Using Playlists, you can pre-organize based on your likely moods/activities - Driving, Jogging, Chilling, Reading, etc. Then when you're wherever the mood strikes you you just switch to that list. No need to drag your computer along in case you change your mind.
My 20G is woefully underfilled at ~1900 songs / 6.4 G, but I only pull in CDs when the mood hits me now that I have my favorites in. But I pretty much use it for driving trips and the shuffle works great for having a line up of Weird Al, Johnny Cash, Yes, The Simpsons*, Lita Ford, the Cure, The Tick*, Devo,... A lineup no radio station gives.
* This takes me to a point on how I think MP3 players are underutilized. Do you have crazy system sounds? The Simpsons, Berzerk, Star Trek, Hitchhiker's Guide the Galaxy? Convert them to AAC/MP3, drop them on iTunes and play the list in random. Nothing breaks up the monotony of a drive like a sudden interlude of "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Umm.... exactly how does the online banking model ensure that you are you? Or what district you should vote for? Or that you haven't already voted? Where's the paper trail kept? How would the recount work?
I've actually found performance on the plus side of excessive for DOS games. Games like Populous, the Ultima Series, and Scorched Earth are impossible to play, thanks to the lack of any kind of speed throttle. Superheroes League of Hoboken seems okay so far, though.
Yeah, who'd'a thought VPC would run too fast on a Mac, but I've never seen W95 run as fast as it does on this 1.25 Ghz Powerbook. Of course this IS unix; maybe I should throw a renice 20 at it.
I love my Powerbook too, but not so much I let it anywhere near my lap.
Yes, they are hot. But along with a G5 come different buses and caches and memory (oh my), possibly all running faster. So even if the G5 is inherently cooler than the G4 the whole shebang is probably hotter.
It's likely they already have feasible prototypes. However, IBM is currently having problems turning out enough G5's just for the towers and XServes. They are not likely to push ahead until they are certain supplies will be maintainable.
And really, the need to handle power/heat issues in a laptop may be causing other problems with getting one in a laptop anyway. If they went through the trouble of introducing a speed bump G5 laptops won't be in the next 6 months. In addition, when they do arrive they will probably be only in the high end at first, so if your thinking low-end money range it will probably be longer still.
If they could break even with one time costs, salaries, and bandwidth at 30 cents a song, then once the one times are paid off the difference would be profit. Granted, they will likely turn it into promotions or expansions of some sort effectively reinvesting in itself but they are still making money once the one time costs have been ameliorated (or whatever, IANAAccountant)
1) You can probably buy just iLife, though I'm not certain. If you're referring to the fact that it was a lack of software, that is. If so the 'problem' was licensing fees for the software were paid base on CPU sales, so until iDVD was sold alone they'd have been in breach of contract, at least technically, so you'd have to use someone else's software.
2) This is true, but I wouldn't consider this a "stunt". There's other syncing software, or if you have something in particular in mind you could right it. This would only be a MS tactic if they prevented you from writing your own, not for not sharing theirs. There are two possible altruistic reasons:a) it's not stable enough to release, or b) it's not secure enough to release. iSync right now can access my iDisk using stored information. If they open up the API they have to make sure whatever accessing it is allowed to, which may be difficult.
3) Their testing showed that USB cameras didn't work well enough for what they wanted iChatAV to do. If they let any camera connect and it worked like crap people would probably blame iChat and not the camera. I thought it would work w/ other firewire cameras, but I've never tested it. The help seems to indicate it would.
4) I'm not certain what you think the QT-AAC is an example of. AAC is a known standard anyone could use. Are you talking about Fairplay? They needed a DRM or record companies wouldn't have bought in. I'm not sure how that's a refusal to make customer's lives better - iTunes and iPods work together with little fuss, since they make them both. Makes my life better. How would being able to buy from Real make life better? Pro: Possibly different music selection. Con: Possible software conflicts when connecting. Possible library corruption from updating from both services. Less leverage to encourage artists/labels to go to iTunes Music Store. On balance, that doesn't seem better to me.
"All he had was a hammer, so every problem looked like a nail."
