1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Apple Plus files contain lots

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 4 Jun 2007.

  1. Zurechial

    Zurechial Elitist

    Joined:
    21 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    99
    I agree with you there, actually. That argument can be taken too far, and there needs to be an element of common sense in the decisions that are made.
    The only thing I'd preach about the whole situation is exactly that; common sense.
    I'd rather see people acting rationally about all of this, than jumping to sensationalist conclusions about something which we don't even know all the details of yet.


    Agreed again, I didn't think of that issue, but Apple should really have told its (potential) customers that it was doing this.
    I don't use iTunes myself, either, I still buy CDs since my favoured music isn't usually available on iTunes, but my hope is that it will eventually incorporate more labels and genres and more of the obscure music out there, or that serious competitors to iTunes will form, along with smaller 'specialty' stores of a similar nature.
     
  2. sadffffff

    sadffffff Minimodder

    Joined:
    20 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    0
    the surveylence was a bad comparison in a way. with surveylence youre being watched constantly, not so with a tag like this.

    i guess the best i can do to describe this feeling would be if you bought a cd in a store and before they gave it to you they somehow (if they could) tagged your info into the cd data. not to write you name on it saying you own it, but to be able to fingerprint you if your music were to end up somewhere else.

    or you go to buy anything else that could feasibly used for crime...hang on buddy before you buy that spray paint we have to tag it incase you vandalize something. wait up, before you get that cd burner we need to write your info in the rom so we can find you if you burned a copy of some software. we have no reason to believe you might do that but what if you do!!!!?! what ever happened to innocent untill proven guilty?

    assinine.

    also, what if you want to sell this stuff? its all tagged to you, can we suddenly not sell this stuff if we dont want it anymore? (is that an agreement on itunes, that you can't sell your license). DRM free? not really, its just been lessened. If i can treat this music like a cd i buy in a store, then it will be drm free. move it to a different device to playback, back it up, resell it, buy it 2nd hand...etc
     
  3. Havok154

    Havok154 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2006
    Posts:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see the point of adding it. I'll wager that within 2-4 weeks, we'll see a program that will automatically strip the info from the music, making any reason for it to be there null and void. If people were going to illegally distribute music, I really don't see them buying it from iTunes first, then sharing that. If anything, it'll be along the same lines as someone burning off their DRM'ed itunes onto a CD for their friends. People who share insane amounts of music usually won't pay for it to begin with.

    Either way, I could care less what apple does. All the music on my computer come from my cd's that I rip into MP3.
     
  4. Laitainion

    Laitainion What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    16 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with the spirit of what you say there, but when it comes to thinking about the personal freedom, rights and privacy you have to ask how they are being infringed and who it benefits. In this case it only benefits the music industry and the RIAA. To me this is not a good enough reason at all, even though the infringement is tiny as the motivation is simply profit and greed.
    The only acceptible reasons are those that directly relate to public safety, and then only after careful consideration of the implications.

    Gun ownership registration is a good example of this, as controlling the circulation of guns can reduce the number of crime related killings. This tagging serves only a parasitic organisation (mainly the RIAA).
     
  5. Zurechial

    Zurechial Elitist

    Joined:
    21 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    99
    I don't really see the problem with measures like that, you're still innocent until you commit the crime, and you're being treated as such.
    Having your details encoded into the product as a preventative measure against crime isn't the same as prosecuting someone for the crime - It bears no impact on their legal use of the product and simply doesn't affect their rights.
    If you're suggesting that not being allowed burn illegal copies of your CDs is an infringement of your rights, then by that token so is every law in civilized society that you abide to.
    By that token, there should be no laws against theft or murder, because we're all innocent until proven guilty and apparently 'nobody' will do those things anyway.....right?......right? Wrong.
    When you consider that the majority of people who listen to music on their computer or mp3 players would, and have, broken copyright laws with what they think are harmless actions, you can perhaps see the justification of seeing anyone as a potential copyright-infringer.
    We're all guilty of it, and we can't get pissy because someone takes away our potential to break a law already in place that we should be abiding anyway.

    I'm not sure that I agree with this line of thought.
    Do the publishers, distributors and creative artists not deserve to get money for their product?
    It benefits someone with an entirely negligible impact on the consumer (as far as we can tell right now).
    Just because it benefits the 'evil' corporations, alongside the artists who deserve to get paid for their creations, doesn't make it a bad thing, when you consider that maybe they actually deserve to get paid for the product that they market.
    The artists need the labels and publishers to get their music out there, and without one or the other we'd have no music industry.

    I'd prefer to see 90% of the money going to the artists who actually created the music, and the rest going to Apple and the 'evil' corporations, but then that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future in the real world and it's a different matter for discussion.

    As far as I'm concerned; if protecting the relatively small percentage of profit going to the artists who deserve it comes with the necessary evil of also protecting the money going to the publishers, RIAA, etc then so be it -
    The artists already get screwed over enough as it is, without their fans doing it to them too.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2007
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page