and prices and drm are reasonable.


Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Apple has tried it's best to have the most relaxed DRM and give people the most freedom w/their music, but w/that freedom comes responsibility and unfortunetly enough users have repeatedly shown that they are irrisponsible by abusing that freedom.
Click to expand...

people have repeatedly shown that they can't or won't drive the speed limit, and that results in something a harsh as a loss of life, not to mention millions in insurance, but car makers don't take it upon themselves to limit the top speed of their cars to 75 mph. and neither does the government.


Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Why don't you focus on the cause of the problem (the people taking advantage of Apple's attempt to provide a superior product w/great features) and not the symptom (Apple removing features in an effort to keep the iTMS open and not get sued by the RIAA)?
Click to expand...

and as for the cause of the problem, yes it's people taking advantage of the system, but it's also businesses (the riaa) taking advantage of their artists, and their customers. but the whole point is the people that aren't doing anything wrong are the only ones actually being punished. instead of limited the software's features, why not go after the people making the other software. then they can let the legal system decide.


Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I meant if Apple left the sharing over internet as it originally was iTunes, especially once released for windows, could have become a huge pirateing mess because of things like iSwipe and MyTunes. And I'm it would't be too hard to create an app that would automatically search all the sharred play lists (which would obviously be much faster than loading each list and using iTunes search function).
Click to expand...

again, those programs will be made despite what apple does or does not do. hell, i can use ftp to download practically any song ever made. so should the entire ftp protocol be changed and limited so that someone cannot transfer certain types of files?
 
segastyle,

You seem to be missing the point that Apple has something to loose, namely the iTMS. Some how Jobs & Co convinced the majors that the iTMS relatively lax DRM would be enough and coaxed the majors into uncharted waters. And I know that Jobs isn't going to sink iTMS less than a year after launch by thumbing his nose at the majors and not deactivating sharing over internet.


Lethal
 
no, i understand they have something to lose, and that's the reason why they eliminated internet sharing. i guess my whole point is that doing whatever they possibly can to make the riaa happy is lame, and quite frankly leaves the customers out to dry.

my problem isn't with apple, i know they are doing their best to walk a tightrope with this whole music thing. my problem is with the recording labels, who seem to be spending more effort, time, and money on discovering new ways to "control" and "police" us, instead of trying to make a product that might be appealing enough to bring in the money they want.

i guess you could label me a bitter former customer. i own over 700 cds. but i refuse any longer to shell out 16 bucks for a cd which, if i'm lucky, might have 3 decent songs on it (but there's no way for me to find out because you can't rent cds like movies, and stores don't let you try a cd out).

and so the next time i want to get a friend in california to listen to a cd of mine with hopes that he/she might like it enough to go buy all the cds from that band, i guess i'll have to illegally burn a copy of it to mail to them because every company is so afraid of the riaa that they've even removed nice "honest" ways of sharing something.

and in the meantime, thousands of people will still be acquiring music illegally through other means, and a few extrememly clever ones will be figuring out how to crack the drm on aac and wma files...then what happens?
 
segastyle,

I think we are on the same page, I'm just not as jaded as you yet. 😉

I too love to try before I buy, and I've purchased a lot of CDs because I've been able to take bands I'm unfamilar w/for a "test drive." Thankfully I've noticed more artists becoming "internet aware" and putting low-to-medium quality streams, and sometimes MP3's, of their songs on their sites. I really wish more artists would do that. Also, and it's not quite as convient, but around here local record stores (none of the big chains) allow you to listen to any CD you want.

Anyway, I guess I really don't blame people in the entertainment industy (be they execs, artists, or rank 'n file crew members) for their fear of on-line pirating. "Back in the day" time, money, and quality presented natural limiting factors and kept your average consumer from creating very many copies. But now anyone can upload a lossless or uncompressed rip of a song onto a P2P and 10's of millions of users instantly have access a perfect copy of the original. Seeing your source of income become readily avaible for millions of people to download for free is a pretty big pill to swallow. Now I'm not saying the RIAA has handled the situation well, because they haven't, I'm just saying I can understand fear and worst-case scenario<sp?> thinking that is going on.


Lethal
 
RIAA to the rescue of playlist sharing?

Dont ban the pirates´playlist ripping software because that software could be used for alternative legal purposes - give them the benefit of th edoubt!. However, get the RIAA or whoever, to get it down in black and white that ripping off Playlists is deliberately circumventing Apple´s DRM software which is illegal and the fine is XYZ big bucks.

When the sharing option is activated, that info flashes on the screen by default. Unlike kazaa, nobody can twist and squirm and say they didnt know that ripping off playlists was illegal.

So, how to implement the law? To make it easier to police, each person offering their playlist for sharing is responsible for the action of those listening in. You have direct control over who shares playlists, and you could even have an option that tells certain people who you think are going to misuse it, thay they can take a hike.

Each TV owner in the UK lives exactly by this law.

For instance, a TV licence in the UK is per household. If there is no licence and your family is caught watching TV like they have the right to pay zero while 90%+ people in the country contributes, the homeowner is liable to pay the fine, no ifs or buts. And it is a monster fine these days.

On a similar vein, the Sharing playlists feature is, I imagine, offered as a feature so that members of a family unit can share. If your little Johnny is upstairs ripping off your playlists with some ****head´s piracy software, then unfortunately Dad is responsible. Maybe Dad didnt know about Kazaa, but if Dad is sharing his iTunes playlist with Johnny, the box on screen informing him of the law is there to see. So a responsible Dad is likely to have a good go at altering Johnny´s idea of what is right and acceptable. Real bad kids will ignore him, really really bad parents will think its ok, its only like recording th eradio, blah blah- but the majority will be very aware that its a serious "offence". So you are responsible for who listens to your playlists.

It would apply at colleges and universities too. If you look at TV licencing in UK Universities, even if you live in the same building as 20 other students, you arent living as a single household, so each student is responsible for the TV in their room. ie you need a licence per student. By extension, the Playlist sharing facility becomes the responsibility of each student in his household unit. If you choose to let any old Joe listen in, then if that good mate is ripping off playlists, you are going to be nailed too if it comes to light. Self regulation is the key. You soon find out who your friends are, if you tell someone that copying your playlist is illegal, and it gets out that they have been doing exactly that, ....
 
LethalWolfe, give it time, and you may be 🙂

i don't blame the riaa for being scared either. when i saw my first mp3 way back in 1995/96, all i thought was wow, this is too easy, wait until people find out about this.

but it pisses me off that apple has an "honest" way to share music, which could actually help out the riaa, but then removing it because people can make software to circumvent it. the funny thing is, even with that software, it's much more difficult than using ftp or kazaa. remember rendezvous does not work across networks, so for internet sharing, you actually need someone's ip address. kazaa you need nothing.

i'm hoping that with the continued success of the itms, that eventually apple will have enough pull to bring the riaa over to their side. sharing is good. at least, that's what i was taught in kindergarten...
 
Originally posted by segastyle
LethalWolfe, give it time, and you may be 🙂

i don't blame the riaa for being scared either. when i saw my first mp3 way back in 1995/96, all i thought was wow, this is too easy, wait until people find out about this.

but it pisses me off that apple has an "honest" way to share music, which could actually help out the riaa, but then removing it because people can make software to circumvent it. the funny thing is, even with that software, it's much more difficult than using ftp or kazaa. remember rendezvous does not work across networks, so for internet sharing, you actually need someone's ip address. kazaa you need nothing.

i'm hoping that with the continued success of the itms, that eventually apple will have enough pull to bring the riaa over to their side. sharing is good. at least, that's what i was taught in kindergarten...
Click to expand...


I think that after iTMS proves itself, well the on-line store model in general, the RIAA will start going on the heavy offensive to try and exploit that business model as much as they can. Movie Studios feared the TV, and TV feared the VCR, until someone realized how they could use the new technology to make an @ss load of cash. 😀

I would honestly be surprised if sharing over internet was not reintroduced some where down the line.


Lethal


EDIT: Phil of Mac, the TV license fee in the UK is used to help fund the BBC (which is publicly funded). In the states, IIRC, we do a simialr thing w/PBS, but instead of a license fee the money comes from TV purchases.


Lethal
 
Nonetheless, the enforcement of it seems kind of draconian. They drive around and detect if you have an unlicensed television in your house?
 
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Nonetheless, the enforcement of it seems kind of draconian. They drive around and detect if you have an unlicensed television in your house?
Click to expand...

No more draconian than cable and satellite companies methods... Satellite providers require you to plug your set-top boxes into a phone jack so they can phone home, and send signals to "nuke" your box if you don't pay your bills 😱

Cable companies send people around to check TV cable connections -- US law allows cable companies to actually send employees onto your property (even if you aren't a subscriber) without your permission to check that non-subscribers aren't connected to cable service.

Either one seems too heavy-handed, but the same thing happens here, even if it's by a company instead of the government.
 
But those are agreed upon parts of a contract with the company you're buying service from. Possession of an unlicensed television? That's different.
 
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
But those are agreed upon parts of a contract with the company you're buying service from. Possession of an unlicensed television? That's different.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Cable companies can come on your property even if you've never done business with them simply on the premise that you might be using their product without paying. The government specifically gives them this right by classifying them as a "utility".
 
Originally posted by coolsoldier
Not quite. Cable companies can come on your property even if you've never done business with them simply on the premise that you might be using their product without paying. The government specifically gives them this right by classifying them as a "utility".
Click to expand...

I don't like that part, so I hereby declare that as bad as fining people for unlicensed televisions.
 
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Nonetheless, the enforcement of it seems kind of draconian. They drive around and detect if you have an unlicensed television in your house?
Click to expand...


I studied in London a few years ago and they had a big advertising/scar tatic push. TV commercials, billboards, signs in the Tube (subway system). It was insane. Think of it as a cross between the truthtv/anti-smoking adds, the CIA, and the RIAA. 😉


Lethal
 
tv licenses

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I don't like that part, so I hereby declare that as bad as fining people for unlicensed televisions.
Click to expand...

It may sound draconian or whatever, but having seen the complete mess that is TV in many countries in the world, the TV licence is a brilliant idea. It is a public service to which the whole country contributes $3 a week per household, but if you are a pensioner you get it for free, and the benefits are quite spectacular.

Without wishing to sound too jingoistic, due to the funding and the peculiar scenario that it is state funded but independent of central government, the BBC is the most important and respected TV and Radio entity in the world. We get two advert free BBC channels, which although always open for improvement, do produce an exceptionally high standard of programming. Sport has been their thing, and I think Sky is so good because they really had to produce something special to wrestle the football rights off the BBC.

As far as news goes, you dont watch the news trying to unravel political agendas, the world service radio is just that and their 5 main radio stations are advert free, their documentaries, especially from BBC Bristol are sold all over the world. The BBC is also very innovative and was so ahead of the game with digital that they were nearly hung for "wasting" so much money developing a quirky new technology. A shame though, they arent very Mac oriented!

I have sat through the ****e that is Spanish TV. Spaniards laugh at the idea of paying, yet complain and go slowly mad watching two programmes at once just to avoid the 15 minutes of ads every 15 minutes. There is one of five channels that gives balanced news, the rest are literally a disgraceful extension of each owners politics. That for me is why licencsing isnt so bad.

The concept of men in vans scanning the streets is quite funny, but at least they dont have the right to walk into your home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back