Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

iTunes and "Sharing" 3 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • I am, frankly, more offended by the clearly false assertion by Jobs that we are not being treated like criminals than I am by the fact that I cannot share the music or burn playlists without limit (except in the case of copying files from shared playlists).

    First of all, the "good karma" limitations being placed on copying media are like the lock on your front door -- it's there to keep honest people honest, not prevent illegal activity. Anyone who wants to illegally copy digital music badly enough wil

    • Locks on houses seem really only to keep the owner out when they forget their keys. Honest people don't go into other people's houses and as you point out, criminals will not be detered by a lock.

      That being said... ;-)

      The real entity treating you like a "criminal" is the copyright owner. When, not if, the AAC protection is cracked it will be the RIAA and not Apple that slaps you with a DMCA violation. When you work around the 10 playlist burning limitation it will be the RIAA who comes after you, not A
      • The real entity treating you like a "criminal" is the copyright owner. When, not if, the AAC protection is cracked it will be the RIAA and not Apple that slaps you with a DMCA violation. When you work around the 10 playlist burning limitation it will be the RIAA who comes after you, not Apple.

        Apple is the one preventing me from doing things with songs I might, as far as they know, have the legal right to do. I am not saying the RIAA gets a pass. The only reason Apple is doing what it does is to appease the RIAA and its music label partners. But Apple is saying one thing ("it is your music"), and doing another ("we will prevent you from playing it on more than three computers"). There's no way around this. Explaining the purpose of the restriction doesn't justify the inconsistent statements.

        I am not saying iTMS sucks, or that Apple sucks. I am bemoaning that Apple is, in this case, saying one thing and doing another.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.