iLounge

21

The book analogy is correct.  You have a right to read that book.  You don’t have a right to copy it.  As I said, just because it’s easier to manipulate digital media, doesn’t give you any more right to copy it to as many devices as you want, share it with your friends, etc.  Get a clue.  That movie you downloaded from iTs?  You agreed to the terms.  You agree to terms when you buy the DVD, too.  Just because you feel they cost too much money, or you perceive an injustice, doesn’t mean there is one.  The studios know what they have to do to enforce their intellectual property rights.  It irritates me when studio heads label all of us with DAPs as thieves, using them to store stolen.  Those of you upset by DRM and DCMA make a choice when you purchase intellectual property.  You agree to honor the intellectual property rights of the owner of the media in whatever form, and when you don’t, you validate the studio heads who think we are all thieves.  If you think you are getting ripped off or screwed over by the studios, that’s too bad.  they think the same thing of most of us and there is quite a precedent in the original Napster,  Gnutella, and all of the other illegal, file “sharing” networks.  You don’t think that doesn’t concern the studios?

Posted by gym sock on November 29, 2006 at 8:43 PM (PDT)

22

Gym Sock,

What about “fair use?”  Fair use was the precent set before the DCMA, a piece of legislation written by the companies whose interests it protects at the expense of the consumer and adopted by legislators too ignorant to know the issues involved.  Fair use said that it is legal to copy an album for your own use and convenience.  Movies should hold to the same precedent.

I’m not upset about DRM.  I’m upset about this particular issue.  Fair use is fair use, and movie studios are wrong for labeling anyone that wants to exercise their fair use rights as a thief.

And yes in certain cases it is legal to copy a book under fair use.

Posted by alexarch on November 29, 2006 at 9:04 PM (PDT)

23

I buy a cd in the store, but can’t copy to my iPod? Doesn’t make sense.

Posted by daveed on November 30, 2006 at 1:09 AM (PDT)

24

Talking about “validating the studios view of us as thieves” is acknowledging as valid a red herring argument. This isn’t about piracy, it’s about greed. It’s a grab for greater control. Users see the digital age and its ability to bring simplification. Studios see it and want to bring additional revenues in the form of selling the same IP multiple times to the same customer. That, IMHO, is the real issue.

Posted by mrfett in Washington, D.C. on November 30, 2006 at 3:36 AM (PDT)

25

Not good enough. We as users of iTunes should also be able to back-up the films we’ve purchased to CD-R or DVD-R (or even BD-RE if/when iTunes gets updated to allow us to do so—and they should, considering they are the ones backing the Blu-Ray Camp). Not to play on a DVD player or anything like that; just so we have them archived and don’t have to shell out another $14.99 if something goes haywire with our computers.

Posted by Charles on December 1, 2006 at 6:34 PM (PDT)

26

I question how relevant it is to limit the number of devices that can play a DRM encrypted video file.  Has the music industry really seen a huge jump in the pirating of DRM encrypted music?  Even if one does load content onto dozens of ipods from DRM encrypted media, it is still DRM encrypted.  Automatic syncing of libraries, isn’t just a convenient thing for ipod owners.  It is also a way to remove content placed on an ipod that was NOT placed there by the originol host computer. 

  The music and movie industries should be thrilled that apple has delivered a safe, convenient, popular, and viable system for allowing consumers to purchase content for use on their computers (Yes I MEANT plural), and iPods.

Posted by Cody on December 3, 2006 at 6:56 PM (PDT)