I think all but the Pharmaceutical Industry would believe that prevention is better than cure
Yes, I agree. Your sentence would not have been laughable, had it not included the part about DRM in parentheses. Your implication is that FairPlay DRM prevents the piracy of iTS tracks. But this is untrue. Even if we were to assume that iTS DRM were "uncrackable", you can still burn a FairPlay track to CD and give that CD to a friend, who could then upload it on p2p. Indeed, you could rip it back yourself and share it on p2p.
I still believe that having better respect for your customers, educating them about why they should not steal music (in a much more sophisticated manner than blunt-instrument "Piracy is theft. Theft is illegal. Therefore you shouldn't pirate"), and informing them that monitoring systems are in place, is a better preventative measure than DRM.
Well, here's the bit where I really have to bite my tongue. No, I am not a pirate, and it makes me very angry that you accuse me of this.
1.) I suggest you read this thread, paying close attention to my responses contained therein. I would like to point out that since the conclusion of the thread, I changed my mind and no longer consider royalties to be the "least bad" solution to how artists/writers should be paid. I now believe that they should be salaried employees like everyone else, and given bonuses/incentives to supplement their income.
(The set up) - the challenge to the financial model of the music industry (no doubt from a lot of commercial experience and intimate understanding of financial requirements in each step of the supply chain) - though most of this thread is downright biblical so I fell asleep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
2.) Just because I suggest that a particular behaviour is acceptable, doesn't mean I engage in it myself.
Except this one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
3.) I do not consider "making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music" to be piracy. I consider acquiring all/most of your music without paying for it to be piracy. There is a world of difference (in my view) between:
Scenario a) "Person A" thinking to themselves "I like track Z" or "I like album Z", then going to their friend, "Person B", who has "track Z"/"album Z", and copying it from them.
and scenario b) "Person B" makes a compilation of tracks that he thinks "Person A" might like. He doesn't know whether "Person A" will like those tracks for sure, the tracks have not been requested by "Person A". "Person A" receives the compilation. He likes some of the tracks and not others. He then investigates further the artists who produced the tracks he likes, and ends up buying a couple of albums.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about how to draw the lines between what is piracy, what is not piracy, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, then let's do it. But don't accuse me again of being a pirate because I am not, by any definition.
(The sting) - "by any definition"....except your own! You've justified the illegal distribution of music! Your preferred "Scenario b)" contains far more breaches than the single track "Scenario a)" and I love your awesome market expansion proposition through theft! How does that work? Now let me see..."A spokesperson for Apple Inc said the theft of 500 iPods from the store in Kent, England yesterday was OK because we're sure the recipients will all develop morals and purchase Macs in time for Christmas"
I haven't laughed so much while writing a response (seriously) don't sit on these forums - go & write for Ricky Gervais !!!
(The sting) - "by any definition"....except your own!
Jesus wept. You obviously missed the bit where I made it pretty clear that I do not make compilations for my friends. Nor do I download music via p2p or acquire any through friends giving me tracks. I am not a pirate, even by your draconian interpretation of the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
(The set up) - the challenge to the financial model of the music industry (no doubt from a lot of commercial experience and intimate understanding of financial requirements in each step of the supply chain) - though most of this thread is downright biblical so I fell asleep.
So, an admittance that you didn't even bother to read a thread concerning the discussion of piracy in great depth. If you can't be bothered to appreciate/attempt-to-understand my viewpoint, why argue with me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
and I love your awesome market expansion proposition through theft!
The practice of people making compilations for their friends has been going on for decades, since well before the wide-spread piracy of music tracks online and the decline of CD sales. It does not hurt the industry.
I thought I'd explained it pretty simply. You must be wilfully ignoring the distinction between the two scenarios that I outlined. In "Scenario B", none of the tracks had been requested by the recipient. This means that no sales have been lost - Person A didn't intend to purchase (or acquire in any other way) the tracks that he's been given. Person A now listens to the tracks he's been given. If he doesn't like any, he never listens to the compilation again, and will probably throw it away, or perhaps keep it on his shelf out of politeness.
If he does like some of the tracks, then he will investigate the artists and may end up buying some albums or additional tracks that he would not have bought had he not received the compilation in the first place. In an ideal world, if he does not buy any additional material, he should purchase from an online store the tracks from the compilation that he likes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
How does that work?
I explained how it worked. How this managed to go over your head, I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Now let me see..."A spokesperson for Apple Inc said the theft of 500 iPods from the store in Kent, England yesterday was OK because we're sure the recipients will all develop morals and purchase Macs in time for Christmas"
Oh please. Theft of hardware and theft of software is very different on a material level. If someone steals an iPod, not only have they taken something they should have paid for, they have also removed the possibility that that specific iPod be sold to anyone else. This is not applicable to digital distribution of music, there is no "denial of property" and the direct material impact is exactly nothing.
So, if iPods cost Apple absolutely nothing to replicate (note I said replicate, not develop or market), your above scenario of 500 people receiving stolen iPods and then paying for Macs would actually result in a net positive effect for Apple if sufficient numbers of those 500 people had not originally been intending to purchase a Mac, even if all 500 had been intending to purchase an iPod before receiving the stolen one.
That is the basis on which the Norwegian Ombudsman has been asked to act. Fact.
Whilst we've had lots of opinion, noise and debate .........
Thanks for the links. That is very informative. I agree with you that everyone hyperventilating on this topic (I am paraphrasing what you said) should read it.
No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.
Not sure about that... The Apple TV commercials all say "iPod + iTunes", so the association of the two is well known by the public out there.
... and since it is really not limited to iTunes/iPod (yeh, CD burning stuff again...) I don't think Apple should/would add a "Playable on iTunes and iPod only", because that would be simply not true...
No. Is it hard for you to understand logic? What you quoted, or Apple's adverts, do not imply that the only portable player that iTunes downloads can be played on is the iPod, without jumping through hoops.
I do think it would be courteous of Apple to make it obvious rather than just hinting at it.
No. Is it hard for you to understand logic? What you quoted, and Apple's adverts, do not imply that iTunes downloads can only be played on iPods without jumping through hoops.
It does imply it. It doesn't require it, but it does imply it.
This:
Quote:
Play your music on up to 5 machines (Macs or PCs)
does not require that you can't also play it on a sixth machine, but it does imply it.
"People who buy Xbox games shouldn't be bound to an Microsoft gaming console for the rest of their lives."
Duhh.
(and you can still burn CD's (and even rip to mp3) from your iTunes library)
In the meantime, Microsoft will roll out Vista with no action from these idiots. Seems they want to punish the company that has media attention and more to lose from lawsuits then M$oft and their endless pockets. Screw em.
If you don't like DRM, go buy your things elsewhere, that's part of what you agree to when you buy it. Granted, they are annoying at times, such as sharing libraries over my home network.
I can't stand when people complain about it... It's not like they took a bunch of money and bribed the music industry to DRM ALL of their music, you can find just about any of it in an open CD format... You don't HAVE to buy from Apple, remember all of you who buy from them just increase their power for locking things down.
Just saying that you can play iTS downloads on an iPod does not make it obvious that they won't play on anything else.
it doesn't say "play your music on your mp3 player", it doesn't say "play your music on any mp3 player" - it specifically says "iPods". as in iPod made by apple. there is no need to say "won't play on any other mp3 player". it is perfectly obvious that the expected player is to be an iPod.
Jesus wept. You obviously missed the bit where I made it pretty clear that I do not make compilations for my friends. Nor do I download music via p2p or acquire any through friends giving me tracks. I am not a pirate, even by your draconian interpretation of the term.
Ahh I see, so detailed scenrios/justifications are just for a 'friend' of yours. Do you use this one when visiting the doctor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
So, an admittance that you didn't even bother to read a thread concerning the discussion of piracy in great depth. If you can't be bothered to appreciate/attempt-to-understand my viewpoint, why argue with me?
Do I have to? Or will I come to the conclusion that your preferred market model happens to reinforce the piracy that you advocate (but don't excercise)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
The practice of people making compilations for their friends has been going on for decades, since well before the wide-spread piracy of music tracks online and the decline of CD sales. It does not hurt the industry.
The problem/damage of piracy has been with us for quite a while but it doesn't hurt the market any less. You seem to differentiate between 'wide-spread piracy' through online distribution & 'making compilations for your friends' when surely millions of instances of the latter 'going on for decades' would be as damaging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I thought I'd explained it pretty simply. You must be wilfully ignoring the distinction between the two scenarios that I outlined.
I am wilfully not being distracted by the detail when both so clearly violate the law which you are wilfully ignoring - nice alternate close!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
In "Scenario B", none of the tracks had been requested by the recipient. This means that no sales have been lost - Person A didn't intend to purchase (or acquire in any other way) the tracks that he's been given. Person A now listens to the tracks he's been given. If he doesn't like any, he never listens to the compilation again, and will probably throw it away, or perhaps keep it on his shelf out of politeness.
