MS is 2 for 2 today
"In a bid to compete with Apple's iTunes music service, Microsoft is planning to set up its own subscription-based online music store later this year. It is said to be working with record labels and copyright holders in preparation for the launch. Last September, the company unveiled its MSN-branded music site but it didn't have a subscription plan." From the article: "The tentative features of the new service -- which is still under development -- include advanced community aspects and playlist-sharing. But sources say Microsoft is also considering a more direct attack on Apple, seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 29 of 29
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
I think DRM is going to keep many people away. I certainly would't purchase anything with DRM.
Ditto. DRM + Microsoft = not getting my money."It's getting to the point now when I'm with you, I no longer want to have something stuck in my eye..."
why would anyone pay for an MP3 (or any other highly compressed format)?
Get a radio card instead and record same music for free in your favorite file format; it should sound better than those WMA crappy tunes even if it come from analog broadcasts... hell, start recording streamed music of off the webcasts, its same thing from legal point of view as recording radiowave broadcast - only purely digital... do anything but just quit being such lazy useful idiots multiplying wealth of the releasing labels; you are the reason for the well-being of RIAA and such!
analog broadcast music is highly compressed also - so is sat music also to a degree.
and recording streamed web music is usually not legal .."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
I do not use any Itunes or any other sites to download music. I just turn on the radio. But yahoo has a store now that you pay $5.00 dollars and download all you want now.
Now when I want something I just use my capture card record from MTV or VH1 and rip the audio out and burn a CD.
Originally Posted by BJ_M
BJ_M, if I am to hook up some old cassette deck to FM tuner and record the broadcast - you would agree it is legal, right?
If I am to hook up same cassette deck to the audio out of my computer and record streamed web-broadcast in analog form on a cassette - you'd agree with me it is still legal, right?
Then if I am to 'record' same streamed radio webcast on my hard drive instead of said cassette deck - I am doing exactly same thing as I was when recording it on a cassette deck, the act of 'recording' hasn't changed; only the output media has changed because I'm 'recording' it in its pure digital format instead of analog format when Im 'dumping' webcast to my hard drive or CDR.
But I repeat: the act of "recording" is still the same.
If law allows me to record (in analog format) radio broadcast of i.e. station WNAB, then it is exactly same thing when I'm 'recording' digitally (dumping to my hdd) very same webcast version of said WNAB station, wouldnt you agree?
If someone tell me it is not legal, then it is highly illogical (at least to me) and please explain well why storing radiobroadcast on a cassette deck is legal and storing same station's webcast in its digital format on a hard drive is not legal???
Originally Posted by Nilfennasion
Originally Posted by DereX888
Originally Posted by BJ_M
Thats *exactly* what Im talking about.
Just because some company says "no recording" on their website it doesn't make it legal for them to forbid me from recording (for my personal use).
Until THE LAW says so, I am allow to record from their webcast as much as I want, regardless of their sign "no recording".
There are no laws prohibiting me from recording free radio broadcasts for personal use, and webcast of such broadcast is the same thing only in different format.
they are the law - they are the same as a contract, that is why you have to agree to them and often have to enter your email twice (same as signing) .. that is pretty basic 101
you can't just make up your own rules as you go along .
Originally Posted by BJ_M
Had people never tried fighting of unjust rules and laws, we would have had i.e. slavery laws until today.
It always starts with person or group of people challenging existing laws or regulations.
If the law is viewed as unjust by many, if not majority, of people - you can't just say "they are the law" and go over it.
there are MANY laws where the majority of people do not agree with it .... or even obey it - still doesnt make it legal ..
no one ever fought slavery laws btw -- there were not laws to MAKE slavery (if you are thinking of the USA) , and the Civil war was not started over such a thing directly anyway ....
Originally Posted by BJ_M
By mentioning a fighting such bad laws (or 'rules' supported by law) as slavery, I didnt even thought of Civil War. I was thinking of all the people opposing slavery and trying to do something about it, not only in USA but worldwide.
Civil War, as any war actually, was just about money and power shift, between one group of influential people vs their opponents.
You do have a right to record radio broadasts and even web broadcasts under the Audio Home Recording Act. Prior to this act it was actually an infringement to record radio broadcasts even for personal use.
But just like with any other lawful right, you can contract it away which is what you do when you enter into the licensing agreements for these services. There's nothing illegal about it, its a perfectly enforceable contract. DereX888 read the back of a receipt sometime. You contract away your rights all the time, its just the cost of doing business. If you find the terms objectionable you purchase from someone else or do without. You don't have a right to ignore them because you think they are unfair. You agreed to those terms.
