The Online Music Ripoff

[inteller]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

What MSN Music did was perfectly legal, but how can you argue that it's morally right to take $80 from someone, then take away their ability to listen to the music they bought?

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

i believe that is why there is a class action lawsuit out for this issue? I am of the opinion that they need to remedy the situation, but if that remedy is another DRM'd solution (say on another provider) you'd have to accept it, because it did not result in a material change of the original deliverable. Or alternatively if they offer an official conversion tool as an addendum to the original purchase agreement you could take advantage of that. but they didn't do anything unethical, nor does it warrant any justification to take matters into your own hands. Companies going out of business sucks, but it happens all the time. there are sometimes legal reprecussions to be felt, but that doesn't mean taking ethical leaps to arrive to justifiable solutions.

[inteller]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

What MSN Music did was perfectly legal, but how can you argue that it's morally right to take $80 from someone, then take away their ability to listen to the music they bought?

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

i believe that is why there is a class action lawsuit out for this issue? I am of the opinion that they need to remedy the situation, but if that remedy is another DRM'd solution (say on another provider) you'd have to accept it, because it did not result in a material change of the original deliverable. Or alternatively if they offer an official conversion tool as an addendum to the original purchase agreement you could take advantage of that. but they didn't do anything unethical, nor does it warrant any justification to take matters into your own hands. Companies going out of business sucks, but it happens all the time. there are sometimes legal reprecussions to be felt, but that doesn't mean taking ethical leaps to arrive to justifiable solutions.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by inteller

but they didn't do anything unethical, nor does it warrant any justification to take matters into your own hands. Companies going out of business sucks, but it happens all the time.

Fascinating. You don't see any ethical issues with selling a customer a product, then taking that product back (or making it stop working) when the company goes out of business? Imagine you buy a chair, and one day the company who made that chair decides they're going out of business, so they come and take your chair from you. You say "But I bought that chair!" and they say "Oh, we changed your original bill to say it was just a rental - sorry, but we have the right to do that."

How can you say that's ethical behaviour on the part of the company?

I noticed you didn't answer any of my other posts - I'd encourage you to. I want to understand how and why you believe the law defines ethics.

[inteller]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

Imagine you buy a chair, and one day the company who made that chair decides they're going out of business, so they come and take your chair from you. You say "But I bought that chair!" and they say "Oh, we changed your original bill to say it was just a rental - sorry, but we have the right to do that."

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

bad analogy. A correct analogy would be you bought a car that could only get its oil changes from the dealer and then the dealer went out of business. So now your car runs out of oil and breaks down. In this case the dealer did nothing wrong but go out of business, but the car your bought will eventually break down and no longer work unless the dealer can point you in the direction of someone who can service it.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by inteller

bad analogy. A correct analogy...

The trouble with analogies and digital content is that NONE of them ever quite measure up because we're talking about something without a physical form.

Originally Posted by inteller

..would be you bought a car that could only get its oil changes from the dealer and then the dealer went out of business...the car your bought will eventually break down and no longer work unless the dealer can point you in the direction of someone who can service it.

That's not a bad analogy, but this presumes that the person buying the car understood what they were getting into with buying a custom-oil car. The average consumer doesn't understand DRM, and only a tiny fraction of everyone that purchased MSN Music tracks understood the ramifications of DRM.

Also, car companies don't tend to go out of business, but lately we've seen more than a few DRM-based music/video stores go away. If the big auto companies released a bunch of cars to the market using custom oil, then said "We're no longer supporting this oil, sorry", consumers would be livid - and rightfully so.

Again, this comes back to you believing that legality and morality are the same thing - that if a company is legally allowed to do something, it automatically makes it morally correct. I guess we're going to have to disagree on this point.

[onlydarksets]

I've got to agree with inteller on this one (for the most part).

With DRM'd music, you purchased a license to use that particular file in the way outlined in the licensing agreement. If you no longer like the way it works, it's definitely illegal to bypass it (click-through or "clickwrap" contracts have been routinely upheld in the US).

As far as unethical, I believe it depends on your understanding when you "bought" it. If you knew you were getting a limited license to the music, yes, it's definitely unethical. If you thought you were buying an unlimited license to the music, then I think it is ethical to attempt to put yourself in the position you originally intended. It's still illegal (no question), but I believe it is ethical in that situation, since you could have gone to the store to buy the CD (there may be a price difference, but you could always mail a check to Apple).

Now, for ripping CDs, I'd come to the opposite conclusion. I've agreed to no limited use license, so fair use applies. Thus, it follows, since I'm not knowingly circumventing something I've agreed to, it's not unethical to rip it.

[Chris Gohlke]

I totally follow the logic. But, if iTunes gives you the option to burn to CD, you do essentially have an unlimited license to use it however you want. Back to the software in question, if it just give you a different way to do it, isn't it just a different path to the same end result?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Chris Gohlke

I totally follow the logic. But, if iTunes gives you the option to burn to CD, you do essentially have an unlimited license to use it however you want. Back to the software in question, if it just give you a different way to do it, isn't it just a different path to the same end result?

I believe that is incorrect. What you have is an easier way to use the file in any way you choose, but the license is not altered. Here's a pretty good read on it:
http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/2228.html

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I've got to agree with inteller on this one (for the most part). With DRM'd music, you purchased a license to use that particular file in the way outlined in the licensing agreement.

What's funny is that I can't think of ever reading or agreeing to a licensing agreement when it comes to purchasing music. I'm sure you're right - it's probably part of the account creation - but they sure don't make the user rights obvious. And they definitely don't bother to explain DRM or what the rights are that the consumer is agreeing to.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I believe it depends on your understanding when you "bought" it. If you knew you were getting a limited license to the music, yes, it's definitely unethical.

Agreed. Anyone who tries to crack the DRM on a music rental system (Zune Pass, etc.) is acting in an unethical manner because they're taking music they rented and they're trying to keep it permanently.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

If you thought you were buying an unlimited license to the music, then I think it is ethical to attempt to put yourself in the position you originally intended.

Agreed. Anyone who tries to crack the DRM on a DRM'd music file they bought, assuming they're not going to share the music with others, is acting ethically - they're only giving themselves access to the music they paid for. That's in sharp contrast to what inteller said though, so I don't see how you can be in agreement with him.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Now, for ripping CDs, I'd come to the opposite conclusion. I've agreed to no limited use license, so fair use applies.

It's interesting that you feel fair use applies to CDs, but not DRM'd tracks. What makes it different to you? That on a CD you didn't agree to a license that says "you have to authenticate the contents of this CD with a server before you can listen to it" but on a DRM'd track that's what you do agree to? Fair use to me is broader: it's looking with reasonable assumptions about what you paid for, and being able to use that, within reason, however you wish.

[inteller]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

The average consumer doesn't understand DRM, and only a tiny fraction of everyone that purchased MSN Music tracks understood the ramifications of DRM.

yes, but fortunately ignorance has never been a valid excuse in either ethical or legal matters. I have no pity on a person who doesn't take the time to study something before they buy it. Just like I have no pity for all of these house owners who claimed they were 'duped' into getting a bad home loan.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by inteller

yes, but fortunately ignorance has never been a valid excuse in either ethical or legal matters. I have no pity on a person who doesn't take the time to study something before they buy it.

You're sure a hard person. But do you really believe that buried in the MSN Music EULA, there was something that actually said "We may, at some point in the future, deactivate our authentication server, thus making your music non-playable." I doubt it - so even if the user read the EULA, it wouldn't have mattered. Who's going to read the EULA for a 99 cent song?

Take a look at the Zune EULA:

http://www.zune.net/en-US/legal/termsofservice.htm

7200 words. Who in their right mind would take 30+ minutes to read through that, especially since it can be changed without notice, for any reason. It could say "we're going to take your first born child" and no one would notice.