Your "complaint" is analogous to me saying that the book publishers are denying me the right to copy my book by putting it in this paper-and-ink format which is not easily copied without a lot of effort....
But your assertion that FairPlay DRM denies you that right is patently absurd.
You're quite wrong. I am not complaining that the "security" technology exists, I am complaining that it is illegal for me to remove it. I am complaining that it is illegal for me to use playfair, under the DMCA, and under the terms of service. It is not FairPlay that denies me the exercise of my rights, it is the legal situation preventing me from removing it. It's true that I sloppily blamed the DRM in the post you replied to, but I quite clearly clarified it later; I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the legal status of the DRM, not the technology itself -- considering the obvious fact that it can be removed with playfair! -- but apparently not.
I know the difference is subtle, and hard to grasp -- even for an Anonymous Coward who touts his logical skillz -- but it's important. Your entire argument against my argument here is missing my actual point.
All I can say is that it is open for interpretation. Taking the hardline you are correct - you can't reimport. But taking a loose interpretation, you're not allowed to use the "Product" - the DRM enabled file - on more than 3 computers.
See the definition of "Product" in the Terms of Service: "products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork." When they say "[t]he security technology is an inseparable part of the Products," they are talking not about the specific files, but the content, the "sound recordings."
But you are "entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use" - which can be interpreted the other way, that once it's exported you have full fair use rights.
This particular thing has nothing to do with fair use rights. You have those regardless of whether you export it. First, you have the right to use it for personal, noncommercial use even before you export it ("You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use"). Second, you would have that right even if it were not enumerated. And third, as I attempted to clarify before, the DRM does not take away your fair use rights, it prevents you from fully exercising them.
I think what you're saying is that separating the content from the DRM, which they allow you to do, allows you to fully exercise those rights, but there is no legal distinction -- because the Product is defined as the recording itself, not the specific file and its format -- that I can see between an AAC file that you've removed the DRM from directly, and a burned track of the file on the CD that you rip back to the computer. In both cases, you are separating the Product from the DRM, which is explicitly disallowed. Yes, in the latter case, you are doing something that is explicitly allowed to do the actual separation, but by ripping it back, you are performing a de facto separation, one that is not supported, one that is indistinct from the process of merely removing the DRM from the original file (except that you may have some lossyness).
I'm not going to argue this any more - as far as I'm concerned, they've written it in such a way that it can be legally argued both ways.
It's not so much that it can be argued more than one way, it is that they left inconsistencies in the document that make it so that you open yourself to violation for exercising your fair use rights, even if you separate the DRM from the Product in an allowable way. And further, they undermine their potential enforcement by giving conflicting definitions (saying the DRM is inseparable from the product, and then giving you permission AND ability to separate them).
As for the lossy argument, either AAC is more lossy than CDs, they are less lossy, or they are equally lossy.
When you translate from one format to another, unless there is a 1:1 relationship, or one is a perfect superset of the other, there will be loss ("more" and "less" lossy don't really apply). In this case, I believe CDs are a perfect superset of these particular AAC files (because the bit and sampling rates match up sufficiently), however, the AAC file must be extrapolated out to the CD format. Any errors in calculation in the extrapolation will mean unrecoverable loss. And more to the point, ripping it back (which is the whole point of this) and converting it to *any* compressed format, including AAC, will necessarily mean loss from the original.
burning a CD is pretty accurate conversion of an already lossy format (AAC) to a lossless format CD-Audio. Unless the AAC to AIFF conversion has bugs, the resulting AIFF audio should be the same as the original AAC audio with only a single generation of lossy compression artifacts.
"Pretty accurate" is a synonym for "lossy." No, it is not exact, as you are extrapolating. And yes, all conversions have bugs. And more to the point, when I then convert it to any other compressed format later under the terms of fair use, that, too, is lossy.
You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded
No, it is lossy.
By 'virtually identical' I meant that after burning they have no DRM and you will have the ability to do whatever you would have with a purchased CD.
