Sure, but this doesn't change the fact that burning and re-ripping doesn't "defeat" or "remove" Apple's DRM: in fact, when the user does those things the DRM is working exactly as described and intended.
No, the restrictions on what you can do with Apple's DRM files are the same with every version of iTunes: authorize up to five computers, burn the same playlist up to seven times.
The different behavior of streaming within your subnet is unrelated to iTMS DRM, since it applies to all the music on your computer. Not to mention the fact that if you want to stream purchased music using Rendezvous, the client machine has to be authorized...again regardless of the version.
Burn and re-rip leaves you with highly noticeable losses from transcoding, so it does prevent you from placing a good-quality rip on a P2P network. I suspect that's the main intention.
How was being able to PURCHASE something in a form that the user actually wanted an exploit?
How is circumventing the seller's terms and obtaining the goods in a form not intended for sale not an exploit?
Here's an idea: go to a restaurant with your favorite mug. Walk into the kitchen, ladle some soup into your mug. On your way out, leave the price of a bowl of soup on the counter. See what happens.
The nature of a pyramid scheme is that early-birds are rewarded and late-comers go home empty-handed. To me, that is "automatically a scam" because the early birds always get their reward on the backs of the late-comers.
Or can you show me an example of one of these schemes where they actually say "there's not much point in joining now because you'll have to work ridiculously hard to find enough referrers, and we guarantee that they, in turn, will find it mathematically impossible to line up eight (or ten, or six) referrers"?
If you have to collect referrers, then it's pyramid-like and most of the people who come away satisfied are early birds. The later you come in, the harder it gets to find referrers, and within just a few generations it becomes mathematically impossible for newcomers to get enough referrers. Even if these companies pull the plug and start it all over again once it becomes noticeably difficult to find people who aren't already in, that still leaves legions of people high and dry.
In other words, "works for me" and "fundamentally a scam" are not mutually exclusive statements.
Considering that the CD from my example has been out of print for about four years now, purchasing it new and supporting them really wasn't an option.
If it's available for purchased download it's not completely "out of print" is it?
If I buy a song through iTunes, can I listen to it on my main computer, my gaming computer, and in my stereo (burnt as data, not CD)?
Yes, yes, and no. Plus three more computers. Plus burn ten (or is it seven?) audio CD copies.
If, {DEITY} forbid, iTunes shuts down tomorrow, would I still be able to listen to these tracks that I purchased from them?
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to authorize any new computers to play the material, unless Apple (or a third party) completely removed the DRM as a parting "gift". In general, anyone who buys such downloads really should make an audio-CD backup of their purchase. That is something that will play anywhere for the life of the disc it's burned on.
I think what people miss about iTunes (and Napster, etc.) is that not being an adequate replacement for the CD doesn't make it completely useless.
It is a more than adequate replacement for the cassette tape, which not so long ago was wildly popular for its convenience and in spite of its terrible sound quality. An iTunes download is much closer to CD quality (and to my aging ears effectively the same but YMMV), and also significantly more convenient, even with the DRM.
And because you can click and have it right now, it's also more convenient than a CD. It's entirely up to you whether it's a convenience worth paying for.
For me the answer is that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't: despite the.99 price-tag the pricing and "deals" actually vary widely. Sometimes you'll see a box set from a major artist that's "by song only," making it horribly expensive. Sometimes you'll see an indie album with 36 tracks going for $9.99, as opposed to $12.99 for a "hard copy." Or one with 5 tracks selling for 5 x.99, as opposed to the same $12.99.
But since you can do anything with it, wouldn't the first thing be to transcode directly to some other format, such as MP3? (Without the DRM-required step of first transcoding to audio CD then re-ripping.)
In this context, maybe it's important to note that the iPod shuffle and the Super Shuffle are not functionally identical.
One plays WMA, one does not. One plays AAC (DRM or no), one does not. One has an FM tuner and voice recorder, one does not.
However, the one that came second to market looks identical to the one that came first. Therein lies the problem; functionality has little or nothing to do with it. (Until naive consumers start to find that some of their music won't play and they can't figure out why.)
Sorry, lazy wording. I mean "it's not journalism anymore if it relies exclusively on anonymous sources." I might add that in the case of Think Secret, we have to rate them pretty poor journalists if we care about accuracy and accountability (they don't admit mistakes, they explain them away).
Giving up names would be almost as bad for Think Secret as paying a lot of money. If it happens, their inside sources will disappear or go silent and they'll be forced to cobble together their predictions based on research into hard-to-find public information and on-the-record comments. In other words, they'll have to resort to...journalism!
