Ken Chan

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

Neither did I. Since you attempted to cite one of the Amendments, you seemed to be asserting some fundamental right argument. But apparently you're agreeing to the notion of copyright, without allowing for mechanisms to enforce it. Encrypting content is not as onerous as rootkits or the RIAA run amuck.

No, that's a different Amendment.

No, the latter is a "loaded question" or "complex question" fallacy.

MarkHastings

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

But aren't people doing the same with DRM AAC's? Because the RIAA is doing nasty things, then Apple must also be evil because they are putting protection on their product?

Thomas Newton

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

We have an enforcement mechanism. It's called the court system and due process. For criminal infringement, law enforcement may also be involved in seizing counterfeit copies or in apprehending the defendants.

Entertainment companies might want perfect, before-the-fact enforcement of monopolies: cost to "innocent until proven guilty", due process, free speech, Fair Use, First Sale, private property, and public domain be damned. That doesn't mean they are entitled to such enforcement. That would be asking for a special level of enforcement that nobody else gets (not rape victims, not murder victims).

Ken Chan

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

So why do we have locks on our homes and cars? They're an inconvenience. If someone was to go so far as to break the law and take your car, the courts could give you redress. That is, if they catch the guy and/or find your car in one piece.

Wow, what an absurd thing to say. I suppose women don't actually ask for perfect before-the-fact protection against rape, because they know it is not feasible. But do you fault them for wanting it?

MarkHastings

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

I know!!!! because we know how people are, on the "honor" system. Thomas, the court system won't protect you against theft. All it does is to help punish after the law is broken. That's why we have to use locks and protection.

You mention 'counterfeit copies', which means the law enforcement acts AFTER the law is broken and not before.

If it were possible to immediately know once a product was being used illegally (and the law can immediately step in and prosecute), then there would probably be no reason for copy protection. But since the law can only apply after the law is broken, it's much harder to control illegal activities.

It's like one man trying to stop a heard of stampeeding bulls. The only way to effectively stop the heard is to make sure they don't stampeed in the first place.

And sure it sucks that it feels like this DRM is treating us like criminals, but that's how lots of things work in life. I've been to concerts where you can't re-enter the arena once you've stepped outside (like if you needed to go to your car for something). I have to leave my license with the attendant when I play a game of pool at the pool hall. I also have to leave a credit card with the bar tender (at the larger bars) when I have a tab going. The same thing applies with other activities.

I just bought some Claritin for my allergies and had to sign a sheet because too many people are using it to get a buzz.

How about a 'security deposit'? Ever had to pay one of those?

Thomas Newton

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

Locks on our homes and cars are for our benefit and are under our control. If you bought a home or a car, and then found out that the home builder or auto maker had left special locks in it, to lock you out of your purchase, at their whim, that would be called fraud.

And there wouldn't be any DMCA to prohibit locksmiths from breaking locks on such homes and cars to give control back to the purchasers.


I see that you're trying to draw attention away from the concept that the entertainment industry is not entitled to a special level of enforcement at the expense of essential public values.


Why is it that before-the-fact protection against rape is not feasible? Just institute a police state, and have police go and monitor every man in the country 24x7, especially in private areas. Authorize use of extreme force at the first hint that there might be a rape, and trash due process for any person the police accuse.

I did not say that the cost of this method of crime control was acceptable. But then, neither are the costs the public is being asked/forced to bear in the name of protecting copyright.

MarkHastings

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

iTunes doesn't lock you out of purchases though.

And as was explained before, the protection is under my control as well. I can remove the DRM very easily and it's legal.

The keys to my car only work in my car, they don't work on anyone elses car. If I lend my car to someone, I also have to give them the key. It's like iTunes music prucahses. You can't give your friend the song without giving him the 'keys'.

Ken Chan

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

You lock your car because when you put it out in public, you know there are a few criminals (of both the chop shop and joy ride variety) out there, and it's a deterrent. When an artist puts their content out there in trivial-to-copy digital form, why can't they do the same thing? Because you have a right not be inconvenienced? An absolute right to your "purchase"? So you are for that now?

No, just responding to another "out there" statement, which took the conversation somewhere it didn't need to go. I was hoping you'd realize that and take it back. But instead....

Well, yes I meant feasible in the "world you'd actually want to live in" way. And besides, would your police state solution really work? Who watches the police? How could you guarantee the system cannot be gamed?

I haven't said so before, but the DMCA, rootkits, and RIAA are all pretty stupid. But it seems like you are not willing be bear any cost at all. The present cost for the vast majority using the iTunes Music Store is zero. They gain from the convenience of having the content available. They may have some future cost, but as long as they know the deal, how does that hurt "essential public values"?

Thomas Newton

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

Why are you seemingly hostile to fundamental principles of private property and First Sale, like "once you sell something, it's not yours any more?" Putting the word "purchase" in quotes puts you at odds with the majority of people, who would tell you that yes, those CDs and DVDs they bought are theirs -- just as much as their books, TVs, cars, or anything else they spent money on.


My bank account will sure be happy to learn that all of those hundreds of CDs in my collection came at "no cost at all".

MarkHastings

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

You don't own any type of audio/video media. The same goes for computer software....what your money goes to, is a license that allows you to play the music, video, software that they gave you. The media and content still (essentially) belongs to the artist or studio (or whatever).

Ken Chan

Re: Can itunes work with non-ipod mp3 players?

I clearly responded to your statement about costs "in the name of protecting copyright", like burdens on your "essential public values". Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Yes, it is theirs. But with digital media, there is a difference. As with any other property, there are atoms, but there are also bits. Previous laws (including the laws of physics) protect the atoms, but how do you protect the bits, which are so easy to extract, copy, and distribute? And of course, with downloads there are no atoms, just bits.

I am not a fan of the semantics that Mark describes, that you don't own stuff, you're just licensing it in perpetuity. But as a legal fiction, it kinda works.

But to be more proactive in protecting the bits, they can be encrypted, so they are useful only if you have the key. That key could even be reassignable, in the spirit of First Sale rights. If not, people buy and use consumables every day that have no First Sale benefits. In the same way, such media is only useful to them, but it is not lost when consumed, and is reusable, putting it in the middle of the property-use spectrum. As long as people knowingly buy into the deal, how is that wrong?