Again, no. According to the terms, if you rip it back tp AAC/MP3 from the burned CD, you will be separating the product from the DRM. According to the terms, this circumvention would be indistinguishable from merely stripping the DRM from the original file. The terms don't say you can't strip the DRM from the file, it says you can't separate the DRM from the music. Yes, they allow you to burn a CD (though they do not explain how this is NOT separation), but upon ripping it back you will have in effect the same separation that has been explicitly forbidden (even though worse, since it is now lossy).
I felt it was a bit much to attack Apple for how little they did instead of acknowledging what they've done as a first step
They've gotten enough kudos from others, so I choose to attack Jobs for lying to us when he said we own the music and implied we can use it any way we wish.
While it would be nice for there to be no software limits, at this point it was impossible for Apple to get that to fly.
I understand that, but it is meaningless in regard to whether or not criticism is warranted. They chose to get into this business and are responsible for what they do in it, whether they "had no choice" or not.
On the other hand, I don't consider burning a CD and then using the music elsewhere 'circumvent[ing] the copy protection', since you are implicitly allowed to and that functionality is built in.
I think you mean "explicitly." But that is missing two things. The first was the original context: I was told that I should just make a CD and then rip it, that this would somehow be more acceptable than removing the DRM. The second picks up where that leaves off: if Apple can claim that the DRM is inseparable from the product, then ripping the burned CD would constitute a de facto separation beyond that which is explicitly allowed (burning alone), though I'd still argue it's clearly allowed under fair use.
all other physical restrictions with sharing the music virtually identical to the restrictions on a standard CD.
I can, legally, make as many perfect copies of a CD as I want, for personal use. How is that 'virtually identical' to the 3-copy limit of iTMS?
I'll bite on the troll - You're not being denied any rights because you agreed to the terms of use when you bought the songs.
No, you're missing the point. As explained elsewhere in this thread, the terms don't actually deny my fair use rights, they deny me the *exercise* of those rights, making a not-so-veiled appeal to DMCA provisions. I still have the right to listen to the music on more than three computers, but not the right to circumvent the copy protection; the copy protection is *therefore* denying my right to listen to it on more than three computers.
Whether or not I agree to the terms is irrelevant, since I did not surrender my right, but merely (in theory) accepted the limitation of it. And then there is the question of whether or not my agreement to the limitation of my rights is legally enforcable. I'd guess it isn't, but in this case it doesn't matter much, because the DMCA protects it anyway, in theory. So the question is whether the DMCA is constitutional when used to limit our rights.
And on top of all this, Apple's own terms are inconsistent. They say the security technology is an "inseparable" part of the product, that you are not allowed to remove it from the product, but they give you permission to separate it from the product (via burning to CD)! They do not say this separation is an exception to the no-separation rule. They simply act like burning to CD is not a separation, when it clearly is.
So, if they give you a way to separate the DRM from the music (despite saying you can't do that), then what justification do they have for claiming that separating the DRM from the music is either a DMCA violation, a contract violation, or a copyright violation? As to the latter, they have none. As to the middle, their case is extremely weak. As to the former: their case is still strong (as recent cases have held the content is not at issue, but whether the DRM is broken is at issue), but seriously weakened by the fact that they provide a way to remove the DRM.
Or try this new fandled thing called rendevous sharing in iTunes, and you can play all your songs over the network without even copying the files over.
You are missing something... you are still limited using sharing. Nothing is different about that method that is significant to this discussion.
I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you.
And I will not concede I ever asked anyone to. I merely want to be able to do it without being accused of violating the law for circumventing anti-piracy measures which are there to prevent illegal use, not my legal use.
However, I still feel your initial claim of being denied fair use by iTunes sharing limit is erroneous
My point was never about sharing, but about the fact that I can only play the music on a limited number of devices (regardless of whether it is shared), unless I circumvent the copy protection, which is what I am told is illegal. This is all about the battle between the DMCA and fair use.
I am in no way affiliated with Dave Winer. You take that back!
You are not being denied anything at all.
You're incorrect. It's quite clear to everyone who has eyes and ears. While it is technically true I am not being denied my rights, it is true that so-called "anti-circumvention" technologies like Apple's FairPlay DRM deny me the exercise of my rights. I have the legal right to play a song I purchased on as many computers in my home as I wish, but Apple's DRM prevents me from doing so. This denial of the exercise of my rights couldn't be more clear.
You can only listen to *your* music in one place at a time, right ?
Do you mean, in regard to fair use rights? Where'd you get that (false) idea?
So, use the iTunes sharing and *your* music is available everywhere, right ?
No, it is only available to a limited number of computers (and this limitation is about content protection, not about technological limitations).
IANAL, so I don't know the term to describe your facetiousness, but by your reasoning all NDAs and gag-orders would be useless, since they'd interfere with your right to free speech.
You are conflating two things. Gag orders are not about you willingly signing away your rights, but you being ordered by a court, regardless of your will. And yes, many times, NDAs are held to be unenforcable, depending on what the right is. Certainly a company has the right to make you agree to some things, but the line is often whether those things are clearly in the company's interest. Example: the company can tell you that you can't reveal its trade secrets to competitor at any time after termination, but not that you can't work for a competitor upon termination (depending on jurisdiction; I think some states do enforce such contractural agreements, while others do not).
And while simply clicking 'I Agree' may be unclear software license acceptance, actually authorizing payment after clicking probably is a little clearer as acceptance of terms for a contract.
The difference, in this argument, is irrelevant. The argument is that the contract is unenforcable because I have my fair use rights regardless of what the contract says.
All fair use arguments pretty much imply personal use, with a fuzzy area about family use in the same house.
No, they really aren't. It's well-established that in the home, fair use rights are very broad.
And while you may have the 'right' to listen to your music however you want, no one is required to make it easy.
That's beside the point. It is not about them making it easy, it is about them prosecuting me for exercising the right.
Can you use a CD on that RISC-Toaster of yours? What's that? You'd have to rip it by hand? Kinda like what you'd have to do for iTunes? How 'bout that.
Was this supposed to be an argument for or against something? It seems like it is, but it doesn't actually say anything that relates to what anyone else has said, since no one is arguing the contrary of this, and this doesn't contradict anyone else's arguments.
And for your first argument, the same thing applies: whatever 'right' you may have to listen to 7 copies at once, they certainly aren't going to give you an extra 6 CDs when you buy one. So you'd still have to set it up yourself.
Yes, which is what I wish to do with the music I buy from iTMS, which I am told if I do, I am violating a contract and some sort of moral code. I contend the contract is unreasonable and unenforcable (in large part because it is inconsistent with its own definitions)
You can set iTunes on a single machine to share its music, including purchased, with any Macs on the same network.
Limited in number.
Whether or not this is convenient for you is a personal matter, but the technology already exists to share your music with any computer you could carry CDs back and forth to, without having to authorize/de-authorize.
If I limit the number of Macs. It's the same problem. You've not highlighted any interesting difference.
Creating CDs off of iTMS music is a feature Apple has managed to negotiate with the RIAA.
Yes, and? You are saying people should use it to circumvent the DRM. The purpose of the CDs is to have CDs, not to re-rip it back to the computer. The fact that it is more acceptable to Apple or the RIAA has no bearing on me.
You are not messing with the encrypted file, you are not doing anything illegal.
Copyright has nothing to do with the file itself, but the content. You were talking about fair use, which means copyright. What you are talking about now is the DMCA, which is only tangentially related. Your posts might make more sense if you didn't conflate these distinct issues.
"Fair Use" is no applicable legal concept in this case, as usage of iTMS is subject to a set of clearly-defined rules, which are part of a legally-binding contract, to which you "Agreed".
There's no reason to suppose that such a contract would be legally enforcable. It says "You shall be authorized to use the Products on three Apple-authorized computers at any time" (note: it does not say I shall not use it on more than three, which is a relevant distinction), but then it allows you to make as many CDs as you wish, without any such restrictions. Again, the relevant laws are about the content, not the specific form the content is in.
And yes, it also says, "You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules" and "The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products." But so what? Some employment contracts say I agree to not join another company in the same business for a period of six months, after leaving the current company. Some software contracts say I can't make backup copies. Such contractural provisions are often found to be unenforcable.
And the words of the policy show how Apple is being hypocritical. "Products" is defined as "sound recordings and related artwork," which is about the content, not the format. They let you convert it, legally, to another format. And now the security technology is inseparable from the Product, even though they give you a method to, in fact, separate them? They prove in their own terms that they are, in fact, separate things, despite their assertion to the contrary.
The real issue with the security circumvention is not related to the contract, but to the DMCA. If I am allowed to do it under the DMCA -- which is debatable -- then the contract provision here is unenforcable, because my Fair Use rights override it.
All further musings about Fair Use are about the "morality" of this situation, and the only recourse you have is to vote with your feet
Your default assumption is that using PlayFair is somehow wrong. You've not backed that up, so your assertion that people should avoid iTMS rather than circumventing the DRM in order to exercise their rights under Fair Use are uninteresting.
There is nothing legal about "breaking a DRM scheme".
In the absolute sense, I suppose that's true; but it is also true there's nothing ILlegal about it. Yawn.
The bottom line is that you have no argument whatever in regard to Fair Use or copyright. You have a marginal, though unproven, argument about the DMCA, but the DMCA -- should it be found to apply, which is merely guessing on your part -- is most likely unconstitutional, and surely someday will be overturned as such (OK, I am an optimist).
At some point, the courts will likely recognize that if you have the right use to the information, then you have a right to use the information. It's quite detestable, as a matter of law, that Steve Jobs stands on stage and asserts, over and over again, that "the music belongs to you," but then say you can't take steps to listen to it within the well-established boundaries of Fair Use.
Apple already allows you to listen to your music on any computer running their free iTunes software. THAT *is* fair use.
Uh. I have five Macs in my house. I can only play music *I purchased* on three of them. It is quite clear: I am being denied my fair use rights. There's really no debating it. What to do about the problem is all that is under debate.
Why go thru the trouble of breaking encryption? just so you could listen to your music on linux? if you're going thru all that trouble then why not create a few audio CDs from all your purchased music, so you could listen to it on your stereo and in your car, AND RIP UN-DRM'ed MP3s onto your linux box?
You argue people should use DRM circumvention instead of DRM circumvention? You're quite confused. One method is no more or less legal or justifiable than the other. Both of them are methods to circumvent DRM, and in my case, perfectly legal, since the existing files prevent me from exercising my fair use rights.
I believe the emacs are focused mainly on elementary schools and a similar environmnet (ie, youngsters).
They were, but are no longer.
Also, if you notice on the apple store if you are buying for an educational institution you have the option of getting them wtih a superdrive, which is not available even for the students buying one for themselves.
False. Any customer can buy an eMac with SuperDrive.
there's no reason your Mac can't have a two button mouse, too
Yes, there is: because I prefer my five-button mouse! Which also has a scroll wheel! Muahahaha. I am the evil anti-Mac Mac user! I have more buttons than you can stick a shake at!
Apple has put all its developer docs online, for free, since 1996 or earlier (when I started downloading all the Inside Mac volumes in PDF). I see no reason to suspect they will start charging money any time soon.
None of this makes any sense. I have a current subscription to this service (so I can listen to the Red Sox in Seattle). I use RealOne to listen to the preseason broadcasts. The documentation provided by MLB.com when I signed up said Real is required. The fact is that MLB told me I needed Real, I am using Real, and any assertion that -- right now -- Real is not available is patently false.
even the election for President is 51 (50 states plus the district of Columbia) separate elections to choose an "Electoral College" the provides the technical vote for President
Note to the legion of nit-pickers Slashdot attracts
DC does not get electoral college votes. Only states do.
I have the same problem, and yes, it is not fixed. I know other people have the same problem; hopefully, Apple can track it down and fix it.:/
My workaround is to set the name/password of my network in the Network preferences, instead of "choose automatically" use "choose specific network" or whatever. But it did fix my kernel panics, so yay!
Slashdot Mirror
Your "complaint" is analogous to me saying that the book publishers are denying me the right to copy my book by putting it in this paper-and-ink format which is not easily copied without a lot of effort. ...
But your assertion that FairPlay DRM denies you that right is patently absurd.
You're quite wrong. I am not complaining that the "security" technology exists, I am complaining that it is illegal for me to remove it. I am complaining that it is illegal for me to use playfair, under the DMCA, and under the terms of service. It is not FairPlay that denies me the exercise of my rights, it is the legal situation preventing me from removing it. It's true that I sloppily blamed the DRM in the post you replied to, but I quite clearly clarified it later; I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the legal status of the DRM, not the technology itself -- considering the obvious fact that it can be removed with playfair! -- but apparently not.
I know the difference is subtle, and hard to grasp -- even for an Anonymous Coward who touts his logical skillz -- but it's important. Your entire argument against my argument here is missing my actual point.
All I can say is that it is open for interpretation. Taking the hardline you are correct - you can't reimport. But taking a loose interpretation, you're not allowed to use the "Product" - the DRM enabled file - on more than 3 computers.
See the definition of "Product" in the Terms of Service: "products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork." When they say "[t]he security technology is an inseparable part of the Products," they are talking not about the specific files, but the content, the "sound recordings."
But you are "entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use" - which can be interpreted the other way, that once it's exported you have full fair use rights.
This particular thing has nothing to do with fair use rights. You have those regardless of whether you export it. First, you have the right to use it for personal, noncommercial use even before you export it ("You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use"). Second, you would have that right even if it were not enumerated. And third, as I attempted to clarify before, the DRM does not take away your fair use rights, it prevents you from fully exercising them.
I think what you're saying is that separating the content from the DRM, which they allow you to do, allows you to fully exercise those rights, but there is no legal distinction -- because the Product is defined as the recording itself, not the specific file and its format -- that I can see between an AAC file that you've removed the DRM from directly, and a burned track of the file on the CD that you rip back to the computer. In both cases, you are separating the Product from the DRM, which is explicitly disallowed. Yes, in the latter case, you are doing something that is explicitly allowed to do the actual separation, but by ripping it back, you are performing a de facto separation, one that is not supported, one that is indistinct from the process of merely removing the DRM from the original file (except that you may have some lossyness).
I'm not going to argue this any more - as far as I'm concerned, they've written it in such a way that it can be legally argued both ways.
It's not so much that it can be argued more than one way, it is that they left inconsistencies in the document that make it so that you open yourself to violation for exercising your fair use rights, even if you separate the DRM from the Product in an allowable way. And further, they undermine their potential enforcement by giving conflicting definitions (saying the DRM is inseparable from the product, and then giving you permission AND ability to separate them).
As for the lossy argument, either AAC is more lossy than CDs, they are less lossy, or they are equally lossy.
When you translate from one format to another, unless there is a 1:1 relationship, or one is a perfect superset of the other, there will be loss ("more" and "less" lossy don't really apply). In this case, I believe CDs are a perfect superset of these particular AAC files (because the bit and sampling rates match up sufficiently), however, the AAC file must be extrapolated out to the CD format. Any errors in calculation in the extrapolation will mean unrecoverable loss. And more to the point, ripping it back (which is the whole point of this) and converting it to *any* compressed format, including AAC, will necessarily mean loss from the original.
burning a CD is pretty accurate conversion of an already lossy format (AAC) to a lossless format CD-Audio. Unless the AAC to AIFF conversion has bugs, the resulting AIFF audio should be the same as the original AAC audio with only a single generation of lossy compression artifacts.
"Pretty accurate" is a synonym for "lossy." No, it is not exact, as you are extrapolating. And yes, all conversions have bugs. And more to the point, when I then convert it to any other compressed format later under the terms of fair use, that, too, is lossy.
You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded
No, it is lossy.
By 'virtually identical' I meant that after burning they have no DRM and you will have the ability to do whatever you would have with a purchased CD.
Again, no. According to the terms, if you rip it back tp AAC/MP3 from the burned CD, you will be separating the product from the DRM. According to the terms, this circumvention would be indistinguishable from merely stripping the DRM from the original file. The terms don't say you can't strip the DRM from the file, it says you can't separate the DRM from the music. Yes, they allow you to burn a CD (though they do not explain how this is NOT separation), but upon ripping it back you will have in effect the same separation that has been explicitly forbidden (even though worse, since it is now lossy).
