No. If you want to have a license that restricts my use (beyond copying and performance) of something
Ah, yes, if it restricts your fair-use rights, then you'd need more than just a normal license. But that's not the issue here.
Sending somebody a file in such a way that it then is DRM'd is hardly something that goes under "fair use", especially if you're free to send it non-DRM'd.
You see no problem with a license that locks people out just for using an "unapproved" device? Congratualtions, you are a DRM advocate.
Congratulation, that quote is just moronic. Yes, I don't see a problem (legally, because that's what we're talking about here) with copyright holders imposing restrictions on the users of their content - as long as it's within the law. No, I'm not a DRM advocate. DRM sucks.
Interestingly, this issue you just brought up is entirely different from what we've been talking. DRM is not law. DRM is technology. Also, DRM restricts the user's fair-use rights. Should that be legal? I think not. But as I said, I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.
In fact, since you think that DRMing a cc'd file should be fair use, you are the one advocating DRM, and you are the one restricting the fair use of the person receiving the DRM'd file.
The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with that copy, having obtained it in compliance with their terms, unless I agree to a separate licensing contract.
You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you. Obviously, fair use applies. A copyright holder may not forbid that you, say, listen to his song in reverse, but then, that is hardly the point here.
Now, if the CC wants to make a license that forbids distribution to any device that imposes playback restrictions, or even just the Zune specifically, they are free to do so
Thank you. Finally. That was my point.
but don't you think that undercuts the whole concept of free choice?
Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours? You're free to not use copyrighted works whose license terms don't agree with you. You might not agree with them, but these licenses have a place in our copyright system.
Personally, I see no problem with it because it ensures that everyone gets the same freedom.
Oh, I didn't mean to say that it was by accident. Just that it doesn't imply anything other than that Jobs thinks the Beatles fit with his presentation.
You don't think he's going to take the chance of accidentally exposing really personal stuff in front of thousands of people?
Again, no, not accidentally. But personal stuff? Sure. He used to show home movies done in iMovie by people working at Apple.
but the artwork, which he specifically noted how beautiful it was, comes only from the iTunes store
Why? I doubt he'd have to scan it himself to get it in there, but I wouldn't put that above him. Seems like something a perfectionist would do:-)
If you assert that something is art, then it must be judged on the same artistic criteria as other works that are judged as art
Exactly. And that means that it's perfectly fine if you don't find them both to be of the same quality, even if both are works of art. Claiming that all art is equal because the quality of art is subjective, thus everything that is not equal to the best pieces of art can't be art, well, that seems a strange argument to make. Not all art is equal. Even if we don't compare between different artists, but look at the pieces done by a single artist: He himself would very likely tell you that some of his pieces are better than others. Does that mean that some pieces are not art? No, it just means that not all art is equal. Of course it's a subjective assessment, and people disagree, but that doesn't turn subjectively worse art into non-art.
Also, while not all entertainment may be art, most art is entertainment to a certain degree. The distinction is not so clear-cut.
Is Bugs Bunny art? I don't know. But I own a hand drawn picture of Dagobert Duck, made by Don Rosa. I very much believe this to be art, even if it's no, say, Guernica.
Wow. What is your problem? You really should seek professional help, anonymously cursing at strangers like that does not seem normal to me.
Also, your post makes no sense. We are talking about copying and performance here. or are you arguing that "squirting" somebody a file does not copy it? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Maybe less swearing and more meaningful sentences would help.
Okay, I'm seriously not sure whether you're just baiting me or whether you're serious. Either way, you're wrong. Copyright holders have quite a bit of rights to restrict what users can do with their works (ever watched a DVD which told you not to show the film publicly?). In fact, creative commons licenses will probably be updated to reflect the Zune's DRM:
But this approach may not be legal for long, especially if the Zune becomes a big hit. Garlick told me that should the device become popular, the Creative Commons could revise its license so that the device-level hampering of sharing would violate the license as much as adding file-based digital rights management to a CC file does today.
For reference, here's the part in the CC licenses which was supposed to prevent DRM:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.
Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these. In fact, I'm not quite sur how this doesn't already disallow what the Zune is doing.
I see lots of PC games here (and I agree with most - Grim Fandango 2 would be awesome, but I'd even buy the first version if it came out as a DS game or something), and lots of newer console games (Psychonauts!), but very few older games. There were tons of games on the NES/GameBoy/SNES which should get sequels. Kid Icarus, for example... I also think the DS needs a Metroid side scroller along the lines of the two Castlevania games.
