The DRM on the files is such that (imho) a perfect balance between IP and fair use has been achieved. Give me an example of something you feel makes the DRM "boggled" for iTune songs...
As for the "move to Canada and lose your songs bit", you obviously didn't read the whole article. The guy, after moving to Canada and reformating his computer, wanted to download the tracks he already had bought while living in the US. Since Apple has only negotiated US-based contracts, they aren't allowed to sell to users in different countries.
There is no "USA locale" check performed. Once you have them on your computer, you are free to play them -- regardless of where you live. You just have to live in the US to be able to download the songs.
Yes, you could manage this by buying more than a single CD. That being said, where do you draw the line? You have to buy enough CDs to make the service worthwhile to the customers (who won't be willing to wait a factor of days just to listen to a song).
Regardless of if you could get this scheme to work, I still think it's just plain stupid. Why go through all these hoops and tricks when you still end up having to pay for a listen. Apple has it right...99 cents buys you the song and you can listen as many times or whenever you wish. Why is an alternative needed?
I thought his first plan was just dumb, this new one is mind-blowing idiotic!
Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that what he proposes is legal. That is, a company can exist that owns 1 of each CD, and as a shareholder in this company you are given access to download an "archive" of a song or CD in such a way as to guarentee that you are the only person who is listening to a given song or CD at that time.
What would this accomplish? So say Metallica realeases a new song and 100,000 people want to listen to it. Get in line. Assuming a 5 minute song, that last person in line has to wait 500,000 mintues (347 days!) just to hear it. In the mean time, everyone else has only heard that song once!
Well, I'm a bit late to the game here, but I hope you take the time to read through all the replys you get.
Explain what copyright infringment is and why it's bad without using any concept of stealing or theft. I can't do it. I don't think you can, either.You cannot use the concept of paying people for their hard work if you enjoy the fruits of their labor, since not doing that is stealing.
The fact you cannot explain copyright infringment without using the word theft just shows how biased you are in your understanding of copyright.
Let me answer your challenge in the words of the US Supreme Court:
"It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright.""
I would never claim that broadband has no other purpose than to facilitate copyright infrigement (CI). Internet game play is nearly useless without it, porn isn't nearly as much fun, and as you point out, there are many things requiring downloading that don't involve CI.
What I do claim is that, for a sufficient number of broadband users, the sole reason they have broadband is to download copyrighted movies, songs, etc. This may be bad business if you are a RIAA or MPAA member, but is not so bad if you are an ISP.
The telecom sector is in a serious slump. The big boys have invested billions into broadband, yet the revolution everyone was expecting has fizzled, and fizzled to a point where they are really hurting. I work for a company that calls itself "The Broadband Company", so believe me when I say things are in serious trouble.
The last thing an ISP wants now is to lose customers over CI. Externally they can hardly say, "Sign up with us and become a pirate", but to some degree the "pirates" are the bread and butter of the broadband market right now.
"So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving."
Actually, they are worried about going out of business. I'm not afraid to admit that I download stuff like a madman, and that's the only reason I have my high speed connection. I don't game online, and there's little else that would justify me spending much more money on my high speed connection. I'm sure I'm not alone in this boat, and the ISPs know it. They have to fight this, or they lose valuable subscribers.
He also claimed that the "DRM" of the 80s failed due to consumer rejection, and, I believe, was trying to point out that maybe if the RIAA and MPAA would take example of this, they'd realize they're already heading too far down the same path.
Closed system or not, if the customer doesn't like it, they aren't going to buy it. I don't see a different between a code wheel and a closed-DRM system. Both will make the consumer go: "WTF!"
It's baffling to me that the content industries don't look at the experience of the software industry in the 80's, when copy protection on software was widely tried, and just as widely rejected by consumers.
I can see it now....
Clippy: "I see you are trying to play that new Brittany Spears CD! Please turn to page 12 of the CD insert, 3rd paragraph down, and tell me what the 3rd word is before I'll let you play it"
In news today, Ford motor company announced a new plan to start charging for certain product recals.
"We expect a large revenue stream from this new strategy. Our newest models include gas tanks that could potentially explode. By charging for a replacement, we stand to make over a billion."
If I was holding shares in one or more RIAA companies, I'd be livid right now!
How does it make business sense to sue music downloaders (let alone their parents or roomates). One would assume that they are downloading music because they would like to hear the songs. Do you suppose they still would be so eager to hear the music once it has cost them $15,000 in fines?