A command line would be user friendly if it was an intelligent command line that could interpret whatever you typed. Think of speech recognition: it's essentially a command line w/o typing. There aren't many CLI's that are forgiving of grammar or spelling though.
The main reason CLI is viewed as inherently user unfriendly is that there is no context or clues if you have little or no instructions, or run into unusual problems. Also there has usually been little obvious consistency. You want to trash something in a gui? Drag it to the trash. CLI? It's rm, for remove you know. It's a directory? Oh, then rmdir. But first you have to empty it. Or you can just use rm -r . But not literally, because that period could erase everything depending on where you are. Oh, you already did? Hold on, let me transfer you to someone else.
Yeah, that's my argument. If he didn't want to be "shackled" by the terms he shouldn't have used the service. He might fully agree with the GPL, but morally his actions are no different from someone who would take GPL'd code and not abide by the GPL.
Such as where? If there was alternate service, you may have a point. Is there?
Um... a CD, perhaps? We're talking about obtaining music to listen to and use as he sees fit. All iTunes offers are DRM-tied AAC files, which obviously isn't what he wanted. He wanted the price, but not the terms, which is a breach of contract* by any definition.
* Yes, I'm still making the leap that authorizing payment implies agreement with the Terms of Service and therefore a contractual agreement. It's the same legally as when you buy something off the 'Final Sale - no return' rack. Or buying anything at Best Buy agrees to their Return restrictions that are printed on the wall. Maybe even more so, since you could reasonably claim you didn't see them if you have bad vision and the sales person mentioned them.
That's an interesting point, but as IANALBIPOTITL* I'm note sure what the result would be. It may be from a strict interpretation you are no longer allowed to use said songs at all, since you wouldn't be able to get your computers authorized. And yes, that would be pretty crappy, but it's already been argued that this agreement had to pass RIAA's lawyers so that would be the way they intended it, whether or not it's enforceable.
Think of it this way: if we're in an agreement where you can use my drive way, and I terminate it according to the terms, then you'd have no right to use the driveway. And yes, this would throw a whole new set of ammo into the 'Apple's just as Evil!' camp, but it's hard to imagine them being allowed to not intend it this way. True they bury it, but since the only real reason they'd have to break the contract is if the person already breaking their side.
So they are a corporation w/ lawyers that will coach everything they write in terms most favorable to them, but it's hard to think of a more liberal contract the RIAA would have gone for.
*I Am Not A Lawyer But I've Played One To Impress The Ladies
1) By purchasing from iTunes knowing the DRM exists, he agreed to the terms.
2) He stated he is disregarding those terms because he doesn't agree with them.
I didn't mean to 'put words in his mouth', just illustrate how this view might effect other areas of life. If he didn't like the DRM he could have made the purchase elsewhere.
If you object to a contract, don't agree to it. Period. This isn't an agreement you're forced into if you want food, water, or your life. It's a service with specific terms for a product you can get elsewhere if you disagree with the terms.
Between adoption and surrogate mothers a contract involving 'firstborn son' isn't as flippant as you might think. Moral arguments generally complicate the legal issues in the 'I want my baby back' cases, but they aren't generally thrown out simply on the grounds that they can't contract their children away. While it's almost obvious a contract can't legally require an illegal act, there's no reason it can't include something you'd philosophically find offensive.
Q: Would my software be spyware if I had it collect general system stats if you choose to register, so that I know the average machine speed of my clients?
A: Yes. Most programs that have a reason to do this already warn you anyway. I didn't see anything specific, but it would be fine if it worked like Ratings that describe WHY they are there. For example, if it listed next to the 'Reports Home' icon a blurb that says 'User controlled system reporting for research' it would be fine. As for who would watch this, once the icons are in place it would probably be relatively simple to set up a Consumer Watch Group for this alone. A website listing whether a product is accurately labeled would be the minimum required, though we could easily have more.
As for funding, rights, blah blah blah: we already have a FDA because food and drugs are such an integral part of daily life. Every state has a DMV. For better or worse, the FCC is all over the place watching things. Aren't computers ubiquitous enough for them to monitored yet for consumer protection?
