Latest Toast Update Combats Fair Use

gsfprez writes "Apparently, demanding future DRM installations isn't just for Windows anymore. Roxio has added a very Microsoft-esque paragraph to the Toast 5.1.4 upgrade. In part, if you install it, you 'may affect your ability to copy, display and/or play Secure Content through the Software or other applications that utilize the Software.' I'm sorry, but this is a big reason why I'm sticking with Apple, but looking for new CD/DVD burning software..." Let me know when you find it.

Comments

What about

[Aknaton]

CD-Record? It works on NetBSD and MacOS X is based on Unix.

Re:What about

[Caligari]

It also runs under win32 systems:

ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/alpha/w in 32/

Re:What about

[mAIsE]

DD works great in OS_X

dd if=/dev/disk1 of=newImage.iso bs=16k

Re:What about

[13Echo]

I have been using a great new KDE-based GUI for CDRecord and many other programs, called Arson. I have been toying around with it a bit and it is loaded with features. It kinda reminds me of Nero for Unix machines.

http://arson.sourceforge.net/

Perhaps it could be compiled and used in MacOS? The program isn't finished yet, but shows a lot of potential.

Re:What about

[mAIsE]

http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/cdrtoo ls

Thank you fink contributers!!

Re:What about

[greed]

I've been using cdrecord and mkisofs on Mac OS X for a while now. The latest alphas of cdrtools have full Mac OS X support--if Apple Disc Burning works, you can use it. So that gets you MMC SCSI, FireWire, IDE and USB recorders all in one. The device addresses are... different, but if you've only got one drive that's no problem either.

With very little work, I was able to take Schily's newest libraries from cdrtools and drop it in to cdrdao to get that going too. All because my FireWire recorder rips better than my SCSI recorder, and I got tired of booting into Linux just to copy.

The one oddity is the drive sharing stuff. Because you don't start these programs until AFTER you insert the disc, you get Finder's offer to prepare the disc. You have to tell Finder to ignore it, then hit continue in the really annoying "second bad disc dialog".

I'm going to update the programs so they reserve the drive and wait for the recorder to do tray close, if I can figure out how. Maybe someone else already has; it works well enough that I haven't looked for updates recently.

Re:What about

[Monkey Angst]

OK, getting off topic perhaps, but I totally want that version of cdrdao that you got to work. I have never gotten cdrdao to work on my OS X machine at all, and it is probably the program I loved most under Linux...

How'd you get it going? Can I get a tarball, or at least the steps you went through?

Re:What about

[benh57]

Install it via Fink - http://fink.sf.net/

Re:What about

[0x0d0a]

I believe these nasty Roxio folks are the same people that made the cdrtoaster (Tk frontend to cdrecord) folks change their name based on trademark threats.

I also remember Roxio's Toast costing some huge sum of money back when burners first came out -- hundreds and hundreds of dollars. Unbelivably exorbant.

I really loathe Roxio.

Nero Burning Rom

[WellHungYungWun]

If they would do a Linux port, it would be the best cdr software available. I takes advantage of a lot of the newer features available, and best of all you get to try it for free. Get your copy here http://www.nero.com

Piracy != Fair use

[ObviousGuy]

I don't mean to sound like a troll, but please consider that your right to rip and burn your own CDs has never been infringed. The only thing that has been blunted is your ability to illegally share those files.

I feel like a broken record.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ThePilgrim]

I feel like a broken record.
Surely in this day and age you should feel like a copy protected CD

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Alan Partridge]

wrong. People who put Celine Dion into their iMacs had to have them hard reset by a service center. These fuckers are actually SELLING trojans to you now as entertainment.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

"I feel like a broken record"

Funny, you look like a corporate tool.

What does that really make you?

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[BabyDave]

"... that may affect your ability to copy, ..."

How can the software differentiate between me burning a "greatest hits CD" for myself (fair), and burning a similar CD for a friend (piracy)? Both involve identical instructions to the software, the only difference is what happens after the CD leaves the computer.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[radja]

>The only thing that has been blunted is your ability to illegally share those files.

and what about my LEGAL right to share???

//rdj

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about Celene Dion fitting the definition, but Trojans ARE essential elements of my favorite form of entertainment...oh, you mean that kind!

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ObviousGuy]

I realize that you are trolling, but that's a good question. It comes down to what you consider "sharing" to mean. If it means playing the CD in your car with your friends or lending a CD to your friend, then that is totally within your rights. If you mean making it freely available to everyone who may cross your path, that is quite illegal, as Napster (and soon Gnutella and Kazaa) learned.

Copyright, right or wrong, exists and prohibits the kind of file sharing that P2P networks makes easy. Your violation of copyright is a violation of the law. You can justify it to yourself however you like, whether the tired excuse that you wouldn't have paid for the media anyway so the companies won't be losing anything, or the common claim that you are simply "trying out" the product before actually buying it, or the lamest of all excuse that companies are evil and don't deserve your money.

I do not work for any media company, though I am a software engineer at an embedded systems company. What I do seem to have is a mature sense of right and wrong which anyone who tries to legitimize piracy simply doesn't yet possess.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[radja]

no, I was not trolling. for one, i explicitly have the right to share music with my family. (please be aware, i do not live in the US..).

i am allowed to make a copy, and give it to my sister, or my mother.

//rdj

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

75 years ago it was legal to buy a Thompson machine gun in the United States. Some people bought them because it was a neat toy, and they never used them for anything illegal. Others bought them for gangland hits and armed robery.

The actions of the second group caused the people in the first group to have their toys taken away from them.

The actions of people engaging in blatant copyright infringement are are doing the same thing to people who are doing legitimate fair use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75 years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.

Since a computer is as incapable of determining leagal use as the Thompson was incapable of determining legal use, the computer's ability to copy material is likely to suffer the same fate as the Thompson.

The RIAA and the MPAA are asses for pushing this soulation to their problem, but I blame the "file sharers" that are ignoring the current laws as much as the Holywood crowd for bringing this draconian approach to IP protection about.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ObviousGuy]

If you live in a country that adheres to the Berne Convention, then you are indeed bound by the copyright. It's one of those little things that makes international trade easier.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[PhxBlue]

Are you going for a Funny mod on this? You don't have a "legal right to share" copyrighted work that dosen't belong to you.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[neilb78]

News Flash! People still use guns for "gangland hits and armed robery".

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[lunenburg]

I realize that you are trolling, but that's a good question. It comes down to what you consider "sharing" to mean. If it means playing the CD in your car with your friends or lending a CD to your friend, then that is totally within your rights. If you mean making it freely available to everyone who may cross your path, that is quite illegal, as Napster (and soon Gnutella and Kazaa) learned.

The point you seem to be missing is that there is no way for the technology to know whether someone is going to use a burned/ripped copy for legal/moral uses (portable MP3 player, emailing a song to your mother) or illegal/immoral uses (offering an entire album for download). None. When DRM technology will not let you rip a CD to your brand-new $400 MP3 player, do you think that complaning to the RIAA with "But this is within my rights!" will do anything?

Don't fool yourself into thinking the issue is about copyright law. The copyright cartels have tons of tools at their disposal to prosecute copyright violators - standard copyright law being the main one - tools that they have shown no inclination to use to actually, oh, stop copyright infringement. Their current push for legally-mandated DRM technology is about control, and only control. They want to be the ones to dictate how you can use the CDs and DVDs that you buy, the music that you download, the TV shows that you watch. Your rights to perform the "legal" copyright violations that you mention will be subject to the whims of Hollywood lawyers and profit margins.

If that's the future you want, so be it. I personally find it extremely distasteful that a small band of "special" corporations (MPAA, RIAA) are going to be allowed to have the blessed stamp of "producer," and as such determine what technology can be developed, and who is allowed to distribute "authorized" content. The issues are as old as copyright itself, only the distribution method has changed, which is allowing Hollywood to paint a doomsday picture of "You must allow us to control the technology in every digital device, or else the great Republic will fall due to a lack of HIGH VALUE DIGITAL CONTENT."

Spare me. If you work at an embedded systems company, and look forward to the day you have to license DRM technolgy from Hollywood for all of your systems, bully for you. A large number of us, however, see that "copyright" is merely the smokescreen for the larger issue.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

All the more reason for UNIX machines that don't automount disks (and have eject buttons).

It isn't always good to "think different".

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ColdGrits]

Serves them write for trying to play Celine bloody Dion in the first place!

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[aussersterne]

What I do seem to have is a mature sense of right and wrong which anyone who tries to legitimize piracy simply doesn't yet possess.

What you don't seem to have is the ability to differentiate between piracy and fair use. Every time one of these discussions begins, there is a dedicated group of people who post and say that fair use as a concept is great but we really can't have it because every "fair user" out there might actually be a pirate at some point.

Hey, every citizen out there might actually be a murderer at some point. So what? It's a ridiculous jump to make.

I'm a writer. I have a much greater vested interest in copyright than you do. But I am also a realist -- and you are not. People are going to make copies of some chapters of my books. Maybe they will even copy the entire book and carry it around in a three-ring binder. So what? The value in selling that one copy is very low. The value in having yet another person "spreading the word" about a title I've written is much greater.

The same holds true for the audio and video content industries. Before the "MP3 revolution" I was buying maybe six CDs a year. Afterward, I'm buying 20-30 because my exposure to artists is greater. Most of my (working) friends are in the same position.

The RIAA/MPAA are complaining like babies about slightly decreased sales... and they're doing it in the middle of an economy that is tanking, worse than it's been in years. The decreases are directly related to the lack of disposable income on the part of the buying public, not to the greatly increased exposure they're getting through P2P.

Or maybe what the big media outlets are really upset about is a leveling of the playing field... the fact that maybe 80% of the CD's I've bought this year are indies or self-pubs that I wouldn't have known about had P2P never existed. We tried to do away with the studio system in Hollywood years ago for antitrust reasons, yet the music industry still functions exactly that way today and the MPAA has even managed to recreate most of the old income superstructure using intellectual property ownership rather than real property ownership as leverage. Let's try again to level the playing field, for once and for all.

Sorry, but the issue is not as simple or as black-and-white as so many devout capitalists seem to believe... not all sharing violates copyright. To end sharing because some sharing violates copyright is patently unjust and smacks of the kind of baby-with-bathwater institutional mentality Americans claim to hate.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[JWW]

Yep, the Holy Grail for the media companies is pay for every use of the copyrighted material.

Too bad it would destroy the economy, but hey, its what they want.

When they figure out that screwing over the consumer will not have the consumer beating down your door to buy your product, it may be too late.

I haven't bought a CD in years, and whether or not I can download songs over the internet, I might not buy a CD ever again. This kind of control is going to turn more and more customers away from the market (nevermind that they seem to only be trying to sell CDs to 11-13 year olds).

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Melantha_Bacchae]

thales wrote:

> The actions of people engaging in blatant
> copyright infringement are are doing the same
> thing to people who are doing legitimate fair
> use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75
> years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.

[snip]

> The RIAA and the MPAA are asses for pushing this
> soulation to their problem, but I blame the
> "file sharers" that are ignoring the current
> laws as much as the Holywood crowd for bringing
> this draconian approach to IP protection about.

Let me make a few things crystal clear here:

1) The "file sharers" do not harm most of the artists, and in some cases, have been known to actually help artists, especially in the music industry. That is because sites like Napster essentially give them free exposure by allowing people to sample the music and find new artists they might never have bought music from otherwise. Some artists have seen increased sales due to Napster.

2) The people with the problem are the recording labels and the studios.

3) The problem is not theft or lost revenue. After all, they consider playing a CD in your car that you bought for your home stereo lost revenue, and not watching commercials is called theft.

4) Nope, the real problem is COMPETITION. You see, they have nice tidy cartels that have the industries all neatly tied up. They believe that they have been anointed by the government (in a process called "copyright"), as the only legal distributors of their media. They've even started making the artists "work for hire" so they don't have to worry about nasty royalties. And along come these rogue "file sharers" who ursurp their priviledged position and distribute the files from the CD's, etc., they have bought to whoever wants to listen.

5) The cartels that control the entertainment industries are badly in need of an antitrust investigation themselves. While not the best solution to antitrust behaviour, the "file sharers" are at least providing some competition. The solution that would best serve the artists and the public for the music segment would be to replace the recording industry with a set of small businesses that offer services to artists who retain their own copyrights and control over their work. CD prices could be much lower, with the artists getting the lion's share of the profits. It is my hope that Apple uses their recent acquisitions to lower the bar of entry so these small businesses can form. Then we can make a well deserved end to the greedy sharks in the recording and motion picture industries.

6) After all, it is the greedy sharks that are making off with our money in unfairly high CD prices, and tolls on CDR disks. How is that not theft and extortion? Now they want to seize control of our digital vessels, our computers. How is that not piracy? The industry sharks do more harm to the artists and the consumers than "file sharers" ever did.

I am breaking with tradition, and ending with a quote not from Mothra, but from her forever friend, Steve Jobs:

"Apple strives to protect the rights of both intellectual property owners and consumers alike and believes there is a 'middle path' in digital music distribution which actively discourages the theft of music, while at the same time preserving consumers rights to manage and listen to their legally acquired music on whatever devices they own,"
Steve Jobs, 2002 Grammy Awards, as reported on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020227/1/2jun2.html.
(Re place "intellectual property owners" with "artists" and even Mothra would be happy.)

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Moofie]

No, you have a mature sense of legal vs. illegal. It's not the same thing.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Betaman]

You can't compare Thompson machine guns to copying cds. That's just ridiculous. A Thompson machine gun was made to kill people, and it is used for violence (no matter if you are shooting a target or shooting another person) it is a tool designed to do harm. CD burners were designed so people can easily put large amounts of data on a medium other than floppy, and that includes illegal copying, but it was not made for doing harm. The people who made the Thompson machine gun knew damn well what people would be doing with it, and they made sure it did it's job (anotherwords be able to kill). These are two completely different things.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[tomRakewell]

Since a computer is as incapable of determining leagal use as the Thompson was incapable of determining legal use, the computer's ability to copy material is likely to suffer the same fate as the Thompson.

That's right ladies and gentlemen, the government is going to eliminate "computer's ability to copy material".

This, despite the fact that "material"==bits. Ones and zeros. A fundamental property of bits is that they are EASILY COPIED!

Any legal/technical challenge to 'the copying of bits' is going to suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union's attempt to REVERSE THE DIRECTION OF RIVERS

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

Why not? Both have legitimate uses. The Tommy gun was never intended for use by gangsters. Thompson was a big law and order man. He was aiming at selling his gun to collectors, as the ultimate in personal protection from criminals and for use by the US Military. He was appalled that his gun was used by criminals. If Thompson had lived to see his gun play a role in defeating the Nazism he would have been delighted to see it used for one of the purposes he intended it to be used for.

You are following the lead of the RIAA. You are calling the Tool evil because SOME people misuse it. Both a Gun and a CD writer are material objects incapable of commiting good or evil. It takes a person to use a device for evil purposes.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

4) Nope, the real problem is COMPETITION. You see, they have nice tidy cartels that have the industries all neatly tied up. They believe that they have been anointed by the government (in a process called "copyright"), as the only legal distributors of their media.

Not quite. The "real problem" isn't competition.. it is artists themselves. They are the ones who signed the agreement and handed over whatever amount of control to the recording companies. They alone are to blame. But, perhaps they _aren't_ to blame. In this day and age you can become your own publisher via the internet. Yet people continue to give _their_ copyright to publishing companies (book/magazine publishers too). Ever thought that just maybe these people want to make some money? Even if they don't make money directly from the CD sales they make money on their name recognition. Then they can charge $50+ a seat at every concert. It isn't the recording companies that make money from concerts. You forget that artists have the option of _not_ going to a recording company. If they do, then whatever the recording company does with their copyright should be considered what the artists themselves want done.. as they signed the contract and have the same wishes as the recording companies: to make money.

There is plenty of competition between record companies. The reason CDs are so "high" is because there is a middle ground. The price of CDs is set exactly where consumers will purchase more and the distributors make enough to survive. It is an equilibrium. Despite all this talk about expensive CDs, DVDs, etc. people continue to purchase them. There is no reason for the prices to drop since people purchase at the given price. And for what it's worth... the price of a good affects how the consumers _value_ that good. It's very true. Say one big screen TV costs $1000 and another costs $300. You would instantly assume that something is wrong with the $300 one. If one CD was worth $14 and another was worth $6 you would typically value the band who had the $6 CD less. Most people would, anyhow. Their subconscious says "That band has a cheap CD.. no one must be buying their music and they must suck really bad."

