Not Good: Jobs Changes The iTunes Rules | iLounge News

News

Not Good: Jobs Changes The iTunes Rules

“I don’t know about you but when I invest in a certain type of media I don’t expect the rules to be randomly changed on me. While AppleÕs recent change to the Digital Rights Management (DRM) agreement may seem benign the changes, by the their very existence, are a dangerous precedent.”

« Target.com: 10% off $100, includes iPods

Mac: iPod Freedom 1.0b1.1 »

Related Stories

Comments

1

I am sure it doesn’t matter. I mean Jobs has the users best intrest at heart right? He wouldn’t sell out or abuse the strangle hold that services like iTunes have on DRM tracks right?
Right….?

I mean its Jobs and Apple. The second coming of god himself and teh savior of all things technology. Well except of course for the personal computer but thats the way Apple likes it. Of course it is…...................

Posted by sure on May 3, 2004 at 6:32 AM (PDT)

2

Why can’t the government just leave things alone.  We are (at least I am) starting to download music legally.  I am already paying for something that I could get for free.  What more does the government want?  I have a feeling that soon iTunes and all other legal music services will be a rent system.  I like iTunes the most because I can burn the songs and they can be played on my iPod.  Most other services can just play the songs on your pc.  I have a feeling that the government will change the rules.  Jobs did something good with the iPod and iTunes, though I am not really an Apple supporter I would gladly back them up in their digital music area.  For some reason though I think the government is going to change the format so that it is a rent service, I hope Apple would step up and lash back at this kind of treatment (unlike Microsoft who embraces the restrictions that the government applies).

What’s next?  Are they (the government) going to make it so that when we rip CD audio that iTunes ads DRM to that so that we can only burn it a few times?

Posted by D'Oh on May 3, 2004 at 6:42 AM (PDT)

3

Yes, I too was very bothered by this capricious move that smacks of “bait and switch.”

Funny, the burn allowance was reduced from 10 to 7 but the prices stayed exactly the same - imagine that.

Did Jobs have a prior arrangement with the RIAA to reduce the burn allowance?

Does Jobs have a target agreement with the RIAA to ultimately limit the burn allowance?

Does Jobs have a plan to eventually eliminate the burn allowance to, say, 1 or two copies?

The rug was pulled out from under us and I am miffed.  Where will this end?  Will we all end up having a library of music that must only remain on our computers or iPod?

Stinks.

Posted by Obadiah on May 3, 2004 at 6:43 AM (PDT)

4

The article says:
“Just like the Compact Disc was based on a series of standards the digital music file needs a standard set of rules and fast. Maybe this is a time when government intervention is necessary to corral the myriad interests together. The format shouldnÕt matter (although it would be nice if there was a standard format) but the rules should. How many times can a file be burned and how many devices it can be played on should all be established keeping in the mind the interests of the consumer and the music industry.”

The law already exists. Ever heard of fair use?

Posted by Caleb on May 3, 2004 at 6:51 AM (PDT)

5

Do’h,

Good one! Ha ha ha! What the h-e-double-hockey-sticks?!?!

Du’h!!!

Posted by Hateful on May 3, 2004 at 6:58 AM (PDT)

6

D’Oh - take a few minutes. Re-read that article. I don’t know if you understood a word of it. Apple changed the DRM restrictions, not the government. The author of the article suggested the government take a role in the myraid of restrictions that services like iTune can make on the product they are selling.

Your little rant on the governements motives and actions doesn’t really apply to anything the author said. Last I checked Apple and Jobs muddied the waters by changing DRM on us. Not Bush.

Posted by sure on May 3, 2004 at 7:04 AM (PDT)

7

I was shocked and upset when I read that the number of times that a song downloaded from iTunes could only be burned 7 times, instead of 10. Interesting how this was not publically announced. I’m sure that a lot of people don’t even know this!

We should increase the publicity and awareness of this restriction.

As if burning a song 10 times was too many times!

We paid for the music, and we can’t do what we want with it. It’s as if we are leasing the songs.

If Steve Jobs continues to pull this kind of CR*P, then I may have to defect to a PC based platform.

Posted by malarky on May 3, 2004 at 7:44 AM (PDT)

8

I don’t know if I’m mistaken about this, but 7 burns doesn’t mean that you can only burn a given song 7 times, it means that the playlist the song is in can only be burned 7 times before you have to change the order of the songs.

The reason this was done was to prevent people from using automatic cd copiers to burn hundreds of pirated cds for sale or other distribution.

So, if I’m following this correctly, if you burn a given playlist once, you then have six burns left until you have to manually reshuffle the order of songs in that playlist or create a new playlist with the same order.

Posted by Zim on May 3, 2004 at 8:45 AM (PDT)

9

Here’s the proof:

Here’s how Apple put it last week: “Honoring our commitment to discourage music theft while preserving fair personal use rights, the number of times a user can burn the same playlist onto CDs with iTunes is being reduced from ten burns to seven. Users can still burn a single song an unlimited number of times and listen to their music on an unlimited number of iPods.”

Taken from this article: http://www.stereophile.com/news/050304itunes/

Posted by Zim on May 3, 2004 at 8:50 AM (PDT)

10

Yet another who is misisng the point.

The point is it can change at anytime. It may be 7 today and 4 a month from now. Point is where is the restrictions on iTunes from making decisions like that on music already purchased. Do you want an open ended agreement on items your purchase?

