Mark Cuban is a moron. The fact that Yahoo is (currently) offer a music subscription service for $5 a month doesn't affect at all what the RIAA can seek to recover through lawsuits.
If anything, it shows just how stupid music thieves are, when they could download unlimited amounts of music for just $5 a month, instead of risking thousands of dollars and jail time by stealing music via P2P networks.
Besides, the RIAA wouldn't be interested in managing a Dairy Queen. They are in the music industry.
Of course, the Internet was much less widely used in 1710 and earlier, so wide-scale copying of creative works was non-existent. When making a copy was nearly as expensive as making an original, there was little need for copyright law.
I've got a feeling it won't really hurt either one that much. People spend a bundle on books. They also spend a bundle at the Apple store (boy do I know that all too well!). They just don't spend a bundle on books at the Apple store. So, most people buying Wiley books will happily buy them elsewhere, and most people shopping at the Apple store are spending much more money on computers, software, and iPods than they are on books.
Still, the iCon title does strike me as odd, and I don't blame Apple for not carrying that particular title. The subtitle, "The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business," sounds quite flattering, and just doesn't fit with "iCon". I suspect the contents of the book fit somewhere in between: not as flattering as the subtitle, but not as inflammatory as the main title. Either way, I doubt the controversy will hurt the authors much.
It's already the rage with the young kids. My 17 months son watched the whole thing through, and clapped along with the applause at the end (so cute! He's going to be geek, just like daddy!). If that's not proof positive that Hitachi is on to something, I don't know what is.
If you are a college student or an educator, you can get Tiger at a discount. (If you aren't, make sure you know a student or educator!) For Panther, the edu discount price was $65; presumably, Tiger will be the same.
Sharing with your 3 closest friends is not stealing. Sharing with your 1000 closest friends is not stealing. Even infringing copyright for financial gain is not stealing (though it does divert money so is the closest).
That's the saddest part of all of this: that people have somehow convinced themselves that copyright infringement is not theft. THAT'S the reason DRM exists, not to "further the agenda" of anyone, but to protect copyright holders from thieves that have brainwashed themselves into thinking they are not thieves.
Apple is under no obligation to protect the value of the item for resale, but it's not impossible to resell a DRMed song. You may have trouble finding a buyer for it, but that's another issue. Doctrine of first sale only states you do not need Apple's (or the label's) permission to sell an item. No right is violated.
Actually, Fair Use is decided by the courts, not Apple or the RIAA.
You can back up the original AAC file, and there is no additional loss. If your hard drive fails, restore from a backed-up file. No right is violated.
The DMCA is a valid, but separate issue.
As far as vendor lock-in, there's nothing illegal about that. It's a perfectly legal, and often shrewd, business strategy which is working quite nicely for Apple right now.
Finally, as far as screwing over customers and artists: Buy music, whether its CDs, downloads, or whatever, and the artist sees some compensation. It may not be a lot, it may not be a just amount, but it's something. Steal music (or allow others to steal music you have purchased) and the artist gets absolutely nothing. The record biz may be corrupt, so suggest something to make it better rather than justifying theft.
As for screwing the customer over: Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you buy music from Apple or anything other source. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But just because you don't like the way things are run doesn't give you a license to steal music.
Though I'm sure you're noble in your own mind, I don't put music listening in the same league as protesting against the tyranny of a colonial power. Besides, you have other legal avenues to pursue music other than the iTunes Music Store; Ghandi had only one India.
As for stores that sell non-DRM music? Well, let's see, there's FYE, Tower Records, Walmart, Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, Amazon, and many, many independent retailers. These are all alternatives to iTMS.
Here's the deal: There are millions of people who don't mind FairPlay DRM, or at least don't mind it enough not to purchase music from iTMS. If you don't like the restrictions imposed by FairPlay, the solution is simple: Shop somewhere else. But don't spoil it for those of us that do appreciate the store. And for God's sake, stop stealing music!
First sale: DRM does not prevent you from selling a song. However, it may diminish the value of the resold song, and thus the amount you can collect from reselling, since it will be difficult for the purchaser to play the song.
Fair use: DRM does not prevent this in anyway. It certainly does not limit your ability to quote lines from a song, and at worst, it no more difficult to record a portion of the song (for use in a news report or review, for instance) than it would be to record from a CD.
