A monopoly is not an intrinsic failure. The end result of being the best competetor is monopoly status. Where the absolute free market breaks down is when a monopoly is abused to keep all other competators from even entering the arena. Thats what the laws deal with. Monopolies by themselves are perfectly legal. Abuse of a monopoly is not.
Unfortunately that's unclear. Did Real get it to work without any additional software? For example, if real installed their own player, thats cheating.
Simply put, microsoft was ordered to take out the Media Player system from windows and did just that. It's not their fault that subsequent applications which expect the media player system to exist no longer work.
No, the removal of the media player EXE should not require the removal of all the codecs too. But why should microsft give you the codecs without the program that goes with them. If you want their codecs, use their software, otherwise, get your own codecs.
The file can indeed be sold again. You aren't selling the song. That's the problem people are running into. First Sale allows you to sell the original item.
When you resell a book, you are not allowed to make a spansih translation and sell that instead of the original.
When you resell a CD, you're not allowed to make a copy of it on CD-R and sell that.
When you resell a DVD, you're not allowed to make a compressed copy on a standard DVD-R and sell that.
When you sell a DRM file, you're not allowed to make a translation of that file into a format that the other person can understand and sell that. You can only sell the original item.
No you can't. You cannot resell the work. You can resell an encrypted version of it, but you cannot transfer the ability to decode it...there is a legal decoder out there (iTunes), but it will not decode resold files. And all other decoders are illegal.
Now, except for the 'other decoders are illegal', there's nothing legally wrong with that. If they want to print books that, somehow, only one person can read, they are free to so.
You're not allowed to resell works. That isn't what fair use is. Fair use is that you may resell the instance of the work which you purchased. Again, I can't make a copy of the CD I bought a resell that.
You can resell your file, the fact that no one else can use that file is irellevant.
I don't know what you're talking about with fair use there. We can't violate fair use, that's an ability granted to us that says certain kinds of copying of a work isn't a copyright violation.
And fair use doctrine dictates those are the only types of copying you may do. But people consistantly violate those rules. Fair use is part of copyright law, which is an impicit contract.
The actual work'? What are you talking about? Nothing requires the copyright holder to have a copy of the work and hand it on on demand.
When copyright expires, people are supposed to take copies they have and freely copy it. The idea that copyright holders are going to keep copies of their work to hand out freely decades later is a bit absurd.
Yes the actual work. A song is not a recording, a recording is an instance of the song. Public domain applies to the song itself. If I make a recording of something, and release it only on discs which self destruct after a single playing, that is not a violation or restriction on the ability of the work to enter into the public domain. Regardless of whether there are any copies left, or those copies are useable, the work is still in the public domain when the copyright expires.
So, your theory is, in 75 years, we will pull out the data files we kept uselessly around for 60 years (Ever since Apple music store closed and wouldn't let us reauthorized our music on a new computer.), then we'll go and download a program that was illegal to ownwhen released but somehow, decades later, we can find a copy of it floating around in the net, and decode the work?
If it's that important to you, you will. If you won't hold on to your copy for years to come, then it obviously wasn't important enough to matter whether it actually enters the public domain. And presumeably, you won't nessesariyl find the old program, you'll find a new program. And if you don't, then people didn't care enough about the work. And if you care enough, you will wirte a program yourself or pay someone else to.
And, of course, this presumes that it is legal to own a method of circumventing copy protection on public domain works and copyrighted works, which is the law does not imply. There's no 'once any of the works are out of copyright, the tool is legal' exception in the law. Obviously, once all of them are out of copyright, the tool is legal, but according to the law, tools that can be used (and, in fact, were designed) to circumvent copy protection are illegal. Period. Doesn't matter what you're using them for. (We already went through this with fair use rights. It's illegal to use tools to excersize fair use.)
Hence you make a program to do that. Once the copyright expires, the DRM can no longer legaly apply as the government granted monopoly over the work is no longer in existence.
Shrink-wrap licenses on books disallowing first sale are not legal in the US. That was explicitly decided in court half a century or more.
