DVD Jon hacks iTunes, creates program that allows you to buy...

[Evangelion]

If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?

Not according to your logic.

Should this behaviour be allowed?

So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.

 

[dudemac]

from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows..

it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to

But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.

 

[Tulse]

Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.

Stage, I work for a charity -- I think I'm doing my part.

People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.

Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.

Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".

 

[whfsdude]

The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.

You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.

If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.

Exactly! I know when I used to steal music it wasn't because I wouldn't buy it, it was because it was far easier to leave the computer on downloading some songs that I would have to go to two or three places to find.

Now that their is iTMS it's easier to buy and I can find most of the music that I want that wouldn't even be in stores.

Yes, some people will always steal but most of the consumers won't steal if they find a service they like. With iTMS service there is no reason to steal. Yes I do strip the DRM from my files. Why? Because I don't like having DRM on my files, it's just that simple. I am not using 5 computers, using 3. I use the non-DRMed files on my iBook and iPod. No reason to de-DRM except for the fact it makes me feel like I don't have control over the music.

Bottom line is people will support your service or products if they enjoy and use them. So as a company you have to trust your consumers and consumers must trust a company. DRM = breaking trust.

 

[desdomg]

I say break the law and be done with it.

It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.

I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.

Stage, I work for a charity -- I think I'm doing my part.

People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.

Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.

Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".

 

[Evangelion]

We've had this dictionary discussion before.

And apparently it needs to be had again, since people STILL don't understand what the word means!

But when a book author finds somebody using a photocopier to make a copy of their book instead of buying it, the word used doesn't matter as much as the fact you got something they were selling without paying.

The word does matter, since the word carries with it certain meaning and different acts (described by different words) carry different penalties. If you hit me in the face, could I claim that you were trying to murder me? after all I could have died. Or are you saying that all of a sudden the word does matter?

Copying copyrighted material against the will of the copyright-holder is wrong, I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the notion that it's stealing. It's not, fair and square.

Same logic: Musical artists aren't selling you round bits of plastic. They are selling you a copy of their music. Same logic: When you buy PhotoShop, you are buying more than the CD and some packaging. You are buying a license to use it, and even if you download a copy without taking something away from somebody else, you are getting something worth money and the owner/producer has reason to expect payment.

What you are describing is copyright-infringment, not stealing. Of course, RIAA and the like would just LOVE to label those who download music as thieves, since that word has such strong negative connections. But they are not thieves and they are not stealing no matter how much RIAA tries to claim that they are.

 

[dragonsbane]

Public displays of protest

You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system.

By living in this country I am bound by its laws. Period, full stop. Why is protest only allowed if you make it public and go to jail? The most public display of protest I am aware of is the 50+% of people who do not vote in any election. You might think their protest is foolish, but by not participating in the sham they speak volumes for those who listen.

Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of. It is like "terrorism", it is 100% dependent on what side of the argument you are on. The USA has directly killed far more people than these so-called terrorists. Many who are on the side of the USA do not see this. This does not make those who disagree with the USA supporters of "terror", it simply means they disagree with the logic - and laws - of the USA.

Breaking DRM is no different. If you agree with the laws you speak of how important it is to follow them. If you don't agree you justify your actions in a myriad of way. Everyone is subject to the "law" however just or unjust the law may be.

 

[i_am_a_cow]

Uhm why is the program Windows only then???

Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[capvideo]

It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).

No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.

Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.

But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.

This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.

For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.

When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.

This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.

I rant much more about this at my blog:

http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9

Jerry

 

[i_am_a_cow]

Yes.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.

What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.

The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.

And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.

 

[ductapesuprhero]

I say break the law and be done with it.

It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.

I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.

HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.

 

[i_am_a_cow]

Thankyou Jerry!

 

[recursivejon]

If this is true (transfer of the music without DRM to be added by iTunes), then couldn't anyone with a bit of networking knowledge just pipe the packets into a file when they purchase something from the store using iTunes?

 

[matticus008]

The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.

Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.

Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.

You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.

Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.

PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak

If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).

By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing™. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.

That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.

Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]

All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?

It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.

Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws

I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.

Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.

 

[matticus008]

No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.

Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.

But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.

This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.

For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.

When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.

This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.

No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.

But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.

Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.

 

[matticus008]

What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.

The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.

And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.

It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.

You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.

Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.

 

[Applespider]

The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.

CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.

DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.

The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.

 

[desdomg]

Glad you are having fun. Many would argue that the it is the music industry that is doing the pillaging and it is the consumers pockets that are being raided. Legal and right are not always the same things. How come there is no competition in song pricing anyway?

HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.

 

[~loserman~]

The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.

CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.

DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.

The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.

Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.

 

[fpnc]

IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company.

The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.

It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?

 

[h'biki]

Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of..

I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.

Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.

Yep. This is true of many laws.

DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.

Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).

The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.

Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us.

 

[akw]

Can't be bought.

Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.

Maybe he's not for hire. Not everyone can be bought. Or, maybe he's already working for Napster.

 

[desdomg]

If you view debate as a means to some sort of winner and looser type outcome the I can understand that you would reach that conclusion. However, the merits of a good debate, particularly one where their are strong opposing views, lie in the illumination of many points of view.


bringing

IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company.

The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.

It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?

 

[latergator116]

Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.

It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.