Person A doesn't need to buy any tracks because someone is giving him stolen stuff for free, he will probably not feel the need to look for his own music as someone keeps doing that for him. He may even feel that because he's getting stolen stuff, it's OK to give stolen stuff and so the cancer spreads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
If he does like some of the tracks, then he will investigate the artists and may end up buying some albums or additional tracks that he would not have bought had he not received the compilation in the first place. In an ideal world, if he does not buy any additional material, he should purchase from an online store the tracks from the compilation that he likes.
And if he doesn't end up buying?
What happened to clicking preview on iTS or listening to the radio neither of these are illegal. Please show me how to get to this 'ideal world' you speak of, all I see is criminal justification in this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I explained how it worked. How this managed to go over your head, I don't know.
'twas a rhetorical question for emphasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Oh please. Theft of hardware and theft of software is very different on a material level. If someone steals an iPod, not only have they taken something they should have paid for, they have also removed the possibility that that specific iPod be sold to anyone else. This is not applicable to digital distribution of music, there is no "denial of property" and the direct material impact is exactly nothing.
So, if iPods cost Apple absolutely nothing to replicate (note I said replicate, not develop or market), your above scenario of 500 people receiving stolen iPods and then paying for Macs would actually result in a net positive effect for Apple if sufficient numbers of those 500 people had not originally been intending to purchase a Mac, even if all 500 had been intending to purchase an iPod before receiving the stolen one.
OK - a sale is a transaction between a seller & a buyer. Whether the seller has no 'stock' (maybe because someone stole his iPods) or whether the buyer has no capability or desire to purchase (maybe because he received a stolen iPod or music track) the transaction fails and the sale is lost. This is regardless of the apportionment of value either seller or buyer cares to attribute to the product, service or combination of the two (conveniently cutting into the supplychain and applying plausible cost-justifications is irrelevent - I'll read that thread one day). By giving a stolen copy of the music or original iPod you eliminate the demand which stops the transaction occuring as surely as eliminating the supply. The evidence?....
In response to the magical market growth by piracy inspiring honesty - if this were the case the recent dramatic rise in on-line piracy would have heralded an equivalent growth in legal sales. It didn't so it doesn't work.
Well, it just seems odd to me to debate with someone and then stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la" when they respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
You seem to differentiate between 'wide-spread piracy' through online distribution & 'making compilations for your friends' when surely millions of instances of the latter 'going on for decades' would be as damaging.
That's exactly the point. The latter has been going on for decades. Online distribution is a much bigger problem that does real damage. The reason why online distribution has done more damage is obvious to me, I've tried to explain it to you twice now, and still you don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
I am wilfully not being distracted by the detail
O.K., so, yes, you are choosing not to fully engage your brain when reading my posts. If you do not expend any thought considering what the difference between the scenarios might be, you'll never appreciate why I find one acceptable and one not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
when both so clearly violate the law which you are wilfully ignoring
Yes, I am wilfully ignoring that both break the law. I'm doing that because what is legal and what is illegal does not tell me what to find acceptable behaviour and what to not. Theft is illegal (and remember here, legally piracy and theft are different things) because theft is unacceptable behaviour, rather than the other way around. If you were to try and explain to someone why piracy is unacceptable behaviour, how would you do it without resorting to "it's illegal"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
he will probably not feel the need to look for his own music as someone keeps doing that for him.
So "Person A" is just going to sit around not buying music he likes just on the off-chance that his friend is going to give him compilations covering all the music that he likes? I've already said that requesting music for free is unacceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
What happened to clicking preview on iTS or listening to the radio neither of these are illegal.
The sooner you realise the similarities between "Scenario B" and listening to the radio, the better. And no, I'm not saying they're exactly the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Please show me how to get to this 'ideal world' you speak of
I can't do that. All I can tell you is what I find acceptable behaviour, and my reasoning for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
OK - a sale is a transaction between a seller & a buyer. Whether the seller has no 'stock' (maybe because someone stole his iPods) or whether the buyer has no capability or desire to purchase (maybe because he received a stolen iPod or music track) the transaction fails and the sale is lost. This is regardless of the apportionment of value either seller or buyer cares to attribute to the product, service or combination of the two (conveniently cutting into the supplychain and applying plausible cost-justifications is irrelevent - I'll read that thread one day). By giving a stolen copy of the music or original iPod you eliminate the demand which stops the transaction occuring as surely as eliminating the supply.
I agree with all of that, and nothing I said suggests otherwise. None of what you say contradicts what I said. If iPod replication costs nothing, the damage to Apple is considerably less if an iPod is stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
In response to the magical market growth by piracy inspiring honesty - if this were the case the recent dramatic rise in on-line piracy would have heralded an equivalent growth in legal sales. It didn't so it doesn't work.
No, this just demonstrates that you haven't grasped the central difference between my "Scenario A" and "Scenario B". On-line piracy is people engaging in "Scenario A", which I've already said I do not find acceptable behaviour. Of course it isn't going to lead to an increase of legal sales, because people know what music they want, and then they go and get it from p2p instead of paying for it. Again, this is Scenario A, not Scenario B.
Finally, I would like to point out that this debate you're having with me about making compilations for friends is particularly odd in the wider context of our discussion about DRM. FairPlay does absolutely nothing to prevent people making compilations for their friends using tracks from the iTS.
it doesn't say "play your music on your mp3 player", it doesn't say "play your music on any mp3 player" - it specifically says "iPods". as in iPod made by apple. there is no need to say "won't play on any other mp3 player". it is perfectly obvious that the expected player is to be an iPod.
Yes, the Norwegian Consumer Council are completely aware of that, and of the burn it to CD workaround, and that they have the choice of buying something else or not at all. This is all mentioned in their complaint to the ombudsman.
They're still arguing that these restrictions are too much and break Norwegian contract law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac
In the meantime, Microsoft will roll out Vista with no action from these idiots. Seems they want to punish the company that has media attention and more to lose from lawsuits then M$oft and their endless pockets. Screw em.
To be fair, Apple do have the largest online music store so it would make sense to target them first but they do state that other stores will also need to change. Here's what Torgeir Waterhouse from the council says...
"Many other music download services operate with similar terms and conditions. ?CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no are examples of other affected services. We are therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to investigate the terms and conditions of these download services,? says Torgeir Waterhouse."
it doesn't say "play your music on your mp3 player", it doesn't say "play your music on any mp3 player" - it specifically says "iPods". as in iPod made by apple. there is no need to say "won't play on any other mp3 player". it is perfectly obvious that the expected player is to be an iPod.
Yes, the Norwegian Consumer Council are completely aware of that, and of the burn it to CD workaround, and that they have the choice of buying something else or not at all. This is all mentioned in their complaint to the ombudsman.
They're still arguing that these restrictions are too much and break Norwegian contract law.
i was referring specifically to the Chucker's question of how difficult it is to understand apple's disclaimer/conditions of use/whatever, but that's ok, i see the relevence.
putting norwegian contract law aside for one moment, it truly is difficult for me to understand why people/consumers would have a problem with this - music purchased from apple is to be played on apple hardware, or your computer using apple software. what is the big deal?
[broken record] if you don't like the product (drm, restrictions, bit-rate, hardware, software, whatever), don't buy it. [/broken record]
music that i purchase from iTS will be played on my nano thru headphones/in the car, or on my computer. if i want to hear, for example, RIDE or my bloody valentine in their full floppy-fringed, 'wall of sound' glory, i know i have to listen to the cd on a proper sound system. simple. why is it apple's responsibility to provide for the infinitely varied needs of all the audiophiles around the globe?
[broken record] and as others have said, why should they be punished for producing a successful business model - nothing is stopping other companies do it their own way. [/broken record]
in the past we had to buy the whole cd even if we just wanted one song (and damn i hated it when you heard one song by a band and then bought their album, only to find the rest of their tracks were shite!), why is it so hard now? we're spoiled, that's all. and there's no pleasing some people.
•*Downloads go directly into your iTunes music libary
• Unlimited CD burning of songs (burn any playlist up to 7 times)
•*Play your music on your iPods
•*Play your music on up to 5 machines (Macs or PCs)
burn the playlist SEVEN times!! last time i checked it was 5... wow apple changed their contract with me... can i sue them quick lets form a consumer group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
Common sense does trump logic.
you'd think that, but common sense like personal responsibility seems to be something that is in very short supply for some people
burn the playlist SEVEN times!! last time i checked it was 5... wow apple changed their contract with me... can i sue them quick lets form a consumer group.
No, it was originally ten. They lowered that from ten to seven and simultaneously increased the computer amount from three to five. This was years ago.
Quote:
you'd think that, but common sense like personal responsibility seems to be something that is in very short supply for some people
Comments
I think all but the Pharmaceutical Industry would believe that prevention is better than cure
Yes, I agree. Your sentence would not have been laughable, had it not included the part about DRM in parentheses. Your implication is that FairPlay DRM prevents the piracy of iTS tracks. But this is untrue. Even if we were to assume that iTS DRM were "uncrackable", you can still burn a FairPlay track to CD and give that CD to a friend, who could then upload it on p2p. Indeed, you could rip it back yourself and share it on p2p.