So with that said, please do not encourage others to engage in such illegal acts on this forum as it violates our AUP.
Originally Posted by Nilfennasion1f U c4n r34d 7h1s, U r34lly n33d 2 g3t l41d!!!
Originally Posted by MeDiCo_BrUjO
then why are you using winXP Pro ?
Originally Posted by BJ_M1f U c4n r34d 7h1s, U r34lly n33d 2 g3t l41d!!!
There is no "law" to oppose. Its a contractual agreement. If you don't approve of the terms then buy the hard copy and you can copy it as much as you like.
adam, thats a very valid point - "don't buy it if you don't like it".
I agree with it 100% when it comes to i.e. Windows XP (as in case of previous poster).
However radiobroadcasts - being private own - are still part of public service, aren't they?
I.e. broadcast of presidential debates is good example of public service part done by private own corporations and it cannot be subject to any limitations imposed by broadcaster/webcaster, right?
BTW - Im not encouraging anyone to anything.
Some examples during the discussion cannot be presented in other way.
If we were discussing legality of a t-shirt with "I [heart] [swastika]" print on it (that I saw once in an argentinian store) obviously it would NOT mean I am encouraging people to join nazis here!
You can record radio broadcasts under the Audio Home Recording Act. But things like XM radio broadcasts are subject to the same restrictions as streaming media. If they choose to they can require that you agree not to copy it, or not to do anything short of listening to it for that matter.
There is no way to get the user to affirmatively agree to a contract placing such limitations on public radio. You can't just say, "by listening to this you agree blah blah."
over the air broadcast and webcast are covered under different rules .. one is FCC and other is "terms of service" of that website ...
presidential debate broadcast is prob. even copyrighted anyway ...
very few public radio stations - on normal fm and AM anyway -- many on other bands
XM radio is allowed to be time shifted only -- see info at TimeTrax
so they say anyway
Seems like it is bigger mess (from legal point) than I ever suspected.
I thought copyrights are about the 'product' (be it movie, music, book, software etc) but now it appears to me that very SAME product can be of 'public domain' if transmitted by analog means (old-fasjion AM/FM radiostation), and copyrighted when it is 'broadcasted' by digital means such as webcast over the internet.
I honestly don't get it, since the 'product' is exactly the same, and copyrights always prohibit copying of the product, regardless of the ways it has been published. Something transmitted in one way as copyrights-free cannot (or shouldnt) been in a same time copyrighted if transmitted using different technology.
If A=free-to-copy (for personal use) is true, then A=copying-not-allowed is false (or opposite). Both cannot be correct at the same time.
First off, none of this is in the public domain whether you have the right to copy it or not.
Analogue vs digital has nothing to do with it either, its just a byproduct of the fact that the subscription based radio stations are digital because that is probably their main selling point.
Your right to copy anything under copyright law isn't really a right at all. It is a limitation on the copyright holder's right, because they have the exclusive authority to make or authorize copies of any kind. But these things are the default rules that apply at a minimum to any action. You can also contract for anything you want so long as it does not violate any law, violate public policy, or contain unconscionable terms.
So, if you are receiving the service via a subscription, or anything where you affirmatively agree to their terms, then they can place additional restrictions on you. If its something like regular radio broadcast there is no formal contract. The copyright in the material still limits you, again by default, but your Fair Use rights to timeshift and your general musical recording backup rights (if you use approved hardware) under AHR remain intact.
This is universal contract stuff. I have the right to keep my neighbor off my property or to sue Company X in any jurisdiction where they conduct business too. But by contract I can waive these rights. You get what you contract for, so you better make sure to read the contract.
I did a research paper senior year of college on Digital Copyright, and this is what I found.
DISCLAIMER: I am not professing to be an expert, this is just what my research found, correct me if I am wrong.
As for the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, you are definetley not protected from being prosecuted for making digital copies. Napster tried to use this Act, specifically section 512, stating that they were exempt from the Act because they were a "digital recording device". As clarified by the judges in the Napster case a computer is NOT considered a "digital recording device."
Using this logic the A-B, B-C, A-C analogy that was given earlier about coping to a cassette and then a computer and what not, does not hold true.
Yes that's correct, but there's still room for argument. In that case they argued that the downloading of mp3's was the act of making a copy. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that computers cannot be "digital audio recording devices" since they are not used and marketed primarily as such devices.
But in the case of a subscription music service the computer isn't necessarily being used to make the copy. You could for example burn a cd pursuant to the license and then use an actual "digital audio recording device" to make a further copy. But as already stated, most of these services limit this activity in their license.
But I agree, if you used the computer as the playback device and then just copied through analogue means it would definitely not fall within the AHR.