2. I think $0.99 is a fair price, too. I just (a) philosophically disagree with DRM and (b) want to be able to play the songs that I have legally purchased outside of iTunes / Quicktime.
It's in their terms of service, and is a contract/license that is fully enforceable - while click throughs are arguable, payment definitely constitutes agreement. By this logic, he doesn't really care about the GPL or any agreement that isn't convenient to his personal whims.
CONTENT USAGE RULES
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.
You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.
You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.
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. 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.
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. They put in the standard limits boilerplate, but having the 'personal use' line leaves room for a reasonable legal defense.
As for the lossy argument, either AAC is more lossy than CDs, they are less lossy, or they are equally lossy. If equal, it's a moot point. If AAC is more lossy then it's also a moot point. If CDs are more lossy than yes, the resulting file will be more lossy than the original, and not what you paid for, but not more lossy than a CD would have been. I can respect that this isn't perfect, and there are valid complaints, but it is a start.
On most things I think we see where each other is, and we'll just go in circles with our slight differences. Just one point I'll comment on:
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?
You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded, so I'm not sure how the 3-computer sharing limit enters into this. The only limit is you have to adjust the list every 10 burns or something like that, a minor inconvenience for anyone for whom burning the exact same list more than 10 times in a row actually is a personal use. 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. Sharing restrictions are entirely separate from burning.
No, but I'll admit I was wrong. The first Help topic I went to from iTunes mentioned nothing about a limit, but further research found that it does indeed require authorization for music it knows was purchased, and the 3 computer limit applies. This is probably because it streams the encrypted file in answer to the record companies question about how it would prevent simple intercepts.
Personally, I don't think circumventing FairPlay is any more wrong than normal CD copying is or isn't, depending on intent and use. However, being able to share with two computers with virtually no effort is a step above what buying a normal CDs gives you, while still giving you everything normal CDs give you.
As for the lossy argument, IANAA(udiophile), but either CD's are inherently less lossy, as lossy or more lossy then AAC. If less lossy, then there is virtually no loss as it should hold everything the AAC had which can be later pulled back. If more lossy then it is still standard CD quality, and whether it matters becomes a matter of the beholder. And if as lossy, it's probably a moot point.
DRM doesn't preserve any of your rights as a fan, it restricts your available actions as a consumer in a misguided attempt to protect the distributor's revenue stream.
So in essence we agree, as I never really meant to say it was illegal or should be, just that 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. 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.
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. By definition circumvention is getting around something - holding the shift key was more of a circumvention then what is required in iTunes. I consider the built in sharing as a bonus, and all other physical restrictions with sharing the music virtually identical to the restrictions on a standard CD.
I will concede that fair use allows what you want to do. I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you. Apple has iTunes share up to 3 computers* immediately after purchase with no extra effort, which is more of a fair use concession than you get from a single CD. More than that and you'll have to do the work yourself, the same as you would for any other source. iTunes Music Sharing is a feature they probably could have left off with less controversy, but it's there and it works as it does.
As for whether you're violating the contract, I would agree that if you somehow patched iTunes to share with all of your computers, or otherwise removed the restriction, you would be within your fair use rights, DMCA issues notwithstanding.
However, I still feel your initial claim of being denied fair use by iTunes sharing limit is erroneous, because it actually allows a small fair use ability beyond normal CDs, and any fair use achievable through effort from CDs is achievable by just a little extra effort. In essence, they are denying excessive use of a feature you never had before. Inconvenient maybe, but hardly despicable.
*I verified the limit for purchased, it was in a different Help topic than where I initially looked that simply stated sharing was possible but made no mention of any limits. The limit is 3 for purchased, 5 for non-purchase, probably for bandwidth/performance considerations.
Slashdot Mirror
Using Playlists, you can pre-organize based on your likely moods/activities - Driving, Jogging, Chilling, Reading, etc. Then when you're wherever the mood strikes you you just switch to that list. No need to drag your computer along in case you change your mind.
... A lineup no radio station gives.
