Roxio forbids iTunes song burning


redAPPLE

macrumors 68030
May 7, 2002
2,614
2
2 Much Infinite Loops
as long as Toast 6.0.7 (or whatever version was last released before 6.1) works with Tiger, there should not be any problems.

the reason escapes me, why Apple does not want that to happen.
 

efoto

macrumors 68030
Nov 16, 2004
2,627
0
Cloud 9 (-6)
Why would Roxio do that with retail music content? I could perhaps understand if they somehow could differentiate between purchased music (either from iTMS or ripped from retail CD) and ''purchased'' music :rolleyes: , but to restrict this seems silly.
 

Kagetenshi

macrumors 6502
Feb 24, 2004
309
0
Boston
My guess is that Toast doesn't follow the maximum-playlist-burn restrictions and thus opens everything back up to easy mass-production of CDs.

Since there are versions that will never be eradicated from the internet during any meaningful timespan that can do this, I'm not sure why they bothered, but it makes sense and is in no way "evil".

~J
 

efoto

macrumors 68030
Nov 16, 2004
2,627
0
Cloud 9 (-6)
Abstract said:
It says "after discussion with Apple," meaning you may not be able to blame Roxio for this entirely. Its probably due to Apple as well.
I did say Roxio solely, but I was thinking Apple as well, my mistake.

Still, if you are paying to purchase a retail copy of a song, why would the parties invovle make it more difficult for you to burn your own legitimate music? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but whatever.
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
I prefer to burn music in iTunes anyway. Toast is great for making hybrid discs and multisessions. Now if Toast can only support the 5 burns per playlist restriction.
 

Bob Knob

macrumors 6502
Mar 20, 2003
271
0
efoto said:
Still, if you are paying to purchase a retail copy of a song, why would the parties invovle make it more difficult for you to burn your own legitimate music? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but whatever.
Not to pick on you, but, no one owns music that they didn't write. This is the way it has always been... including the vinyl days.
When you buy music (even on a CD) you are in fact buying a license that carries specific terms of use, the iTunes Music Store (just like other download stores) has its own terms that are different than that of a CD.

It seams that no one ever really gave these terms of usage much thought until the online music stores got rolling.
 

efoto

macrumors 68030
Nov 16, 2004
2,627
0
Cloud 9 (-6)
Bob Knob said:
Not to pick on you, but, no one owns music that they didn't write. This is the way it has always been... including the vinyl days.
When you buy music (even on a CD) you are in fact buying a license that carries specific terms of use, the iTunes Music Store (just like other download stores) has its own terms that are different than that of a CD.

It seams that no one ever really gave these terms of usage much thought until the online music stores got rolling.
I don't take it as picking on me, I really don't know. I figured that if you paid for music (or a movie, etc) that you had the ability to make personal copies with the stipulation that you not distribute them or profit from them. I could very well be wrong, but that was the premis I have been operating off of for some time.

How does the license from iTMS differ from that of a CD? What is the basic license of a CD?
 

efoto

macrumors 68030
Nov 16, 2004
2,627
0
Cloud 9 (-6)
Peterkro said:
I doubt it's Apple behind this, indirectly it'll be the record companies and the R**A.
That would make me wonder why they are doing it even more. The R//A was on a huge trip about legitimacy in the music industry and sales of albums vs. downloads. iTMS is distributing legitimate product that they charge for, and I assume the artists get paid for as it should be, just as by way of CD.

Whether the consumer prefers to purchase a digital file or a tangible one from a B&M store, the main concern was that of monetary exchange and distribution to the artists and parties involved in producing the product. iTMS has a ton of sales, why limit something that was such a hit for the music industry?
 

mainstreetmark

macrumors 68020
May 7, 2003
2,229
293
Saint Augustine, FL
Bob Knob said:
Not to pick on you, but, no one owns music that they didn't write. This is the way it has always been... including the vinyl days.
When you buy music (even on a CD) you are in fact buying a license that carries specific terms of use, the iTunes Music Store (just like other download stores) has its own terms that are different than that of a CD.

It seams that no one ever really gave these terms of usage much thought until the online music stores got rolling.
Really?

In all my CD's and a few albums, I never recall reading a license agreement, having a license agreement read to me or signing anything that legally states I don't actually own what i just bought.

Perhaps they started to put them on those stupid stickers that covers the spine of the CD which suck to get off, because I never read that crap anyways.
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
"Following discussions with Apple, this version will no longer allow customers to create audio CDs, audio DVDs, or export audio to their hard drive using purchased iTunes music store content."
[Sarcasm=1]
My love for Apple is growing by leaps and bounds. I mean between suing everyone in sight, and this kind of crap what's not to love about this company?


[/Sarcasm=0]
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
efoto said:
Why would Roxio do that with retail music content?

Because Apple tapped them on the shoulder and said do it. Do you think a company would intentionally take features OUT of a product if it was a major selling point? Bet a paycheck that Micr....sorry Apple leaned on them to do this.
 

efoto

macrumors 68030
Nov 16, 2004
2,627
0
Cloud 9 (-6)
SiliconAddict said:
Because Apple tapped them on the shoulder and said do it. Do you think a company would intentionally take features OUT of a product if it was a major selling point? Bet a paycheck that Micr....sorry Apple leaned on them to do this.
Apparently I am missing something incredibly obvious....
So why would Apple want Roxio to disable that feature? How is it affecting Apple in any way to have Roxio software able to burn music purchased from the iTMS?

