PlayFair - Back Online

[Tulse]

Most spyware makes you sign an agreement essentially allowing them to transfer your personal details to whomever they want. The fact that you signed this agreement doesn't change the fact that its crap.

But, in the case of spyware, perfectly legal (as far as I have heard). The principle is pretty simple -- if you agree to it, you should keep your word.

The agreement that you sign with Apple violates your fair use rights.

I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt that that is true in law. You can indeed make backups of your music. You can keep your music on a limited number of multiple machines, and, if that is too onerous, you can back up your music to MP3 as much as you want (sure, it's in a degraded form, but copying vinyl records and cassette tapes also introduced degradation, and I don't recall people complaining about fair use violations).

 

[iggyb]

But, in the case of spyware, perfectly legal (as far as I have heard). The principle is pretty simple -- if you agree to it, you should keep your word.



I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt that that is true in law. You can indeed make backups of your music. You can keep your music on a limited number of multiple machines, and, if that is too onerous, you can back up your music to MP3 as much as you want (sure, it's in a degraded form, but copying vinyl records and cassette tapes also introduced degradation, and I don't recall people complaining about fair use violations).

That's because people weren't limited to what tape and record players they were allowed to play it on.

 

[Tulse]

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it.

Not legally you can't.

 

[Tulse]

That's because people weren't limited to what tape and record players they were allowed to play it on.

You're not limited to what CD players you're allowed to play your iTMS songs on, if you burn a CD. How is that different?

 

[eric_n_dfw]

You guys (gals) scared me when you said the you couldn't use iTMS purchased music in iMovie any more. That's the only way I had (besides dl'ing a hack like PlayFair) of using those tracks in Final Cut Pro.

(iMovie allows you to export your protected AAC track as an AIFF which you can then use in FCP)

 

[bpd115]

But by the same logic, if the online music service doesn't provide the freedom of usage a certain user might want, then why should they be concerned if the RIAA do pull the plug?

In this case, Apple's closer to being the 'bad guy' than the RIAA, since it's Apple that refuses to support protected WMA on the iPod (which doesn't bother me), nor license Fairplay to others (which does).

That is fine if the online service doesn't provide the user what they want. They can choose not to buy from that service. That does not mean they can buy from that service and then violate the terms of service by cracking the file.

Online music is the way of the future, we all can agree on that. With that will come better DRM, perhaps less restrictions. Unfortunately we must hold the RIAA's hand and drag them into the future kicking and screaming it seems. Software like this just gives them a reason to take their ball and go home. Yes it's a ball they shouldn't own but...

Also, I feel Apple will license Fairplay but they want to insure their future first. If they license it out now, they may be undercut and canablized the way they were when the Mac Clones were out there. Apple is the main player right now and that is how I like it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

That pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. This whole DRM thing is starting to get crazy. You've got Microsoft with their protected computing platform (protected for the distributers) and Apple with Fairplay. Soon we won't be able to do anything on our computer. I am completely against anything that restricts our rights to do what we want with the computers we buy. Did they put DRM on VCR's. Did they put DRM on tape recorders. No they didn't. These guys have just become greedy bastards, and I say **** them.

1. DRM=Digital Rights management. Casette tapes and VHS tapes are not digital.

2. Yes, VHS movies have copy protection on them. It's called Macrovision.
2a. The analog meduim itself acted as copy protection because it was inherently a costly, slow, quality degrading, and expensive process to copy and distribute copies of an analog source on anything but a very small scale.
2b. Treating the digital meduim the same is the analog medium is flawed. They are two different beasts. It's like attempting to govern cars and airplanes with the same rules.

3. How is this limiting what you can do on your computer? If you don't like their service don't use it. Go buy the CD. I've never purchased anything off iTMS and my Mac is still as functional as the day I bought it.


Lethal

 

[Neuro]

I can't help but think if you don't like the packaging (ie the DRM), then don't buy the product. There are plenty of alternatives.

You wouldn't buy a cat and then complain that it doesn't say 'moo'.

It's up to the consumer to make something popular if it's a good product, or shop elsewhere to give competition if 'Fairplay' doesn't give you what you want.

If the ITMS closes because the DRM can't be trusted, the record labels won't distribute in this way, and we'll all lose out...

I personally still buy CDs, as I can do what I want with them.

 

[frozenstar]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.

 

[ethernet76]

I had a long, well-thought out reply about this, but after reading Ahmed's post, I don't think that I'll bother. Those of you that are convinced that your rights are somehow being oppressed by Apple's DRM will not be convinced otherwise. I mean, really, 5 computers and 7 burns (more really, if you take the time) and this isn't enough for you? If you need more than that, I'm sorry, but you are probably violating copyright law anyway.

Forget it. I'm not wasting any more time with this.

Regards,
Gus

I bet you would have said the same for songs bought with only allowances for three computers.

I have six computers, so even the 4.5 DRM does not meet my needs.(Powerbook(G4), iBook(G3), iMac(15"), PC(webserver), PC(database development, etc.), PC(file server). With the addition of my sister's eventual laptop our network will grow to seven.

