PlayFair - Back Online

[Tulse]

I can't convert a DRMed song to MP3. I've tried. And I can't listen to my song on my Pocket PC. I can listen to plain ordinary AAC a.k.a MP4, WMA's, OGG's, MP3's and just about anything else but not FPed AAC files. The only device I can use is an iPod.

Well, presumably you knew this before you purchased the songs, so I don't see how that's an excuse. In any case, you can convert a DRMed song to MP3, through burning it to CD and re-ripping. Yes, it loses sound quality, but it doesn't circumvent the agreement you made.

Please tell me you aren’t seriously trying to make a comparison between a $100,000 purchase and a person’s job to the joke that is Apple’s DRM TOA. Thank god if I buy a house in most cases I can remodel the inside and if I’m not allowed I can go somewhere else. If I’m not allowed to do that with the tunes I get off of iTMS where do I go?

That's not the analogy -- the analogy is buying a house in a deed-restricted neighbourhood, and then complaining that you can't paint your house purple. You knew the rules ahead of time.

Would I go out and buy a 400,000 house (A crap load of CD’s) instead? No in the case of the realestate market I have choices.

You've got choices here as well. There are other digital music services (although their DRM is generally even more restrictive). There are artists who release their music for free, without DRM. And there are CDs, which the vast majority of the planet seems to find acceptable.

The RIAA has seen fite to give us NO choices.

Nonsense -- see above. You may not like the choices, but that's the market.

Either pay through the nose with CD’s or get F-ed with DRM. Thanks but I’ll take door number 3.

So, to be clear, for you it's about saving money (not having to "pay through the nose with CD's"). That's not much of a moral defense. If you don't want to pay for CDs, and don't agree to the terms of DRM, don't buy music. It's not a natural right, you know.

 

[coolsoldier]

I'm getting tired of seeing people here talk like breaking any law is unconditionally immoral. Beyond the fact that there is no victim unless you actually pirate the music (which now that PlayFair leaves your Apple ID in the tags is unlikely), when a law/agreement is unfair/illegal, VIOLATING IT IS THE ONLY WAY OF BRINGING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

You cannot simply take Apple to court on the grounds that they have an unfair or illegal EULA. Similarly with the DMCA, you cannot simply take the government to court on the grounds that the DMCA is unconstitutional. The established method of reviewing laws, whether statutory or contractual, is having them reviewed by a court, and the only way to do that is by breaking the law in question.

 

[123]

That's not much of a moral defense.

Defense for what? What's the moral wrong doing here?

You really are starting to annoy me. Depending on how you want to look at this, it's either a legal or a moral issue, but breach of contract all by itself is certainly no moral matter. Otherwise, one wouldn't have to make a difference between technical lawfulness and (universal) ethics of one's actions at all. So, either stop talking about morality or come up with arguments that are about what's "right" and "wrong" and not what's the (current US) law.

 

[Spades]

Is it really legal to burn to a CD and re-rip? Just because it's easy and there's no possible way for Apple to stop it doesn't mean it's not a violation of the terms of service either.

You shall be entitled to export, burn or copy Products solely for personal, noncommercial 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 in 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 security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules

Re-ripping from the CD is circumvention too, isn't it? I don't see any exceptions that allow you to remove the DRM by any method, except for burning of that CD. As the terms say, that is merely a concession to us, and apparently is not a waiver of their rights, which, perhaps, includes the anti-circumvention clause. In other words, the second quoted clause could be saying that even if burning the CD removes the DRM, that does not mean you can go ahead and use the DRM-less version anywhere but the CD.

Also, the first quoted clause and the third seem to be in conflict. What does "export" mean? Does that mean we can use Quicktime to export unprotected files? If so, that's simultaneously an allowed action according to the first clause and a denied action by the third clause. I don't see any clear specification of the order of precedence of these clauses, except that the second quoted clause may be indicating the third clause takes precedence.

That's only if exporting via Quicktime is allowed anyways. You can't export in any way from iTunes. So, what programs apply to these actions and what ones don't? Toast did work. Was it intended to work? And if so, what's the difference between Toast and another third-party application like PlayFair/hymn? Are we able to export and remove the DRM for personal, non-commercial use, or are we not?


Other interesting parts:

Removal of Apple Content or Other Materials. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability.

The fears of people worried about suddenly losing access to their music are perfectly justified.

Electronic Signatures and Contracts. Your use of the Service includes the ability to enter into agreements and/or to make purchases electronically. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS CONSTITUTE YOUR AGREEMENT AND INTENT TO BE BOUND BY AND TO PAY FOR SUCH AGREEMENTS AND PURCHASES. YOUR AGREEMENT AND INTENT TO BE BOUND BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS APPLIES TO ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ALL TRANSACTIONS YOU ENTER INTO ON THIS SITE, INCLUDING NOTICES OF CANCELLATION, POLICIES, CONTRACTS, AND APPLICATIONS.

I can't say whether this is legally true, but from my knowledge of computer security I'd say this definitely is not a strong authentication method. I'd say that submission of a purchase does not provide enough authentication information to serve as a valid signature for a contract. I've seen somebody say that payment serves as agreement, which it might be. Apple is claiming the "signature" is a different action though.

There's what I think anyways. Since many people are saying "You agreed to it. You should abide by it," I thought I would take a closer look at the terms and start a little discussion about them. The terms don't seem to allow the alternative people keep suggesting. Some of the clauses seem ambiguous and possibly conflicting with other clauses, and a lot of it leaves me confused as to what we can do and what we can't. It also doesn't look like much of a contract to begin with.

Is there a contract lawyer in the house?

 

[bensisko]

I hope people enjoy it while it lasts....

Hey Amed and others who are supporting this crap, I hope you enjoy doing this while you can, because at this rate the RIAA and music companies are going to pull the plug on Apple's muisc store and ruin it for the rest of us who don't mind following Apple's rules.

yes, in a perfect world I could listen to my music anywhere and everywhere and anyhow I wanted to, but unfortunitly this is not a perfect world, and we need to have laws to protect against piracy. If it's too "inconvient" then go get your music somewhere else.

Apple is the good guy here, trying to break down the impossibly ridgid pricing structure that the music industry has set up. Apple is TRYING to bring the music industry down into a better playing field. If iTunes seems restricting it's because of Napster, Kazza and the free music heyday of the latter years of the 20th century. Had Apple not come along with iTMS, we would all be stuck buying CDs.

I would support Apple in taking drastic RIAA style measures against this program (i.e. anybody who downloads it gets sued). There is an agreement that you make with Apple when you purchase a song, and if you break that agreement (i.e. thorugh the use of this program) you should loose your rights to the song.

If the iTMS was the ONLY way to get music, then my attitude MIGHT be different (although I do view their policy as EXTREMELY fair). Thankfully, the iTMS isn't the only place to get music (even digital music!). Is Apple being unfair as to not letting you play your iTMS music on your Dell DJ? No! Why? Because you are NOT being forced to purchase music from iTMS and you are not being forced to buy an iPod.

Anybody who doesn't get this, just ask Microsoft how they would feel about you getting a program that strips out authentication/registration parts of Word. You bought Word so you should be able to do with it what you want, right? No. In both instances (iTMS and Word) you bought permission to use the software in a certin manner. You did not buy the program, you just bought permission to use it. People can't fool themselves into thinking that just because they put down money for something they can do whatever they wanted with it, especially software (yes, digital music IS software). Are Amed and the others now going to go out and start hacking away at a Sprint Cell phone just so they can use the same phone on the Verizon network? Why not? That too is illegal and akin to what they are doing here.

In conclusion, I hope Apple takes serious legal action and puts the clamps on this ASAP (at very least, suspend the right of those that use the program to buy music from iTMS).

 

[Gus]

I'm getting tired of seeing people here talk like breaking any law is unconditionally immoral. Beyond the fact that there is no victim unless you actually pirate the music (which now that PlayFair leaves your Apple ID in the tags is unlikely), when a law/agreement is unfair/illegal, VIOLATING IT IS THE ONLY WAY OF BRINGING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

You cannot simply take Apple to court on the grounds that they have an unfair or illegal EULA. Similarly with the DMCA, you cannot simply take the government to court on the grounds that the DMCA is unconstitutional. The established method of reviewing laws, whether statutory or contractual, is having them reviewed by a court, and the only way to do that is by breaking the law in question.

No, no, no. That is not the way to contest a law. There is a system in place for bringing a law up for review, and it does not involve the breaking of said law. Using your system of review, if I believed that the laws prohibiting murder violated my rights, then it would okay for me to go kill someone because I demand that it be brought in from of the court system, or whatever system you choose to be reviewed for legality because I don't believe that particular law is fair or right.

Breaking the law does not change the law, and it does not provide you with a forum in which to dispute that law. Yes, this has happened several times in the last few years, but it is not supposed to be that way. In the instance you describe, the law should not be put into question, but your criminal activity. If you want to change a law, particulalry a federal law, you need to get a group of people to support you in Congress with a bill or a review. Or, you need to demonstrate without breaking the law that said law violates some civil liberty or that it conflicts with an already legal right or privelege guaranteed to you by existing laws or the Constitution.

Breaking the law to get a topic noticed is indeed the trend, but it is not the way to do things as our system was originally intended to run. You do have opportunnities to contest laws, but that is not the way to do it. Whether or not you think you are right does change the fact that you are now in violation of a law, or in plain english, a criminal.

I am of course once again, really talking about pirating music, but if Apple decided to pursue litigation against users of Hymn, they would have the legal course, because you violated a EULA that you agreed to, not them.

You're right though, you can't take Apple to court because they have an "unfair" EULA. Who are you to decide what's "fair" or "unfair"? you entered a legal agreement if you downloaded the songs, so you must have thought it was "fair" when you got the songs, right?

I knew I'd get sucked back into this.

Regards,
Gus

 

[MacBoyX]

Here's a limitation:
Occasionally, although I don't own a car- I drive places!! I have to rent a car with a (gasp) cd player and no other hook in-no cassette, no aux in- and I'm not buying an iTrip coz I researched/heard they suck. So what am I left with- making a playlist and then burning that to multiple cds. Now with summer coming up, I'm going to be renting cars to get the hell out of NYC on the weekends, so what if I want to make a bunch of mixes? I have to keep track of how many times I have put that song on a mix so I don't go over the limit. Not to mention I have been downloading from iTMS since day 1- I sure as hell don't know how many mixes I've made for myself or others-(we have all been doing this since we were pre-teens-making mixes for friends etc. so don't give me anything about well there you go that's illegal. Pls. spare me that bs) That's where it sucks. I have burned and re-imported my iTMS songs as mp3's for archiving-just in case I go over- It's SO time consuming and wasteful. I don't want to strip the DRM so I can go and throw them up to a p2p or anything like that, but I would like to listen to music that I purchase as many times and ways as I want. Alas, until there is more feedback on hymn, I will keep burning and re-importing.

You can't burn the same play list into a CD more than 7 times without changing the order of the songs. You can use the song in as many different mixes and playlists as you wish, you just can't burn 8 CDs of that exact play list.

 

[cmoney]

Breaking the law to get a topic noticed is indeed the trend, but it is not the way to do things as our system was originally intended to run. You do have opportunnities to contest laws, but that is not the way to do it. Whether or not you think you are right does change the fact that you are now in violation of a law, or in plain english, a criminal.

Without getting too political, civil disobedience is very much a part of US history and sometimes very good at effecting change.

As for me being a criminal, yes I accept that. Every single person who drives 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, every person who jaywalks in NYC or LA, every person who puts an ice cream cone in their pocket in Kentucky is a criminal as well.

 

[cmoney]

Are Amed and the others now going to go out and start hacking away at a Sprint Cell phone just so they can use the same phone on the Verizon network? Why not? That too is illegal and akin to what they are doing here.

Why exactly is that illegal? Say I bought the phone fair and square (no subsidy) and want to use it on Verizon. Is that illegal? I haven't purchased a license to use the phone, I purchased the phone. Anyway, if Verizon claims it's illegal, I'm so happy I use GSM since that kind of stuff is almost promoted on GSM. Hell, Cingular doesn't require a contract if you use your own phone and T-Mobile hands out the unlock code if you ask!

 

[Gus]

Without getting too political, civil disobedience is very much a part of US history and sometimes very good at effecting change.

As for me being a criminal, yes I accept that. Every single person who drives 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, every person who jaywalks in NYC or LA, every person who puts an ice cream cone in their pocket in Kentucky is a criminal as well.

Yes, as anal as it sounds, they are breaking laws. All of your examples. As far as civil disobedience goes, yes, if all other avenues have been expored and exhausted, and the only recourse is civil disobedience, then yes, it is good at affecting change. But you and I both know that is not what's going on here. Rosa Parks broke the law, but it was a law that violated her Constitutional rights, and a law that, because of those in charge of "the system' had gone unchanged for too long. It was not a law in which Rosa and someone else entered into a legal agreement over and she was sitting in the front of the bus because she didn't like the deal after she agreed to it.

Anyway, I generaly agree with you. There are a lot of reasons for laws, but generally they are created for the greater good. They are supposed to make life safer and more stable for us. In this case, being allowed to break a contract because one party decided they don't like what they agreed to after the fact would set a horrible precedent. especially in this digital age.

Regards,
Gus

 

[ZildjianKX]

Just a heads up, if anyone is having problems using the software and has an iSight, unplug it

 

[Azmordean]

No, no, no. That is not the way to contest a law. There is a system in place for bringing a law up for review, and it does not involve the breaking of said law. Using your system of review, if I believed that the laws prohibiting murder violated my rights, then it would okay for me to go kill someone because I demand that it be brought in from of the court system, or whatever system you choose to be reviewed for legality because I don't believe that particular law is fair or right.

Breaking the law does not change the law, and it does not provide you with a forum in which to dispute that law. Yes, this has happened several times in the last few years, but it is not supposed to be that way. In the instance you describe, the law should not be put into question, but your criminal activity. If you want to change a law, particulalry a federal law, you need to get a group of people to support you in Congress with a bill or a review. Or, you need to demonstrate without breaking the law that said law violates some civil liberty or that it conflicts with an already legal right or privelege guaranteed to you by existing laws or the Constitution.

Breaking the law to get a topic noticed is indeed the trend, but it is not the way to do things as our system was originally intended to run. You do have opportunnities to contest laws, but that is not the way to do it. Whether or not you think you are right does change the fact that you are now in violation of a law, or in plain english, a criminal.

I am of course once again, really talking about pirating music, but if Apple decided to pursue litigation against users of Hymn, they would have the legal course, because you violated a EULA that you agreed to, not them.

You're right though, you can't take Apple to court because they have an "unfair" EULA. Who are you to decide what's "fair" or "unfair"? you entered a legal agreement if you downloaded the songs, so you must have thought it was "fair" when you got the songs, right?

I knew I'd get sucked back into this.

Regards,
Gus

You are incorrect, partially at least. You are right that using the political process (legislature) is the classic means of changing a law, and generally, the best means. However, the Courts are another place to pursue such change. There is a doctrine called standing which requires someone to have ACTUAL INJURY in order to sue - the fact that "I may get sued by Apple some time in the future" or "The government may prosecute me under the DMCA in the future" is usually not enough for a court to hear the case.

To show ACTUAL INJURY, a party will usually have to have ACTUALLY been sued by Apple, or ACTUALLY prosecuted by the government, or at least show an active investigation. As the suit or prosecution goes forward, the now defendant could then allege, as a defense, that the DMCA is unconstitutional.

Basically, the line of argument goes "I was not violating the law by violating X (here, DMCA), because X is ILLEGAL." So, the defendant is contending that no, she was not violating any law, nor any agreement, because said law and agreement were not in fact valid.

Generally these cases go up exactly as mentioned here. The defendant, believing herself in the right, violates the "law" (here, stripping DRM). Eventually the government prosecutes. She say "uh, the law they are prosecuting under is illegal." If she prevails, then the law gets stuck down in full or in part, and she is free to go and continue her activity.

Thus, in conclusion, in order for a colorable claim that a law is unconstitutional to be brought up in court, usually the defendant must, in actuality, "violate" the existing law.

Whether or not this is proper was a hot debate among such thinkers as Madisson and Jefferson, and remains discussed by legal scholars today - but it was settled in Marbury v. Madison that the judiciary does indeed have the power to review statutes and strike them down as unconstitutional. The result of this is that violating the law is a valid (albeit RISKY) method of changing the law.

PS: Yes, I am a law student.

 

[Doctor Q]

Is it really legal to burn to a CD and re-rip? Just because it's easy and there's no possible way for Apple to stop it doesn't mean it's not a violation of the terms of service either.

Your post was excellent, Spades!

If you rip a CD back to a set of unprotected iTunes songs and continue to use them in iTunes, you have removed DRM but I'm not convinced that you violated this EULA clause:

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules

You didn't "modify the technology" by tampering with the application software and you didn't tamper with the tunes themselves, which as you point out can be considered software too, since you are performing clearly supported and documented procedures that are features of iTunes.

Which leads us to the word "circumvent", which can mean "to bypass by artful maneuvering" or simply "to bypass". Artful maneuvering sounds like it involves intent, so ripping wouldn't be an automatic violation. Bypass? That's a tough call. You might have lost your original tunes in a disk crash and you are restoring them from a CD you burned. Losing the DRM is a side-effect of this process, and you can't avoid it, so it's not clear to me that this could be called bypassing.

I'm not addressing all the other arguments about the justification for removing DRM. But I am speculating on possible interpretations of the license agreement.

 

[ALoLA]

spirit of the law

I think it all boils down to the spirit of the law. If it's for personal use only, then I see no problem in stripping the DRM. However, the RIAA insisted on having this DRM insurance policy, before allowing Apple to offer the music on iTMS. Primarily because there are obviously many people out there determined to share copyrighted material with others. The pirates are the ones that brought this DRM curse upon the rest of us. The RIAA may be evil for their greed, etc., but I can't blame them for wanting to protect the intellectual property of their artists.

 

[bensisko]

Why exactly is that illegal? Say I bought the phone fair and square (no subsidy) and want to use it on Verizon. Is that illegal? I haven't purchased a license to use the phone, I purchased the phone. Anyway, if Verizon claims it's illegal, I'm so happy I use GSM since that kind of stuff is almost promoted on GSM. Hell, Cingular doesn't require a contract if you use your own phone and T-Mobile hands out the unlock code if you ask!

It's illegal because it's reverse engineering the phone and when you sign a contract and you get the phone cheap (the reason you can get the phone for as cheap as you can is because of the contract, the phone itself costs much more), you are agreeing not to take your phone apart for any reason. Using a phone on a differnt network requires more than just an 'unlock code.'

With GSM phones it's a little different. You are still not supposed to take your phone apart and try to reverse engineer it, but you can easily switch services because it's a feature of the phone (while CDMA and TDMA phones did not have that feature). Although it would be the same effect if you tried to reverse engineer the ID card that you got from Verizon to work with Cingular (instead of replaceing it with the cingular version).

Bottom line, although you bought the phone, there are still restrictions on what you can do with it. Goto any cellular store and ask them what kind of modications you can make to your phone. All the answers will be cosmetic. People have gone to jail for reverse engineering cell phones.

Bottom line, you don't have full rights over everything you buy.

 

[bensisko]

As for me being a criminal, yes I accept that. Every single person who drives 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, every person who jaywalks in NYC or LA, every person who puts an ice cream cone in their pocket in Kentucky is a criminal as well.

This is NOT the same as driving 5 miles over or your other examples. This is more akin to breech of contract (a much more serious offense).

 

[Jefe]

HYMN?

Forget whether it is legal or ethical for a moment and just ponder how stupid the name is. HYMN? Hear Your Music aNywhere.

Why were they so set on hymn that they had to make such a stretch?

 

[Gus]

Whether or not this is proper was a hot debate among such thinkers as Madisson and Jefferson, and remains discussed by legal scholars today - but it was settled in Marbury v. Madison that the judiciary does indeed have the power to review statutes and strike them down as unconstitutional. The result of this is that violating the law is a valid (albeit RISKY) method of changing the law.

PS: Yes, I am a law student.

jahutch,

I very much appreciate your reply and the basis of your argument. While I would not argue that Marbury v. Madison established the judiciary as the interpreter of laws, and the Supreme Court the pinnacle of this judicial review, I cannot believe that Marshall ever intended for the laws to be purposefully broken in order for them to come under review. I have to believe that the basis for his opinion was that the judiciary was there to protect citizens from laws that are created that remove rights that already exist or will come in direct conflict with the Constitution, in which case the Supreme Court would have to make a decision as to the whether the new law stands or the provisions under the Constitution would stand. I understand that this also applies in other scenarios, but again, I turn to other examples such as murder, violation of civil rights and others that, if these occured, they would not be given the same treatment in a court of law based on the belief that theior prohibition violates the rights of the offender. I know these examples are more extreme than a breach of contract dispute or piracy, but I believe the fundamental principle behind them is the same. The juduciary exists to review law, not to create it. While it does have the power, and the sole branch with this power, to strike down a law, it also does not have the power to put into practice any law or to change the Constitution.

Now, as to the issue of standing, while what you said is true that it would be difficult to assert a claim without actual injury, however, if it can be demonstrated that an actual injury will occur within a specified time frame and with specified damages, then the case may be heard and standing is not an issue. But even violation of the law in order to bring about the review of the case would not be wise in this particular instance because of three things:
1) The plaintiff would already be in breach of contract with Apple
2) I believe it would be very difficult to demonstrate any real damage or violation of right.
3) If any real damage or violation had occured, it wold be against the holders of the copyrights to the songs, in this case the artists or in some cases the labels. This has been established by both copyright law and recent decisions by state and federal courts.

In fact, I believe the court would merely dismiss or just pass over the case, and the violator would be prosecuted.

I'm sure everyone else would have a different take on the subject, but this is just how I feel about it.

Regards,
Gus

 

[xDANx]

not for long...

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.

the alternatives are slowly drying up...and the RIAA is very obviously intent on adding DRM to everything...including CDs. ignoring the issue because CDs are still relatively free of DRM is not a solution.

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.

remind me again of all the other online music stores that i can use with my mac...and anyway, to use the word 'competition' with respect to the music industry is somewhat laughable. oligopolies are not competitive systems.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Forget whether it is legal or ethical for a moment and just ponder how stupid the name is. HYMN? Hear Your Music aNywhere.

Why were they so set on hymn that they had to make such a stretch?

I've worked on projects with much worse acronyms. Suffice to say, we developers are weird.

 

[dcentity2000]

So the EU has explicit laws about the iTMS already, before it's even released in Europe. How interesting, tell me more.

EU has case law which applies to services similar to ITMS. Many may be binding.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

You make business on our soil, you follow our law, even if the US may think otherwise. That aside, I still would like to see a legal precedent on that matter. It still remains to be investigated if the terms in the iTMS Agreement are acceptable under german/EU law, which, neither you nor I know since we lack a precedent. I have a pretty good feeling that alone the way they set up their right to change the rules of the contract at any given time including previously purchased items is not legal neither under german nor EU law.
Regards,

Ahmed

Actually, I study law so yes, I have a pretty good idea. The transaction is pretty much all american at the moment and if servers are located in America, belonging to an American corporation, with the intellectual property (important bit) belonging to an American corporation, then we will be subject to US jurisdiction.

 

[cmoney]

It's illegal because it's reverse engineering the phone and when you sign a contract and you get the phone cheap (the reason you can get the phone for as cheap as you can is because of the contract, the phone itself costs much more), you are agreeing not to take your phone apart for any reason. Using a phone on a differnt network requires more than just an 'unlock code.'

With GSM phones it's a little different. You are still not supposed to take your phone apart and try to reverse engineer it, but you can easily switch services because it's a feature of the phone (while CDMA and TDMA phones did not have that feature). Although it would be the same effect if you tried to reverse engineer the ID card that you got from Verizon to work with Cingular (instead of replaceing it with the cingular version).

Bottom line, although you bought the phone, there are still restrictions on what you can do with it. Goto any cellular store and ask them what kind of modications you can make to your phone. All the answers will be cosmetic. People have gone to jail for reverse engineering cell phones.

Bottom line, you don't have full rights over everything you buy.

Reverse Engineering is presumptively legal.

Bunner attorney Allon Levy of Hopkins & Carley in San Jose, California, said the decision establishes important protections for software programmers who use legal methods to learn about proprietary products. According to Levy, programmers had gleaned information used to create DeCSS using widely accepted software engineering techniques known as reverse engineering. Had the DVD CCA prevailed in the case, he said, programmers would have faced new uncertainties over trade-secret claims asserted against legitimately created products.

"The court found that reverse engineering is presumptively legal, something the plaintiff had fought tooth and nail against," he said.

You also ignored the fact that I said "without subsidy" which would mean paying for the phone without any Sprint PCS subsidy (ie, paying full price for the phone, probably $300-$500). People have gone to jail for reverse engineering phones to clone the phone or to somehow steal service.

As far as Sprint's contract, the only portion that could be relevant says that the phone will not work on other carrier's networks except when roaming. That does not mean you're not allowed to try, you're not allowed to use it on another network, it's simply a statement of fact that the phone you are purchasing will not work on other networks. The fact that the phone can roam on other networks also means that the phone is technically capable of working on other networks.

If I pay full price for a phone I expect to own it outright. If I buy a subsidized phone, I'd agree, that phone is subject to restrictions because you haven't bought it "completely."

 

[applebum]

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.

I hear this argument a lot, but it is not really valid. If you simply compare a CD to the same ITMS album, you actually have more freedom with the iTunes album. You can put that album on 5 computers and play them simultaneously if you desire. With a CD, the medium itself is limiting. You can only play it on one computer at a time. (I am not talking about importing the music from the cd onto your computer, just the CD itself). If you want to do more with the music than the medium allows, then there are ways around that both for CD's and ITMS music. The only real difference is in the quality of the medium.

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.

So, you want all the benefits of a CD, but don't want to buy the CD. So you buy from ITMS, fully aware of its limitations and the DRM that comes along with it, and then complain because it is not the CD????

DRM is an attack on civil liberties.

When did listening to digital music become a civil liberty? You mention putting your sister's computer on your network. This is a prime example of why there is DRM. In the past, if your sister liked a CD that you had, she would go buy her own (eventually you would get tired of trying to share that CD). With the digital age, you want to put your sister on the network and simply share that music with her. And you could share her music. That way you would never have to buy any duplicates of music. Great for you, but not for anyone involved in the making of that music. They are now making less money because you are sharing that music with 5 computers. Eventually there will have to be a new model for making money from music. Until that happens we are stuck with DRM. And there is no loss of civil liberties while there are still a ton of other options out there.

 

[Doctor Q]

Forget whether it is legal or ethical for a moment and just ponder how stupid the name is. HYMN? Hear Your Music aNywhere.

Why were they so set on hymn that they had to make such a stretch?

What would you prefer? How 'bout HEaR Music ANywhere?