Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Businesses Media Apple Your Rights Online

Apple To Play Fairer With FairPlay? 153

Posted by kdawson
from the all's-fair dept.
NewbieMonster writes "According to tech.co.uk, Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB. Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?" From the article: "The expected announcements could signal a move on Apple's part to take some of the sting out of its Fairplay DRM which has come in for a great deal of criticism over recent months. It may also be a way of keeping Made For iPod makers onside, as the draw of the Microsoft Zune becomes stronger." Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple To Play Fairer With FairPlay?

Comments Filter:
  • hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ganjadude (952775) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:10PM (#17639450) Homepage
    Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?

    .......no
    • Re:hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by flyingsquid (813711) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:16PM (#17639542)
      Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?


      Come to think of it, I *do* notice a distinct sucking sensation coming from the Zune...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wow, I actually predicted this!

      We had a discussion about why Steve Jobs was so interested in making MS develop an iPod clone. Most of last January, Steve used every possible public apperance to claim that MS had to take control over the full music experience and copy how Apple developed iPod. There had to be a reason.

      And then Zune came, and Microsoft didn't just abadon their partners (by not using P4S as DRM), they screwed them first (making sure Zune didn't play P4S). This way they alienated all their curr
  • but seriously ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ganjadude (952775) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:14PM (#17639510) Homepage
    why was the zune thrown in there???? to start a flame war of course, no other reason, i mean whats a /. article without some micro bashing
  • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:14PM (#17639514) Homepage Journal
    Doesn't that mean that everyone has a license?

    • No (Score:5, Informative)

      by DreadSpoon (653424) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:19PM (#17639594) Journal
      No, it is not cracked.

      The iTMS (iTunes Music Store) was cracked, meaning that people were able to buy DRM-free songs from iTMS using custom software. iTMS 6.0 changed that, and to date, it is not possible to buy unencrypted music from an account registered with iTMS 6.0 or higher. It's possible to run older iTMS versions (for now) and buy music, but some of us had extensive music purchases before we got our heads out of our butts and realized we wanted to play the music on something other than an iPod.

      The DRM encryption itself is completely uncracked. IF you can get a hold of your decryption key, there is code to decrypt your music files. Apple has done a rather amazing job of keeping that key secured, though. It's pretty much impossible to pull it off of newer iPods, and I think it's not possible yet to extract it from a box with iTunes 6+.

      If I'm wrong about that, let me know... I've got 250+ encrypted songs I'd really like to play on my Linux box with its superior sound setup, instead of on my iBook.
      • Re:No (Score:4, Informative)

        by wealthychef (584778) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:39PM (#17639802)
        I've got 250+ encrypted songs I'd really like to play on my Linux box with its superior sound setup, instead of on my iBook.

        You may already know about this, but here is how to un-DRM your songs: simply burn them to an audio CD, then re-import them from the CD's. Sure, you theoretically lose sound quality this way, but I cannot tell the difference, and I'll bet if I blindfolded you, you couldn't either.

        This is a bit tedious when done by hand for a large number of songs. The only working Macintosh utility to automate this process that I know of is "DRM Dumpster," which uses a single CD-RW over and over to get the job done. Worked great for me. Other utilities seem to have bugs that prevented me from using them.

        • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

          by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @10:44PM (#17640602) Homepage
          You may already know about this, but here is how to un-DRM your songs: simply burn them to an audio CD, then re-import them from the CD's. Sure, you theoretically lose sound quality this way, but I cannot tell the difference, and I'll bet if I blindfolded you, you couldn't either.

          I'm surprised no one has made an AAC encoder specifically designed for this situation. Consider how lossy audio compression works. The 30000 ft overview would be that you simplify the input by throwing away some of it (hopefully, some of it that is inaudible), resulting in something that can be losslessly compressed.

          When you take a lossy compressed song and expand that (e.g., burn to an audio CD), and want to compress that again, you don't need to throw any of it away to get something that will compress well, if you are trying to compress using the same compression system that was originally used. (If you were expanding an AAC file, and then wanted to compress with, say MP3, that would have to have some degradation, because AAC and MP3 would have different ideas of what needs to be thrown away). What this means is that it should be possible to design an AAC encoder that can take advantage of the knowledge that the input is the result of expanding a 128 kbit/second stereo AAC file, and compress back to something that matches that original AAC file.