So the pithy three computer alotment isn't even close to enough with the old DRM, and honestly I don't think I should have to run around trying to figure out which computer is authorized for what so I can listen to the music I bought.

As for the seven cd burns. If I wanted a CD I would have bought a CD. I bought songs off the iTMS soley because I had no plan of playing it in a CD player. This burning it and ripping it is like telling me I have to listen to a cassette tape because the CD isn't allowed to play because it has been authorized to three other CD players somewhere.

All I want is music as if I ripped it myself from the CD. The iTMS isn't saving anyone money really. You get no jewel case, no album insert, and no CD. I get nothing but 1's and 0's, and they think they should have the ability to tell me how to use my 1's and 0's. Whereas with CDs you have carte blanche and a physical item.

DRM is an attack on civil liberties.

Next thing you know, Apple will put out poorly design products and tell you to replace it when it breaks. Wait a minute...

 

[ethernet76]

You wouldn't buy a cat and then complain that it doesn't say 'moo'.

Would you complain if you adopted a child only afterwards to find out it was retarded?

It's pretty much the same thing.

 

[bpd115]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[iggyb]

You're not limited to what CD players you're allowed to play your iTMS songs on, if you burn a CD. How is that different?

Actually, if you've ever had the pleasure of buying one of those copy-protected CDs that locked up when you inserted it into your computer, then you would realize that you ARE limited, in some cases.

Plus, I was referring to your statement that making degraded copies of songs didn't bring complaints before, and my rebuttal was that it was because those copies weren't limited to where they could be played. For DRM-protected songs, they are.

 

[ethernet76]

But, in the case of spyware, perfectly legal (as far as I have heard). The principle is pretty simple -- if you agree to it, you should keep your word.

Spyware isn't really legal unless they make aware that the software is transmitting data some point before it sends its first data.

Otherwise it's like going to your neighbor's installing a camera, and waiting for them to figure it out.

 

[Tulse]

I have six computers, so even the 4.5 DRM does not meet my needs.

[...]

So the pithy three computer alotment isn't even close to enough with the old DRM, and honestly I don't think I should have to run around trying to figure out which computer is authorized for what so I can listen to the music I bought.

So don't buy music from the iTMS. Why is this so difficult to understand?

All I want is music as if I ripped it myself from the CD.

So buy a CD, and put up with the very minor hassle of ripping it.

I get nothing but 1's and 0's, and they think they should have the ability to tell me how to use my 1's and 0's.

And copyright law agrees with them -- your rights to someone else's artistic productions are not unlimited.

Whereas with CDs you have carte blanche and a physical item.

You don't have carte blanche with CDs, although given that you believe you do, why not just buy CDs?

DRM is an attack on civil liberties.

If you think minor restrictions on your use of a commercial product are a significant infringement on your civil liberties, I despair for democracy.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.

It's funny to hear people screaming about what their rights are when it comes to using copyrighted material but no one stands up for the owners of the copyrights who currently are the ones having their rights trampled left and right. Oh, wait, that's because if do that you get called a greedy, corporate whore or something along those lines.

And I see everyone screaming at the RIAA but why aren't people screaming at the government for passing the DMCA? Or at the courts for, so far, judging in favor of the DMCA and against 20 year old consumer friendly precendents? The DMCA is a lot more dangerous and a lot more powerful that the RIAA.


Lethal

 

[iggyb]

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

That's what makes this all so interesting. I think the market is, in fact, dictating what is acceptable. I think consumers (myself included) are sick of buying an album because of one song, only to find that the rest of the album stinks (or at least the buyer thinks it stinks). The labels have had an incredible stranglehold on the market for quite some time now. I think it's odd that all the labels price their hit CDs the same, and way higher than it costs to produce. It's an unofficial oligopoly. I think Apple did a good thing with iTMS, but even so, as Mr. Jobs said, people want to OWN their music. Restricting what they can do with it, based on the assumption that it will be pirated, is not really a true ownership. That's not to say that everyone deserves to have free music or anything like that. But the system is currently flawed.

Remember, the RIAA despised DAT Recorders because they thought it would send them to bankruptcy as well. The MPAA likened the VCR as the Boston Strangler of movies. They're just paranoid. And their tactics to try and keep control of everything just won't work.

 

[iggyb]

It's funny to hear people screaming about what their rights are when it comes to using copyrighted material but no one stands up for the owners of the copyrights who currently are the ones having their rights trampled left and right. Oh, wait, that's because if do that you get called a greedy, corporate whore or something along those lines.

And I see everyone screaming at the RIAA but why aren't people screaming at the government for passing the DMCA? Or at the courts for, so far, judging in favor of the DMCA and against 20 year old consumer friendly precendents? The DMCA is a lot more dangerous and a lot more powerful that the RIAA.


Lethal

I definitely agree with you there. The DMCA is friggin' evil.

 

[whooleytoo]

You wouldn't buy a cat and then complain that it doesn't say 'moo'.

You wouldn't buy a car, and then let the manufacturer tell you what streets you can drive on, and how many people you can have in the car..

