Jobs Says Pirates Will "Burn in Hell"

[Guest terry]

Linus Thorvald

Nope, "Linus Torvalds" is his name.

[fishbert]

"EDIT: I downloaded an album today on itunes that i owned on CD once but lost. When i activated the song to play on my machine, itunes told me that 3 of my alotted 5 machines are used up. I just downloaded this doodle where are these other machines? What do they label this machine as? Do they think i will have these songs on my ipod forever or keep this hard drive forever? I may have the hard drive for a while but i know i'll format it many many times.

I paid for this album twice in my life and I think I have the right to aquire these songs again in the future if i lose them. They can never prove that someone never paid for anything in the past that they say was obtained, in their words, "illegally". This is why they su defenseless children and idiot types, in other words they milk the people who trust them.

Apple is accusing the RIAA of getting greedy? Just because they want more of a percentage doesn't mean apple has to raise thier itunes prices, especially when they probably {censored} the non-tech user through itunes every chance they get. The same way they do to artist types with their macs.

It is clear to me who should burn in hell too"

 

Did you format your hard drive while it was "registered"? they make it very clear that if you are going to lose the machine, format the machine, selling the machine that you are supposed to deregister. To be honest with you you are over reacting from personal experience Apple Itunes store support are very very very lenient about the authorization. Tell them what happend, hell make something up, even lie to them straight faced and they will give you "All" your authorizations back. They are very very lenient. I have tested them msyelf. Also i would like to clarify that you do "not ge the right" to be able to download the songs in the future. You agree when you purchased the song to be able to download it only once. Think of it the same way as watching a movie if miss the movie cause you fell asleep should you be allowed to watch the movie again, after you leave the movie 1 week later? Another way of looking at it is this: if you buy a watch and the you proceed to break that watch (lost cd) do you think you should be able to get another watch from the store since you already paid for it? If you eat something then after you eat it you road a roller coaster then you throw up, do you think you should be able to go back to the food store and get more food? obviously my metaphors are a little off but it's the same idea. I think Itunes provide a great service and i don't think they are out to screw non-tech savy users.

Steve jobs is the one not letting the prices go up remember?

[bofors]

Steve jobs is the one not letting the prices go up remember?

Yes indeed, Steve is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. But frankly I think 99 cents to download a song is ridiculous. What does that bandwidth cost? Less than a cent? Something like a penny or a nickel to download a song might be reasonable, but 99 cents is just an absurd abuse of copyright by corporate criminals.

 

If you eat something then after you eat it you road a roller coaster then you throw up, do you think you should be able to go back to the food store and get more food?

To be honest, I have not really thought to much about that one.

 

 

In case anyone missed this: http://www.whatacrappypresent.com/

 

[blahsucks]

I think the fact that it isn't in stores does not make the "stealing" any less wrong. It is still wrong it is still stealing. Just because it is not sold in stores or ever will be does not mean that it won't cause loss of profit for Apple, nor does it mean that it does not cause "bad" things for Apple. I think what im trying to get at is: Don't try to justify the copy right infringement. Don't try to justify the Stealing. Don't try to say it's right. It is wrong, it is stealing, it is copy right infringement.

"People who wouldn't/couldn't pay for something in the first place are not causing any loss of profit." Umm what exactly do you define a loss of profit when someone "would have paid/could have paid" and didn't? I mean how is that not a loss of profit again? Are you saying that these people weren't going to buy macs anyways so they shouldn't be considered lost profits? So your saying that people can use a product created by some company for free because they "don't want to pay" or because "they can't pay" and that because they don't want to pay or couldn't pay it isn't considered loss of profit? Im a little grey on how that works out economically.

 

It is copyright infringement. However, it is not "stealing." You are not physically taking a boxed copy of OSX86 from some store. Stealing is theft; taking something without permission.

 

When you download illegally, you're not taking anything. The originator of the download still has the disc with him.

