I'm in college, and give my access pass to my friend, who gives it to his buddy, and so on...
8th guy (or girl :-) ) down the line decides to copy my stuff...
How can i prevent it? Only by being an a$$ and telling my friend not to give my pass away, right?
If i can authorize computers, i don't have to worry about it, unless my friend is an a$$ and decides to copy my music :-)
but it would prevent 'free for all' copying on large intranets, where i can see someone's library, and just grab what i want.
However you look at it, it sucks :-)
The whole idea of sharing is exactly this, SHARING, not restricted, controlled, but good old cool type of sharing, where people play along and are nice enough not to steal your stuff... but hey that's not gonna happen
Or if you look at it from a different angle, why apple should implement any copy protection mechanisms? it's not apple's job to be a policeman watching you. But then you get into p2p networks and all that mess....
torifile/pensieve, I don't think you quite understand the simplicity of downloading files via daap. It's not like this guy hax0red into iTunes and made some huge changes. It's Apple's responsibility to keep the RIAA off its back. It's a big juicy piece of bait. This kid isn't a prick for taking it...no more than the next guy.
So it'll force Apple to secure the music sharing process...it's not going to make sharing go away altogether.
It's not so much about how easy or difficult it is, it's more about the fact that this program (or whatever it is) makes taking music that's not yours easy. If you own the music, it's simple to copy it over to your computer - even easier than doing what this program allows you to do. Mount the drive with the music you want on your computer, go to "add songs to playlist" and find the folder you want. If you've got "copy music to iTunes music folder" checked, you've got yourself a local copy. This is nice and easy and it allows you to freely access any music that's yours. Nothing wrong with that.
But this program allows people I'm streaming MY music to to copy it without my explicit consent. When I share my music, I'm not saying it's ok to copy it (necessarily), I'm saying you can listen to it. This program takes that choice away from me. That's not cool and hardly better than the RIAA shutting down the streaming entirely.
According to this, this guy is breaking the law, namely the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Quote:
iTunes now uses key passing to verify that the client is a valid iTunes user. Circumventing this security measure would be a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and therefore I will not be releasing a new version of iSlurp.
I hope the DMCA gets nailed hard, although that's not likely to happen soon.
The standard for whether a technology was legal used to be whether there was a "substantial non-infringing use" - the famous examples at the time being the copy machine and the VCR. There was also the "de minimus" clause, which gathered infringements too small to cause any significant damage under the umbrella of fair use.
The DMCA replaced both with some fairly outrageous and draconian provisions. It's bad legislation, and it and every person and organization that backed it should be punished severely for inflicting it on the world.
According to this, this guy is breaking the law, namely the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
I hope he gets nailed. Hard.
<sarcasm>
Oh please, the DMCA is pure evil. Information longs to be free. How can you charge for something that costs no money to create? RIAA's evil justifies my own evil. Music thieves are like Robin hood, stealing from rich companies and giving to themselves.
</sarcasm>
Contrary to all the ethics of convenience, if an industry can't make money, then people won't produce things for it. I am not justifying the heavyhanded tactics and outright foot dragging of RIAA or of the MPAA or the SPA, but copying music that you didn't buy is theft, plain and simple. If the thing is sold and you copy it and you don't pay for the copy, then you are stealing. Everybody knows this, and the precedent has been there for years with paying book publishers roaylties for copied material (e.g in college courses).
People who attempt to rationalize their theft on the basis of the evil of "pigopolists" in RIAA really make me sick because they are just justifying their own desire to steal. The incessant foot dragging of the record labels also makes me sick because they refuse to try to find a consumer acceptable solution.
So along comes iTunes and it creates a consumer friendly way of getting music to people for less than they could otherwise get. Consumers can buy single songs. Consumers can share purchased music. Consumers can burn multiple copies of music lists. This solution is better than anyting out there and it is completely legit and usable.
iTunes is setting up a viable distribution medium that bypasses the labels. If you were a new band, who would you sign up with, a label or CD baby if you knew that you could actually get more money on online sales through CD baby? The choice is pretty obvious and I think that setting up viable direct distribution will work to weaken the grasp of the record labels.
