iTunes 4.6 vs. Hymn

nicking music? by unlocking it so you can play it on other computers in your house? so you can play it in other OS's (linux for example). I payed for the songs I should have complete fair use of them. Let's use an analogy of a different sorts. lets say you buy a package of chocolate chips from Apple. The chocolate chips has a recipe for chocolate chip cookies and requires Flour, milk, water and eggs. But BECAUSE of the DRM and overbearing copyright law in the states, you HAVE to use Apple flour, water and eggs. (this may not even be apples fault, they are just trying to attract the RIAA.) If you use Linux or Real Eggs, the chocolate chip cookies won't bake. DRM'd music is the same. When you purchase something you should OWN it. With DRM and similiar copyright schemes it's you that is owned. (thus the reason I'm working on migrating to Linux.) Proprietary kills competition. I'm all for recognition of authorship. Copyrights can work without being restrictive as is shown by the GPL. Companies don't want to switch to the GPL because they like companies with recipes on the box want you to buy all the ingredients from them, like the Airport express, I-pod, etc. You get I-tunes or and I-pod you are locked into using the other. Is that "fair use"?

Whilst i have used hymn i do not agree with that biblical example as others have said food is vital and so yes it isnt a sin if ur protecting your life - which God created but nicking music is just that and not excusable by using the bible, what ur views are on the music business are your choice but DO NOT manipulate the word of GOD

I understand what you are saying, but I still think you are slightly missing what I am pointing out. I think to a certain degree we are arguing two separate issues, but I also think that your solution for the issue you are arguing overlooks the problem it creates with what I am discussing. You also seem to believe these laws to be something written in stone, whereas because of the newness of the technology, they are actually very much in flux and there are many contradictions out there. Technically speaking, the iTMS agreement is illegal, because it over extends the copyright holders rights to intrude on individual fair use rights that have been in existence for quite some time. For that reason, I think it is important to voice these concerns, and I think it is important that organizations like EFF are actively lobbying against the big moneys involved that want to take advantage of consumers. Here's where I think you are missing what I am saying: I understand that individuals featured in iTMS promos were prosecuted for illegally downloading songs off the internet. I understand and agree with you that this type of behavior is wrong and that there should be something in place to prevent this behavior. My point, however, is that DRM misses this mark. It doesn't prevent this type of unlawful behavior. Not only that, but this illegal type of behavior is an entirely different action than the type of thing DRM does get in the way of: making a personal copy for personal use, an action which has not been prosecuted and in my opinion should not be prosecuted, as that is the point when the enforceability falls apart, becomes somewhat absurd and impractical, as the innocent copying of the file for backup or other practical purposes that do not in any way hurt the holder of the copyright fall under extant ideas of fair use that are currently being actively challenged by big companies with big money. Also, in case you haven't noticed, DRM is moving onto regular CDs as well. It's bad use of technology that works against the consumer to cripple our rights as consumers in attempt to glean more money for the music industry, under the ruse of protecting against piracy: something that it utterly fails to do. I hope I have made my argument more clear, which I don't think really disagrees with yours. I'm trying to point out something that your argument overlooks and which is potentially damaging to you, me, and every other person out there legally purchasing and using copyrighted material. Thanks for the discussion.