 

Apple doesn't sell OSx86; there is only one way to get it on your generic PC if you are not an Apple developer. Now, if Apple charged for it, I can see how that could be interpreted as morally wrong.

 

About the loss of profit: if you weren't going to buy a Mac and/or couldn't afford it, Apple wouldn't get any money out of you anyway. You're not taking any physical copies; there are no wasted media production costs, store shipments, or anything like that. The online copies are simply digital images. No one paid to get them online for sale.

[bofors]

It is copyright infringement. However, it is not "stealing." You are not physically taking a boxed copy of OSX86 from some store. Stealing is theft; taking something without permission.

 

When you download illegally, you're not taking anything. The originator of the download still has the disc with him.

 

This is exactly why the colorful barfing analogy proposed above fails, unlike food there is no physical property associated with a music download per se and the only labor or serivce (bandwidth) is negligible. Furthermore, since you are effectively purchasing a license to the music, with a EULA contract and all, they had damm well better give you replacement copies.

 

Apple doesn't sell OSx86; there is only one way to get it on your generic PC if you are not an Apple developer. Now, if Apple charged for it, I can see how that could be interpreted as morally wrong.

As the people exposing the morals, here Jobs invoking hell, clearly do not themselves practice them and that fact that we have no way to force compliance, we really have to question the burden of being saddle with such restrictions on our conduct in the first place. I mean, I have a hard time believing that broadly acting in one's self interest it is not simply the right thing to do in this corrupt society.

 

About the loss of profit: if you weren't going to buy a Mac and/or couldn't afford it, Apple wouldn't get any money out of you anyway. You're not taking any physical copies; there are no wasted media production costs, store shipments, or anything like that. The online copies are simply digital images. No one paid to get them online for sale.

 

This is exactly why both RIAA and Apple lawsuits on such matters should be thrown out court and the lawyers who file such abusive cases disbarred; there is no way to prove that the people downloading would have otherwise purchased the goods or otherwise damaged these entities. As a matter of general legal principle, since damages are not provable there is no basis for legal action.

 

The unfortunate reality is that these coporate bastards have used their ill-gotten gains to buy the government to get wonderful things like the DCMA and a grossly inequitable legal system. I say burn them to ground, I have not paid for music in over five years and I have sold every CD I own after making a copy first.

[bonehead]

If you eat something then after you eat it you road a roller coaster then you throw up, do you think you should be able to go back to the food store and get more food?

 

If you purchase a car then lose your keys, should you be forced to get a new car, or just the keys?

 

Now take that a step farther:

If you lock the keys in your car, should it be illegal to break into your own car to retrieve your keys?

 

If your car was music and the lock was copy protection, under the DMCA you would be considered a criminal for doing just that.

[johnniecarcinogen]

They are lenient with giving authorizations after a 2 month review. But the point is i want to buy a song not a song with DRM in it. The price is fair but i want what they advertise not the added hassel of authorizations.

 

If i buy a watch i expect it to tell me what time it is, and i would be upset if i found out i had to enter a pin code every time to get the time. If i buy a cd or dvd i am allowed to back it up as long as I do not distribute it to anyone else. I would stand behind the 99 cent a song price if i was able to redownload it for life with my account.

 

This is a relatively new hard drive and the previous machines may have been some of the other HD's that i signed in on itunes with. If I use the same OS and same "Computer Name" will it be recognized as the same machine?

 

EDIT: good analogies bonehead

[Guest terry]

I would stand behind the 99 cent a song price if i was able to redownload it for life with my account.

Yep, I'd second that. But that's rather a general problem and not a specific one that only pertains to Apple. It's the content providers who impose DRM as a prerequisite. Even though Apple incorporate DRM in their music store, they're very lenient about it once again. Microsoft, for instance, work very hard to update their DRM technology once it has been broken in order to render such hacks useless very quickly, as it has happened with the drmdbg and drm2wmv command line tools, which were also quite complicated to use. Apple, however, are quite indifferent to the popular and comfortable, GUI-driven JHymn un-DRM-tool and seem to tolerate it as long as the content providers do not file serious complaints. So I still think there is a notable difference in the way the Apple guys handle this DRM-thing. But I could be wrong, time will tell.