My 20G is woefully underfilled at ~1900 songs / 6.4 G, but I only pull in CDs when the mood hits me now that I have my favorites in. But I pretty much use it for driving trips and the shuffle works great for having a line up of Weird Al, Johnny Cash, Yes, The Simpsons*, Lita Ford, the Cure, The Tick*, Devo,
* This takes me to a point on how I think MP3 players are underutilized. Do you have crazy system sounds? The Simpsons, Berzerk, Star Trek, Hitchhiker's Guide the Galaxy? Convert them to AAC/MP3, drop them on iTunes and play the list in random. Nothing breaks up the monotony of a drive like a sudden interlude of "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Umm.... exactly how does the online banking model ensure that you are you? Or what district you should vote for? Or that you haven't already voted? Where's the paper trail kept? How would the recount work?
I've actually found performance on the plus side of excessive for DOS games. Games like Populous, the Ultima Series, and Scorched Earth are impossible to play, thanks to the lack of any kind of speed throttle. Superheroes League of Hoboken seems okay so far, though.
Yeah, who'd'a thought VPC would run too fast on a Mac, but I've never seen W95 run as fast as it does on this 1.25 Ghz Powerbook. Of course this IS unix; maybe I should throw a renice 20 at it.
I love my Powerbook too, but not so much I let it anywhere near my lap.
Yes, they are hot. But along with a G5 come different buses and caches and memory (oh my), possibly all running faster. So even if the G5 is inherently cooler than the G4 the whole shebang is probably hotter.
Serious Reply:
Parent was implying they'd like to buy new, not old from some stranger. Cheap iBooks/Powerbooks are available on ebay as well.
Non-serious Reply:
If only ebay sold a sarcasm detector.
I'd love a Corvette for 15 grand, but instead of just building the same thing every year the keep changing it. Those jerks.
It's likely they already have feasible prototypes. However, IBM is currently having problems turning out enough G5's just for the towers and XServes. They are not likely to push ahead until they are certain supplies will be maintainable.
And really, the need to handle power/heat issues in a laptop may be causing other problems with getting one in a laptop anyway. If they went through the trouble of introducing a speed bump G5 laptops won't be in the next 6 months. In addition, when they do arrive they will probably be only in the high end at first, so if your thinking low-end money range it will probably be longer still.
If they could break even with one time costs, salaries, and bandwidth at 30 cents a song, then once the one times are paid off the difference would be profit. Granted, they will likely turn it into promotions or expansions of some sort effectively reinvesting in itself but they are still making money once the one time costs have been ameliorated (or whatever, IANAAccountant)
1) You can probably buy just iLife, though I'm not certain. If you're referring to the fact that it was a lack of software, that is. If so the 'problem' was licensing fees for the software were paid base on CPU sales, so until iDVD was sold alone they'd have been in breach of contract, at least technically, so you'd have to use someone else's software.
2) This is true, but I wouldn't consider this a "stunt". There's other syncing software, or if you have something in particular in mind you could right it. This would only be a MS tactic if they prevented you from writing your own, not for not sharing theirs. There are two possible altruistic reasons:a) it's not stable enough to release, or b) it's not secure enough to release. iSync right now can access my iDisk using stored information. If they open up the API they have to make sure whatever accessing it is allowed to, which may be difficult.
3) Their testing showed that USB cameras didn't work well enough for what they wanted iChatAV to do. If they let any camera connect and it worked like crap people would probably blame iChat and not the camera. I thought it would work w/ other firewire cameras, but I've never tested it. The help seems to indicate it would.
4) I'm not certain what you think the QT-AAC is an example of. AAC is a known standard anyone could use. Are you talking about Fairplay? They needed a DRM or record companies wouldn't have bought in. I'm not sure how that's a refusal to make customer's lives better - iTunes and iPods work together with little fuss, since they make them both. Makes my life better. How would being able to buy from Real make life better? Pro: Possibly different music selection. Con: Possible software conflicts when connecting. Possible library corruption from updating from both services. Less leverage to encourage artists/labels to go to iTunes Music Store. On balance, that doesn't seem better to me.
"All he had was a hammer, so every problem looked like a nail."
A command line would be user friendly if it was an intelligent command line that could interpret whatever you typed. Think of speech recognition: it's essentially a command line w/o typing. There aren't many CLI's that are forgiving of grammar or spelling though.
The main reason CLI is viewed as inherently user unfriendly is that there is no context or clues if you have little or no instructions, or run into unusual problems. Also there has usually been little obvious consistency. You want to trash something in a gui? Drag it to the trash. CLI? It's rm, for remove you know. It's a directory? Oh, then rmdir. But first you have to empty it. Or you can just use rm -r . But not literally, because that period could erase everything depending on where you are. Oh, you already did? Hold on, let me transfer you to someone else.
Yeah, that's my argument. If he didn't want to be "shackled" by the terms he shouldn't have used the service. He might fully agree with the GPL, but morally his actions are no different from someone who would take GPL'd code and not abide by the GPL.
Such as where? If there was alternate service, you may have a point. Is there?
Um... a CD, perhaps? We're talking about obtaining music to listen to and use as he sees fit. All iTunes offers are DRM-tied AAC files, which obviously isn't what he wanted. He wanted the price, but not the terms, which is a breach of contract* by any definition.
* Yes, I'm still making the leap that authorizing payment implies agreement with the Terms of Service and therefore a contractual agreement. It's the same legally as when you buy something off the 'Final Sale - no return' rack. Or buying anything at Best Buy agrees to their Return restrictions that are printed on the wall. Maybe even more so, since you could reasonably claim you didn't see them if you have bad vision and the sales person mentioned them.
That's an interesting point, but as IANALBIPOTITL* I'm note sure what the result would be. It may be from a strict interpretation you are no longer allowed to use said songs at all, since you wouldn't be able to get your computers authorized. And yes, that would be pretty crappy, but it's already been argued that this agreement had to pass RIAA's lawyers so that would be the way they intended it, whether or not it's enforceable.
Think of it this way: if we're in an agreement where you can use my drive way, and I terminate it according to the terms, then you'd have no right to use the driveway. And yes, this would throw a whole new set of ammo into the 'Apple's just as Evil!' camp, but it's hard to imagine them being allowed to not intend it this way. True they bury it, but since the only real reason they'd have to break the contract is if the person already breaking their side.
So they are a corporation w/ lawyers that will coach everything they write in terms most favorable to them, but it's hard to think of a more liberal contract the RIAA would have gone for.
*I Am Not A Lawyer But I've Played One To Impress The Ladies
1) By purchasing from iTunes knowing the DRM exists, he agreed to the terms.
2) He stated he is disregarding those terms because he doesn't agree with them.
I didn't mean to 'put words in his mouth', just illustrate how this view might effect other areas of life. If he didn't like the DRM he could have made the purchase elsewhere.
If you object to a contract, don't agree to it. Period. This isn't an agreement you're forced into if you want food, water, or your life. It's a service with specific terms for a product you can get elsewhere if you disagree with the terms.
Between adoption and surrogate mothers a contract involving 'firstborn son' isn't as flippant as you might think. Moral arguments generally complicate the legal issues in the 'I want my baby back' cases, but they aren't generally thrown out simply on the grounds that they can't contract their children away. While it's almost obvious a contract can't legally require an illegal act, there's no reason it can't include something you'd philosophically find offensive.
Worst. Act name. Ever.
A noble idea, with an ignoble name. Reminds me of a Pure Earth movement of some kind.
Q: Would my software be spyware if I had it collect general system stats if you choose to register, so that I know the average machine speed of my clients?
A: Yes. Most programs that have a reason to do this already warn you anyway. I didn't see anything specific, but it would be fine if it worked like Ratings that describe WHY they are there. For example, if it listed next to the 'Reports Home' icon a blurb that says 'User controlled system reporting for research' it would be fine. As for who would watch this, once the icons are in place it would probably be relatively simple to set up a Consumer Watch Group for this alone. A website listing whether a product is accurately labeled would be the minimum required, though we could easily have more.