I still believe that having better respect for your customers, educating them about why they should not steal music (in a much more sophisticated manner than blunt-instrument "Piracy is theft. Theft is illegal. Therefore you shouldn't pirate"), and informing them that monitoring systems are in place, is a better preventative measure than DRM.
Well, here's the bit where I really have to bite my tongue. No, I am not a pirate, and it makes me very angry that you accuse me of this.
1.) I suggest you read this thread, paying close attention to my responses contained therein. I would like to point out that since the conclusion of the thread, I changed my mind and no longer consider royalties to be the "least bad" solution to how artists/writers should be paid. I now believe that they should be salaried employees like everyone else, and given bonuses/incentives to supplement their income.
(The set up) - the challenge to the financial model of the music industry (no doubt from a lot of commercial experience and intimate understanding of financial requirements in each step of the supply chain) - though most of this thread is downright biblical so I fell asleep.
2.) Just because I suggest that a particular behaviour is acceptable, doesn't mean I engage in it myself.
Except this one...
3.) I do not consider "making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music" to be piracy. I consider acquiring all/most of your music without paying for it to be piracy. There is a world of difference (in my view) between:
Scenario a) "Person A" thinking to themselves "I like track Z" or "I like album Z", then going to their friend, "Person B", who has "track Z"/"album Z", and copying it from them.
and scenario b) "Person B" makes a compilation of tracks that he thinks "Person A" might like. He doesn't know whether "Person A" will like those tracks for sure, the tracks have not been requested by "Person A". "Person A" receives the compilation. He likes some of the tracks and not others. He then investigates further the artists who produced the tracks he likes, and ends up buying a couple of albums.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about how to draw the lines between what is piracy, what is not piracy, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, then let's do it. But don't accuse me again of being a pirate because I am not, by any definition.
(The sting) - "by any definition"....except your own! You've justified the illegal distribution of music! Your preferred "Scenario b)" contains far more breaches than the single track "Scenario a)" and I love your awesome market expansion proposition through theft! How does that work? Now let me see..."A spokesperson for Apple Inc said the theft of 500 iPods from the store in Kent, England yesterday was OK because we're sure the recipients will all develop morals and purchase Macs in time for Christmas"
I haven't laughed so much while writing a response (seriously) don't sit on these forums - go & write for Ricky Gervais !!!
(The sting) - "by any definition"....except your own!
Jesus wept. You obviously missed the bit where I made it pretty clear that I do not make compilations for my friends. Nor do I download music via p2p or acquire any through friends giving me tracks. I am not a pirate, even by your draconian interpretation of the term.
(The set up) - the challenge to the financial model of the music industry (no doubt from a lot of commercial experience and intimate understanding of financial requirements in each step of the supply chain) - though most of this thread is downright biblical so I fell asleep.
So, an admittance that you didn't even bother to read a thread concerning the discussion of piracy in great depth. If you can't be bothered to appreciate/attempt-to-understand my viewpoint, why argue with me?
and I love your awesome market expansion proposition through theft!
The practice of people making compilations for their friends has been going on for decades, since well before the wide-spread piracy of music tracks online and the decline of CD sales. It does not hurt the industry.
I thought I'd explained it pretty simply. You must be wilfully ignoring the distinction between the two scenarios that I outlined. In "Scenario B", none of the tracks had been requested by the recipient. This means that no sales have been lost - Person A didn't intend to purchase (or acquire in any other way) the tracks that he's been given. Person A now listens to the tracks he's been given. If he doesn't like any, he never listens to the compilation again, and will probably throw it away, or perhaps keep it on his shelf out of politeness.
If he does like some of the tracks, then he will investigate the artists and may end up buying some albums or additional tracks that he would not have bought had he not received the compilation in the first place. In an ideal world, if he does not buy any additional material, he should purchase from an online store the tracks from the compilation that he likes.
How does that work?
I explained how it worked. How this managed to go over your head, I don't know.
Now let me see..."A spokesperson for Apple Inc said the theft of 500 iPods from the store in Kent, England yesterday was OK because we're sure the recipients will all develop morals and purchase Macs in time for Christmas"
Oh please. Theft of hardware and theft of software is very different on a material level. If someone steals an iPod, not only have they taken something they should have paid for, they have also removed the possibility that that specific iPod be sold to anyone else. This is not applicable to digital distribution of music, there is no "denial of property" and the direct material impact is exactly nothing.