Archival: Making backups of a digital music file, with or without DRM, is in fact easier than backing up more traditional media such as vinyl or a CD. You can make thousands of backups if it so pleases you.
Reverse engineering: As has been proven, DRM is reverse engineer-able, so this right is not violated, either. The DMCA may have imposed restrictions on reverse engineering, but that is a separate matter, not an aspect of DRM.
I've made this point several times, but it continually seems to be missed so let me try one more time: The rights you have regarding copyrighted works are, one, limited, and two, only protect you from legal action by the copyright holders. Neither the record companies nor the vendors (Apple, Napster, etc.) have any obligation to make it easy or possible for you to exercise those rights.
Fine, the old music distribution system is inefficient, and delivers financial benefits disproportionately to a few. No disagreement there. Then dammit, when a more efficient and equitable distribution system is in its infancy, quit undermining it! If you don't want some Schmoe in marketing to get a buck, is it better to steal the music (or allow others to steal music), thereby depriving not only the Schmoe of a profit, but also the legitimate artists?
Let's make this real simple: If you don't like DRM, don't buy music from stores that use DRM. If you don't like music promoted by marketers, buy music from independent labels. If you don't like the rules, patronize someone else. But being unhappy with rules is not a license to break them.
Very well, DRM may always be crackable, but that doesn't mean its pointless. The point is not to be uncrackable, but to discourage casual piracy. In this regard, what DVD Jon and crew have provided may be no big deal because the casual pirate probably doesn't care what a few geeks have done.
But they are being irresponsible, because they can only incite an arms race between themselves and the copyright holders, who will instill more restrictive DRM as a reaction.
Like many of the people on this site, I imagine, I studied engineering in school. We had to take an engineering ethics class, which may have seemed silly at the time to many, but the class was designed to teach us that we do not live and work in a moral vacuum and that our actions have consequences. Just because we can (technically) do something doesn't mean we should.
It doesn't say that because the issue didn't originally arise: content was sold on physical media, and of course, you could resell those. That's why the doctrine of first sale was created.
A valid point, but you'll have to wait for the case law to catch up to this technological change. As it stands, though, Apple doesn't have to support your ability to resell a song.
I am aware of the case. And it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Betamax decision supported the right of Sony to sell the device, and of users to use it. But it didn't say that Sony had to make a device that allowed people to tape football games, or that TV stations had to allow people to tape football games. If the TV stations found a way to scramble or encrypt the broadcasts, making taping difficult or impossible, they would not be violating any ones rights. Fair use case law only says that if users are able to copy media (without breaking other laws, including DCMA), that the copyright holders cannot hold the individuals liable.
In other words, copyright holders or media vendors do not have to enable your fair use rights, but they cannot hold you liable if you are able to exercise them provided you don't break other laws in order to exercise those rights.
Fair enough, you may not like the quality of the music sold online, but circumventing the DRM doesn't increase the quality any, nor does downloading it illegally. As you mention, there are alternatives (buying and ripping a CD at a higher bit rate) if you don't like what's offered on the online stores. But not liking something is not a license to steal it, or to purchase it and then allow others to steal it.
Tell me something, is this something Slashdotters just instinctively post? Do you post this because somebody else posted it, who posted it because somebody else posted it? Did I merely skim over the agreement when I created my account, you know, the part that says, "By reading this site, you agree to have no respect for copyrights or the rights of companies to make a profit, even though that profit is what enables them to pay you so you can buy the neon lights and peltier cooler for your overclocked AMD..."?
Snap out of it people! Stop the Slashdot group think. DRM isn't half as bad as you think, and if you'd just stop echoing what your l33t buds told you to say, you'd realize this. You like getting paid for your hard work? Guess what, so do the artists, producers, marketers, retailers, distributers, and everybody else involved in bring you music to market. DRM only exists because of thieving Bohemians like you that don't respect copyrights. You made this bed, now lie in it before they hand you something even less comfortable. Bunch of ingrates!
More likely, Apple will do what they should have done in the beginning: Apply the DRM on the server side, rather than relying on the client to do so. Hymn or JHymn may then be able strip the DRM, but that's a separate issue (and a much clearer violation of DCMA and other copyright laws).
Exactly what "rights," pray tell, are being violated? Chances are, the rights you think you have, you do not.
You have no legal right to "listen to the song on the device of your choice" (as others have posted that they think then do). Apple doesn't need to make it possible or easy for you to listen to it on a Dell DJ, for instance. When you purchase a song from iTMS, you are bound by the license agreement which you agree to buy using the store (though the law does limit what can be included in a license agreement, and at times, parts of these license agreements have been invalidated by the courts).
So if DRM prevents you from playing a song on your Dell DJ, your rights are not being violated because you never had such a right to begin with.
You have no such rights. When you purchase a song from iTMS, you agree to their terms of service; your rights a limited by the terms of service which you agree to. You may WANT to listen to the song on the playback device of your choice, but what makes you think that you have the "right" to?
Regarding sale, the doctrine of first sale (sale, dammit! not purchase!) prevents copyright holders from pursuing legal action if you resell the work, but it does not mean that Apple, for instance, has to make it possible or easy you to resell the item.
If you think that your rights are being violated, you're simply wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Around here, I'd expect "Da-dum tcsh!"
wide-scale copying was non-existent. As in, you didn't have millions of people pirating your work.
If anything, it shows just how stupid music thieves are, when they could download unlimited amounts of music for just $5 a month, instead of risking thousands of dollars and jail time by stealing music via P2P networks.
Besides, the RIAA wouldn't be interested in managing a Dairy Queen. They are in the music industry.
Of course, the Internet was much less widely used in 1710 and earlier, so wide-scale copying of creative works was non-existent. When making a copy was nearly as expensive as making an original, there was little need for copyright law.
In number of brands and models, but not in number of units sold. Not by a long shot.
Me too. Maybe we should stop hunting in downtown Atlanta, waddaya think?
'Cause those aren't valid HTML 4.0.
Still, the iCon title does strike me as odd, and I don't blame Apple for not carrying that particular title. The subtitle, "The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business," sounds quite flattering, and just doesn't fit with "iCon". I suspect the contents of the book fit somewhere in between: not as flattering as the subtitle, but not as inflammatory as the main title. Either way, I doubt the controversy will hurt the authors much.
It's already the rage with the young kids. My 17 months son watched the whole thing through, and clapped along with the applause at the end (so cute! He's going to be geek, just like daddy!). If that's not proof positive that Hitachi is on to something, I don't know what is.
$65 $70 $190 (price of Windows XP Pro upgrade)
If you are a college student or an educator, you can get Tiger at a discount. (If you aren't, make sure you know a student or educator!) For Panther, the edu discount price was $65; presumably, Tiger will be the same.
That's the saddest part of all of this: that people have somehow convinced themselves that copyright infringement is not theft. THAT'S the reason DRM exists, not to "further the agenda" of anyone, but to protect copyright holders from thieves that have brainwashed themselves into thinking they are not thieves.
- Apple is under no obligation to protect the value of the item for resale, but it's not impossible to resell a DRMed song. You may have trouble finding a buyer for it, but that's another issue. Doctrine of first sale only states you do not need Apple's (or the label's) permission to sell an item. No right is violated.
- Actually, Fair Use is decided by the courts, not Apple or the RIAA.
- You can back up the original AAC file, and there is no additional loss. If your hard drive fails, restore from a backed-up file. No right is violated.
- The DMCA is a valid, but separate issue.
As far as vendor lock-in, there's nothing illegal about that. It's a perfectly legal, and often shrewd, business strategy which is working quite nicely for Apple right now.Finally, as far as screwing over customers and artists: Buy music, whether its CDs, downloads, or whatever, and the artist sees some compensation. It may not be a lot, it may not be a just amount, but it's something. Steal music (or allow others to steal music you have purchased) and the artist gets absolutely nothing. The record biz may be corrupt, so suggest something to make it better rather than justifying theft.
As for screwing the customer over: Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you buy music from Apple or anything other source. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But just because you don't like the way things are run doesn't give you a license to steal music.
As for stores that sell non-DRM music? Well, let's see, there's FYE, Tower Records, Walmart, Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, Amazon, and many, many independent retailers. These are all alternatives to iTMS.
Here's the deal: There are millions of people who don't mind FairPlay DRM, or at least don't mind it enough not to purchase music from iTMS. If you don't like the restrictions imposed by FairPlay, the solution is simple: Shop somewhere else. But don't spoil it for those of us that do appreciate the store. And for God's sake, stop stealing music!
- First sale: DRM does not prevent you from selling a song. However, it may diminish the value of the resold song, and thus the amount you can collect from reselling, since it will be difficult for the purchaser to play the song.
- Fair use: DRM does not prevent this in anyway. It certainly does not limit your ability to quote lines from a song, and at worst, it no more difficult to record a portion of the song (for use in a news report or review, for instance) than it would be to record from a CD.
- Archival: Making backups of a digital music file, with or without DRM, is in fact easier than backing up more traditional media such as vinyl or a CD. You can make thousands of backups if it so pleases you.
- Reverse engineering: As has been proven, DRM is reverse engineer-able, so this right is not violated, either. The DMCA may have imposed restrictions on reverse engineering, but that is a separate matter, not an aspect of DRM.
I've made this point several times, but it continually seems to be missed so let me try one more time: The rights you have regarding copyrighted works are, one, limited, and two, only protect you from legal action by the copyright holders. Neither the record companies nor the vendors (Apple, Napster, etc.) have any obligation to make it easy or possible for you to exercise those rights.Let's make this real simple: If you don't like DRM, don't buy music from stores that use DRM. If you don't like music promoted by marketers, buy music from independent labels. If you don't like the rules, patronize someone else. But being unhappy with rules is not a license to break them.
But they are being irresponsible, because they can only incite an arms race between themselves and the copyright holders, who will instill more restrictive DRM as a reaction.
Like many of the people on this site, I imagine, I studied engineering in school. We had to take an engineering ethics class, which may have seemed silly at the time to many, but the class was designed to teach us that we do not live and work in a moral vacuum and that our actions have consequences. Just because we can (technically) do something doesn't mean we should.
A valid point, but you'll have to wait for the case law to catch up to this technological change. As it stands, though, Apple doesn't have to support your ability to resell a song.
In other words, copyright holders or media vendors do not have to enable your fair use rights, but they cannot hold you liable if you are able to exercise them provided you don't break other laws in order to exercise those rights.
Fair enough, you may not like the quality of the music sold online, but circumventing the DRM doesn't increase the quality any, nor does downloading it illegally. As you mention, there are alternatives (buying and ripping a CD at a higher bit rate) if you don't like what's offered on the online stores. But not liking something is not a license to steal it, or to purchase it and then allow others to steal it.
Tell me something, is this something Slashdotters just instinctively post? Do you post this because somebody else posted it, who posted it because somebody else posted it? Did I merely skim over the agreement when I created my account, you know, the part that says, "By reading this site, you agree to have no respect for copyrights or the rights of companies to make a profit, even though that profit is what enables them to pay you so you can buy the neon lights and peltier cooler for your overclocked AMD..."?
Snap out of it people! Stop the Slashdot group think. DRM isn't half as bad as you think, and if you'd just stop echoing what your l33t buds told you to say, you'd realize this. You like getting paid for your hard work? Guess what, so do the artists, producers, marketers, retailers, distributers, and everybody else involved in bring you music to market. DRM only exists because of thieving Bohemians like you that don't respect copyrights. You made this bed, now lie in it before they hand you something even less comfortable. Bunch of ingrates!
More likely, Apple will do what they should have done in the beginning: Apply the DRM on the server side, rather than relying on the client to do so. Hymn or JHymn may then be able strip the DRM, but that's a separate issue (and a much clearer violation of DCMA and other copyright laws).
You have no legal right to "listen to the song on the device of your choice" (as others have posted that they think then do). Apple doesn't need to make it possible or easy for you to listen to it on a Dell DJ, for instance. When you purchase a song from iTMS, you are bound by the license agreement which you agree to buy using the store (though the law does limit what can be included in a license agreement, and at times, parts of these license agreements have been invalidated by the courts).
So if DRM prevents you from playing a song on your Dell DJ, your rights are not being violated because you never had such a right to begin with.
Regarding sale, the doctrine of first sale (sale, dammit! not purchase!) prevents copyright holders from pursuing legal action if you resell the work, but it does not mean that Apple, for instance, has to make it possible or easy you to resell the item.
If you think that your rights are being violated, you're simply wrong.
The proper capitalization is Internet.