Then some punk programmer comes along and creates a hack to bypass the restrictions on sharing music. Not that it couldn't be done, but the timing is bad. Let iTunes establish itself in the marketplace so that the labels can't do without it. At least have the good sense to wait for Apple to have more leverage with the music labels because as it is, the only thing that comes out of this is a reinforcement of the label's paranoia over new technology. Let Apple kill them the slow and legal way!
I hope the DMCA gets nailed hard, although that's not likely to happen soon.
The standard for whether a technology was legal used to be whether there was a "substantial non-infringing use" - the famous examples at the time being the copy machine and the VCR. There was also the "de minimus" clause, which gathered infringements too small to cause any significant damage under the umbrella of fair use.
The DMCA replaced both with some fairly outrageous and draconian provisions. It's bad legislation, and it and every person and organization that backed it should be punished severely for inflicting it on the world.
In general, yes I agree that the DMCA is draconian, but it is looking like the courts are beginning to throw out some of the more eggregious violations of the DMCA (e.g. toner suits), so the legal system is balancing out some of the more excessive parts of the DMCA. However, there is a real need to make it possible to distribute code/data in such a way that it can not be copied, and to enforce the rule of not breaking such protections with legal punishments.
So I agree with you that the DMCA is overkill, but at the same time, I think that something is needed. My company's software comes with a nasty USB dongle if we are shipping the localized software to a country with inadequate rights protection or a country that is well... copy prone (e.g. HK, China, Taiwan, Japan). Then again, our software costs 20k a seat for the full version.
But this program allows people I'm streaming MY music to to copy it without my explicit consent. When I share my music, I'm not saying it's ok to copy it (necessarily), I'm saying you can listen to it. This program takes that choice away from me. That's not cool and hardly better than the RIAA shutting down the streaming entirely.
Every time you broadcast your music, you're letting people copy it.
Every time you broadcast your music, you're letting people copy it.
Let's not get into the semantics of this issue. You know what I mean. And if you're talking about my broadcasting being an implicit license to other people that copying it is ok, then I hearby revoke that implicit license. Seriously, if I'm on the network in my office and I've got iTunes sharing turned on, I don't want people to be copying my music I just want them to listen to the good musical tastes I've got so some of that crap that I've seen out there gets deleted.
Let's not get into the semantics of this issue. You know what I mean. And if you're talking about my broadcasting being an implicit license to other people that copying it is ok, then I hearby revoke that implicit license. Seriously, if I'm on the network in my office and I've got iTunes sharing turned on, I don't want people to be copying my music I just want them to listen to the good musical tastes I've got so some of that crap that I've seen out there gets deleted.
And in Finland cab drivers were fined for broadcasting stuff off the radio to passengers. You can villainize this guy all you want. You can plead ignorance and claim iTunes Music Sharing is streaming (it isn't). You can invoke the DMCA too, like Brad. All these arguments are very tacky to me.
The RIAA needs to be challenged by stuff like this.
And in Finland cab drivers were fined for broadcasting stuff off the radio to passengers. You can villainize this guy all you want. You can plead ignorance and claim iTunes Music Sharing is streaming (it isn't). You can invoke the DMCA too, like Brad. All these arguments are very tacky to me.
The RIAA needs to be challenged by stuff like this.
Provide a viable distribution method that gives musicians an incentive to not sicn on with labels, and you will kill RIAA.
The technology itself is more akin to the "fast-start" progressive downloading you get when you download the occasional QT .mov file. You aren't playing a buffer...you're playing the actual file.
The technology itself is more akin to the "fast-start" progressive downloading you get when you download the occasional QT .mov file. You aren't playing a buffer...you're playing the actual file.
this is kind of a bad obfuscation thing. that the programs (web browsers) save the files to disk before playing the .mov files is an internal device it uses. The program, if it was programmed as such, could download the file, and never put it to disk, and play it from memory. This could also be the infamous `buffer.' We, the users, aren't supposed to know or peer into the deep inner workings of the cache. In fact, the difference in this can be shown in iTunes (counter to your own claim).
iTunes v4 downloads the file, not to disk, but only to memory. It plays it from there. Well, it may put the file to disk, but it is obfuscated from view, and is quite inconsequential to a user. Programs like iLeech or MyTunes (the theives), may not bother to play the songs themselves. They just store the file to disk (quickly passing through ram), and don't obfuscate where they put it; they often make it their purpose to let the user know where they are storing the files. For their luck the music was being passed across the network as fully usable song files, and not some unknown or proprietary un-then-re-compressed or fully uncompressed audio data.
as far as the technology, it is extremely common for networking programs to pass real visible files/data across a network. ftp programs, for instance, when uploading/downloading files pass the real usable files, just as readable as when they were on disk. the ftp server can then store it in memory, and later move it to the destination, or put a temp "buffer" file to disk, then move that to its final destination. The term "streaming" typically means that the stream is passed in some non-regular file format, or the passed data is quickly used and gotten rid of. The stream stealers don't respect the idea of quickly using and giving up the data. iTunes is streaming, because the music data, after it uses it, isn't available for anyone (unless redownloaded). The theiving programs aren't streaming.
iTunes is streaming, because the music data, after it uses it, isn't available for anyone (unless redownloaded). The theiving programs aren't streaming.
The transitory nature of the content doesn't change anything. The content is being served as is, without license anyway. As with the example of the Scandinavian cab drivers, in some countries even streaming is unacceptable. And in other countries like Canada, copyright restrictions on CDs barely even exist.
The property is still being traded, illegally, no matter what Apple says. The MyTunes app doesn't really change anything. The only thing that needs to be done is for somebody to not give in to the RIAA's every demand.
Unfortunately, I'm sure the RIAA will pressure Apple into removing Rendezvous sharing..
That pisses me off even more than most people because I do not even have any music that has any affiliation to the RIAA. All independant artists here, mostly instrumental artists at that (trombone, trumpet solos, stuff like that). The RIAA shouldn't have any control over whether i share that music, but because they think they own everything, they are treading over some smaller artists' turf. >
Comments
I'm in college, and give my access pass to my friend, who gives it to his buddy, and so on...
8th guy (or girl :-) ) down the line decides to copy my stuff...
How can i prevent it? Only by being an a$$ and telling my friend not to give my pass away, right?
If i can authorize computers, i don't have to worry about it, unless my friend is an a$$ and decides to copy my music :-)
but it would prevent 'free for all' copying on large intranets, where i can see someone's library, and just grab what i want.
However you look at it, it sucks :-)
The whole idea of sharing is exactly this, SHARING, not restricted, controlled, but good old cool type of sharing, where people play along and are nice enough not to steal your stuff... but hey that's not gonna happen
Or if you look at it from a different angle, why apple should implement any copy protection mechanisms? it's not apple's job to be a policeman watching you. But then you get into p2p networks and all that mess....
Originally posted by Eugene
torifile/pensieve, I don't think you quite understand the simplicity of downloading files via daap. It's not like this guy hax0red into iTunes and made some huge changes. It's Apple's responsibility to keep the RIAA off its back. It's a big juicy piece of bait. This kid isn't a prick for taking it...no more than the next guy.
So it'll force Apple to secure the music sharing process...it's not going to make sharing go away altogether.
It's not so much about how easy or difficult it is, it's more about the fact that this program (or whatever it is) makes taking music that's not yours easy. If you own the music, it's simple to copy it over to your computer - even easier than doing what this program allows you to do. Mount the drive with the music you want on your computer, go to "add songs to playlist" and find the folder you want. If you've got "copy music to iTunes music folder" checked, you've got yourself a local copy. This is nice and easy and it allows you to freely access any music that's yours. Nothing wrong with that.
But this program allows people I'm streaming MY music to to copy it without my explicit consent. When I share my music, I'm not saying it's ok to copy it (necessarily), I'm saying you can listen to it. This program takes that choice away from me. That's not cool and hardly better than the RIAA shutting down the streaming entirely.
iTunes now uses key passing to verify that the client is a valid iTunes user. Circumventing this security measure would be a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and therefore I will not be releasing a new version of iSlurp.
I hope he gets nailed. Hard.
The standard for whether a technology was legal used to be whether there was a "substantial non-infringing use" - the famous examples at the time being the copy machine and the VCR. There was also the "de minimus" clause, which gathered infringements too small to cause any significant damage under the umbrella of fair use.
The DMCA replaced both with some fairly outrageous and draconian provisions. It's bad legislation, and it and every person and organization that backed it should be punished severely for inflicting it on the world.
Originally posted by Brad
According to this, this guy is breaking the law, namely the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
I hope he gets nailed. Hard.
<sarcasm>
Oh please, the DMCA is pure evil. Information longs to be free. How can you charge for something that costs no money to create? RIAA's evil justifies my own evil. Music thieves are like Robin hood, stealing from rich companies and giving to themselves.
</sarcasm>
Contrary to all the ethics of convenience, if an industry can't make money, then people won't produce things for it. I am not justifying the heavyhanded tactics and outright foot dragging of RIAA or of the MPAA or the SPA, but copying music that you didn't buy is theft, plain and simple. If the thing is sold and you copy it and you don't pay for the copy, then you are stealing. Everybody knows this, and the precedent has been there for years with paying book publishers roaylties for copied material (e.g in college courses).
People who attempt to rationalize their theft on the basis of the evil of "pigopolists" in RIAA really make me sick because they are just justifying their own desire to steal. The incessant foot dragging of the record labels also makes me sick because they refuse to try to find a consumer acceptable solution.
So along comes iTunes and it creates a consumer friendly way of getting music to people for less than they could otherwise get. Consumers can buy single songs. Consumers can share purchased music. Consumers can burn multiple copies of music lists. This solution is better than anyting out there and it is completely legit and usable.
iTunes is setting up a viable distribution medium that bypasses the labels. If you were a new band, who would you sign up with, a label or CD baby if you knew that you could actually get more money on online sales through CD baby? The choice is pretty obvious and I think that setting up viable direct distribution will work to weaken the grasp of the record labels.
Then some punk programmer comes along and creates a hack to bypass the restrictions on sharing music. Not that it couldn't be done, but the timing is bad. Let iTunes establish itself in the marketplace so that the labels can't do without it. At least have the good sense to wait for Apple to have more leverage with the music labels because as it is, the only thing that comes out of this is a reinforcement of the label's paranoia over new technology. Let Apple kill them the slow and legal way!
Originally posted by Amorph
I hope the DMCA gets nailed hard, although that's not likely to happen soon.
The standard for whether a technology was legal used to be whether there was a "substantial non-infringing use" - the famous examples at the time being the copy machine and the VCR. There was also the "de minimus" clause, which gathered infringements too small to cause any significant damage under the umbrella of fair use.
The DMCA replaced both with some fairly outrageous and draconian provisions. It's bad legislation, and it and every person and organization that backed it should be punished severely for inflicting it on the world.
In general, yes I agree that the DMCA is draconian, but it is looking like the courts are beginning to throw out some of the more eggregious violations of the DMCA (e.g. toner suits), so the legal system is balancing out some of the more excessive parts of the DMCA. However, there is a real need to make it possible to distribute code/data in such a way that it can not be copied, and to enforce the rule of not breaking such protections with legal punishments.
So I agree with you that the DMCA is overkill, but at the same time, I think that something is needed. My company's software comes with a nasty USB dongle if we are shipping the localized software to a country with inadequate rights protection or a country that is well... copy prone (e.g. HK, China, Taiwan, Japan). Then again, our software costs 20k a seat for the full version.
Originally posted by pensieve
But this program allows people I'm streaming MY music to to copy it without my explicit consent. When I share my music, I'm not saying it's ok to copy it (necessarily), I'm saying you can listen to it. This program takes that choice away from me. That's not cool and hardly better than the RIAA shutting down the streaming entirely.
Every time you broadcast your music, you're letting people copy it.
--
Oh God, please don't bring the DMCA into this...
Originally posted by Eugene
Every time you broadcast your music, you're letting people copy it.
