No, it means exactly what it means. You BOUGHT a collection of BITs You can take those collection of bits and SELL it to ANYONE you want. Nothing in the DRM prevents you from selling the original product in it's original form as you recieved it.
However, first sale doctrine does not allow you to buy a book in english, translate it to french and then sell the french translation to someone.
when you signed up for the iTMS. You agreed to it. And since you have to agree to it BEFORE you can buy anything, it's not in any sort of grey area like EULAs.
Really? It's impossible for you to resell it? What did you buy? I collection of bits in a particular order readable by certain programs. What part of the DRM prevents you from physicaly transfering that collection of bits to any other person?
No, you paid Apple for a specifc file, with certain electronic restrictions on it, and you recieved that file, paid for, under certain conditions, outlined in the CONTRACT you AGREED TO before you purchased anything.
If I pay you for your house, for a certain price and sign a contract saying that I will not burn the house down, and I burn the house down, I'm violating the contract I signed. I payed for the house, and can do what I want with it, but I also signed a contract.
How is it impossible to resell? It's a packet of bits no? You physicaly transfer the packet of bits, in it's original form, to a new owner no?
The problem you're running into is that the person you're selling it to can't use it. Is it a violation of your rights that a record company won't provide you a CD version of the 8-Track you bought so long ago so that someone can buy the song from you and use it today?
If you are opposed to a license/contract (and the iTMS agreement is not an EULA because you CAN'T buy anything without first agreeing to it ), and you can not reach an agreement with teh other parties as to changes to the license/contract, you can not in good faith sign that contract.
Certificates are local files, pulled from Apple servers. If Apple were to go bankrupt, assuming they didn't issue a universal authenticator or provide a method for removing the DRM, there are already programs to allow one to transfer their certificates without a net connection. Of course, even failing that, there's always the option to burn the files to audio CD and re-rip them.
No its not. Because if there were no copyright laws to begin with, I could take your code, incorperate it into a binary only product and distribute the product without even having to acknowledge I used your code.
See, now you're arguing from two different positions:
If licenses that are non GPL are evil because they don't allow you to use content as you see fit, then you're arguing from a standpoint in which there should be no copyright at all.
But if you argue that the GPL is good because it grants you permission to use content as you see fit, then you are arguing from a standpoint in which there are copyright laws.
So again, the essentail difference between the GPL and why it's bad to violate it and the Apple TOS/iTMS license and why it's good to violate that is........?
They're both licenses, they both restrict the actions of the end user according to the wishes if the content authors. Why is it OK to violate one, but not the other?
The GPL doesn't go against copyright at all. It exploits the very nature of copyright, that is, the right of the author of a work to dictate how and in what form his work can and can not be distributed.
Why? Because no business that has died has ever disapeared completely, and Apple is an icon. If Apple goes under, it's fans will exist and continue to support the remaining equipment as long as they can. Apple customers have a brand loyalty as fierce as any, and even if the company goes under, their legacy, and their stuff will live on for some time to come. Look at BeOS, they've been gone for a long long time and people are still developing softwares for it. Granted on a much smaller scale, but they still are.
Besides, last I checked, when a company died, the hardware didn't just expire. If Apple goes under, then you burn your shit to disc, an re-rip it with the newest codec for the latest and greatest compressor.
So the question becomes why can't I release a binary only program derrived from a GPL work? If code should be free, then I should be able to do whatever I want with it, right?
The GPL does take away my rights. It takes away my right to take code you've developed and released under the GPL, derrive a new work from it, and release the new work Binary only. Who cares what you think I should do with my code or your code, I bought (downloaded) it, I should be able to do what ever I want with it. Right?
If you're mac breaks, pesumeably you have a backup, or even better, have the file on another computer (you do know you can transfer the files right?). What happens when your Queensryche CD breaks?
As for what happens when Apple goes out of business, well, DRM authorizations are localized, and there are already programs to move your authorization manualy. Presumably, if Apple were to go out of business, they would either open the DRM, issue a universal authorizer program, or someone else would step in.
As for listening to them in your car, sure, you can throw them on to AAC players (like the iPod) and pipe them through AUX inputs or FM transmitters or any of the other methods that people have used to add audio devices to their cars for years.
What happens when you want to move to linux? You use iTunes via WINE or you reencode the music into another format. Yes, you may have to do work to move from system to another, just like I have to do work to get my CDs to MiniDisc or my VHS to DVD.
If you'd rather have an MP3 player, then you need to make them MP3s, what if all of my music is MP3s and I'd rather have an UberCompressedHighQualityFormat player? I have to reencode the music.
As for streaming music, here's a novel idea. If you don't want to use the iTunes encryption, don't use iTunes. I must have missed the point where iTunes was an essential element for streaming music.
If the artist doesn't want his album distributed, what prevents you from playing it for your friends? That's right, nothing.
But that's not a DRM objection, because you would still have to transcode to get the AAC file to play on your MP3 player, unless your player already supports AAC files (and doesn't support the iTMS files)
Because you can legaly buy digital unencumbered copies of the music playable on any CD player and rippable to any format already. You can't do that with a DVD.
Because by law, you can't make money using someone elses namesake. If he recognized that Apple missed the boat on something, then he knows Apple has an interest in it, and registering the name to make a buck on it is registration in bad faith.
Slashdot Mirror
And what part of burning your AAC file to CD is illegal? What part of making a duplicate of the original item (an archival copy) is illegal? Nothing.
No, it means exactly what it means. You BOUGHT a collection of BITs You can take those collection of bits and SELL it to ANYONE you want. Nothing in the DRM prevents you from selling the original product in it's original form as you recieved it.
