Page 1 of 2
Apple's Fairlplay code cracked
Posted: October 25, 2006, 1:30 am
by Winnow
Good news for you iPodders. Maybe soon you won't be stuck having to use iTunes from greedy Apple.
Hacker unlocks Apple music download protection
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A hacker who as a teen cracked the encryption on DVDs has found a way to unlock the code that prevents iPod users from playing songs from download music stores other than Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes, his company said on Tuesday.
Jon Lech Johansen, a 22-year-old Norway native who lives in San Francisco, cracked Apple's FairPlay copy-protection technology, said Monique Farantzos, managing director at DoubleTwist, the company that plans to license the code to businesses.
"What he did was basically reverse-engineer FairPlay," she said. "This allows other companies to offer content for the iPod."
At the moment, Apple aims to keep music bought from its iTunes online music store only available for Apple products, while songs bought from other online stores typically do not work on iPods.
But Johansen's technology could help rivals sell competing products that play music from iTunes and offer songs for download that work on iPods as they seek to take a bite out of Apple's dominance of digital music.
ITunes commands an 88 percent share of legal song downloads in the United States, while the iPod dominates digital music player sales with more than 60 percent of the market.
Cupertino, California-based Apple, whose profits have soared in recent years on the strength of the iPod, declined to comment.
Johansen, known as DVD Jon, gained fame when at the age of 15 he wrote and distributed a program that cracked the encryption codes on DVDs. This allowed DVDs to be copied and played back on any device.
His latest feat could help companies such as Microsoft Corp.,
Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., which have all announced plans over the past few months for music download services combined with new devices to challenge Apple.
Posted: October 25, 2006, 3:35 am
by Zaelath
I don't get it, I got a shuffle free.. and I don't have any Apple/iTunes mp3s on it and they all play fine. What's the big deal exactly?
Posted: October 25, 2006, 7:29 am
by Animalor
With this, people could play songs purchased on the iTunes service on any machines, not just iPods.
If you don't buy music online but just rip your CD's or download your music,, then it's a non-issue for you.
Posted: October 25, 2006, 9:21 am
by Kelshara
The music industry just doesn't get it. The only way to even have a slight chance in hell of fighting downloads (which will never go away completely ever) is to have a reasonably priced download service which allows the buyer to use the file as he wants. It is none of their business if I put the file on a CD to play in my car, use it on my portable MP3 player or run it on my entertainment center in the living room. Idiots.
That said, considering Norway sued the shit out of Apple because what they do is illegal there I don't see how Jon can be taken to court. I am sure even though their company is US based they have that part of it covered.
Posted: October 25, 2006, 11:37 am
by miir
I actually like Itunes.
The only other place I download music from is Beatport and I have no issues playing them on my ipod. And MP3s that I ripped from my CDs also have no problems with my ipod.
With this, people could play songs purchased on the iTunes service on any machines, not just iPods.
You could always just burn them on to an Audio CD then rip them back into itunes or WMP etc as MP3s and play them wherever you want. There's a small degradation in sound quality but that's not really an issue as anyone claiming to be an audiophile won't be buying their music online anyway.
The only way to even have a slight chance in hell of fighting downloads (which will never go away completely ever) is to have a reasonably priced download service which allows the buyer to use the file as he wants.
The copy protection scheme used by apple/itunes is not particularly intrusive. It's far better than some of the shit they have been using on CDs.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 1:18 pm
by Kriista
Just like anything else, ipods have alternate OSs that will run/play any files
ive even seen a video of a video clip playing off of a nano
http://www.rockbox.org/
i was looking into this stuff briefly to see if it would be worth while running on my nano to play files not supported by the ipod (i had just gotten into oink at the time, and OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of the shit on there is compressed in lossless formats)
looking at the page i cant find the screenshots of all the diff OSs, but theres tons, and tons of plugins (i saw a doom plugin that you can play doom on your ipod with)
i know this is more about songs purchased from itunes, but this is semi relevant
and i agree about the DLing shit,
until itunes(or any other big player) has a bigger selection of music, and offers song downloads for 25c a pop, AND unlimited burns/computers, then theyll have something
at that cost theyll still be raking in profit, $1 a song is fucking insane, to get a shittier version of what you can walk into the store and buy
Posted: October 26, 2006, 2:34 pm
by miir
until itunes(or any other big player) has a bigger selection of music, and offers song downloads for 25c a pop, AND unlimited burns/computers, then theyll have something
What the fuck?
Itunes already has a very impressive selection. Comparable or better than any other retail (online or other) store.
You really think that music is so fucking worthless that you should be able to download it for a quarter per song? Do you think going to the movies should cost 99 cents as well?
For fuck sakes, online transaction fees can cost upwards to 25 cents. The credit card companies have to cover their expenses...
And what about the record companies who publish the music? They certainly arent in the business of charity. They have advertising, production, signing bonuses and loads of other costs involved in getting music out to the consumers.
Out of the 99 cents Itunes charges per track, roughly 65-70% goes back to the record companies.
And what about the artists?
