Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Music Pirates Won't Rush To iCloud For Forgiveness 391

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the forgive-me-steve-for-i-have-sinned dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Lots of people have suggested there's a loophole in Apple's new iCloud that will allow people who illegally download music to somehow 'launder' their dirty music files, getting a nice clean, and legal, license to the music stored on iCloud. This argument is flawed for two main reasons. The first has to do with how the laws of copyright work and the second is to do with why people share or download music (and movies) in the first place."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Pirates Won't Rush To iCloud For Forgiveness

Comments Filter:
  • Forgiveness? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:01AM (#36449008) Journal

    Exactly how many pirates really care about "forgiveness"? While greater than 0, /me thinks they are overestimating the crushing guilt caused by pirating music from Sony and others.

  • by Lunaritian (2018246) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:03AM (#36449028)

    True audiophiles listen to lossless though.

  • Launder? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:03AM (#36449032)
    Have I missed something? Why would someone who downloaded their music want to "launder" it? Maybe in world where we are forced to prove that our music was legally obtained, but I have not heard of anyone being put in that situation.
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:10AM (#36449122)

    I would bet that the studios aren't nearly as concerned with any faux legitimacy this gives to already pirated songs as they are with the possibility of users sharing username/passwords for their iCloud accounts (sharing their entire music collections en masse). Jimmy re-downloading a song he's already ripped isn't nearly as bad for business as Jimmy sharing his 8,000 song music collection with all his friends.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:13AM (#36449146) Journal

    Correct. True audiophiles use $100 speaker cables too. There's unfortunately no word that means "normal person who wants his music to sound good without buying into the woo" [skepdic.com].

  • by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:31AM (#36449378)

    Audiophiles get a bad rap for spending money on things that nobody can really tell a difference between, but really it's all a sliding scale of how much "better" (or "different") do you want to get vs. how much money do you not care if you spend.

    I bought the $200 headphone cable for my $400 headphones back when I had money to burn (ah the good ole days). Was it noticeably better than the $12 cable that comes with the headphones? yes. was it $188 better? Hell fucking no. not in my opinion anyway.

    Are my $400 headphones better than my $250 headphones? maybe. probably. not by very much though. Are both of them better than my $100 headphones? yes. Are $1200 headphones better than anything I own? Probably... but also likely not by very much.

    Just like any given hobby, the first small/medium sized chunk of money into gets you 90% of the ultimate potential quality, and then you can spend hundreds more to get to 95%, then thousands to get to 99%, and then possibly never get to 100% no matter how much you spend.

    When you hear audiophiles rave over "how much product X is than product Y", what they're generally doing is disregarding that first 90% of quality that everybody has, and talking about the differences, the remaining 10% or so. Because that's not clear to the casual reader, they look like idiots for spending $100 on a cable that makes almost no difference. Perhaps they are spending irresponsibly if that money should be going elsewhere to bills, etc... but if they have the money to spend, who is to say that whatever enjoyment they're getting out of their super low oxygen, quadruple shielded, magnesium tipped, fluorescent purple cables isn't worth every penny they spent, to them at least?

    Note, I'm not talking about the people who are off the scientific deep end and debating which brand SATA cable attached to their hard drive produces the best sounding mp3s.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:46AM (#36449564) Homepage Journal

    The nice thing about digital sound is that you no longer need such expensive equipment (except your speakers/headphones). That's good for us normal folks who don't have mountains of cash, bad for audiophiles. In the analog world, the more you spent, the better it sounded. A $500 turntable sounded far more lifelike than a $50 turntable. With digital, there's no audible difference between a $500 CD changer and a $20 CD player. High quality amplifiers have gotten so cheap that what used to be a $2,000 amp now is more like $50 (like all electronics; an IBM PC with no hard drive, 4 mz chip and 64k memory was $5,000. A twenty five inch TV cost $600 in 1976, these days you can get a 42 inch high definition flat screen for less).

    An LP on a high end turntable through an amp with less than 1 db of distortion or noise played through a pair of four-way enclosures with eighteen inch woofers, a pair of different sized squawkers, a tweeter and a supertweeter will fool you into thinking it's a live performance; that's what hifi (high fidelity) means. It will sound better than the same record in CD format (provided the original studio tapes were analog).

    However, with a low end (more affordable) system, the CD will always sound better than an LP. The low end turntable will lack bass, since it will be attenuated to reduce rumble, and will lack treble to make up for the lack of bass. It may also have speed slightly off and may even have a tiny bit of flutter (but you usually only get flutter from tape). It will also introduce distortion and may not have very good separation. Cheap CD players, on the other hand, send the same numbers to the DAC as as an expensive one, and until it reaches the analog DAC the cable the signal runs through doesn't matter at all; it either works or doesn't.

  • by gumbi west (610122) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:55AM (#36449700) Journal

    This will not happen.

    News flash: Steve Jobs is very, very good at business.

    Getting your clients sued for 100 times their net worth is very, very, very bad for business.

    QED.

  • by idontgno (624372) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @09:31AM (#36450270) Journal
    True audiophiles only listen to the voices in their heads.
  • RIAA Field Day? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @09:32AM (#36450292)

    If you owned thousands of pirated tracks would you really want to open your computer so someone with close ties to all 3 major labels can scan each and every one?

  • Re:RIAA Field Day? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by keytoe (91531) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @12:26PM (#36452776) Homepage

    If you owned thousands of pirated tracks would you really want to open your computer so someone with close ties to all 3 major labels can scan each and every one?

    Who cares?

    Long Answer: There is nothing in copyright law that states that owning a copy of some media, no matter the origin, is illegal. There are plenty of provisions to restrict copying, distribution or alteration - but nothing about possession.

    You will note that all of the RIAA cases brought to court to date were explicitly about 'sharing music' and not about 'downloading music' or 'having music'. There is a reason.

  • by Brannon (221550) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @04:53PM (#36455828)

    ...you aren't happy--but you also aren't an Apple customer.

    See how that works?

"Out of register space (ugh)" -- vi

Working...