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.
You know, I never knew that before. Thanks, Slashdot!
WHY?!
Sigh. I think its time to give up on online music, and since i refuse to buy cds anymore, Im just gonna go buy a kazoo.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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.
What about a country that's under US administration? does that count?
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?
Or one more reason to break their stupid DRM. After all, if you do leave the USA, the DMCA doesn't apply to you while you're on foreign soil, so you can then legally crack the DRM and make a proper backuup copy.
Soon we will see the RIAA lobbying for the use of Millitery space-based lasers in order to do the same thing.
Just think, you are just crossing the boarder with a few CDs and ZAP! A huge laser blast from orbit evaporates your CD collection!
...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.
According to the article, you either have to volunteer the change of address info to Apple, or change the address on your credit card.
So, don't tell Apple you moved and tell your credit card company that you lost your card and need a new one.
You won't be able to purchase new music, but at least you won't lose your existing songs.
"use[d] or attempt[d] to use the service from outside of the [United States]'. This includes Canada."
Whew, for a second there I was thinking that we'd annexed Canada. Eh? I think that to be more clear, they should also specifically state that Mexico is outside the US. And, for those who are still in denial, they should state that New Jersey IS part of the United States.
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
Unless the guy can't read, it's his fault - not Apple's.
I'm sure he has a backup - right? - it's the only way to use your computer and your data.
Gil
-- Where ever you go, don't complain, you went there!
download it from kaz...
D'oh.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Or even better, "Wiretap"e ebies/
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/fr
"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.
All this is saying is that you may not use the iTunes service outside the US. This is likely not of their own choice, but because of agreements with the record labels that restrict them to distribution in the US.
Furthermore, it says nothing like, "Apple's 'technologies' delete the bought-and-paid-for files with no refund and no replacement when & if you leave the U.S." You're welcome to listen to your music anywhere you please. Read in the proper context, "Apple may use technologies to verify such compliance," obviously means that if Apple detects you using the iTunes service from outside the US, they'll stop you. Is that so harsh?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
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.
According to this article: "Canada will be added to the Apple system when the CRIA completes its negotiations in the fall"
CRIA = Canadian Recording Industry Association.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Oh please. It's just fine print to prevent export abuse. Remember, RIAA has lots of jurisdiction over ITMS and ultimately greenlighted it.
With that said, I've traveled to Ensenada, Baja, Mexico with my Powerbook which contained bunch of AAC tunes purchased from ITMS. Absolutely nothing happened, considering I've connected to the net from there under
This article is just nitpicking. Wait till we hear the full story from Apple and other respected news sources before jumping on the "Apple is just like Microsoft" bandwagon.
The author of the article claims he reinstalled his powerbook. And tried to redownload his purchased songs after changing his address permantly on both his credit card and iTunes to an outside US address.
Well that doesn't say apple will suddenly disable all your music files if you step out of US soil for say a week or a month.
Apple'sn policies clearly state that you may only purchase songs in the US.
All sales are final etc. If it's a sale, can they unilaterally withdraw the sale based on a spurious interpretation of their terms and conditions?
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.
The guy that complains about Apple's restrictice licenses not only USED TO WORK FOR MICROSOFT, he also developed MusicDirect.com, a direct competitor to the iTunes Store. (Read it yourself on his Home page.
As the french say: honi soit qui mal y pense. ("shamed be he who thinks evil of it")
Perhaps they're just trying to stay legal.
You don't need to detour that way, as you can burn the iTunes songs on CDs. If you rip the CDs again, the resultings files aren't protected anymore by DRM.
What's a "false positive" about it?
Person outside the States? Check.
Credit card registered outside the States? Check.
PowerBook outside the States? Check.
Music bought from iTMS on that PowerBook? Check.
Sorry, but it looks like he was trying to do exactly what Apple said they can't allow you to do - in the first paragraph of their terms of use. Tough.
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)
Many unsigned musicians provide free downloads of their music on their websites as a way to attract more fans. Here's some from my friend Oliver Brown for example. Many such musicians, while relatively unknown, are as good as any major label band and certainly an improvement over the pablum they serve up on ClearChannel.
You can find many more examples in my new article:
- Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads
The article also explores some of the historical and legal issues behind copyright, and suggests steps the file traders can take to make file sharing legal.If you're a musician who offers downloads of your music, I can link to your band's website from the article if you give my article a reciprocal link. Please follow the instructions given here
Request your free CD of my piano music.
