I tend to think of it as "Google and the little guys" against all of the "big guys". I think smaller companies and users tend to trust Google a lot more than they trust Microsoft or Yahoo, and going by each company's track record, it looks like they have reason to!
I wouldn't underestimate the power of the little guys.
Can you give me a good reason why I should ever need to burn it through iTunes more than once? I can burn it once and then make identical copies of that CD.
The fact that I can burn it more than once through iTunes is simply an issue of convenience. By changing the number of times I can burn a CD, they are making the product they have sold me a less convenient product, and a different product.
So, why anyone would need to burn the songs to CD more than once is irrelevant. The question is, given that anyone can already make unlimited and identical copies of that CD, why is Apple retroactively making their product less usable for honest users?
The greater issue here is the fact that Apple is okay with doing this, and the possibility of them one day retroactively applying even more undesirable changes to music purchased from the iTunes Music Store.
You can, but it gets re-encoded each time you convert it, and each re-encoding results in a drop in quality. I haven't used iTunes, but I have been told that a full conversion from iTunes AAC format to CD to another compressed but non-DRM format effectively ruins the sound quality to an unacceptable level.
Furthermore, using this "burn a CD and then rip it" trick is most likely covered by the "no circumvention" clause in the DMCA. Apple claims the DRM was there to prevent people from copying, and any method of turning that encrypted AAC file into a non-encrypted file that can be distributed is probably considered a "circumvention" and is illegal.
So, yes, at the extra price of a blank CD you can turn some of your reasonable-quality-but-encrypted AAC files into unreasonable-quality-but-not-encrypted OGGs or MP3s, but it is most likely illegal.
- Illegal - Bad quality - Waste of a CD
It's not too hard to figure out that you're getting screwed if you buy from iTunes with the intention of obtaining an unencrypted file through this method.
Even if Apple puts something in their EULA and people agree to it, that doesn't mean it is okay when they do it. No one really takes EULAs seriously and they shouldn't, because most of the stuff in EULAs is so restrictive that a lot of it wouldn't even hold up in court.
In this case, consumers' rights have been violated. Apple sold them a product and then sneaked into their computers and switched the product that they had sold them to one that is arguably inferior. That is wrong, and having a clause in a EULA that says Apple is allowed to do it doesn't make it any less wrong.
By the way, each time you read any part of the above text you automatically agree to pay me $1,000. Now cough up, you filthy pirate!
Apple doesn't allow people to convert iTunes music to any other formats or codecs, and doing so is probably against the law in most countries because it would be considered "circumventing copy protection".
The record industry cartel loves DRM. They could open a music store that doesn't use DRM at any time they like. Additionally, the record industry cartel could cut Apple out of the deal at any time just by refusing to license new songs to Apple. Apple only have a little bit of power because they're established, so they managed to negotiate the 99 cents price. All that is required for the iTunes Music Store to die is the industry deciding that they can be bothered enough to kill ITMS. It is a decision for them; not something they would "like to do", but something that they "can do if they want to enough".
WE know what we're getting into when we buy from iTunes, and that's why most people who know about it are opposed to it. I'm willing to bet that all the kiddies who have gone out and bought iPods and started buying music off iTunes don't realise or haven't considered the fact that the music they're now buying won't work with other portable music players which they may buy when iPods aren't "cool" anymore.
Consumer groups should be issuing warnings to the public about DRM systems. We should be writing to consumer groups to ask them to issue these warnings. Apple shouldn't be doing what they're doing.
Apple is a wolf in sheep clothing. I don't understand why anyone would ever side with Apple. Their track record is worse than Microsoft, except that they're not as big as Microsoft is.
- Apple spread DRM. - Apple change the "rules" about how users can use their music (number of CDs a song can be burnt onto was reduced) using the DRM and software updates, even when the songs have ALREADY been purchased by the users. - Apple sue students for posting rumours about their products on the internet. - Apple try to talk Samba developers into making Samba non-copyleft so that they can take the code and close Apple's branch of it.
Apple are bastards. People need to start treating them based on how they act (like bastards) rather than who they are (a "little guy" competitor to Microsoft).
It's amazing, isn't it? We're not asking for cheap music... hell, charge more for it than the DRM versions, if you want! We just want music that doesn't use DRM, preferably using the patent-free Vorbis codec.
There's clearly a demand for this, yet it is something that no one is selling, and that isn't because they just haven't discovered that people want it yet...
Single statements in Java are not atomic. You should use locks even on single statement operations. There is no guarantee that you won't get interference, otherwise.
Yes, there's never commercials, but only because cutting out the commercials is trivial when they are already having to record and encode the show. If the official way of getting the show was faster (good servers) and easier (no wait, convenient non-DRM format), then no one would bother cutting out the commercials and re-releasing it.
What do you mean "fear of"? You make it sound as though people can't already obtain perfect (to the human eye) copies of TV shows immediately after they've aired.
