Ferret-Simpson Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Personally, I don't think that this can be particularly of interest to anyone not from Norway. This is fairly typical Norway. Ater all, they banned the Life of Brian!!!! I agree with Semthex in most ways. I reserve the right to copy music to all my computers. I reserve the right to run an OS I paid for, on the hardware I choose to run it on. I reserve the right to wear socks in innapropriate places, and put my furniture on a Parquet floor, tiles, vinyl or carpet as I see fit. I got a look that said it all from a member of the staff of the SoP the other day when he saw me working with OSx86. "And that's completely illegal!" To be honest, I wish I'd just said what I was thinking. It's FAIR, and JUST to be able to install their software on my computer because I paid a fair amount of money for my license. To be honest, the license terms that state that you can only run OS X on a mac should devaluate that license. I understand that it is a LICENSE I buy, and that I "Should" use it according to the terms. But the terms are unjust, and what I should have told the staff member is the truth. "If they don't want me to be able to do it legally I have no choice but to do it illegally." Which is the honest truth. There are plenty of people here who would pirate the OS anyway, because they're cheapskate bastards. (Anyone who asks for links to torrents of iLife etc. for example. You can buy it and it will run on a standard osX86 install.) I'd happily go out and buy my license for OSX86. I may well buy a license anyway. I have two macs, an iBook G3 and a powermac G4. So you see, it's not that I don't want to support the company and buy their hardware, it's just that their hardware has been a pile of {censored} for oh say. . . . since they released the first intel machine. Maybe for some people it was a good thing. But for me, I can't stand the x86 architecture. I prefer the "Real" macs. But since they don't sell them anymore, and they never sold a TabletPC mac All I can do is use this version. As far as the whole iTunes goes, I figure that you should only be able to use it on a device registered with your name or account. For example steam: You buy your games through steam and they become tied to your steam account. You can use and download them onto any computer you choose, as many times as you like, as long as it's your computer in your name. Limiting the number is wrong. Tracking you is wrong. Just as long as it's registered with your name, it should be ok!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandmanfvrga Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Funny they don't see you can take your songs, burn them as a mp3 dvd (dvds could hold a huge collection on just a few of them) and then plug in your other mp3 player and drag and drop. *shrugs* The music industry is the one the blame, not Apple. The music industry knows they put {censored} out and consumers don't take it. They can't stand users picking 4 or 5 songs from an album and not paying $15 or more for that {censored}astic album with 15 songs and 10 of them suck. To me artist need to put good stuff out, lower damn prices and make it fun to go and get cds again, not a damn hassle. To me DRM is illegal and unconstitutional but my opinion is just that. Hell, forget about freedom here. *sigh* Edited January 31, 2007 by sandmanfvrga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 It's no longer, "you buy it, you own it", it has become "you buy it, they still own it, and maybe they let you use it a bit". I can only hope customer will notice over the time what has been done to them and go the only way the responsible people will understand, the way of a boycott. It already is in the beginning, but still they keep on crying on pirates, but their day will hoepfully come, if there is no more possibility but to admit they broken their own business. But you never did own it, and that's what people don't understand. All you own is a flimsy CD. Just a flimsy piece of plastic. The content on there never belonged to you, and all that purchase gave you is the right to use it. The difference between "us" and "them" (used just because absolutes are seemingly needed here) is that we have differing opinions on that usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 DRM of any kind was designed to force customers into a usage sceme and prohibit them from using legal obtained articles as they wish to use them. And yes, a technic designed for such a manner is evil, with no exceptions. You cut down customer rights, there is no other application for DRM. This is the standard freakout response. Freakout (FO): DRM IS EVIL. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL Rational resposne (RR): How is it evil? FO: IT'S IN THERE! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL. LOOK AT IT!!!! RR: This says I can use this on five computers and remove any DRM by burning it to a disk. FO: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!! LIMITS ARE EEEEEEEEEEVIL!!! RR: Do you have six computers, because the DRM would present its only major problem if you have a sixth computer. FO: I HAVE FOUR, BUT IT'S EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!!! RR: Well, it does communicate with a central server-- FO: THEY'RE WATCHING OUR EVERY MOVE!!!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL! RR: but all I have to do is burn it and they can't track me any more. Doesn't seem that evil to me. FO: THIS IS JUST LIKE THE PHONE COMPANY. THEY HAVE MY NAME! THEY KNOW MY NUMBER!!!!!! Of course, I'd like to see the other side come up with a skit too. I laughed at mine and need a laugh from the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semthex Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Hmm, polemic discussion starts were the ability of useful argumentation ends. I for sure won't get into a below zero level talk. Please keep the discussion on an acceptable level. This just shows intollerancy to others peoples opinion (as well as the "extremist" comment). Sorry for that hard words, but I take this discussion serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 polemic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbz Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 But you never did own it, and that's what people don't understand. All you own is a flimsy CD. Just a flimsy piece of