Let's not get into the semantics of this issue. You know what I mean. And if you're talking about my broadcasting being an implicit license to other people that copying it is ok, then I hearby revoke that implicit license.
Originally posted by pensieve
Let's not get into the semantics of this issue. You know what I mean. And if you're talking about my broadcasting being an implicit license to other people that copying it is ok, then I hearby revoke that implicit license.
And in Finland cab drivers were fined for broadcasting stuff off the radio to passengers. You can villainize this guy all you want. You can plead ignorance and claim iTunes Music Sharing is streaming (it isn't). You can invoke the DMCA too, like Brad. All these arguments are very tacky to me.
The RIAA needs to be challenged by stuff like this.
Originally posted by Eugene
And in Finland cab drivers were fined for broadcasting stuff off the radio to passengers. You can villainize this guy all you want. You can plead ignorance and claim iTunes Music Sharing is streaming (it isn't). You can invoke the DMCA too, like Brad. All these arguments are very tacky to me.
The RIAA needs to be challenged by stuff like this.
Provide a viable distribution method that gives musicians an incentive to not sicn on with labels, and you will kill RIAA.
Originally posted by Eugene
You can plead ignorance and claim iTunes Music Sharing is streaming (it isn't).
Care to explain?
Quote:
The RIAA needs to be challenged by stuff like this.
I agree.
Originally posted by pensieve
Care to explain?
The technology itself is more akin to the "fast-start" progressive downloading you get when you download the occasional QT .mov file. You aren't playing a buffer...you're playing the actual file.
Originally posted by Eugene
The technology itself is more akin to the "fast-start" progressive downloading you get when you download the occasional QT .mov file. You aren't playing a buffer...you're playing the actual file.
this is kind of a bad obfuscation thing. that the programs (web browsers) save the files to disk before playing the .mov files is an internal device it uses. The program, if it was programmed as such, could download the file, and never put it to disk, and play it from memory. This could also be the infamous `buffer.' We, the users, aren't supposed to know or peer into the deep inner workings of the cache. In fact, the difference in this can be shown in iTunes (counter to your own claim).
iTunes v4 downloads the file, not to disk, but only to memory. It plays it from there. Well, it may put the file to disk, but it is obfuscated from view, and is quite inconsequential to a user. Programs like iLeech or MyTunes (the theives), may not bother to play the songs themselves. They just store the file to disk (quickly passing through ram), and don't obfuscate where they put it; they often make it their purpose to let the user know where they are storing the files. For their luck the music was being passed across the network as fully usable song files, and not some unknown or proprietary un-then-re-compressed or fully uncompressed audio data.
as far as the technology, it is extremely common for networking programs to pass real visible files/data across a network. ftp programs, for instance, when uploading/downloading files pass the real usable files, just as readable as when they were on disk. the ftp server can then store it in memory, and later move it to the destination, or put a temp "buffer" file to disk, then move that to its final destination. The term "streaming" typically means that the stream is passed in some non-regular file format, or the passed data is quickly used and gotten rid of. The stream stealers don't respect the idea of quickly using and giving up the data. iTunes is streaming, because the music data, after it uses it, isn't available for anyone (unless redownloaded). The theiving programs aren't streaming.
iTunes is streaming, because the music data, after it uses it, isn't available for anyone (unless redownloaded). The theiving programs aren't streaming.
The transitory nature of the content doesn't change anything. The content is being served as is, without license anyway. As with the example of the Scandinavian cab drivers, in some countries even streaming is unacceptable. And in other countries like Canada, copyright restrictions on CDs barely even exist.
The property is still being traded, illegally, no matter what Apple says. The MyTunes app doesn't really change anything. The only thing that needs to be done is for somebody to not give in to the RIAA's every demand.
W I N D O Z E
That pisses me off even more than most people because I do not even have any music that has any affiliation to the RIAA. All independant artists here, mostly instrumental artists at that (trombone, trumpet solos, stuff like that). The RIAA shouldn't have any control over whether i share that music, but because they think they own everything, they are treading over some smaller artists' turf. >