You can watch that DVD 3 times this week but next week we are changing the restrictions so you can only watch it on 1 DVD player per week.  That sound like a deal to you?

Posted by sure on May 3, 2004 at 8:54 AM (PDT)

11

Here is the real point for all of you dolts that blame Jobs for this - It was a requirement BY THE MUSIC INDUSTRY in the new negotiations of the song licensing. Apple only had a one year license to sell the songs. When they went back to re-up the license, THE MUSIC INDUSTRY told Apple “okay, but with some new restrictions”.

APPLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!! It was an edict by the comapnies that license the songs!!!

Posted by Chris on May 3, 2004 at 10:45 AM (PDT)

12

I said six months ago on iPodLounge that something like this was inevitable with DRM - that Apple and the record companies could and would change and restrict the licensing on the FairPlay downloads at their will.

I recall a lot of Apple fanboys dismissing this as tinfoil propaganda.

My point remains - what you pay for from iTMS is not yours to own, to keep, or to modify. You are buying a license from Apple to playback those files in proprietary hardware. Apple can change or cancel your playback rights any time they want.

In this respect, the distinction between Rhapsody’s subs and Apple’s downloads is minute and mainly a product of either paying a large license fee up-front (the iPod hardware purchase) or amortizing the license fee over time (the Rhapsody monthly license fee).

I reject both of these. I’ll stick with mp3s and oggs, thanks very much!

Posted by SoItGoes on May 3, 2004 at 11:55 AM (PDT)

13

“I don’t know about you but when I invest in a certain type of media I don’t expect the rules to be randomly changed on me.”

Funny, when I first heard about this DRM thingy, the first thought that popped into my head was “So what if they decide to randomly change the rules on you?” Stop acting so surprised, this was always going to happen, and this is why I’m never touching a DRM’d audio file.

Posted by fenn on May 3, 2004 at 12:36 PM (PDT)

14

Apple reduced the number of burns onto CD but at the same time increased the number of machines that can be authorized to play the files up to 5.
I think it is a fair trade off because 3 comps was very limiting.
It certainly would have been nice to have a 10/5 ratio…
It is to be expected when dealing with DRM files that regulations will change. Stick to emusic and the like if you feel so strongly when it regards DRM.

Posted by agent orange on May 3, 2004 at 4:26 PM (PDT)

15

It is still not clear. From the article referenced by Zim,  it still seems that the number of times a downloaded song can be burned to a CD has been decreased.

What is the story here?

Do I need to count the number of times a downloaded song is burned, or can I just change the order of the songs to burn another 7 copies to give to friends?

“Honoring our commitment to discourage music theft while preserving fair personal use rights, the number of times a user can burn the same playlist onto CDs with iTunes is being reduced from ten burns to seven. Users can still burn a single song an unlimited number of times and listen to their music on an unlimited number of iPods.”

At the same time that Apple reduced the number of times someone can copy a download to a CD, the company increased the number of personal computers a file can be played on from three to five. Reaction was swift, condemning this flexing of iTunes’ DRM muscle as users around the Internet voiced their concerns.

Posted by malarky on May 3, 2004 at 6:14 PM (PDT)

16

“Honoring our commitment to discourage music theft while preserving fair personal use rights”

Riiiiiiight. This from a company whose motto a few years ago was RIP MIX BURN.

That was before they figured they could make more money sucking from the teat of the RIAA.

Posted by Rip Mix Burn on May 3, 2004 at 6:18 PM (PDT)

17

“I don’t know if I’m mistaken about this, but 7 burns doesn’t mean that you can only burn a given song 7 times, it means that the playlist the song is in can only be burned 7 times before you have to change the order of the songs.

The reason this was done was to prevent people from using automatic cd copiers to burn hundreds of pirated cds for sale or other distribution. “

This type of argument holds absolutely no water. A commercial pirate who wants to burn 100s of copies for sale, will likely use a higher quality source (you can afford to buy a CD when you’re planning on selling hundreds of copies) or if they’re a really poor pirate with no consideration of audio quality, can burn a playlist to a real or virtual CD, from which perfect copies can be made as many times as desired.

DRM, copy protected CDs, etc, etc, have absolutely no impact on commercial pirates. They have the skill, knowhow and technical resources to make all types of protection meaningless. The only people these schemes hurt are the guilless honest customers who don’t know any better.

Trust a large corporation?? I think not.

Posted by tinaa on May 3, 2004 at 7:18 PM (PDT)

18

I don’t really know what steve coud to to prevent this from happning. mitgh have gone down sompthing like this.
RIAA REP: steve if you want to still sell any sons other than dont worry be happy and jimmy cliff’s greatest hits hits in you musc store you will limint the number if time your useres can burn there music to a cd.

Steve J: this is $417 you want me to do that to my customers.

RIAA REP: we can alwase sena a fair play kill signal

Steve J: ok 7 sounds good to me

Posted by jwb on May 3, 2004 at 8:04 PM (PDT)

19

So how many times can you burn a song from itunes? only 7 or an unlimited amount?

More importantly, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

Posted by jujube on May 4, 2004 at 4:23 AM (PDT)

20

Oh man. You guys are amazing. How on Earth would you ever need to burn a single playlist more than 7 times?? What are you even doing burning CDs? Geez. Its not THAT hard to get your iPod working in the car!

I noticed you aren’t complaining about how they “changed the rules” when they increased the number of computers that can be authorized to play purchased songs from 3 to 5.

Posted by Biff on May 4, 2004 at 4:56 AM (PDT)

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy