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

QTFairUse?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thieves

Originally posted by Sol
I would say that the music publishers see a problem and want to do something, even anything to keep their jobs.

With iTunes they got it right. Five major publishers came on the table to sell under one roof, Apple. Similar models have since been used by the relaunched Napster and... some other guys.

With copy-protected discs, they got it wrong. Compared to Audio CD, the copy protected format offers less for the same price. No MP3 or any other codecs, no copies on CD-R and completely useless for devices like the iPod.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. People have been participating in p2p in small decentralized communities for a long time.

DRM does not work. How can you argue that it does, or that it is a viable solution? It only takes one person to seed a file. Just one person has to defeat the DRM. Once that is done, no one else has to, they can download it free of DRM. How can you honestly say that they can stop everyone?

DRM does nothing to put p2p in check. It simply makes it more difficult to use your music in a way that is covered under fair use.

So what good is it? People keep responding and defending the DRM and saying it will help the RIAA stop p2p. How? Where's your proof?


(I find it interesting that you said they would 'do anything to keep their jobs'. Are they in danger of losing them? Every report I've seen compiled by someone other than the RIAA says they are doing just fine. The RIAA and it's profit margins and p2p is not an isolated system. You can't look at an effect on the profits and immediately blame p2p. What about a slow economy? What about being fed up with how the industry treats its artists? How about being bombarded with the latest song 24/7? Pop stands for popular. Most people don't need to buy CD's to listen to their favorite music!)
 
It would be ridiculous to think that DRM will "stop" P2P music sharing. I don't think anyone is making that claim. DRM was instituted to make casual piracy more difficult and to satisfy the music companies that wouldn't allow the sale of unprotected digital music.

Of course all digital rights systems are going to eventually be cracked, that is accepted as inevitable. That's really not the point. Most consumers will buy their music and keep it legal, and DRM keeps people from "accidentally" sharing files without knowing that they aren't licensed. The recording industry realizes that the people who are into file sharing are going to keep stealing music anyways (makes them feel like a rebel or something) so they focus on the rest... people who just want to buy and play music. There's enough money there to support the industry, the key is to make sure that the pirates remain pirates (meaning they are explicitly aware that they are breaking the law, no more accidental piracy).

As far as I can tell, this program doesn't really change the face of music piracy. There are not many advantages to this:

1) Now people can put iTunes-specific music on P2P services that wasn't available previously

2) People can create high quality copies of ITMS tracks for file sharing, but those tracks are likely on all P2P services already

People can already do the latter with an original CD, so the advantages are minimal. This really isn't a big deal. The program that allowed people to download other people's shared tracks is, on the other hand, since it turns iTunes into a P2P service.

I've seen headlines that say this guy hacked the ITMS and that the program allows you to download songs without paying 99 cents, which is just way off. The media needs to get the story straight or Apple's reputation is going to be damaged.
 
Originally posted by the_dalex
There are not many advantages to this:

1) Now people can put iTunes-specific music on P2P services that wasn't available previously

2) People can create high quality copies of ITMS tracks for file sharing, but those tracks are likely on all P2P services already
Click to expand...

There are many more advantages to compromising the protection than just the ability to pirate music. Additional advantages:

3) Music can be played on older computers (OS 9, Win 98/ME -- people do still use these, even if not as their primary computers)

4) Music can be played on non-iPod music players.

5) Music can be converted to mp3 to play in cheap players or burn to mp3 cd's

6) Windows users can now (like mac users have been able to all along) use their music files in movies, etc. -- iMovie supports AAC-p, but there is no windows movie software that does.

7) If, for some reason, people want to switch music software at some point in the future. Even if iTunes is the best jukebox software out there now (this has been disputed), odds are that it won't stay the best forever. This gives them the option to switch software in the future.


So,there are many advantages to this, not all of which are piracy-related.
 
That's what I meant, but I wasn't clear. There aren't many pirate applications for this that should bother the RIAA.
 