(I'm not sure any of these analogies are entirely accurate, but just keeping in the spirit.. )

For the record, I think the main 'issue' people have is less with the RIAA enforced restrictions (no. of cd burns, no. of authorized computers) and more to do with Apple's (iPod only).

 

[gemio17]

No one has commented on the quote on hymn-project.org which I found great and really relavent to many of the arguments being waged in this forum:

"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art."
-- US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

 

[Gus]

Many of you probably don't have much of a connection with the instrumental ensemble world (orchestras, bands, etc.) except maybe in high school, but this same topic comes up in a different way there:

An individual teacher decides that they hear a piece of music they want their ensemble to play, but they don't want to pay the $100 or so that it costs. So what do they do? They go to the local music library and photocopy the entire score and parts and hand it out to their members and perform it. Their justification is that the composer has been dead for 100 years and that it is "public domain" or some other excuse. What they have done is denied the publisher and the rights holder (usually a family member of the original composer, but not always) the money it cost them to typeset and print that piece.

This also happens on an individual level with private music teachers photocopying a piece of solo music for their student instead of having them purchase it. Both scenarios have people blatantly breaking the laws-both U.S. and internationsl rights laws-with impunity.

New composers cannot get music published and the price of printed music keeps skyrocketing every year because the publishers have to make up for lost revenue due to theft by copying. It is an endless cycle with those making the copies justifying it by saying the publishers are charging too much for the music ($10-$60 for a solo piece), and the publishers legitimately losing money and having to raise prices to cover their loss.

If everyone in this scenario would play by the laws and rules, everyone would be happy: lower prices and better selection. Just because the music exists and they can buy it, it does not give them the right to do with it as they please.

See a parallel?

Regards,
Gus

 

[bpd115]

That's what makes this all so interesting. I think the market is, in fact, dictating what is acceptable. I think consumers (myself included) are sick of buying an album because of one song, only to find that the rest of the album stinks (or at least the buyer thinks it stinks). The labels have had an incredible stranglehold on the market for quite some time now. I think it's odd that all the labels price their hit CDs the same, and way higher than it costs to produce. It's an unofficial oligopoly. I think Apple did a good thing with iTMS, but even so, as Mr. Jobs said, people want to OWN their music. Restricting what they can do with it, based on the assumption that it will be pirated, is not really a true ownership. That's not to say that everyone deserves to have free music or anything like that. But the system is currently flawed.

Remember, the RIAA despised DAT Recorders because they thought it would send them to bankruptcy as well. The MPAA likened the VCR as the Boston Strangler of movies. They're just paranoid. And their tactics to try and keep control of everything just won't work.

I agree, I limited my CD buying to a select few artists (and still do) because I got burnt alot of times buying for that 'one song'. And you are right, they are paranoid and I for one don't want to fuel their paranoia. The system may be flawed but personally I don't feel all that restricted with my iTMS purchases...if I did, I would not have purchased.

Apple always innovates...I can bet they will have a streaming media server or box in the future that will play ITMS purchases, maybe even come up with something for Linux..

There really isn't much I find I can't do with my iTMS purchases

 

[frozenstar]

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

I didn't say it's my right to do "what I please" with music. But there are certain fair use provisions in copyright law that cannot legally be circumvented merely by drawing up a contract stating the contrary.

Whether I purchase music on iTunes or at the local record store, I retain the right to use that music for my own listening enjoyment, irrespective of the device or medium it was designed to be played on.

Oh, "the market" will dictate what is acceptable and what is not? So "the market" thinks $17 is an acceptable price for a CD? No, of course not. They just don't have any good alternatives. If iTunes ends up being a digital music monopoly, it doesn't matter what "the market" thinks is acceptable. A course in microeconomics should illuminate this whole issue for you.

Just to make it clear that I have no desire to steal and/or illegally distribute music, I have listed three valid reasons for using PlayFair.

I have an MP3-CD player in my car. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes in my car.

I have a machine running Linux in my house. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes on that computer.

I have a wireless audio streaming device connected to my computer. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes through this device.

 

[areyouwishing]

To the people that think Apple's DRM isn't fair...

WHAT PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS HAVE YOU RUN INTO?

So far the only ones I have heard is...

1. Non-Ipod support
2. Soundbridge Player type support

Other than those 2 issues, what limitations have you actually run into? Where they didn't allow you to do something.

 

[Neuro]

Would you complain if you adopted a child only afterwards to find out it was retarded?

It's pretty much the same thing.

I think I'd probably work it out when examining the goods. I'd certainly read up on what I was buying first... If you don't, it's your own fault.

If you have several computers (like I do), why can't you just have one copy of the file in iTunes and share the library to other iTunes computers over your network (like I do)? Works really well.

I can appreciate people feel that they have bought a song and they can do what they want with it, but because it's digital (copy with no loss), it's software and must follow a software model to make business sense. It's commonly agreed that it's unfair to buy an application, then install it on all your office PCs on one license. If Apple if upfront about it (which they are), why is this any different?

Again, if you don't like the PRODUCT, not song, don't buy it.

There are alternatives...