You still miss the basic point of my message, so I'm going to try to better explain it in a very direct manner. First of all, so there is absolutely no misunderstanding, as I don't think you or the speaker in the article you posted (as he states) are lawyers or particularly familiar with the actual laws. There are many legal fallacies within that article, by the way, but I'm not going to even touch that. Know that I did take the time to thoroughly read it, however. Let me emphasize, I know where you are coming from, and in some ways I do agree with the ideals of what your proposing. However, regardless of what would be nice, the law requires more than free reign to keep things in balance, and that's what you need to at least consider whether or not you agree. Here's a nice little outline posted on the U.S. Copyright Office's website (www.copyright.gov, Please visit and often. Much effort has been made to provide that information.) I will provide what I want you to read here rather than send you looking for it. -begin quote- What works are protected? Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories: -literary works; -musical works, including any accompanying words -dramatic works, including any accompanying music -pantomimes and choreographic works -pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works -motion pictures and other audiovisual works -sound recordings -architectural works These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works." What is not protected by copyright? Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others: -Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded) -Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents -Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration -Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources) -end quote- Some of the arguments made in the article you suggested I read do not fall under copyright law. They fall under patent law, which is a whole other ball game, and usually a raise if you're a lawyer. I made the argument, and you emphasized that few individual cases of copyright infringement are prosecuted. I think you are quick to forget how many cases were successfully prosecuted (remember Apple exploited several prosecuted teens as part of their iTMS promo ads) in the past few years. That was unheard of in copyright law 10 years ago except in all but the most extreme circumstances. To that is what I was referring. One of the reasons the downloader and not the downloadee were prosecuted was because in many instances naﶥ users were unaware their music libraries were up for grabs to anyone on the Internet. Had a system such as DRM been implemented, the consumers with ill intent (stealing music) could have been thwarted from at least a legal standpoint. The probability of being caught and prosecuted is significantly higher now at the individual level. The one and only reason a restrictive-use system exists, regardless of whether it's easy to crack, regardless of whether a company can semi-successfully monopolize (such as Sony/Philips did with the CD) a format or force you to buy products based on their business strategy, and regardless whether you believe that artists do it for the love and not the money or that their material being widely distributed is more beneficial to them, is to provide legal liability to protect ones ass, namely the Apple iTunes Music Store and others like it, from the owners of copyrighted material. Similarly, DVD region coding exists to ensure market balance in sales AND abide various international rating and censorship laws. It is a little harsh to call that a ploy by "The Man" to keep you from enjoying your life and entertainment. The point is not that you can get around these protections if you desire or are smart enough to; the point is that a law and implementation of it exists to provide liability. That is why I support this format a

"few cases of this are taken to court at the individual level"

this is the key issue. the only cases that have been taken to court on an individual level are ones where the accused was actually doing something illegal with the copies (making a copy of something they didn't own or attempting to resell and profit from breaking copyright) and these are exactly the people that copyright law is meant to deter &/ protect against. That is the purpose of the law. Copyright law was never meant to prosecute individuals for "technically" breaking the law when there is no actual damage done to the author / creator / distributor of the original work. This is one of the shortcomings of copyright law that has come to light in the digital age: an accusatory criminalization of the innocent. This is also where it falls apart, because such non-infringing (in the sense that they do not take damage anyone) uses of the copyrighted work are practical, make practical sense under normal ideas of property ownership, and any act to prosecute them would be easily shown to be impractical and dismissed.

In recent years, big money dollars have been pushing to expand this horribly strict interpretation of the law that you are supporting, so that the consumer is required to purchase multiple copies of the same thing. This same sort of movement by big money concerns occurred when xerox first came around and when recordable cassette tapes and VHS tapes were released on the market, but enforcement and the demands that the industry wanted to place upon the consumer were considered impractical and for that reason summarily dismissed. What is occurring now is that big money in the music and film industries are pushing again in the same ways they did in the past, but now they get to point to the imaginary flawlessness of the digital, and what is scary is that people like you are buying their insanely stupid argument this time, and throwing your fair use rights to the wind in the process.

The problem with DRM is that it doesn't deter copying at all. Anyone who wants to make illegal copies and break the law can easily circumvent the so called digital rights management by the burn and rip method previously discussed. The only people DRM inconveniences are legitimate consumers, who aren't breaking any laws, but are instead trying to exercise their fair use rights. This is impractical and one of the main reasons it would fall apart in court if taken far enough.

What you need to consider is: if DRM doesn't really stop the pirates, then why do we have it? Easy answer: the big moneys involved want to destroy fair use and make us pay for more than we should. Again. Except this time, people (like yourself) are caving to their plan. Also, your bottom line is flawed, because of the monopoly situation that currently exists in the music industry. It is very difficult to find anything DRM free for sale on the internet. I could babble on and on, but before you rebut to my rebut, I ask that you read a much smarter piece on why DRM is bad law: http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

Your statements about the book are somewhat correct, but not entirely. It is illegal to make copies of books, sheet music, and many other forms of copyrighted material, though few cases of this are taken to court at the individual level. Usually businesses and organizations are watched for this, not individuals. Often these charges are not pursued in individual cases because the copies are significantly degraded in comparison with the original, and few copies are made. So, yes you do own the paper, thread, glue, cardboard, etc., that comprise your book and it's yours to destroy. You DO NOT and CAN NOT own the copyrighted material, which is strictly the authorship. The book itself is just a medium of transporting and conveying the authorship, which I don't think you fully understand. Further, children in school and myself do not "quote" entire books. University and public libraries are supposed to (and do, as authors and their lawyers frequently check into this) pay royalties to make legal copies. For instance, a professor uses a passage from a copyrighted book he wishes to provide to his students in some bound notes for a class he is teaching. Either the university or the professor have to pay royalties on that material to use it legally. This is the way it is and always has been (at least since January 1, 1978), whether you were aware of it or not. Now, keep in mind a copyright has a finite duration. Works whose copyright has expired are no longer copyrighted, obviously. Just a side note: "My fair rights as a consumer" is a little vague, and making copies of a copyrighted book is technically illegal, though we've already discussed how often that is prosecuted for an individual. The digital problem: A book you purchased is a physical, tangible object. It is expected to have a life-cycle and not be copied very effectively or in mass numbers. Even microfilming isn't all that effective, and the originals must be destroyed (they usually are regardless of the law anyway to save space). The digital age creates material that can be duplicated infinitely, without loss of quality, and has no life-cycle. This is something the law has never had to deal with before. If you copied your book and gave me a copy and I then copied it and passed it on, etc., someone after the 3rd or 4th time would get a page of mud. If you have experience with xerox, as I'm sure you do, you know often a copy of a copy is hard to read, so in essence little problem ever existed before to deal with this on a mass level. Digital material has nothing holding it back from every person on the planet getting a copy with no loss of quality. Now, that aside... First of all, no one said this system was flawless. None are. To the gentleman who wanted music in the car and could not, you could potentially burn your music onto CDs and re-rip them into MP3s at minimal loss, though the simplest and intended solution is to get an iPod, as is Apple's vision and business plan. As long as you didn't attempt to then distribute that material, no one would be the wiser or particularly care, but what assurance is given? DRM exits because if it didn't, what guarantees does the market provider have that you will not distribute the music infinitely and destroy the market? The answer is none, and from a legal perspective SOMETHING has to offer a degree of liability. DRM is that legal compromise to keep you, though your intentions may be pure and non-damaging, from doing whatever you want with copyrighted material. This digital duplication age has had the law world spinning because it is very difficult to keep the ill willed of the world from destroying a major industry. Unfortunately, law must generalize most everything, so ALL consumers are assumed to have impure intention. DRM, like it or not, is actually working quite well in preserving the law. The ACC format is Apple's patented solution to the problem, and Playfair, Hymm, etc., are sabotaging it. You still have every "consumer right" to not support the ACC format. The iTunes music store is an engineered system designed with specific components, of which are an iPod, a computer connected to a stereo, or a CD burner. That is the compromise and limitations of the system, and you must take it or leave it as a consumer. The bottom line again is, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