          • I've had the same thought. I wonder if the folks at hydrogenaudio have done listening tests on "auto-transcoded" material to see if the golden-ears can hear significant degradation. If not, they should!
        • From http://www.rogueamoeba.com/ [rogueamoeba.com] to convert directly to MP-3 without using up one of my CD burns. Then I can load my iTunes into my Creative RAVE-MP. I just never saw the need to carry ALL of my music with me all the time. Just what I want for the drive I am about to take.
        • Along with the re-aac suggestion in this thread, I have another one: Shouldn't it be possible to create a virtual cd-r? Then it can burn at 500x, and be deleted when it's done. There are a number of times I've wanted to virtualize burning a CD or DVD. Anyone up for the challenge?
      • Re:No (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @10:01PM (#17640102)
        You're wrong on several counts. It used to be the trick to removing DRM was finding the keys. There were several ways to do this, including grabbing them from an iPod, or using a program that pretended to be iTunes and having the iTMS send you the keys. There were also programs that let you purchase music and would store it unencrypted. All of these methods ceased functioning with version 6.0. Prior to 7.0, iTunes would allow the creation and use of iTunes 4.9 accounts, but after 7.0 was released, they began requiring at least version 6.0, so there is no way to get the keys to your music.

        At this point, if anybody knows how to get the keys for iTunes music, they're not talking. This doesn't mean DRM can't be removed. There is a program written in Python that latches onto iTunes like a debugger, has iTunes play DRMed songs, then grabs AAC frames after they've been decrypted but before they've been decoded. It then prevents iTunes from decoding and playing the audio, so a 5 minute song can be decrypted in less than 30 seconds, and it's a lossless transfer (as opposed to burning and ripping). Unfortunately, this program was written for Windows, and I don't believe anyone ever got it working on a Mac. If you can come up with a Windows box, one of the sibling posts has linked to it.

        My interest was the same as yours. I had about $300 invested in my iTunes library, but my media center (and now all my other boxes) runs Linux. I certainly don't want to promote piracy, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to want your music library on a Linux box.

        • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

          by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @01:46AM (#17642270) Homepage Journal
          please excuse me if I cause anyone offense in saying this, but maybe if Mac users didn't refer to crackers as "scum" and other names, they wouldn't ostracize the platform. I do appreciate that crackers are finally being recognized by others as the freedom fighters I've always considered them to be. It's about time.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Lehk228 (705449)
            the zealots only noticed something was amiss now that steve has 'em all by the balls.
          • Artie strikes again! (Score:3, Informative)

            by LKM (227954)
            I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Did grandparent call crackers scum? I didn't see that. Who called crackers scum? Some Mac users you know? And you don't think that there are Windows users calling crackers scum? I mean, this just smells of Artie McStrawman [crazyapplerumors.com]. Mac users aren't one person. There are many different Mac users. Some stupid, some not, just like with most other large groups of people.
          • Please don't take offense when I mention that you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for a music service, encryption and all. The music you purchase (or don't purchase, as appears to be the case) is a luxury item, not essential to your survival, so it is beyond me to ascertain the justification for breaking the licensing agreements you willingly entered into. You can claim that it's the only way to get the music, but what you should be doing is asking yourself if it's necessary for your surv
            • by QuantumG (50515) *
              Cracking DRM is the only effective way to get across the message that it is an impossible proposition.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by corellen (535840)
        try myFairTunes6_v0.5.8 is unnoffical beta version works with itunes 7.0.2.16 (version 0.5.7b was the latest official version) be warned though its a stream capture hack, it plays back your music via the itunes scripting interface and captures to lossless then reconverts to .m4a and re adds it back to your itunes library.
      • by Xyde (415798)
        Didn't DVD jon crack it a little while ago? I'm sure i remember seeing an article on it here.
  • again.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 (568564) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:18PM (#17639584) Homepage
    According to tech.co.uk, Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB. Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?

    Again, reinforcing the point that DRM isn't about preventing piracy, it's about maintaining control over other things. Like competitors in the marketplace.
    • Re:again.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768 AT comcast DOT net> on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:36PM (#17639776) Journal
      Again, reinforcing the point that DRM isn't about preventing piracy, it's about maintaining control over other things. Like competitors in the marketplace.
      ummmm NO SHIT? Steve Job himself said this to EVERYONE when they started the iTunes Music Store. The labels require it though (also to maintain control over your music unless you are living under a rock somewhere and wonder why about that too) so the honest question is, why not use it to your company's advantage when the people your licensing from require it anyway.

      Only a business moron or naive fool would not.

      • The labels require it though (also to maintain control over your music unless you are living under a rock somewhere and wonder why about that too)... why not use it to your company's advantage when the people your licensing from require it anyway.

        That's false, and Apple loves that you believe it. The license holders don't "require it". Case-in-point, eMusic, which sells DRM-free MP3's [boingboing.net]. A ton of them. Johnny Cash, Dashboard Confessional, Credence Clearwater, Moby, the list goes on for miles.

        Those song
        • by Blondie-Wan (559212) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @11:05PM (#17640842) Homepage
          Those songs are sold with DRM on iTunes because other songs from the major labels are sold that way, and iTunes doesn't discriminate by label to know whether to apply DRM or not. It's simply universally applied to everything sold there, in accordance with the wishes of the majors who sell there (and whose music, I'm sure, overwhelmingly dominates sales there as elsewhere).

          eMusic doesn't have major label stuff precisely because it doesn't do DRM (well, that, plus it's not as lucrative). That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course; as an eMusic user myself for a fair while, I've come to realize one of the many benefits of the service is how it fosters discovering new/obscure music, and that's frankly easier without the same major label stuff one can get elsewhere anyway dominating the site and distracting one from the hidden real treasures. However, it does mean there's an additional factor that has to be taken into account when comparing DRMed iTunes to DRMless eMusic.

          There are in fact a bunch of download services, both with DRM and without (iTunes, eMusic, Audio Lunchbox, Napster, etc.), and the line dividing the ones with major label material from ones without is the same line dividing the ones with DRM from ones without. There's a reason for that, and it's a lot bigger than Apple, since only one of the download services is theirs.


      • Then how do you explain that *all* the labels on iTunes sell *all* that music in a higher quality (ie. not lossily compressed) unprotected form? It's called a CD.

        DRM is pushed by tech companies like a narcotic and some music labels are stupid enough to buy into it.

        It will *always* be possible for content to end up on the P2P networks in a "good enough" (for 95% of the audience) form anyway, and as soon as one person does it that nixes the value of the DRM to the label anyway.

        Some labels might "want" DRM, bu
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by falcon5768 (629591)

          Then how do you explain that *all* the labels on iTunes sell *all* that music in a higher quality (ie. not lossily compressed) unprotected form? It's called a CD.

          Easy, they havent found a DRM that works well on a CD without breaking things all over the place and making them look bad.

          Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI have all used copy protection on their CDs recently to mixed results. So your idea that the labels are not pushing it is completely and totally false.

          • by DaveCar (189300)

            OK, I work for a record label (and distributor). We don't give a stuff about DRM and neither do the labels we distribute. They just want to sell records.to people that want to buy them.

            Your move.
            • The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales.

              Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by DaveCar (189300)
                The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales.

                Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?

                "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."


                OK. You clearly have some kind of personal demons about the whol
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  Wow... where to begin? I think at the beginning is probably the best. When CDs were first created long long ago, the format itself was considered a DRM measure, because computers at the time were hopelessly incapable of copying them. They didn't have enough capacity, there was no "internet" to speak of... Hell, most computers at the time didn't even have CDROM drives, let alone CD Burners. No one could forsee the world we have now. CDs have been around for a LONG time now. So your assertion that the
        • DRM is pushed by tech companies like a narcotic and some music labels are stupid enough to buy into it.
          Steve Jobs told the labels that DRM wouldn't work, and had to talk them around to accepting half a loaf with Apple's "honor system" quality protection:

          "When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't be

      • by elrous0 (869638) *
        The labels require it though

        Funny, but a lot of music that's available on Emusic without DRM has DRM slapped onto it when the iTunes store sells it. So it would seem that it's NOT the studios that are requiring it (or, at least, not all of them).