I felt it was a bit much to attack Apple for how little they did instead of acknowledging what they've done as a first step
They've gotten enough kudos from others, so I choose to attack Jobs for lying to us when he said we own the music and implied we can use it any way we wish.
While it would be nice for there to be no software limits, at this point it was impossible for Apple to get that to fly.
I understand that, but it is meaningless in regard to whether or not criticism is warranted. They chose to get into this business and are responsible for what they do in it, whether they "had no choice" or not.
On the other hand, I don't consider burning a CD and then using the music elsewhere 'circumvent[ing] the copy protection', since you are implicitly allowed to and that functionality is built in.
I think you mean "explicitly." But that is missing two things. The first was the original context: I was told that I should just make a CD and then rip it, that this would somehow be more acceptable than removing the DRM. The second picks up where that leaves off: if Apple can claim that the DRM is inseparable from the product, then ripping the burned CD would constitute a de facto separation beyond that which is explicitly allowed (burning alone), though I'd still argue it's clearly allowed under fair use.
all other physical restrictions with sharing the music virtually identical to the restrictions on a standard CD.
I can, legally, make as many perfect copies of a CD as I want, for personal use. How is that 'virtually identical' to the 3-copy limit of iTMS?
I'll bite on the troll - You're not being denied any rights because you agreed to the terms of use when you bought the songs.
... you are still limited using sharing. Nothing is different about that method that is significant to this discussion.
No, you're missing the point. As explained elsewhere in this thread, the terms don't actually deny my fair use rights, they deny me the *exercise* of those rights, making a not-so-veiled appeal to DMCA provisions. I still have the right to listen to the music on more than three computers, but not the right to circumvent the copy protection; the copy protection is *therefore* denying my right to listen to it on more than three computers.
Whether or not I agree to the terms is irrelevant, since I did not surrender my right, but merely (in theory) accepted the limitation of it. And then there is the question of whether or not my agreement to the limitation of my rights is legally enforcable. I'd guess it isn't, but in this case it doesn't matter much, because the DMCA protects it anyway, in theory. So the question is whether the DMCA is constitutional when used to limit our rights.
And on top of all this, Apple's own terms are inconsistent. They say the security technology is an "inseparable" part of the product, that you are not allowed to remove it from the product, but they give you permission to separate it from the product (via burning to CD)! They do not say this separation is an exception to the no-separation rule. They simply act like burning to CD is not a separation, when it clearly is.
So, if they give you a way to separate the DRM from the music (despite saying you can't do that), then what justification do they have for claiming that separating the DRM from the music is either a DMCA violation, a contract violation, or a copyright violation? As to the latter, they have none. As to the middle, their case is extremely weak. As to the former: their case is still strong (as recent cases have held the content is not at issue, but whether the DRM is broken is at issue), but seriously weakened by the fact that they provide a way to remove the DRM.
Or try this new fandled thing called rendevous sharing in iTunes, and you can play all your songs over the network without even copying the files over.
You are missing something
I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you.
And I will not concede I ever asked anyone to. I merely want to be able to do it without being accused of violating the law for circumventing anti-piracy measures which are there to prevent illegal use, not my legal use.
However, I still feel your initial claim of being denied fair use by iTunes sharing limit is erroneous
My point was never about sharing, but about the fact that I can only play the music on a limited number of devices (regardless of whether it is shared), unless I circumvent the copy protection, which is what I am told is illegal. This is all about the battle between the DMCA and fair use.
You, Sir, is a winer.
I am in no way affiliated with Dave Winer. You take that back!
You are not being denied anything at all.
You're incorrect. It's quite clear to everyone who has eyes and ears. While it is technically true I am not being denied my rights, it is true that so-called "anti-circumvention" technologies like Apple's FairPlay DRM deny me the exercise of my rights. I have the legal right to play a song I purchased on as many computers in my home as I wish, but Apple's DRM prevents me from doing so. This denial of the exercise of my rights couldn't be more clear.
You can only listen to *your* music in one place at a time, right ?
Do you mean, in regard to fair use rights? Where'd you get that (false) idea?
So, use the iTunes sharing and *your* music is available everywhere, right ?
No, it is only available to a limited number of computers (and this limitation is about content protection, not about technological limitations).
IANAL, so I don't know the term to describe your facetiousness, but by your reasoning all NDAs and gag-orders would be useless, since they'd interfere with your right to free speech.
You are conflating two things. Gag orders are not about you willingly signing away your rights, but you being ordered by a court, regardless of your will. And yes, many times, NDAs are held to be unenforcable, depending on what the right is. Certainly a company has the right to make you agree to some things, but the line is often whether those things are clearly in the company's interest. Example: the company can tell you that you can't reveal its trade secrets to competitor at any time after termination, but not that you can't work for a competitor upon termination (depending on jurisdiction; I think some states do enforce such contractural agreements, while others do not).
And while simply clicking 'I Agree' may be unclear software license acceptance, actually authorizing payment after clicking probably is a little clearer as acceptance of terms for a contract.
The difference, in this argument, is irrelevant. The argument is that the contract is unenforcable because I have my fair use rights regardless of what the contract says.
All fair use arguments pretty much imply personal use, with a fuzzy area about family use in the same house.
No, they really aren't. It's well-established that in the home, fair use rights are very broad.
And while you may have the 'right' to listen to your music however you want, no one is required to make it easy.
That's beside the point. It is not about them making it easy, it is about them prosecuting me for exercising the right.
Can you use a CD on that RISC-Toaster of yours? What's that? You'd have to rip it by hand? Kinda like what you'd have to do for iTunes? How 'bout that.
Was this supposed to be an argument for or against something? It seems like it is, but it doesn't actually say anything that relates to what anyone else has said, since no one is arguing the contrary of this, and this doesn't contradict anyone else's arguments.
And for your first argument, the same thing applies: whatever 'right' you may have to listen to 7 copies at once, they certainly aren't going to give you an extra 6 CDs when you buy one. So you'd still have to set it up yourself.
Yes, which is what I wish to do with the music I buy from iTMS, which I am told if I do, I am violating a contract and some sort of moral code. I contend the contract is unreasonable and unenforcable (in large part because it is inconsistent with its own definitions)
Yes, it is a defense against an infringement claim, but the defense is that you have a right to use the work in a certain way. That's the whole point.
You can set iTunes on a single machine to share its music, including purchased, with any Macs on the same network.
Limited in number.
Whether or not this is convenient for you is a personal matter, but the technology already exists to share your music with any computer you could carry CDs back and forth to, without having to authorize/de-authorize.
If I limit the number of Macs. It's the same problem. You've not highlighted any interesting difference.
Creating CDs off of iTMS music is a feature Apple has managed to negotiate with the RIAA.
Yes, and? You are saying people should use it to circumvent the DRM. The purpose of the CDs is to have CDs, not to re-rip it back to the computer. The fact that it is more acceptable to Apple or the RIAA has no bearing on me.
You are not messing with the encrypted file, you are not doing anything illegal.
Copyright has nothing to do with the file itself, but the content. You were talking about fair use, which means copyright. What you are talking about now is the DMCA, which is only tangentially related. Your posts might make more sense if you didn't conflate these distinct issues.
"Fair Use" is no applicable legal concept in this case, as usage of iTMS is subject to a set of clearly-defined rules, which are part of a legally-binding contract, to which you "Agreed".
There's no reason to suppose that such a contract would be legally enforcable. It says "You shall be authorized to use the Products on three Apple-authorized computers at any time" (note: it does not say I shall not use it on more than three, which is a relevant distinction), but then it allows you to make as many CDs as you wish, without any such restrictions. Again, the relevant laws are about the content, not the specific form the content is in.
And yes, it also says, "You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules" and "The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products." But so what? Some employment contracts say I agree to not join another company in the same business for a period of six months, after leaving the current company. Some software contracts say I can't make backup copies. Such contractural provisions are often found to be unenforcable.
And the words of the policy show how Apple is being hypocritical. "Products" is defined as "sound recordings and related artwork," which is about the content, not the format. They let you convert it, legally, to another format. And now the security technology is inseparable from the Product, even though they give you a method to, in fact, separate them? They prove in their own terms that they are, in fact, separate things, despite their assertion to the contrary.