So, if iPods cost Apple absolutely nothing to replicate (note I said replicate, not develop or market), your above scenario of 500 people receiving stolen iPods and then paying for Macs would actually result in a net positive effect for Apple if sufficient numbers of those 500 people had not originally been intending to purchase a Mac, even if all 500 had been intending to purchase an iPod before receiving the stolen one.
Because these are the facts and they include their interpretations...
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71
and
http://forbrukerportalen.no/filearch...ic%20Store.pdf
That is the basis on which the Norwegian Ombudsman has been asked to act. Fact.
Whilst we've had lots of opinion, noise and debate .........
Thanks for the links. That is very informative. I agree with you that everyone hyperventilating on this topic (I am paraphrasing what you said) should read it.
No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.
Not sure about that... The Apple TV commercials all say "iPod + iTunes", so the association of the two is well known by the public out there.
... and since it is really not limited to iTunes/iPod (yeh, CD burning stuff again...) I don't think Apple should/would add a "Playable on iTunes and iPod only", because that would be simply not true...
Greetings,
miguy2k
Welcome to the iTunes Store
?*Downloads go directly into your iTunes music libary
? Unlimited CD burning of songs (burn any playlist up to 7 times)
?*Play your music on your iPods
?*Play your music on up to 5 machines (Macs or PCs)
Is this really terribly hard to understand?
No. Is it hard for you to understand logic? What you quoted, or Apple's adverts, do not imply that the only portable player that iTunes downloads can be played on is the iPod, without jumping through hoops.
I do think it would be courteous of Apple to make it obvious rather than just hinting at it.
No. Is it hard for you to understand logic? What you quoted, and Apple's adverts, do not imply that iTunes downloads can only be played on iPods without jumping through hoops.
It does imply it. It doesn't require it, but it does imply it.
This:
Play your music on up to 5 machines (Macs or PCs)
does not require that you can't also play it on a sixth machine, but it does imply it.
Common sense does trump logic.
It does imply it. It doesn't require it, but it does imply it.
This:
does not require that you can't also play it on a sixth machine, but it does imply it.
Common sense does trump logic.
Oh, o.k. then. I'm talking about logical implication, not the colloquial meaning.
Just saying that you can play iTS downloads on an iPod does not make it obvious that they won't play on anything else.
Silly.
Clearly a result of strong lobbying...
Why not:
"People who buy Xbox games shouldn't be bound to an Microsoft gaming console for the rest of their lives."
Duhh.
(and you can still burn CD's (and even rip to mp3) from your iTunes library)
In the meantime, Microsoft will roll out Vista with no action from these idiots. Seems they want to punish the company that has media attention and more to lose from lawsuits then M$oft and their endless pockets. Screw em.
I can't stand when people complain about it... It's not like they took a bunch of money and bribed the music industry to DRM ALL of their music, you can find just about any of it in an open CD format... You don't HAVE to buy from Apple, remember all of you who buy from them just increase their power for locking things down.
•*Play your music on your iPods
Just saying that you can play iTS downloads on an iPod does not make it obvious that they won't play on anything else.
it doesn't say "play your music on your mp3 player", it doesn't say "play your music on any mp3 player" - it specifically says "iPods". as in iPod made by apple. there is no need to say "won't play on any other mp3 player". it is perfectly obvious that the expected player is to be an iPod.
sennen
Jesus wept. You obviously missed the bit where I made it pretty clear that I do not make compilations for my friends. Nor do I download music via p2p or acquire any through friends giving me tracks. I am not a pirate, even by your draconian interpretation of the term.
Ahh I see, so detailed scenrios/justifications are just for a 'friend' of yours. Do you use this one when visiting the doctor?
So, an admittance that you didn't even bother to read a thread concerning the discussion of piracy in great depth. If you can't be bothered to appreciate/attempt-to-understand my viewpoint, why argue with me?
Do I have to? Or will I come to the conclusion that your preferred market model happens to reinforce the piracy that you advocate (but don't excercise)
The practice of people making compilations for their friends has been going on for decades, since well before the wide-spread piracy of music tracks online and the decline of CD sales. It does not hurt the industry.
The problem/damage of piracy has been with us for quite a while but it doesn't hurt the market any less. You seem to differentiate between 'wide-spread piracy' through online distribution & 'making compilations for your friends' when surely millions of instances of the latter 'going on for decades' would be as damaging.
I thought I'd explained it pretty simply. You must be wilfully ignoring the distinction between the two scenarios that I outlined.
I am wilfully not being distracted by the detail when both so clearly violate the law which you are wilfully ignoring - nice alternate close!
