C|NET: "Apple vs. Apple: Perfect harmony?"

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/Apple+vs.+Apple%3A+Perfect+harmony%3F/2100-1027_3-5378401.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/Apple+vs.+Apple%3A+Perfect+harmony%3F/2100-1027_3-5378401.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The latest round of speculation stems from a report in Hollywood trade magazine Daily Variety last week that a deal between Apple Computer and Apple Corps might be near and that one legal source expected it to be the "biggest settlement anywhere in legal history." However, music industry sources call that report baseless. Legal experts separately question whether the settlement would really be among the largest non-class-action settlements, as Variety reported."</i><br /><br />So it looks like the last report we had was essentially incorrect - everything is still in discussion. The C|NET article goes in to discuss the relationship between Apple Computer and Apple Music, and the fact that Steve Jobs is a Beatles fan. But with an asking price of $15 million for a six-month exclusive window of opportunity, Jobs being a fan might not be enough. I know they're THE Beatles, but charging $15 million just for the <i>opportunity</i> to sell their music seems ridiculous. I'm a huge Beatles fan myself, so don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt most of the people buying portable audio players today are thinking "Gee, I really wish I could have <i>I Am the Walrus</i> on this...". :roll:

[bdegroodt]

True...but imagine the possible new business beyond the Beatles this could generate for Apple. I'm sure there's some sort of industry formula for the value of getting the right song into a potential audience's hand, and the amount of follow-on business this creates. I think it's one of the primary reasons why there's such a land-grab for artists at each of these retailers--get an exclusive and you get the beginning of a potentially lucrative repeat customer relationship.

[ShinyPlastic]

I have "I am the Walrus" on my iPod.

It seems a lot more logical to copy music from a CD I already paid for into iTunes than to buy the same music all over again.

[TomB]

Shiny, with all due respect to Fair Use, what you are doing is still technically a felony until someone drags a user like you into court and the judge rules in favor of the user (has not happened yet). On the other hand Apple is doing the legal thing and licensing the use of that music. Is it worth $15 million? Well that works out to about $8,000 per song which isn't too bad for the music that changed rock and roll forever. I doubt Apple (USA) would ever make their money back at .99 per song in six months, however, they would be doing this for the notoriety not the money. The supreme irony is I don't think that Paul and Ringo and the Lennon and Harrison estates will see much of anything from this. If Michael Jackson still owns the rights to their music most of the money will go to him.

[bdegroodt]

Shiny, with all due respect to Fair Use, what you are doing is still technically a felony until someone drags a user like you into court and the judge rules in favor of the user (has not happened yet).
Huh? I'm not following you. I've never heard anyone claim that ripping your own CD to your own HDD, for your own use is illegal (especially not a felony). Explain please.

[dean_shan]

Shiny, with all due respect to Fair Use, what you are doing is still technically a felony.

Looks like the RIAA has got to Tom. Forgive what he says, his mind is no longer his own.

[James Fee]

Shiny, with all due respect to Fair Use, what you are doing is still technically a felony until someone drags a user like you into court and the judge rules in favor of the user (has not happened yet).
Huh? I'm not following you. I've never heard anyone claim that ripping your own CD to your own HDD, for your own use is illegal (especially not a felony). Explain please.
He can't, because it is not illegal at all. In fact MSN Music's FAQ tells iPod users to do the very same thing to get the WMA DRM into their iPods.

[TomB]

Guys, let's not go nuts here, but when you have some spare time, read the warning on any commercial USA CD, cassette, LP, 45, 78 or wax cylinder going back two centuries. If that isn't clear enough there is a ton of information online on copyrights at many USA .GOV sites. Best yet, if any of you are businessmen, ask your attorneys and post their answers here. And James, as far as MSN, if you feel like robbing a bank tomorrow you have my permission. In fact, you may use the MSN search function to find detailed instructions on how to rob/rip a bank on dozens of legal websites (freedom of speech). Just don't get caught. ;)

OK, seriously, what you folks all missed are that operations like the RIAA and the MPA are grinding away at our personal rights as we speak. The only way to do something about that is to find out what those rights are now (and what they are not), and then do something to protect them. I would hurry if I were you. By this time next year, it is likely timeshifting many TV shows will be illegal in the USA too.

BTW, we all agree that transcoding copyrighted works we own for personal use SHOULD be 100% legal. But it is not - until the law is changed, or someone is arrested and makes a case for "fair use" and "legal backup" which can be used as a legal precedent for the rest of us. Bdegroodt, copyright infringements violate federal law, thus the felony if you are convicted.

[James Fee]

Guys, let's not go nuts here, but when you have some spare time, read the warning on any commercial USA CD, cassette, LP, 45, 78 or wax cylinder going back two centuries. If that isn't clear enough there is a ton of information online on copyrights at many USA .GOV sites. Best yet, if any of you are businessmen, ask your attorneys and post their answers here.I'm not sure how this advice will help since it already backs up what I've said.
And James, as far as MSN, if you feel like robbing a bank tomorrow you have my permission. In fact, you may use the MSN search function to find detailed instructions on how to rob/rip a bank on dozens of legal websites (freedom of speech). Just don't get caught. ;)What does this have to do with what I said. MSN Search doesn't give directions on how to do this, the 3rd party sites do. Totally different than MSN Music telling us how to convert DRM WMA files to mp3s.
OK, seriously, what you folks all missed are that operations like the RIAA and the MPA are grinding away at our personal rights as we speak. The only way to do something about that is to find out what those rights are now (and what they are not), and then do something to protect them. I would hurry if I were you. By this time next year, it is likely timeshifting many TV shows will be illegal in the USA too.Ah, there we go. Let me get my tin foil hat (http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html) for you.BTW, we all agree that transcoding copyrighted works we own for personal use SHOULD be 100% legal. But it is not - until the law is changed, or someone is arrested and makes a case for "fair use" and "legal backup" which can be used as a legal precedent for the rest of us. Bdegroodt, copyright infringements violate federal law, thus the felony if you are convicted.Show me what page says this is at all illegal?

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

I've looked this over a couple times and I just don't see it. DRM lets you burn the CD so I don't see how you can't claim you can't. Riping that CD is not more illegal than riping any other CD you buy. I won't even get into fair use with you because it really doesn't need to be applied here. As long as you don't try and mess with the DRM you are fine, unlike programs such as Fairtunes that do violate the DMCA.

All in all though, I do apprecaite your attempt at FUD and really enjoyed your second paragraph.

[mrkablooey]

:popcorn:

[Jason Dunn]

...until the law is changed, or someone is arrested and makes a case for "fair use" and "legal backup" which can be used as a legal precedent for the rest of us. Bdegroodt, copyright infringements violate federal law, thus the felony if you are convicted.

I'd suggest that the reason this hasn't happened is that the powers that be (RIAA, etc.) know that if it was taken to court, they'd lose, and a precedent would be set that wouldn't be in their advantage. If they were confident that they'd win, surely they would have taken Microsoft, Apple, and every other big corporate that sells/gives away software that rips a CD, right? Imagine the settlement money they could get if Microsoft had to pay a fine for every copy of Windows Media Player that was distributed!

It might not be legal to put pants on your horse in some small southern hick town, but that doesn't mean that the cops would arrest someone who did it. Ripping a CD is no different - laws don't always make sense, and they certainly aren't always enforced, so I don't think you're going to find my support here (or anywhere) for the concept that ripping a CD that you own is a felony. DVDs are another matter, since it's illegal to break DeCSS encryption under the DCMA, but CDs have no such encryption and thus aren't covered under that law.

[TomB]

Jason thanks for your feedback. Understand I never said anything about enforcement or the stupidity of all this, I just mentioned what the current US law is and where it has been paraphrased for the past century. BTW - I think it is dangerous just because a law is stupid to think that it can't come back to haunt you. It is far better to change the law, which as you know, is where I have been coming from on this for years. I also think you are right about a stand-off, because it would take a very brave individual to turn himself in to the attorney general as a "copyright violator" to bring transcoding before the courts and force a ruling. I am not ready to do that and even if I were, I would be going up against a billion-dollar industry. Not sure who would win with those stakes even though it seems clear cut.

Jason, was the Canadian Judge who ruled in favor of copying several months ago every over-ruled? Sorry I haven't stayed on top of that story.

James Fee, my comments were posted in good faith for those who didn't know USA copyright law but who might be interested in researching the law for themselves. Your reaction is disappointing considering your position here and your responsibility to your readers.

[Jason Dunn]

Jason, was the Canadian Judge who ruled in favor of copying several months ago every over-ruled? Sorry I haven't stayed on top of that story.

No, as far as I know it hasn't been.

[James Fee]

James Fee, my comments were posted in good faith for those who didn't know USA copyright law but who might be interested in researching the law for themselves. Your reaction is disappointing considering your position here and your responsibility to your readers.
Passing wrong information and telling others that they can get hauled off to jail is plain wrong. Your attempt to scare people into thinking they are beaking the law ihas nothing to do with "good faith" and everything to do with FUD. :roll:

[TomB]

James it is clear that you need to come up to speed on copy rights. When you do, I hope you will join in the fight to protect our eroding freedoms. You can become an active participant in this process by letting your readers know what the limits are and how they can LEGALLY change them through organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation at eff.com or efc.ca. This is not an indictment of your statements but and invitation to work to help make them true. Peace.