[wplug] OT: locked online music!?

[Jason Jerome]

I've learned to live with the iTunes DRM, but most times I just
purchase the CD itself.

My biggest issue with iTunes is the synching with my iPod.  The
auto-sync feature in iTunes is the only way I know to keep my playlists
and smart playlists up to date on my iPod.  However, when you use the
auto-sync feature in iTunes it removes all files from my iPod that are
not in the iTunes library.

This is especially annoying when I download a few podcasts at work,
then come home and decide to update my playlists.  iTunes will remove
all the podcasts I just downloaded, since they do not exist in my
iTunes library.  Honestly, I can't see why it can't just update the
songs and playlists IT knows about, and leave everything else alone.




--- Douglas Green <diego96 at mac.com> wrote:

> While I have no comment about the illegality of the DRM (actually,  
> they DO allow you to make a "private copy" by burning lossless audio 
> 
> CDs), my beef with the DRM is that it is a <use> limitation, and not 
> 
> a <distribution> limitation. I'm perfectly ok with my name and serial
>  
> number being tagged onto purchased music- if it gets distributed  
> illegally, then they can trace it back to me and hold me accountable.
>  
> Fine- I'm good with that. I'm NOT ok with someone telling me that I'm
>  
> not allowed to listen to my music on my MP3 CD player!
> 
> Regardless of the legality of the DRM per-se, I found this to be a  
> very restrictive and unnecessary limitation. In the case of Apple, it
>  
> comes close to forcing people to buy an iPod to fully enjoy their  
> music library (as opposed to one disc at a time). Clearly, I'm not so
>  
> rabid that I'm accusing them of that. They haven't crossed that line 
> 
> (yet), but they definitely make it easier on the consumer if they buy
>  
> the Apple iPod (starting at just 99.99$, batteries not included).
> 
> The original point of the thread was to point out this limitation. It
>  
> was not obvious to me AT ALL that my purchased music could not be  
> burned onto an MP3 compilation CD. I'm sure some people were  
> completely aware of this problem- but in general I've found that not 
> 
> to be the case.
> 
> -D
> 
> On Sep 22, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Chester R. Hosey wrote:
> 
> > Zachary Uram wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/21/05, *Douglas Green* <diego96 at mac.com  
> >> <mailto:diego96 at mac.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well said Douglas! I agree with you 100%. The Supreme Court has  
> >> ruled on
> >> fair use and affirmed we have the right to make a private copy.
> These
> >> copy protections are illegal. I hope a case will be  brought  
> >> before the
> >> Court on this matter soon.
> >>
> >> Zach
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I'd disagree with that slightly. It's legal for you to make copies
> for
> > personal use, but I don't believe that it's illegal for Apple to  
> > make it
> > more difficult for you to make copies just because it would be  
> > legal for
> > you to do so.
> >
> > They cannot bring action if you manage to make copies, although the
>  
> > DMCA
> > makes it illegal to circumvent access controls (which is illegal)
> in
> > order to exercise your fair-use rights (which is otherwise legal). 
> 
> > While
> > Adobe vs. Sklyarov provides some indication that a jury might
> decide
> > that it's not illegal to produce means of circumvention which
> > significantly enhance fair use, it's been said that the legal
> outcome
> > was probably affected by the fact that Adobe couldn't provide a
> single
> > example of cracked content being distributed. Audio is
> significantly
> > different in that there's no question as to whether content is
> being
> > illegally traded online, something which circumvention software
> would
> > make significantly easier. As this is exactly the sort of activity 
> 
> > which
> > the DMCA seeks to prevent, it would be much harder to convince a
> jury
> > that the infringing uses are insignificant against the benefits of
> > circumvention.
> >
> > Ignoring the DMCA, reverse engineering is legal in many places.  
> > Despite
> > this it's not illegal to obfuscate generated code to make reverse
> > engineering more difficult.
> >
> > I'd be quite interested if you could provide some evidence that it
> is
> > illegal to make it difficult for users to make copies.
> >
> > Chet
> >