Teeing up lawsuits is a poor way to enforce any law. It doesn't work. We
have far too many lawyers in the US, they're underemployed, and that's
another problem that needs to be fixed! I assign that one to you too.
No flames from me.
Thanks for the conversation
--
Goodsounds
-
Goodsounds;347814 Wrote:
> Maybe we're on the same side of the fence.
>
> I have no preference for DRM, but I have less affinity for the current
> state of affairs. I'd like to see a healthier music business, most of
> all for the artists, and I don't care much how it's done. So long as I
> can
Maybe we're on the same side of the fence.
I have no preference for DRM, but I have less affinity for the current
state of affairs. I'd like to see a healthier music business, most of
all for the artists, and I don't care much how it's done. So long as I
can keep that fish off my head. (I have n
Goodsounds;347811 Wrote:
> But we all know what the problem is. What percentage of people's music
> collections, and new music acquisitions, are purchased? This percentage
> is too low, and this is what needs to be fixed.
Sure, but how does DRM solve this problem? Not at all. Seriously, if
stu
CatBus;347798 Wrote:
> Weird. I keep reading stuff like this that makes me think the law is
> being used to fight piracy in countries with strong copyright laws.
> Maybe these news articles are wrong?
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5434/is_200804/ai_n25420961
> http://www.ifpi.org
Goodsounds;347804 Wrote:
> Hey Nick - Baloney. If I pay, everyone else should too, I don't mind
> what needs to be done to keep things fair. Maybe what I should learn
> from your comment is that mine is a minority view?
That's a false choice. Everyone should pay (if that's what the
artist/label
Goodsounds;347769 Wrote:
> If you now work in the private sector, if your potential customers could
> get your products or your services for free, you would not have a job. I
> disagree. These are not services: they are products. And they are not
free: they have been paid already. If I let a CD
DeVerm;347800 Wrote:
> You know what happens when you push someone for no reason... they push
> back. In reality DRM makes legitimate users so sick of it that they
> start considering supporting the torrent community, and now everything
> is alright because it's morally okay to keep pushing them.
Goodsounds;347769 Wrote:
> They are fighting for their jobs, their businesses, and their industry.
> I don't agree with everything they have done, but I understand the
> problem and it remains unsolved.
So they are and I wish them success with their fight but they shouldn't
bring it to (their) l
Goodsounds;347793 Wrote:
> We have strong copyright laws now - they have been ineffective against
> music piracy. Everyone knows that.
Weird. I keep reading stuff like this that makes me think the law is
being used to fight piracy in countries with strong copyright laws.
Maybe these news artic
CatBus;347772 Wrote:
> But, the thing is, DRM does not protect the artist or record label,
> strong copyright laws do. Pirates can and will circumvent every DRM
> scheme created, but you can still prosecute them. That's how the law,
> not DRM, protects content owners.
We have strong copyright
funkahdafi;347774 Wrote:
> Do't forget to publish it with someone who offers DRM.
Yes, indeed. And make it a DRM protocol that can only be read by those
Amazon electronic e-book thingies so that only Amazon customers who own
the Amazon e-book can read it.
You sure wouldn't want that DRM'd poe
CatBus;347772 Wrote:
> But, the thing is, DRM does not protect the artist or record label,
> strong copyright laws do. Pirates can and will circumvent every DRM
> scheme created, but you can still prosecute them. That's how the law,
> not DRM, protects content owners. And because human judges
toby10;347773 Wrote:
> LOL:)
>
> Publish it!
Do't forget to publish it with someone who offers DRM.
--
funkahdafi
funkahdafi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5608
View this thread: http://f
Goodsounds;347767 Wrote:
> Ok, I apologize in advance, I have a bit more time today than normal and
> here is the result:
>
> This music makes my iPod choke,
> Why me and not some other bloke?
> I cannot play it in a tree,
> I cannot play it with my Wii.
> My Ford, my Vibe, and in my Beamer,
> A
toby10;347729 Wrote:
> I completely agree with protecting the artist and record labelI'll
> gladly support a DRM scheme to protect the artists and labels as long
> as it is not specifically tied to one manufacturer or one source or one
> service.