Yeah fuck them for wanting to get paid for their music. They should just provide it for free beacuse people are too fucking cheap to pay for it.... yeah 99 cents per song is too fucking much so they will just steal it instead. Then use fucked up logic saying that itunes will only be successful when they start giving away music for a quarter a song.
at that cost theyll still be raking in profit, $1 a song is fucking insane
Yeah and you know exactly jack fucking shit about where the money goes in the music industry. You can't just place an arbitrary value on something that you obviously know nothing about.
to get a shittier version of what you can walk into the store and buy
Last time I checked, CDs are selling for $10-20.. depending on if it's a popular title, back catalogue, an obscure artist, etc.
Itunes offers complete albums for $10 or less. I think I may have seen one for $12.... but those are few and far between.... but most people won't buy an entire album. They will just purchase the tracks they like on the album. So they end up spending $4-5. It's a win for everyone involved.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 3:00 pm
by Kriista
dont know what kind of music you listen to, but although itunes may have one of the biggest(the biggest?) it is still skinny in OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of non mainstream genres
being a musician myself i dont think music is worthless, far from
i did a quick google but couldnt find the article, but theres lots of info out there, on how at 25c a song you can still make OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of money,
you compared it to a cd in the store, that costs money to produce, replicate, design, ship, etc..., NONE of that is applicable in the mp3, and even more so, it costs nothing to duplicate the mp3, so in that argument alone, the 25c thing seems more than fair
and about all the overhead, and publishing companies etc..,
that whole music business is bloated as fuck, so i suppose my argument extends beyond what itunes can or cannot do
and if they get raped on CC charges, theyre in a position to come up with an alternative, or use market share to muscle a better deal, i feel no sympathy in that department
the amount of money an artist, since this is who your concerned about no?, makes from a cd sale is pathetic, the cost is all artifically inflated business practice that is costing them dearly for their greed (with the p2p sharing stuff)
the 25c i picked isnt arbitrary, its from an article i read, but considering the value of an mp3 vs a cd, the 2 arent even comparable,
a physical object you can give away, resell, rip, burn, shit on, flip through album art, listen to it in a lossless format, in your car, your house, your boat, your stereo, your pc etc...
the value of an mp3 vs the cd is hardly worth 1/4 of what the cd is worth because all of the snags with it
and yes, cds are selling 10-20 a pop, and thats why people are hardly buying cds anymore
back when cd technology was introduced it cost more than tapes/vinyl but it was only supposed to be a temporary thing, as making cds costs a fraction of what making tape/vinyl costs, however, when the music industry noticed that people didnt seem to mind paying for the hugely inflated profit to cover the buffering of a brand new medium, the simply didnt bring the prices back down
(this i learned from sound engineering classes many years ago)
compare what a tape costs(if you can find one) to what the same album costs on cd, then consider the physical cost involved, but hey those record execs gotta eat too eh?
the last 15-20 cds ive bought have been from artists at shows, or through webpages, or a few rare occurances of buying a cd at bestbuy of an artist i saw live and enjoyed
and since you suggested it, 99c a movie seems like a reasonable # too
when you see prices like that, youll see the recording industry(and movie one) thrive again, and downloading of music/movies will slow down significantly
Posted: October 26, 2006, 3:23 pm
by miir
you compared it to a cd in the store, that costs money to produce, replicate, design, ship, etc...,
The produciton cost of a music CD including printing, stamping, jewel case, booklet etc... is rougly 70 cents.
so in that argument alone, the 25c thing seems more than fair
So you think that beacause Itunes is saving 70 cents on the production cost of a CD that they should drop their prices by 75%?
the 25c i picked isnt arbitrary, its from an article i read, but considering the value of an mp3 vs a cd, the 2 arent even comparable,
a physical object you can give away, resell, rip, burn, shit on, flip through album art, listen to it in a lossless format, in your car, your house, your boat, your stereo, your pc etc...
the value of an mp3 vs the cd is hardly worth 1/4 of what the cd is worth because all of the snags with it
Nothing is preventing you from burning your ITunes purchased music onto a 15 cent CD. So the advantages of going to a store and purchasing a CD are moot.
And don't give me the horeshit about sub-par sound quality on MP3s... if anyone cares enough about sound quality, they aren't going to buy their music from itunes.
I won't even bother addressing your other points because you could use that peabrained
logic on every single consumer product.
Consumers have spoken with their wallet and they obivously have no issues paying $1 a song. Itunes has been an unqualified success and has contributed greatly in moving the music industry foward.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 3:24 pm
by miir
the 25c i picked isnt arbitrary, its from an article i read
Whoever wrote that article is a fucking idiot who knows nothing about online retailing.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 3:37 pm
by Kriista
"Nothing is preventing you from burning your ITunes purchased music onto a 15 cent CD. So the advantages of going to a store and purchasing a CD are moot. "
this would be a valid argument if you could play it on any number of computers(the mp3 file) and burn any numbers of cds (which you cannot)
"Consumers have spoken with their wallet and they obivously have no issues paying $1 a song. Itunes has been an unqualified success and has contributed greatly in moving the music industry foward."
with illegal download of music at an alltime high, and record companies recording record losses, and the RIAA trying sue up a storm....
the consumers are speaking, and until the song download prices drop, itunes and the like will still a free media managment program on most peoples computers
Posted: October 26, 2006, 3:45 pm
by miir
this would be a valid argument if you could play it on any number of computers(the mp3 file) and burn any numbers of cds (which you cannot)
You can, idiot.
with illegal download of music at an alltime high, and record companies recording record losses, and the RIAA trying sue up a storm....