Be as blunt as you like, I won't take offense. I quite obviously just don't understand :confused:
 

Gasu E.

macrumors 601
Mar 20, 2004
4,421
2,222
Not far from Boston, MA.
mainstreetmark said:
Really?

In all my CD's and a few albums, I never recall reading a license agreement, having a license agreement read to me or signing anything that legally states I don't actually own what i just bought.

Perhaps they started to put them on those stupid stickers that covers the spine of the CD which suck to get off, because I never read that crap anyways.
THere's no need for a license agreement. There are copyright marks all over the packaging. It's your legal responsibility to understand what those mean in terms of your rights.
 

jkhanson

macrumors member
Jun 17, 2003
83
0
efoto said:
Apparently I am missing something incredibly obvious....
So why would Apple want Roxio to disable that feature? How is it affecting Apple in any way to have Roxio software able to burn music purchased from the iTMS?

Be as blunt as you like, I won't take offense. I quite obviously just don't understand :confused:
Just because it is an easy way to get around restrictions imposed on the number of times a playlist can be burned. Apple is just doing what it needs to do to live up to its agreement with the record companies.
 

jkhanson

macrumors member
Jun 17, 2003
83
0
efoto said:
Why would Roxio do that with retail music content? I could perhaps understand if they somehow could differentiate between purchased music (either from iTMS or ripped from retail CD) and ''purchased'' music :rolleyes: , but to restrict this seems silly.
Read the story more carefully. The statement from Roxio says, "this version will no longer allow customers to create audio CDs, audio DVDs, or export audio to their hard drive using purchased iTunes music store content."

In other words, there is no restriction on music from retail CDs. There must be something in the new Toast software that looks for Fairplay DRM in a file and restricts those songs.
 

7on

macrumors 601
Nov 9, 2003
4,940
0
Dress Rosa
efoto said:
Apparently I am missing something incredibly obvious....
So why would Apple want Roxio to disable that feature? How is it affecting Apple in any way to have Roxio software able to burn music purchased from the iTMS?

Be as blunt as you like, I won't take offense. I quite obviously just don't understand :confused:

Because Toast creates temp .aiff files of compressed music before burning an audio CD. People have been intercepting these and using them to pirate the music.
 

jkhanson

macrumors member
Jun 17, 2003
83
0
SiliconAddict said:
[Sarcasm=1]
My love for Apple is growing by leaps and bounds. I mean between suing everyone in sight, and this kind of crap what's not to love about this company?
[/Sarcasm=0]
Not such a big deal really. Burn a CD from iTunes and then use Roxio Toast to copy the CD as many times as you like. Once a file is AIFF, there's no way for Toast to tell the difference, right?
 

mkubal

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
557
0
Tampa
jkhanson said:
Just because it is an easy way to get around restrictions imposed on the number of times a playlist can be burned. Apple is just doing what it needs to do to live up to its agreement with the record companies.
Of course you could still burn it once in iTunes and then duplicate it as many times as you want to with toast.

I'm not saying I agree with the dropping of the feature, but is there any non-shady reason that someone would need to burn iTunes songs in Toast? Maybe some extra options?
 

efoto

macrumors 68030
Nov 16, 2004
2,627
0
Cloud 9 (-6)
mkubal said:
Of course you could still burn it once in iTunes and then duplicate it as many times as you want to with toast.

I'm not saying I agree with the dropping of the feature, but is there any non-shady reason that someone would need to burn iTunes songs in Toast? Maybe some extra options?
Perhaps the options are even similar, not sure, but I just prefer to use Toast as opposed to iTunes for burning anything. I like the ability and idea of Toast over iTunes....I don't know. iTunes is probably more than adequate, but Toast LOOKS like a burner, iTunes LOOKS like a player. I prefer to keep them that way, even if it is stupid.
 

mkubal

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
557
0
Tampa
johnnowak said:
I still cannot believe you are all so willing to fork over $10 for an album with no art, lower quality, and a bunch of restrictions.
Off topic, and while I understand your point

1) I rarely buy entire albums
2) If I did buy a CD I would rip it into iTunes (probably 192 AAC)
3) and proceed to put the CD somewhere I would never see it again
4) I buy music for the audio, not the visuals

I understand that you probably wouldn't handle a CD the way I do, but that is why people (and I) buy stuff off of iTunes.
 

road dog

macrumors regular
Mar 12, 2004
196
0
you should blame apple

You're blaming the wrong people... it's Apple that you should be pissed at. They're obviously the ones who brought this upon you... why in their right mind would Roxio remove functionality from you.

And yes, this is only for purchased songs... if you rip from physicial CDs purchased in a store or at Amazon you can still burn in Toast.

It's pretty clear... sure you "own" your music when you buy it from Apple, but only if you use Apple software for burning, Apple hardware that iTunes supports, and an Apple created iPod for playing. I guess freedom of choice is gone.

Besides... Apple just wants you to stop burning anyway... they want everyone to buy shiny new iPods.