First sale is not disallowed at all. You can sell your file at any time. What you can't do is make an unauthorized copy and sell that file. It works the same. You can resell a book, but you can't photo copy it and then sell it. You can resell a CD, but you can't copy it ot a new CD and resell it. So it is with your DRM file. You can resell your DRM file, but you can't make a copy of it and sell it. First sale is not violated as you are free to sell the original item at any time.
Furthermore, it isn't a shrinkwrap license because you had to agree to the terms of the contract BEFORE you could spend any money. It was not a purchase and then the contract was presented. Before you can give them your money, you have to agree to the contract.
See, the thing is, copyright holders can't do whatever they want, because copyright is a government granted monopoly, and they can only use it in certain ways. Even with contracts.
And the end user can only use their rights in certain ways. But end users continualy violate the terms of Fair Use, an impicit contract. That is why DRM exists.
But, instead, we now have laws saying 'You can't violate any digital protection'. A sane court system would find those unconstitutional on exactly the same grounds. Sadly, our court system stopped being sane a long time ago.
Hoever, when the copyright expires, it's no longer a protection because there is nothing to protect. See how that works.
Sure I do. I use my working player to play the song and do an analogue transfer, just as you would to transfer the 8Track to Tape or the tape to CD. Just because Apple or Real goes out of business doesn't mean your player suddenly stops working. Besides, it's usualy not a big suprise when a company finaly goes out of business, so making copies while you still can play the materials is something anyone with common sense should be able to do.
So can I guess you have no problem with the iTMS DRM?
They made their own proprietary player, it's called iTunes and the iPod. The precense of the DRM in the iTMS files doesn't affect anything else you do with your computer or with iTunes itself, and therefore the DRM is only present when you need to use DRM content on the proprietary box. But nothing in the DRM prevents you from doing anything else with your computer.
And this is where the problem is. You're telling the producers that you accept the existance of contracts, but you won't abide by the contract. This just tells the producers they need more heavily enforced contracts. Why in the world would any producer trust you to adhere to fair use doctrine when you can't even adhere to an explicitly outlined contract?
I don't accept that at some date in the future my music will no longer be playable because some company went out of business or no longer supports my hardware/operating system, or because I moved all my files over to a new computer and can't get the DRM to work.
Which of course means you buy nothing as anything can and eventualy will no longer be playable because the manufacturer went out of business or no longer supports your hardware or you moved your files to a new machine.
It happens all the time. 8Tacks aren't supported on new hardware, neither are records. Tapes are barely still supported. BetaMax? Gone. 5.25 floppies? Almost non existant. Comodore? Dead. Be Software? Unsupported. Windows 1.0? Not supported.
Because every purchse of a DVD is the acceptance of the DRM. Here's what the media companies see:
DRM Purchase == DRM is acceptable to customers
DRM Crack Creation == DRM is being cracked by pirates and theives, and must be tightened
DRM Crack Usage == The abundance of DRM Cracks is turning our customers into priates, we can't trust them anymore and therefore we need to tighten DRM
The only thing these companies understand clearly is the bottom line. If you stop buying DRM entirely, the only message they can take from that is customers don't like this.
Everyone says this, but it's not true anymore. Consider the iTMS. Nothing in the DRM prevents me from taking the file which I purchased and duplicating the file. I can make a thousand personal use copies of that file. Using various methods that have been availible since the days of 45s and 8 Tracks, i can even put the audio version of the media into another format.
Nothing in the DRM prevents me from moving that file to any number of devices. It's a file, it isn't tethered to my computer.
The question is, why should they trust their costomers. Consider for a moment. The iTMS has an explicit contract which you must agree to which regards how you may use the service and the products obtained from the service. Nothing in the contract has been shown to be illegal, and therefore the contract is legaly binding. Despite all of this, people continualy try to break the law and the contract sometimes just because they can.
Now let us consider fair use. It's an impicit contract between you and a media provider that you are free to use the content for certain personal uses under the condition that you don't exceede those bounds.
If the media companies can't trust their customers to bind themselves to explicit contracts like that in the ITMS how in the world can they possibly trust them to adhere to implied contracts like fair use?