However, first sale doctrine does not allow you to buy a book in english, translate it to french and then sell the french translation to someone.
when you signed up for the iTMS. You agreed to it. And since you have to agree to it BEFORE you can buy anything, it's not in any sort of grey area like EULAs.
Really? It's impossible for you to resell it? What did you buy? I collection of bits in a particular order readable by certain programs. What part of the DRM prevents you from physicaly transfering that collection of bits to any other person?
You mean, I can't rip a CD and burn it a 100 times, and I also can't rip it and lend it to a friend?
I certainly can't do that with FairPlay files.
Really? So that whole burn the file to CD thing an unlimited number of times was just a figment of my imagination right?
No, you paid Apple for a specifc file, with certain electronic restrictions on it, and you recieved that file, paid for, under certain conditions, outlined in the CONTRACT you AGREED TO before you purchased anything.
If I pay you for your house, for a certain price and sign a contract saying that I will not burn the house down, and I burn the house down, I'm violating the contract I signed. I payed for the house, and can do what I want with it, but I also signed a contract.
Don't like the contract, don't buy iTMS
How is it impossible to resell? It's a packet of bits no? You physicaly transfer the packet of bits, in it's original form, to a new owner no?
The problem you're running into is that the person you're selling it to can't use it. Is it a violation of your rights that a record company won't provide you a CD version of the 8-Track you bought so long ago so that someone can buy the song from you and use it today?
If you are opposed to a license/contract (and the iTMS agreement is not an EULA because you CAN'T buy anything without first agreeing to it ), and you can not reach an agreement with teh other parties as to changes to the license/contract, you can not in good faith sign that contract.
And the successful man learns when to adapt and when to force the world to change.
So I'm going to guess it blows your mind that something that is "Hot" is also "Cool"
Certificates are local files, pulled from Apple servers. If Apple were to go bankrupt, assuming they didn't issue a universal authenticator or provide a method for removing the DRM, there are already programs to allow one to transfer their certificates without a net connection. Of course, even failing that, there's always the option to burn the files to audio CD and re-rip them.
No its not. Because if there were no copyright laws to begin with, I could take your code, incorperate it into a binary only product and distribute the product without even having to acknowledge I used your code.
See, now you're arguing from two different positions:
If licenses that are non GPL are evil because they don't allow you to use content as you see fit, then you're arguing from a standpoint in which there should be no copyright at all.
But if you argue that the GPL is good because it grants you permission to use content as you see fit, then you are arguing from a standpoint in which there are copyright laws.
So again, the essentail difference between the GPL and why it's bad to violate it and the Apple TOS/iTMS license and why it's good to violate that is........?
They're both licenses, they both restrict the actions of the end user according to the wishes if the content authors. Why is it OK to violate one, but not the other?
The GPL doesn't go against copyright at all. It exploits the very nature of copyright, that is, the right of the author of a work to dictate how and in what form his work can and can not be distributed.
Why? Because no business that has died has ever disapeared completely, and Apple is an icon. If Apple goes under, it's fans will exist and continue to support the remaining equipment as long as they can. Apple customers have a brand loyalty as fierce as any, and even if the company goes under, their legacy, and their stuff will live on for some time to come. Look at BeOS, they've been gone for a long long time and people are still developing softwares for it. Granted on a much smaller scale, but they still are.
Besides, last I checked, when a company died, the hardware didn't just expire. If Apple goes under, then you burn your shit to disc, an re-rip it with the newest codec for the latest and greatest compressor.
So then we agree that the GPL takes away the right of the person on the other end of the license. So what about that changes my argument?
So the question becomes why can't I release a binary only program derrived from a GPL work? If code should be free, then I should be able to do whatever I want with it, right?
The GPL does take away my rights. It takes away my right to take code you've developed and released under the GPL, derrive a new work from it, and release the new work Binary only. Who cares what you think I should do with my code or your code, I bought (downloaded) it, I should be able to do what ever I want with it. Right?
What? Your MP3 player doesn't support WAV? Shame. The iPod does.
If you're mac breaks, pesumeably you have a backup, or even better, have the file on another computer (you do know you can transfer the files right?). What happens when your Queensryche CD breaks?
As for what happens when Apple goes out of business, well, DRM authorizations are localized, and there are already programs to move your authorization manualy. Presumably, if Apple were to go out of business, they would either open the DRM, issue a universal authorizer program, or someone else would step in.
As for listening to them in your car, sure, you can throw them on to AAC players (like the iPod) and pipe them through AUX inputs or FM transmitters or any of the other methods that people have used to add audio devices to their cars for years.
What happens when you want to move to linux? You use iTunes via WINE or you reencode the music into another format. Yes, you may have to do work to move from system to another, just like I have to do work to get my CDs to MiniDisc or my VHS to DVD.
If you'd rather have an MP3 player, then you need to make them MP3s, what if all of my music is MP3s and I'd rather have an UberCompressedHighQualityFormat player? I have to reencode the music.
As for streaming music, here's a novel idea. If you don't want to use the iTunes encryption, don't use iTunes. I must have missed the point where iTunes was an essential element for streaming music.
If the artist doesn't want his album distributed, what prevents you from playing it for your friends? That's right, nothing.
But that's not a DRM objection, because you would still have to transcode to get the AAC file to play on your MP3 player, unless your player already supports AAC files (and doesn't support the iTMS files)
Because you can legaly buy digital unencumbered copies of the music playable on any CD player and rippable to any format already. You can't do that with a DVD.
Because you bought an AAC file. It's akin to you buying a record and wondering why it doesn't work in your CD player without ripping and reburning it.
Because by law, you can't make money using someone elses namesake. If he recognized that Apple missed the boat on something, then he knows Apple has an interest in it, and registering the name to make a buck on it is registration in bad faith.