But, the thing is, DRM does not protect the a
CDs have no DRM, why should MP3/AAC have one ?
Recording industry doesn't need DRM to make money; in fact, their only
problem, is that they can't make more money every year.
Their only available solution, is to change the hardware and introduce
DRM-conscious hardware, exactly as they did for HD
Themis;347763 Wrote:
> CDs have no DRM, why should MP3/AAC have one ?
> Recording industry doesn't need DRM to make money; .
If there were no bit torrent technology and all its predecessors and
successors, and so no widespread music piracy, the discussion would be
moot.
If you now work in t
toby10;347755 Wrote:
> Yup. :) And it's the third parties proprietary and restrictive DRM
> that is at the heart of all of this. The difference between the
> VW/Ford and Win/Mac analogies compared to the DRM issue is that I knew
> your stated restrictions when I purchased them. I'd bet most w
Goodsounds;347749 Wrote:
> Excellent thoughts, there's much to agree with in what you say.
>
> The recording industry can't do it alone. A standardized DRM could
> work, but that would require many greedy parties to cooperate, and how
> likely is that to happen? An Apple standard? Microsoft? Ne
toby10;347729 Wrote:
> I completely agree with protecting the artist and record label. No
> problem there. Why doesn't the recording industry come out with a
> standardized DRM that is across all platforms?
>
> The problem that I and many others have is giving up control to a third
> party lik
Phil Leigh;347719 Wrote:
> I'm sorry but this thread is ridiculous. DRM is dead. Anyone who bought
> DRM tracks made a classic purchasing error (sorry, but it's true - if
> you knew then what you know now would you still have bought the drm
> tracks?). You have a legacy format... one that will so
peter;347717 Wrote:
> If you bought the DRM'ed files, you have the (legal?/moral) right to
> download the uncrippled FLAC versions off the net.
>
Not moral right, but obligation.
:-)
MC
--
ModelCitizen
On average people have fewer than two feet.
http://www.last.fm/user/ModelCitizen
---
Goodsounds;347724 Wrote:
> Copyright law, not corporate evil-doers, prescribes what rights a
> copyright holder have, and what restrictions exist and can be added on
> a transfer of a copy of a copyright protected article. When you buy a
> song or a CD, you are buying a copy, the rights to which
toby10;347698 Wrote:
> And herein lies the true danger of DRM. Someone else (Apple in this
> case) controls what, where, when, how, and on what device they *permit*
> you to utilize *their* music!
> Even though you legally purchased that music, as long as someone else
> holds the keys then it
I'm sorry but this thread is ridiculous. DRM is dead. Anyone who bought
DRM tracks made a classic purchasing error (sorry, but it's true - if
you knew then what you know now would you still have bought the drm
tracks?). You have a legacy format... one that will soon not be
supported. Just like Bet
Nonreality wrote:
> Yes I think that you hit it exactly right. I don't like the drm and
> won't buy it at all. But that doesn't mean I didn't in the past.
> Luckily I caught on very early, maybe 5 albums. For the people that
> have a bunch of this stuff on their computer I can agree it would be
mvalera;347439 Wrote:
> We will not support iTunes DRM protected songs... because Apple won't
> sell us the license to do so.
>
> Until that changes, it's impossible for us to support iTunes DRM.
>
> Mike
And herein lies the true danger of DRM. Someone else (Apple in this
case) controls what,
bhaagensen;347529 Wrote:
> Interesting, so you claim that encoding audiofiles with a codec you
> somehow have the intellectual rights to use gives you the same legal
> status as if you protected the files by some drm-scheme?
I could be wrong with this, but I think it has more to do with
licensing
funkstar;347305 Wrote:
> There is an additional part of SC playing Apple DRM files that Songbird
> doesn't have to deal with: network connected players.