The thing is that even if someone did rip out the commercials, most people would still get the TV station's version of it because it is probably going to be out sooner, be a faster download (assuming the TV station sets up some fast seeding servers), and be the "best known" place to get the shows from.
Additionally, show producers should be charging companies heaps of money to have their products included in the shows.
People act as though TV downloading is going to be so different from broadcasting, but it's not. Anyone can "save" (record) a broadcast and then "cut out the ads"... and currently they do this and put it on the internet. The only reason they cut out the ads is because they had to convert the show anyway, so it's something they "might as well do, while they're at it". I'll bet that if the shows were just being offered in a convenient manner, and in a non-DRM, high quality format, no one would bother re-distributing them anymore.
Actually, he doesn't have the same sort of bills that a normal person has.
- He doesn't have a mobile phone. - He doesn't have a place called "home". (he travels the world giving talks)... so the only expenses he has are really food, clothes, and plane tickets. If I remember correctly, he stays with free software enthusiasts rather than staying in hotels.
Well, I wouldn't call it "something to hide", but I'll completely agree that no one likes being watched regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty. Any politician who doesn't think that is true should set an example by allowing people to install cameras and other surveillance equipment in their homes.
Either you're trolling, or you have great difficulty distinguishing between reality and entertainment. Just because something is entertaining does not mean that it is something that is agreed with. These are two completely separate things.
How would you react to the fact that some people watch V for Vendetta, 24, 1984, and True Lies? Would your head explode?
How many cases against the government is the EFF running at the moment, and why is the government using the same "national security" excuse for all of them? On the other hand, I guess the "national security" excuse has worked pretty damn well in the past. It worked for billions of dollars spent on a war...
Does the "if you got nothing to hide..." line work with the government too or is FOX news going to spin it some other way for all of us?
Neither! It seems FOX news, along with all other major media organisations, are not going to cover this case at all. When the DOJ sued Google because "Google won't give us information about people searching for porn" that was big news. This seems like even bigger news, but strangely, it isn't in the news.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to think of it as "Google and the little guys" against all of the "big guys". I think smaller companies and users tend to trust Google a lot more than they trust Microsoft or Yahoo, and going by each company's track record, it looks like they have reason to!
I wouldn't underestimate the power of the little guys.
Can you give me a good reason why I should ever need to burn it through iTunes more than once? I can burn it once and then make identical copies of that CD.
The fact that I can burn it more than once through iTunes is simply an issue of convenience. By changing the number of times I can burn a CD, they are making the product they have sold me a less convenient product, and a different product.
So, why anyone would need to burn the songs to CD more than once is irrelevant. The question is, given that anyone can already make unlimited and identical copies of that CD, why is Apple retroactively making their product less usable for honest users?
The greater issue here is the fact that Apple is okay with doing this, and the possibility of them one day retroactively applying even more undesirable changes to music purchased from the iTunes Music Store.
You were supposed to read my message bottom-up, so pay up!
Almost no one reads those 50 page EULAs, so there is no "mutual consideration" in that case, either!
You can, but it gets re-encoded each time you convert it, and each re-encoding results in a drop in quality. I haven't used iTunes, but I have been told that a full conversion from iTunes AAC format to CD to another compressed but non-DRM format effectively ruins the sound quality to an unacceptable level.
Furthermore, using this "burn a CD and then rip it" trick is most likely covered by the "no circumvention" clause in the DMCA. Apple claims the DRM was there to prevent people from copying, and any method of turning that encrypted AAC file into a non-encrypted file that can be distributed is probably considered a "circumvention" and is illegal.
So, yes, at the extra price of a blank CD you can turn some of your reasonable-quality-but-encrypted AAC files into unreasonable-quality-but-not-encrypted OGGs or MP3s, but it is most likely illegal.
- Illegal
- Bad quality
- Waste of a CD
It's not too hard to figure out that you're getting screwed if you buy from iTunes with the intention of obtaining an unencrypted file through this method.
Even if Apple puts something in their EULA and people agree to it, that doesn't mean it is okay when they do it. No one really takes EULAs seriously and they shouldn't, because most of the stuff in EULAs is so restrictive that a lot of it wouldn't even hold up in court.
In this case, consumers' rights have been violated. Apple sold them a product and then sneaked into their computers and switched the product that they had sold them to one that is arguably inferior. That is wrong, and having a clause in a EULA that says Apple is allowed to do it doesn't make it any less wrong.
By the way, each time you read any part of the above text you automatically agree to pay me $1,000. Now cough up, you filthy pirate!
What planet do you live on?
Apple doesn't allow people to convert iTunes music to any other formats or codecs, and doing so is probably against the law in most countries because it would be considered "circumventing copy protection".
The record industry cartel loves DRM. They could open a music store that doesn't use DRM at any time they like. Additionally, the record industry cartel could cut Apple out of the deal at any time just by refusing to license new songs to Apple. Apple only have a little bit of power because they're established, so they managed to negotiate the 99 cents price. All that is required for the iTunes Music Store to die is the industry deciding that they can be bothered enough to kill ITMS. It is a decision for them; not something they would "like to do", but something that they "can do if they want to enough".
Everyone pirate Alizee music videos so that they have more money for tissues!
No. They're on the same side. Apple won't disarm their DRM systems.
WE know what we're getting into when we buy from iTunes, and that's why most people who know about it are opposed to it. I'm willing to bet that all the kiddies who have gone out and bought iPods and started buying music off iTunes don't realise or haven't considered the fact that the music they're now buying won't work with other portable music players which they may buy when iPods aren't "cool" anymore.
Consumer groups should be issuing warnings to the public about DRM systems.
We should be writing to consumer groups to ask them to issue these warnings.
Apple shouldn't be doing what they're doing.
If it prevents Free Software from interoperating with Apple stuff, it is at least partially a Free Software issue.
Apple is a wolf in sheep clothing. I don't understand why anyone would ever side with Apple. Their track record is worse than Microsoft, except that they're not as big as Microsoft is.
- Apple spread DRM.
- Apple change the "rules" about how users can use their music (number of CDs a song can be burnt onto was reduced) using the DRM and software updates, even when the songs have ALREADY been purchased by the users.
- Apple sue students for posting rumours about their products on the internet.
- Apple try to talk Samba developers into making Samba non-copyleft so that they can take the code and close Apple's branch of it.
Apple are bastards. People need to start treating them based on how they act (like bastards) rather than who they are (a "little guy" competitor to Microsoft).
It's amazing, isn't it? We're not asking for cheap music... hell, charge more for it than the DRM versions, if you want! We just want music that doesn't use DRM, preferably using the patent-free Vorbis codec.
There's clearly a demand for this, yet it is something that no one is selling, and that isn't because they just haven't discovered that people want it yet...
Yeah, this guy could be the nail in Microsoft's coffin!
Single statements in Java are not atomic. You should use locks even on single statement operations. There is no guarantee that you won't get interference, otherwise.
I can't believe Slashdot has stooped this low. Tentacle porn?!
Yes, there's never commercials, but only because cutting out the commercials is trivial when they are already having to record and encode the show. If the official way of getting the show was faster (good servers) and easier (no wait, convenient non-DRM format), then no one would bother cutting out the commercials and re-releasing it.
What do you mean "fear of"? You make it sound as though people can't already obtain perfect (to the human eye) copies of TV shows immediately after they've aired.
The thing is that even if someone did rip out the commercials, most people would still get the TV station's version of it because it is probably going to be out sooner, be a faster download (assuming the TV station sets up some fast seeding servers), and be the "best known" place to get the shows from.
Additionally, show producers should be charging companies heaps of money to have their products included in the shows.
People act as though TV downloading is going to be so different from broadcasting, but it's not. Anyone can "save" (record) a broadcast and then "cut out the ads"... and currently they do this and put it on the internet. The only reason they cut out the ads is because they had to convert the show anyway, so it's something they "might as well do, while they're at it". I'll bet that if the shows were just being offered in a convenient manner, and in a non-DRM, high quality format, no one would bother re-distributing them anymore.
Not just happier. If Sun were to GPL Java, it would be unstoppable.
Jobs is The Man.
He's every bit as bad as a record company executive. Possibly worse.
Yeah, taking POWER away from FOUR companies and handing it to ONE very power-hungry company.
Fantastic!
Actually, he doesn't have the same sort of bills that a normal person has.
... so the only expenses he has are really food, clothes, and plane tickets. If I remember correctly, he stays with free software enthusiasts rather than staying in hotels.
- He doesn't have a mobile phone.
- He doesn't have a place called "home". (he travels the world giving talks)
Well, I wouldn't call it "something to hide", but I'll completely agree that no one likes being watched regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty. Any politician who doesn't think that is true should set an example by allowing people to install cameras and other surveillance equipment in their homes.
What a load of rubbish.
Either you're trolling, or you have great difficulty distinguishing between reality and entertainment. Just because something is entertaining does not mean that it is something that is agreed with. These are two completely separate things.
How would you react to the fact that some people watch V for Vendetta, 24, 1984, and True Lies? Would your head explode?
How many cases against the government is the EFF running at the moment, and why is the government using the same "national security" excuse for all of them? On the other hand, I guess the "national security" excuse has worked pretty damn well in the past. It worked for billions of dollars spent on a war...
Does the "if you got nothing to hide..." line work with the government too or is FOX news going to spin it some other way for all of us?
Neither! It seems FOX news, along with all other major media organisations, are not going to cover this case at all. When the DOJ sued Google because "Google won't give us information about people searching for porn" that was big news. This seems like even bigger news, but strangely, it isn't in the news.
Why?