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

So ALL killing is bad?!?!? Is that what you are saying?!?! You are a moron. What about self-defense? Do not people have the RIGHT to defend themselves and their property? And how does someone without physical superiority defend him/HERself? A GUN! It is EXACTLY the same! A gun can be used for GOOD or EVIL. YOU just are stupid enough NOT to know the difference when a gun is involved. You blinded by a fear or ignorance of them.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ichimunki]

Guns and speech and the laws pertaining to each are not remotely similar. Your analogy is completely flawed. Therefore, your conclusion may be valid, but it does not follow from your assumptions.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

1) The "Content Cartels are full of shit when they claim "piracy" costs them umpteen Billion Dollars. Just because you download a song dosen't mean you would have bought the CD. On a P2P you might say I'll get this one and this one and this one. Few people can afford to go into a record store and just grab any CD that catches their eye.

2) The "Sharing" advocates are full of shit when they claim it dosen't cost the content providers anything because some of the people downloading material are doing it to avoid paying for something they would have bought if they couldn't get it for free.

3) Nobody knows if additional sales generated by someone "sampling" music outweighs sales lost to people who refuse to buy anything.

4) Copyright holders ARE the only people with the LEGAL right to distribute copyrighted material.

5) Any sleezy action by the RIAA members is beside the point. Didn't your Mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Illegally distributing copyrighted materials makes it damn hard to take the moral highground.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ShavenYak]

He was appalled that his gun was used by criminals.

Appalled, maybe. If he was surprised, he was an idiot.
---

Roland was a warrior from the Land of the Midnight Sun
With a Thompson gun for hire, fighting to be done
The deal was made in Denmark on a dark and stormy day
So he set out for Biafra to join the bloody fray

Through sixty-six and seven they fought the Congo war
With their fingers on their triggers, knee-deep in gore
For days and nights they battled the Bantu to their knees
They killed to earn their living and to help out the Congolese

Roland the Thompson gunner...

His comrades fought beside him - Van Owen and the rest
But of all the Thompson gunners, Roland was the best
So the CIA decided they wanted Roland dead
That son-of-a-bitch Van Owen blew off Roland's head

Roland the headless Thompson gunner (Time, time, time
For another peaceful
war)
Norway's bravest son (But time stands still
for Roland
'Til he evens up the
score)
You can still see his headless body stalking through the night
In the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun
In the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun

Roland searched the continent for the man who'd done him in
He found him in Mombassa in a barroom drinking gin
Roland aimed his Thompson gun - he didn't say a word
But he blew Van Owen's body from there to Johannesburg

Roland the headless Thompson gunner...

The eternal Thompson gunner, still wandering through the night
Now it's ten years later, but he still keeps up the fight
In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Berkeley...
Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland's Thompson gun
And bought it!

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

How many times has it been pointed out on /. that it's wrong to ban a tool because someone misuses it when P2P networks and "Piracy" are being discussed? A Gun is just another tool, subject to proper use or misuse.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ShavenYak]

And how does someone without physical superiority defend him/HERself? A GUN! It is EXACTLY the same! A gun can be used for GOOD or EVIL.

Killing someone in self-defense is justified by most people's moral codes, but calling it GOOD is stretching a bit. I imagine most people who have put in that situation would agree that the experience was not positive.

YOU just are stupid enough NOT to know....

You sound like the Timecube guy when you talk like that.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Reziac]

You're absolutely correct -- it's not about copyright, it's about control. And when you state that Hollywood is blathering, "You must allow us to control the technology in every digital device, or else the great Republic will fall due to a lack of HIGH VALUE DIGITAL CONTENT," I couldn't help hearing this translation: Hollywood is doomsaying, ".. or else the Great Republic will fall due to a lack of BREAD AND CIRCUSES."

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[dbrutus]

At point 4, you could stand to go to the bathroom yourself. What gives people the right to use the state to stop other people from copying their works? The US Constitution does for the specific purpose of 'advancing the arts and sciences'. The only reason that the *temporary* monopoly exists is in order to advance the pool of knowledge and the pool of arts available to our society.

It's certainly a legitimate question whether the RIAA/MPAA actions against fair use/unsanctioned copying are advancing or hindering the arts. Are their enforcement mechanisms raising costs so much that artists are actually being paid less? There's a study that isn't going to have industry sponsorship anytime soon.

I would say that the original subject of the thread (Roxio crippling their burner program) hinders the arts and sciences by crippling the ability to copy music files whether or not such copying is legitimate (the program can't tell the difference). To the extent that Roxio is doing so under legal pressure from the RIAA, such pressure is constitutionally suspect.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Betaman]

Okay all of you NRA nuts, are you really going to use a automatic weapon to protect yourself in your own house? You have a good chance of killing your family, or someone else who doesn't deserve to be dead. The lack of control over that weapon an average person would have makes it useless as home defense. I think I still have a point though. A Thompson gun is meant to shoot bullets (main purpose), and a cd-burner is meant to store data (generic use). Both can be used for harm, but in the case of a burner most people are using it at least semi-legally (purchased for legitimate use), and I would guess (although I don't have statistics) that most thompson guns were purchased for bad things (criminals or the mob if you will). On a side note killing anyone for any reason is never a good thing... it may be the best of two bad choices, but I would say negativity lies heavily with the gun killing someone over the burner copying copyrighted material.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[andcal]

If I am not mistaken, the doctrine of fair use, as upheld by courts, actually does include sharing copies of copyrighted works with people.
There is grey area here as to how closely associated you have to be with these people before it becomes illegal, and these rulings were before sharing over the internet was practical, but the concept is actually included in the doctrine of fair use, just so you know.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ichimunki]

At this point I have no clue what your point is. Guns are guns. Speech is speech. Trying to argue a case about one based on experience with the other is distracting. There are very different laws for each for a reason.

What we need to focus on is not how file-sharing is "a tool". File-sharing is about speech to some extent. But more importantly, the topic at hand is DRM-- which is a specific effort to thwart speech altogether, not just file-sharing per se.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[azav]

Nuke the Gay Whales for Jesus.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

I Have never been an advocate of the "elastic" Constitution. I feel that we should follow the intents of the framers of the Constitution or follow the procedures for amending it. An "elastic" constitution in effect means it can be "amended" at will by changing the interpation.

The clause you mentioned clearly sets a basis for reasonable limited copyright laws. I Don't consider life plus 95 years to be remotly reasonable, and would be delighted to see the copyright extensions struck down as unconstituional.

A Reasonable law, IMHO, would be 14 years of automatic protection, with the possibility of a one time 14 year extension apon registering the copyright. These are the times that were discussed by the framers of the Constitution, and the original copyright law. After a max of 28 years it enters the public domain.

Disagrement with a law does NOT give you the right to engage in wholesale violation of that law. If someone wanted to violate the present copyright law for the purpose of bringing a test case before the courts, I would be in full agreement with them.

However that is NOT the reason the majority of the filesharers are violating the law. They don't agree with the law and simply refuse to obey it. This blatant disrepect for the law is far more likely to result in more severe laws than to result in an improvement in the law, as many recent examples of "Anti-piracy" laws show. It makes it hard to establish the moral highground when the RIAA can paint you as a scoffatlaw at best and a thief at worse.

Mass distrubation of a song that was written last year would be illegal if the original copyright laws were still in effect. That would hardly make a good test case against the many extensions of the term of copyright. A test case would involve a song that was published over 28 years ago, something that would now be in the public domain under the original law.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[jasonbw]

You *need* a submachine gun to protect yourself? are you that bad of a shot??!?!

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[protoshoggoth]

Actually, the Thompsons weren't taken away, they were designated 'Class III firearms'. If you were willing register each one and pay a $200 tax stamp (quite a bit back then) on it and get a local law-enforcement official to sign off on your ownership, then sure, you could keep your Thompson. Certain states went further, but that's basically the federal law on these weapons. Maybe they'll do the same with iPods.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[RatFink100]

Unfortunately you are mistaken. Fair use does not normally include sharing. It can - for extracts of works used educationally - but usually doesn't. Sharing with my family member/friend has always been technically illegal - although rarely prosecuted.

Even if this were not the case - the doctrine of fair use does not require that the work be made copyable. It simply means that if you are able to copy it and your copy falls within the domain of fair use then it means that you have not infringed the rights' owner's copyright. If they make it so you are prevented from copying it - then it goes against the spirit of the Fair Use doctrine but does not break copyright law.

The issue then becomes about advertising/labelling so that people can make and informed choice.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[esper_child]

Actually you can have your Thompson SMG in the US, you just have to have a special licence for it. Same goes with all automatic weapons here in the US. On the 4th I was treated to seeing people doing a small battle with blanks (thompsons, mp40s, colt .45, lugers, and various rifles. Not to mention armored cars with machine guns of the .50 nature). Legaly you can own anything of this nature as long as you have an appropriate license.
I used to know a guy who had a 40mm gernade launcher and the gernades to go with it. They keep track of these things through various means. He also had a BAR in his van when he died, cops got real worried about it. Armored Cars, and Tanks are also legal to own if you have the right liscense. Used to know a different guy who owned a scrap yard and when someone complained about him one time he hopped in his Sherman and pulled up in front of the guys house and sat there for a while. Whoever told you that you can't own these things doesn't know where to look. You can get most military goods if you know where to look and what paperwork you need to fill out.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[fscking_coward_2001]

Uh ... he never said that machine guns were comparable in any way to cd copying. He argues that the situation was similar. And it is. Legal use of a device (cd burner, Thompson sub machine gun - your choice) is being offset by illegal use of the device. If you don't grasp the concept of a simile, I hope you don't try to read poetry. Or maybe you just have a thing about firearms.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[good soldier svejk]

If you mean making it freely available to everyone who may cross your path, that is quite illegal, as Napster (and soon Gnutella and Kazaa) learned.

How is a protocol supposed to learn that, or anything else for that matter?

Copyright, right or wrong, exists and prohibits the kind of file sharing that P2P networks makes easy. Your violation of copyright is a violation of the law. You can justify it to yourself however you like...What I do seem to have is a mature sense of right and wrong which anyone who tries to legitimize piracy simply doesn't yet possess.

What facile and invalid logic. Copyright violation is wrong because it is illegal? Aiding escaped slaves was once illegal. Was that wrong too?

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

If people really had machine guns in their homes, the cases of them being used would probably be nonexistant, at least thats the impression I get as shown by the *fear* of them in this thred.

Why not have the best tool for the job? Or at least the liberty to choose what tool you want. Not that I'm pro death or killing people, but thats a crime of the people, not of the tools used to do so.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

The first admendment protects free speech. The second admendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. You can't weaken one right without weakening all rights. ignoring either admendment weakens the other.

It's amusing to see people who are willing to ignore the Second admendment start yelling about the Bill of Rights when someone wants to ignore the first admendment.

DRM is about enforcing copyright law, A person's right to control something they created, and copyright is authorized in the Constitution. My view of DRM is that it does violate fair use, but it damn hard to argue a case of rights when you aren't willing to respect the rights of others, and the "file sharers" are showing contempt for the rights of copyright holders.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Betaman]

I understand where he was going: people using the [object] the wrong way ends up in the government taking away prvilages of that [object] from everyone even though not everyone has abused it. I am saying that the majority of people misused the Thompson gun whereas a minority misused CD burning technology. Anyway you can buy a Thompson gun for collectors sake if it's disabled (like the firing pin is removed)... and that would have been a better comparison: CD Burners cannot copy copyrighted material because a function was disabled in the software and Thompson guns have to have their firing pin removed so one it's functions (aka shooting bullets) is removed. They still then serve a function, collectability and burning of personal non-copyrighted data.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[fscking_coward_2001]

That makes sense. I was taking issue with the direct comparison. And I'm not sure that the majority of users "misused" the Thompson gun, although clearly the most visible users were those who used the gun in nefarious schemes. Actually, that compares well with CD burning. People who use the burners as intended (backup, etc) get very little visibility compared with the visiblity of illegal use.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[JudgeFurious]

I hardly think the term NRA nuts is fair.

The answer to your question is no, I would not use an automatic weapon (if by this you are making reference to the Thompson .45 caliber machine gun as the original poster stated) because it's poorly suited to the task though not completely for the reasons you mentioned.

To go off on one of those "way more information than necessary" tangents that I so enjoy let me state that the Thompson wasn't all that terrific a submachine gun. It was heavy as hell, was not particularly consistent in the pattern of lead it spat out, and was expensive to manufacture.

In it's defense it fired a great round in the .45 ACP which was big and slow relative to say, the 9MM which was preferred notably by Nazi germany in their smg's. The 9MM relies heavily on hydrostatic shock to cause damage but the .45 produces a lot less of this. Instead it simply moves slowly enough to not pass through you (not necessarily every time mind you) but fast enough to penetrate and transfer it's energy in the process. The short version is the 9MM goes through you and the .45 knocks you on your ass. Move up to something like a .44 Magnum and you get the best of both worlds to go with your painful wrist from the recoil. Your neihbors might not appreciate the excellent penetration characteristics of the .44 magnum bullet though.

I would never choose a Thompson for "home defense" but not because I would be worried that I might kill a member of my family or someone living next door. I wouldn't buy it because there are much better choices for home defense and one of them doesn't even involve having to fire the gun in question. Want to know what they are? I knew you did...

First I want to say that depending on your situation there are a number of correct answers to the question "What gun do I buy for home defense?" and one of them is certainly "None of them."

If you aren't going to take the time to practice and get familiar with your gun then don't buy one. If you aren't able to find a location to put your gun where it is both accessible to you in an emergency and secure from your children (if you have any) then don't buy one. If niether of these is a problem or an issue for you then I recommend one of two choices.

12 gauge pump action shotgun. Preferrably stored inside your master bedroom closet, above the door on pegs in the wall. Don't put it in there leaning against the wall in the corner or on the shelf above your clothes. Also this might not work for you if you are not tall enough to reach it there. Putting it over your head above the door makes it less likely to be visible to thieves when you aren't there though and if you can do it that's what you want to do.

Keep in mind though that if someone really good gets into your house without being seen and has enough time to do so then they are going to be very meticulous in looking for your valuables. They'll probably find your shotgun. This over the door thing works well against the nervous guy trying to get in and out quickly so he can get his next rock after he visits the pawn shop.

the old reliable 12 gauge pump is tough to beat. It's not a big wall penetrator (depending on what kind of shells you put in it) so your next doors are safe. It's not expensive relative to some of the other options out there either. Best of all, and this is the part that makes it perfect, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD knows what a 12 gauge getting loaded sounds like. It's loud and distinctive and cannot be mistaken for anything else. It's louder at night and in the dark...trust me. Most of us learned that sound from thousands of hours of television. We know what happens when you get shot with one of those too. You explode in a million pieces and maybe even catch on fire. Granted that's bullshit but we learned it on TV so for many of us that's what appears in our imaginations when we hear that sound. You'd be surprised how many people are terrified of shotguns. Or maybe you wouldn't be.

Odds are good that outside of practice you will never have to fire this weapon.

If that's too much gun for you or you simply want an alternative then I recommend a Smith & Wesson stainless steel .38 caliber revolver. This is also an excellent way to proceed for women who want a gun due to the fact that it requires less upper body strength to use this and recoil is more manageable for lighter weight people.

You should NOT put this revolver in your nightstand where you can reach it in the split second before the maniac jumps on top of you. That's not realistic and if they have gotten into your home and into your bedroom without you being aware of it then your goose is cooked. This plan, and the one that preceeded it are based on the idea that you actually HEAR the intruder entering your home. This plan also requires the purchase of a cordless phone if you don't already have one.

You place the gun in your master bathroom. Put it between the bottom two towels in your cabinets there. It's stainless steel so it won't mind (but you are going to need to keep it clean, oiled, and from time to time change the ammunition in it) and no one breaks into your home while you are gone to steal towels. When you hear someone (again - assuming you hear someone, if you don't hear them then the gun in your nightstand wouldn't help either) then you simply get up out of bed, pick up your cordless phone, walk to your bathroom and lock the door. You can now take your gun out, call 911, and tell anyone that tries to get in that the police are on the way and you are armed.

Both those beat a Thompson hands down.

One other important point to make. If you do decide to buy a gun for your own protection you need to practice with it. You need to be familiar with it. You need to know what it feels like and sounds like (at least once without any hearing protection) when it goes off. The last person you want to be surprised at the sound/feeling of your weapon firing is you.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[FurryFeet]

5) Any sleezy action by the RIAA members is beside the point. Didn't your Mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?


Two wrongs don't make a right? Gee, then I guess killing nazis to stop death camps was all fscked up. Because, you know, it was wrong to kill. Except, of course, under the circumstances it was right.
My point being, there are circumstances where I think copying "intellectual property" is not wrong. The law is wrong. You know, law can be wrong sometimes, that's why there are procedures to change it.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

There is NOTHING wrong with killing someone to protect your life or the life of another person, so killing the scum running the death camps would be justified. Of course the death camps had nothing to do with why that war was fought. The wholesale murders started after the war did. That was fought on the princeple of self defense of defending yourself from attack.

I'm well aware that a law can be wrong. A lot of confusion is caused by the term copyright. If you read what I have written my point concerns the DISTRUBITION of copyrighted material. You have the right to copy as much IP as you feel like, you just don't have the right to freely distrubite the copies you make. Copying is fair use, distrubiting what you have coppied is not.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Aapje]

I Have never been an advocate of the "elastic" Constitution. I feel that we should follow the intents of the framers of the Constitution or follow the procedures for amending it. An "elastic" constitution in effect means it can be "amended" at will by changing the interpation.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Jefferson

But perhaps you feel that the founding fathers were authoritarian sons of bitches who didn't want you to think for yourself. Or do you?

I Don't consider life plus 95 years to be remotly reasonable, and would be delighted to see the copyright extensions struck down as unconstitutional.

I consider it awful as well, but I don't expect the supreme court to be able to change this. It's a limited period of time and 'advancing the arts and sciences' is so fuzzy that the interpretation will be left to the politicians.

A Reasonable law, IMHO, would be 14 years of automatic protection, with the possibility of a one time 14 year extension apon registering the copyright. These are the times that were discussed by the framers of the Constitution, and the original copyright law. After a max of 28 years it enters the public domain.

I think that's even too long for software, it's obsolete so soon that there is no real benefit to society anymore after 28 years. The abandonware sites clearly show the problem of a lenghty copyright. You cannot get the arts once created except by breaking the law. Considering the better distribution methods since 1780, those 28 years may be considered to be far too long as well. It took many years to get books recognized and distributed properly at that time. Current books have to make their money in a rather short period of time and often get out of print after a decade. Perhaps we should even have different copyright periods for different products, music is far more lasting for instance and easier to obtain than 'obsoleted' books.

But again, the choice for a certain duration of copyright is so fuzzy that the supreme court cannot set one. Where is the optimum? 0 years? 10? 100? Given the fact that the supreme court doesn't believe the constitution to be infallible, they cannot accept 28 years as being the optimum, but have to let the politicians decide.

Disagrement with a law does NOT give you the right to engage in wholesale violation of that law.

I disagree. A (really) wrong law should not be followed. I'm glad that some jews were kept in hiding and thus escaped the gas chambers during WWII. Do you consider the people who disobeyed the law to help these people to be criminals? Or are they heroes?

However that is NOT the reason the majority of the filesharers are violating the law. They don't agree with the law and simply refuse to obey it.

Many people I know would gladly pay for fair-priced, full-featured MP3-downloading service or for fair-priced CD's. I don't feel bad at all about keeping the money away from these government-sponsored criminals (RIAA). And many decent people feel the same. They would gladly give money to those who deserve it (the artists), but don't accept being ripped off.

Copying software illegally is different however, although I believe it's OK for foreigners, students and others who simply cannot afford the price that companies ask (and thus cannot learn or advance their society). Of course it is different when these groups get cheap deals.

This blatant disrepect for the law is far more likely to result in more severe laws than to result in an improvement in the law, as many recent examples of "Anti-piracy" laws show.

It is the same with drugs. First the government fights it causing the mafia to grow and the prisons to be filled with decent kids. Kids that get influenced by the nasty criminals they share a cell with. And one day the politicians/citizens wisen up and legalize drugs that are not that damaging. At least, that the way it is going/did go in The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and France.

Of course, the US is not exactly a fast learner with the war on drugs either. But copyright infringement can only be stopped with fascist laws. I don't expect the american public to accept these. Although you'll probably accept every law, which begs this quote:

"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Pastor Martin Niemöller paraphrased

It makes it hard to establish the moral highground when the RIAA can paint you as a scoffatlaw at best and a thief at worse.

Perhaps I should impress them by buying all their crappy, overpriced CD's. I'll bet the bastards will be thinking about changing their ways when they sniff the line of coke that my money paid for in their favorite brothel. Having all the money in the world will worry them!

I guess that not giving them any money won't impress them at all. I guess that nobody ever will get the point and will give customers what they want for a fair price. Oh wait, someone is already getting the point. I suppose that Napster had nothing to do with this at all, though. Never in history has a positive change been brought forth because people chose to disobey their laws. The DDR also still exists and Milosevic is currently the ruler of Serbia. The french aristocracy rules France. South-Africa has Apartheid. America is a british colony.

Would the world not look far different if everybody was like you? Do you think it would be better?

Mass distribution of a song that was written last year would be illegal if the original copyright laws were still in effect. That would hardly make a good test case against the many extensions of the term of copyright. A test case would involve a song that was published over 28 years ago, something that would now be in the public domain under the original law.

Using a book is much better. Many books are under copyright, but cannot be ordered any more. That clearly shows the problems with the copyright laws of today. Besides, books are usually considered far more important to society than songs. Especially if you use some unobtainable political or philosophical works, you might get the politicians and courts to think about the consumers for a change. After all, who wants go into the history books as the one that prevented the dissemation of knowledge? You might even get free speech activists to support you on this.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Kindaian]

Not really copy protected... Those CD's are just pre-damaged cd's... So you are actually buying low-grade cd's with crap music... instead of just crap music... Those CD's copy protection doesn't comply with the DMCA requirements as it doesn't constitue a copy protection... it is just a play restriction on some devices. To constitue a copy protection and thrus become protected by DMCA, the protection schema MUST forfeit the copies... which isn't what those CD's protections do... (they just add errors in the cd content, which apart from be a infringement of CD patents, licences and brands, is also an infringement on comsumer rights and the like... they are robbing people into beleaving that they are buying a similar to CD product when they are buying a low grade music media). Cheers...

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Kindaian]

There is a huge diference in copyright and intelectual property owners... and more over the rights of both and artists...

It is too complex to explain, but... they are diferent kinds of kettle...

Cheers...

p.s.- it is time to sleep... not to divagate about legal details like that...

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever noticed how the Jews are at the forefront of those trying to restrict our rights:

• Rosen
• Coble
• Berman
• Eisner
• Redstone

The Jews never create anything. They are the parasites who wedge themselves between the the producer and the consumer. The Jew takes a slice of every pie that passes by. What the Jew hates is that the Internet is cutting him off from his host. The artists can now distribute directly to their fans. The Internet has made the Jew irrelevant. So the Jew tries to buy the politician to do his bidding. The Jew tries to get bought politicians to pass bogus regulations in order to maintain Jew hegemony over the consumer.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

" But perhaps you feel that the founding fathers were authoritarian sons of bitches who didn't want you to think for yourself. Or do you?"

What part of "or follow the procedures for amending it" is too complicated for you to understand? Or do you prefer a non-constitution that lacks any meaning?

" I disagree. A (really) wrong law should not be followed. I'm glad that some jews were kept in hiding and thus escaped the gas chambers during WWII. Do you consider the people who disobeyed the law to help these people to be criminals? Or are they heroes?"

Are you trying to compare risking your life to save the life of another human being to demanding that ENTERTAINMENT be provided to you on your terms regardless of the wishes of the people who created the entertainment?

"Many people I know would gladly pay for fair-priced, full-featured MP3-downloading service or for fair-priced CD's. I don't feel bad at all about keeping the money away from these government-sponsored criminals (RIAA). And many decent people feel the same. They would gladly give money to those who deserve it (the artists), but don't accept being ripped off."

Criminals? And you are going to be the vigilante that decides the RIAA are criminals, and that your kangaroo court entitles you to violate the law? Music is a LUXARY. You aren't going to die from music hunger if you do a legal protest like boycotting CDs sold by RIAA members. Don't bother trying to take the moral highground, you lost that when you violated the law over the price of entertainment. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Copying software illegally is different however, although I believe it's OK for foreigners, students and others who simply cannot afford the price that companies ask (and thus cannot learn or advance their society). Of course it is different when these groups get cheap deals."

I Want a restored 427 Cobra but can't afford it. Does that make it OK for me to take one? Hell No. So I make do with a Chevy. Ever hear of free software? Can't afford Windows XP? Get Linux. Can't afford MS Office? Then Get Open Office. Can't afford Photo Shop? Then learn to use the Gimp.

"Of course, the US is not exactly a fast learner with the war on drugs either. But copyright infringement can only be stopped with fascist laws. I don't expect the american public to accept these. Although you'll probably accept every law, which begs this quote:"

I Read that before most people on this forum were born, read it when I was speaking out against segration in the southeastern USA at a time when you could get your ass kicked or lynched for doing so. So forget the vain attempt to prove yourself "morally superior" to me. I wasn't afraid to speak out for the people who were having their rights violated back then, and I'm not afraid to speak out for the people who's rights you want to violate with your cockamamie "IP can be taken from those I don't approve of" campaign. I don't limit myself to only speaking out for the rights of groups that are considered "correct" by the left or the right.

"Perhaps I should impress them by buying all their crappy, overpriced CD's. I'll bet the bastards will be thinking about changing their ways when they sniff the line of coke that my money paid for in their favorite brothel. Having all the money in the world will worry them!"

Don't buy the damn CDs if you disaprove of them. Just don't bitch when they write you off as a deadbeat that's too cheap to pay for entertainment because you lacked the conviction to NOT use the product instead of trying to grab it without paying for it. Boycott the Music and you send a message of Moral outrage. Steal the music and you lose the moral standing you claim you want.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[jafac]

Just how would "pay for every use" destroy the economy?

If "pay for every use" became standard, I think most people would just shrug and find something else to do other than sit in front of the boob tube.

Might possibly be a good thing.

Remember when OPEC had the petroleum market cornered in the 70's and created an artificial "energy crisis"? Sure, gas prices went through the roof - but consumption and demand went DOWN.

I rate music and movie entertainment as something quite a bit further down on the prioritised list of necessities of life than petroleum (which is *required* to drive to work, heat homes, cook food, etc). Maybe lower than most folks, but certainly most folks don't have it up so high that "pay for each use" wouldn't totally fuck the entertainment industry into utter collapse.

Good riddance, I say.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat a queer fetus for jesus!!

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

wow do you live in texas or something?

sounds like everyone you know is some sort of fucking crazy gun nut!

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

If "pay for every use" became standard, I think most people would just shrug and find something else to do other than sit in front of the boob tube.

Uh, I don't know what you do when you listen to CDs, but I don't watch TV when I do. We're talking about cds, right?!

Might possibly be a good thing.

Riight. Less exposure to music will be good for our culture.

{/sarcasm}

You're an idiot, and you probably just don't understand because you listen to crappy faceless music. Maybe if you checked out what's available online, you'd gain some more apprecieation for music. Exposure to all kinds of music should be a right, not a criminal act.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnutella is a program supported by a group of people who are available for contact at www.gnutella.org. One of them passed away a week or so ago in a sad suicide incident because of his guilt concerning his assistance in widespread piracy. The Gnutella that is spoken of is probably in reference to that group of developers.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[northstarlarry]

DRM is not about enforcing copyright law -- if it were, it would allow for "fair use" as it is established under copyright law. DRM is about changing copyright law to suit the desires of those who hold copyrights -- to extend their legal control over their creation. So the question is whether this extension is appropriate.

I say no. It would be one thing if a record publishing company decided to use DRM techniques, and simply put their CDs out with some kind of copy-protection on them. Customers could decide if they wanted to deal with that kind of hassle or not, and most of them probably would. I do not think the majority of people who listen to a particular rock band would stop listening to that band simply because they could not play the disc in their computer. They might be annoyed, and grumble about it, but they like the music and they'll buy it.

It is something else again when a copyright holder decides that they need to force everyone's computer, CD burner, DVD player, cell phone, and digital refrigerator to protect their copyright for them. Copyright is not a god-given right; the Congress is given the power to establish something along those lines in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean they have to. Congress is also only required to meet once a year.

As for your first paragraph, I'd like to hear your argument that weakening one right weakens another. The members of the suffragette movement exercised their right to free speech very effectively, without having another important right, the right to vote. To take away my right to own a gun does not affect my right to believe or not believe in a Supreme Being, to speak or publish, to assemble peaceably, or to say something to the government if I don't like what they've done. On the other hand, if you take away my right to free speech and leave me with my gun, all I can do is shoot.

Furthermore, the first part of Second Amendment says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." In Article I, section 8, the Congress is given the power to provide for the organizing and disciplining of that militia. A militia is non-professional soldiers who are called on to fight in an emergency. This calls for some argument, but to me, this means you can have guns, but a) you've got to be trained to use them, and b)by owning a gun, you are expressing a willingness to enter the militia, with its requisite commitment to training and organization.

What's amusing/amazing to me is how many people who are willing to ignore the first part of the second amendment start yelling about the supremacy of the Bill of Rights when someone wants to ignore the second half of the second amendment.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[hype7]

75 years ago it was legal to buy a Thompson machine gun in the United States. Some people bought them because it was a neat toy, and they never used them for anything illegal. Others bought them for gangland hits and armed robery.

The actions of the second group caused the people in the first group to have their toys taken away from them.

The actions of people engaging in blatant copyright infringement are are doing the same thing to people who are doing legitimate fair use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75 years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.

Since a computer is as incapable of determining leagal use as the Thompson was incapable of determining legal use, the computer's ability to copy material is likely to suffer the same fate as the Thompson.

75 years ago it was legal to buy an automobile in the United States. Some people bought them because they were a useful means of transportation, and never used them for anything illegal. Others bought them for gangland drive-bys and getaway cars in armed robbery.

Despite the actions of the second group, the people in the first group continue to be able to use their automobiles.

And there's the rub. Whilst a Thompson might be a "neat toy", the primary purpose of a machine gun is to shoot things. In a lot of circumstances, shooting things (or threatening to) is a very big breach of the law. On the other hand, whilst cars (and computers) can be used for illegal purposes, they are a tool whose primary function isn't the death and destruction of living organisms.

Computers are for this reason much closer to the car examples. However, your assertion that you can take away a computers ability to copy material is not quite so easy - it's like saying "well, we need to take away a car's ability to be used in drive by shootings". Because whilst allowing me to make a copy for myself (one for the car, for eg) and making a copy for my friends, are as far as the computer is concerned, the same actions. One is legal, the other is not.

Toast will either revert back to its old "unrestricted" form or die in the ass as some cool new app takes over.

-- james

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[DavidRavenMoon]

The second admendment protects the right to keep and bear arms

Not really. Can you quote the second admendment?

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People always like to quote the line "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" but they always leave out the part about "a well regulated Militia"... that qualifier means a government regulated armed forces... we already have one. No where does it state the general public, which is not regulated, or a militia, can bear arms.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

Don't try to apply the 21st century definition of Militia to a doccument written in 18th century. In 1789 the Militia consisted of ALL adult male citizens. I Can quote the Second admendment, as well as other things from Revoulantary America.

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine

The main reason the Second Admendment was added to the Constitution wasn't Hunting or Indians, or Invasion. It's the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. The Second exists so that the people will have the means of launching a revoulation to overthrow the government of the United States if it ever becomes a tyrany.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[DavidRavenMoon]

Don't try to apply the 21st century definition of Militia to a doccument written in 18th century. In 1789 the Militia consisted of ALL adult male citizens. I Can quote the Second admendment, as well as other things from Revoulantary America.

Well, you summed it up. We don't live in 1789 and we are not in a revolution, which is clearly what they were referring to as "tyranny in government." In Israel all males are expected to serve in the army. That could be considered a modern form of Militia. But this is the US and we don't do that. And we would probably make a stink if the US Government wanted to do that.

Plus they did not have people using muskets to hold up liquor stores back then. We have far too many "ruffians." And these ruffians have way too easy access to hand guns. They didn't have police either. None of that stuff applies, including the need for a Militia.

Was anyone in your family ever murdered? I doubt my 86 year old mother having a hand gun would have made any difference, but it helped the person that killed her.

Taking history out of context doesn't work.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

I Read that before most people on this forum were born, read it when I was speaking out against segration in the southeastern USA at a time when you could get your ass kicked or lynched for doing so. So forget the vain attempt to prove yourself "morally superior" to me. I wasn't afraid to speak out for the people who were having their rights violated back then, and I'm not afraid to speak out for the people who's rights you want to violate with your cockamamie "IP can be taken from those I don't approve of" campaign. I don't limit myself to only speaking out for the rights of groups that are considered "correct" by the left or the right.

Somehow I doubt that. You sound like the kind of guy who would have sold out to The Man at the very first opportunity. Anything to please your corporate masters. The CBDTPA/DMCA/etc. are the Jim Crow laws of the technological era - designed to segregate society into the priveliged "producer" segment and the powerless "consumer" segment.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

So you are saying that the Bill of Rights can be modified through the use of "Newspaek" instead of bothering to take the time to follow the procedures for amending the Constitution? All we have to do is redifne the words instead of changing the Constitution?

WHAT makes you think that this shortcut can be limited to the Second Admendment? If you can repeal the second by redefining the words, what will stop someone else from redefining words in other sections? If the Second can be disposed of so easily, then why not the First? The Fourth? The Fifth?

Once you create this easy method of "amending" the Bill of Rights by "Newspeak" instead of following the procedures established in the Constitution you create a precedent for others to slip in "admendments" by redefinition, some of which you might not approve of.