Maybe Nintendo is using the VC to gauge interest in old franchises? If so, Urban Champion probably ain't getting a sequel anytime soon:-)
That's just pure, Grade-A, USDA-Approved FUD. "Illegally"?
Haha. Okay. Thanks very much, now everyone is looking at me. Hey, guys, I'm working, I promise!
Anyway. I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.
The problem with adding DRM to non-DRM'd meterial is that it is illegal in some cases - depending on the rights the person adding the DRM has.
In this specific case, it may not be illegal, since the current CC licenses only disallow changing of the file, and according to Microsoft, the Zune does not actually change the squirted files. Future CC licenses will probably remove this loophole.
The scroll wheel is the iPod's main flaw! The Zune has directional buttons, which you can press once to move one step at a time, or hold down to move a long way. That's more efficient than always scrolling past the item you want and then having to s-l-o-w-l-y scroll back to it.
Yeah, you're right, if you're slowly going down one item at a time, you're unlikely to overshoot your target.
Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Because the scroll wheel can do both.
And the Zune, PS3 and PSP will play unencrypted MP3 and AAC too. Still doesn't help if you bought something from iTMS and now discover that it's bound to Apple-only devices and you can NEVER play it on anything else except by circumventing the DRM.
Exactly. This is a question of which shop you're using. The device doesn't play any kind of role. You don't need to own an iPod to use the iTunes store, and you don't need to use the iTunes store if you own an iPod.
I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all.
I think it's mainly to maximize profits from their honest customers. It's a stupid strategy, because you're punishing the very people who give you money, while those who don't give you money get a better product - and, as you say, they help establish a monopoly which plays against them. I also think some of them are starting to see the light and changing their ways.
Then how does Apple make money on iTunes Store customers who only buy the occasional song?
They don't. They lose money on these customers. They make it up on people who buy several songs at once, and I think they also try to put charges together, so you aren't charged for every single song when downloading several different songs during a short period of time.
In the end, Apple doesn't make much money on the iTunes store, though. They make money on the iPods, and the iTunes stores is supposed to help selling these.
Certainly you have to wonder why else Steve Jobs had their albums splashed everywhere in his keynote speech.
This may sound quaint, but I think he just likes the Beatles. Apple also had the John Lennon poster, and they used to play Beatles songs before Keynotes. Maybe there's some additional meaning to it, but more likely, Jobs just added some music which he liked and thought they kind of represented Apple's spirit.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Did grandparent call crackers scum? I didn't see that. Who called crackers scum? Some Mac users you know? And you don't think that there are Windows users calling crackers scum? I mean, this just smells of Artie McStrawman. Mac users aren't one person. There are many different Mac users. Some stupid, some not, just like with most other large groups of people.
Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?
Anyone notice there are still people who don't realize that you can use plain MP3/AAC files with the iPod?
The Zune has a proprietary DRM system, just like the iPod. It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them. Or maybe I'm just not getting something here.
the iPhone's music-playing function will be limited by factory-installed "crippleware."
This is not true. Only tracks bought from the iTunes store are DRM'd. You're perfectly free to rip your own music, or - legally or illegally - download it from sources without DRM. I encourage everyone not to buy from the iTunes store (although I have to admit to buying about 10 tracks and 2 albums for convenience's sake).
that's crap... the 650 does just about everything the iPhone will do...
Okay, that's not what I said. Read what I wrote: "It's not even close to what the iPhone is doing interface-wise". The Treo probably has more features than the iPhone. It does just about everything the iPhone does, and more. The iPhone isn't interesting because of its feature set, but because of the interface which finally seems to put everything together in a way that doesn't feel like it was assembled using duct tape.
I mean, the Treo 650's phone part is a Palm application, not an integral part of the Treo. There's not even preemptive multitasking. Most apps lose their state as soon as you leave them. There's very little integration between apps, and so on.
Yes, the Treo does more than the iPhone. But the iPhone finally seems to do the things it does well and in an integrated manner.
I own a Treo 650. It's not even close to what the iPhone is doing interface-wise. I also own a P990, which is about as far from the iPhone (or from the Treo, for that matter) as Windows 3.11 is from Mac OS X.
Not everyone wants all his music with him at all times. iTunes has a nice feature which puts a new set of random songs on the iPod every time you connect it, for those with iPods smaller than their music collection.
They're not going to sell 10 million $500 + 2 year contract phones available only via one operator in 2008.
Do you realize that there's a whole world outside the USA?
The iPod is going to go away in due time, as people move to integrated devices
That remains to be seen. Until now, integrated devices sucked. If the iPhone changes that, maybe people will move to it. If not, they won't, just like they haven't yet.
Your theory is, by the way, not very logical. If people were really moving to integrated devices the way you claim, they would do that with or without Apple. So not offering an integrated device would hurt Apple. Obviously, they now do offer an integrated device, so... people can remain with Apple instead of buying another device. I'm not sure I get your point.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we'll find out during the coming weeks :-)
Ah, yes, if it restricts your fair-use rights, then you'd need more than just a normal license. But that's not the issue here.
Sending somebody a file in such a way that it then is DRM'd is hardly something that goes under "fair use", especially if you're free to send it non-DRM'd.
Congratulation, that quote is just moronic. Yes, I don't see a problem (legally, because that's what we're talking about here) with copyright holders imposing restrictions on the users of their content - as long as it's within the law. No, I'm not a DRM advocate. DRM sucks.
Interestingly, this issue you just brought up is entirely different from what we've been talking. DRM is not law. DRM is technology. Also, DRM restricts the user's fair-use rights. Should that be legal? I think not. But as I said, I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.
In fact, since you think that DRMing a cc'd file should be fair use, you are the one advocating DRM, and you are the one restricting the fair use of the person receiving the DRM'd file.
You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you. Obviously, fair use applies. A copyright holder may not forbid that you, say, listen to his song in reverse, but then, that is hardly the point here.
Thank you. Finally. That was my point.
Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours? You're free to not use copyrighted works whose license terms don't agree with you. You might not agree with them, but these licenses have a place in our copyright system.
Personally, I see no problem with it because it ensures that everyone gets the same freedom.
Oh, I didn't mean to say that it was by accident. Just that it doesn't imply anything other than that Jobs thinks the Beatles fit with his presentation.
Again, no, not accidentally. But personal stuff? Sure. He used to show home movies done in iMovie by people working at Apple.
Why? I doubt he'd have to scan it himself to get it in there, but I wouldn't put that above him. Seems like something a perfectionist would do :-)
Exactly. And that means that it's perfectly fine if you don't find them both to be of the same quality, even if both are works of art. Claiming that all art is equal because the quality of art is subjective, thus everything that is not equal to the best pieces of art can't be art, well, that seems a strange argument to make. Not all art is equal. Even if we don't compare between different artists, but look at the pieces done by a single artist: He himself would very likely tell you that some of his pieces are better than others. Does that mean that some pieces are not art? No, it just means that not all art is equal. Of course it's a subjective assessment, and people disagree, but that doesn't turn subjectively worse art into non-art.
Also, while not all entertainment may be art, most art is entertainment to a certain degree. The distinction is not so clear-cut.
Is Bugs Bunny art? I don't know. But I own a hand drawn picture of Dagobert Duck, made by Don Rosa. I very much believe this to be art, even if it's no, say, Guernica.
Wow. What is your problem? You really should seek professional help, anonymously cursing at strangers like that does not seem normal to me.
Also, your post makes no sense. We are talking about copying and performance here. or are you arguing that "squirting" somebody a file does not copy it? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Maybe less swearing and more meaningful sentences would help.
Okay, I'm seriously not sure whether you're just baiting me or whether you're serious. Either way, you're wrong. Copyright holders have quite a bit of rights to restrict what users can do with their works (ever watched a DVD which told you not to show the film publicly?). In fact, creative commons licenses will probably be updated to reflect the Zune's DRM:
wired.com
For reference, here's the part in the CC licenses which was supposed to prevent DRM:
Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these. In fact, I'm not quite sur how this doesn't already disallow what the Zune is doing.
That's simply not true, and you know it.
I see lots of PC games here (and I agree with most - Grim Fandango 2 would be awesome, but I'd even buy the first version if it came out as a DS game or something), and lots of newer console games (Psychonauts!), but very few older games. There were tons of games on the NES/GameBoy/SNES which should get sequels. Kid Icarus, for example... I also think the DS needs a Metroid side scroller along the lines of the two Castlevania games.
