Argh! You did it again! You're confusing the capabilities of the player with the properties of the file that you bought. If you want to use iTunes 4.2, then it has certain capabilities with regard to the encrypted files that you bought. iTunes 4.5 has different capabilities, while RealPlayer has still others. You have several viable alternatives to choose from when it comes to playing the music that you purchased. Isn't that what you want? "Well, I could choose flavor A which does one thing, or flavor B which does another."
There's no critical bug-fix here which you have to have, and all the choices aren't even from the same company. If you don't want to, you don't need to manipulate QuickTime, I just pointed that out in case you were one of those types that enjoyed the DIY approach. It is true that the CD's that you bought in '88 can still be played on a CD player, but the LPs that you bought before that can't be, and no one is proclaiming the arrival of big brother with quite your panicked, apocalyptic tone.
I don't mean to be overly hostile here, but I just don't understand your tone. People dislike what Microsoft does (and I do dislike it, though I don't ever recall posting that MS is evil) because there is no alternative if you don't want your system to be rooted by script kiddies. That is not the case here. You have several viable alternatives that all do the same basic thing but differ in the details. If Apple ever finds an exploit that roots from iTunes, and then patches it with a version that changes your license, then I'll be the first to step up and condemn them. And you know what, so will everybody else! Which is why they won't do it, because there are plenty of other online music stores out there waiting for them to fall. Isn't a free market wonderful?
First of all, WHY do you find it NECESSARY to RANDOMLY capitalize? Second, as the other poster pointed out, you can get older versions of iTunes, though why you wouldn't back up your own software is beyond me. Finally, why shouldn't the license change if the player changes? iTunes is what does the playing, and it is the player that is referred to when you agreed to the original license. If you don't like the way that iTunes plays your music, change the player. RealPlayer seems to be able to play encrypted AAC files by asking Quicktime to get the key, so it shouldn't be too difficult for anyone with some knowledge of how Quicktime works. If you don't like how a particular player performs, then you do the same that you would if you didn't like how a hardware player played you physical media, you change it.
That doesn't make any sense at all! Unilateral means that they can change the license without your consent. That is not the case. If you don't consent, then nothing changes. Not your hardware, not your software, not your ability to manipulate your songs, nothing. Are you saying that you should be able to compel Apple give you new features according to a license that you dictate? Because that sounds pretty unilateral to me. Apple (in this particular case) is offering new capabilities with a new license; explain to me why they should not be allowed to do that.
I realize that this reply is posted long after the thread has ceased growing, but I have a question (and hopefully you have set your preferences to notify you when replies are posted). Suppose I do agree with you that itunes is indeed equivalent to Palladium in kind if not in scale, then how would you sell music content online? Consider that any sales of a given unencrypted mp3 will soon be swamped by the sharing of said mp3 over P2P networks, effectively grinding any long-term sales to a halt. I assume here that you would agree that this is a bad thing for the creator of the content, in the same sense that large-scale duping and (free or not) distribution of music CD's would be a bad thing. Since the above "kazaaing" of the mp3 is almost certain to happen, do you think it possible to sell content online and still maintain the kind of freedoms you talk about? Please do not interpret this as an attack, I just would like to know how you accommodate these two concepts (internet freedoms and sale of content) in you head.
Slashdot Mirror
Argh! You did it again! You're confusing the capabilities of the player with the properties of the file that you bought. If you want to use iTunes 4.2, then it has certain capabilities with regard to the encrypted files that you bought. iTunes 4.5 has different capabilities, while RealPlayer has still others. You have several viable alternatives to choose from when it comes to playing the music that you purchased. Isn't that what you want? "Well, I could choose flavor A which does one thing, or flavor B which does another."
There's no critical bug-fix here which you have to have, and all the choices aren't even from the same company. If you don't want to, you don't need to manipulate QuickTime, I just pointed that out in case you were one of those types that enjoyed the DIY approach. It is true that the CD's that you bought in '88 can still be played on a CD player, but the LPs that you bought before that can't be, and no one is proclaiming the arrival of big brother with quite your panicked, apocalyptic tone.
I don't mean to be overly hostile here, but I just don't understand your tone. People dislike what Microsoft does (and I do dislike it, though I don't ever recall posting that MS is evil) because there is no alternative if you don't want your system to be rooted by script kiddies. That is not the case here. You have several viable alternatives that all do the same basic thing but differ in the details. If Apple ever finds an exploit that roots from iTunes, and then patches it with a version that changes your license, then I'll be the first to step up and condemn them. And you know what, so will everybody else! Which is why they won't do it, because there are plenty of other online music stores out there waiting for them to fall. Isn't a free market wonderful?
First of all, WHY do you find it NECESSARY to RANDOMLY capitalize? Second, as the other poster pointed out, you can get older versions of iTunes, though why you wouldn't back up your own software is beyond me. Finally, why shouldn't the license change if the player changes? iTunes is what does the playing, and it is the player that is referred to when you agreed to the original license. If you don't like the way that iTunes plays your music, change the player. RealPlayer seems to be able to play encrypted AAC files by asking Quicktime to get the key, so it shouldn't be too difficult for anyone with some knowledge of how Quicktime works. If you don't like how a particular player performs, then you do the same that you would if you didn't like how a hardware player played you physical media, you change it.
That doesn't make any sense at all! Unilateral means that they can change the license without your consent. That is not the case. If you don't consent, then nothing changes. Not your hardware, not your software, not your ability to manipulate your songs, nothing. Are you saying that you should be able to compel Apple give you new features according to a license that you dictate? Because that sounds pretty unilateral to me. Apple (in this particular case) is offering new capabilities with a new license; explain to me why they should not be allowed to do that.
I realize that this reply is posted long after the thread has ceased growing, but I have a question (and hopefully you have set your preferences to notify you when replies are posted). Suppose I do agree with you that itunes is indeed equivalent to Palladium in kind if not in scale, then how would you sell music content online? Consider that any sales of a given unencrypted mp3 will soon be swamped by the sharing of said mp3 over P2P networks, effectively grinding any long-term sales to a halt. I assume here that you would agree that this is a bad thing for the creator of the content, in the same sense that large-scale duping and (free or not) distribution of music CD's would be a bad thing. Since the above "kazaaing" of the mp3 is almost certain to happen, do you think it possible to sell content online and still maintain the kind of freedoms you talk about? Please do not interpret this as an attack, I just would like to know how you accommodate these two concepts (internet freedoms and sale of content) in you head.