And where do you have any actual
proof that music theft is at an all time high?
the consumers are speaking, and until the song download prices drop, itunes and the like will still a free media managment program on most peoples computers
Do you really think the cheap fuckers like Winnow who steal all their music will all of a sudden start paying for it fi they dropped the price to 25 cents a song?
Give music thiefs the option of stealing their music or downloading it for 25 cents... there's no fucking way any thief will pay for something they can steal.
Legitimate consumers have no issue with paying $1 to download a song, or $10 to download an album. ITunes will never start catering to criminals and thieves.
Do you see car manufacturers dropping the price of cars in hopes that car thieves will start buying them instead of stealing them?
Do yourself a favor and get a fucking clue.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 4:05 pm
by Kriista
from the itunes help:
If your playlist includes songs that were purchased from the iTunes Store (iTunes 4 only), you can only burn 7 copies of the same playlist to an audio CD. If you can't burn a CD that contains purchased songs, make sure you haven't tried to burn the same playlist 7 times. Additionally, if the song has not been authorized to play on the computer, it will not burn.
and heres an article on how you cant just reorganize the tracks and reburn etc..:
http://playlistmag.com/weblogs/ipodblog ... /index.php
and you can only have 5 computers authorized, again from the itunes help file:
You can authorize up to five computers (Macintosh, Windows, or both) at a time. To play a purchased item on a sixth computer, you need to deauthorize another one. (Authorization helps protect the copyrights of the purchased items.) An iPod doesn't count as a computer.
(do you have itunes?)
and you know what, those numbers used to be lower, if im not mistaken it was 4 burns, and 3 computers, but guess who bitched about it and got it changes...... the consumers
it comes down to the consumer and what they think is valuable
i do not think restricted mp3s at $1 a pop are worth that much, OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people agree, well see what comes of it
the car thief example is invalid as the nature of pirating duplicates, and does not 'steal' as in your example, winnow (or whoever) downloading a song does not mean thats 1 less song that company can sell
also, i dont know what you seem to be so pissed about, perhaps you care more about the nature of possible future of digital media than i do, but my tone has been more than civil with you
Posted: October 26, 2006, 4:34 pm
by miir
from the itunes help:
If your playlist includes songs that were purchased from the iTunes Store (iTunes 4 only), you can only burn 7 copies of the same playlist to an audio CD. If you can't burn a CD that contains purchased songs, make sure you haven't tried to burn the same playlist 7 times. Additionally, if the song has not been authorized to play on the computer, it will not burn.
and heres an article on how you cant just reorganize the tracks and reburn etc..:
http://playlistmag.com/weblogs/ipodblog ... /index.php
and you can only have 5 computers authorized, again from the itunes help file:
You can authorize up to five computers (Macintosh, Windows, or both) at a time. To play a purchased item on a sixth computer, you need to deauthorize another one. (Authorization helps protect the copyrights of the purchased items.) An iPod doesn't count as a computer.
Anyone with half a brain can figure out how to make unlimited copies of songs downloaded from itunes.
i do not think restricted mp3s at $1 a pop are worth that much, a lot of people agree, well see what comes of it
The fact is that people have downloaded over 1.5 BILLION songs from ITunes, I'll hazard a guess that a lot of people would actually disagree with your assertion.
the car thief example is invalid as the nature of pirating duplicates, and does not 'steal' as in your example, winnow (or whoever) downloading a song does not mean thats 1 less song that company can sell
Maybe video game publishers should drop game prices down to $10 to help combat piracy?
Theft is theft.
Any attempt to rationalise music theft only makes you look like an idiot.
also, i dont know what you seem to be so pissed about, perhaps you care more about the nature of possible future of digital media than i do, but my tone has been more than civil with you
This is VV....When you post moronic shit, you're gonna get called out and flamed.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 4:40 pm
by Sargeras
miir wrote:This is VV....When you post moronic shit, you're gonna get called out and flamed.
Miir speaks from first-hand experience on this subject, and by subject I mean the posting moronic shit and taking the flames up his emo-sandy vagina.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 4:45 pm
by Kriista
"Anyone with half a brain can figure out how to make unlimited copies of songs downloaded from itunes. "
what, illegaly?, circumventing the DRM, the artists rights, and itunes', according to your posts, well earned money?
"Theft is theft. "
im not rationalizing stealing anything, im saying itunes and the like are a good start, but the price point isnt quite there all things considered
and yeah i know its VV, but i figured 2 people who could have a discussion about digital media without it turning into an insult match
and yes, if video games started costing $10 theyd make out like bandits
just look at walmart, sell shit cheaper, revamp business model a bit, rake in big bucks
Posted: October 26, 2006, 5:30 pm
by miir
what, illegaly?, circumventing the DRM, the artists rights, and itunes', according to your posts, well earned money?
