I have experienced otherwise, even though not with Itunes I have to admit. I never had problems at all with Itunes - but then I only downloaded about a handfull of songs from them. No, I experienced problems with MSN music and Napster. Both were WMA - a file type I like for my mobile player as it has great quality as lower bitrates. However they didn't - and don't - work on the player. They player was supposed to be able to - I payed extra for this little plays for sure thingy and the Napster logo. Still - the support said "Your player is an older version which doesn't support the new DRM..." Yeah right. You couldn't even buy the player for a year. Itunes DRM is fine. But then it is not as restrictive as others. I don't mind DRM at all if I don't notice it. And that is the way it should be.
Illegal according to the RIAA and various copyright experts and lawyers! So as I asked initially, can you direct me to the official rules so I can be a good citizen and not take extra homes and small islands away from the corporate giants by rationalising my greed? Ta
I've yet to hear of such a case in the UK. Did your friends appear in court, or just give a policeman some money to go away?
most, if not all, of the discs with copy protection violate the red book standard and therefore are not technically audio cd's and can not display the CCDA logo
here fines can be paid on site or at the police station..... and if you try to bribe the police around here it tends to get a little bad.... for you.... they look at you with a long face waiting for you to retract your "offer" and if you insist they will lock you up for the night and fine you highly. The fines were part of an initiative to lower the "rampant" piracy index around here.... it had some bad side effects, as in lower sales on blank media (making some stores cry) and no increment on music CD sales.... people that had CD readers in their cars had no will (and cash) to buy the CDs again for their cars.... and there were those guys with special edition CDs from XYZ artist that would get scratched or stolen in no time...... and then get mad and not buy anymore music..... And no i am not talking BS, this is happening and is making me sad and mad, these companies could be embracing new technology, modifying their ways and making monstrous profits, why wont artists use the new tools they have at hand to make monstrous profits? NO!, lets play "i can do everything i want because i own the law system", i am not saying that piracy is good, it is not good (especially when i see people selling albums and movies to other people, that really makes me mad), i don't pirate to stick it to the man, i don't pirate to have more money for other things, i pirate because i don't want to waste money on stupid crap that comes with the things i want (i do buy and prefer real games and media, my OS is legal, my AV was legal before i went free (still legal anyway) and i get my games and media from the bargain bin or from second hand stores), you can say (and have said) "but you have no right to the media you pirate, it is a luxury as you don't have the right to an expensive car" but i reply: "what if i only want the wheels of the car? they are the only things that interest me and they are the only part i want to pay for, should i buy the entire car just to keep the wheels?", if you don't understand were this comes from please think about most albums, song numbers 1-4 are usually good being 1 and 2 the best ones, 5-10 are medium and 10+ are usually fillers and crap, i only want 1,3 and 6 because they are good enough for my collection and are hopefully cheaper. Another thing that makes me irritated is when media does not go down in price, a album should lower its price continuously during its lifetime until it gets very cheap and then it makes more profit in the long run...... not stay the same bloody price for 2 years, long after the prices of making the darn music are toped and there is a good profit.... and then disappear from the face of the earth and then you have no way to buy that album for your collection or hearing pleasure.... except importing it, which is kind of illegal around here in most cases, any kind of media has to pay a special tax and a special sticker with which they cover some important parts of the game or music case and then you cant take it off because if you do you can't sell it second hand and sometimes ruin the case http://www.mundokaraoke.com/images/selo_igac.gif ...... sorry, i think i got a little carried away there......:
Haha whenever the RIAA are mentioned i always think of the South Park episode where they show the "effects" of downloading music for free. Britney Spears cant buy a new island in the Pacific Ocean oh noes!
Don't mistake MS' hare-brained "Plays for Sh**" scheme for DRM. People sneer at Apple iPods, but there's a reason why they're so popular. I refer you to cpemma's post right below yours.
Yep, advertising. Certainly not the quality of the product Which clearly states that your idea of reasonable use is actually against the rules........what was your point again? To be honest I think we have a very similiar idea of what is fair and reasonable but we will have to agree to disagree that 'certain people' who make several copies for themselves and 'skint' friends are in fact hurting the recording industry, which of course they are not because the friends couldn't afford the music in the first place and would just tape off the radio without the offer of a free or very cheap alternative. Mass hysteria as usual, the record industry simply gain more exposure and see increased sales, but of course they insist on being greedy and want even more We need to get together ( people in general, not you and I ) and vote against their nonsense with our wallets!
Which is why what I download on iTunes plays on any iPod, without hassle. What I convert to MP3 (using iTunes) plays on any generic MP3 player, without problems. I mean, think about it: why does MS even need to have a label guaranteeing it "plays for sure"? Shouldn't that be taken for granted? My point is that you don't read the bold print: Check individual countries' laws and they pretty much have the same "fair use" policy. Just as people will interpret things as they want to, and take offence when they want to, people will object to DRM because they want to --not because it actually limits their enjoyment of the music. Mass hysteria only works if all parties decide to lose their heads. I don't see a problem. Do you? The RIAA is not sueing a man for making personal copies of his CDs (as it turns out). The laws of many countries do not object to it either. Record companies have never sued anyone for doing so. So far the only cases that have made the headlines are the few where people put their music up for torrent distribution (Jammie Thomas), which you'd have to agree is well beyond "fair use". There has been some wrangling between record companies and Apple, and several internet radios. Greedy and pedantic, yes, but in the end it is the record companies that will suffer as they put the distribution of their own products out of business. There has been the isolated case of Universal vs. Lenz, but this is backfiring on them in a big way. In the end, even the courts understand "reasonable use". Or do you think jugdes and jurors don't copy the odd CD for their car?
I've given up trying to track the laws that the RIAA and BPI set for the music I buy. I get a CD, rip it and stick it on my MP3 player. As far as I'm concerned that's the way it'll be until they figure out a cohesive and understandable set of laws regarding CDs, DRM and 'usage terms'. Even then, I'm still inclined to keep on buying CDs and Vinyl until the digital alternatives are cheap enough and actually offer something of a good enough quality to make them a viable option.