plastic. The content on there never belonged to you, and all that purchase gave you is the right to use it. The difference between "us" and "them" (used just because absolutes are seemingly needed here) is that we have differing opinions on that usage. EXACTLY! Somebody came up with that tune, and you are not paying money for their tune. You are paying money to listen to it. It's been like this before the digital era, before CDs, even. Cassettes, vinyl records. ell, when you "buy" a sheet with musical notes on it, you're paying for the ink on that paper that shows you how to play a song which isn't yours. People just don't get that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semthex Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 But all times before, even if you bought a sheet of paper with notes, you could play it faster, slower, with over notes in between, diffrent text. Same goes for casetts, you could copy them you could listen to the vinyl copied to tape on your walkman as well as any other walkman and if the casette broke you could copy it again. You were even allowed to pass a copy to your family. What are you doing today? You still listen to music you bought but you are no longer allowed to use it as you wish in the way you wish. You get a "broken" version which even stops to be useable after you copied it to your iPod another computer and a CD. If you just flush your iPod 2 or 3 times, it is even more worse. What you can do about it? You have to buy it again. They cut the consumers rights badly they even sell you a "experince" which is no more than broken, crippled trash. Even if I just have obtained the right to use it, I want to use it as I wish and don't want to be bothered by money greedy peopls license restrictions. That is not fair play with consumers, it is rip off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 But all times before, even if you bought a sheet of paper with notes, you could play it faster, slower, with over notes in between, diffrent text. Same goes for casetts, you could copy them you could listen to the vinyl copied to tape on your walkman as well as any other walkman and if the casette broke you could copy it again. You were even allowed to pass a copy to your family. Yes, and this is known as "space shifting." It is similar to "time shifting" with VHS cassettes and is MOST LIKELY a legal thing to do. Note that I said most likely, as "space shifting" as never been specifically tested. What are you doing today? You still listen to music you bought but you are no longer allowed to use it as you wish in the way you wish. You get a "broken" version which even stops to be useable after you copied it to your iPod another computer and a CD. If you just flush your iPod 2 or 3 times, it is even more worse. What you can do about it? You have to buy it again. They cut the consumers rights badly they even sell you a "experince" which is no more than broken, crippled trash. Even if I just have obtained the right to use it, I want to use it as I wish and don't want to be bothered by money greedy peopls license restrictions. And again, this is that difference between "us" and "them" (again, absolutes are seemingly needed). But I feel that FairPlay is more than fair. It can be removed by burning it to a CD and can then be put on any damn MP3 player you want. Unless you own 6 computers or reinstall Windows every week, you will never use all of the licenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semthex Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 [...]And again, this is that difference between "us" and "them" (again, absolutes are seemingly needed). But I feel that FairPlay is more than fair. It can be removed by burning it to a CD and can then be put on any damn MP3 player you want. Unless you own 6 computers or reinstall Windows every week, you will never use all of the licenses. But it is illegal to do so in many countries, so not a valid argument. I can go and remove the DRM on other ways too. It dos not matter, but I don't think it is ok that people have to commit a crime in some courties to repair their stuff. The stuff you paid is still broken by design. It simply does not matter if I can fix it that way ot the other. I want a useable product, not a left over. And hey, look at vista, you can see how DRM in the perverted form can work, jsut get a read on downsampeling HD videos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret-Simpson Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Unless you own 6 computers or reinstall Windows every week, you will never use all of the licenses. I own somewhere in the region of 40 computers, if you're interested. And more to the point, for a long time I DID reinstall windows every week. I had no choice. This is why I now run UNIX and derivatives exclusively. My Windows system has died again and I have no way to fix it. Fujitsu gave me a Ghost CD that wipes my computer completely. No windows disk. How's that from unfair, or broken by design? All my files have been rescued to an ontherwise empty HFS+ Partition, But Ill lose OS X, my software, and my files in reinstalling the failed operating system that shouldn't break in the first place!! I have my COA so I can torrent a CD of my operating system (Windows XP TabletPC Edition 2005) If I can find one, and install it. . . But why should I have to do THAT, either? It's ridiculous! I'll say this for Windows though. Slowly, ridiculously slowly, it's getting better. Windows 3.11 worked fine. Windows 95 worked okay. Windows 98 crashed weekly. Windows XP crashed monthly. Windows XP SP2 only crashes quarterly! See, progress!! And no, I'm not even going to bother TRYING the waste of time and money that is Vista. My iBook hasn't needed a thing done to it since I got it. Not a sausage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 But it is illegal to do so in many countries, so not a valid argument. Burning an iTunes song to a CD (removing DRM) is perfectly legal and within the scope of the DRM-enabled/crippled music unless you can prove it otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henke Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Personally, I don't think that this can be particularly of interest to anyone not from Norway. This is fairly typical Norway. Ater all, they banned the Life of Brian!!!! I just wonder, what is fairly typical for Norway? That they dare