Making personal copies of legally purchased music is not illegal.
the price point isnt quite there all things considered
How do you propose they lower the price?
Will some bandwidth provider or host take pity on Apple and give them a free pipe and free hosting?
Will credit card companies waive their transaction fees?
What about the people employed by Apple to maintain the Itunes store and the respective databases? Are they going to work for free?
And forget about advertising. They would have to forego any and all types of advertising... because everyone knows that advertising isn't free.
So now that we've wiped out all the operating costs for Itunes, we're still left with the 70-80 cents the record companies are charging per song.
Perhaps Apple can take the hit for those 50 cents... losing 50 cents per song after getting rid of your operating costs doesn't sound too bad.
Or maybe we can get the record companies to drop their prices 70%. After all they don't really need all that money. It's not like they are paying or promoting their artists.
Seriously, are you really so ignorant that you have no idea of the operating costs involved in online retailing that you can throw out a number like 25 cents and think that it's actually reasonable?
If a music company could realistically charge a retailer (any retailer), less than 25 cents per song tell me oh wise one, why I can't walk into a brick and mortar record shop and buy a CD for 4 dollars? Because after all, the production of that physical CD only costs around 70 cents, and the value of the music (according to you) is only around $2.50. Add in another 30 cents for shipping and stocking and there's your $4. Fuck the retailiers and warehouses because in your fantasy example, online retailers like Itunes would get fucked as well.
So why aren't CDs selling for $4?
and yes, if video games started costing $10 theyd make out like bandits
I'm having a hard time believing that you are really this stupid.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 5:31 pm
by miir
Sargeras wrote:miir wrote:This is VV....When you post moronic shit, you're gonna get called out and flamed.
Miir speaks from first-hand experience on this subject, and by subject I mean the posting moronic shit and taking the flames up his emo-sandy vagina.
I can dish it out and I can take it.
Unlike some people who pussy out and put people on ignore.

Posted: October 26, 2006, 6:04 pm
by Funkmasterr
miir wrote:Sargeras wrote:miir wrote:This is VV....When you post moronic shit, you're gonna get called out and flamed.
Miir speaks from first-hand experience on this subject, and by subject I mean the posting moronic shit and taking the flames up his emo-sandy vagina.
I can dish it out and I can take it.
Unlike some people who pussy out and put people on ignore.

Miir, I have disagreed with you on every other music/movie theft discussion you have ever started frothing at the mouth about, and this one is no exception.
Retailers make NOTHING off of cd's. I think I remember from when I worked at circuit city that the mark up on a cd was like .25 so all of that profit is going to the front end (production, the "artist", etc).
Especially with the quality of music nowadays, there is no argument anyone in this entire world can present to me that would convince me a cd is worth more than 4-5 dollars. I can also assure you that if cd prices got down where they should be, I would have no problem purchasing instead of downloading music.
Don't even get me started on DRM and all of that other shit, it is criminal. And its funny that winnow is on such a tirade about how good the Zune or whatever is going to be considering that songs you receive from other people's zune, or even stuff you put on there yourself will automatically have DRM added to it which is fucking criminal to do to something that YOU OWN. You should be able to do with it whatever you want. So basically music that you overpay for and send to a friend on these stupid little mp3 players is going to be void after a set period of time because of that shit.
Musical "Artists" and their record labels/distributors, etc make way too much money, just like sports players - and I'm not going to contribute.
But then again Miir, you know everything about everything. You can generalize people that pirate media and you know exactly what they would and wouldn't do in any given situation, so why should I bother?
Posted: October 26, 2006, 6:11 pm
by Kriista
"Making personal copies of legally purchased music is not illegal. "
it is according to the RIAA and the DRM you agree to in downloading songs from itunes
your allowed only 7 playlist burns then your DRM expires for burning and thats that, from that point on, youd be 'stealing' from the artists/itunes/riaa
i agree its idiotic, but fair use is a diffirent argument alltogether
"How do you propose they lower the price?
Will some bandwidth provider or host take pity on Apple and give them a free pipe and free hosting?
Will credit card companies waive their transaction fees?
What about the people employed by Apple to maintain the Itunes store and the respective databases? Are they going to work for free?
And forget about advertising. They would have to forego any and all types of advertising... because everyone knows that advertising isn't free. "
now i conceeded in one of my first posts that my gripe was more at the recording industry, and not itunes specifically
if they wanted to do it, they have enough market share to make some noise with the riaa, and get a step toward revamping the whole market, but thats a risky move to make
how much money do you think goes to an artist from a $14 cd sale?
http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html
a good friend of mine has sold over 20k albums, and hasnt ever recieved a cent from it
so your right, itunes cant do this (25c)
BUT, in not purchasing music, or nor using itunes, or going to see live music etc.. your supporting a change in the business of music
if it is no longer profitable to fuck artists and consumers with every cd made, it will no longer be done
to go off on a tangent, i think you bring up an interesting point in 10$ game, 99c movies etc..