In "Scenario B", none of the tracks had been requested by the recipient. This means that no sales have been lost - Person A didn't intend to purchase (or acquire in any other way) the tracks that he's been given. Person A now listens to the tracks he's been given. If he doesn't like any, he never listens to the compilation again, and will probably throw it away, or perhaps keep it on his shelf out of politeness.
Person A doesn't need to buy any tracks because someone is giving him stolen stuff for free, he will probably not feel the need to look for his own music as someone keeps doing that for him. He may even feel that because he's getting stolen stuff, it's OK to give stolen stuff and so the cancer spreads.
If he does like some of the tracks, then he will investigate the artists and may end up buying some albums or additional tracks that he would not have bought had he not received the compilation in the first place. In an ideal world, if he does not buy any additional material, he should purchase from an online store the tracks from the compilation that he likes.
And if he doesn't end up buying?
What happened to clicking preview on iTS or listening to the radio neither of these are illegal. Please show me how to get to this 'ideal world' you speak of, all I see is criminal justification in this one.
I explained how it worked. How this managed to go over your head, I don't know.
'twas a rhetorical question for emphasis
Oh please. Theft of hardware and theft of software is very different on a material level. If someone steals an iPod, not only have they taken something they should have paid for, they have also removed the possibility that that specific iPod be sold to anyone else. This is not applicable to digital distribution of music, there is no "denial of property" and the direct material impact is exactly nothing.
So, if iPods cost Apple absolutely nothing to replicate (note I said replicate, not develop or market), your above scenario of 500 people receiving stolen iPods and then paying for Macs would actually result in a net positive effect for Apple if sufficient numbers of those 500 people had not originally been intending to purchase a Mac, even if all 500 had been intending to purchase an iPod before receiving the stolen one.
OK - a sale is a transaction between a seller & a buyer. Whether the seller has no 'stock' (maybe because someone stole his iPods) or whether the buyer has no capability or desire to purchase (maybe because he received a stolen iPod or music track) the transaction fails and the sale is lost. This is regardless of the apportionment of value either seller or buyer cares to attribute to the product, service or combination of the two (conveniently cutting into the supplychain and applying plausible cost-justifications is irrelevent - I'll read that thread one day). By giving a stolen copy of the music or original iPod you eliminate the demand which stops the transaction occuring as surely as eliminating the supply. The evidence?....
In response to the magical market growth by piracy inspiring honesty - if this were the case the recent dramatic rise in on-line piracy would have heralded an equivalent growth in legal sales. It didn't so it doesn't work.
McD
Do I have to?
Well, it just seems odd to me to debate with someone and then stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la" when they respond.
You seem to differentiate between 'wide-spread piracy' through online distribution & 'making compilations for your friends' when surely millions of instances of the latter 'going on for decades' would be as damaging.
That's exactly the point. The latter has been going on for decades. Online distribution is a much bigger problem that does real damage. The reason why online distribution has done more damage is obvious to me, I've tried to explain it to you twice now, and still you don't get it.
I am wilfully not being distracted by the detail
O.K., so, yes, you are choosing not to fully engage your brain when reading my posts. If you do not expend any thought considering what the difference between the scenarios might be, you'll never appreciate why I find one acceptable and one not.
when both so clearly violate the law which you are wilfully ignoring
Yes, I am wilfully ignoring that both break the law. I'm doing that because what is legal and what is illegal does not tell me what to find acceptable behaviour and what to not. Theft is illegal (and remember here, legally piracy and theft are different things) because theft is unacceptable behaviour, rather than the other way around. If you were to try and explain to someone why piracy is unacceptable behaviour, how would you do it without resorting to "it's illegal"?
he will probably not feel the need to look for his own music as someone keeps doing that for him.
So "Person A" is just going to sit around not buying music he likes just on the off-chance that his friend is going to give him compilations covering all the music that he likes? I've already said that requesting music for free is unacceptable.
What happened to clicking preview on iTS or listening to the radio neither of these are illegal.
The sooner you realise the similarities between "Scenario B" and listening to the radio, the better. And no, I'm not saying they're exactly the same.
Please show me how to get to this 'ideal world' you speak of
I can't do that. All I can tell you is what I find acceptable behaviour, and my reasoning for that.
OK - a sale is a transaction between a seller & a buyer. Whether the seller has no 'stock' (maybe because someone stole his iPods) or whether the buyer has no capability or desire to purchase (maybe because he received a stolen iPod or music track) the transaction fails and the sale is lost. This is regardless of the apportionment of value either seller or buyer cares to attribute to the product, service or combination of the two (conveniently cutting into the supplychain and applying plausible cost-justifications is irrelevent - I'll read that thread one day). By giving a stolen copy of the music or original iPod you eliminate the demand which stops the transaction occuring as surely as eliminating the supply.