        -Eric

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
        There was a time when Apple claimed that they'd rather not have DRM at all, that it's forced on them by the labels. Their actions and statements in the past two or three years now say that they really do like DRM.
  • by larry bagina (561269) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:20PM (#17639600) Journal

    Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay? Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?

    Please, enlighten me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mr2001 (90979)

      Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay?

      People who want to transfer files that they've bought to others without handing over the keys to their account. Like, for example, a father on Christmas morning who gives his son an iPod with Pirates of the Carribean loaded - but then he realizes he bought it with his own account, and the son will lose that file as soon as he syncs it with his own computer, unless he also gives his son one of his 5 "authorization" slots.

      Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?

      I played with one for a few minutes in the store the other day, and the interface is a

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by soft_guy (534437)

        Now a question for you: is there anybody who actually likes the iPod's click wheel? At first, it seems like a cool gizmo, but then you realize how hard it is to move just one click at a time.
        It is not a problem for those of us who do not have cerebral palsy.
        • by Mr2001 (90979)
          Well then, I guess I and everyone I know who owns an iPod must have CP. Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Frist.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by LKM (227954)
        the interface is at least as nice as the iPod's - perhaps a bit better

        No scroll wheel, nothing to even remotely replicate its functionality. It's just not an efficient interface.

        • by Mr2001 (90979)
          The scroll wheel is the iPod's main flaw! The Zune has directional buttons, which you can press once to move one step at a time, or hold down to move a long way. That's more efficient than always scrolling past the item you want and then having to s-l-o-w-l-y scroll back to it.
          • by LKM (227954)

            The scroll wheel is the iPod's main flaw! The Zune has directional buttons, which you can press once to move one step at a time, or hold down to move a long way. That's more efficient than always scrolling past the item you want and then having to s-l-o-w-l-y scroll back to it.

            Yeah, you're right, if you're slowly going down one item at a time, you're unlikely to overshoot your target.

            Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Becaus

            • by Mr2001 (90979)

              Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Because the scroll wheel can do both.

              I'm arguing that discrete is better. With buttons, if you press once, the pointer moves one stop. If you press three times in rapid succession, the pointer moves three stops. If you want to move a long distance, you hold it down until typematic takes over.

              The scroll wheel is either not sensitive enough (you have to move really damn slowly to get it to move just one stop at a time) or too sensitive (any average movement moves several stops at once) or again not sensitive enough (you have to move really damn

    • by mgv (198488) <Nospam.01.slash2 ... Aorg minus punct> on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @09:52PM (#17639996) Homepage Journal
      Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay? Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?

      Not too many people.

      In truth its not very restrictive, as far as the current policies go. And apple has defended the users against abuses from the RIAA (esp with increases in pricing).

      In particular, the fact that you can authorise 5 machines and an unlimited number of ipods is good.

      More importantly, you can reset the list of 5 machines once per year even if you have lost all your old machines. Which means that having your music work on a new machine isn't likely to be a problem, even if your old machines get stolen or reformatted before you could deauthorise them out of your list of 5 computers.

      Not to mention that you can burn the music and rip it again anyway. Sure it loses quality, but if you are buying for quality alone, you wouldn't be using either iTunes or an iPod for that matter.

      I'm not surprised that iTunes isn't yet hacked. Mostly because there aren't many reasons yet why a legit user would get pissed off.

      The biggest thing they should offer (in my opinion) is the ability to redownload your music that you have purchased. In this situation you would be getting defacto off-site storage of your music, which would be a huge plus for the service that you wouldn't get with mp3's. Unless you consider bittorrent as your off site backup.

      Anyway, DRM has worked against the RIAA. They thought it would give them control over the users. Instead it has given apple control of the RIAA.

      Michael
  • Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers [C. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB.