i think marketing saturation is reaching an alltime high, a breaking point, i think
i stopped going to the movies because of the commercials a few years ago
i dont own a tv for the same reason, i know OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people in my position
theres only so much bullshit people can take before they can smell what it is
mtv still has a powerful bullshitathon going, but most reasonably intelligent people know its all crap and marketing
i think, and hope, that people will stop going to see the same repackaged shitty movies over and over again, and stop buying the same records etc..
actos/musicians are already overly involved in commercials(imo),how long before the recording companies start getting smart as to how much people will take and music will merge with advertisment, and every song will sound like that little kim or whatever the fuck her name was, that has the lyrics were composed of nothing but brand names
/tangent off
so, i think the best thing itunes and the riaa etc.. can keep doing, is what theyre doing
and hopefully well all enjoy an artist driven market in the not so distant future
Posted: October 26, 2006, 6:15 pm
by miir
Retailers make NOTHING off of cd's. I think I remember from when I worked at circuit city that the mark up on a cd was like .25 so all of that profit is going to the front end (production, the "artist", etc).
Music retailers actually take a loss on a lot of their product.
I doubt that record companies will ever make a significant drop in their prices (digital or physical) to retailers. Not by 30% or a ridiculous 85-90%... which would be required if retailers like Itunes were to offer songs as 25 cent downloads.
But then again Miir, you know everything about everything.
At least I take the time and do a bit of research on topics I'm discussing... unlike some people.
You can generalize people that pirate media and you know exactly what they would and wouldn't do in any given situation, so why should I bother?
The mindset of a thief is pretty easy to figure out.
Don't even get me started on DRM and all of that other shit
As for DRM, I'm undecided on that issue. I think some sort of security is necessary and if it's not too intrusive, I don't see much of a problem.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 6:49 pm
by Kriista
"As for DRM, I'm undecided on that issue. I think some sort of security is necessary and if it's not too intrusive, I don't see much of a problem."
You just mentioned not a few posts up how you circumvent it, or condone its circumvention in its fairly light itunes incarnation by burning unlimited cds
i thought theft was theft,
its not up to you to decide what is or isnt stealing, its the owner of the media right?
based on your statements and arguments here, your no different from any old person dling music illegaly
i was part of a class action suit againts sony/bmg for the rootkit fiasco last year
i wouldnt even bother arguing against DRM as its nothing but a shot in the foot, and an illegal one to boot
heres some light reading on the nature of copyrights and new technology:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
http://www.plunderphonics.com/
(click on the letter P in this one, apparantly i cant link directly to the article)
http://negativland.com/changing_copyright.html
Posted: October 26, 2006, 7:13 pm
by miir
You just mentioned not a few posts up how you circumvent it, or condone its circumvention in its fairly light itunes incarnation by burning unlimited cds
i thought theft was theft,
its not up to you to decide what is or isnt stealing, its the owner of the media right?
based on your statements and arguments here, your no different from any old person dling music illegaly
I have yet to find a reason to make more than 7 copies of my music, so I haven't had any need to circumvent the DRM. Therefore I don't find it intrusive. Also, the vast majority of my music was purchased on compact disc.
If you make copies of legally purchased music for personal use, there is no court in any country that would find you guilty of theft.
If you were to redistribute those copies (for profit or for free), that's a whole different story.
You know it's kinda like how MLB requires
express written consent to rebroadcast thier games
in whole or in part... that's not to nail the guy who tapes the game to watch it later....
Funkmesterr wrote:I think I remember from when I worked at circuit city that the mark up on a cd was like .25 so all of that profit is going to the front end (production, the "artist", etc).
I think working at circuit city must have made you stupid.
Like how wireless routers are so much more expensive than non-wireless.
The markup you saw on the CDs at Circuit City was not the markup from the record companies. It's the markup from their warehouse.
A lot of music retailers used to (and probably still do) have warehouses as separate entities from their retail stores. The majority of the profit is made by the warehouse and the retail outlets would have a miniscule profit margin.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 7:26 pm
by Funkmasterr
You obviously were too excited to flame me to really read or pay attention to what I said. I said the markup was about .25 cents, as in if we rang up a cd with our employee discount (which was cost at the time) it would knock the tax off.
Posted: October 26, 2006, 8:04 pm
by Kriista
"I have yet to find a reason to make more than 7 copies of my music, so I haven't had any need to circumvent the DRM. Therefore I don't find it intrusive. Also, the vast majority of my music was purchased on compact disc. "
so if you do lose or break your 7 copies, will you rebuy the mp3?
or if you lose your cd, will you use your backup?
will you copy an old LP to cd as backup?, or download an mp3 illegaly of a tape or lp you already own?, or once owned?
all of those are on a slippery slope legally
just answer the first question, since every idiot knows how to circumvent the artists rights, if you were in a position where that was the case, would you voilate their rights too?
"If you make copies of legally purchased music for personal use, there is no court in any country that would find you guilty of theft. "
no dice, thats not for you to decide here
the riaa got their panties in a bunch over being able to copy music to ipods a while back
if you download a song from itunes, and use it on your 6 computers, youve broken the law, now wether or not anyone will come after you for it, thats a different story, but theft isnt measure by whats worth taking to court
and what if the ability to do so is removed as part of the product (ala drm)
one of controls in drm is to make a file or cd timeout, so after sometime, after the copyright has actually legally disappeared, you cannot play the cd/file anymore
the opposite of a copyright expiring
Posted: October 27, 2006, 1:09 pm
by Sargeras
miir wrote:Sargeras wrote:miir wrote:This is VV....When you post moronic shit, you're gonna get called out and flamed.
Miir speaks from first-hand experience on this subject, and by subject I mean the posting moronic shit and taking the flames up his emo-sandy vagina.
I can dish it out and I can take it.
Unlike some people who pussy out and put people on ignore.

Because it is so hard to click the linked "You have choosen to ignore this user" to see how many pixels you wasted typing what comes out of that sapping excuse of a brain. I tend to ignore the retarded, emo, and sandy vaginas, but I made the exception in this case because you do your usual shit, which is resorting to flames and insults because someone can actually beat you with logic.
miir wrote:How could this happen to me
I've made my mistakes
Got nowhere to run
The night goes on as I’m fading away
I'm sick of this life
I just wanna scream
How could this happen to me
Fixed.
miir wrote:If you make copies of legally purchased music for personal use, there is no court in any country that would find you guilty of theft.
ORLY?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html
Granted, it's not law yet, but they'll still go after your ass.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:04 pm
by miir
Grats you for linking a 8 month old op-ed about the RIAA grasping at straws.
Go back to your little WOW fanboy forums and let us grown ups discuss grown up things.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:14 pm
by Funkmasterr
Miir, there are like 3 other people on these forums that come close to agreeing with you on this issue (or at least that are outspoken about it). Take it from me, it's time to just give up because you're never going to get anywhere.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:17 pm
by miir
Funkmasterr wrote:Miir, there are like 3 other people on these forums that come close to agreeing with you on this issue (or at least that are outspoken about it). Take it from me, it's time to just give up because you're never going to get anywhere.
Noooo.. .the point is that I really enjoy arguing with you guys.
That's my main reason for posting on VV.
What fun would it be if we all got along and agreed about everything?
Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:24 pm
by Funkmasterr
miir wrote:Funkmasterr wrote:Miir, there are like 3 other people on these forums that come close to agreeing with you on this issue (or at least that are outspoken about it). Take it from me, it's time to just give up because you're never going to get anywhere.
Noooo.. .the point is that I really enjoy arguing with you guys.
That's my main reason for posting on VV.
What fun would it be if we all got along and agreed about everything?
Really? I didn't notice

Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:36 pm
by Aslanna
miir wrote:Go back to your little WOW fanboy forums and let us grown ups discuss grown up things.
Yeah. You're sure 'discussing' things here. And throwing the whole 'This is VV if you can't take it too bad' spiel is a bit retarded as well.
miir wrote:At least I take the time and do a bit of research on topics I'm discussing... unlike some people.
Really. You're sure quick to dismiss everything anybody else refrences while providing none yourself. All I've seen is you parading opinions off as facts with nothing to back up you arguments.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:56 pm
by Boogahz
Nothing new there...How does it work again? YOU give ME the numbers showing that what I said is true!
Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:57 pm
by miir
You're sure quick to dismiss everything anybody else refrences while providing none yourself. All I've seen is you parading opinions off as facts with nothing to back up you arguments
Record companies charging services like itunes on average 75 cents is not opinion.
Credit card transaction fees costing upwards to 25 cents is not opinion.
Itunes success (1.5 billion songs sold) is not opinion.
I'm actually the one spewing out pretty much all of the facts in this discussion.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 2:59 pm
by Boogahz
Facts from where? When I was looking into credit card services for a website, many were percentage-based. There were some that also had minimum amounts charged. None of them were 25% of the purchase price.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 3:03 pm
by Sargeras
miir wrote:Grats you for linking a 8 month old op-ed about the RIAA grasping at straws.
Go back to your little WOW fanboy forums and let us grown ups discuss grown up things.
8 months old, but still holds true to today!
Grown ups things? Resorting to name calling and belligerence when getting owned by someone else's logic is "discuss(ing) grown up things"?
That's a lot of return spaces between those two sentences. Maybe Funky is right and you're getting excited over this. Is this the only attention you get all day?
miir wrote:I'm actually the one spewing out pretty much all of the facts in this discussion.
You're spewing out something alright, far from facts and full of shit.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 3:04 pm
by miir
until itunes(or any other big player) has a bigger selection of music, and offers song downloads for 25c a pop, AND unlimited burns/computers, then theyll have something
Opinion.
at that cost theyll still be raking in profit, $1 a song is fucking insane
Delusional opinion.
did a quick google but couldnt find the article, but theres lots of info out there, on how at 25c a song you can still make OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of money,
In other words: I looked for something on the internet to back up my opinion but I couldn't find anything but I'm sure there might be something out there... maybe... just look for yourself.
you compared it to a cd in the store, that costs money to produce, replicate, design, ship, etc...,NONE of that is applicable in the mp3, and even more so, it costs nothing to duplicate the mp3, so in that argument alone, the 25c thing seems more than fair
Fact : it costs 70 cents to manufacture a CD including booklet and jewel case.
and about all the overhead, and publishing companies etc..,
that whole music business is bloated as fuck
More opinion
the consumers are speaking, and until the song download prices drop, itunes and the like will still a free media managment program on most peoples computers
More delusional opinion.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 3:12 pm
by miir
Boogahz wrote:Facts from where? When I was looking into credit card services for a website, many were percentage-based. There were some that also had minimum amounts charged. None of them were 25% of the purchase price.
It's not that difficult to figure out that credit cards are not practical for microtransactions.
Just do a google for itunes and transaction fees.. you'll find hundreds of articles on the topic.
Why do you think Apple is aggressively exploring alternative methods of payment for itunes?
Posted: October 27, 2006, 3:36 pm
by Kriista
i never claimed anything i said was anything other than opinion
my initial statement was that i thought that itunes wasnt a worthwhile service, and offered a pricepoint that i thought it would be
as far as facts go, who posted how you dont understand how the itunes DRM works, or rather, how you would steal just like everyone else when it comes down to it
(circumvention of rights is theft)
and even if you want to backtrack it now and say that you would actual never do that, your statements here show otherwise
theres nothing wrong with thinking the current business model is fucked, and boycotting until something changes
its OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of opinion, but my opinion is attatched to my dollar, and my dollar is worth OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS
did you read any of the articles i linked?
itunes pricing aside, the music business and all digital media business are at an important crossroads with technology
i think (this is an opinion), that they will keep suing people and overcharging music, and implode
i also think this is a good thing
i also hope that in its place(or being the one that helps nail the coffin shut)someone (probably not itunes) shakes things up and embraces new technology (ie 25c mp3s, 99c movies etc..)
i too enjoy a lively discussion, this is why im not flaming anyone
when you disagree with people that you know in person do just start calling them names too?
Posted: October 27, 2006, 3:37 pm
by Funkmasterr
miir wrote:Boogahz wrote:Facts from where? When I was looking into credit card services for a website, many were percentage-based. There were some that also had minimum amounts charged. None of them were 25% of the purchase price.
It's not that difficult to figure out that credit cards are not practical for microtransactions.
Just do a google for itunes and transaction fees.. you'll find hundreds of articles on the topic.
Why do you think Apple is aggressively exploring alternative methods of payment for itunes?
I like it when stores complain about cc transaction fees. I had a manager at a grocery store complaining in front of me and my girlfriend about how much it cost him every time someone paid with a card.
I don't carry cash, I don't own checks.. I couldn't come any further from giving a shit about the profit margin at the places im shopping or how much money they are losing on running my card. There are a lot of little corner stores downtown here that charge you like 35 cents for a cc transaction, or won't let you pay with a card unless it's over a certain amount - this should be illegal (and I will turn around and walk back out of any place like this). Either you accept the card and take it up the ass on the charges, or you don't accept cards.
Would you rather accept checks and have to deal with people writing bad checks? I know that companies lost a lot more money there.
The resolution for this issue is for the credit card companies to realize they are making a killing anyhow without nickel and diming the living fuck out of people on transaction fees.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 3:40 pm
by Funkmasterr
Kriista wrote:i never claimed anything i said was anything other than opinion
my initial statement was that i thought that itunes wasnt a worthwhile service, and offered a pricepoint that i thought it would be
as far as facts go, who posted how you dont understand how the itunes DRM works, or rather, how you would steal just like everyone else when it comes down to it
(circumvention of rights is theft)
and even if you want to backtrack it now and say that you would actual never do that, your statements here show otherwise
theres nothing wrong with thinking the current business model is fucked, and boycotting until something changes
its OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of opinion, but my opinion is attatched to my dollar, and my dollar is worth OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS
did you read any of the articles i linked?
itunes pricing aside, the music business and all digital media business are at an important crossroads with technology
i think (this is an opinion), that they will keep suing people and overcharging music, and implode
i also think this is a good thing
i also hope that in its place(or being the one that helps nail the coffin shut)someone (probably not itunes) shakes things up and embraces new technology (ie 25c mp3s, 99c movies etc..)
i too enjoy a lively discussion, this is why im not flaming anyone
when you disagree with people that you know in person do just start calling them names too?
Have you not noticed a trend in a lot of the consistent posters here? They all do that almost immediately.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 3:50 pm
by Boogahz
miir wrote:Boogahz wrote:Facts from where? When I was looking into credit card services for a website, many were percentage-based. There were some that also had minimum amounts charged. None of them were 25% of the purchase price.
It's not that difficult to figure out that credit cards are not practical for microtransactions.
Just do a google for itunes and transaction fees.. you'll find hundreds of articles on the topic.
Why do you think Apple is aggressively exploring alternative methods of payment for itunes?
Here you go:
Interestingly, Apple's average sale amount would be $2 million divided by 1,100,000 or about $1.82 with the distribution being totally bi-modal around $10 and $1. That's except for one other factor: Apple's Music Store fine print says purchases may aggregated within a 24-hour period so that they're posted to your credit card account as a total for the period, not as individual song purchases. This technique helps drive the actual average ticket amount much higher. For example, in my personal case, I bought one track on Monday for $0.99 and 5 tracks on Friday for $4.95 for an average of $2.97.