I agree with all of that, and nothing I said suggests otherwise. None of what you say contradicts what I said. If iPod replication costs nothing, the damage to Apple is considerably less if an iPod is stolen.
In response to the magical market growth by piracy inspiring honesty - if this were the case the recent dramatic rise in on-line piracy would have heralded an equivalent growth in legal sales. It didn't so it doesn't work.
No, this just demonstrates that you haven't grasped the central difference between my "Scenario A" and "Scenario B". On-line piracy is people engaging in "Scenario A", which I've already said I do not find acceptable behaviour. Of course it isn't going to lead to an increase of legal sales, because people know what music they want, and then they go and get it from p2p instead of paying for it. Again, this is Scenario A, not Scenario B.
Finally, I would like to point out that this debate you're having with me about making compilations for friends is particularly odd in the wider context of our discussion about DRM. FairPlay does absolutely nothing to prevent people making compilations for their friends using tracks from the iTS.
it doesn't say "play your music on your mp3 player", it doesn't say "play your music on any mp3 player" - it specifically says "iPods". as in iPod made by apple. there is no need to say "won't play on any other mp3 player". it is perfectly obvious that the expected player is to be an iPod.
Yes, the Norwegian Consumer Council are completely aware of that, and of the burn it to CD workaround, and that they have the choice of buying something else or not at all. This is all mentioned in their complaint to the ombudsman.
They're still arguing that these restrictions are too much and break Norwegian contract law.
In the meantime, Microsoft will roll out Vista with no action from these idiots. Seems they want to punish the company that has media attention and more to lose from lawsuits then M$oft and their endless pockets. Screw em.
To be fair, Apple do have the largest online music store so it would make sense to target them first but they do state that other stores will also need to change. Here's what Torgeir Waterhouse from the council says...
"Many other music download services operate with similar terms and conditions. ?CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no are examples of other affected services. We are therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to investigate the terms and conditions of these download services,? says Torgeir Waterhouse."
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71
Originally Posted by sennen
it doesn't say "play your music on your mp3 player", it doesn't say "play your music on any mp3 player" - it specifically says "iPods". as in iPod made by apple. there is no need to say "won't play on any other mp3 player". it is perfectly obvious that the expected player is to be an iPod.
Yes, the Norwegian Consumer Council are completely aware of that, and of the burn it to CD workaround, and that they have the choice of buying something else or not at all. This is all mentioned in their complaint to the ombudsman.
They're still arguing that these restrictions are too much and break Norwegian contract law.
i was referring specifically to the Chucker's question of how difficult it is to understand apple's disclaimer/conditions of use/whatever, but that's ok, i see the relevence.
putting norwegian contract law aside for one moment, it truly is difficult for me to understand why people/consumers would have a problem with this - music purchased from apple is to be played on apple hardware, or your computer using apple software. what is the big deal?
[broken record] if you don't like the product (drm, restrictions, bit-rate, hardware, software, whatever), don't buy it. [/broken record]
music that i purchase from iTS will be played on my nano thru headphones/in the car, or on my computer. if i want to hear, for example, RIDE or my bloody valentine in their full floppy-fringed, 'wall of sound' glory, i know i have to listen to the cd on a proper sound system. simple. why is it apple's responsibility to provide for the infinitely varied needs of all the audiophiles around the globe?
[broken record] and as others have said, why should they be punished for producing a successful business model - nothing is stopping other companies do it their own way. [/broken record]
in the past we had to buy the whole cd even if we just wanted one song (and damn i hated it when you heard one song by a band and then bought their album, only to find the rest of their tracks were shite!), why is it so hard now? we're spoiled, that's all. and there's no pleasing some people.
Is this really terribly hard to understand?
Welcome to the iTunes Store
•*Downloads go directly into your iTunes music libary
• Unlimited CD burning of songs (burn any playlist up to 7 times)
•*Play your music on your iPods
•*Play your music on up to 5 machines (Macs or PCs)
burn the playlist SEVEN times!! last time i checked it was 5... wow apple changed their contract with me... can i sue them
Common sense does trump logic.
you'd think that, but common sense like personal responsibility seems to be something that is in very short supply for some people
burn the playlist SEVEN times!! last time i checked it was 5... wow apple changed their contract with me... can i sue them
No, it was originally ten. They lowered that from ten to seven and simultaneously increased the computer amount from three to five. This was years ago.
you'd think that, but common sense like personal responsibility seems to be something that is in very short supply for some people
Yep.