Maybe Nintendo is using the VC to gauge interest in old franchises? If so, Urban Champion probably ain't getting a sequel anytime soon :-)
Acknowledging that both are art does not imply that both must be equal.
Haha. Okay. Thanks very much, now everyone is looking at me. Hey, guys, I'm working, I promise!
Anyway. I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.
The problem with adding DRM to non-DRM'd meterial is that it is illegal in some cases - depending on the rights the person adding the DRM has.
Some licenses allow you to give content to others, as long as you don't change the file and/or add DRM to it - some creatives commons licenses do that, for example.
In this specific case, it may not be illegal, since the current CC licenses only disallow changing of the file, and according to Microsoft, the Zune does not actually change the squirted files. Future CC licenses will probably remove this loophole.
Yeah, you're right, if you're slowly going down one item at a time, you're unlikely to overshoot your target.
Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Because the scroll wheel can do both.
Exactly. This is a question of which shop you're using. The device doesn't play any kind of role. You don't need to own an iPod to use the iTunes store, and you don't need to use the iTunes store if you own an iPod.
I think it's mainly to maximize profits from their honest customers. It's a stupid strategy, because you're punishing the very people who give you money, while those who don't give you money get a better product - and, as you say, they help establish a monopoly which plays against them. I also think some of them are starting to see the light and changing their ways.
They don't. They lose money on these customers. They make it up on people who buy several songs at once, and I think they also try to put charges together, so you aren't charged for every single song when downloading several different songs during a short period of time.
In the end, Apple doesn't make much money on the iTunes store, though. They make money on the iPods, and the iTunes stores is supposed to help selling these.
This may sound quaint, but I think he just likes the Beatles. Apple also had the John Lennon poster, and they used to play Beatles songs before Keynotes. Maybe there's some additional meaning to it, but more likely, Jobs just added some music which he liked and thought they kind of represented Apple's spirit.
No scroll wheel, nothing to even remotely replicate its functionality. It's just not an efficient interface.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Did grandparent call crackers scum? I didn't see that. Who called crackers scum? Some Mac users you know? And you don't think that there are Windows users calling crackers scum? I mean, this just smells of Artie McStrawman. Mac users aren't one person. There are many different Mac users. Some stupid, some not, just like with most other large groups of people.
Anyone notice there are still people who don't realize that you can use plain MP3/AAC files with the iPod?
The Zune has a proprietary DRM system, just like the iPod. It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them. Or maybe I'm just not getting something here.
From the article:
This is not true. Only tracks bought from the iTunes store are DRM'd. You're perfectly free to rip your own music, or - legally or illegally - download it from sources without DRM. I encourage everyone not to buy from the iTunes store (although I have to admit to buying about 10 tracks and 2 albums for convenience's sake).
Okay, that's not what I said. Read what I wrote: "It's not even close to what the iPhone is doing interface-wise". The Treo probably has more features than the iPhone. It does just about everything the iPhone does, and more. The iPhone isn't interesting because of its feature set, but because of the interface which finally seems to put everything together in a way that doesn't feel like it was assembled using duct tape.
I mean, the Treo 650's phone part is a Palm application, not an integral part of the Treo. There's not even preemptive multitasking. Most apps lose their state as soon as you leave them. There's very little integration between apps, and so on.
Yes, the Treo does more than the iPhone. But the iPhone finally seems to do the things it does well and in an integrated manner.
I own a Treo 650. It's not even close to what the iPhone is doing interface-wise. I also own a P990, which is about as far from the iPhone (or from the Treo, for that matter) as Windows 3.11 is from Mac OS X.
Not everyone wants all his music with him at all times. iTunes has a nice feature which puts a new set of random songs on the iPod every time you connect it, for those with iPods smaller than their music collection.
The idea that all coporate giants are the same amount of evil just because they're corporate giants is at least equally laughable.
And look how IBM is doing in the PC business nowadays. Oh, that's right, they aren't.
Besides, the whole IBM clones thing was an accident, and by no means intentional on IBM's side.
Do you realize that there's a whole world outside the USA?
That remains to be seen. Until now, integrated devices sucked. If the iPhone changes that, maybe people will move to it. If not, they won't, just like they haven't yet.
Your theory is, by the way, not very logical. If people were really moving to integrated devices the way you claim, they would do that with or without Apple. So not offering an integrated device would hurt Apple. Obviously, they now do offer an integrated device, so... people can remain with Apple instead of buying another device. I'm not sure I get your point.