to stand up and protect their people from companies who break their laws? And what does that have to do with the banning of Life of Brian? In fact, it was banned in several U.S. states and from many U.K. theatres as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPDM Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 What is all the fuss about? Norway has the right to disagree with Apple's restrictions inside Itunes. Just as Apple has the right to exclusivly tie both it's software product to it's own media-player. It is a fact that if you own another MP3 than iPod and bought a song from ITunes-store then you can't (easily) play that song on that particular player. Sure you can burn to cd and then re-rip to MP3 or unprotected AAC but that's NOT an easy and straightforward way to transfer songs to an average MP3-player. I find it more anoying that I can't transfer my song back from iPod to my PC even IF that PC is authorised by iTunes-store. Personally I couldn't care less. If you disagree with Apple's politics then just don't use Apple producst. Simple as that. I find it more troublesome that both goverments and companies dictates what's "best" for consumers/us. Has anyone asked on Joe Public what they think about it? Regards, EPDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Norway has the right to disagree with Apple's restrictions inside Itunes. Just as Apple has the right to exclusivly tie both it's software product to it's own media-player. They both have that right, so long as neither group violates any laws. It's become the ever popular "DRM IS EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL" kneejerk reaction we know and love on the boards. Apple is still innocent until proven guilty in Norway, but the boards tend to have Inquisition-style justice when it comes to EEEEEEEEEEEVIL DRMs It is a fact that if you own another MP3 than iPod and bought a song from ITunes-store then you can't (easily) play that song on that particular player. Sure you can burn to cd and then re-rip to MP3 or unprotected AAC but that's NOT an easy and straightforward way to transfer songs to an average MP3-player. I find it more anoying that I can't transfer my song back from iPod to my PC even IF that PC is authorised by iTunes-store.Or you can use the link in my signature to remove it using iMovie. While it isn't stupidly easy, you can remove the DRM from iTunes songs. Personally I couldn't care less. If you disagree with Apple's politics then just don't use Apple producst. Simple as that. I find it more troublesome that both goverments and companies dictates what's "best" for consumers/us. Has anyone asked on Joe Public what they think about it? Well, that just isn't the way of the boards here. They want choices, but they want those choices to conform to their exacting views of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semthex Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Burning an iTunes song to a CD (removing DRM) is perfectly legal and within the scope of the DRM-enabled/crippled music unless you can prove it otherwise? ... and ripping of the cd again than is circumvancing a copy protection and illegal by law in countries like the US. Anyways, this thread goes badly down the road, sorry to say. The last few post does not have any real arguments in them anymore. "Norway is bad cause they sue glorious Apple" and "Their DRM is not bad!!one!11!one" <- summerized Poor to see that it even goes into the direction of personal attacks now Such behaviour is not worth any discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Don't be mad just because you saw yourself in some of the replies. Be mad for other reasons than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kernalzero Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 DRM = annoying part of life maybe it'll be changed, maybe it won't but i'm pretty sure most of us have found 'work arounds' for their DRM policy. I'm of the mind set that if I purchase a song or movie it's my right to do what I want with it provided I don't distribute it (the legal people will disagree but I don't care). If I change the format for my own personal listening/viewing that's my choice. I'm not preventing the music industry from making a profit (although they may claim otherwise). If I can't change the format, I'm going to buy two forms of the same thing... what's next? My tivo becomes illegal because I don't pay for the syndication rights of recorded shows? bollocks I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPDM Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 ... and ripping of the cd again than is circumvancing a copy protection and illegal by law in countries like the US. Anyways, this thread goes badly down the road, sorry to say. The last few post does not have any real arguments in them anymore. "Norway is bad cause they sue glorious Apple" and "Their DRM is not bad!!one!11!one" <- summerized Poor to see that it even goes into the direction of personal attacks now Such behaviour is not worth any discussion. Are you telling me that if you buy a CD in the US and rip it to MP3 to put on your Creative ZEN or cheapo 20$ MP3-player; You're doing something "illegal"? Wow... and that's supposed to be "the land of the free". As for arguments. What do want? The norway goverment is right to say that "a shop is a public place where the items you can buy must be equally usable for all customers. And if Apple doesn't open it's online music store to general players then that's no store but a Club for iPod owners". I also understands Apple motivation to tie their iTunes-store to iPod. I think in this case Apple shouldn't market the stuff as an online media-shop. They should have called it iPod-store and they should have called the iTunes program "Windows or OSX iPod player" depending on the version. Then all this would have been avoided. And the message would have been clear... no Ipod (player)... no music! Just my 2 cents. For the rest: Why are you offended? I didn't attack anyone personally and definitly not you. You're not an Apple representative nor a Norway goverment official, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrGlud Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I'd say Peer to Peer sites are more illegal then iTunes. Why are you targeting legal services, and not targeting illegal services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts