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

[Doctor Q]

Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.

Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?

 

[matticus008]

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.

Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.

It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.

 

[Applespider]

I switch all the time on this issue. For the most part, DRM doesn't get in the way of anything I do so I think 'what the hey!'

Then I envision wanting to make a silly video and using some music with it (which I could do if I'd burned it off a CD) and not being allowed to with the iTMS stuff. And yes, I know that the CD way is illegal too but until the RIAA make a very easy way for Joe Public to be able to pay a nominal amount for a very limited distribution, not-for-sale video, people are going to do it illegally.

 

[~loserman~]

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.

If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.

 

[Applespider]

Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects.

Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.

 

[matticus008]

Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.

Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?

Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.

Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.

 

[Tulse]

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.

The artist who recorded the piece, and the writer of the piece, are being denied the monetary compensation they are legally entitled to, so yes, someone is losing out on money.

Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.

There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.

 

[matticus008]

Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.

This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.

 

[latergator116]

Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law.

Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong.

 

[strale]

face it

Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer. At least Sony know now that mp3 is the future - their products now play mp3, unlike half a year ago. Mp3 is the most common format, my car radio plays it, my iPod (which harddrive crashed half a year ago) plays mp3, my laptop - everything, even our dvd player, plays mp3. Why in gods sake should I buy a aac file? It doesn't play on anything than the iPod ant my Powerbook. Every vendor has it's own format. I wouldn't buy a song in apples itunes music store. Sure, maybe apple would sell mp3 if the music industry would give them the rights to do so, maybe not, but who cares? I don't buy aac, I don't buy wma - mp3 is the past, and the future!

 

[h'biki]

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.

But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.

 

[space2go]

Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer.

Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong .

Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.

Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.

 

[latergator116]

But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.

Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.

The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)

If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)

The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.

Not to the holder of the copyright.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong.

What is unfair and unjust about DRM? It's your $.99, if you don't like DRM, don't bitch about it - just spend it elsewhere!

 

[~loserman~]

Not to the holder of the copyright.

Agreed.

If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.

 

[matticus008]

Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.

I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.

And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.

 

[latergator116]

What is unfair and unjust about DRM? It's your $.99, if you don't like DRM, don't bitch about it - just spend it elsewhere!

I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.

 

[brap]

I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.

I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.

Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.

From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.

Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?

Depends on which issue you are referring to: the "music should be free" issue or the "DRM is wrong/unfair/unethical/unjust" issue.

I used to have a ton of pirated MP3's from back before even the original Napster came out. Don't know what it was that caused me to delete 'em all, probably the birth of my son and the realization that I'm now a role model. (that'll scare you sober!)

I've never really had a problem with DRM though - even the anoying serial number id's and hardware "dongles" make sense to me. Is seems to me that they are there to make piracy anoyingly difficult for the majority of users - the hard core geeks (like DVD Jon) will always find ways around them, but not most of us. I find the iTMS DRM to be quite liberal, I've never had a legitimate reason to complain about it.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.

Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.

 

[latergator116]

Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.

That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.

 

[matticus008]

I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.

[...]

Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.

From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!

It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.

To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.

I really wish it was okay. But all it takes is for one of those guests to be a busy-body radio station employee or someone otherwise with record industry contacts to send an email to the RIAA or ASCAP or someone to put your videography business in court.