As for funding, rights, blah blah blah: we already have a FDA because food and drugs are such an integral part of daily life. Every state has a DMV. For better or worse, the FCC is all over the place watching things. Aren't computers ubiquitous enough for them to monitored yet for consumer protection?
2. I think $0.99 is a fair price, too. I just (a) philosophically disagree with DRM and (b) want to be able to play the songs that I have legally purchased outside of iTunes / Quicktime.
It's in their terms of service, and is a contract/license that is fully enforceable - while click throughs are arguable, payment definitely constitutes agreement. By this logic, he doesn't really care about the GPL or any agreement that isn't convenient to his personal whims.
Why didn't I become a plumber?
Because when the pipes you've worked on have a problem it's hard to convince people it's because their windows are buggy and need patched.
the single button touch pad
Ask, and thou shalt receive.
OK, from the Terms of Sale:
CONTENT USAGE RULES Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.
You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.
You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.
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. 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.
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. They put in the standard limits boilerplate, but having the 'personal use' line leaves room for a reasonable legal defense.
As for the lossy argument, either AAC is more lossy than CDs, they are less lossy, or they are equally lossy. If equal, it's a moot point. If AAC is more lossy then it's also a moot point. If CDs are more lossy than yes, the resulting file will be more lossy than the original, and not what you paid for, but not more lossy than a CD would have been. I can respect that this isn't perfect, and there are valid complaints, but it is a start.
On most things I think we see where each other is, and we'll just go in circles with our slight differences. Just one point I'll comment on:
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?
You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded, so I'm not sure how the 3-computer sharing limit enters into this. The only limit is you have to adjust the list every 10 burns or something like that, a minor inconvenience for anyone for whom burning the exact same list more than 10 times in a row actually is a personal use. 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. Sharing restrictions are entirely separate from burning.
No, but I'll admit I was wrong. The first Help topic I went to from iTunes mentioned nothing about a limit, but further research found that it does indeed require authorization for music it knows was purchased, and the 3 computer limit applies. This is probably because it streams the encrypted file in answer to the record companies question about how it would prevent simple intercepts.
Personally, I don't think circumventing FairPlay is any more wrong than normal CD copying is or isn't, depending on intent and use. However, being able to share with two computers with virtually no effort is a step above what buying a normal CDs gives you, while still giving you everything normal CDs give you.
As for the lossy argument, IANAA(udiophile), but either CD's are inherently less lossy, as lossy or more lossy then AAC. If less lossy, then there is virtually no loss as it should hold everything the AAC had which can be later pulled back. If more lossy then it is still standard CD quality, and whether it matters becomes a matter of the beholder. And if as lossy, it's probably a moot point.
DRM doesn't preserve any of your rights as a fan, it restricts your available actions as a consumer in a misguided attempt to protect the distributor's revenue stream.
So in essence we agree, as I never really meant to say it was illegal or should be, just that 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. 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.
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. By definition circumvention is getting around something - holding the shift key was more of a circumvention then what is required in iTunes. I consider the built in sharing as a bonus, and all other physical restrictions with sharing the music virtually identical to the restrictions on a standard CD.
I will concede that fair use allows what you want to do. I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you. Apple has iTunes share up to 3 computers* immediately after purchase with no extra effort, which is more of a fair use concession than you get from a single CD. More than that and you'll have to do the work yourself, the same as you would for any other source. iTunes Music Sharing is a feature they probably could have left off with less controversy, but it's there and it works as it does.
As for whether you're violating the contract, I would agree that if you somehow patched iTunes to share with all of your computers, or otherwise removed the restriction, you would be within your fair use rights, DMCA issues notwithstanding.
However, I still feel your initial claim of being denied fair use by iTunes sharing limit is erroneous, because it actually allows a small fair use ability beyond normal CDs, and any fair use achievable through effort from CDs is achievable by just a little extra effort. In essence, they are denying excessive use of a feature you never had before. Inconvenient maybe, but hardly despicable.
*I verified the limit for purchased, it was in a different Help topic than where I initially looked that simply stated sharing was possible but made no mention of any limits. The limit is 3 for purchased, 5 for non-purchase, probably for bandwidth/performance considerations.