Actualy, I'm pretty sure the BSD license is the lesser of the evils, or even better, just issuing the work to public domain. It allows you to do whatever you want with the code, regardless of anything else. It seeks to impose no restrictions on anything you do with the code.
However, as it stands, nothing in the iTMS contract is against the law, you can sign away all of those rights, and therefore,, by entering into the contract, you are bound by the terms. If you think something is against the law in the contract, you need to take it to court, not just violate the contract.
Odd, I just signed a contract recently in which I gave up my second amendment rights and parts of my 4th amendment rights. Somehow it seems that if I took this to court, the court would uphold the contract.
Rights can and often are signed away in a contract.
For example, Apple would be forced to keep track of what songs you've downloaded and let you download them again for free (because you can't be charged *twice* for the same service).
Tell that to blockbuster, I went in there and told them I wanted to rent the movie I had rented 4 years ago and they still charged me for it.
You know, that might have been insightful if it was true. But it isn't. You can burn any AAC file purchsed from the iTMS any number of times. The restriction is placed on the playlist. A specific playlist can only be burned 7 times before needing to be changed. But you can put the same AAC file into 10 different play lists, and burn each of those lists 7 times and you will have 70 burned copies of the same song.
They do. It's called the public domain. Thanks to the wobbliness of the DMCA, I'm sure you'll be hearing how much the public domain is destroyed whenever the copyright eventually ends on one of the DRM-only works. You see, so long as there exists a technological measure that's used in both a public domain work (DRM-only) and copyrighted (DRM-at-all), then any device created to actually circumvent said technological measure to access said public domain work will be illegal because it can be used to circumvent the technological measure on a copyrighted work. So, this leads to effectively infinite copyright, if done right.
Public domain refers to works, not instances of the work. Nothing about the DRM prevents the actual work from entering the public domain. Furthermore, as the DMCA applies to DRM, and it's designs to protect ccopyrights. When a work's copyright expires and the work enters the public domain, then it would not be illegal to circumvent prexisting protections on the copyright because said copyright nolonger exists and the protections are not protecting anything.
One, you cannot remove the DRM from a copy with Apple's software--the only legal way to remove the DRM, btw; so at some point your archival copy will be unusable, which is a violation of First Sale Doctrine.
Burn to audio CD == DRM removed. Furthermore the fact that an archival copy may at one point not be useable is not a sufficient argument as at the moment that isn't a problem. When such a time occurs that a perfect archive alloed by the software is not useable, then the circumvention of the DRM (assuming no other legitimate method existed) would be perfectly legitimate as the current archival methods lead to an unuseable archive.
. Two, even if that did work, it is presumptive that I "CAN" make said copy with Apple's software. Just because software exists does not mean that I have the hardware to run it or the software to run it (this will be especially true in say 30 years time, well within any DRM-only protected works' copyright).
Once again, you're ignoring the analogue hole, the digital transfer and the other methods available to you. If by the time the hardware and software to operate the product becomes unavailable, you haven't made a useable archive, then that is your fault. The non existance of hardware to use a product on is not a violation of your rights, because, as I said earlier at such a time, the circumvention of the DRM schemes would be legitimate because no other method for maintaining the archive exists.
The point about rights is that a right is something that cannot be infringed without do process. Do process, in the US at least, requires a judge, jury, lawyers, and evidence, and it only works on a case by case basis. None of this has occurred, so it's rather infuriating to think you believe it okay that rights can be infringed frivolously with a set of hoops one must follow to be allowed to exercise one's rights.
However, in the US, you can sign away specific rights in a contract. By using the iTMS you have entered into such a contract, which is legaly binding and enforceable. You were not forced or coerced into such a contract, you willingly entered into it.
Which of course gets to the heart of the matter that if DRM is unacceptable to the consumer, then DRM cracks are NOT the method to be used to show this. It sends the wrong message.
Every DRM song downloaded is a message that DRM is acceptable to the consumer. Every DRM crack is a message that DRM is acceptable to the consumer, but priates persist and DRM must be tightened.
The only way to show that DRM is unacceptable to the consumer is to not purchase it in the first place. Cracks like these have the opposite effect than intended.
The bigger point that people are missing is the wrong message is being sent. Every file downloaded is a message that DRM content is acceptable to the consumer. Every new DRM crack is a message that DRM is acceptable to the consumer, but pirates are still trying and DRM must be tightened.
The ONLY way the industry will see that DRM is unacceptable to the consumer is when the consumer stops buying DRM in the first place.
And it's standard legal practice. You ever read a lease before?
Yes the burning and exporting capabilities are an accomodation but I still dont' need Apple's permission to do it. I just can do it with their software.
What it boils down to is this is a contract you AGREED to. If you didn't AGREE with it, you shouldn't use the service. Simple.
So tell me again though, what fair use rights can you not exercise now? Can you make an archival copy of what you purchased? Yes, command-d.
Can you put a sample on a website? Yes, using any number of methods.
A DRM file doesn't do anything to actively destroy something else.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter that you need to use the Apple approved decoder to make the copy, the fact is, you CAN make the copy, and it is a perfectly legitimate and viable copy. Therefore your rights aren't violated. You don't have a right to make an archival copy via the methods you choose, you just have a right to make that copy. As long as you can make that copy, your rights havne't been violated.
The fact that you don't read the contract, or care about morals or have shaky morals has nothing to do with the fac that you are violating the contract, and you can be legaly prosecuted for it.
Just because someone doesn't read the lease on their car or apartment and just signs on the line doesn't mean they aren't obligated to the terms of that lease.
except you can copy it. You can copy it as many times as you want. In fact, i'm doing that right now. I have a file sitting right in front of me, and I am making hundred of identical copies.
So what part of burning the file to CD and ripping it to another player requires Apple's permission?
What part of the DRM is preventing you from putting an excerpt on your web page? Last I checked, you could still burn it to CD, you can still use the digital transfer and you can still use the analogue hole.
Oh you mean you can't do it with a specific piece of software or via a specific method that you prefer? Last I looked, that wasn't part of fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
A monopoly is not an intrinsic failure. The end result of being the best competetor is monopoly status. Where the absolute free market breaks down is when a monopoly is abused to keep all other competators from even entering the arena. Thats what the laws deal with. Monopolies by themselves are perfectly legal. Abuse of a monopoly is not.
Unfortunately that's unclear. Did Real get it to work without any additional software? For example, if real installed their own player, thats cheating.
Simply put, microsoft was ordered to take out the Media Player system from windows and did just that. It's not their fault that subsequent applications which expect the media player system to exist no longer work.
No, the removal of the media player EXE should not require the removal of all the codecs too. But why should microsft give you the codecs without the program that goes with them. If you want their codecs, use their software, otherwise, get your own codecs.
People seem to want their cake and eat it too.
The file can indeed be sold again. You aren't selling the song. That's the problem people are running into. First Sale allows you to sell the original item.
When you resell a book, you are not allowed to make a spansih translation and sell that instead of the original.
When you resell a CD, you're not allowed to make a copy of it on CD-R and sell that.
When you resell a DVD, you're not allowed to make a compressed copy on a standard DVD-R and sell that.
When you sell a DRM file, you're not allowed to make a translation of that file into a format that the other person can understand and sell that. You can only sell the original item.
No you can't. You cannot resell the work. You can resell an encrypted version of it, but you cannot transfer the ability to decode it...there is a legal decoder out there (iTunes), but it will not decode resold files. And all other decoders are illegal.
Now, except for the 'other decoders are illegal', there's nothing legally wrong with that. If they want to print books that, somehow, only one person can read, they are free to so.
You're not allowed to resell works. That isn't what fair use is. Fair use is that you may resell the instance of the work which you purchased. Again, I can't make a copy of the CD I bought a resell that.
You can resell your file, the fact that no one else can use that file is irellevant.
I don't know what you're talking about with fair use there. We can't violate fair use, that's an ability granted to us that says certain kinds of copying of a work isn't a copyright violation.
And fair use doctrine dictates those are the only types of copying you may do. But people consistantly violate those rules. Fair use is part of copyright law, which is an impicit contract.
The actual work'? What are you talking about? Nothing requires the copyright holder to have a copy of the work and hand it on on demand.
When copyright expires, people are supposed to take copies they have and freely copy it. The idea that copyright holders are going to keep copies of their work to hand out freely decades later is a bit absurd.
Yes the actual work. A song is not a recording, a recording is an instance of the song. Public domain applies to the song itself. If I make a recording of something, and release it only on discs which self destruct after a single playing, that is not a violation or restriction on the ability of the work to enter into the public domain. Regardless of whether there are any copies left, or those copies are useable, the work is still in the public domain when the copyright expires.
So, your theory is, in 75 years, we will pull out the data files we kept uselessly around for 60 years (Ever since Apple music store closed and wouldn't let us reauthorized our music on a new computer.), then we'll go and download a program that was illegal to ownwhen released but somehow, decades later, we can find a copy of it floating around in the net, and decode the work?
If it's that important to you, you will. If you won't hold on to your copy for years to come, then it obviously wasn't important enough to matter whether it actually enters the public domain. And presumeably, you won't nessesariyl find the old program, you'll find a new program. And if you don't, then people didn't care enough about the work. And if you care enough, you will wirte a program yourself or pay someone else to.
And, of course, this presumes that it is legal to own a method of circumventing copy protection on public domain works and copyrighted works, which is the law does not imply. There's no 'once any of the works are out of copyright, the tool is legal' exception in the law. Obviously, once all of them are out of copyright, the tool is legal, but according to the law, tools that can be used (and, in fact, were designed) to circumvent copy protection are illegal. Period. Doesn't matter what you're using them for. (We already went through this with fair use rights. It's illegal to use tools to excersize fair use.)
Hence you make a program to do that. Once the copyright expires, the DRM can no longer legaly apply as the government granted monopoly over the work is no longer in existence.
Shrink-wrap licenses on books disallowing first sale are not legal in the US. That was explicitly decided in court half a century or more.
First sale is not disallowed at all. You can sell your file at any time. What you can't do is make an unauthorized copy and sell that file. It works the same. You can resell a book, but you can't photo copy it and then sell it. You can resell a CD, but you can't copy it ot a new CD and resell it. So it is with your DRM file. You can resell your DRM file, but you can't make a copy of it and sell it. First sale is not violated as you are free to sell the original item at any time.
Furthermore, it isn't a shrinkwrap license because you had to agree to the terms of the contract BEFORE you could spend any money. It was not a purchase and then the contract was presented. Before you can give them your money, you have to agree to the contract.
See, the thing is, copyright holders can't do whatever they want, because copyright is a government granted monopoly, and they can only use it in certain ways. Even with contracts.
And the end user can only use their rights in certain ways. But end users continualy violate the terms of Fair Use, an impicit contract. That is why DRM exists.
But, instead, we now have laws saying 'You can't violate any digital protection'. A sane court system would find those unconstitutional on exactly the same grounds. Sadly, our court system stopped being sane a long time ago.
Hoever, when the copyright expires, it's no longer a protection because there is nothing to protect. See how that works.
Sure I do. I use my working player to play the song and do an analogue transfer, just as you would to transfer the 8Track to Tape or the tape to CD. Just because Apple or Real goes out of business doesn't mean your player suddenly stops working. Besides, it's usualy not a big suprise when a company finaly goes out of business, so making copies while you still can play the materials is something anyone with common sense should be able to do.
So can I guess you have no problem with the iTMS DRM?
They made their own proprietary player, it's called iTunes and the iPod. The precense of the DRM in the iTMS files doesn't affect anything else you do with your computer or with iTunes itself, and therefore the DRM is only present when you need to use DRM content on the proprietary box. But nothing in the DRM prevents you from doing anything else with your computer.
And this is where the problem is. You're telling the producers that you accept the existance of contracts, but you won't abide by the contract. This just tells the producers they need more heavily enforced contracts. Why in the world would any producer trust you to adhere to fair use doctrine when you can't even adhere to an explicitly outlined contract?
I don't accept that at some date in the future my music will no longer be playable because some company went out of business or no longer supports my hardware/operating system, or because I moved all my files over to a new computer and can't get the DRM to work.
Which of course means you buy nothing as anything can and eventualy will no longer be playable because the manufacturer went out of business or no longer supports your hardware or you moved your files to a new machine.
It happens all the time. 8Tacks aren't supported on new hardware, neither are records. Tapes are barely still supported. BetaMax? Gone. 5.25 floppies? Almost non existant. Comodore? Dead. Be Software? Unsupported. Windows 1.0? Not supported.
Because every purchse of a DVD is the acceptance of the DRM. Here's what the media companies see:
DRM Purchase == DRM is acceptable to customers
DRM Crack Creation == DRM is being cracked by pirates and theives, and must be tightened
DRM Crack Usage == The abundance of DRM Cracks is turning our customers into priates, we can't trust them anymore and therefore we need to tighten DRM
The only thing these companies understand clearly is the bottom line. If you stop buying DRM entirely, the only message they can take from that is customers don't like this.
Everyone says this, but it's not true anymore. Consider the iTMS. Nothing in the DRM prevents me from taking the file which I purchased and duplicating the file. I can make a thousand personal use copies of that file. Using various methods that have been availible since the days of 45s and 8 Tracks, i can even put the audio version of the media into another format.
Nothing in the DRM prevents me from moving that file to any number of devices. It's a file, it isn't tethered to my computer.
The question is, why should they trust their costomers. Consider for a moment. The iTMS has an explicit contract which you must agree to which regards how you may use the service and the products obtained from the service. Nothing in the contract has been shown to be illegal, and therefore the contract is legaly binding. Despite all of this, people continualy try to break the law and the contract sometimes just because they can.
Now let us consider fair use. It's an impicit contract between you and a media provider that you are free to use the content for certain personal uses under the condition that you don't exceede those bounds.
If the media companies can't trust their customers to bind themselves to explicit contracts like that in the ITMS how in the world can they possibly trust them to adhere to implied contracts like fair use?
Actualy, I'm pretty sure the BSD license is the lesser of the evils, or even better, just issuing the work to public domain. It allows you to do whatever you want with the code, regardless of anything else. It seeks to impose no restrictions on anything you do with the code.
However, as it stands, nothing in the iTMS contract is against the law, you can sign away all of those rights, and therefore,, by entering into the contract, you are bound by the terms. If you think something is against the law in the contract, you need to take it to court, not just violate the contract.
Odd, I just signed a contract recently in which I gave up my second amendment rights and parts of my 4th amendment rights. Somehow it seems that if I took this to court, the court would uphold the contract.
Rights can and often are signed away in a contract.
For example, Apple would be forced to keep track of what songs you've downloaded and let you download them again for free (because you can't be charged *twice* for the same service).
Tell that to blockbuster, I went in there and told them I wanted to rent the movie I had rented 4 years ago and they still charged me for it.
You know, that might have been insightful if it was true. But it isn't. You can burn any AAC file purchsed from the iTMS any number of times. The restriction is placed on the playlist. A specific playlist can only be burned 7 times before needing to be changed. But you can put the same AAC file into 10 different play lists, and burn each of those lists 7 times and you will have 70 burned copies of the same song.
They do. It's called the public domain. Thanks to the wobbliness of the DMCA, I'm sure you'll be hearing how much the public domain is destroyed whenever the copyright eventually ends on one of the DRM-only works. You see, so long as there exists a technological measure that's used in both a public domain work (DRM-only) and copyrighted (DRM-at-all), then any device created to actually circumvent said technological measure to access said public domain work will be illegal because it can be used to circumvent the technological measure on a copyrighted work. So, this leads to effectively infinite copyright, if done right.
Public domain refers to works, not instances of the work. Nothing about the DRM prevents the actual work from entering the public domain. Furthermore, as the DMCA applies to DRM, and it's designs to protect ccopyrights. When a work's copyright expires and the work enters the public domain, then it would not be illegal to circumvent prexisting protections on the copyright because said copyright nolonger exists and the protections are not protecting anything.
One, you cannot remove the DRM from a copy with Apple's software--the only legal way to remove the DRM, btw; so at some point your archival copy will be unusable, which is a violation of First Sale Doctrine.
Burn to audio CD == DRM removed. Furthermore the fact that an archival copy may at one point not be useable is not a sufficient argument as at the moment that isn't a problem. When such a time occurs that a perfect archive alloed by the software is not useable, then the circumvention of the DRM (assuming no other legitimate method existed) would be perfectly legitimate as the current archival methods lead to an unuseable archive.
. Two, even if that did work, it is presumptive that I "CAN" make said copy with Apple's software. Just because software exists does not mean that I have the hardware to run it or the software to run it (this will be especially true in say 30 years time, well within any DRM-only protected works' copyright).
Once again, you're ignoring the analogue hole, the digital transfer and the other methods available to you. If by the time the hardware and software to operate the product becomes unavailable, you haven't made a useable archive, then that is your fault. The non existance of hardware to use a product on is not a violation of your rights, because, as I said earlier at such a time, the circumvention of the DRM schemes would be legitimate because no other method for maintaining the archive exists.
The point about rights is that a right is something that cannot be infringed without do process. Do process, in the US at least, requires a judge, jury, lawyers, and evidence, and it only works on a case by case basis. None of this has occurred, so it's rather infuriating to think you believe it okay that rights can be infringed frivolously with a set of hoops one must follow to be allowed to exercise one's rights.
However, in the US, you can sign away specific rights in a contract. By using the iTMS you have entered into such a contract, which is legaly binding and enforceable. You were not forced or coerced into such a contract, you willingly entered into it.
Which of course gets to the heart of the matter that if DRM is unacceptable to the consumer, then DRM cracks are NOT the method to be used to show this. It sends the wrong message.
Every DRM song downloaded is a message that DRM is acceptable to the consumer. Every DRM crack is a message that DRM is acceptable to the consumer, but priates persist and DRM must be tightened.
The only way to show that DRM is unacceptable to the consumer is to not purchase it in the first place. Cracks like these have the opposite effect than intended.
The bigger point that people are missing is the wrong message is being sent. Every file downloaded is a message that DRM content is acceptable to the consumer. Every new DRM crack is a message that DRM is acceptable to the consumer, but pirates are still trying and DRM must be tightened.
The ONLY way the industry will see that DRM is unacceptable to the consumer is when the consumer stops buying DRM in the first place.
And it's standard legal practice. You ever read a lease before?
Yes the burning and exporting capabilities are an accomodation but I still dont' need Apple's permission to do it. I just can do it with their software.
What it boils down to is this is a contract you AGREED to. If you didn't AGREE with it, you shouldn't use the service. Simple.
So tell me again though, what fair use rights can you not exercise now? Can you make an archival copy of what you purchased? Yes, command-d.
Can you put a sample on a website? Yes, using any number of methods.
What right is missing?
A DRM file doesn't do anything to actively destroy something else.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter that you need to use the Apple approved decoder to make the copy, the fact is, you CAN make the copy, and it is a perfectly legitimate and viable copy. Therefore your rights aren't violated. You don't have a right to make an archival copy via the methods you choose, you just have a right to make that copy. As long as you can make that copy, your rights havne't been violated.
The fact that you don't read the contract, or care about morals or have shaky morals has nothing to do with the fac that you are violating the contract, and you can be legaly prosecuted for it.
Just because someone doesn't read the lease on their car or apartment and just signs on the line doesn't mean they aren't obligated to the terms of that lease.
except you can copy it. You can copy it as many times as you want. In fact, i'm doing that right now. I have a file sitting right in front of me, and I am making hundred of identical copies.
So what part of burning the file to CD and ripping it to another player requires Apple's permission?
What part of the DRM is preventing you from putting an excerpt on your web page? Last I checked, you could still burn it to CD, you can still use the digital transfer and you can still use the analogue hole.
Oh you mean you can't do it with a specific piece of software or via a specific method that you prefer? Last I looked, that wasn't part of fair use.
Yes, but if I modify the playlist, I can still burn the file. Hence, unlimited burning of the file.