>
> Songbird gets QuickTime/iTunes (it doesn't really matter which does
> it?) to play the file. Great, it play it on the decoding PC directly
Amnesiac;347354 Wrote:
> ... A similar thing was done with AlienBBC and RealAudio streams
As I already said, it's not similar at all. BBC weren't using realaudio
to protect their stream from unauthorised access, so why would they
care? Apple on the other hand, probaly would care...
--
bhaagen
mvalera;347439 Wrote:
> We will not support iTunes DRM protected songs... because Apple won't
> sell us the license to do so.
>
...or to anyone else. AFAIK this is the essence of why several
countries are taking apple to court these days.
--
bhaagensen
---
Amnesiac;347365 Wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying the RA stream issue... the point as regards server
> transcoding of a format unsupported by the players themselves is still
> valid. :-)
>
> A.
Interesting, so you claim that encoding audiofiles with a codec you
somehow have the intellectual rights
andyg;347512 Wrote:
> Nothing is stopping anyone from writing a plugin though.
Writing a plugin, no. Telling anyone where they can get that plugin,
or how to write their own...yes. It's DeCSS T-shirts all over again.
--
CatBus
Nothing is stopping anyone from writing a plugin though.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53460
__
There's a good blog post from the Songbird people from a little while
ago which gives a bit more background to what they've done. You can
also see the explanation they've given about the legal position -
although I'm sure that Apple and MS's finest lawyers can find something
to pick apart...
htt
We will not support iTunes DRM protected songs... because Apple won't
sell us the license to do so.
Until that changes, it's impossible for us to support iTunes DRM.
Mike
--
mvalera
Michael Valera
Online Communities Manager
Logitech Streaming Media Business Unit
slimdevices.com
-
Amnesiac;347365 Wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying the RA stream issue... the point as regards server
> transcoding of a format unsupported by the players themselves is still
> valid. :-)
>
> A.
Actually, legally, its a whole new ballgame. Once you start breaking
file encryption, even if its to pl
cliveb;347399 Wrote:
> It's probably the case that Slim Devices want to be pragmatic and let
> their customers enjoy as much of their music as possible. So I suppose
> if they had a cost-effective way to support Fairplay, they would do
> it.
>
> But perhaps the main point I was trying to make di
funkstar;347364 Wrote:
> Thats a good point Clive, although I think it's a little off the mark.
> The current range of players to include software to work with DRM'ed
> services, Rhapsody for example. It has also been said in forum posts
> and in a previous roadmap that the developers would do "w
funkstar;347364 Wrote:
> Thats a good point Clive, although I think it's a little off the mark.
> The current range of players to include software to work with DRM'ed
> services, Rhapsody for example. It has also been said in forum posts
> and in a previous roadmap that the developers would do "w
Thats a good point Clive, although I think it's a little off the mark.
The current range of players to include software to work with DRM'ed
services, Rhapsody for example. It has also been said in forum posts
and in a previous roadmap that the developers would do "whatever it
takes" to get their p
funkahdafi;347319 Wrote:
> So you take it for a given that the users on this forum represent the
> majority of all SB owners? How many of all SB owners do you think come
> to this forum?
>
> All assumptions again.
>
> But never mind. I was trying to suggest looking into this because it
> might
cliveb;347353 Wrote:
> There's another philosophical point which hasn't been raised in this
> thread:
>
> You may or may not believe that DRM is a bad thing and should be
> resisted - that is everyone's priviledge. But let's suppose for the
> sake of argument that Slim Devices are in the camp th
... A similar thing was done with AlienBBC and RealAudio streams (I
think its changed now as BBC don't use RA any more). The stream was
transcoded on the server by AlienBBC calling some libraries - I don't
know if this meant a DRM was involved or just a CODEC as I don't have
anything using RA (apa
There's another philosophical point which hasn't been raised in this
thread:
You may or may not believe that DRM is a bad thing and should be
resisted - that is everyone's priviledge. But let's suppose for the
sake of argument that Slim Devices are in the camp that is against DRM.
(I think given
funkahdafi;347319 Wrote:
>
> But never mind. I was trying to suggest looking into this because it
> might be worthwhile.