Go ahead and do it now, and save yourself the trouble (as the RIAA gestapo will be removing the hack soon enough). :rolleyes:

Still, it's great to know that when Apple stops supporting .m4p in 10 years (no seriously), leaving us with no where to play them, that I can go back an buy a 10-year old winpc for 5$ and decrypt my iTMS music:) [/B]
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by coolsoldier
There are many more advantages to compromising the protection than just the ability to pirate music. Additional advantages:

3) Music can be played on older computers (OS 9, Win 98/ME -- people do still use these, even if not as their primary computers)

4) Music can be played on non-iPod music players.

5) Music can be converted to mp3 to play in cheap players or burn to mp3 cd's

6) Windows users can now (like mac users have been able to all along) use their music files in movies, etc. -- iMovie supports AAC-p, but there is no windows movie software that does.

7) If, for some reason, people want to switch music software at some point in the future. Even if iTunes is the best jukebox software out there now (this has been disputed), odds are that it won't stay the best forever. This gives them the option to switch software in the future.


So,there are many advantages to this, not all of which are piracy-related.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Here's my addition:

8) If you're running an Internet radio station, you'll be able to convert the music to mp3PRO to ensure good sound quality at a lower bitrate for streaming.
 
The Two Towers... I just picked up the extended DVD and saw that last night. Extended scene as well, btw.
 
Why didn't the RIAA come up with a DRM standard that could be used in a variety of music formats? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they didn't because of their history, but leaving it up to the distributors is causing the issues we see now. If we had one format that every program could use, there would be little need to strip the DRM.


Quote: "8) If you're running an Internet radio station, you'll be able to convert the music to mp3PRO to ensure good sound quality at a lower bitrate for streaming."

I know almost nothing about radio licensing, but would that be a legal use of the song you purchased?
 
Originally posted by the_dalex
Why didn't the RIAA come up with a DRM standard that could be used in a variety of music formats? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they didn't because of their history, but leaving it up to the distributors is causing the issues we see now. If we had one format that every program could use, there would be little need to strip the DRM.


Quote: "8) If you're running an Internet radio station, you'll be able to convert the music to mp3PRO to ensure good sound quality at a lower bitrate for streaming."

I know almost nothing about radio licensing, but would that be a legal use of the song you purchased?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, as long as you pay the royalty fees. I pay through a service called Live365, which also provides the bandwidth for my webcast.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft, plain and simple.

Originally posted by visor
haha, I don't care a **** about the Music industry. I do not care if they all die right now.

[...]

I dont care if I get the Music from my local store on cd, or, just because it's sunday get it from limewire because they don't get the iTMS running where i live.

The point is - as long as it is easier to steal music, than actually buy it, one needs not wonder that people 'steal' aka get the stuff on the internet.
[...]

Now, there is no money for nothing, as the dire straits put it, singing about the music industry. (check it out if you want)
It's just very simple. As long as the MI don't get their fingers out to protect their music adequately, it will be 'stolen' because Music is an essential part of society, and is traditionally free - make that minus the last 50 Years.
Click to expand...

You should be denied the right to listen to recorded music!

BTW, when Johann Sebastian Bach died, he left this wife and his children nothing (more or less).

For some people, Intellectual Property might be the only property they have.
 
Originally posted by iMeowbot
That would confirm that there are no customer-identifying marks, but it wouldn't rule out their presence.
Click to expand...
Rule out the presense of something that is confirmed not to exist?

Originally posted by iMeowbot
Watermarks are interesting to the industry as a way to identify the original distributor, not the end user. That's the level of detail that SDMI sought for portable devices.
Click to expand...

If by distributor you mean Apple, that's one thing. If by distributor, you mean the user who downloads the file then cracks it then distributes it, there is no way of tracking this. From our testing, we used two songs purchased through two different accounts on iTMS and did an md5 checksum on both.

In other words, if you were to share the cracked files, there would be no way of identifying who bought them originally.
 
Watermarks to identify the distributor would be pointless, since any and all protected AAC files are originally distributed by Apple.
 
Fad

Originally posted by j763
if you were to share the cracked files, there would be no way of identifying who bought them originally.
Click to expand...

And if you were to be caught sharing cracked files, fined, sent to jail, etc. Would you keep doing it after all that?

I do not care about sharing my personal music library with the net and I also do not care about making all my possesions available to my neighbours.

File sharing may become an everyday part of our lives but modern file sharing seems like a fad in decline. It may take both iTunes and lawsuits to drive it underground where it belongs.
 
Originally posted by coolsoldier
Watermarks to identify the distributor would be pointless, since any and all protected AAC files are originally distributed by Apple.
Click to expand...

That's not how watermarks work. IT has nothing at all to do with the original format, and in fact they primarily exist to detect files that have been re-encoded to analog, CDDA, MP3, unencrypted AAC, or whatever.
 
Originally posted by j763
Rule out the presense of something that is confirmed not to exist?
Click to expand...

No such confirmation has been made, because watermarking isn't intended to be a per-user identifier.

If by distributor you mean Apple, that's one thing.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what the RIAA (owners of SDMI) want. I thought that the why of it would be obvious, but maybe not. RIAA isn't going to want to continue a long term campaign of sending subpoenas to file traders; that's obviously a witch hunt to get attention, no way could they hope to even keep up with a tiny fraction of traders.

Watermarks are a big part of the labels' hope to retain control over distributors as they begin to move more product by electronic rather than physical means, so they can have metrics when setting rates, track availability etc.

The second intended purpose of watermarks is to act as a form of copy protection, much like Macrovision and the broadcast flag. This characteristic is unused at present, as it requires modifications to playback equipment and software.

[Edit: in case it's not crystal clear, the idea is to arrange things so that the distributors and manufacturers are forced into the role of twisting customers' arms, and then the labels only have to deal with them instead of the public at large.]
 
Hello apple, welcome to the wonderful world of Windows. With enough time, hackers will be crackin into OS X just as they are doing with XP. See what happens when you become popular, people **bad people** start paying attention to you.
 
1macker1,

If you think people haven't tried to hack into Unix or OS X, you are wrong. An absence of security problems doesn't signify an absence of attacks, it shows that those attacks aren't fruitful.

Sure, there are going to be workaround hacks for some things, but nothing like you see running rampant on Windows.
 
People were hacking Unix code before Windows was a gleam in Bill's eye.

I guarantee Unix has gotten more attention from hackers, considering it's been around for over 30 years. If you think that the Windows world is full of genius hackers that could tear apart OS X if they could be bothered to try, you're dead wrong. Hackers go for fame, and hacking OS X would make headlines. Trust me, they've tried.
 
The worm concept was invented about 25 years ago at Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), as a tool in the style of what we now call distributed or grid computing.

The 15th annivesary of the release of the first harmful and widespread worm (by Robert Morris, the son of a computer security expert) was earlier this month. It reportedly shut down up to 10% of the computers on the Internet.

Here is one story about it.
 
Originally posted by Doctor Q
The worm concept was invented about 25 years ago at Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), as a tool in the style of what we now call distributed or grid computing.

The 15th annivesary of the release of the first harmful and widespread worm (by Robert Morris, the son of a computer security expert) was earlier this month. It reportedly shut down up to 10% of the computers on the Internet.

Here is one story about it.
Click to expand...

There were 10 computers on the Internet then. So that means it shut down, let's see...1 computer? ;)
 
Originally posted by VoyagerRadio
There were 10 computers on the Internet then. So that means it shut down, let's see...1 computer? ;)
Click to expand...
Good point! But you shouldn't exaggerate. I'm sure it was at least 2 or 3 computers!

Actually, you inspired me to look it up. There were about 60,000 computers on the Internet in 1988. Since the Morris worm was released late in the year, it was probably a bit more.
 
What is the point of this effort? To save $.99? It costs more in my time to go thru the hassle than I could possible save trying to pirate a cheap song. Seems to me the author is doing it "just because" he can. Thanks but no thanks - I will spend my extra time with my kids teaching them how to use their computers!!
 
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