The real issue with the security circumvention is not related to the contract, but to the DMCA. If I am allowed to do it under the DMCA -- which is debatable -- then the contract provision here is unenforcable, because my Fair Use rights override it.
All further musings about Fair Use are about the "morality" of this situation, and the only recourse you have is to vote with your feet
Your default assumption is that using PlayFair is somehow wrong. You've not backed that up, so your assertion that people should avoid iTMS rather than circumventing the DRM in order to exercise their rights under Fair Use are uninteresting.
There is nothing legal about "breaking a DRM scheme".
In the absolute sense, I suppose that's true; but it is also true there's nothing ILlegal about it. Yawn.
The bottom line is that you have no argument whatever in regard to Fair Use or copyright. You have a marginal, though unproven, argument about the DMCA, but the DMCA -- should it be found to apply, which is merely guessing on your part -- is most likely unconstitutional, and surely someday will be overturned as such (OK, I am an optimist).
At some point, the courts will likely recognize that if you have the right use to the information, then you have a right to use the information. It's quite detestable, as a matter of law, that Steve Jobs stands on stage and asserts, over and over again, that "the music belongs to you," but then say you can't take steps to listen to it within the well-established boundaries of Fair Use.
Apple already allows you to listen to your music on any computer running their free iTunes software. THAT *is* fair use.
Uh. I have five Macs in my house. I can only play music *I purchased* on three of them. It is quite clear: I am being denied my fair use rights. There's really no debating it. What to do about the problem is all that is under debate.
Why go thru the trouble of breaking encryption? just so you could listen to your music on linux? if you're going thru all that trouble then why not create a few audio CDs from all your purchased music, so you could listen to it on your stereo and in your car, AND RIP UN-DRM'ed MP3s onto your linux box?
You argue people should use DRM circumvention instead of DRM circumvention? You're quite confused. One method is no more or less legal or justifiable than the other. Both of them are methods to circumvent DRM, and in my case, perfectly legal, since the existing files prevent me from exercising my fair use rights.
Your subject line gives you your answer: no.
I believe the emacs are focused mainly on elementary schools and a similar environmnet (ie, youngsters).
They were, but are no longer.
Also, if you notice on the apple store if you are buying for an educational institution you have the option of getting them wtih a superdrive, which is not available even for the students buying one for themselves.
False. Any customer can buy an eMac with SuperDrive.
there's no reason your Mac can't have a two button mouse, too
Yes, there is: because I prefer my five-button mouse! Which also has a scroll wheel! Muahahaha. I am the evil anti-Mac Mac user! I have more buttons than you can stick a shake at!
Apple has put all its developer docs online, for free, since 1996 or earlier (when I started downloading all the Inside Mac volumes in PDF). I see no reason to suspect they will start charging money any time soon.
None of this makes any sense. I have a current subscription to this service (so I can listen to the Red Sox in Seattle). I use RealOne to listen to the preseason broadcasts. The documentation provided by MLB.com when I signed up said Real is required. The fact is that MLB told me I needed Real, I am using Real, and any assertion that -- right now -- Real is not available is patently false.
So color me confused.
If you have had the same problem as me, then your fix should have been as simple as mine.
Is depriving U.S. citizens living in D.C. of representation fair? No.
It's a shame you misunderstand the purpose of the federal government, which is to provide for the states, not the citizenry.
even the election for President is 51 (50 states plus the district of Columbia) separate elections to choose an "Electoral College" the provides the technical vote for President
Note to the legion of nit-pickers Slashdot attracts
DC does not get electoral college votes. Only states do.
Thanks, no, the solution is to use the 3.3.1 update. :-)
I just work from the default position that nothing outside the U.S. actually exists. ;-)
I have the same problem, and yes, it is not fixed. I know other people have the same problem; hopefully, Apple can track it down and fix it. :/
My workaround is to set the name/password of my network in the Network preferences, instead of "choose automatically" use "choose specific network" or whatever. But it did fix my kernel panics, so yay!
The solution is simple: you merely need to randomize the starting position of the coin ... perhaps by tossing it into the air.