Isn't a marketing plan a kind of formula? Can't competitors do a little extra digging to confirm or deny the leak, then plan counter-announcements to try to dim the spotlight?
However: since it's the release date of a known product, and not the existence of a previously unknown product, I expect there's zero chance of it being true -- just because if it once was true, Apple has probably changed the date already.
In the United States, there's the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Looks like Think Secret may well have broken it.
As I understand the UTSA (IANAL, yadda yadda), the alleged infringement happens when you entice someone to spill something they shouldn't, and then you go and repeat that info despite knowing that it's likely a trade secret.
Even without such a law, if I'm reading your post correctly enticement is over a line; it's not merely someone inadvertently saying too much in an interview, it's both source and reporter setting out to expose confidential information. (I'll repeat the part about no-wrongdoing-involved, because a lot of people seem to think if Apple gets its way then whistleblowers are harmed. I strongly disagree with that one.)
Now, in the case of Think Secret, the site is plastered with invitations to "insiders", including one that offers to make anonymous insiders "contributing editors" to the site. Even by the fairly liberal standard of journalistic ethics you described, that sounds egregious to me.
So, do those rights include soliciting a company's employees or contractors to disclose confidential information (where the company is not involved in any wrongdoing)?
As someone who reads Think Secret, my opinion is that the only time they really do any "reporting" per se is when they analyse where their own rumor stories went wrong.
The rest of the time the reader has no way of knowing how accurate the material is, and which parts of it to believe. Sometimes they publish stuff that proves to be accurate, sometimes they publish leaks about $99 iPod minis with stripes or, more recently, new iPod minis with colour screens.
Dig around ThinkSecret.com, and you'll find a disclaimer (looks like it was copied and pasted from an Apple EULA -- how professional) that essentially says it's all to be taken with a grain of salt.
So are they journalists when they get it right, when they're shovelling bullshit, both, or neither?
Hardcore fans suffered through two (mostly) wretched seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation before it started to get consistently good. Then they came on board in sufficient numbers to make the series a huge success.
They didn't do the same for Enterprise, even though its first two seasons were arguably no worse than TNG's, and its current season is excellent. Why?
Could be the more fragmented viewership today, could be Star Trek fatigue after a total of 21 TNG, DSN, and VOY seasons, could be that Enterprise's 3rd season was an improvement, but not enough of an improvement to bring the viewers back. I'd say it all plays a role.
especially since to use the Finder, you have to get back to the desktop (or use some hidden keyboard command, I dunno).
Yeah, command-tab is really well hidden.
if you're not prepared to learn a completely different way of doing simple tasks then a Mac probably isn't right for you.
All sarcasm aside, you do have a good point here. It took many Mac OS 9 users a long time to get over this same hurdle. Some are still coming to terms with it, I'm sure.
Buying by the album does give you a price break, as others have pointed out. I've got some music downloaded from iTunes: average price was about $0.50/track, sales tax included, in Canadian funds. All bought by-the-album.
And yes, it's DRM'ed. I can live with it: I paid a discounted price to get a no-frills version of something right away. The other options would have required travel, time, or a long search; or cost more from Amazon; or involved a long wait for a download from a free servce of dubious legality. (Downloading copyrighted music is de facto legal in Canada, depending on who you're talking to, but everyone agrees that uploading is right out.)
Which is just my point, except that I carry it farther: many languages routinely trade in metaphor and word-play. French, for example, does so much more frequently than English -- as a matter of course, in the most routine of written communications.
Or take the post that I started this thread with. No doubt every native English speaker who read it correctly parsed "without bursting into flames" as a metaphor for something like "without producing gibberish."
I have no doubt that a good corpus-based translation engine could parse it the same way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the output will be an appropriately equivalent stock metaphor, which could be something like "without crumbling to dust" or "without falling into the sea" or what have you.
If the system behind this discussion is capable of selecting appropriate stock metaphors (or at least inserting "without producing gibberish"), then bravo! (Seriously: that is a major achievement.)
But then the next question arises: what does it do with an original metaphor or play on words? Much bigger problem, and we're back to the heart of the matter: most kinds of writing involve a mind-boggling amount of creativity, both subtle and blatant, and translation is fundamentally an act of writing.
So until I'm shown a system that can really handle such nuances, I won't worry about my livelihood. As far as I can see, the development described in the article is still only practically useful for specialized settings where the writing has been done with translation in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but this doesn't change the fact that burning and re-ripping doesn't "defeat" or "remove" Apple's DRM: in fact, when the user does those things the DRM is working exactly as described and intended.
No, the restrictions on what you can do with Apple's DRM files are the same with every version of iTunes: authorize up to five computers, burn the same playlist up to seven times.
The different behavior of streaming within your subnet is unrelated to iTMS DRM, since it applies to all the music on your computer. Not to mention the fact that if you want to stream purchased music using Rendezvous, the client machine has to be authorized...again regardless of the version.
Burn and re-rip leaves you with highly noticeable losses from transcoding, so it does prevent you from placing a good-quality rip on a P2P network. I suspect that's the main intention.
How was being able to PURCHASE something in a form that the user actually wanted an exploit?
How is circumventing the seller's terms and obtaining the goods in a form not intended for sale not an exploit?
Here's an idea: go to a restaurant with your favorite mug. Walk into the kitchen, ladle some soup into your mug. On your way out, leave the price of a bowl of soup on the counter. See what happens.
Or can you show me an example of one of these schemes where they actually say "there's not much point in joining now because you'll have to work ridiculously hard to find enough referrers, and we guarantee that they, in turn, will find it mathematically impossible to line up eight (or ten, or six) referrers"?
The Gratis sites are completely legitimate...
If you have to collect referrers, then it's pyramid-like and most of the people who come away satisfied are early birds. The later you come in, the harder it gets to find referrers, and within just a few generations it becomes mathematically impossible for newcomers to get enough referrers. Even if these companies pull the plug and start it all over again once it becomes noticeably difficult to find people who aren't already in, that still leaves legions of people high and dry.
In other words, "works for me" and "fundamentally a scam" are not mutually exclusive statements.
Considering that the CD from my example has been out of print for about four years now, purchasing it new and supporting them really wasn't an option.
.99 price-tag the pricing and "deals" actually vary widely. Sometimes you'll see a box set from a major artist that's "by song only," making it horribly expensive. Sometimes you'll see an indie album with 36 tracks going for $9.99, as opposed to $12.99 for a "hard copy." Or one with 5 tracks selling for 5 x .99, as opposed to the same $12.99.
If it's available for purchased download it's not completely "out of print" is it?
If I buy a song through iTunes, can I listen to it on my main computer, my gaming computer, and in my stereo (burnt as data, not CD)?
Yes, yes, and no. Plus three more computers. Plus burn ten (or is it seven?) audio CD copies.
If, {DEITY} forbid, iTunes shuts down tomorrow, would I still be able to listen to these tracks that I purchased from them?
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to authorize any new computers to play the material, unless Apple (or a third party) completely removed the DRM as a parting "gift". In general, anyone who buys such downloads really should make an audio-CD backup of their purchase. That is something that will play anywhere for the life of the disc it's burned on.
I think what people miss about iTunes (and Napster, etc.) is that not being an adequate replacement for the CD doesn't make it completely useless.
It is a more than adequate replacement for the cassette tape, which not so long ago was wildly popular for its convenience and in spite of its terrible sound quality. An iTunes download is much closer to CD quality (and to my aging ears effectively the same but YMMV), and also significantly more convenient, even with the DRM.
And because you can click and have it right now, it's also more convenient than a CD. It's entirely up to you whether it's a convenience worth paying for.
For me the answer is that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't: despite the
But since you can do anything with it, wouldn't the first thing be to transcode directly to some other format, such as MP3? (Without the DRM-required step of first transcoding to audio CD then re-ripping.)
My OPINION, however, is that Apple deserve to get screwed over...
So are you trying to perpetuate lawyers' asshole stereotype, or does it just come naturally?
In this context, maybe it's important to note that the iPod shuffle and the Super Shuffle are not functionally identical.
One plays WMA, one does not. One plays AAC (DRM or no), one does not. One has an FM tuner and voice recorder, one does not.
However, the one that came second to market looks identical to the one that came first. Therein lies the problem; functionality has little or nothing to do with it. (Until naive consumers start to find that some of their music won't play and they can't figure out why.)
Sorry, lazy wording. I mean "it's not journalism anymore if it relies exclusively on anonymous sources." I might add that in the case of Think Secret, we have to rate them pretty poor journalists if we care about accuracy and accountability (they don't admit mistakes, they explain them away).
Since when does "journalism" exclude inside sources?
When it relies exclusively on them.
Giving up names would be almost as bad for Think Secret as paying a lot of money. If it happens, their inside sources will disappear or go silent and they'll be forced to cobble together their predictions based on research into hard-to-find public information and on-the-record comments. In other words, they'll have to resort to...journalism!
Isn't a marketing plan a kind of formula? Can't competitors do a little extra digging to confirm or deny the leak, then plan counter-announcements to try to dim the spotlight?
However: since it's the release date of a known product, and not the existence of a previously unknown product, I expect there's zero chance of it being true -- just because if it once was true, Apple has probably changed the date already.
You sure it wasn't Shorn, pronounced Shaun? ;)
"as long as I don't break any laws doing it"
In the United States, there's the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Looks like Think Secret may well have broken it.
As I understand the UTSA (IANAL, yadda yadda), the alleged infringement happens when you entice someone to spill something they shouldn't, and then you go and repeat that info despite knowing that it's likely a trade secret.
Even without such a law, if I'm reading your post correctly enticement is over a line; it's not merely someone inadvertently saying too much in an interview, it's both source and reporter setting out to expose confidential information. (I'll repeat the part about no-wrongdoing-involved, because a lot of people seem to think if Apple gets its way then whistleblowers are harmed. I strongly disagree with that one.)
Now, in the case of Think Secret, the site is plastered with invitations to "insiders", including one that offers to make anonymous insiders "contributing editors" to the site. Even by the fairly liberal standard of journalistic ethics you described, that sounds egregious to me.
So, do those rights include soliciting a company's employees or contractors to disclose confidential information (where the company is not involved in any wrongdoing)?
As someone who reads Think Secret, my opinion is that the only time they really do any "reporting" per se is when they analyse where their own rumor stories went wrong.
The rest of the time the reader has no way of knowing how accurate the material is, and which parts of it to believe. Sometimes they publish stuff that proves to be accurate, sometimes they publish leaks about $99 iPod minis with stripes or, more recently, new iPod minis with colour screens.
Dig around ThinkSecret.com, and you'll find a disclaimer (looks like it was copied and pasted from an Apple EULA -- how professional) that essentially says it's all to be taken with a grain of salt.
So are they journalists when they get it right, when they're shovelling bullshit, both, or neither?
Hardcore fans suffered through two (mostly) wretched seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation before it started to get consistently good. Then they came on board in sufficient numbers to make the series a huge success.
They didn't do the same for Enterprise, even though its first two seasons were arguably no worse than TNG's, and its current season is excellent. Why?
Could be the more fragmented viewership today, could be Star Trek fatigue after a total of 21 TNG, DSN, and VOY seasons, could be that Enterprise's 3rd season was an improvement, but not enough of an improvement to bring the viewers back. I'd say it all plays a role.
Six Feet Under
No, not a crime drama. But HBO does have The Wire.
Er...I mean, or so I've heard.
Sure, they're sites that love the company...the way a stalker loves his quarry.
But I love you! Why can't you see that we're made for each other!
Was this before or after they spent 20 MINUTES copying a 20-megabyte file?
especially since to use the Finder, you have to get back to the desktop (or use some hidden keyboard command, I dunno).
Yeah, command-tab is really well hidden.
if you're not prepared to learn a completely different way of doing simple tasks then a Mac probably isn't right for you.
All sarcasm aside, you do have a good point here. It took many Mac OS 9 users a long time to get over this same hurdle. Some are still coming to terms with it, I'm sure.
Buying by the album does give you a price break, as others have pointed out. I've got some music downloaded from iTunes: average price was about $0.50/track, sales tax included, in Canadian funds. All bought by-the-album. And yes, it's DRM'ed. I can live with it: I paid a discounted price to get a no-frills version of something right away. The other options would have required travel, time, or a long search; or cost more from Amazon; or involved a long wait for a download from a free servce of dubious legality. (Downloading copyrighted music is de facto legal in Canada, depending on who you're talking to, but everyone agrees that uploading is right out.)
Which is just my point, except that I carry it farther: many languages routinely trade in metaphor and word-play. French, for example, does so much more frequently than English -- as a matter of course, in the most routine of written communications.
Or take the post that I started this thread with. No doubt every native English speaker who read it correctly parsed "without bursting into flames" as a metaphor for something like "without producing gibberish."
I have no doubt that a good corpus-based translation engine could parse it the same way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the output will be an appropriately equivalent stock metaphor, which could be something like "without crumbling to dust" or "without falling into the sea" or what have you.
If the system behind this discussion is capable of selecting appropriate stock metaphors (or at least inserting "without producing gibberish"), then bravo! (Seriously: that is a major achievement.)
But then the next question arises: what does it do with an original metaphor or play on words? Much bigger problem, and we're back to the heart of the matter: most kinds of writing involve a mind-boggling amount of creativity, both subtle and blatant, and translation is fundamentally an act of writing.
So until I'm shown a system that can really handle such nuances, I won't worry about my livelihood. As far as I can see, the development described in the article is still only practically useful for specialized settings where the writing has been done with translation in mind.