'The funny thing about copyrighted material is YOU NEVER OWN THE MATERIAL UNLESS YOUR NAME APPEARS ON THE COPYRIGHT. Legally, the ownership position is more closely related to leasing the material for a nondisclosed duration. When these songs undergo the copyrighting procedure, there are very clear statements that the material is not to be tampered with in any way. Songs for sale in the iTunes music store have been copyrighted to include Apple's format, meaning if you tamper with the format, you are legally liable.' This is simply not true. If I buy a book in a store that is copyrighted, I own the book. The same for a music file from iTMS. At issue is whether I can make a copy of the material I have purchased, and that is where the copyright laws come into play. Back to the book example. If you were ever educated in any form of school, 'Tired Ofyouall", you would know that there is a certain amount of fair use involved in copyright, which allows, for example, students to quote parts of copyrighted work for use in their papers. Also, if I buy a book and rip it apart at the seams and make it into 10 smaller books that are easier for me to carry to read on the subway, I am in no way violating copyright laws. If I make a photocopy of a section of the book for me to read on the subway, b/c I do not want to carry the entire large book with me, I am still not violating copyright laws, as it falls under my fair use rights as a consumer. As long as I am not selling or redistributing the copyrighted material, everything is a-okay. The clause that iTMS has you agree to when downloading songs off of their site flies in the face of this very basic and practical idea of fair use, and for that reason, if anyone were to ever heavily contest the use of software like hymn to circumvent the DRM, it would fall apart in court. The entire presence of the DRM in iTunes is something that wouldn't be there if it weren't for the paranoid money-grubbing bastards in the music industry who are trying to roll over everyone's fair use rights. It is a sham that Apple agrees to in order to gain more press and sell more iPods, but it is hardly enforceable in any real way and for that reason alone it is a bad and illegal agreement.

I have bought multiple albums on iTunes when the store came out. I even bought a few singles here and there. The bottom line is that is easier to buy music online then it was to steal it. Plus, it IS legal..it's not stealing. Anyways...so a few months ago, my car stereo breaks. I buy a new one that allows for MP3/WMA playback. At the time, I found a script that just reencodes the Protected AAC files and outputs an MP3. I used this script on all my purcashed music so that I could play the tracks in my car. Well, now that I've got the newer iTunes, the music i buy can no longer be converted with this script. So..screw it. I'm done buying music on iTunes. i'm trying to listen to the music I played in my car, and Apple is telling me I cant. I undersstand the dlemna faced with playing back protected AAC files in your car (after all, how could you aithorize your car stereo?) ...but that's not my problem. That's a problem with Apple's (and everyone else's) approach to DRM. The funny thing is, I bet if Apple didnt use DRM on their tracks, people would buy MORE. The people who steal, are going to continue to do so...

I think the user agreement should include a warning that iTunes will destroy your hard drive if you attempt to hack their file format (and we're getting there). The funny thing about copyrighted material is YOU NEVER OWN THE MATERIAL UNLESS YOUR NAME APPEARS ON THE COPYRIGHT. Legally, the ownership position is more closely related to leasing the material for a nondisclosed duration. When these songs undergo the copyrighting procedure, there are very clear statements that the material is not to be tampered with in any way. Songs for sale in the iTunes music store have been copyrighted to include Apple's format, meaning if you tamper with the format, you are legally liable. It is very easy to detect when you do this, and with the current international brewings, the Privacy Act is up for more and more modification. The eventual outcome could turn in such a way that you would have to provide proof of ownership for every copyrighted holding in your home, stored on your computer, or wherever, should you go up for audit. If you can't agree with that, you have issues as copyright law has been adopted internationally, meaning there is no where in the world you can go to avoid it. Just as you get smarter in undoing its protection, the legal side is also getting much smarter in finding you and dealing with you in a very tangible and expensive manner. iTunes is allowing a compromise over a long disputed run, as you'll recall, with the music industry, who you may also recall won the court case. If you continue to steal music or share it, then you're hurting the cause and ultimately your financial stability if you had any to begin with. Bottom line, if you can't deal with the format, don't buy it and support your cause in that manner. CDs are still sold everywhere they have been for the past 20 years and there are even plenty of online stores selling them, as I'm sure you're aware. If you choose to use the format, get an iPod as it was designed for, and you can enjoy your music wherever you want and successfully backup your music investments. Can't afford one? Get a job like the rest of us. I'm tired of leeches complaining when they can't get something for nothing. In a sytem of given rights, they can also be taken.

My music, my computer, my hard drive. That's all the justification I need. Hymn is in the house. DRM is gone. --- why don't you remove the "required" label for posting? You didn't get my name or email address. why do you need it, anyway?