[johnniecarcinogen]

This is exactly why both RIAA and Apple lawsuits on such matters should be thrown out court and the lawyers who file such abusive cases disbarred; there is no way to prove that the people downloading would have otherwise purchased the goods or otherwise damaged these entities. As a matter of general legal principle, since damages are not provable there is no basis for legal action.

I agree 100%. This is why they sue (sp?) defenseless kids and people that get intimidated and settle out of court.

 

They must pick and choose who they sue so that they get the publicity that they want.

 

EDIT: I just noticed bofors edit: "Don't Think Different"(scroll down a little)

[CFran]

I forgot about that. Steve Jobs doesn't allow his kids to drink soda or watch TV but he forced these kids to do this commercial for his own corporate benefit.

 

21 years ago Stevie would have said IBM should burn in hell now he is the devil's advocate.

 

Sharing is caring; {censored} the RIAA, Apple, and Steve Jobs.

 

EDIT: I downloaded an album today on itunes that i owned on CD once but lost. When i activated the song to play on my machine, itunes told me that 3 of my alotted 5 machines are used up. I just downloaded this doodle where are these other machines? What do they label this machine as? Do they think i will have these songs on my ipod forever or keep this hard drive forever? I may have the hard drive for a while but i know i'll format it many many times.

 

I paid for this album twice in my life and I think I have the right to aquire these songs again in the future if i lose them. They can never prove that someone never paid for anything in the past that they say was obtained, in their words, "illegally". This is why they su defenseless children and idiot types, in other words they milk the people who trust them.

 

Apple is accusing the RIAA of getting greedy? Just because they want more of a percentage doesn't mean apple has to raise thier itunes prices, especially when they probably {censored} the non-tech user through itunes every chance they get. The same way they do to artist types with their macs.

 

It is clear to me who should burn in hell too.

 

Idk how it is in your country, but here, in France, even if it's widely believed that downloading music on P2P networks is illegal, it's not, it's considered "private copy", even if sharing it is illegal, because it's diffusion to an undefined audience, or some doodle like that, so it's not private copy no more. maybe there's something like this in your country to.

[benhenny]

There's no stopping people from hacking the final version, so it will be hacked and running on beige boxes. My guess is that the majority of those hackers would buy it if it were available legally - I would. And Jobs knows it.

 

I think Apple is baiting the public with the Apple-only Intel box. And Jobs knows that people aren't suddenly going to go buy an Apple computer just because it has an Intel CPU. But they certainly will buy OSX if they can run it on their home PCs. So as soon as enough people beg for Apple OS on their machines, he'll relent - and there will be much rejoicing -- and much weeping and gnashing of teeth in Redmond.

 

I mean, how can you go wrong with producing a product that the public begs for? And if you recall, the original iPod only worked with Macs.

[bofors]

Here is apparently the latest flair up of the battle to control our computers. A Finnish music "executive" has been quoted as saying the following:

 

[OS X users] and anyone who runs the Linux operating system should quit whining about DRM and copy-protection technologies that are incompatible with their systems and "consider purchasing a regular CD player".

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050922-5339.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/23/ma...buy_cd_players/

[zhLilDoggi]

To be honest, I have not really thought to much about that one.

In case anyone missed this: http://www.whatacrappypresent.com/

 

 

ROFL!

[bofors]

Last week, Apple CEO Steve Jobs called the music industry "greedy" when it began pressuring Apple to raise prices of individual tracks above the current 99¢ level at the iTunes Music Store. That didn't go over too well with some industry execs. Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman, Jr. all but confirmed it with his comments that flat-rate pricing was unfair.

 

"There's no content that I know of that does not have variable pricing," said Mr. Bronfman at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia investor conference. "Not all songs are created equal—not all time periods are created equal. We want, and will insist upon having, variable pricing."