Do you really think a ban on guns would stop a criminal from aquiring them? Do you really think that it would be any harder to get a gun than to get drugs?

Do you think it's impossible for a government to become tyranical? Didn't the German Republic of the 1920's mutate into a monstrous tyrany in the 1930's? The Second Admendment wasn't ratified because the men who wrote it were sitting up a tyranical government, it was ratified in case the government they were setting up became tyranical at some future date.

So you are ready to give up a freedom because you fear some people abuse it? One more quote.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

"The CBDTPA/DMCA/etc. are the Jim Crow laws of the technological era - designed to segregate society into the priveliged "producer" segment and the powerless "consumer" segment."

ROFLMAO
So the inept "consumer" has the right to appoint Diana Moon Glampers as Handicapper General to make sure those evil producers don't take "unfair" advantage of their abilities?

Fool, granting people extra power to overcome lack of talent is a total abuse of the civil rights of the producers that society depends on.

Since you have a problem with men who are able to produce, then do without their products. Make deals with other talentless "consumers" to swap feeble attempts at producing with each other. Create your mindless "ideal" socieity. Lead the other fools into dying of starvation while they learn that hard lesson, you can't consume if no one produces.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

you dumbass. you're reasons may be true, but if only you spent more time talking to ACTUAL POLITICIANS and not spending 8 hours a day ranting about it on slashdot to people who arent going to change anything for you

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition the Thompson is a "submachine gun". The Thompson fires .45 ACP. That's a pistol caliber. A fully automatic rifle that fires pistol ammunition is a "submachine gun".

It is still legal to buy a Thompson, provided that you can pass the FBI background check, pay the $200 tax, and find someone willing to sell you one for a price that you can afford.

Does anyone here know how many legally owned fully automatic guns have been used to commit a crime?

One! That's right ONE!. It was a cop who decided to make a little extra money by murdering someone for money.

Lord Kano
-Too Lazy To Log In

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[DavidRavenMoon]

All we have to do is redifne the words instead of changing the Constitution?

Where are those words defined in the first place? Clearly you are interpreting the meaning.

Also please define the word "redifne"

Do you really think a ban on guns would stop a criminal from aquiring them?

It would surely make it more difficult, why make it so easy for them? I think we need a ban on the manufacture and sale of guns, except to legitimate clients, i.e., the Government can have them made. The gun makers only care about making money. What use does a plastic gun that is undetected by X-ray serve? How about Kevlar piercing bullets?

No one but law enforcement and the military should have access to guns. Hand guns do not stop crime or protect the owners. Most hand gun owners are shot with their own gun. Show me one news story where a crime was prevented by someone having a hand gun. A large number of hand guns used by criminals were stolen from gun owners. And then we have kids who take their parents guns and go to school...

Do you really think that it would be any harder to get a gun than to get drugs?

No one holds up liquor stores with drugs. So who cares. It's already easier to get drugs in most places than guns.

Plus if our Government wanted to become tyrannical, do you really think the Bill Of Rites would stop them? Would it have stopped Nazi Germany? Of course not.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee

Notice how this never happend anyway?

"To preserve liberty..."

We won that war... England wont be back to bother us anytime soon!

If YOU want to preserve liberty go join the US Armed Forces, because you sitting at home with a gun ain't doing shit!

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason the Second Admendment was added to the Constitution wasn't Hunting or Indians, or Invasion. It's the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. The Second exists so that the people will have the means of launching a revoulation to overthrow the government of the United States if it ever becomes a tyrany.

That's such bull shit. Did you write it? You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[northstarlarry]

It's the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances..

Absolutely, yes. When the government stops serving us, we have the right to remove them. I have always accepted that as a legitimate reason for owning a gun. I'm just not sure how far it extends. Can I have a pistol? Can I have a sawed-off shotgun ? Can I have an automatic rifle with attached grenade launcher? Can I have a rocket launcher? Can I have a cruise missile? At what point does this go beyond "arms"?

I understand that the Amendment says "...shall not be infringed," and that's clear; no questions there. But, again, and I think this is an important question -- what is an "arm"? Does it extend to any weapon that I can get my hands on, or is it limited to what I would need if I were to join the militia?

Don't try to apply the 21st century definition of Militia to a doccument written in 18th century.

OK, let's talk about the 18th century definition of militia (though I'm not so sure why it's different from the definition I gave earlier). Militias in Revolutionary America were organized, trained groups of citizens who didn't fight professionally. They were farmers or silversmiths or brewers or whatever, but, once a month or possibly more frequently, they all got together and practiced maneuvers and did some target practicing and so forth; they trained as a normal group of soldiers would. I guess the modern National Guard is similar, but AFAIK they are part of the national armed forces, which means they're under Federal control and no good for our purposes. Most towns in the eighteenth century required their male citizens to not only be armed, but show up periodically for training.

Two quotes for you, from the case that I linked to above:

"That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, ... and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside...be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ...That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ...." -The New York Legislature, 1786

"The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.' 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years...shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months." -The General Assembly of Virginia, 1785 (emphasis added)

Finally, if Noah Webster thought a bunch of ordinary civilians who go to the shooting range with their M-16s every Saturday is going to be superior to a trained squad of professional soldiers, simply because they are fighting for their freedom, he's watched Braveheart a few too many times. The militia needs to be organized and learn how to use those arms, whatever they are.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Aapje]

What part of "or follow the procedures for amending it" is too complicated for you to understand? Or do you prefer a non-constitution that lacks any meaning?

What is your point then? There is a piece of paper that can be explained in a thousands different number of ways. Who should ascertain it's exact meaning if not for the courts?

It seems I don't understand what you mean with elasticity. Perhaps you can explain it better?

Are you trying to compare risking your life to save the life of another human being to demanding that ENTERTAINMENT be provided to you on your terms regardless of the wishes of the people who created the entertainment?

Music, newspapers and books are extremely important to our culture and have a strong influence on people's viewpoints. Do you seriously want to argue that monopolies on these important goods are a minor issue? Are you willing to argue that the fact that these goods are overpriced, censored, promoted through payola and/or become unavailable at one point is acceptable?

I used the example to point out that breaking the law is not wrong per se (I had to use an extreme example to make that point of course). I'd like to hear whether you believe that breaking the law can be acceptable, since you seem to be categorically against it. Once you accept it as a possibility, it becomes a question of limits instead of a yes/no proposition.

And you are going to be the vigilante that decides the RIAA are criminals, and that your kangaroo court entitles you to violate the law?

I'll also be so bold to claim that Hitler was a criminal, even though he was never convicted. Is this wrong as well?

You aren't going to die from music hunger if you do a legal protest like boycotting CDs sold by RIAA members.

That's hardly the point. You also won't die when you are held in slavery. It's just that we feel that slavery has no place in a free society. Hindering the spread of goods that are important to our culture in unreasonable ways is also not acceptable to me. It cannot be countered by abjuring these goods. We must show that this is unacceptable. Disobedience is a good way to do this.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Are you a pacifist then? You must disagree with every form of war if you are serious about that statement. This includes WWII and Afghanistan.

I Want a restored 427 Cobra but can't afford it. Does that make it OK for me to take one? Hell No. So I make do with a Chevy.

There is no point in argueing if you start comparing stealing physical goods with copying things.

Ever hear of free software? Can't afford Windows XP? Get Linux. Can't afford MS Office? Then Get Open Office. Can't afford Photo Shop? Then learn to use the Gimp.

Sometimes there is a decent alternative. Sometimes there isn't. What then? Should a poor student be unable to learn the software that future employers expect him to know? Or is it morally acceptable (and better for everyone involved) if he uses the software without paying for a while. Let me see:
- The student is better off since he'll get a job.
- The future employer will have a well-educated employee.
- The software company will sell more software since people know how to use it.

I Read that before most people on this forum were born, read it when I was speaking out against segration in the southeastern USA at a time when you could get your ass kicked or lynched for doing so. So forget the vain attempt to prove yourself "morally superior" to me. I wasn't afraid to speak out for the people who were having their rights violated back then, and I'm not afraid to speak out for the people who's rights you want to violate with your cockamamie "IP can be taken from those I don't approve of" campaign. I don't limit myself to only speaking out for the rights of groups that are considered "correct" by the left or the right.

Since you want to prove yourself morally superior by just speaking out and not being a 'criminal', it seems hardly appropiate for you to blame me. We both feel our way is morally superior and want to prove this (and it follows by extension that we are thus morally superior, FWIW).

Don't buy the damn CDs if you disapprove of them.

I buy CD-R's. They are taxed, with the money going to RIAA. There is no way not to pay when I don't use the CD's for music. There is no way to decide who the money goes to. They just take it from me to fund this government-sponsored monopoly.

Just don't bitch when they write you off as a deadbeat that's too cheap to pay for entertainment because you lacked the conviction to NOT use the product instead of trying to grab it without paying for it. Boycott the Music and you send a message of Moral outrage. Steal the music and you lose the moral standing you claim you want.

Since they are taking my money without asking, I'll take their stuff without asking as well. Why not? Am I more evil because I didn't bribe politicians to make my thievery legal? Am I evil because I feel that the current copyright is so fundamentally wrong that it should be ignored?

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[thales]

" Show me one news story where a crime was prevented by someone having a hand gun."

http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=8860 59&pic=none&TP=getarticle

" Also please define the word "redifne" "

using a different definition of a word or phrase than the auhor of a documnet used in order to change the misrepresent the intent of the author. There is NO doubt that the Author of the Second Admendment (Madison) intended "Militia" to mean the general population. There is NO doubt that the people who ratified the admendment understood the context that Madison used the word "Militia"

Let's play your word games with a different admendment. Lets ignore the fact that "speech" was used in the context of communication in the first admendment, and redefine it to suit a political agenda. Lets narrow the definition to only covering ORAL Speech. Guess what you have just lost freedom of "speech" while using your computer.

You have an agenda to disarm the American people. You are willing to ignore the Second admendment or use sophistry to effect a "stealth" revoction of it. WHAT is going to stop someone with an agenda against free speech from following your precedent and doing the same thing to the first admendment?

" Plus if our Government wanted to become tyrannical, do you really think the Bill Of Rites would stop them?"

Launching a revoulation (the reason for the second) just might stop them, depending on which side won the ensuing civil war. NOT having the means to launch a revoulation sure as hell won't stop it.

Ever hear that old slogan "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?. Here's one that is more frightening. "When guns are outlawed only Police will have guns"

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[ichimunki]

The first admendment protects free speech. The second admendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. You can't weaken one right without weakening all rights. ignoring either admendment weakens the other.

Good gods man! You are totally off-kilter, you know? You were the one that brought up guns in the first place, like there was some connection. There is not, legally. In a practical sense there may be, but to bring up guns is supremely distracting, since the argument here is about DRM. Let's stick to the topic instead of making inflammatory analogies.

I agree file sharers are showing contempt for the rights of copyright holders, who are showing contempt for Fair Use, but this whole situation is very much chicken-and-egg right now. We cannot base our intended actions and remedies on evidence of first harm, we'll be chasing our tails forever.

All that said, I mostly agree with you. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy their crap at all. To me filesharing is not a way to live, but I'm not opposed to it either (mostly because it has substantial non-infringing uses).

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[dbrutus]

I think you misunderstand my point. It's not copyright law per se that I'm going after but the ability of the RIAA to sue and threaten anybody who wants to create technology that among legitimate uses (burn your own music or non-copyrighted music) may also have uses that are illegal (illegal copying of copyrighted works).

If there was no fear of bankruptcy by interminable lawsuit, Roxio would likely not have made this move as it is certain to hurt their own bottom line.

If the punitive lawsuits were rectified, a reasonable balance on the entire copyright discussion might ensue. As long as the massive financial resources of the RIAA/MPAA can bankrupt companies that bring legal disruptive technologies to market, the intention of the copyright clause, to advance the arts and sciences, is being perverted.

The DMCA is unconstitutional because its draconian penalties hold back the arts and sciences, the only purpose for which copyright and patent is legitimate.

Re:Piracy != Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear that old slogan "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?. Here's one that is more frightening. "When guns are outlawed only Police will have guns"

Teen Shot in Head at Ga. Gun Show

Jul 15, 9:11 AM (ET)

NORCROSS, Ga. (AP) - A 13-year-old boy who was shot in the head while attending a gun show with his father remained in critical condition early Monday.

Stephen King, of Prattville, Ala., was struck in the right eye by a single bullet that lodged in his brain. He underwent surgery at Scottish Rite Children's Hospital in Atlanta.

Police said he and his father, Anthony Grant, were visiting from Montgomery, Ala., to attend the gun show Sunday. Grant, 38, said his son was standing on his left side and facing a vendor's counter when the gun fired.

It was unclear how the shooting happened or whose gun, a .38 caliber revolver, was involved.

"We were looking at holsters. I was reaching to get money out of my pocket when the shot went off," Grant told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "There were all kinds of people behind the counter. I was looking down, so I didn't see anything."

A day earlier, the two had enjoyed a trip to Whitewater Park and were looking forward to the gun show, which attracted hundreds and ended Sunday.

Gwinnett County police spokesman Ray Dunlap said police were considering charges, but would not say what charges or against whom they could be filed. Officials said loaded guns are not allowed at gun shows, except for those carried by police officers or security guards.

Vendors are also allowed to carry loaded handguns for protection, but cannot display them on a table or let customers handle them, authorities said.

"All we know for sure is it was an accidental discharge of a handgun," Dunlap said. "At this point, we don't know if it was a vendor's gun, but it was not a gun being exhibited on a table."

The vendor running the booth where the boy was shot later complained of chest pains and was examined by paramedics, but was not hospitalized.

He was questioned by detectives, Dunlap said.

I don't mean to wine

[oliverthered]

Nero runs find under wine, or so they say.
does wine work on macs though?

Re:I don't mean to wine

[robbieduncan]

Whilst wine might well be recompilable to OSX you would still need a translation layer for x86->PPC to get the code to execute.

Re:I don't mean to wine

[MaxVlast]

Wine passes i386 instructions directly onto the processor. Macs use PowerPC processors, so the CPU might be quite confused.

Re:I don't mean to wine

[Toraz Chryx]

uh.. if you recompiled It I imagine you'd have the sense to recompile it for the machine you were going to run it on... IOW, PowerPC code.. hence making a translation layer utterly pointless after you'd recompiled it.

Re:I don't mean to wine

[Bungie]

There was a Mac version of Nero called NeroMax. I can't seem to find it on Ahead's page anymore, but you can download it here.

Re:I don't mean to wine

[robbieduncan]

Yes but MS Office, or any other Windows native code you are wanting to run will still be compiled for x86.

Go Nero

[Fooknut]

Nero Rocks.
I highly recommend it

Re:Go Nero

[Midnight Thunder]

It does rock, but you need a x86 based processor and Windows. The poster was making a point about MacOS, which runs on a PPC processor. This minimum system requirements for Nero read:

Pentium 90, 16 MB RAM
12 MB free hard disk space
CD-R, or CD-RW, DVD-R/RW or DVD+RW drive*
Windows 95 / 98 / ME / NT 4.0 / 2000 / XP

Re:Go Nero

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor bastard got a Mac (huh). Try reading the comments before posting crap.

Re:Go Nero

[zaffir]

There are alternative ppc CD-R programs out there, and one of them is called Nero Max. It is NOT the same as the PC's nero, but its out there. You might also try searching google for B's Recorder Gold. It lacks some of the advanced features of Toast, and an English version is VERY had to find, but it might just be the alternative you're looking for.

ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing righ

[ShooterNeo]

Is there anything illegal about a content provider (someone who works his ass off to make content that others might enjoy) saying "ok, you have two choices". "I can leave my new movie in my underwear drawer where noone can see it, or I can sell it to you under the condition that you will only be able to view it with devices that cannot easily copy the movie". Is there anything ammoral with this?

The BIG content providers who make this stuff want to protect their investment. Why shouldn't they try? Some of you have suggested that the whole process is futile ; people will always be able to hack it. The latter may be true, but if the recording companies can make it hard enough (with only allowing DRM devices to play their content, ect) they can make it so that the customer who is "on the fence" between warezing and buying it (i.e. someone who could do either) makes the right choice because warezing it is tedious.

Thus, for the goal that the content providers want : to gain more sales from people who might otherwise pirate; DRM and other techniques may actually work! Now, for the people who cannot or will not buy the content : yeah, they'll warez it...but the anti-piracy measures can make it tougher. By breaking up the big P2P networks, it becomes slightly harder to pirate music. By copy protecting cds, it becomes less convenient for the average customer to burn his friend a copy. Macrovision has stopped many casual copiers.

I'm saying that while us /. pros may be able to blow past just about any protection scheme the content providers devise, we might not buy the content anyway. But for the average joe who's been working all day and just wants to see a movie : he is probably going to get the legitimate copy to avoid all the technical headaches piracy can involve.

While making music may be an art that people do just to enjoy it, making a major movie is anything but. Yes, there are fun parts...but remember, only a few people out of the hundreds that make the movie get to express their creativity. The others have to obey orders "Build this set, clean this trailer, hold this camera like I want it, say these lines but don't call attention to yourself...ect". While movies can be fun, its a lot of work especially for the people who add in all the extras that separate a big budget production from an Indie film. Those people have to be paid, or they are likely to tell the director to go shove it. So if noone paid for movies, films of the quality we currently experience would not be made.

Sorry for the Nero post

[Anonymous Coward]

This was front page Slashdot.org and I didnt know i was in apple.slashdot So there is no apple Nero yet :( My appologies, and now u dont have to waste slashdots bandwidt flaming.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[Anonymous Coward]

So if noone paid for movies, films of the quality we currently experience would not be made.

Given the dreck that Hollywood produces, I think you just shot yourself in the foot...

Piracy

[phunhippy]

I wonder how many people who are complaining about this new restriction are legal users of Toast? I know of maybe.. 20-30 people who use it and only 3 have paid for it....

Kinda amusing.. the restrictions still SUCK thoe.

Re:Piracy

[Visigothe]

Actually in teh Mac universe, most CD-R hardware comes with a copy of Toast. Mine did. It's the most popular burning SW on the mac... assuming you don't count Apple's own authoring support module [used in iTunes and the Finder].

So while true, many have not purchased a copy of Toast per se, they do have a legit version.

.

Re:Piracy

[HiThere]

Well, as a sort of answer:
The last time I considered purchasing a computer one of the choices I considered was a Mac. Partailly because of OSX. But partially because of the built in DVD burner.

Now I decided against it, largely because it was more expensive and because Linux programs tend to be available there later than on the X86 versions. (Software frequently takes a bit of work to adapt to another architecture, and that's not where I want to spend my time.)

Well, the Mac lost out anyway. I choose a different system. But to the extent that I thought writing of DVDs would be controlled by someone else, I would have been *less* interested. As it was, I didn't even buy a DVD. There weren't enough bays in the tower, and something had to go. So it was the DVD. So that's not a *major* consideration. But it was one of the main reasons that I was even considering the Mac.

I'm not sure what Toast is, but I always pay for any commercial software I use. And I dispise DRM vendors. One and all. I will not buy (or use) copy protected software ... except games, and thatexception is only because I consider them "throw-aways". I check for studio affiliation with the MPAA before I see a movie. (This severly limits the list of movies that I will see, but I don't mind that much. Frequently I'm just as glad to have an acceptable excuse .. "Pardon me, do you happen to know if that studio is affiliated with the MPAA? You don't? Well, I guess I'll have to skip that movie then." [If they ask why, then I have a perfect opportunity to explain {well, rant} about the Hollings bills, etc.]) I'm just hoping that "Good News" comes out from an independant studio, as I would hate to skip that.

for anything audio related...

[paradesign]

i just use iTunes. i only use toast for vcds, multiple sessions and other "non standard" disks.

that and toast is horribly unstable on my box, i cant figure out why.

Re:for anything audio related...

[Anonymous Coward]

that and toast is horribly unstable on my box, i cant figure out why.

Probably because it's made by Roxio. Their Windows software (Easy CD Creator) is horrible, crashy garbage.

Re:for anything audio related...

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm glad someone made this point; iTunes is great for audio CDs, and the Apple Disc Burner component is okay for data CDs too. i discovered this when I switched to OSX before Toast was Carbonized. As was already said, Toast is only necessary for "non-standard" discs (of which I think i've only made one, a vcd, in the entire time i've owned a burner).

Re:for anything audio related...

[Alan Partridge]

not fair - Toast is an absolutely fantastic burning pachage, miles better than Nero. Looks to me like the best option is NOT to run the 5.1.4 updater - I haven't and I won't after reading all this.

burning questions

[Aaronius]

Why not just use the burning capabilities of the Finder for ripping off audio. Getting music off a cd and making a copy of it not high-tech stuff. I have Toast and I almost never use except to make linux disc images (which is totally legal -heck, they're giving the stuff away :) As far as I understand it the kind of activities that might be hampered by Toast are the same kinds of things that you can do with iTunes/Finder anyways. The other things don't infringe on anyone's copyright. I am concerned with the idea that Roxio feels like it has to get into the Micosoftesque mindset of making the world brutally safe for capitalism even if this results in making their users' world a suckier place...

Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Zergwyn]

A smart thing to do would be to run Virtual PC. I have an OSX native copy (version 5.x) with Windows 2000 (as well as various flavors of Linux, not important here) and it is perfectly capable of emulating something with as low requirements as Nero quite well. As a general rule, I find that the emulation environment runs around half the speed of the processor as an equivalent P3, so an 800Mhz G4 would be a ~400 P3, give or take. If you have a duel machine this will be slightly higher, but the bigger advantage is devoting a processor to VPC and then being able to do a lot of other stuff.

Oh yeah, and along with Nero I would recommend people find a copy of VirtualDub. Fantastic program, PC only I think, but can convert between a LOT of different video formats quite well. Get the latest version here, but it also may be worth finding an old version around somewhere, 1.3 or something, because it can also convert ASF files to things like AVI/MPEG! Unfortunetly Microsoft strongarmed him to take out the feature, and I don't know if he has been able to put it back yet. Oh, and something many people here will appreciate, it is now GPLed!

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

DUAL! DUAL DUAL DUAL!

You Mac-heads always say DUEL!

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Alan Partridge]

that's not fair - it's AMERICANS that say Duel, Definately, Loose etc etc etc

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[arashi sohaku]

that's not fair - it's AMERICANS that say Duel, Definately, Loose etc etc etc

That's funny. I'm American, and to me, dual and duel are two totally different words.

dual = consisting of two like parts
duel = formal combat between two opponents

Only similarities refer to the number two.

You must mean all those other Americans...

JR

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Reziac]

Does anyone have the ASF=>whatever version of VirtualDub stashed anywhere??

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Alan Partridge]

I do. You know, the ones that post on Slashdot all the time. Not owning a Webster dictionary myself, I do sometimes wonder if it's just American English at work - but people like you seem to confirm that it's just plain ignorance. If we can't rely on nerds to be anal about this kind of crap, we might as well through away our dictionaries now.

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Etcetera]

If you have a duel machine...

Somebody watching Revolutionary Girl Utena a little too much recently?

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Alan Partridge]

I'm terribly sorry, that should have been "throw away". It wasn't underlined you see... :-]

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, please "through" away your dictionary right now. You're just as ignorant as the "duel" people out there, you know that?

Re:Go VPC and Virtual Dub as well.

[Kindaian]

What is an american? To be able to make a distinction between you and the others... i must know first what "one american" is... No offense mean... but... semanticly... Cheers...

Found it years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

cdrecord and cdrdao should fit most (if not all) of your needs.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so I have two questions for you:

- will the "protected content" unprotect itself, once copyright expires?

- will the delivery medium for "protected content" last long enough, to be usable after copyright expiration?

Both questions are important, because copyright protects published works on the premise, that they will fall into public domain. If the publishers don't intend to let the "content" fall into public domain, why should they be able to use copyright protection?

If there was guarantee that answers for both questions are "yes", I bet there would be much less oposition to DRM schemes.

Also, any publisher, who just want to make living, will be OK with limited copyrights. But anyone who wants to milk the audience, will push for maximum control.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[CarrionBird]

"Is there anything ammoral with this? " I you do so by sneaking in the back door and giving an third party control over what my PC does, yes.

Drawing a CLEAR line between...

[3seas]

I really don't want to be one to have to deal with trying to figure out what I can or can't do with a system.

I think the DRM supporters need to focus their efforts on making their dedicated systems that don't allow the user
to do anything by play or run the DRM stuff ony as they intend to allow the consumer.

and then we should have another type of system that allows creativity, innovation, etc.. by and for those who want
such a system.

And so that there is no conflict, the open system simply rejects DRM stuff, where to use DRM stuff on such a system,
a special version of that item must be purchased.

Some of us bought a Computer in order to be creative, and I think it's theift for others to sneek in and take this
away, especially in doing it the little by little way.

Why don't they just go make their own DRM system, or do they know it won't sale? And if so, then isn't it theift by intention?

All I know is that I don't want the maybe it's work, maybe it won't crap wasting my time.

DRM is like a virus infecting and crippling what is otherwise a versatile system.

I rather make a clear distinction between what I can be creative with and not.

I'm not a pirate, and I don't like my creativity being taken from me because others feel they have to muscle in on it.

Re:Drawing a CLEAR line between...

[pjt48108]

"DRM is like a virus infecting and crippling what is otherwise a versatile system."

Hmmm... Do you think maybe SARC could update their virus definitions to include such unwanted downloads? Seems to me that DRM cuts both ways: as much as the Man wants to protect his digital rights, I would want to protect the digital rights to my PC. I think blocking such subterfuge should be incorporated into future antivirus packages.

Re:Piracy = Fair use

[Sunnan]

First of all; as has already been pointed out - the software can not meaningfully separate between copying for your self (spaceshifting, making "mixtapes" for the car or bike) and copying for your friends.

The former is (was?) legal in the US under the Audio Home Recording Act, and the second is legal in many countries. I'm currently in Sweden, where it's legal to give copies of music to up to five friends. (There's an actual legal precedent of that exact number as a guideline. Yes, I agree that this is fucked. Limits should be zero, one or infinity.)

In the meantime

[Choco-man]

use a version of toast below 5.1.4. 5.1.4 doesn't really add anything earthshattering and necessary, and it forces you to agree to unsolicited, unnotified, unreviewed software installation on your machine.

bottom line, don't use the software that offends you. if people stop buying the software, they'll stop doing this sort of thing. use 5.1.2 or whatever version you currently have.

Re:In the meantime

[White Roses]

I installed the 5.1.4 update and for some reason it left 5.1.3 in the folder with it. When I run that copy it says 5.1.3 in the corner and an About... gives me the same number. Not sure why it did this, maybe it's some OS X thing, or the Roxio's update isn't quite thorough enough. I guess I'm glad I didn't delete the old version immediately.

Presumably, you can just delete everything and install the version you purchased. I think the one I originally installed was version 5.0.something.

Besides, as has been pointed out many times already, OS X has adequate CD and DVD creation and burning tools already. To be honest, I'm not sure why I installed Toast . . .

Use the built in stuff

[Kevinv]

Not sure about DVD burning but I got rid of both Toast and Charismac's Discribe and just use the built-in cd burning software.

Does everything I need from burning files or whole .dmg images to cd to making audio cd's via iTunes.

And I don't have to deal with Roxio's obnoxiousness.

Re:Use the built in stuff

[The Infamous Grimace]

"...but I got rid of both Toast and Charismac's Discribe [charismac.com] and just use the built-in cd burning software.

Does everything I need from burning files or whole .dmg images to cd to making audio cd's via iTunes...."

The Finder (or Disk Copy, for that matter) won't copy certain discs that Discribe will. SC: Brood War, for example. And iTunes doesn't copy, it rips to file then burns individual tracks. Makes albums like Pink Floyds The Wall (and a lot of classical stuff) pause between tracks, which isn't how they were intended to be heard. And if you use the default settings, then it rips to mp3 (160) beforing reconverting to wav. There is loss of quality. I personally can hear the difference in RATMs Bulls on Parade from the original and a copy made this way. Set the prefs to WAV to get the best quality sound. 'Course, the file sizes tend to be rather large. I delete the WAVs after burning, and keep just mp3s on my computer.

You also lose any 'extras' that may have been included on the disc. Video clips, for example. Limp Bizkit comes to mind, although I can't remember the album.

Anyways, just MHO.

(tig)

Re:Use the built in stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, CDs use a form of AIFF as their native format not WAVs. If you want to be sure it is in the same format and an exact copy of the orriginal, you should use AIFF format.

Someone also meantioned that Toast is bad because it puts in pauses between songs. Im not sure what Toast you are using but I can set the pause between songs to zero (0) or just about any amount of time to my likeing. Not to meantion you could just do a Disc Copy from within toast which does a bit for bit copy and should be an exact duplicate, includeing extras such as video clips.

Re:Use the built in stuff

[raddan]

Actually, that's not quite right either. Typical audio CDs are PCM formatted as either Red Book or Blue Book audio.

AIFF was a format developed by Apple for whatever reason (I don't know). Really, nowadays, it doesn't really matter whether you prefer WAV or AIFF, since they both support the uncompressed, 44kHz 16-bit audio found on CDs.

Re:Use the built in stuff

[Kevinv]

You can reduce the pause between tracks in the iTunes preferences (you can also use the preferences to have it make MP3 cd's instead of Audio cd's).

You can't grab a bunch AIFF's from an original CD and make a new Audio cd -- that is true, iTunes wants to make them into MP3s first.

I'm pretty sure you can use Disk Copy to duplicate an audio CD (rather than using rip/burn via iTunes -- that was for making custom mix cd's).

Not sure it can do all the game type cd's. some of those have funky protections on them that Disc Copy may get wrong (on purpose?). I haven't tried.

Re:Use the built in stuff

[TWR]

You can't grab a bunch AIFF's from an original CD and make a new Audio cd -- that is true, iTunes wants to make them into MP3s first.

That is false.

iTunes has AIFF importing as an option.

-jon

Re:Use the built in stuff

[Pope]

AIFF was a format developed by Apple for whatever reason (I don't know)

Byte order. Amigas and Ataris, both 68000-based, also used AIFF.

This could be interesting...

[Nomad7674]

It has been my impression that the reason Toast has remained the only player in the Apple MacOS space has been its excellence. It allows you to do almost anything with its toolset, and is so easy to use that even users whose needs are modest enough that Apple's built-in CD-burning would do 99% of what they want go out and buy it. This new move to enforce DRM, if properly publicized, may finally produce an openning for a competitor to get a foothold. Now, it would not be "MacOS Favorite Toast" versus "Windows Invader Brand-X CD Burner." It would be "DRM-enforcer Toast" versus "Freedom Loving Brand-X CD Burner." Easy advertising copy and a ready pool of idealistic users ready to jump on the bandwagon.

Any volunteers?

Old News

[Lysander Luddite]

If you had been paying attention these changes were announced back just before Toast 5 was released. I read it on Maintouch or Maccentral. It took nearly a year for this to appear in the EULA, but is no surprise to me.

Toast is certainly easy to use, but there are other options out there. If you are making audio CDs you can just use iTunes.

If you're backing up other files why not use the built in (X at least) Disk Copy? Again, not the easiest solution, but a possibility.

Re:Old News

[Saint Fnordius]

This may be Roxio's bic problem, as Disc Burner and iTunes are pre-installed and do the job well for so many Mac owners.

As far as third-party drives are concerned, Toast may still be the "tool of choice", but it's not as if they're alone out there. If they get too restrictive (instead of the current token bone thrown to the lawsuit-happy record companies), they may find current users like myself jumping ship.

Heck, Discribe was offered for free as a subscriber's bonus in my last Macwelt issue. I may install that now...

here is some free CD/DVD burning software

[g4dget]

cdrecord

And for an OS without DRM:

Debian

Looks worse than it appears?

[fjms64]

First some context:

- I have a legal copy of Toast.
- I have used Toast since version 4 came out and have been very happy with it.

I am a computer consultant and regularly have to deal with reading contracts, usually written in legalese. While I am not a lawyer, my take of these things is that they are usually worse than they appear. So my take on that clause is that it gives Roxio the right to download updates to you computers at will, even when you are not looking (remember, it is allowed if it is not prohibited).

I dont know many people who would be happy with that. Suppose they decide to download some piece of DRM code which crashes my computer, requiring me to spend a day rebuilding everything. Not good for my business and I cant sue Roxio for that even though they are responsible.

This is not acceptable, it is like letting a car company come into your garage at night to mess with your car without your consent? I know I wouldnt let any car company do that, so why would I let a computer company?

This type of restriction is unacceptable, I have gone back to the previous version of Toast and have let Roxio know about this.

Cheers

Re:Looks worse than it appears?

[antirename]

This is Roxio, the same company responisible for Easy CD Creator 4. Remember what that did to Windows 2K? I don't want anything running on my computer without my knowledge.

Re:Looks worse than it appears?

[colanut]

Look, the EULA mentioning DRM has been in several of the updates. Its nothing new or shocking. My interpretation is that they reserve the right to not get their asses sued by larger corporations. You also have the right to not upgrade as well. There is no device or code in Toast that will dial up and install an upgrade. If anything, future upgrades may or may not be hobbled. At that point the consumer has the right to find other tools, which I would surely do as well.

The blurb for this article is very misleading. There has been no introduction of DRM in the update. I am not prevented from copying discs with 5.1.4. I Disc Copied an audio disc this morning and it was fine. I did try to make a disc image and it barfed much like the reports on Macintouch. I suspect this is another bad update like the several 5.1.2s and not some grand conspiracy to enslave us to the RIAA. However, I'm sticking with 5.1.3 because its stable and there weren't any significant enhancements in 5.1.4 that out weigh the Disc Image issue.

I still consider Roxio on the plus side since they released a FREE update from OS 9 to OS X a year after I purchased Toast in the first place, including the bundled extras. I can't think of many publishers who have done the same. However, if they do introduce solid DRM (is there even such a code in production?) they I will not hesitate to find other tools.

NeroMAX?

[weave]

Nero *was* coming out with a mac version of their cd/dvd burning software for Mac, but all mention of it has disappeared from their web site.

Have a look at the google cache of their home page for proof. :-(

Re:NeroMAX?

[petree]

In fact, neroMax was created. It was never available for download as a trial (like all other versions of Nero for PC), but only available for purchase. In fact it was actually bundled with some burners (Yahama Burners for example), but they never made a version for OSX. Their website said it required MacOS 8.6-9.2 and Classic API with Mac OS X is not supported. So even if this was available still, this wouldn't be a solution (certainly no better than running an older version of toast without these restrictions). But if you are interested in it I know there are copies of it floating around on hotline and on IRC that you could pick up and try out. I don't know that much about the Mac version (only used it once) but I know that their Windows product is far superior to all other burning applictions. By a long shot.

Discribe

[firewort]

http://www.charismac.com/Products/Discribe/discrib edata.html

Discribe for OS X is a great product- simple, does the job, without DRM hassles.

When will the corps learn

[mikethegeek]

That branding your customers as CRIMINALS and treating them as such is poor PR, and only ENCOURAGES what they call "crimes"?

Unfortunately, I suspect soon ALL commercial CD burning programs will have DRM. And when that happens, it may be used as a wedge to kill off OSS/GPL'ed OS's and software, which will most certainly remain on the side of the user.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[Quila]

Is there anything ammoral with this?

According to our system of copyright, yes. In the U.S., copyright is supposed to be a balance between letting producers be compensated enough to keep producing and the "advancement of the arts and sciences" (read: society, the people) with attendant fair use rights.

Producers taking this tact are trying to swing the fine balance we had for almost 200 years too far in their favor.

Maybe not legal

[Quila]

IANAL, but this probably doesn't offer them protection from prosecution or lawsuit if they trash your computer for two reasons:

• The legality of click-wrap license is still debatable, possibly making all text within useless
• Even if you do have a contract with someone, law doesn't allow you to give up basic protections under law. In other words, your little law made by contract doesn't supersede legislated law. And them messing up your computer is illegal.

What about?

[mbbac]

Mac OS X's innate support for CD and DVD burning? Why aren't you using that? Given: there are a few advanced features it doesn't currently offer, but they are rarely needed. And if you need them that often, you should send Apple some feedback about it.

DRM is one reason I've switched to the Mac -- mainly Microsoft's product (de)activation present in their XP products.

Re:What about?

[Tricot]

Apple's hands aren't clean here either. The other day I was watching a DVD, and there was a beautiful picture just before the end-credits.. I paused the playback and fired up "Grab" so I could take a screenshot to use as a backdrop. Grab popped up a dialog saying that all screen-grabbing utilities are disabled during DVD playback. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that taking a single screenshot of a DVD I own is a protected fair-use right. Needless to say, I am not happy, but what am I to do? I'll complain to Apple, but something tells me I'm pissing in the ocean.

How long before apple adds the same restrictions to their software. Admittedly, they ask before you download updates, but what's to stop them from sneaking in a "DRM cleaning program" into an update.

-- Mitch

Re:What about?

[mbbac]

I believe there is a technical reason for this, not a DRM reason. There is a similar issue under Windows. If you try to grab a screenshot of any video on the screen, you'll get a purple rectangle instead of the video in the screenshot. It's due to the method that is used to push the video to the screen.

This may not be an issue with Quartz Extreme, as I hear the video and UI graphics are containing in one accelerated stream.

I'm not 100% sure of any of this.

Re:What about?

[Tricot]

Third part screenshot programs fail for technical reasons (I suspect that the DVD decoding hardware is writing directly to video memory), but Apple's won't even let you attempt to take the screenshot, it just pops up a dialog saying that you're not allowed, even if there are other things on the screen that would come out fine (the DVD player controls for instance)

--Mitch

.

Re:What about?

[Molz]

Actually SnapsPro can take DVD screen shots if you have a nVidia GPU.

Also, in Jaguar, you can take screen shots of DVD's using grab.

Re:What about?

[mbbac]

They probably do that because they know the screenshot won't come out right.

Just FYI

[sulli]

You can't commit mass murder with an iPod.

Re:Just FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

A conglomerate of 4 companies not making as much money as they would like and people being killed are not exectly the same thing.

Re:Just FYI

[thales]

Fine, another example. When I was in Singapore in the mid 80's It was against the law to sell Chewing gum. Some people spit it out on the sidewalks and the city was tired of cleaning up after slobs, so they banned gum for everybody.

When you abuse a right you invite the enaction of stronger laws, and it fucks up the people who aren't abusing the right too.

Re:Just FYI

[sulli]

Maybe so, but unlike in Singapore ("Asian values" = caning) we have a tradition of individual rights. So, piracy notwithstanding, the onus is on us to protect such rights, and exercise them, and show no respect to those who would take them away in the name of their own convenience and fifth avenue mansions.

Re:Just FYI

[sporty]

It'd be funny to see though. "Put the iPod down." *thunk*

Re:Just FYI

[Steve Franklin]

So some moron in the Midwest puts cyanide in a couple of Tylenol capsules and for the rest of recorded history we have to fight with every bottle we buy to try to get it open without getting a hernia or getting so angry we throw it against the wall in frustration? There's a point at which the "cure" is worse than the disease. And the idiots who enact these damned laws are the very same fools who claim to have so much "faith-in-god" they get upset when a court tells them they can't shove a religiously tainted pledge down my throat. Sounds to me like a bunch of unbelievers trying to save themselves from their own just rewards. And I'm an atheist.

Get used to it! The world is a dangerous place! It has to be if evolution is to work properly. Otherwise you are going to end up with a species of decrepit subhumans who need machines to wipe their own butts. You want to live in the womb all your life you should never have come out.

I used to tape folk music off of the radio with an Ampex reel-to-reel when I was a boy. Nobody tried to arrest me for piracy.
_____
Dear moderator. I am not a troll. You call me one I am going to file a formal complaint against you. Telling the truth does not constitute trolling in this or any alternate universe.

Re:Just FYI

[Mr. McGibby]

And I'm an atheist.

Really? I couldn't tell by reading the first part of your comment.

And the idiots who enact these damned laws are the very same fools who claim to have so much "faith-in-god" they get upset when a court tells them they can't shove a religiously tainted pledge down my throat. Sounds to me like a bunch of unbelievers trying to save themselves from their own just rewards.

Re:Just FYI

[dbrutus]

When you abuse a privilege you screw it up for everybody. Rights are remain such even when people screw them up. Take a look at a majority of the US bill of rights for examples. 1st amendment heroes are very often scumbags. By your logic we should eliminate free speech on legitimate topics such as elections because some jerks distribute child porn.

No. It just doesn't fly.

Re:Just FYI

[Juanvaldes]

That reminds me of SouthPark this week...."put the walkie-talkie down...PUT IT DOWN NOW!!!"

Re:Just FYI

[issachar]

now that's funny...

I find it interesting that he's convinced that child-proof safety caps are all the doing of religious people. It sounds to me like he's one of those people I meet every once in a while who are convinced that all the things in this world they disagree with come from a single group of people. In contrast, I tend to think that this world is full of people, some of whom will share my opinions to greater or lesser degrees. His way of looking at the world sounds a bit paranoid if you ask me. (It's all THESE PEOPLE! It's ALL THEIR fault!)... pathetic if you ask me...

.

Re:Just FYI

[Kindaian]

In Portugal, your rights end where the other people rights start.

As for protection of rights and punishment of wrongs it is due to the courts and the authorities, not to the individual personnes.

As for the 5000tons gorillas... it is all very cool, but they can kill you with just legal paperwork... and you can't do nothing to protect yourself against that.

As someone said... justice is has a blind eye, but it weights the pockets of both sides... and the scale is never leveled...

Cheers...

Re:Just FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

but but IT IS!!!!

Re:Just FYI

[Max Webster]

I dunno... a pair of big speakers and a big Celine Dion / Whitney Houston playlist...

Re:Just FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the consequence of the cyanide killer is the foil seal and printed neckband. Takes 5 seconds, tops, to remove them. The reason you have to fight with every bottle of Tylenol is because some idiots are too stupid to keep bottles of medicine out of the reach of their 11 month old children and the rest of us are treated as if we are no smarter.

Re:Just FYI

[Steve Franklin]

I really have to start aiming lower. ;o)

Re:welp

[feldsteins]

Uh...it isn't Apple who's done this. It's Roxio. Slow down your itchy Apple-bashing trigger finger next time killer.

And rise above your name.

I bought it 1 month ago.

[_PimpDaddy7_]

I bought a legit copy of Titanium Toast 1 month ago.

Is the EULA change unlawful outside the US?

[inputsprocket]

Just an observation.
You can download the 10.1.4 update by selecting USA/Canada as your country (which is selected by default), but if you switch country options to the UK you can only download 10.1.3.

Could this be because of the EULA change being unlawful outside the US?

Re:Is the EULA change unlawful outside the US?

[inputsprocket]

ehm, my last post read: 5.1.4 and 5.1.3 -- OS X updates on the brain, clearly

One word: Nero

[Anonymous Coward]

We got new PCs at work a few months ago, and they came with Easy CD Creator. What a POS... system hangs, BSODs, 3 coasters for every successfully burned CD. We yanked it out (trick: you have to stop the background system tray icon process before you can use the uninstaller) and replaced it with Nero Burning ROM. Nero works every time, can take Mp3s (and several other formats) straight to audio CD (for those of us too cheap to buy mp3-capable CD decks for the car) and can also write *video CDs* from your real/windows media video files. Pretty cool. And we haven't had a single coaster yet.

Re:One word: Nero

[bofkentucky]

EZCDCreator's little task bar utility does suck, I finally killed it and things work great on my XP Pro machine. My CD-RW (TDK 24x10x40) shiped with Nero, but would only encode 5 songs to MP3, so I decided to tell them to piss-off.

Re:Piracy = Fair use

[Alsee]

legal to give copies of music to up to five friends.

** Begins madly scribbling notes **

Step 1: Grab source to random open source P2P.
Step 2: Create counter for each file. Initialize to 5.
Step 3: For each file request add user to Buddy list.
Step 4: Decrement file counter.
Step 5: Send file.

P.S.
Version 2.0
BUG FOUND: Program is still sending the file when counter reaches zero.
EXPLANATION: Forgot to check the counter.
BUG FIX: Insert "Step 4.5: test counter", do not send file if counter = zero.

Version 3.0
BUG FOUND: Program no longer sending file when counter is zero, but then resumes sending the file on subsequent requests.
EXPLANATION: Counter is erroneously decremented past zero and rolls over to MAXINT.
BUGFIX: Should test for zero BEFORE decrementing the counter.

Version 4.0
BUG FOUND: Some files still being sent 1000's of times.
EXPLANATION: Rollover bug in versions 1 and 2 left many files with corrupted counters set to MAXINT.
BUG FIX: Reset all counters to 5.

Versions 5.0
BUG FOUND: Program send each file up to 5 times each session.
EXPLANATION: Counters erroneously being reset to 5 during program initialization.
BUGFIX: Mover code to reset counters from program initialization to the installer.

Version 6.0
BUGS FOUND: NONE! YAY!
This release improves speed, stability, and ease of use.

Version 7.0
BUG FOUND: Files that shouldn't be sent anymore are being sent again.
EXPLANATION: When installing new version the counter is always reset to 5.
BUGFIX: Only reset corrupted counters. If counter = MAXINT then reset counter to 5.

VERSION 8.0
BUG FOUND: Version 7.0 is still allowing some files corrupted by versions 1 and 2 to be sent 1000's of times.
EXPLANATION: Corrupted counters may have been further decremented past MAXINT.
BUG FIX: Reset counter if counter > 5.

ToDo for version 9.0:
Add international support. Different countries have different limits on how many times files may be shared. This will complicate the counter code signifigantly. Perhaps counter should start at zero and count upwards? Will require much debugging.

-

DRM collusion?

[whovian]

I just can't seem to understand why hardware manufacturers are playing ball with Big Media. If there were ever a lawsuit against a hw company for copyright infrngement, wouldn't they simply point the blame at the user for the "misuse"? In my mind implementation of DRM make hw manufacturers responsible for their users' actions.

If DRM-in-hardware were to effectively kill off open OS development and use, what are the chances that the DRM hardware companies be charged with collusory practices? Will there be "open hardware"?

BURN ISO IN OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

For those OS X users out their still wondering how to properly BURN AN ISO (like PPC Linux):

1. Open the program diskcopy.app in /applications/utilities
2. Hit control-B, or go to images then burn
3. Choose the ISO to burn to a disk

Now does anyone know how to erase CD-RW's in OS X. Who needs roxio!

Apple CD Burning Support

[lucid rinehead]

A few people have mentioned this...it would probably be a good solution if it actually supported my drive (a Formac Designer)... aww well

Let's Combat this stuff with Better Ideas

[RhettLivingston]

When owners of entertainment data choose to support the creation of and enforce draconian copyright rules and decisions like we've seen in the last few years, we need to stop reacting and step back and realize that it is there choice and right to do so.

The only lasting answer to recent developments in this area is to create a GPL like data movement. Perhaps a fund/website combination for the creation of public domain entertainment would be in order. The website could attract initial interest by becoming a major distributor of existing public domain data. Contributions could be collected that would go towards the creation of new data on a non-profit basis to be immediately released to the public upon completion. Actually, maybe even before completion. It would be nice to have all raw footage and raw musical recordings made during creation available the day it happens. The community could be involved in deciding what gets funded and in the "directing" or "mixing" during the process.

iSlashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this page is really lickable!

Re:iSlashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this page is really lickable!

But do the snozberries taste like snozberries?

Whaaa?

[overunderunderdone]

I'm sorry but what did this post have to do with the story? Roxio is not Apple and Apple hasn't crippled their CD burning in iTunes or the Finder the way Roxio has with Toast.

The BSD people where so desperate for someone to use their os that they didn't realize this is just another corporate exploitation...

I don't know that "desperation" was part of it. That is the whole POINT of the BSD license (well at least part of the point). They WANT their software used as widely as possible, even by money grubbing corporations.

What exactly is wrong with being a money grubbing corporation anyway? How exactly do you feed and clothe yourself? Subsistance farming? Even if you are working for a non-profit, the government or a university where do you think the money people donate came from? Sure "money grubbing" can be taken to obnoxious and even evil extremes but "money grubbing" seems to be a necessary and in itself morally neutral activity.

I would have thought slashdot people would at least be able to see through apples marketing hype but i guess not.

I think we can. At best the marketing hype gives some indication as to HOW a company may try to "grub for money" and they will abandon "enlightened" money grubbing methods if they fail to grub enough money. I'd even argue that they have a higher moral obligation to do so than to make you happy with their enlightened policy. They are responsible to pay their employees paychecks & benefits and still have enough left over to fund the retirements of many thousands of people who bought the stock in their IRA or own it through their employee pension fund. If you like their product enough to give them your money then you have nothing to complain about. If you don't like their product enough to give them money in return for it (or if you ARE a subsistance farmer to barter a few chickens & a cow) then they will change it so that you DO like it - because they are money grubbing and it's your money (or chickens) they want to grub.

Re:Whaaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is wrong with being a money grubbing corporation anyway? How exactly do you feed and clothe yourself? Subsistance farming? Even if you are working for a non-profit, the government or a university where do you think the money people donate came from? Sure "money grubbing" can be taken to obnoxious and even evil extremes but "money grubbing" seems to be a necessary and in itself morally neutral activity.

This is only true under western capitalist systems based on exploitation of labour and hoarding of land.

Re:Piracy = Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really find this funny ?

Flame bait!

[Anonymous Coward]

Flame bait!

Re: iTunes Beats Toast...

[alfredo]

There is no comparison. Toast crashes iTunes burns. Screw Roxio.

I don't burn much, just back ups. Mostly I just copy to my drive for the convenience of using iTunes at my puter.

OT: desirous of sick sig

[Anonymous Coward]

"a host is a host from coast to coast...

Ya got any more of that sig, boy?

Couldn't find anything like that on a couple of lyric search engines. It looks like just the thing to bug the hell out of my section head

Re:OT: desirous of sick sig

[HiThere]

It sounds to me like some permutation of the theme song from Mr. Ed, though for some reason I haven't been able to track down I also thought of Topper (the TV series loosely based on the Thorne Smith books).

Re:OT: desirous of sick sig

[firewort]

The full sig:

A host is a host
from coast to coast
but no one uses the host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead.

Computers be computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmf, Seems kinda pointless. Whatever form this
DRM stuff takes, seems like it will be trivial to disable it. I remember shortly after the broken cds were released, the instructions for ripping them off the cd were posted right here on slashdot. I can see it now:

RoxioCdCreator 12,453,234 DRM free version [0-day]

Use Apple's own...

[DuckWing]

Use Apple's own Burn program. It's part of OS X and interfaces with iTunes. You don't have to look very far, or did you look at all?

DRM in general

[oscar the grouch]

Let's try to look at the bright side of DRM and things like Palladium. The existence of a mechanism that disallows unauthorized execution of software should allow users to return and get a refund on some piece of crap that doesn't work as advertised, that has only one good song on it, etc. This whole ridiculous policy of "no returns of opened software" should just disappear, and if it does, so will the purveyors of garbage wrapped in pretty boxes. I would happily pay even $30 for a CD if I knew that I could get my money back because, after a week, I decided that the CD didn't live up to my expectations. Believe me, at $30 I'd still be ahead. I have no problem with rights management as long as the rights cut both ways.

Re:DRM in general

[spitzak]

If you think they are going to allow refunds because of this you are sadly deluded.

Can't see why you'd use it in the first place

[devnull17]

I can't see why anyone would use anything by Roxio anyway. The Windows counterpart of Toast (Easy CD Creator) has contributed even more to my coaster collection than AOL has. I've never met someone who's used it extensively without running into serious problems.

Re:Can't see why you'd use it in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Because toast was originally written by Adaptec, and only recently bought by Roxio.

Re:Can't see why you'd use it in the first place

[devnull17]

So was Easy CD Creator. Roxio is, actually, a spin-off of Adaptec.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[mttlg]

Is there anything illegal about a content provider (someone who works his ass off to make content that others might enjoy) saying "ok, you have two choices". "I can leave my new movie in my underwear drawer where noone can see it, or I can sell it to you under the condition that you will only be able to view it with devices that cannot easily copy the movie". Is there anything ammoral with this?

This is fine as long as people who legally purchase this content can give the content creator the finger and either:

a. bypass the copy protection for legal uses, or

b. choose similar content from other creators that is not similarly crippled.

DRM is only truly effective if bypassing it is illegal (and inclusion in hardware and software is mandatory) and non-DRM content is rejected by DRM devices. Otherwise, it is just like Macrovision, which prevents casual users from using the content they purchase in many legal ways while remaining completely useless against anyone who can buy a $50 signal cleaner. The Average Joe gets screwed, while the "pirate" is only out $50.

The BIG content providers who make this stuff want to protect their investment.

No, they want to preserve their monopoly on content creation, which guarantees future profits. To do this, they need to maintain control of their market, which they want to accomplish through technological and legal means instead of through the quality of their products.

Why shouldn't they try?

Because in doing so, they are criminalizing fair use and unfairly restricting competition by branding anything not authorized by them as "piracy." Since the technology can't tell piracy from fair use, they want to remove the distinction entirely.

Some of you have suggested that the whole process is futile ; people will always be able to hack it. The latter may be true, but if the recording companies can make it hard enough (with only allowing DRM devices to play their content, ect) they can make it so that the customer who is "on the fence" between warezing and buying it (i.e. someone who could do either) makes the right choice because warezing it is tedious.

And what about the legitimate uses that will be more tedious if done the "right" way? The same logic would make a great case for lost sales that would result if people are restricted from choosing how they want to use the content they purchase.

Thus, for the goal that the content providers want : to gain more sales from people who might otherwise pirate; DRM and other techniques may actually work!

Or they may drive away potential customers who don't like being treated like criminals for wanting to use what they buy. DRM can only work if all content uses it and there is no non-DRM alternative. This is the truly scary part.

Now, for the people who cannot or will not buy the content : yeah, they'll warez it...but the anti-piracy measures can make it tougher. By breaking up the big P2P networks, it becomes slightly harder to pirate music.

And it becomes harder to distribute independently created music. Remember how the RIAA wanted to clean up Napster? They wanted Napster to only allow the distribution of material that the content creator had specifically authorized Napster to distribute. This goes beyond "protecting" their works and impedes the distribution of works that are given away freely or are (if there are any) in the public domain, effectively giving the RIAA control over this distribution channel.

By copy protecting cds, it becomes less convenient for the average customer to burn his friend a copy.

Legitimate uses also become less convenient, decreasing the value of the product. If a price cut corresponding to the decrease in functionality does not accompany DRM, sales will drop.

But for the average joe who's been working all day and just wants to see a movie : he is probably going to get the legitimate copy to avoid all the technical headaches piracy can involve.

He would probably also want to avoid all the technical headaches that come with legitimate copies "protected" with DRM or some similar scheme. Of course, people seem to be putting up with Windows XP, so maybe most people enjoy that sort of treatment...

While making music may be an art that people do just to enjoy it, making a major movie is anything but.

Define "major." The technology needed to create something that would have been considered "major" a few years ago is now available to the masses at relatively low cost. As the tools to create movies become more readily available and the means to distribute them (P2P) remain available, the number of hobbyists will increase, resulting in an amateur talent pool similar to that of music.

While movies can be fun, its a lot of work especially for the people who add in all the extras that separate a big budget production from an Indie film.

But are these added expenses needed to produce something good? Even the worst of Hollywood movies take in millions of dollars in ticket sales, while the best of small budget films can go unnoticed. This is because the studios can get anything on a thousand screens - but what happens if more people start getting their movies from the internet instead of the theater? The studios don't have control over that distribution channel yet, and it takes more than just a few billions of dollars to get this control - it takes technology and laws. This is where some of our favorite acronyms (DMCA, DRM, SSSCA/CBDTPA, etc.) fit in.

So if noone paid for movies, films of the quality we currently experience would not be made.

What's wrong with that? If nobody is willing to pay for something, then it probably shouldn't be made. It certainly shouldn't be forced on people so they will have to spend money on something they don't want. However, there are two flaws with your argument, and both can be seen in the latest Adam Sandler movie:

1. There will always be people who will pay to see complete and utter crap.

2. Too many of the movies made today are complete and utter crap.

Making a good movie doesn't have to be expensive - even basic digital effects can be done with a few thousand dollars of equipment and the desire to learn and create. The key is a good script, and that usually requires creative freedom without influence from high-level management. Cut out the overhead and you can get a quality production at a low cost, which, if given the opportunity, could easily make its money back through viewings and direct sales. This, not "piracy," is the real threat to the copyright cartel - small content creators producing content that appeals to focused demographics, eroding the potential audience for mainstream watered down crap. With current technology and the ever-present desire to create, the creation of complex productions and the widespread distribution of them can be accomplished by anyone who chooses to do so - the cartels are no longer necessary. This is why you will see more DRM and more restrictive "protection," all backed up by law - the customer is also the enemy.

Toast 5.1.3 updater

[andyring]

After reading this, with my brand-new copy of Toast sitting on the floor next to me waiting to go home, I poked around the Macintouch discussion about Toast. Seems that this language has been in the updater EULA for a few versions.

But, it also sounds like people have experienced a lot more trouble with 5.1.4, and don't still have their 5.1.3 updater handy to downgrade. I dig around for a while and found it on Roxio's Japan site. Feel free to download it from my personal server.

A Very Simple Solution

[errxn]

Don't upgrade.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[Gonarat]

- will the "protected content" unprotect itself, once copyright expires?

It seems like the MPAA and RIAA companies are trying eliminate this "problem" through DRM and legislation. The "Sonny Bono" act et al have already eliminated anything from 1923 on going into the public domain for at least 20 years (from 1997). They won't have to worry about it again until 2017 -- then just add another x years. At the rate things are going, my Grandchildren (my daughter is only 11, so they are not even a gleam in anyone's eye yet) will be dead and buried before anything comes out of copyright.

The *AA companies want to have their cake and eat it too -- and DRM is just another tool to get their way. They aren't worried about what happens when a work goes into the public domain since they do not intend for that to ever happen. Scary, ain't it?

Obligatory "Dumb people are stupid" post

[pbrice68]

Dumb people think they're smart, but smart people know better.

Legal copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought that it was *legal* for me to make a copy of a CD for, say, me to listen to in the car... I mean, I kinda have a problem with leaving a $15 CD ($1 to make, $0.50 to the artist, and $13.50 to the recording company) in my car on a hot summer day. But, a *copy*... hey, if it melts or warps or whatever, I just burn a new one off my original...

This is *supposed* to be legal, "fair use". Yet, now they are making CD's with copy protection.. trying to stop me from making a copy because I *MIGHT* try to give it away illegally.

Where does it stop? "We are going to install GPS steering software in your car, and take control away from you because you *might* lose control and die in an accident.."

Oh wait.. I know... the ultimate Big Brother.. haven't seen the movie yet, but...

"We're going to arrest/kill you, because you *might* commit a crime tomorrow".

What's wrong with apple's burning software?

[billybob]

It works great for me, no problems at all. Burning audo cds, mp3 cds, data cds, disc images of jaguar downloaded from carracho.... :) Why fix what aint broke? I've never had one single problem. What's so exciting about toast?

The sad progression of Astarte - Adaptec - ...

[joe_n_bloe]

Toast was such a cool piece of software when it was "young" and when the CD ROM burner we had at home was a 4x Yamaha that cost $3500. I met one of the developers at WWDC (all the way from Europe) back in the mid-90s. He bragged about how the next release would have "drag and drop" and I admit, it was moderately exciting to hear.

Now it's just another crappy piece of commodity consumerware with requirements developed by a banal brew of marketroids and lawyers.

At least I still have cdrecord and cdrdao.

How is this going to add shareholder value?

[artemis67]

I know that if I was a shareholder of ROXI, I'd be pissed right about now. They are taking on a battle that they don't need to fight, and treating the customer as a criminal.

The only thing this is going to result in is a decrease in sales for Roxio, as people turn to alternative CD burning apps. As a management decision, it's just plain stupid and somebody needs to be fired.

Re:How is this going to add shareholder value?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were a shareholder in Roxio, you would realized that they are essentially fucked and you would sell.

Roxio was one of those companies like QuarterDeck or Trumpet that only survived by selling functionality that MS hadn't got around to including in the OS. Now that CD/DVD burning software is included in Windows XP and all other major OSes, there's no need for Roxio anymore. (That's probably why Adaptec got them off their books in the first place.)

So, they are in survival mode, and are basically for sale to the highest bidder. Along comes the record companies with a big pile of cash ... As a shareholder, I would say take it -- because becoming someone's buttboy is the only chance they've got.

Re:How is this going to add shareholder value?

[artemis67]

Actually, I do my CD burning at work, where I have a G4 Mac running OS X. CD burning capability is built into the OS; it's really quite sweet. You mount the blank CD as if it were a drive, drag files to it to que them, and when you are ready to eject the CD, it burns it. All at the OS level. Very nice.

Except for one thing... As it's copying files to the que, it increases the time to make a CD by a factor of 1/2. Ugh. Not fun if you've got a lot of CD's you want to burn (and no, you can't copy the files directly to the que yourself). And, IIRC, there's no verification (someone correct me on this).

Toast is still the preferred way to burn CD's on a Mac, IMO. It's fast, it verifies, it has a wide variety of options.

Unrestricted control a must for small artists

[jcl5m]

I know from a small filmmaking background, the ability to copy move and manipulate media (audio or video) is an absolute necessity for small time filmmaking, or any other multimedia work for that matter. If can't use your favorite CD as a sound track for a short film you are making, you stuck with making your own music (or hiring a small band to make some for you). Neither of these are realistic options for a guy siting in front of his iMac.

It's also rather out of character for Apple to be depending on a third party to provide such a key piece of software. Chances are if new restrictions are introduced that inhibit Apple's "vision" they'll either buy Roxio, or release thier own piece of software that lack those restrictions. However, it may come in a pro/non-pro version ala Quicktime.

Re:Unrestricted control a must for small artists

[glennrrr]

A bit off topic, but I worked at a company, sonicdesktop.com, which sells software to add background music to videos along with hundreds of CDs filled with royalty free music. The value added is the software which can rearrange the music to fit a given length of video. Much more professional than trying to fit a clip of music from your CD collection into 5 seconds of video and have it make sense. And you aren't violating anybodies copyright.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[HiThere]

I would generally prefer that they leave it in their sock drawer. I would certainly prefer that they leave it their to their getting laws passed that restrict my rights.

Generally I neither listen to their music, watch their flicks, nor desire to do either. That they should buy laws that restricts my rights to use my computer as I choose in order to protect their profits makes me wish they would all go bankrupt a year ago. Or more.

They have no inherent right to stay in business. None. The copyright laws are authorized in the constitution for the purpose of distributing knowledge. Not for restricting it. When the copyright is used to restrict the distribution of knowledge, then it has transgressed against the foundation that gives it the right to special protection. (Sorry, I may have copyrights and patents confused here. I'd need to look it up to be certain. But if I don't have the wording correct, I have the intention correct.)

I do not consider that the "Masters of the Media" have demonstrated that they are a net good for the country. I consider them more like unto heroin. And that they do not deserve any special protection.

You could argue, with reason, that the artist is deserving of special protections. But these corporations aren't artists. George Lucas may be an artist. George Lucas Productions is not. George Lucas may deserve reasonable copyright protection. George Lucas Productions does not. Corporations are not people. Companies are not people. People are people. I can conceive that a GM rabbit might be a person. I can conceive that an AI might be a person. But a company or a corporation is a fundamentally different kind of entity. And while the people who operate within the company may have rights, the company only has power. Certainly it doesn't seem to have much in the way of ethics or morals. Well, that's not proof. Many people don't seem to have much of those either. But they could. They have the capability. Companies and corporations don't have that capability. At best they can have directors and management that have ethics and morals. And some do. But directors and management are subject to change.

Just use Apple's default stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X's native CD and DVD burning stuff works great. Why would a Mac owner give a damn about Toast?

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[(startx)]

two words if your trying not to spam.

1) Preview
2) button

combine them and you wont post 15 of the same comment

Why use a product at all?

[daviddennis]

CD burning is built into MacOS X and works great.

D

Re:Why use a product at all?

[Pope]

Because Disc Burner doean't support my SCSI HP cd writer?!
Besides, Toast 5 offered backgroung burning in MacOS 9, which was worth the upgrade alone. I can also make many more different types of CDs with Toast than I can with Disc Burner, which as I said before, doesn't work with my burner.

Re:Why use a product at all?

[firewort]

Sure, but it doesn't do all that a product can do. It's a nice simple solution, but with simplicity you lose the ability to do advanced things, such as:

Supports DVD Audio and Video formats using UDF (Universal Disk Format)
* Supports data writes using UDF
* Supports writing the CD Extra format
* Supports writing of Video CDs
* Direct CD to CD copy allows you to copy from any CD-ROM drive to your writer
* Can cache Disc to Disc image file to hard disk prior to writing.
* Supports disc verification after writing data discs
* Supports mastering bootable CD-ROMs for Mac OS 9
* Allows true hybrid (HFS and ISO-9660) disc creation with HFS link to ISO partition for shared information
* Multiple Orange book mastering modes including: Track-at-Once, Disc-at-Once, Multi-Session, and Multi-Volume
* Supports ISO-9660 and ISO 9660 XA file formats with automatic and manual character conversion options
* Firewire driver is iTunes and DiscBurner compatible and SDAP compliant, no need for multiple extensions sets to accomplish one task

They are completely different things

[JudgeFurious]

but his analogy remains sound. Your visible "horror" at the thought of a Thompson machine gun is coming through in your writing and I would assert that this makes you completely unqualified to judge the accuracy of the point he was trying to make. You are negatively biased in this situation.

the coming underground

[wuHoncho]

This will undoubtably create an underground society of people who refuse to accept DRM and use non-DRM systems to continue what they love doing now that DRM will deny them - interacting with the public domain.

Is commercially-produced content "better" than non-commerical content? Yes, they pay money to get better results out of their efforts. That's capitalism.

Open Source will not die as long as there is some form of compensation to the people who contribute software/content to the public domain.

Diverting rivers

[dbrutus]

Yeah, everybody knows you should leave that to the guys from Chicago.

Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[Aqua OS X]

This was posted to VerionTracker.com last night.

I am the Toast product manager. I wanted to set the facts straight with respect to the 'Restrictions' section in the end user license agreement (EULA) that is displayed at installation of Toast 5.1.4 and Jam 5.0.1 (both the latest versions of our software). 1) Toast and Jam do not include any digital rights management (DRM) software. 2) Toast and Jam do not dynamically download and update any software on your system, either automatically behind the scenes, or upon your request. 3) Toast and Jam do not store and collect any personally identifiable information about you or what you record, or transmit anything to Roxio, any of its partners, or any content provider. 4) Toast and Jam do not restrict you from recording any content that you have the legal right to use. Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components. Hence, the language in the EULA. Our EULAs are shared across both products because it saves time and money with respect to legal, documentation and translation into multiple languages. So no need to worry. All is well with Toast. Thank you for your continued support. Regards, The Toast Product Manager BTW - yes, you'll see that I have given our product 5 stars. I couldn't resist.

Can someone update this story or what? Moreover, next time I adise -using- this software before posting a rant to slashdot ;)

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[bnenning]

Whether the current version of Toast actually contains malware is irrelevant. The point is that by changing the license agreement, they are claiming the right to install crap on your computer at any point in the future without further notice, and that sucks.

As others have mentioned, Toast is unnecessary under Mac OS X anyway; Disk Copy and iTunes should do everything you need without DRM shackles.

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[El Destructo]

Notice that the manager makes no comment on whether Toast will include DRM in the future, a modification that this EULA update is expressly designed to enable.

They're asking us to accept unsolicited, undocumented updates to the software at any time they see fit. I highly doubt this is being done for our benefit.

--El Destructo, Toast user since 1994

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, can you please explain to me why Toast does not yet have the ability to burn bootable OSX CD's???

from Roxio's Discussion boards:

Author: gundark
Rank: Roxio Moderator
Date: 06/11/0211:14PM ShowUserProfile

1) You cannot create an OS X bootable CD with Toast right now.
2) You must be in OS 9 to create a bootable CD for OS 9.
Blessed basically means that it is the bootable System folder on any volume.

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[vegetablespork]

Uh, yeah. We said we can 0wn your PC, but we don't really mean it. Pardon me for not believing that.

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[rreay]

As others have mentioned, Toast is unnecessary under Mac OS X anyway; Disk Copy and iTunes should do everything you need without DRM shackles.

I need to make Hybrid CDs. Toast is the only SW I know of that can do that. What options do I have?

-rr

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[0x0d0a]

a) So if this is really the product manager, why does roxio.com have nothing whatsoever like this, a disclaimer or anything, on their website? Toast is their big product, and they're publicly traded. You'd think bad PR is something they'd want to quash.

b) If they have no intention of ever hitting users with DRM stuff, why the license agreement making users agree to allow Roxio control over their system?

c) If this doesn't make you a wee bit suspicious about Roxio and DRM, then you're naive.

d) The people at Roxio are not nice folks -- they went after the excellent Open Source project cdrtoaster (a Tk front end to cdrecord) as being trademark infringement and forced a name change.

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because under OS X you can no longer copy the Finder and System files to a disk and boot it. I think OS X requires a little bit more than that, especially for the BSD layer.

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[hyperturbopete]

hhhhmmmmm

So Toast and Jam users have this guy's assurance, that desptite what the EULA says, they're gonna be nice and won't pull any DRM or auto-updates or any funny stuff on unsuspecting users.

Not at all reassuring, but whatever. I actually liked easy CD creator for windows, and i've used Toast for macs- its a great tool, and will continue to be one for making CDs full of files.

My recommendation is to continue to use Toast / Jam / CD creator until you can no longer make audio CDs from mp3's, and if / when that day comes, switch to another program. end of story.

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[Aqua OS X]

Regardless of whether or not he is the product manager. The latest Toast update does not install DRM software. Anyone that has run it and played with it for 5 minutes can tell you that. This is simply just another bug fix with support for more optical drives.

Many mac user have been avoiding this update for fear that it will cripple their copy of Toast. This update does no such thing. So update away.

This EULA could be a sign of things to come, or simply move that will require the drafting of one less pain-in-the-butt legal document. Who knows....and, seriously, who really cares. Apple's iTunes, DiskCopy, and System burning software allow one to duplicate, rip, and burn, Data and Audio CDs.

Re:Toast does NOT CONTAIN DRM Software

[Ruzty]

As others have mentioned, Toast is unnecessary under Mac OS X anyway; Disk Copy and iTunes should do everything you need without DRM shackles.

Ever tried to download and burn a bootable i386 FreeBSD CD using Disk Copy? No? I didn't think so...
I need Toast to burn bootable OS CDs for the other OSen I use since th only burner I own is in my TiBook.
-Rusty

Why a Mac owner would give a damn about Toast

[zerocircle]

How about multisession burning? Or controlling the CD-audio subcode? (F'rinstance, I always disable the SCMS bit on my mix CDs.) Plenty of reasons to use third-party burning software. And Roxio is far from the only third party.

Of course, blurring that party line, Apple just bought Emagic, publisher of several pro audio production and mastering tools -- including WaveBurner Pro, my choice for audio CD mastering and IMHO a ton better than Jam. I actually bought Toast with Jam but returned it due to (1) crossfade limitations and (2) WaveBurner Pro having a far better visual interface.

WB Pro does audio mastering right, but I still need a good tool for data burning; I was going to just get Toast sans Jam, but with this DRM news I may be shopping for an alternative.

Re:Why a Mac owner would give a damn about Toast

[Pope]

What were the fade limits in Jam? I've only used the 2.x versions, and they seemed to work fine. Granted, mine needs were simple.

Re:Piracy = Fair use

[Akoma The Immortal]

Don't you?

It seems that anyone whom has write proprams with boundary checks will feel a slight pain reading this little gem. I know I have :)

Lighten up man, live is short!!

Get 5.1.3 here:

[azav]

http://softwareupdates.roxio.com/gm/Products/en/To ast/Titanium/v5/Toast_513_Ti_Updater.hqx

The last update without DRM

You may also want to investigate Discribe. It doens't have DRM.

No Roxio Software - Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I have suffered so much grief and so many wasted hours with horrendously buggy software from Adaptec/Roxio on Wintel (e.g. Easy CD Destroyer nuking Win 2K), that about a year ago I made it my personal policy NEVER to use Roxio products again, no matter how many name changes they try to hide behind. I'm surprised that so many of you still put up with them. For me life is too short to troubleshoot their products 10% of my waking hours.

Don't forget hdiutil and hdid

[Anonymous Coward]

hdiutil and hdid also work.

Does anyone here know how to create an iso with mkisofs that preserves type/creator codes on hfs filesystems. I tried 'man mkisofs' and have no idea how to make the mapping files. Perhaps an example/

URL to get the 5.1.3 updater

[Thr34d]

For you folks who want to go back to 5.1.3 but don't have the installer lying around roxio still has it on their server. Here is the direct URL to it.

I'm posting this because even though the link on the support page says you're downloading the 5.1.3 version it's really giving you the 5.1.4 crippleware.

If roxio pulls it can someone mirror it? I'd offer to but the other residents in my apartment complex might object to a slashdotting. Not to mention the network admin who is a friend of mine.

Let them know how you feel

[inkswamp]

If you don't tell them how you feel they will have no reason to reconsider this kind of thing in the future. The link above goes to their "contact us" page. Use the customer service link.

I hope everyone who had time to gripe here on Slashdot will also have time to submit a level-headed and reasonable explanation of why you are unhappy with this and will no longer support them by buying their products as a result.

Make sure you point out competitors who aren't doing this, other software, etc.

This kind of thing will be won battle-by-battle not with one definitive law or judgment. Do your part if you really care.

--Rick

Re:Let them know how you feel

[batobin]

More specifically, the URL for submitting mail to customer service is here.

Here's the message I sent them:

"This message is regarding your new, changed, EULA. I read the message from your product manager stating that Toast for Macintosh doesn't have DRM components, but that's not the point. The point is that by changing your license agreement, you are claiming the right to install malware on my system at any point in the future without further notice. That makes me mad, and has turned me from a "customer" into a "former customer"."

I took elements from this excellent post by "bnenning".

whats next

[Anonymous Coward]

since getting the latest software & updates will only serve to render your computer's ability to exersize your fair use rights, then do not upgrade at all, just get out that old copy of your favorits OS & applications and put it back on your computer, because the newer versions are being crippled compliments of the ehtertainment industry which which want to milk your wallet for all the cash they can and the software industry will gladly help...

keep an eye on all the major Linux distros too (Redhat, Mandrake, SuSe & etc...not just a Windoze & AppleMac problem anymore), i would not put it past them that they will suck up to the greed too...

moron....you blame apple for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you, you stupid shit

did you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

privilege? I don't think chewing gum (your example) is a right. The point of rights is that (to me anyway) is they are inalienable (I'm a USian of course), whereas a privilege can be revoked.

Don't be an idiot

[Kommet]

You have let Roxio know that you went back to a previous version? Why should they care, or even take you seriously? You are obviously extrapolating on what was actually said in the EULA based on nothing more than your own paranoid fantasies of software makers wanting to control your system. This does not make your complaint valid or credible.

For the record, I DO NOT work for Roxio. Also for the record, I DID work for Roxio in the past. While I cannot tell you why mention of DRM was added in recent Toast releases, the reason is abundantly obvious and has been guessed at corectly several times already. What I can tell you, however, is that Roxio does not have (nor do they particularly wish to write) automatic update code in Toast. Also, if they DID have auto-update code it would have to be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the legalese or else they could be accused of cracking your computer. Remember, the law prohibits unapproved access.

I am not a lawyer (so you know job I didn't hold at Roxio), but from what I recall of business law your statement "remember, it is allowed if it is not prohibited" is exactly false since the exact oposite is true. Unless something is explicitly stated to be allowed, it is NOT allowed by the contract.

Consider the ridiculous case of Roxio not mentioning that they are forbidden from killing your pets once you agree to the EULA. By your statement since they weren't DISALLOWED from killing your pets when you agreed to the EULA (it is not prohibited), they must have the legal right to slaughter Fluffy, and there is no recourse available to you.

I guess to summarize, please keep your half-assed, paranoid musings in your own head. There is enough scary, invasive, abusive crap going on in the industry without you making more stuff up.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[spitzak]

They can do anything they want as long as they don't pass laws that restrict our ability to use devices we have purchased.

For instance your movie producer can restrict showings to movie theatres and check everybody at the door to make sure they don't bring in a recording device. I seem to remember this was a popular way to make money on movies once upon a time...

They are also allowed to prosecute anyone they find posting or selling their copyrighted movie.

Both of these are well within their rights and do not require legislation.

About your sig (Off-Topic)

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Switch.

This has to be Apple's dumbest advertising campaign yet... I pretty much agree with this assertion

I personally don't respond to low key insults very well when deciding on a computer platform :)

BUG FOUND

[BarefootClown]

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll!

Not illegal

[The Tyro]

Actually, it is not illegal to own a Thompson submachine gun in the United States.

There is quite a paperwork process that you must navigate in order to do so (ATF form 4, etc) in order to own a transferable Class 2 weapon (machine gun or destructive device), but it CAN be done, and quite legally.

It requires such niceties as the signature of a chief law enforcement officer in the area where you live, but is otherwise NOT illegal. There are quite a few operational Thompsons in circulation, but they cost mega-bucks. After 1986, there are no new transferable (via the Form 4 mentioned above) automatic weapons being manufactured, so the supply is set, and finite. Naturally, this means the price goes nowhere but up... and the ATF knows where EVERY SINGLE ONE of those guns are. ATF also can drop by and inspect said gun/destructive device whenever they want. Consider whether you want to give someone an open search warrant before you buy.

Last time I checked, you could buy a GE minigun (ala Jesse Ventura in Predator) for around 75G

Perfectly legal if you know the right people (and don't mind dealing with the ATF)

Toast Product Manager's on the subject:

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

Adam F. said about the new EULA:

"I wanted to set the facts straight with respect to the "Restrictions" section in the end user license agreement (EULA) that is displayed at installation of Toast 5.1.4 and Jam 5.0.1 (both the latest versions of our software).

1) Toast and Jam do not include any digital rights management (DRM) software.

2) Toast and Jam do not dynamically download, upload or update any software on your system, either automatically behind the scenes, or upon your request.

3) Toast and Jam do not store, collect or transmit any personally identifiable information about you or what you record, for any of its partners, or any content provider.

Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components. Hence, the language in the EULA. Many software companies frequently share EULAs across products since it saves time and money with respect to legal, documentation and translation into multiple languages."

DiscRecording.framework

[benh57]

The DiscRecording.framework will become available to third party applications in Jaguar. So I am expecting to see some nice cocoa share/freeware CD burning apps - the framework will make them much easier to do.

Also, there are of course the command-line cdrtools available in Fink..

Roxio claims no Mac DRM

[amosb]

According to MacInTouch, the new paragraph is a result of uniformizing all their legal disclaimers, which meant importing the warning from Easy CD Creator, which in turn has to have it because it leverages Windows Media. Since it's unlikely that Toast or Jam on Mac will ever leverage WiMP, perhaps we can pragmatically leave our principles out of it (since they're not actually violating our data) and not dump an otherwise excellent product. Just a thought.

The text from MacInTouch:

[15:45 ET] Roxio's Toast Product Manager responded to customer issues raised in our Toast special report, regarding the company's licensing terms and "digital rights management" technology: I wanted to set the facts straight with respect to the "Restrictions" section in the end user license agreement (EULA) that is displayed at installation of Toast 5.1.4 and Jam 5.0.1 (both the latest versions of our software).

1. Toast and Jam do not include any digital rights management (DRM) software.
2. Toast and Jam do not dynamically download, upload or update any software on your system, either automatically behind the scenes, or upon your request.
3. Toast and Jam do not store, collect or transmit any personally identifiable information about you or what you record, for any of its partners, or any content provider.

Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components. Hence, the language in the EULA. Companies frequently share EULAs across products since it saves time and money with respect to legal, documentation and translation into multiple languages.

Disc at once?

[wbajzek]

Does anyone know if iTunes or DiscBurner can do Disc-At-Once burning? 0-second gaps between tracks?

That is simply a breach of contract...

[Kindaian]

Just demand a refund!

Apparently old news

[werdna]

At least one correspondent has indicated that the same language appeared in earlier versions (5.3 and 5.2). However, 5.4 does appear to have disabled some functionality of earlier versions, which gives me pause. Until I can clarify the point, I'll stay at 5.3 and look into alternative products.

Too bad, toast was very easy to use and looked great. But if it doesn't work, who needs it?

Re:What about Babelfish?

[Anonymous Coward]

SYLVIA SAINT
An Angel that walks, by the world of the cinema for adults.
This news article is gentility of

Private: That place occupies sex in your life?
Silvia: Good, I believe that it is but that important. Work of it, is habitual that daily practices it.
Private: The takings like a work, or you get it to enjoy?
Silvia: I believe that, today I can separate the things. Before, without the experience that today I have, it cost to me. Today I enjoy when I want.
Private: As you raise your sexual identity?
Silvia: I am heterosexual. But I do not have any problem in making scenes with other women. In fact they enchant the scenes to me of Sex in group, and in those situations he is very habitual that many women participate. But when choosing I prefer the men.
Private: To the men, you prefer them with some characteristic in special?
Silvia: No. I like "the normal" men if to the size of the penis you refer to you. As far as the personality, I prefer them simple and glad.
Private: Recently we have seen you in two films of Fetichismo. You like the style?
Silvia: If. I like much. It excites the clothes to me, látex and interpreting certain personages has made me get to have several orgasmos.
Private: We are closely together of the subject. In the personnel, who pensas of the Bondage?
Silvia: No. I do not like that they tie to me. There are other games, other things that I like much but.
Private: For example?
Silvia. (Laughter) When I am in the heat of sexual situation, enchants to me that me they do it behind.
Private: You practice Anal Sex?
Silvia: If, it enchants to me, but I do not like she doubles penetrations. I prefer that they kiss to me or they masturben to me, but never that penetrates to me with consoladores.
Private: An ambitious project?
Silvia: The Uranus Experiment, that was a space film of adventures with scenes rolled under conditionses of weightlessness. Of I throw in that production has been able to film the moment of a eyaculación under those conditions. I am in the first part of the project and was an incredible experience in my race.
Private: As it was your paper in the film?
Silvia: My personage represents a Russian spy, whom he has to find out as the men react before sex in the space. Everything what I need is a victim, a rate of laboratory, to be able to carry out my investigations.
Private: Who is that poor man?
Silvia: My friend, Nick Lang.
Private: As your mission culminates?
Silvia: With total success.
Silvia Saint, a blonde that makes sigh to any spectator, in any type of situation, comment almost like secret at some moment of the note, that nonsingle I fascinate to give the news article to him for Argentina but that it would like to know the natural and human enchantments the country.
Silvia Saint, To You WE WAITED FOR!!!!!!!!

Re:Go Linux! Go Linux!

[Karma Sink]

New category: Trollbait.

Re:ok, I am NOT spamming. trying to get spacing ri

[ShooterNeo]

I did use it, but several times I accidentally hit the wrong button.

Stop CARP

[Snover]

Another great reason to Revoke CARP. (Well, hey, it's a start.)