    That should be interesting considering there are USB to Optical adapters.

    Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?"

    Only if these other players have the ability to record the content. When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO

    • by Cheesey (70139)

      Only if these other players have the ability to record the content. When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO COPY" flashing on my player's display.

      That's SCMS (serial copy management system). It allows the source device to indicate whether the target device should permit recording. The idea is to prevent you copying a copy: you can space-shift your CDs onto MD, but you can't then space-shift that MD onto another without going analogue. The
      • by SeaFox (739806)

        btw. I bought minidisc equipment shortly before the MP3 revolution and have always regretted my short-sightedness.

        I still occasionally think of buying one of the last generation Hi-MD recorders. I'd like to have one for taping. They can play MP3 natively and you can export recordings to your PC (and to unprotected WAV, too). And they can record at quality as high as full PCM.

        I actually used my Minidisc for covert recording for a school project recently. I couldn't use my mini cassette recorder as it had no

        • by dangitman (862676)

          I still occasionally think of buying one of the last generation Hi-MD recorders. I'd like to have one for taping.

          Don't bother. A better alternative would be one of the professional digital recorders that generally use flash memory for storage.

          In device recording abilities is something I am still waiting to see in iPods.

          Meh. I prefer the add-on approach, because it is more flexible. So you can buy an add-on that has nice features like proper XLR connectors and level meters, rather than trying to cram more into the iPod itself. You're never going to fit professional-grade input connectors into something that is supposed to be as compact as an iPod.

    • by tepples (727027)

      When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO COPY" flashing on my player's display.

      You're seeing SCMS. Does line-in misbehave the same way?

      • by SeaFox (739806)
        No, it doesn't happen on the plain line out. Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure the fact both the minidisc player and the DVD player were Sony didn't make this any better.

        It isn't a problem any longer as that DVD is no longer working. The model is actually part of a class action lawsuit against Sony, but I wont be able to get in on the settlement since I have little proof of purchase (it's was bought 5 years ago after all).
    • by ndpatel (185409)
      Most new Macs and Airport Express come standard with optical-out. What's your point?
      • by SeaFox (739806)
        You're right, I forgot all about that. The point was the optical out may conceivably give one a way to make a perfect digital copy of an iTunes Music Store purchase.
        • This is equivalent to buning a CD and re-importing using the Apple Lossless Codec. Remember, you won't get AAC data off the AE's Optical out.
  • So Apple may be about to licence FairPlay, or maybe they won't. The linked site doesn't provide anything to back up its story, or even quote unnamed Apple sources (a favourite of bad journalism).

    We can discuss what this means until the cows come home, but surely it's better to wait for it to *actually* *happen* before we sacrifice millions of innocent pixels as we agonise over this?
  • iPod != Fair Play (Score:5, Informative)

    by LKM (227954) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @06:31AM (#17643792) Homepage
    Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?

    Anyone notice there are still people who don't realize that you can use plain MP3/AAC files with the iPod?

    The Zune has a proprietary DRM system, just like the iPod. It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them. Or maybe I'm just not getting something here.

    • Re:iPod != Fair Play (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DrXym (126579) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @07:05AM (#17643950)
      And the Zune, PS3 and PSP will play unencrypted MP3 and AAC too. Still doesn't help if you bought something from iTMS and now discover that it's bound to Apple-only devices and you can NEVER play it on anything else except by circumventing the DRM.

      The moral here is that stores that encrypt music or tie them to a device suck. I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all. All that happens with lock-in is that somebody like Apple dominates the market and then the music industry is compelled to dance to their tune. If you level the playing field by publishing music without restrictions, then you can set your own price, since if Apple won't meet your price, then somebody else sure as hell will. Consumers win out too since they can get their music from dozens of sites and use them on dozens of their own devices. I doubt the amount of piracy would change significantly either since albums can be had right now on P2P, so what difference does it make if there is DRM or not?

      • And the Zune, PS3 and PSP will play unencrypted MP3 and AAC too. Still doesn't help if you bought something from iTMS and now discover that it's bound to Apple-only devices and you can NEVER play it on anything else except by circumventing the DRM.

        Exactly. This is a question of which shop you're using. The device doesn't play any kind of role. You don't need to own an iPod to use the iTunes store, and you don't need to use the iTunes store if you own an iPod.

        I really don't understand why music publishe

      • I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all. All that happens with lock-in is that somebody like Apple dominates the market

        The mistake the labels made was to not insist on some form of key escrow so that they could independently create DRM's tracks that can be played on iPods etc; that way they could have licensed other music shops to sell ipod compatible music with DRM and thus been able to bypass Apple and have iPod owners directly as customers.

        I believe that so far the full DRM si

      • you can NEVER play it on anything else except by circumventing the DRM.

        Burning a CD from iTunes using iTunes own CD-burning function that's explicitly supported by Apple for burning files you bought from the iTunes store is "circumvention"?
    • by amliebsch (724858)

      It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them.

      That's just pure, Grade-A, USDA-Approved FUD. "Illegally"?

      • That's just pure, Grade-A, USDA-Approved FUD. "Illegally"?

        Haha. Okay. Thanks very much, now everyone is looking at me. Hey, guys, I'm working, I promise!

        Anyway. I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.

        The problem with adding DRM to non-DRM'd meterial is that it is illegal in some cases - depending on the rights the person adding the DRM has.

        Some licenses allow you to give content

        • by amliebsch (724858)

          In this specific case, it may not be illegal

          Of course it's not illegal, since, as you pointed out, nothing is actually added to the file. Once that's taken away, the copyright holder has nothing to say about how it's used unless a licensing agreement is entered into, and there is no license to my knowledge that requires users to distribute or use it. What is the CC license going to be modified to say? Anyone who accepts a CC file must distribute that file to a certain number of other people? Anyone wh

          • by jpatters (883)
            How about:

            You may distribute the file to a third party, but if you do, you must follow these conditions:
            (1) You may not cause the third party to to be unable to distribute the file to other parties.
            (2) You may not cause restrictions to be placed on how many times the third party can utilize the file.
            (3) You may not cause restrictions to be placed on the manor that the thrid party can utilize the file.

            IANAL, though.
            • by amliebsch (724858)
              None of those would apply, because the sending device is doing nothing to restrict the third party - after all, it's sending the unmodified file - it's the third party that's restricting itself.
              • by jZnat (793348) *
                If by "third party" you mean "the Zune owned by the person in question receiving the file", then yes, you are right.
          • by LKM (227954)
            the copyright holder has nothing to say about how it's used

            That's simply not true, and you know it.

            • by amliebsch (724858)
              Sure it is. Copyright law governs copying and performance, and that's about it. Any restrictions on what you can or can't do with your copy have to come from somewhere else.
              • by LKM (227954)

                Okay, I'm seriously not sure whether you're just baiting me or whether you're serious. Either way, you're wrong. Copyright holders have quite a bit of rights to restrict what users can do with their works (ever watched a DVD which told you not to show the film publicly?). In fact, creative commons licenses will probably be updated to reflect the Zune's DRM:

                But this approach may not be legal for long, especially if the Zune becomes a big hit. Garlick told me that should the device become popular, the Creat

                • by amliebsch (724858)

                  Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these.

                  They are perfectly free to dictate the terms under which I may copy or perform the work. But if their policy is that only unaltered duplication is permissible, and I have a device which digitally transmits an unaltered duplication of the work, I have met their requirements. The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have n

                  • by LKM (227954)

                    The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with that copy, having obtained it in compliance with their terms, unless I agree to a separate licensing contract.

                    You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you. Obviously, fair use applies. A copyright holder may not forbid that you, say, listen to his song in reverse, bu

                    • by amliebsch (724858)

                      You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you.

                      No. If you want to have a license that restricts my use (beyond copying and performance) of something, I must actively accept that. I can go buy a CD or a DVD - a copyrighted work - with no license restrictions.

                      Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours?

                      Mine - that is to say, the user's - obviously. Otherwise, the CC is as worthless as a Microsoft EULA. Or am I missing the point of org

Someday your prints will come. -- Kodak

Working...