So, what starts out looking like a micropayments transaction at 99 cents per track, actually beefs itself up because of this smart daily aggregation of purchases. As a result, the fees Apple pays for its Music Store credit card processing are actually a much smaller percentage of the sale amount that it might at first appear.
Most credit card merchants pay their merchant acquiring bank a combination of a per transaction fee plus a percentage of the purchase amount. As an example, let's say Apple's merchant agreement for bankcard acceptance is priced at 2.2% plus 15 cents per transaction. On a 99-cent purchase, those fees would total 17.2 cents or 17.4% of the purchase amount. On my 5-track day, my $4.95 aggregated purchase cost Apple 26 cents or 5.3% of the purchase amount.
This aggregation of purchases is not a new thing for them. The
quote above is over three years old. So, your comments regarding 25 cents out of every 99 cent download is only close to being correct if each transaction is processed alone and if the contracts with the credit card merchants was fairly standard.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 4:18 pm
by miir
, your comments regarding 25 cents out of every 99 cent download is only close to being correct if each transaction is processed alone and if the contracts with the credit card merchants was fairly standard.
That's why I said
upwards to 25 cents... As in the maxiumum transaction fee for a single song purchase will be up somewhere close to 25 cents.
The transaction fee on single song downloads are obviously going to represent a much higher prercentage of the total cost when compared to dowloading/purchasing an entire album.
when you disagree with people that you know in person do just start calling them names too?
Of course not. Flaming, insults and name calling is one of the cornerstones of Veeshan Vault.
I don't take any of what is said here personally and I'd hope that you or anyone else would treat what I say the same way. I've had some pretty colourful discussions/arguments with people like Midnyte, Kilmoll, Winnow and Funkmasterr, but outside of this forum (or even in PMs), I'm more likely to be polite and helpful.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 6:09 pm
by Boogahz
I wasn't trying to imply that you were wrong, but that they aren't losing as much money on ALL transactions. People who only buy one song at a time without another session close to it are the people that "cost" Apple money. Those that buy many songs at once will help them to actually make money doing it. Then again, Apple hasn't ever really claimed a large revenue stream due to the song sales alone, but it does pull people into using other Apple products such as....the iPod! The business model is not any different than any other business which pulls people in with low prices on items that bring in little profit in order to help draw their attention to the bigger boxes on the shelves.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 9:15 pm
by Nick
I've had an Ipod for a year now and never once needed to use Itunes to get playable music.
Whoever thinks you do is a fucking moron.
Posted: October 27, 2006, 10:52 pm
by Pherr the Dorf
a thread this boring got this much action?
Posted: October 28, 2006, 1:36 pm
by Fairweather Pure
miir wrote:You really think that music is so fucking worthless that you should be able to download it for a quarter per song?
Although worthless is a tad extreme, yes, I believe music should cost .25 or less per song. Eh, fuck it, I'll just keep getting it for free. It will save me a couple of bucks a month.
I guess that is what people like you and the music industry fail to see. I would think something is better than nothing. /shrug
Posted: October 28, 2006, 3:19 pm
by Gonzoie - Luclin
I hacked the apple iTunes music store too, its called.. allofmp3.com
(or torrents)
Posted: October 29, 2006, 1:46 pm
by miir
So for those who think that 25 cents is a realistic price per song.
Let's break it down.
We could assume that a service like itunes would have to operate with a profit margin of around 15%. So roughly 4 cents of that 25 goes to itunes.
Transaction fees would probably average out around 15% as well, so knock off another 4 cents.
So that would mean the price per song from the recod companies would be around 17 cents.
So for a traditional brick and mortar music retailer, the actual music costs for a CD would be around $1.70 for the average 10 track album.
Manufacturing and printing costs for that CD is roughly 70 cents.
So using the 25 cents per song model, the wholesale cost of an average CD would be around $2.40.
An incredibly generous estimate for shipping and warehousing would add another dollar to the cost of a CD.
So why are retailers selling CDs for more than $10?
Do you really think they are putting more than a 300% markup on the music?
Or is it that MP3s are so much more easy and convenient to steal than CDs that makes you guys think that 25 cents is a reasonable price for downloaded music?
The bottom line is selling music for 25 cents or even 10 cents per song is not going to stop people like Fairweather, Gonzoie or Winnow from stealing it.
$1 per song is an acceptable price for legitimate consumers.
Posted: October 29, 2006, 1:48 pm
by Boogahz
Most of that is why I don't think 25 cent downloads would work as well.
Posted: October 29, 2006, 2:18 pm
by Kriista
I didn't propse how it would be done, nor would I care how it's done.
I'm not in the business of business, I'm in the business of buying.
When I walk into macdonalds, I don't want to hear why their pricepoints, and marketshare, and markup etc... won't make it feasable for them to sell boca burgers, I just drive over to burgerking instead.
And lets say their profit is only 1c, multiply that 1c by the amount of songs being downloaded from p2p networks, and thats a fortune.
So like I said, I don't care how its done, I'm just offering a pricepoint that I would buy into.
Although, I would still buy my music at 10-15 $ a pop at live venues or direct from artist web pages.