Slashdot Mirror
iTunes: Don't Leave Home With Them
BadDoggie writes "Politech is reporting that your 'ownership' of music purchased from Apple's iTunes isn't what everyone considers ownership. According to the license, 'Apple may use technologies to verify' that you have not 'use[d] or attempt[d] to use the service from outside of the [United States]'. This includes Canada. Apple's 'technologies' delete the bought-and-paid-for files with no refund and no replacement when & if you leave the U.S." Update: 07/25 16:23 GMT by P : The post to Politech says the songs would "disappear," not be deleted; from the context, it seems they were merely unplayable, not deleted. Update: 07/25 21:34 GMT by M : Apple has contacted the guy, and is apparently making him happy. However, the question remains: Apple definitely doesn't want people buying new songs from outside the U.S., but do they intend to generally permit foreign users to reauthorize (in effect, retain access to) the songs they have already purchased? Apple's policy is very unclear on that point.
And iTunes seemed like such a positive step. Thanks, Apple.
1st, this letter has inconsistancies in it. It 1st says that the songs disappeared, but later said that they could not be played.
When reading the "Terms of Service", it says that purchases are not available outside of the US and the "service" is not used outside of the US. I'm guessing that iTunes must phone home or something to do with its DRM. If he were to move back to the US, I would guess that he could play his songs again, provided that they were not deleted.
As his letter ends with, maybe we should buy CDs, they are not that expensive when bought used, or download free music, or "share" mp3s off of someone you don't know.
This teaches us one thing: There's no friendly DRM, DRM is always bad, especially if you notice it when it's too late. I hope the users will learn from this and boycott the iTunes store unless they remove the DRM from their songs.
Apple's distribution rights are obviously limited to the US by the contracts they signed with the music companies. Or do you think Apple insisted on this themselves?
That we should be suspicious of any 'license' being perpetuated by a major corporation?
I don't know why the RIAA don't include a shrinkwrap license in every CD either.
...there's a chance that this was something that was mandated by their contractual obligations with the labels providing the music.
Hopefully Apple will be able to secure international licenses and make this a moot point.
Chris -- http://www.bitter.net/
Well, here's a good reminder to read the license before paying good money for DRM'd "product".
Also, one could avoid this problem by burning the tracks to CD as back-up, which Apple can't really do much about no matter where you take them.
Before condemning iTMS as being the ill-begotten spawn of the RIAA, Satan and Bill Gates, maybe the ex-pat should have tried calling Apple and talking to a real live person.
Apple is very upfront that the service isn't available outside the US (at least not yet) and they have apparently put in technical measures to enforce that. The key is if you can talk to a person on the phone or via email and get them to override a false positive. If you can, then this is a minor annoyance. If you can't, then Apple needs to rethink their system
Also, note that you can continue to play music you already purchased outside the US. It is only new purchases or reauthorizing music that you can't do outside the US
"Using the service" means trying to use the iTunes store. It doesn't mean listening to your music outside of the US. Right now, Apple only has the legal end worked out while you're in the US. It makes sense that they don't want a repeat of the iTunes "sharing" fiasco. What they are saying here is:
IF you attempt to use the service from outside of where they can legally sell you the music, then they MIGHT be able to delete the files you obtained illegally after you download them. WHEN at some later date your country is serviced by iTMS then you can now use the service from that country.
ITunes keeps your authorization offline, and it's a seperate file that you can backup and keep (so you'll be able to play your music even if apple's serves go down). So listening to your music abroad definitely doesn't count as infringement, since no service interaction is required.
That seems pretty reasonable to me. These "tools to detect" are probably somehow worked into iTunes, so it's not like Apple somehow is sneaking spyware into your system. Relax folks. iTMS isn't suddenly evil or anything. I really doubt that even authorizing your laptop while abroad is illegal.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
You're still allowed to burn your tracks to CD for personal use, right? So just do that before you leave. I like having copies of my mp3s on CD anyway, just in case I have any computer problems.
To understand recursion,
you must first understand recursion.
From the article "Apparently, if you change your contact address and/or have your US credit card address changed, as I did, you are no longer able to play the songs you paid for while on US soil." This has nothing to do with travelling outside the US from what I can tell, only MOVING outside the US.
Hardly the 'fine print'. It was the first item on the Terms of Use page.
Sorry, but this guy made his choice - tough for him if he didn't read the EULA before plonking down the cash.
I may not want to burn it. I may travel a lot with my computer and not wanting to carry 50 cd's cross-atlantic with me is a reasonable request. If you're trying to get away with something then by all means go ahead and burn; as for me, I don't like vebdors going through my files and deleting them without my express permission.
Not to sound rude, but all you yankees moaning about how this service is limited to the US- at least you get the service to begin with! We're still waiting for a launch in the UK/Europe... And there's a thought- maybe once international liscensing is in place it maybe possible to take your music elsewhere. Everyone seems to be slagging off Apple for introducing a revolution that is "perfect" - but there's no such thing as a bloodshed free revolution. Give Apple some time, voice your opinion/feelings to Apple so they know how you feel, and maybe they'll solve the hitch. Legal hurdles aside, time changes everything... I think.
The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency (Eugene McCarthy)
If you're not happy with their terms, you don't have to purchase from their business. But you won't find friendlier terms anywhere for the quality copyright protected content they're legally providing online. The commercial success of iTunes is an incentive to the record companies to pay attention to online distribution. I'm sure Apple sees it as a step along a path, not the end goal. They're trying to get the ball moving at all, and you're upset that it's not speeding along at 100 mph.
iTMS music can be authorized on 3 computers. If you move to an area of the globe not serviced by the iTunes validation servers, just find a friend you trust and ftp/scp/carrier-pigeon your purchased songs over to him. Then get him to authorize his computer on your account (as I said, friend you trust as you are giving them your password). He/She can reencode your songs as mp3s and transfer them back. So now you can play your music. Was that so hard?
That being said...
What's all this mindless chatter about how DRM is evil and how we should boycott companies that use it? DRM is necessary because people have shown the willingness (and in some cases zeal) for stealing material. Apple couldn't have left DRM out if they wanted to get even some indie labels to sign on. Don't blame apple, blame "the man" and the hordes of people who frequent sharing establishments. The fact that apple pushed real hard to allow a more lax DRM than given by other music services speaks volumes. Apple wants you to be able to burn mixes, play on iPods, and share the music between your home and work computers. Sure, its DRM'd and there are a few glitches (ie: out of country), but its the best "the man" will let us do. I'm happy with that for the moment.
BUT you only have to pay for the one song you want, not the 10 crappy filler songs you don't give a shit about.
For 99% of the people, this license will fulfill 99% of their needs while allowing them to avoid 85% of the cost they would otherwise have to pay to listen to a song they like. The benefit here is that mp3 naturally supports the sale of singles in a way that the cd format doesn't.
When is all this silliness going to stop... i can't believe the many peoples time and efforts not alone monies are spent towards the control of something that you can put in you pocket or stash in your drawer.. ie: music.... i seem to recall that in the "ol days" nobody even so much as raised an eyeball if you recorded to tape from the radio....
A number of people seem to be commenting on this article as if the songs stop working as soon as a user leaves the US. However, in this case the guy is saying he had to completly reinstall his powerbook and wanted to retrieve his DRM certificate to allow him to use the songs he had purchased, and Apple's policies wouldn't allow this.
So it is a major flaw, but one I suspect that is by accident rather than design. Apple has promised the music industry that it won't allow downloads of songs from outside the US, which this policy enforces. What I suspect that haven't done is work out a way to allow users to keep their existing account but not allow future downloads now they know you aren't in the right geography. They don't do intrusive testing, only when the user in this case informed them they were outside the US (and the service is VERY clear when you have to sign up that you have to be in the US, it's not really small print).
So Apple haven't been as comprehensive in their use case mapping as they should have been, and obviously didn't cover the 0.01% case of customers who move from the US but need to access their existing tunes, loses their key and has no backup. They have however, proved to the copyright owner that their regon specific policies are being enforced, which is the only thing which gives us access to this service at present. If you disagree with them, fine buy CDs, break the law or campaign for change but there are many of us happy with 99% of these terms of service who simply wish the service would be expanded to more geographies and platforms.
For permantent copies, burn an audio CD.
When I first heard of Napster, I quickly downloaded 7 or 8 songs that were old favorites - in all cases I had bought the LPs, but had lost the records or they were damaged. (fair use?) However, I was turned off by some aquaintences collecting thousands of songs that they did not buy.
Not to go off on too big of a rant, but it seems like too many people think that it is OK to break the law: steal music, steal cable TV, let dogs off of leashes where it is not permited and they become public nuisances, etc., etc.
If you think about it, people who steal stuff on the internet might end up contributing to loss of freedom on the internet - not worth it! As multi-national corporations take over media and general control of governments, I believe that keeping the internet free becomes a major concern and goal.
Sorry about being negative, but: isn't it a worry that when large numbers of people break laws, and this data is available to the government, that this is a form of 'crowd control'?
The idea that Apple somehow remotely deleted his songs is utter bullshit. Read the article. He reinstalled his system, thus erasing at the very least Apple's authorization token. He attempted to re-authorize his computer using a Canadian credit card, which Apple does not permit and has been very open about not permitting. This is like moving to the UK, breaking your old R1 DVD player, buying a new one at the store down the block, and complaining that its PAL signal won't work with the rest of your legacy equipment.
I'm sure I'll get modded into oblivion by the Macintosh Jihad, but is anyone else amazed by the way that Apple apologists come out of the woodwork to defend Apple whenever one of the usual Slashdot hot button issues arise in conjunction with Apple?
If this story had run in relation to BuyMusic.Com, there would be an army of raging Slashdotters cutting Buy.Com into tiny bits and incinerating them, but when it's Apple/Mac/iTunes, there's this chorus of Apple defenders that comes out of the woodwork.
The only way I can explain this is that the Mac users aren't the ones griping in regard to most DRM issues, they're actually supportive of "soft" DRM. Although whenever there's a negative story about Windows DRM, we hear a lot of people chanting "iTunes, Mix, Rip Burn" in the background, so maybe that's not true.
But it is kind of ironic.
It's true that not a whole lot of the US population leave the US in a lifetime, but as a former expatriate there are definitely more than you probably suspect.
I'm one of those people who has spent a lot of time traveling from one country to another. I know many who have lived abroad all their life. And this whole DRM thing and related technologies is really starting to screw us in now. Take DVD regional encoding.
My parents, not aware of the different region codings have bought movies here in the States, as well as in other parts of Asia. And now their modest collection of movies from the US cannot be played on their dvd player because of these restrictions. Friends that have purchased computers here and then moved abroad can't watch locally purchased dvd's on their computers. Fortunately for them these people haven't jumped on the Apple Music Store.
As more people move about the world, this whole regional coding thing and licensed ownership according to country is just going to hinder the technology. Not help it.
If you live outside the USA, you'll already be well aware of this. The bulk of online music and movie providers are only licensed for US distribution, and everyone else is told to get stuffed.
This is no different from the US getting movies and Region 1 DVDs first, and those who live outside the USA are well used to working around these restrictions. My primary consideration when buying a DVD player was "Is it region free/easy to switch to region 1?", and I regularly buy region 1 DVDs, usually well before and for less money than the region 2 release.
Similarly, I'd have no qualms about using a US based HTTP proxy to obtain music or movies from US licensed sites,then I'd make damn sure to convert it to a non-crippled format before considering the transaction complete.
But given that I don't even have the option to pay for it, and that I'd have to "scam" them to get it, that's not very likely, is it? So, what's my incentive to stop sharing?
Sorry, US buddies, but this is just a case of getting a taste of what it's like for the rest of us. Sucks, doesn't it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
First of all, read the damn article.
Most of you haven't even read the article and already condemning the ITMS. Like some have said, the guy deleted his songs, changed his address to a non US address, and tried to download the songs again!
Second, that whole "iTMS songs won't play outside the US" is BULLSHIT. I've been outside the US many times and my songs play on my powerbook just fine... nothing deleted... no errors.. even when i'm hooked up to the internet!
I thought slashdotters were smart people.. always skeptical about new news. I guess you guys just believe everything you see, just like every other lemming out there.
They don't delete your songs. This guy LOST his songs in a reinstall, and was trying to buy em back."
See, here's another thing, RTFA by all means, but do ITFAC (Interpret the flipping article correctly.)
He wasn't trying the repurchase the tracks, merely re-authorise them after his reinstall.
The letter is incredibly poorly written.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
is there any way we can tell if this was something apple wanted to restrict their users from doing, or is it something the RIAA made them do?
the music store does not only carry independent music. i don't believe the RIAA had no say in the terms by which the the service is provided. i am typing this on a windows machine and not a mac, but i still think apple is "innocent" of this
wma - Windows Media Format - isn't proprietary? News to me
I just looked over the license (albeit really quickly) and saw nothing about deleting files. Also, at least the way I read it, this seems to really be applied only to connecting to the iTunes store. Not to playing music you've already downloaded.
This basically seems to say, 'to connect to iTunes you need to be situated in the US." Which probably makes sense when you talk about legal jurisdictions.
But, like I said, I only scanned through things real quicklike.
if you want to blame somebody blame david geffen, or cbs, or sony, or capitol. not apple.
2 1337 4 u!
Music is overpriced: $17 - $20 for a CD is outrageous. DVDs cost much more to produce and have higher quality content...yet only cost $5 to $10 more than an audio CD.
Bad music is bundled with good music: Anyone who has bought a CD with one or two good songs knows he/she was forced into buying all the crap to have that one good song.
There is no legal way to buy unrestricted music: Music consumers want to play their purchased music on any device they see fit. They purchased the music, why shouldn't it be playable on any device they own? - not just a limited number of devices.
Piracy is not the problem: Piracy is a symptom of a market need that is unmet. Much like the speakeasys of the prohibition, when consumers want something, there will ALWAYS be someone to fill that demand. Right now, the only way to get reasonably priced, unrestricted music is to download it or copy it from someone else.
Until these problems are fixed, the music industry will always be fighting an uphill battle.
-ted
What is really bugging me is how some of these posts keep saying: Oh the DRM in the iTunes Store: it's the RIAA.... not Apple, they're innocent.
I hate to break it you people but the RIAA had nothing to do with the iTunes music store... Apple came up with the DRM in house, and Apple worked directly with specific publishers.
I know you cannot believe that Apple actually came up with DRM... but lest we forget, Apple was the original computer monopoly.
So you can blame the RIAA all you want, but ultimately it was Apple's doing-- as hard as it may be for you to swallow.
I don't think losing a cd or record is grounds to go download someone elses copy of it.
Case in Point: I lost my Half-Life cd and key about two years ago. Does that give me the right to download Half-Life from Kazaa?
Also, if I lose my precious kazoo, does that give me the right to get one for three cents on the black market? I don't think so. And I'm pretty sure it's almost the same thing as what you describe.
If you want to get really picky, the fact that you own the source material does not justify downloading it in another form. The lp mp3's you got were likely from cd reproductions. Cd reproductions which you did not purchase, I might ad. So in reality, you are just stealing lots of stuff that you legally should be paying for.
To me, the whole 'sharing' music thing really only applies if what YOU're sharing is a physical, purchased legal copy, as in giving someone your BOUGHT cd to make a copy for personal use. That person has little right to share his newfound copy of your music.
Itunes looks to change this and make dl'd artist music legal, so I think it's not a bad thing that they are getting legalistic about it, they are the only ones who seem to stand a chance.
(sorry for being offtopic, but it had to be said, it really did.)
Many Thanks,
Luke
I think this guy read the ToU as I did, and probably as Apple's marketing people intended it to be read and not as Apple's lawyers intended it to mean.
Shame on you Apple.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:prescription drug research: There's a lot of that going on up here because of our more generous tax credits for drug R&D, as well as lower costs, which translates into more bang for every research dollar. Remember, applied drug research is conducted by private enterprise, not government.
I'm not saying we're better or worse, just that we're different. And that's the way it should be. If everyone was the same the world would be a much more boring place (because we'd have nuked ourselves out of existence by now, probably).
This is stupid. You can't use the iTunes Music Store unless you have a credit card associated with a US address. So he should have known that. More important he should know you should back up files in a readable format before reinstalling. In the case of AAC protected files that means burning a CD.
What he did is the equivalent of losing the CDs, that's all. You bought them, you didn't protect them, you lose them...
Actually, if you buy used cds, you increase their value. This allows people to sell used cds at a higher price, giving them more incentive to buy more new cds. Therefore, by buying used cds, you are indirectly supporting buying new cds.
Vote for Pedro
I actually bought a couple songs from the Apple site before I decided I didn't want to support a service that provides:
When I made that decision, a number of people thought I was basically impossible to please -- after all, the AAC files were "all but" free of DRM.
Now we see that DRM ultimately means the distributor owns you. If they can delete the files for "good" reasons, they can delete the file for any reason. You are totally dependent on their good faith. And as we can see, their idea of fair use may not mesh with yours.
I thought of downloading the song from P2P but then buying it from the iTunes store, but that amounts to giving our mortal enemies, the music industry, a lot of money to attack us with. (Note that I have no such concerns about certain indie labels that are not attacking P2P users. It is unfortunate that they tend to get grouped in with the far more evil big-5.)
Nevertheless, let me emphasize that this does not negate the need to pay the artist. In fact, we absolutely must get "paying the artist" off the table to win the intellectual debate. P2P is not about paying the artist, it is about who is in control of distribution -- the comsumer or the record company. We as P2P users, IMO, must make it a cultural reality that we always pay for MP3s we keep. It's easy to do this: go to MusicLink. You can pay any artist (or almost any artist) with a Paypal account or a credit card.
Once paying the artist is the P2P way of life, it will be very hard indeed to trot out words like "stealing" and "theft". Then it will become clear that the complainers are not really complaining about money, but about loss of control of distribution. When the debate is reduced to that, the other side will have already lost.
In the end, I say: insist on DRM-free files. Insist on high quality, at least as high as you want. And ALWAYS pay for the MP3s you keep. Use your money to support those who create great music, not those who attack you politically and legally.
I just spent two weeks in Britain. Nothing happened to my iTunes purchased files, they were not deleted, they were not changed in any way, and I had no problem playing anything. This story is completely false.
The story is based on an email (not an article) by Shawn Yeager, a guy who has worked for Microsoft and has developed a competitive product named MusicDirect. So either this guy was very confused or he was deliberately trying to hurt his competitor.
If it was the latter, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, thanks to Slashdot running this on the main page. It seems that the best thing to do is:
1. Write inflamatory email
2. Alert SlashDot to the existance of said email
3. Wait until SlashDot posts it on front page
4. Profit!!!
This was not responsible reporting by SlashDot. Mud sticks, regardless of whether it should have been thrown, and by its irresponsible reporting SlashDot was being used to throw FUD around. This is the sort of thing I expect from SCO, not from SlashDot.
The basic problem is that a very vocal group of people (not all of them, of course) don't want a new business model. They want free music. They don't give a damn that in order for digital delivery of music to succeed there needs to be some way for owners of the music to minimize losses to to unauthorized redisitribution.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I don't doubt what you say about your own experience, but read the article (or whatever it is) again. You too would find yourself in difficulties outside the United States if you needed to conduct a transaction with Apple. This would include buying new music, authorization/deauthorization issues, or changing account information.
Apple notes the IP address of the connection you are using during a transaction. They also note billing addresses, including the information you provide with your credit card. Any of this information could trip you up when you're overseas. This isn't caprice, but Apple protecting itself until licensing agreements abroad have been made.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
I just love the way that one say, Slashdotters are saying that 'everyone should be buying Indie music, and not supporting the RIAA' and the next they are saying that 'eMusic has nothing that I want, no big names'. Why are big names big names? Because the RIAA promote them. So who do you support? Make your mind up.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.