The internet is a possible gold mine for the RIAA and the MPAA. iTunes has proven that, unlike the lies currently spread by RIAA, there are thousands of people eagerly awaiting a chance to legally download digital songs over the internet, and to pay for them to boot! Of course these people are going to turn to illegal methods to get what they want if there's no other way TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Here's a little business tip for the RIAA member companies:
-- millions of people are downloading songs you hold the copyright to
-- most of them realize this is illegal
-- they want these songs bad enough that they are willing to overlook the illegality of what they are doing
-- they have shown that, when offered with reasonable alternatives (i.e. terms of use offered through iTunes), they are willing to shell out money to get what they are currently getting for free
Since there are so many problems relating to manual voting (dangling chad anyone), and so many security risks (real or perceived) with voting systems like the one mentioned in the article, why not combine both to achieve the best of both worlds while getting rid of the worst of both worlds...
Use an electronic machine to record your vote. You can have fancy GUI screen that display all the choices a voter has made, confirmation screens ("are you sure these are your correct chocies"), etc. When the voter is happy with their votes, they press a button and out pops a voting card with their choices filled in. Take the card and pop it in the voting box as is normal now. No ambiguous half-filled circles, no dangling chads, no worrying that data in the machine will be lost or untracable.
Content Use Rules. All downloaded Content is sublicensed to End Users and not sold, notwithstanding use of the terms "sell," "purchase," "order," or "buy" on the Site or this Agreement. Your Digital Download sublicense is non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicenseable, limited and for personal entertainment use only within the United States. End Users who buy Digital Downloads may play the Digital Downloads an unlimited number of times on the same registered personal computer to which the Digital Download is originally downloaded.
So, I'm not actually buying the songs, just licensing them. Unless I'm using the exact same computer, my use of the songs are limited.
Different Record Label Companies Permit Different Added Uses Of Their Digital Downloads. Information on the Site will state all of the following permitted additional uses, if any, of the Digital Downloads pertaining to a particular music song, partial album or album ("the Works"): (i) the number of allowable transfers to other computers owned by you and registered with the Site, (ii) the number of transfers of each Digital Download to approved electronic Portable Devices, (iii) the number of Compact Discs that may be "burned" in making permanent copies in an uncompressed form conforming to the industry "Red Book" technical specifications to either "write once" blank recordable CD-R compact discs conforming to the industry standard "Orange Book Part II" technical specifications and/or blank "re-writable" CD-RW compact discs (collectively, "Metadata Information"). No other uses of Digital Downloads are permitted.
End User may only use, copy, transfer and display the Digital Downloads as stated in the particular music song or album's Metadata Information. Metadata Information is displayed next to each song, partial album or album offered. To determine how many copies, or "CD-burns," are permitted, click on the icon representing a CD-ROM. To learn how many transfers to registered personal computers or Approved Electronic Devices are permitted, click on the computer or headset icons. As a condition of purchasing a Digital Download, you represent to BuyMusic that you understand a particular song or album's Metadata Information, which is hereby incorporated by reference. All other rights are reserved.
Each song offered will have different "rules" associated with it. Oops...sorry, you've transferred that song too many times to your iPod, you can't do that anymore.
The FAQ is worth a read. If you lose your songs (hard drive crash) you have to pay for them again. You agree to be spammed by them (purchasing a song apparently constitutes acceptance of email solicitation). Bah...could go on and on.
I also have to wonder what happens when you buy a new computer...
Do you see a distinction between (what I would consider) a true "pirate" -- one who copies and distributes, for profit, intellectual property -- versus a file sharer?
If you are talking about OSS (Operational Support Software), then you are talking big-boy UNIX (AIX, HP, SUN). You are also talking big honking hardware (32-way boxes, 16 gig ram, terrabyte disk arrays, etc). Nothing suitable for linux or windows.
However, if you are talking GUI junk (CSR front end, billing system GUI, middleware junk) then you are probably talking windows. You won't see these ported to LINUX any time soon.
For the record, I work as an integrator for telecom software.
Yes, that's right. Left over grease is purchased for the eventual use in soap. And restaurants gets paid for their leftovers, so I wonder how this guy is getting free oil? Is he stealing the oil?
It all depends on how you handle the situation...if you go to your boss and say, "I've got an offer from company X where I'll be making $Y, match it or you lose me," then don't expect good treatment further on down the road.
If you say to your boss, "I like this company and the team I'm working with, but I just have to put my own career in front some times," more than likely you'll save face.