 

Bronfman seems to be jealous of Apple's success. He commented that the record labels are selling their songs because of Apple's innovation, but aren't getting a cut of the dough from Apple's hardware sales.

 

"We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don’t have a share of iPod’s revenue," he said. "We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only.

 

"We have to keep thinking how we are going to monetize our product for our shareholders," added Mr. Bronfman. "We are the arms supplier in the device wars between Samsung, Sony, Apple, and others."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050925-5348.html

[bonehead]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050925-5348.html

 

For those that missed this one:

http://bart.gamingw.net/junk/awesome/riaa.jpg

[blahsucks]

The Apple DRM is extremely lenient compared to most other implementation; we'll have to see which direction iTunes goes in.

 

As for morality in business today, there is none. The religious groups are zealots, the computer software companies are monopolies, the entertainment business is lawsuit-happy. You're not going to find any compromise unless there is money or power in it.

 

They tried completely unprotected CDs and records; it failed miserably with Napster and Kazaa. BitTorrent is doing the same thing to the relatively simple to crack DVDs. The RIAA and MPAA's response is completely unjustified, though. There is absolutely no reason to be suing everyone from kids to the elderly.

[fishbert]

If you purchase a car then lose your keys, should you be forced to get a new car, or just the keys?

 

Now take that a step farther:

If you lock the keys in your car, should it be illegal to break into your own car to retrieve your keys?

 

If your car was music and the lock was copy protection, under the DMCA you would be considered a criminal for doing just that.

If you purchase a car and lose keys no you get to get new keys not new car hence why Apple is more than happy to give you your authorizations back (if you ask for them[personal experience]). What is this two month review you are talking about? The last time they gave me back all my authorizations is last May i've been buying music from Apple since last year, and i have requested authorizations back(i ask for just one but they give me all of them back) 3 times since i first started. They are not lenient after 2 month review period they are lenient period. It isn't even that they take forever to get back to you i got a response quite quickly. via email that they had restored all my authorizations. And yes it does allow for loop wholes where you have more than 5 machines authorized at the same time.(Trust me i tested them out)

[bonehead]

If you purchase a car and lose keys no you get to get new keys not new car hence why Apple is more than happy to give you your authorizations back (if you ask for them[personal experience]).

 

Unfortunately, this may not always be the case. You are forced to put all your trust in a single company. In the case of getting your car keys, you can go to the dealer, or any locksmith to get keys made - legally.

 

However, because of the DMCA, you cannot go to a third party to get new keys for the music you licensed. You are now at the mercy of a single company, since the simple act cracking the DRM is illegal. Never mind that you already paid for it. What if Apple dumps ITunes? What if ITunes is bought up by a record label? What if ... ??

 

DRM for anything other than broadcast or rental is just not the way to do things. In a very short period of time we've thrown all our fair use rights out the window, and far too many people, like yourself, seem perfectly complacent about it. Troubling, to say the least.

 

 

What is this two month review you are talking about?

 

I know nothing of a two month review... you tell me.

 

And yes it does allow for loop wholes where you have more than 5 machines authorized at the same time.(Trust me i tested them out)

 

Oh my! what a loop hole!?

 

Before the DMCA and before CDs were copy protected, I could legally put a copy of it in my cars, in my living room, on my PC, make a mix CD, etc. etc... and when my dog ate all of those, I could do it again and again... without having to call ANYONE to ask for reauthorization... but now I need to find a "loop hole"?!

 

Forgive me for not jumping for joy.

[bonehead]

They tried completely unprotected CDs and records; it failed miserably with Napster and Kazaa. BitTorrent is doing the same thing to the relatively simple to crack DVDs. The RIAA and MPAA's response is completely unjustified, though. There is absolutely no reason to be suing everyone from kids to the elderly.

 

How did it "fail miserably"?? Protection doesn't stop anyone, it only harasses those that honestly pay, and turn them into criminals when they use the media in they way they used to be allowed. Those that want to pirate, will pirate, DRM or not, DCMA or not, copy protection or not.

 

If you produce good music, people buy it. Product good movies, people pay to watch. So if you product {censored}, you're supposed to DRM it to death?

 

I get the distinct feeling some of you don't know what life was like before the DCMA... back when you could speak freely about how to circumvent copy protection... before backup copies were illegal.

[STEP753]

Hello, Juz a simple quest'n... ... does anyone 'er anticipates OSX Macintel commin w/customised hardware?

10x

[bofors]

Apple will be using stock (not custom) Intel CPUs, however it is possible that the next generation of Intel CPUs will support DRM. In fact part of Apple's marketing game will be to be the first "kid" on the block with the new Intel chips: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1285

 

Apple may design it's own chipship but it is more likely that the will use one of Intel's and perhaps tweak it slightly (just like the Dev. Kit motherboard).

 

Otherwise, we should expect Apple to produce it's own motherboards.

[buglamp]

I smoke and drink, I'm already going to hell.

I work on computers for a living, a life time in computer hell.

Jobs can Rip, Mix & Burn In Hell.

I would like to take this time to thank the entire apple community for making it what it is.

And why cant I get these damn overpriced MP3's off of my Ipod?

 

Hackers ROCK!!!!!

[fishbert]

The two month review period i was refering to was someone else posting that "Apple" is lenient with the authentication only inside some kind of review period, i don't know what the person was talkinga bout either, i was hoping he would clarify.

Were back to the car analogy. Your asking what if "apple does this or that" well honestly, i don't know what if the dump itunes? Well then im going to assume your trying to say if they dump itunes we are at that point not going to be able to play the bought music in anything at all? There would be some problem there, but do you really think apple would do that? im sure it "can" happen, but come on your now bordering on really really far out arguments. That's the same as saying, i bought a printer and the printer company went out of business and stopped making cartridges. I mean tough luck the company went out of business doodle like that happens. Are you screwed well, yes and now, you could theoretically burn your music to CDs!!! Then move them to what ever format you want them in. You are allowed to make "multiple" copies of your music to cds(as per your agreement when you download the music from apple) There is nothing that says you arne't allowed to do that. There is a limit to how much many times you burn the same playlist(five times actually) which mean you can have it in your car in your room, in your living room, in your other car and even have one copy spare as backup. The restriction applies to the "playlist" so that means if you just add(or remove) just one song from that playlist you can burn it another five times! i mean come on, what kind of scenario can you think of where you would need more than five copies of the same playlist. Normal users don't. And lets agree that Itunes is targeted towards mainstream users. You know what if you want more than five copies of that thing, you really should just buy the cd pay your 12-15 bucks for the cd and just start stamping out that cd copy a million times. Nothing in itunes prevents you from doing what normal users would really use it for. That is all i am defending. you are making outrageous statements about Itunes usability. It isn't anywhere near as strict as you think it is and it is very very useable. If you have need to Use the music you download that needs you to make a copy of the thing more than five times then itunes isn't for you and ill concede that.

all the things you said you couldn't do with itunes, you can do with itunes, except of course prevent Apple from imploding on itself and dumping itunes and making your music unusable because martians invaded and forced the company to use WMA! What if? Well what if apple gets swallowed by microsoft and instead of the lenient practices forced you to dial online when ever you listen to your music whether its in your car in your living room, or while you humm it while walking down the road. i mean all that could be possible, but lets talk a little more sensibly now.

[Guest terry]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050925-5348.html

http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/736.html

 

[bonehead]

but come on your now bordering on really really far out arguments.

 

No, my arguments border on sanity.

 

Allowing all your fair use rights to evaporte is what's wrong.

 

Just because Apple may (or may not) be so kind, doesn't mean another company will.

 

That's the same as saying, i bought a printer and the printer company went out of business and stopped making cartridges.

 

Now this IS a really really far out argument. Licensed content, and disposable printer do not equal the same thing. If I need to explain this to you, then… wow... never mind.