vortigern's Profile

"What was/is the most significant Apple operating system..." Always the next one. ".....and why?" 'Cos Steve says so. :-)

"I'm not saying that people are buying tracks because of the DRM" ... "The sad fact of the matter is that without DRM in place, people will steal music rather than pay for it" That sounds awfully like you just said "people are buying music because they can't steal it due to the DRM" but "i'm not saying people are buying tracks due to the DRM" It has been repeatedly pointed out that people who want to "steal" music will do so regardless of DRM and those that want to purchase music will do so because they don't want to "steal". However the DRM only inconvinences those who purchased the tracks. I note you have made no comments re magnatune, as an artist I would have though the distribution model and % revenue might interest you? You seem to be defending the labels/distributers at the expense of both the artist and the consumer here.

Your software argument does not hold up at all. Software is not the data, infomation or whatever you want to call it, It is the means of working with that data. ITMS and DRM put limits on how data. infomation is used. I might not be explaining it very well but software is irrelevent to the argument here, the file formats used by software to exchange data are more relevent though. do you see. It is the infomation that is important this should be in an open format, what the person chooses to access it with should not matter as long as it conforms to those open standards. ITMS ties the infomation you are paying for (you are not paying for the format but the music) into a specific app/device. Your shareware argument would need to be altered to something like "once you had paid for the shareware it still was not fully functional" just to be even in the same ball park as DRM, if this was the case you might see the odd blog entry. The ITMS is still restriced EVEN AFTER you have paid for it. The fact that most music is available on P2P is taken as fact, however as I said DRM or no DRM it will still be there for those that choose to infinge to do so, DRM only affects people who actually paid for the music. Your actual statement was: "The sad fact of the matter is that without DRM in place, people will steal music rather than pay for it." It makes no sense as it stands as EVEN with DRM in place those people that are currently "stealing" music will do continue to do so. Your statement implies that due to the DRM people are now paying for music who at one time "stole" it, the fact that limewire is full of tracks does not in the slightest back this statement up, as these were likely the same people who were sharing tracks prior to DRM. If the number of tracks were to go down on limewire this would be some small evidence that DRM is stopping the infringers, at the moment though you seem to think that is not the case: "I'm sure I could log in today and download any or all of the music I've purchased on the iTMS - and none of it would have DRM attached. It's all out there - and people are gobbling it up." As I said DRM harms no one but the ligit purchasers

Well said. The only area we differ is that I will NOT buy any DRM music. Doing so encourages its use. I would not use this program either nor any of the DRM stripping programs, on the principle that I would still appear to be supporting DRM (as far as the labels can see).

Richard, I did not think you were unaware of the "perks" as much as I was making a point about you completely misreading my comments :-). I meant no offence. Anyway if you are interested this is the article I found quite interesting [url=http://news.com.com/Apple+execs+underpaid,+board+says/2100-1047_3-5618069.html]http://news.com.com/Apple+execs+underpaid,+board+says/2100-1047_3-5618069.html[/url] My point was that this article to which I am responding makes the link between SJ alturistic nature and Apple, some wonderful thing. But nobody ever makes the same link between BGs alturistic nature (I realise SB is currently CEO but that hardly counts in the context of the article) and MS. Bill Gates is often associated with the nasty, monopolistic practices of MS. When he personally may be nothing like that. Apple is associated with the pure, fluffy-white personality of SJ when, in fact, Apple (perhaps even SJ) is nothing like that. In short SJ is probably more like BG than most would like to admit, ie both are "good guys" that just happen to be far more wealthy than most of us, and whilst BG charity donations are a small % of his income (and I'm sure SJs also) they are far and away more than they have to give (ie nothing) And, by the same token Apple is more like MS than we would care to like or think, if it has an oppertunity of a Monopoly it will take advantage of it, its main concern is to make money, not to improve peoples lives. Just look at ITMS and Ipod... Just one more link: [url=http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/]http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/[/url] read the comments to see how many people are unhappy with the current Apple status, even on a Mac fansite. Of course the "excuses" for Apple not being able to sell ITMS for anything other than Apple products hold no water when everyone knows that there is a Moto phone about to be released.

"It was revealed yesterday that one dollar was the amount Steve Jobs was paid last year by Apple. One buck." No bonuses or share options this year?

"Dude, it's context. You stated the above. The context is "encode". So, the response was about encoding your music." As I have said I found no options for encoding my music at the ITMS, it seems to offer one option only.

"While the RIAA may care whether or not you use a copyrighted song in your home movie" "Wow. The ignorance of some people still astounds me." Please, come on. There is no need for the personal attacks. You have no license to use ITMS tracks and redistribute them in non commercial movies or slideshows. You even state as much yourself "While the RIAA may care .." Please point out my ignorance: Here are some quotes from apple legal: "You shall be authorised to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use, and not for redistribution, transfer, assignment or sublicence, to the extent permitted by law. For details of your rights and restrictions on your right to use the Products, see:" " You shall be authorised to use the Product on up to five Apple authorised devices. You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use. Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product. You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of these Usage Rules, or interfere with, remove or alter any rights management information on the Products. The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product. " Thats is from here: [url=http://www.apple.com/uk/support/itunes/legal/policies.html]http://www.apple.com/uk/support/itunes/legal/policies.html[/url] Sure does not sound like you can give copies away to family to me (as I origionaly stated, and you called me ignorant and a troll. I am quite upset by this BTW.) If you could legally redistribute itunes tracks in this fashion, the P2P networks would be full of 1 or 2 picture slideshows with iITMS purchased tracks and the RIAA would be able to do nothing about it. I stand by my point you cannot (legally) redistribute ITMS purchased tracks in a non commertial movie (or slideshow), whereas you can from Magnatune. This is a bit of a side issue anyway, its not really a negative of ITMS as you can't do it with a CD either. I was pointing it out as an advantage of magnatunes, and I think rather than accepting the T&C of ITMS, or WMA DRM type stores or even a CD, we as consumers should be pushing for more rights, not accepting, meekly, less. I know I wsaid I was done with this topic but that personal attack needed a response.