License. We hereby grant to you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Player and Content on your personal computer solely for your own personal, non-commercial use. You understand and agree that you may not reproduce, modify, display, distribute or otherwise use the Player or Content except as expressly provided herein, and you may not attempt to separate the Player or Content from the CD on which you received them. You may not authorize, encourage or allow the Player or any Content to be reproduced, modified, displayed, distributed or otherwise used by any other party, and you agree that you will take all reasonable steps to prevent any unauthorized reproduction and/or use of them. Nothing herein is intended to prevent you from transferring the CD you purchased to another person who will be bound by these terms and conditions. Except as expressly provided herein, no other licenses or rights (including rights to maintenance or updates) are granted, expressly, or by implication or estoppel.
In Canada (as in some other countries), we pay a levy on all blank CDs (something horrible like 50 cents per). The levy is sent, courtesy the Canadian gov't, to the members of RIAA. In exchange, we are allowed to copy a music CD legally. I can borrow Joe's copy of Brittany and make myself a copy without legal ramifications.
However, now they put this "player" on the CD and I cannot help but think that Univseral will claim the levy does not allow for the copying of these CDs because the "player" is not musical content.
A fundamental building block for client-side content security is a secure operating system. If a computer can be booted only into an operating system that itself honors content rights, and allows only compliant applications to access rights-restricted data, then data integrity within the machine can be assured. This stepping-stone to a secure operating system is sometimes called "Secure Boot." If secure boot cannot be assured, then whatever rights management system the secure OS provides, the computer can always be booted into an insecure operating system as a step to compromise it.
Let me paraphrase: Microsoft has a patent on an OS that prevents a computer from booting anything but the "digital rights OS" Seems to me this would do away with dual boot PCs rather nicely.
So what? Does the notion of the guilty choosing their punishment/settlement not bother you?
3. It's not illegal to "destroy companies" or be a "bad guy." I'd challenge you to separate what is illegal from what is "not nice."
I don't have to do the separation. That's the thing you Microsoft apologists keep forgetting -- they were found guilty of using their monopoly illegally. Their actions have already been reviewed and pronounced illegal.
6. Is pouring money into low-income areas really the best way for Microsoft to "tighten their stranglehold
Oh, good one. "They're poor so they don't count." So are you trying to argue that if it were the richer schools that M$ was doing this for it would be tightening their stranglehold, but since it's the poorer schools who cares?
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like you missed some of the story...
The DRM on the files is such that (imho) a perfect balance between IP and fair use has been achieved. Give me an example of something you feel makes the DRM "boggled" for iTune songs...
As for the "move to Canada and lose your songs bit", you obviously didn't read the whole article. The guy, after moving to Canada and reformating his computer, wanted to download the tracks he already had bought while living in the US. Since Apple has only negotiated US-based contracts, they aren't allowed to sell to users in different countries.
There is no "USA locale" check performed. Once you have them on your computer, you are free to play them -- regardless of where you live. You just have to live in the US to be able to download the songs.
Yes, you could manage this by buying more than a single CD. That being said, where do you draw the line? You have to buy enough CDs to make the service worthwhile to the customers (who won't be willing to wait a factor of days just to listen to a song).
Regardless of if you could get this scheme to work, I still think it's just plain stupid. Why go through all these hoops and tricks when you still end up having to pay for a listen. Apple has it right...99 cents buys you the song and you can listen as many times or whenever you wish. Why is an alternative needed?
I thought his first plan was just dumb, this new one is mind-blowing idiotic!
Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that what he proposes is legal. That is, a company can exist that owns 1 of each CD, and as a shareholder in this company you are given access to download an "archive" of a song or CD in such a way as to guarentee that you are the only person who is listening to a given song or CD at that time.
What would this accomplish? So say Metallica realeases a new song and 100,000 people want to listen to it. Get in line. Assuming a 5 minute song, that last person in line has to wait 500,000 mintues (347 days!) just to hear it. In the mean time, everyone else has only heard that song once!
Who, in their right mind, would sign up for that?
Well, I'm a bit late to the game here, but I hope you take the time to read through all the replys you get.
Explain what copyright infringment is and why it's bad without using any concept of stealing or theft. I can't do it. I don't think you can, either.You cannot use the concept of paying people for their hard work if you enjoy the fruits of their labor, since not doing that is stealing.
The fact you cannot explain copyright infringment without using the word theft just shows how biased you are in your understanding of copyright.
Let me answer your challenge in the words of the US Supreme Court:
"It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright.""
http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/wlg/2425
I think you completely missed my point.
I would never claim that broadband has no other purpose than to facilitate copyright infrigement (CI). Internet game play is nearly useless without it, porn isn't nearly as much fun, and as you point out, there are many things requiring downloading that don't involve CI.
What I do claim is that, for a sufficient number of broadband users, the sole reason they have broadband is to download copyrighted movies, songs, etc. This may be bad business if you are a RIAA or MPAA member, but is not so bad if you are an ISP.
The telecom sector is in a serious slump. The big boys have invested billions into broadband, yet the revolution everyone was expecting has fizzled, and fizzled to a point where they are really hurting. I work for a company that calls itself "The Broadband Company", so believe me when I say things are in serious trouble.
The last thing an ISP wants now is to lose customers over CI. Externally they can hardly say, "Sign up with us and become a pirate", but to some degree the "pirates" are the bread and butter of the broadband market right now.
I'm sure it has already been said, but
"So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving."
Actually, they are worried about going out of business. I'm not afraid to admit that I download stuff like a madman, and that's the only reason I have my high speed connection. I don't game online, and there's little else that would justify me spending much more money on my high speed connection. I'm sure I'm not alone in this boat, and the ISPs know it. They have to fight this, or they lose valuable subscribers.
He also claimed that the "DRM" of the 80s failed due to consumer rejection, and, I believe, was trying to point out that maybe if the RIAA and MPAA would take example of this, they'd realize they're already heading too far down the same path.
Closed system or not, if the customer doesn't like it, they aren't going to buy it. I don't see a different between a code wheel and a closed-DRM system. Both will make the consumer go: "WTF!"
It's baffling to me that the content industries don't look at the experience of the software industry in the 80's, when copy protection on software was widely tried, and just as widely rejected by consumers.
I can see it now....
Clippy: "I see you are trying to play that new Brittany Spears CD! Please turn to page 12 of the CD insert, 3rd paragraph down, and tell me what the 3rd word is before I'll let you play it"
In news today, Ford motor company announced a new plan to start charging for certain product recals.
"We expect a large revenue stream from this new strategy. Our newest models include gas tanks that could potentially explode. By charging for a replacement, we stand to make over a billion."
If I was holding shares in one or more RIAA companies, I'd be livid right now!
How does it make business sense to sue music downloaders (let alone their parents or roomates). One would assume that they are downloading music because they would like to hear the songs. Do you suppose they still would be so eager to hear the music once it has cost them $15,000 in fines?
The internet is a possible gold mine for the RIAA and the MPAA. iTunes has proven that, unlike the lies currently spread by RIAA, there are thousands of people eagerly awaiting a chance to legally download digital songs over the internet, and to pay for them to boot! Of course these people are going to turn to illegal methods to get what they want if there's no other way TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Here's a little business tip for the RIAA member companies:
-- millions of people are downloading songs you hold the copyright to
-- most of them realize this is illegal
-- they want these songs bad enough that they are willing to overlook the illegality of what they are doing
-- they have shown that, when offered with reasonable alternatives (i.e. terms of use offered through iTunes), they are willing to shell out money to get what they are currently getting for free
GIVE THE CUSTOMERS WHAT THEY WANT!!
Instead, what do they do? Sue the users. Bravo.
Since there are so many problems relating to manual voting (dangling chad anyone), and so many security risks (real or perceived) with voting systems like the one mentioned in the article, why not combine both to achieve the best of both worlds while getting rid of the worst of both worlds...
Use an electronic machine to record your vote. You can have fancy GUI screen that display all the choices a voter has made, confirmation screens ("are you sure these are your correct chocies"), etc. When the voter is happy with their votes, they press a button and out pops a voting card with their choices filled in. Take the card and pop it in the voting box as is normal now. No ambiguous half-filled circles, no dangling chads, no worrying that data in the machine will be lost or untracable.
From their FAQ:
Content Use Rules. All downloaded Content is sublicensed to End Users and not sold, notwithstanding use of the terms "sell," "purchase," "order," or "buy" on the Site or this Agreement. Your Digital Download sublicense is non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicenseable, limited and for personal entertainment use only within the United States. End Users who buy Digital Downloads may play the Digital Downloads an unlimited number of times on the same registered personal computer to which the Digital Download is originally downloaded.
So, I'm not actually buying the songs, just licensing them. Unless I'm using the exact same computer, my use of the songs are limited.
Different Record Label Companies Permit Different Added Uses Of Their Digital Downloads. Information on the Site will state all of the following permitted additional uses, if any, of the Digital Downloads pertaining to a particular music song, partial album or album ("the Works"): (i) the number of allowable transfers to other computers owned by you and registered with the Site, (ii) the number of transfers of each Digital Download to approved electronic Portable Devices, (iii) the number of Compact Discs that may be "burned" in making permanent copies in an uncompressed form conforming to the industry "Red Book" technical specifications to either "write once" blank recordable CD-R compact discs conforming to the industry standard "Orange Book Part II" technical specifications and/or blank "re-writable" CD-RW compact discs (collectively, "Metadata Information"). No other uses of Digital Downloads are permitted.
End User may only use, copy, transfer and display the Digital Downloads as stated in the particular music song or album's Metadata Information. Metadata Information is displayed next to each song, partial album or album offered. To determine how many copies, or "CD-burns," are permitted, click on the icon representing a CD-ROM. To learn how many transfers to registered personal computers or Approved Electronic Devices are permitted, click on the computer or headset icons. As a condition of purchasing a Digital Download, you represent to BuyMusic that you understand a particular song or album's Metadata Information, which is hereby incorporated by reference. All other rights are reserved.
Each song offered will have different "rules" associated with it. Oops...sorry, you've transferred that song too many times to your iPod, you can't do that anymore.
The FAQ is worth a read. If you lose your songs (hard drive crash) you have to pay for them again. You agree to be spammed by them (purchasing a song apparently constitutes acceptance of email solicitation). Bah...could go on and on.
I also have to wonder what happens when you buy a new computer...
Do you see a distinction between (what I would consider) a true "pirate" -- one who copies and distributes, for profit, intellectual property -- versus a file sharer?
If the survey they gave those 1500 people is the same as the one on their web site, then that's really pathetic news.
Multiple choice, 3 answers for each, with one being an obviously stupid answer.
And only 3% got the entire thing (7 questions) correct.
If you are talking about OSS (Operational Support Software), then you are talking big-boy UNIX (AIX, HP, SUN). You are also talking big honking hardware (32-way boxes, 16 gig ram, terrabyte disk arrays, etc). Nothing suitable for linux or windows.
However, if you are talking GUI junk (CSR front end, billing system GUI, middleware junk) then you are probably talking windows. You won't see these ported to LINUX any time soon.
For the record, I work as an integrator for telecom software.
Patent != Trademark
GET IT STRAIGHT
Yes, that's right. Left over grease is purchased for the eventual use in soap. And restaurants gets paid for their leftovers, so I wonder how this guy is getting free oil? Is he stealing the oil?
It all depends on how you handle the situation...if you go to your boss and say, "I've got an offer from company X where I'll be making $Y, match it or you lose me," then don't expect good treatment further on down the road.
If you say to your boss, "I like this company and the team I'm working with, but I just have to put my own career in front some times," more than likely you'll save face.
How can the storage medium be in any way involved in DRM?
User: "Hey, an MP3! Save it to disk!"
Storage Medium: "FILE ERROR!"
They want to get their Digital Rights Management Software to infest every aspect of their OS as possible.
Do you honestly believe that the benifit of a faster search is enough incentive to rewrite such a major part of the OS?
Tell me that doesn't scare every one of you.
In Canada (as in some other countries), we pay a levy on all blank CDs (something horrible like 50 cents per). The levy is sent, courtesy the Canadian gov't, to the members of RIAA. In exchange, we are allowed to copy a music CD legally. I can borrow Joe's copy of Brittany and make myself a copy without legal ramifications.
However, now they put this "player" on the CD and I cannot help but think that Univseral will claim the levy does not allow for the copying of these CDs because the "player" is not musical content.
Now that would add some class to the movie:
Orcs tripping, gandalf swearing like a sailor as he bumps his head, Liv farting....
Let me paraphrase: Microsoft has a patent on an OS that prevents a computer from booting anything but the "digital rights OS" Seems to me this would do away with dual boot PCs rather nicely.
So what? Does the notion of the guilty choosing their punishment/settlement not bother you?
3. It's not illegal to "destroy companies" or be a "bad guy." I'd challenge you to separate what is illegal from what is "not nice."
I don't have to do the separation. That's the thing you Microsoft apologists keep forgetting -- they were found guilty of using their monopoly illegally. Their actions have already been reviewed and pronounced illegal.
6. Is pouring money into low-income areas really the best way for Microsoft to "tighten their stranglehold
Oh, good one. "They're poor so they don't count." So are you trying to argue that if it were the richer schools that M$ was doing this for it would be tightening their stranglehold, but since it's the poorer schools who cares?