...and by "it" I mean he's not telling the whole truth.
I have iTMS files on my powerbook. I travel internationally at least once a month, and I have *never* experienced a problem. Once the files are on your HD, they play just as they normally would if you were right at "home"
I have a nasty feeling this is some FUD, clear and simple. After all, this isn't an "article" this was an email.
Sigh.
Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
although i can't condone the fact that his songs no longer work, i feel i should point out two things.
1st, no company has yet gotten authorization to distribute musical content outside the US. i'm guessing this is a record label issue.
2nd, in his case he had to reinstall everything. it asked to reverify his address, but he'd changed his address on his credit card. it was Canada now, not the US. not sure what else they could have done. if they sell songs outside of the US, they get in big trouble.
if he hadn't wiped everything, his songs would still be working today.
the "technology" they used to verify he was a US customer was his credit card billing address.
(which makes me think that someone could try a PO box in the US and then get their mail forwarded to Canada and get around the US restriciton)
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.
He tried to reauthorize the songs after his billing address has changed to outside the US. If you have a US address, you're fine, no matter where your computer sits. How do I know? I studied in Ireland during the last school year, and I downloaded a number of songs from iTMS, using my US-based credit card with my US-based address.
The moral? The license agreement says you aren't to export the songs. This has nothing to do with DRM - it would still be a breach of contract (thus revoking your license to use the songs) to export the songs even if iTMS was giving you straight MP3s.
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'?
From Apple's Help Menu on iTunes Music Store: This does not even include the "analog hole" people keep referring to of outputting your sound out to stereo and recording through tape, VCR, DAT, whatever.
In a article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal article (can't remember the date), Steve Jobs said that Apple's licensing scheme was there to be easy to use and keep honest people honest. More importantly, it was NOT meant to keep a dedicated "pirate" from copying the music. SteveJ basically said that such a software DRM was impossible - someone would always crack it.
Moral of the story, your MP3's and AAC files are imminently corruptible data on a disk. Treat them as such and back them up
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.
sorry, while I was posting, a whole lot of posts were placed which make mine redundant. if you actually took the time to read this, you are either a sad human being, a sadist, or at work. In all cases, I feel your pain. >:)
Microsoft in a nutshell:
--I am the end of all your dreams--
-NiN
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
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.
I often whistle or hum tunes while I play my iPod.
I don't want to run the risk of freely distributing the tunes, breaking the law and having them deleted to people who haven't purcahsed the songs. Please plug your ears when I walk buy. I will wear a shirt to advertise my presence encouraging everyone not to listen.
...laught at me when i wraped even my socks on tinfoil.
:/ its not translucid.
If theres any typo on this post, well, its one of the problems with tinfoil
What bothers me is that this person paid for and downloaded music from Apple. He doesn't say explicitly, but he infers he was not trying to buy more music, just listen to what he had already bought, and after "reauthorization" it either disabled or deleted his purchased music. This would mean that Apple considers anyone playing music purchased from them to be actively using their service, even if they are not connected to it.
What happens if I buy 100 songs, and then cancel my account with the music store? Will I lose the ability to play those songs? Does Apple consider that I am still using their service even if I have cancelled my account with their service?
I wasn't able to find the TOS easily, looks like you have to sign up to see it. But, from what appears to have been pasted, the customer is restricted from actively using the service, which implies that the user may not purchase new songs.
It did not seem to include playing music previously purchased. Can someone with the TOS post a link to it or at least cut-and-paste the parts that relate to this issue?
Is Apple interpreting their TOS to include user activity while not connected to Apple? Is simply using the Apple computer and software to listen to purchased music considered part of what they offer?
Usually, in order to "use a service" there is some form of connection involved during the use, either event driven messages back and forth or constant link. Does Apple's software send information to Apple for each song you play?
I can accept, and it makes a lot of sense, not to allow songs to be delivered to users outside of the US for various legal reasons. It would also cut down on cc fraud by not allowing US accounts to download music outside of the US. I can also accept not allowing new accounts to be created if the user is outside the US. But to disable purchased music, preventing the purchaser the ability to listen to it?
IF the music was "rented" or "allowed to be played as part of the service" it would be one thing, however, since Apple's own web site says "Buy it" or "Buy song" certain ownership rights are implied. When you buy something you usually have certain ownership rights. I wonder if deleting or disabling something after it has been boughtconstitutes any form of criminal or civil fraud. Software companies wanted this ability, and UCITA (or was it UTICA?) would have given it to them, but I thought only a small number of states actually passed laws that let that happen.
Apple's web site also mentions ability to create music CDs that you listen to in your car, etc. from the songs you download. They can't disable those CDs, and they are giving you the ability to create a CD single just as if you had bought it in the store, further enforcing the concept of "ownership" for the purchased song. ["Ownership" in this case means right to listen to song on any equipment you choose and in the method you choose, not ownership in that you can give away copies.] Apples disabling of the songs (or deleting them) is inconsistent with the rest of their service. That inconsistancy would seem to be important if someone were going to pursue this (IANAL, so I may be full of it, wouldn't be the first time).
I'm really curious (and amazed and aghast) at this turn of events and Apple's response, if any.
I can certainly see Apple needing some of these restrictions. I guess now we know why the *AAs have been pretty quiet about Apple's music store. I just attributed their silence to a lack of selection of music represented by the *AA, but given this, and some of what I read on Apple's web page today, it looks like Apple negotiated something with them already. Which is fine, would make good business sense, and if true would mean those wanting to boycott *AA may have to boycott iMS too. Anyone know?
And here I've been planning to get a nice new shiny Mac, OS-X, and iPod (would have been my first Mac). I will definitely be watching this and consider the outcome here before I make any purchase. I'll probably just stick to cheaper non-Apple hardware and Windoze when necessary and Linux the rest of the time.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
You didn't read past the first paragraph. He says he had to do a re-install, and upon restoring his set-up, itunes asked him to reauthorise his music files, and was met with a refusal.
"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."
(How this got modded up to 5, Insightful I don't know...) He initially used the service in the US, to buy the music files he had. Upon trying to reauthorise the files after the reinstall (if you remember) from Canada, he was refused. No phoning home... he logged on and tried to reauthorise. Do you see? He couldn't play the songs because itunes insisted he reauthorise after the reinstall! (Is friday free crack for moderators day, or something?)
"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."
Or maybe, online music services shouldn't have stupid rules, that shoot themselves in the foot, and screw their PAYING customers, if they want to make online music file purchasing an appealing alternative to Kazaa, et al.
(Patiently waits while moderated Offtopic.)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
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.
You need some true analogue bandpass filtering to remove the artefacts, and ideally it wants to be implemented using instrumentation-grade op-amps and powered from a linear regulator {as opposed to a switched mode supply as used in a computer} or even rechargeable batteries. Alternatively, use a pentode as a high-gain preamp to give you several volts of headroom, passive filtering {with its inherent negative dB gain} and a triode to match the impedance back to what the line input is expecting.
If you haven't got all the kit needed to do that, try buffering via tape, which has an inherent bandpass characteristic. If your deck has a special mode for recording from FM stereo, engage that, and any noise reduction you can find. Set the level to match your favourite high-bias {chrome or metal} tape, with the peaks reaching as high as they did on your test recordings.
If the original recording from soundcard to soundcard sounded noticeably poorer than tape, chances are that soundcard-to-tape-to-soundcard will sound about as good as tape.
Has anyone else noticed, though, that LINE IN jacks are becoming an endangered species?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I am in Germany/Switzerland as well. And last I remember the parent poster was right. Sure they can say you want to do it. But DVD players come in all shapes and sizes. Popular are the ones without region encoding, like the one sitting in front of me...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I wouldn't mind if they rigged it so that it would delete music acquired outside the US upon my return home. That way I could ensure that any Celine Dion songs that my wife acquired in Canada would be gone when we return home from vacation.
what does that tell you about his service, if he frequently patronizes iTunes!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
When I, from Sweden, open up iTunes Music Store it tells me:
...could be that Apple must consider customs regulations in Europe... and selling to me would be illegal export.
The iTunes Music Store is not available in your country yet. You will be able to browse music and listen to previews, but you won't be able to purchase music unless your billing address is in the United States.
Me thinks:
"yet" indicates the service will come to me. Thus it does not make sense they hunt me down now.
"unless your billing address is in the United States" indicates that if I just provide a proper billing address they dont care where or who I am.
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
Does anyone honestly believe that Apple has any REAL control of the iTunes Music Store? Agreements with the record labels had to be made. This is above all else, a money making venture, a software service to which Apple excels. And just to remind everyone, the reason we have DRM today is because people abused digital media in the past, and there is ample evidence to support that argument. Apple gives us more freedom than most, but just because it has approximately 4% market share doesn't mean the record labels give away all that freedom to the independently thinking few. When iTunes 4.0 was released, many people abused the internet file sharing feature and Apple taketh away.
Everyone talks about how the Music Industry's business model is outdated and needs to be changed to reflect the modern technology which exists around us. I think most slashdot readers would agree that classic music licensing schemes and sales models are rapidly becoming outdated.
By the same token, then, don't we need to update our expectations and buying models, as consumers? We can't insist on totally new business models without being willing to adapt to them ourselves.
It seems strange to me that everyone is so rabidly against DRM, when quite frankly anyone thinking about it comes to the conclusion that without it, some pretty ridiculous situations can result. Just because people do not, right now, ruin a band by trading its songs on services does not mean at some future point a service will become so ubiquitous and easy that it couldn't happen. Everyone forgets that the band AND the distributor need to make money.
Not to say I agree with all DRM. Oftentimes it seems like people go too far to the restrictive edge, "You can only use your music with headphones while a RIAA exec standing over you with a shotgun wards people off." I find Apple's DRM to be very reasonable, and it's also the kind of DRM that, should Apple finally kick the bucket, could be extended by another solution, even if the authorization service changes.
The poor fellow who's message is the subject of this article changed his home address to a foreign address. iTunes has no other way to tell if you're in a foreign country. I'm surprised it didn't let him authorize, but I am not surprised that it used that data to exclude him from using the iTMS. I'm sure that the situation will be rectified shortly. Apple can't afford to rampantly piss people off, and if you look at their decisions over the last 3 years you'll see in general their model has been consistant with that.
So please, Anonymous friend, instead of ceaslessly complaining about the end of an era, why not try and help shape the face of these new business models. We're at an amazing point as our society slowly beings to adopt digital media and computing on a mass scale. We've got a responsibility to make sure things turn out in a way that's equitable to everyone.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
"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."
Well, they've limited their sales to mac users, now they want to limit their sales to americans. They plan to become popular how?
From the blurb:
"Apple's 'technologies' delete the bought-and-paid-for files with no refund and no replacement when & if you leave the U.S."
Talk about sensationalism. The article in no way mentions that the files were deleted. They just wouldn't play. Sheesh.
No, because then you are still subject to their Digital RESTRICTION. Burn them to a normal CD, then rip them back to mp3 or Ogg. That's what I'm gonna do.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
Unfortunately, no amount of whining will fix your problems with Apple. My guess is that their business partners required that locational stipulation so that the most stringent copyright law would be applicable to the music they leased (yes, leased) to the customer.
Basically, its a situation that you should be aware of and live with. Its not a great situation for those who plan on moving out of the US any time in the future, but for those who that is not an issue, the iTunes service still remains a fairly cheap and convenient service.
--Kevin
Microsoft whore who built a DRM-crippled music store gets bitten by DRM. Ah, such delightful irony.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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!
1.) You can't reauthorize songs you purchaed if you move out of the country.
2.) You can't listen to them on anything that can't run iTunes (Macs, and soon Windows).
3.) You are dependent on the continued existence of Apple to be able to authorize the playback of them.
Yes, I know that you can burn them to CDs but those CDs will not sound as good as the ones you buy in the stores, unless you have poor hearing. In my opinion, CDs are still the best option, although copy protection threatens those of us who like to listen to them on open source
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
They can verify that you don't use the service from outside the US. That has little to do with using the songs outside the US. As long as I live in the US, and only use the serivce from within the US, what have I got to worry about? Playing back the songs I've purchased does not invlolve using the service at all.
Um....
Me to?
I am going to go with, "My iTunes purchased music still
works even though I am in the UK now."
And "I have actually purchased entire albums while in the UK"
It never says the files were deleted. It just says the information that authorized his computer to play those files he purchased was lost during the reinstall and because he moved out of the US he was not able to get the authorization rights for said files. They were not deleted.
Once again, my favorite game quote:
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
Actually I've heard that foreign students choose Canada over the US because it's supposed to be the easiest and most useful dialect of English to learn. There is significantly less variation in accent throughout Canada than any other major English country (eg: Texas vs. the Bronx, Cornwall vs. Scotland) and Canadian English is supposedly easier to understand by people with other English accents and even easier to learn for non-English speakers. I have no idea if there's truth to any of this, but I've heard it more than once...
I don't argue that this thing stinks, and that Apple oughtta at least have a way for the poor slob to reverify his purchases regardless of where he lives, but: Remember DVDs? You buy one in the USA and good luck playing that disk when you go overseas and stick the disk into your friend's DVD player and its country code doesn't match. So there are lots of bad things related to DRM and this Apple iTunes is just the latest.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
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.
Of course they have close ties: what kind of idiot would run a backbone through Northern Ontario when you could go through Chicago and Detroit? Supposedly there are so few big Canadian bands out of the West because the bus ride from Winnipeg to Ottawa introduces so much latency as to trigger a timeout.
Of course if you attempt to buy anything after the card is cancelled, it'll fail authorization with the issuing card company and then I suspect you've blown yourself out of the water as far as DRM re-authorization goes.
This sounds an awful lot like an oversight, wherein it simply wasn't anticipated that songs purchased in the US would move overseas in the course of the buyer simply emigrating... and thereafter being unable to demonstrate (via a US billing address) that they met the original purchase requirements (being able to at least plausibly pretend to be US residents).
Better yet, import the AACs into iMovie and export them as AIFF, or capture the audio using Wiretap. (Unless you actually want a CD). I've done that for all my songs from iTMS, and if Apple ever prevents that I'll stop buying.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
You can't "re-download" files on the iTunes Music Store. If you lose the file, you have lost the song. Apple have made this well documented.
Deleting a file you've bought from the iTMS caused the same result as snapping a purchased music CD in half - you no longer have the music.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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...
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.
Get a "disposable" MasterCard from webcertificate.com. You can use any other current credit card to purchase the card. (There is, of course, a service fee associated with it.) But the card can be associated with any address you wish, including a US address (just make sure the city/state/zip association is a valid one; other information can be bogus).
This was originally billed as a way for any international user with a credit card to purchase music from the iTunes Music Store. However, it appears that this method could be used to just get yourself a credit card number that's associated with a US billing address for the purposes of associating it with your AppleID. See webcertificate.com's faq for more info.
In sum:
iTunes Music Store does not "check" to see where you are via IP address, or any other network method.
Music you own is never "deleted".
The only reason this user encountered the issue is because he had to reinstall his entire OS, and reauthorize the computer with a credit card whose billing address had since been changed to a non-US address - this didn't specifically disallow him from playing his purchased music; rather, it didn't allow him to REauthorize the computer in order to play the purchased music. As others have said, this seems to be more of a unique situation/accident than intentional on Apple's part (notwithstanding the valid legal considerations Apple has).
Music you burn to CD from iTunes Music Store is yours to keep - FOREVER. No matter where you move. You DO own the music you buy from iTunes Music Store. (Unlike other sites).
As soon as international licensing arrangements are worked out, more and more countries will have iTunes Music Store available.
Apple did much better than anyone else with keeping broad rights with the user/customer, where they belong.
And, finally, a letter from the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA:
The reason for this is that music studios have signed contracts going back to the 80s, 70s, 60s, and before, which only cover the right to sell music in the US. Many artists sign with different labels overseas (this seemed the best way to go before the internet appeared, since each local label knew the most about marketing for its own territory). Anyway, many US labels don't even have the right to sell their music stock outside the country. Apple is just passing along this restriction.
It would take a MAJOR re-negotiation of almost every artists' contract to change this. That may eventually happen but it won't be soon.
The same thing happens with movies, btw. Expect on-line pay movie services to restrict viewing to the US.
I think the parent poster's point was that recompressing under the same codec (sans DRM) is more likely to subtract similar information to that which was originally glossed out and introduce similar artifacts, instead of a new set. MP3 artifacts are somewhat different from AAC. There's no perfect solution, but it might be a better choice than transcoding (though note that any form of digital quantisation, like CD-audio, is itself a lossy coding - when you convert to AIFF or burn to CD, you're introducing new quantisation error and loss that may not be symmetrical with the original sample).
;) Personally that's been my answer to the RIAA's paranoia lately.
With reasonable quality settings it's not going to matter to nearly everyone, as others have noted. Playing music through wires is a fudge anyway; if you want real sound, eschew reproduction and support live music near you.
Does anybody read the actual license? Specifically, you have the right to export the songs, it's listed further down. You just have to be doing it for personal and non-commercial reasons. I've moved out of country does it. The Apple customer service rep blew it so Apple isn't perfect here but if you read the license, he should have gotten his stuff restored.
Read further down. Export is legal. Apple's customer rep was full of it.
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.
"its no different to walking out of a nightclub and then trying to sneak back in."
I think a better analogy would be
"This is no different than David Geffen visiting you in your new, non-US home and breaking all of your CDs in half".