>
Fair enough. But it is no news that Songbird can playback those files,
at the technical level I believe there are several ways such files
could be played on the Squeezebo
funkahdafi;347319 Wrote:
> So you take it for a given that the users on this forum represent the
> majority of all SB owners? How many of all SB owners do you think come
> to this forum?
>
Why not? And if they are irrelevant, why are you posting here? Just
send an email to tech support then in
funkahdafi;347293 Wrote:
>
> So instead of SC calling mov123 or faad to decode a file, have it call
> quicktime. What's the big deal?
>
>
Because quicktime/iTunes is licenced only on the device on which it is
installed (remember the EULA which you, like all sane people would,
presumably just
autopilot;347317 Wrote:
> Well im not a mind reader, and if you open a public thread you invite a
> response, which sometimes wont be within the exact parameters you
> wanted. And for what it's worth, i do think it's relevant to a degree -
> the number of people wanting this would have a bearing
funkahdafi;347293 Wrote:
> First, we are not here to discuss why people buy from iTunes store, are
> we? At least this was not my intent when I opened this thread.
Well im not a mind reader, and if you open a public thread you invite a
response, which sometimes wont be within the exact paramete
funkahdafi;347293 Wrote:
> And if you can (obviously Songbird can, so I don't see why SC could not)
> decode the files using quicktime and at the same time get pass the DRM,
> great. Why not do it?
There is an additional part of SC playing Apple DRM files that Songbird
doesn't have to deal with:
First, we are not here to discuss why people buy from iTunes store, are
we? At least this was not my intent when I opened this thread. People
buy from there for a reason. It's convinient, especially if you are an
iTunes user anyway. If it's wrong or right is not the subject of this
thread, so let'
Either way, i'm not sure there much call for it. Why buy these terrible
DRM infected files anyway? They are a rip off and on DRM is on it's way
out.
--
autopilot
*Server:* SC7.2 (Windows Vista 64)
*Players:* Squeezebox 3 (main room) / Squeezebox Receiver (bedroom) /
Softsqueeze (office).
*Amps
@ModelCitizen: No need to get rude here buddy. Keep it calm.
I don't see why iTunes would have to be running on the Squeezebox
itself. As far as I understand, Songbird uses Quicktime to decode the
DRM files (which in turn have had to be played and authorized at least
once from within iTunes befor
As i said before, this would require Itunes to be installed on the
Squeezebox itself: that is never going to happen. This is because of
legal as well as technical reasons.
On a more speculative note i doubt apple would allow, or be able to
allow playback on the Squeezebox. It would be very simil
funkahdafi;347143 Wrote:
> well no matter how they do it within songbird
I though it had been suggested that it wasn't being done within
Songbird but was using Apple's Quicktime
funkahdafi;347143 Wrote:
>
> But now seeing that others are doing it, I am eager to get something
> like this going i
well no matter how they do it within songbird - they do it. and that's
what counts. I've long been annoyed by the fact that my Slim setup
can't play those files (no offense against Slim Devices, I know why
they can't). But now seeing that others are doing it, I am eager to get
something like this
funkahdafi;347087 Wrote:
> Hi,
>
> you might or might not know Songbird, the mozilla based media player,
> which has a plugin that enables it to play back AAC files protected by
> Apple's Fairplay DRM.
>
> So if others can do it - why not SqueezeCenter?
>
> Go for it!
I have never used Songbi
funkahdafi;347087 Wrote:
> Hi,
>
> you might or might not know Songbird, the mozilla based media player,
> which has a plugin that enables it to play back AAC files protected by
> Apple's Fairplay DRM.
>
> So if others can do it - why not SqueezeCenter?
>
> Go for it!
It's probably not a matt
Hi,
you might or might not know Songbird, the mozilla based media player,
which has a plugin that enables it to play back AAC files protected by
Apple's Fairplay DRM.
So if others can do it - why not SqueezeCenter?
Go for it!
--
funkahdafi
61 matches
Mail list logo
