I predicted this yesterday.

And I thought my iPod was a clunker compared to the current models.

i like the eyecandy, i would so hit that if she weren't 16.

/did not read TFA

From TFA:

That stance has effectively limited iPod users to loading up their players with tracks purchased from Apple's iTunes Music Store, or MP3s ripped from CDs or bought from vendors such as eMusic or Amazon.com.

Rob Enderle, technology analyst at the San Jose-based Enderle Group, said he expects Apple would take steps to block Qtrax files from working on iPods.

It's thought Apple would be unlikely to allow tracks downloaded from its rival to be compatible with its players.

Wtf? "Limited"? More anti-iPod FUD. It doesn't limit shiat. IIRC, the QTrax format is just an .mp3, plain and simple, and if you prefer this highly portable-yet-somewhat-inadequate format (as compared to .aac/mp4/m4a) then you're ok. It's like saying "Humans are limited to breathing air through their mouths, nose or with a pipe in their trachea." Duh....

Also, unless Qtrax adds some metadata or something in the id3 info, I really doubt Apple will try or even find a way to block these files from playing. If that were the case, they would have blocked tracks from AllTunes (allofmp3) from playing a long time ago.

This FUD-laden article is full of fail, just like qTrax is.

If only there were some way of downloading music from the internet without paying outrageously overpriced download sites or using gimmicky DRM-laden crud like QTrax, preferably for free...

From TFA:

Qtrax downloads can be stored indefinitely on PCs and transferred on to portable music players, however.


Then a little farther down the page:


Qtrax downloads can be stored indefinitely on PCs and transferred onto portable music players.

That's some great proofreading there.

Wow, how long has this qtrax thing been known about? It's the first I've heard of it!

But still....*bookmarks Qtrax* looks interesting.

When they invent a website that sells obscure, hard to find songs, then I'll pay for music. John Hammond's soundtrack for Little Big Man needs to be made available.

Walt_Jizzney: the QTrax format is just an .mp3,

No, Qtrax uses Windows Media DRM (according to their FAQ). They want to use a subscription based DRM system so that they retain the ability to revoke songs after you've downloaded them.

I don't mind paying for music, but if you insult me with your idiotic DRM schemes, I might pirate it just to spite you. That recently happened with one album I wanted- their only online distribution was Windows Media files. Strangely, a quick perusal of illicit sites (for information gathering only) showed the band's entire discography available at a higher bitrate with no cripple-ware.

The moral of the story: it's the distribution, stupid. When I can bootleg your intellectual property and the quality, service and speediness of the interaction is better than the licit services you offer, your business model is broken. I'm not one of those commutards that thinks I should be able to download everything for free. I'm more than happy to pay, if you give me something worth paying for.

Wake me when these retarded subscription products offer .flac or another lossless codec. Why would anyone pay for compressed, lossy audio?

t3knomanser: I don't mind paying for music, but if you insult me with your idiotic DRM schemes, I might pirate it just to spite you. That recently happened with one album I wanted- their only online distribution was Windows Media files. Strangely, a quick perusal of illicit sites (for information gathering only) showed the band's entire discography available at a higher bitrate with no cripple-ware.

The moral of the story: it's the distribution, stupid. When I can bootleg your intellectual property and the quality, service and speediness of the interaction is better than the licit services you offer, your business model is broken. I'm not one of those commutards that thinks I should be able to download everything for free. I'm more than happy to pay, if you give me something worth paying for.

I agree with what you said, but you need to relearn the difference between capitalism and communism.

Capitalism means that price is dictated by supply and demand in a competitive market. With digital goods (mp3s) the supply is infinite, so the price reduces to zero. Copyright restrictions are a way to reduce competition (by reducing the means you can get the goods) or a way to artificially reduce the supply. Lots of people are more than happy to pay, but it had better be worth the money (according to the market, legitimately or not) and it should be the right price according to supply and demand. You can make it worth it by offering fantastic bitrates that file sharing doesn't offer. You can make it worth it by selling it in a physical box with lots of other neat stuff in it. But in the end, the price of music reduces to zero, and that's capitalism, not communism.

Walt_Jizzney: This FUD-laden article is full of fail, just like qTrax is.

Any article that quotes Enderle automatically sets it FAIL.

FTA
To take advantage of the free but legal service, the user will need to download the Qtrax software which displays adverts while the user is searching and downloading songs.

Hurray adware!

t3knomanser: The moral of the story: it's the distribution, stupid. When I can bootleg your intellectual property and the quality, service and speediness of the interaction is better than the licit services you offer, your business model is broken. I'm not one of those commutards that thinks I should be able to download everything for free. I'm more than happy to pay, if you give me something worth paying for.

bingo!

if i can, i download stuff off of amazon. i know it's not free, but it works for me... it's already in mp3 format, no drm, and it really isn't that expensive. i hate downloading from itunes because it takes a few extra steps to have the music ready... stripped of DRM, etc.

if you offer it and it's a better service than the pirate services, people will use it.

jonny_q: capitalism and communism.

"Commutard" shares a linguistic root with communism, but is otherwise unrelated.

jonny_q: With digital goods (mp3s) the supply is infinite

The supply of copies is infinite. The supply of works to copy is large, but finite. The purpose of intellectual property law is to create state-mandated scarcity of an idea to create a supply/demand gap and ensure that the invention of new ideas is profitable.

The problem that the music industry is suffering from is that they made their money by controlling the supply of copies. They are ill equipped to market a supply of ideas.

jonny_q: Capitalism means that price is dictated by supply and demand in a competitive market. With digital goods (mp3s) the supply is infinite, so the price reduces to zero. Copyright restrictions are a way to reduce competition (by reducing the means you can get the goods) or a way to artificially reduce the supply. Lots of people are more than happy to pay, but it had better be worth the money (according to the market, legitimately or not) and it should be the right price according to supply and demand. You can make it worth it by offering fantastic bitrates that file sharing doesn't offer. You can make it worth it by selling it in a physical box with lots of other neat stuff in it. But in the end, the price of music reduces to zero, and that's capitalism, not communism.

yes and no.

in theory the price reduces to zero because the supply is infinite. and it easily could reduce to zero. but in a free market, the market price is set at the intersection of what the consumers are willing to pay and what the seller is willing to offer it at. these are ranges, and consumers will be willing to pay for music. perhaps not as much as it costs now, but if the price reduces to zero, the artists don't get paid for their work, they stop working, and the supply of new music is gone.

not to mention that with digital media, part of the package is the distribution system. someone running a p2p site can make a good interface for finding what you want, but it will never be as good as it could be.

here's where the industry really has to figure things out. if they offered a great interface, that was chock full of information, easy to search, allowed you to sample songs, and delivered the songs ready to go (id3 filled in, etc) for a reasonable price, people will use it. not everyone, but a lot of people will.

Walt_Jizzney: if you prefer this highly portable-yet-somewhat-inadequate format (as compared to .aac/mp4/m4a)

Please, there's barely any difference. AAC might compress to be a little smaller.

burndtdan: and delivered the songs ready to go (id3 filled in, etc) for a reasonable price

ID3 alone is worth the $0.99 that iTunes charges.

jonny_q: Copyright restrictions are a way to reduce competition protect their media distribution paths

Fixed!

Anti-copyright asshats are always acting as if the fact that they don't feel served is a license to steal. Why should the record company have to go the extra mile?? They own the music and have made the investment to market it. If you don't want to pay what their asking, and enough of your friends agree with you, the price will slide down the demand curve.

If you rip and distribute music or take possession of copyright protected music that was illegally ripped and distributed you are a thief. Just because it is easy and everyone does it doesn't change moral realities.

I don't stick up for the record industry because I feel they are bastion of morality and ethics. I stick up for them because I produce intellectual property and have witnessed my collegues work stolen by the same means that you use to rip off the music industry.

We are now a society that generates a tremendous amount of wealth from IP. That IP is protected by a collective understanding of the ownership of an intangible and easily copied product. If you don't like it, vote for someone to establish a new consensus.

You are an idiot.

b2theory: If you rip and distribute music or take possession of copyright protected music that was illegally ripped and distributed you are a thief.

Stop it. Once you call copyright infringers "thieves" you've lost any credibility you might have. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is nothing like theft. This does not mean you have the right to go and pirate all you like- it isn't right. But it isn't theft either.

b2theory: If you don't want to pay what their asking, and enough of your friends agree with you, the price will slide down the demand curve.

It isn't about the price, it's about the service. Every "pay-for" service to get music from stinks. When the music I paid for allows me to do less than the music I've pirated, when the software I pay for harasses me with "authorization" and the pirated version doesn't, when the pirated television doesn't tell my Tivo to delete my copy when HBO decides I shouldn't have it anymore- well, there's something really broken there.

No, you shouldn't pirate. But you shouldn't pay them for crap either. On that note, if I were shopping for medical lasers, I'd boycott your company on principle.

tallguywithglasseson: Walt_Jizzney: if you prefer this highly portable-yet-somewhat-inadequate format (as compared to .aac/mp4/m4a)

Please, there's barely any difference. AAC might compress to be a little smaller.

...and they sound better, not so much rolloff in the higher-bands, especially at bitrates under 256. They just have slightly better range and dynamics than .mp3s. Perhaps it's my coffee.

t3knomanser: They are ill equipped to market a supply of ideas.

"Ill Equipped Supply of Ideas" is the name of my new band.

Walt_Jizzney: ...and they sound better, not so much rolloff in the higher-bands, especially at bitrates under 256. They just have slightly better range and dynamics than .mp3s. Perhaps it's my coffee.

They sound the same to me. Either one is entirely adequate.

Technically yes AAC is an improvement/successor, but to these human ears it's just newer patents.

t3knomanser: Stop it. Once you call copyright infringers "thieves" you've lost any credibility you might have. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is nothing like theft. This does not mean you have the right to go and pirate all you like- it isn't right. But it isn't theft either.

Ahhh yes - one of the most FAMOUS arguments put forth from pirates. Look - if what you are doing leads to me taking a financial loss by preventing potential sales by downloading my software/music for free or by allowing other people to share it is creating damages. Just because you're only taking "copies" of "digital bits" doesn't change the fact that you're stealing. It's leading to lost sales; you're liable.



It isn't about the price, it's about the service. Every "pay-for" service to get music from stinks.

Then find services that don't do what you hate! I know of SEVERAL services that pay AND offer DRM-Free music. But really - just cough up the cash and buy the physical CD. It has insert art, sounds better, allows YOU to chose what codec/bitrate to rip at, and acts as an automatic backup source!!!


No, you shouldn't pirate.

Then why do you?

But you shouldn't pay them for crap either.


The don't buy crap. But them having "crap" is no justification for theft. If selling "crap" were a proper justification for theft, WalMart and RadioShack would be doing a lot worse! :)

On that note, if I were shopping for medical lasers, I'd boycott your company on principle.

What's with the vitriol?

t3knomanser:
Stop it. Once you call copyright infringers "thieves" you've lost any credibility you might have. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is nothing like theft. This does not mean you have the right to go and pirate all you like- it isn't right. But it isn't theft either.

Actually, it is. Go and work your ass off to make something and then have someone copy it and give it to someone else. Then you can start having an opinion.


It isn't about the price, it's about the service. Every "pay-for" service to get music from stinks. When the music I paid for allows me to do less than the music I've pirated, when the software I pay for harasses me with "authorization" and the pirated version doesn't, when the pirated television doesn't tell my Tivo to delete my copy when HBO decides I shouldn't have it anymore- well, there's something really broken there.

OHHHH! Now I understand! You were inconvenienced! Here is your license to steal card. Have at it.


No, you shouldn't pirate. But you shouldn't pay them for crap either. On that note, if I were shopping for medical lasers, I'd boycott your company on principle.

If you should pay for it, then you shouldn't use it. Seems fair to me. I am glad that you feel that strongly.

The thing that boggles my mind ( I know this has been discussed here before) is all this DRM crap that exists...you know...the company can put WHATEVER type of over the top DRM technology they want, but...eventually that audio track hits an analog audio output, not that difficult to dump that sound file onto another computer...

DRM is about as futile of a process as attempting to put out all those Cali wild fires with a small bucket of water; you may put out spots here and there, but you are not going to stop that 200ft wall of fire approaching at 50 MPH with that little bucket of yours.

nkanofolives: The thing that boggles my mind ( I know this has been discussed here before) is all this DRM crap that exists...you know...the company can put WHATEVER type of over the top DRM technology they want, but...eventually that audio track hits an analog audio output, not that difficult to dump that sound file onto another computer...

DRM is about as futile of a process as attempting to put out all those Cali wild fires with a small bucket of water; you may put out spots here and there, but you are not going to stop that 200ft wall of fire approaching at 50 MPH with that little bucket of yours.

Your right....! They need more vigorous methods. I'd say they should financially cripple the large scale distributors and attack the individual users computers. Destroy the unauthorized distribution channels.

/The author decides when they want to distribute something for free, not the user.

Walt_Jizzney: Look - if what you are doing leads to me taking a financial loss by preventing potential sales by downloading my software/music for free or by allowing other people to share it is creating damages.

Stop. You're still doing it wrong. There are plenty of legal forms of copyright infringement that still cause financial damages
(various areas of Fair Use).

Walt_Jizzney: Then find services that don't do what you hate!

None of them offer a catalog worth buying. Trust me, I've looked. Occasionally, I'll find what I'm looking for. But, given that I have to do work and actually put effort into a purchase, when the free, illegal alternative is a fraction of the effort tells you that something is wrong.

Walt_Jizzney: What's with the vitriol?

I can't stand idiotic statements like "Copyright infringement is theft". It isn't. If it were, they'd call it "theft" and not "copyright infringement".

b2theory: Actually, it is. Go and work your ass off to make something and then have someone copy it and give it to someone else. Then you can start having an opinion.

Does it count when I'm the one giving it away? I won this fight with my band, and got them to distribute our MP3s for free under CC licenses. It got us more gigs, which actually made us money. Or how about my software? Giving it away got me some awesome resume hits which helped me land my current job. And, when I finish the book I'm writing, I'll experiment with selling it via serial-ransom-ware, or some other non-scarcity business model. Hard to say, because my writing chops aren't "up" there.

b2theory: OHHHH! Now I understand! You were inconvenienced! Here is your license to steal card. Have at it.

No, you obviously don't. I have, repeatedly, said that "Copyright infringement isn't right". If you scroll up the thread, I've said it at least once here.

But just because something is wrong, and just because it subjects you to civil and possibly criminal damages, doesn't mean that stops people from doing it. If it did, there wouldn't be any potheads. If you want to draw people towards licit distribution channels, you have to outperform the illicit ones. This is an unfortunate reality. You can cry about the fact that pirate networks are a superior distribution channel to yours, or you can improve your distribution channel (or take a cue from some indie game developers and use a pirate network as your licit distribution channel).

The fantasy is that you have the right, through copyright, to have total control over the distribution of your work. In reality, there are many legal ways to redistribute or mangle your work without paying you a dime (Fair Use), and you do not have the legal or technical clout to stamp out illicit distribution through threat of force. So, you can stamp your feet and continue crying about how unfair it is, or you can beat the pirates at their own game.

b2theory: I'd say they should financially cripple the large scale distributors and attack the individual users computers.

Vigilantism? Classy.

t3knomanser: b2theory: I'd say they should financially cripple the large scale distributors and attack the individual users computers.

Vigilantism? Classy.

No, I believe the government should be doing this or authorize the victims to do this. To me it is no different than putting a die pack in with the money a robber stole from the bank.

Listen, I am not criticizing your chosen method of distribution. That is your choice and you are free to make it. I have done it with some projects.

However, when I work for a company that spends dozens of man years specing a project, financing development, designing software, performing thousands of hours of incredibly boring QA I am hoping that I can cover my costs and make a profit. I then distribute my product, have some asshat crack my product key and post it on an FTP server for the world to enjoy. My business model is screwed, I can't pay my mortgage and I have to go find new work.

If you don't get that, wait until you have kids, a house, medical bills, retirement planning, and the only thing you are trained to do is make IP.

For now, you are still a thief.

TFA iPods only play back unrestricted MP3s files or tracks with Apple's proprietary version of DRM, dubbed FairPlay.

Not true. It will also play uncompressed .aif or .wav files of music ripped from your CD collection, or digitized from LPs. That's why I have the 160GB version.

Walt_Jizzney: Look - if what you are doing leads to me taking a financial loss by preventing potential sales by downloading my software/music for free or by allowing other people to share it is creating damages.

Let's say I downloaded "Bad Man's Blunder" by the Kingston Trio, that doesn't mean I was going to go buy it, maybe I just remembered the song and wanted to listen to it on a whim.

It's the same way movie studios pull damage figures out of their asses. They estimate how many movies are pirated in, say, Indonesia, and then multiply that by retail price. Then when their final figure is something like half the GDP of the country they are estimating the damages for, they somehow keep a straight face.

Pirated music != lost sales, though it certainly contributes to lost sales, no argument there.

Just because you're only taking "copies" of "digital bits" doesn't change the fact that you're stealing.

No, the fact that the record companies still have their digital bits and the rights to sell it means it's not stealing. What it is, is copyright infringement. Calling it "stealing" is only done because "copyright infringement" doesn't have the same stigma. I understand calling it the equivalent but that doesn't mean the words are interchangeable. Copyright infringement is wrong, it's illegal, but it's not stealing - it's copyright infringement.

t3knomanser: None of them offer a catalog worth buying. Trust me, I've looked.

Amazon MP3 works pretty well and has a pretty good selection, $.89/song.

b2theory: Anti-copyright asshats are always acting as if the fact that they don't feel served is a license to steal.

As t3knomanser pointed out, attacking and hyperbole hurt your credibility.

I'm not pointing out what I think it "right" or "wrong". I'm point out the facts of the market. There is no way to legitimately contain the supply of the goods without hurting your consumers, so the supply will remain infinite regardless of how you or I feel about. You need to learn to use your IP to make money another way if market forces are dictating that.

burndtdan: ... but if the price reduces to zero, the artists don't get paid for their work, they stop working, and the supply of new music is gone.

Aside from the fact that there are artists who make good music for free today, there are plenty of ways for artists to get paid including performance, physical goods, and commissioned services. The idea that music will disappear without people paying for copies of music is absurd. If copies of music were totally free, music would continue to exist and thrive by finding other ways to make its money. Musicians would continue to make as much money as they are today, but if you can manage to prove that some musician would make less money, I might argue that he's overpaid today.

b2theory: No, I believe the government should be doing this or authorize the victims to do this.

Copyright is largely a civil matter. That means the government can't take action unless someone files a claim. Copyright law is purposefully structured that way, because the government can't know the wishes of the copyright holder- many copyright holders don't feel the need to pursue every case of infringement. Most major distribution networks, like the Pirate Bay, operate in a legal grey-area. In many, if not all, of their nations of operation, they are not breaking local laws. Are you suggesting that the US government should go break some other countries laws to protect your copyright claims (note, they already tried this with the Pirate Bay, and it didn't work so well).

Copyright law is a complex legal framework, and it does not offer simple answers. Calling it "theft" oversimplifies the matter far too much. It doesn't deal with the civil areas of copyright law (nearly all individual users are subject only to civil prosecution, not criminal). It doesn't deal with the international law implications (AllOfMp3.com was legal in Russia, but could never have operated in the US; US lobbyists and the WTO got the plug pulled, but it was never explicitly ruled illegal).

So, if someone is infringing your copyright, bring a case against them. There's a legal framework in place to protect your intellectual property. As we've established many times in this thread: infringement is wrong, and carries legal consequences. So, lawyer up and go forth! Have at. We won't mind, really.

Lost in all this mess is that, for the first X,000 years or so of civilization, MUSIC WAS FREE.

The music "industry" has established a mindset that music should be paid for. This is actually a very recent and mind-boggling idea. Historically, the best composers only made a living by earning commissions for their work, like other artists. You paint because you want to, and sell it if you manage to be good. You play music because you want to, and if you're good enough, someone will pay you to write a song or listen to a live performance. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a living as a musician -- and many did before the "industry" took over -- but expecting to make gobs of money off it by selling it like property is borderline insanity.

Now it's all a legal issue, and I have my own opinions there, but let's not get caught up in the alternate reality that is. Music is not "intellectual property" because it's art, not a commodity.

tallguywithglasseson: Amazon MP3 works pretty well and has a pretty good selection, $.89/song.

I'm planning on checking them out for my next rash of music buying. I tend to do it in spurts, and I just grabbed some recently.

dragonchild: Now it's all a legal issue, and I have my own opinions there, but let's not get caught up in the alternate reality that is. Music is not "intellectual property" because it's art, not a commodity.

You aren't helping my case at all. Creative works are commodities. Anything that has value is a salable commodity. Art is a commodity. In fact, I just bought some lovely prints, direct from the artist, at an art festival. Exchange of money for a commodity.

dragonchild: but expecting to make gobs of money off it by selling it like property is borderline insanity.

You're right, but not for the reasons you think. Expecting to make gobs of money off music is like expecting to become a best selling writer: you've got a one in a million shot, and success has far more to do with luck and marketing than talent. Going into music, or any creative endeavor, and expecting to be successful is foolhardy.

tallguywithglasseson: Walt_Jizzney: Look - if what you are doing leads to me taking a financial loss by preventing potential sales by downloading my software/music for free or by allowing other people to share it is creating damages.

Let's say I downloaded "Bad Man's Blunder" by the Kingston Trio, that doesn't mean I was going to go buy it, maybe I just remembered the song and wanted to listen to it on a whim.

It's the same way movie studios pull damage figures out of their asses. They estimate how many movies are pirated in, say, Indonesia, and then multiply that by retail price. Then when their final figure is something like half the GDP of the country they are estimating the damages for, they somehow keep a straight face.

Pirated music != lost sales, though it certainly contributes to lost sales, no argument there.

Just because you're only taking "copies" of "digital bits" doesn't change the fact that you're stealing.

No, the fact that the record companies still have their digital bits and the rights to sell it means it's not stealing. What it is, is copyright infringement. Calling it "stealing" is only done because "copyright infringement" doesn't have the same stigma. I understand calling it the equivalent but that doesn't mean the words are interchangeable. Copyright infringement is wrong, it's illegal, but it's not stealing - it's copyright infringement.

t3knomanser: None of them offer a catalog worth buying. Trust me, I've looked.

Amazon MP3 works pretty well and has a pretty good selection, $.89/song.



Let me see if we can gain some clarity here...

I think what tallguywithglasseson is attempting to say here is...okay...bare with the silly example here...

Lets say you have the worlds best beer recipe. If I come to you house and take it from your safe, you now no longer have the ability to make money...that is theft/stealing. However, if I make a copy of it, you still have the ability to make money. I have not removed your ability to resell in other ways...thats copyright infringement.

Its also rather presumptuous on the Music and Movie industries part to presume that because you illegally downloaded a file that you were going to purchase it in the first place. Does not work that way. Its like going to Whole Foods, you can sample pretty much anything you want in the store, asking for a sample does not presume the eventual purchase of the said item in which you are sampling. (May be to loose of an example, you get what I am saying though)

Maybe the better example is those "free vacations" where you have to sit through a timeshare presentation. Some people are interested, others did it because they are cheep bastards and wanted a free vacation. It would be incorrect on the salesmans part to assume that because you did not buy a timeshare, they lost...because, that assumes that you were going to buy in the first place...thats the wrong way to view the world.

Man, I can keep coming up with examples all day...this is better than working on this PowerPoint presentation that I have to do...

Walt_Jizzney: From TFA:

That stance has effectively limited iPod users to loading up their players with tracks purchased from Apple's iTunes Music Store, or MP3s ripped from CDs or bought from vendors such as eMusic or Amazon.com.

Rob Enderle, technology analyst at the San Jose-based Enderle Group, said he expects Apple would take steps to block Qtrax files from working on iPods.

It's thought Apple would be unlikely to allow tracks downloaded from its rival to be compatible with its players.

Wtf? "Limited"? More anti-iPod FUD. It doesn't limit shiat. IIRC, the QTrax format is just an .mp3, plain and simple, and if you prefer this highly portable-yet-somewhat-inadequate format (as compared to .aac/mp4/m4a) then you're ok. It's like saying "Humans are limited to breathing air through their mouths, nose or with a pipe in their trachea." Duh....

Also, unless Qtrax adds some metadata or something in the id3 info, I really doubt Apple will try or even find a way to block these files from playing. If that were the case, they would have blocked tracks from AllTunes (allofmp3) from playing a long time ago.

This FUD-laden article is full of fail, just like qTrax is.

The qTrax file is a DRM'ed Windows Media file.

The iPod has never supported WMA, much less Windows Media DRM. Why should they license Microsoft's DRM scheme (that even Microsoft has abandoned with the Zune)? Apple isn't blocking shiat from the iPod. "Blocking" implies some active, technical measures taken to keep something off the iPod; in reality, Apple just hasn't added WMA support. Big difference.

If qTrax wants to get their songs on the iPod, it's easy as pie. Just sell plain (non-DRM) mp3 or AAC files, like eMusic and Amazon does. Those files will play on almost any audio player, including the iPod.

Yeah. Sounded like a great idea because at least some revenue would be generated through ads. but since the record companies have voiced that they don't want to make money at all, i'll just stick with pirate bay.

b2theory: However, when I work for a company that spends dozens of man years specing a project, financing development, designing software, performing thousands of hours of incredibly boring QA I am hoping that I can cover my costs and make a profit. I then distribute my product, have some asshat crack my product key and post it on an FTP server for the world to enjoy. My business model is screwed, I can't pay my mortgage and I have to go find new work.

If you don't get that, wait until you have kids, a house, medical bills, retirement planning, and the only thing you are trained to do is make IP.

Ugh... I dread dragging other industries into this, but I can't resist.

Software companies make money lots of ways. One way is by selling support - selling support to an enterprise customer can be big business. Another way by custom commissioned work - custom jobs for a certain customer make big bucks. Another way is server-related services - if it's on your server, it can't exactly be copied and you're providing a valuable service. However, if your entire business model depends on copies of your software to a sizable market, your model may indeed be screwed. What if an OSS project starts up tomorrow developing better/alternative software for free?

I write code for money, too, and I wouldn't rest my retirement and kid's college fund on sale copies of easily-copyable software.

t3knomanser:
Copyright is largely a civil matter. That means the government can't take action unless someone files a claim. Copyright law is purposefully structured that way, because the government can't know the wishes of the copyright holder- many copyright holders don't feel the need to pursue every case of infringement. Most major distribution networks, like the Pirate Bay, operate in a legal grey-area. In many, if not all, of their nations of operation, they are not breaking local laws. Are you suggesting that the US government should go break some other countries laws to protect your copyright claims (note, they already tried this with the Pirate Bay, and it didn't work so well).

Copyright law is a complex legal framework, and it does not offer simple answers. Calling it "theft" oversimplifies the matter far too much. It doesn't deal with the civil areas of copyright law (nearly all individual users are subject only to civil prosecution, not criminal). It doesn't deal with the international law implications (AllOfMp3.com was legal in Russia, but could never have operated in the US; US lobbyists and the WTO got the plug pulled, but it was never explicitly ruled illegal).

So, if someone is infringing your copyright, bring a case against them. There's a legal framework in place to protect your intellectual property. As we've established many times in this thread: infringement is wrong, and carries legal consequences. So, lawyer up and go forth! Have at. We won't mind, really.

No, Copyright law is a strictly criminal offense. Just because it requires someone to file a claim, just like assault, fraud, and burglary, doesn't put it into a neat little side area with any less importance. Because you can seek damages in civil court doesn't make it a purely civil matter.

It was so important that it was written into the original text of the constitution. So keep that in mind. Before they got to the Amendments which define our basic freedoms, they created the right of individuals to copyright because they considered it so important to the advancement of science and thought.

Doc Daneeka: Apple just hasn't added WMA support. Big difference.

Apple hasn't paid tribute to Microsoft to be allowed the "privilege" of using Microsoft's technology. And Microsoft has no reason to license it to them anyway (aside from potential anti-trust actions).

b2theory: No, Copyright law is a strictly criminal offense. .., Because you can seek damages in civil court doesn't make it a purely civil matter.

Can you site your sources here?

b2theory: No, Copyright law is a strictly criminal offense.

That is factually wrong. 100% wrong. Some classes of copyright infringement are criminal, but the vast majority of individual user infringement is not criminal.

b2theory: they created the right of individuals to copyright because they considered it so important to the advancement of science and thought.

This is a gross misinterpretation. The Constitution grants the government the government the ability to create copyright laws- it does not define the "right of individuals to copyright". It defines the power of the government to define that right, if they see fit. To conflate its position in the text with its importance relative to other portions of the text is either disingenuous or idiotic.

What ever happened to art for art's sake?

I'd write even if I didn't get paid for it. Hell, I wrote long before anyone sent me a check for my efforts. Expecting to make a living from it is naive - some people do manage to make it happen, but there's absolutely no guarantee.

If I have a story published in a magazine, the magazine pays me. Why would I care if somebody steals a copy of the issue from a newsstand or bookstore? Hey, that's one more person reading (and hopefully enjoying) my work.

Granted, the payment for novels, etc. is arranged differently, so copies sold have an impact on my income, but I still honestly care more about the art getting out there than the money coming in.

I support bands by attending their concerts, buying their merchandise, and downloading songs or albums from Amazon. It's a way of expressing appreciation for their efforts without feeding the recording industry beast any more than I can help doing.

/YMMV

t3knomanser: Some classes of copyright infringement are criminal, but the vast majority of individual user infringement is not criminal.

Oh, and some classes of copyright infringement are not against any law, civil or criminal.

And while we're at it, copyright law does not exist to protect your business model. It exists to promote creativity and the "useful sciences". Originally, it protected works for the long period of 14 years (and that didn't apply to works produced in other countries- the US refused to recognize international copyrights or patents for several years after the country was created). Copyright is a strictly utilitarian law to promote commerce and new ideas, not to guarantee your ability to make money from them.

jonny_q:
Ugh... I dread dragging other industries into this, but I can't resist.

Software companies make money lots of ways. One way is by selling support - selling support to an enterprise customer can be big business. Another way by custom commissioned work - custom jobs for a certain customer make big bucks. Another way is server-related services - if it's on your server, it can't exactly be copied and you're providing a valuable service. However, if your entire business model depends on copies of your software to a sizable market, your model may indeed be screwed. What if an OSS project starts up tomorrow developing better/alternative software for free?

I write code for money, too, and I wouldn't rest my retirement and kid's college fund on sale copies of easily-copyable software.

If the market changes(Apache dominating the web server market....etc) then the market changes and you deal with it.

However, my example wasn't one involving a market shift. It was one that involved the usurping of the legal and well defined distribution channels so that someone can distribute it for free illegally.

You validate their activity by suggesting that I work around them.

Ophelia's Snorkel: Why would I care if somebody steals a copy of the issue from a newsstand or bookstore?

Because that cuts into the magazine's already thin margins. Your salary? It comes from those margins. The ability of the magazine to acquire quality art is proportional to its ability to pay for it- if it can't pay well for writing, it will attract poor writers, and sales decline and its ability to pay decreases farther.

Ophelia's Snorkel: What ever happened to art for art's sake?

It's a fantasy and a refuge for amateurs or people with trust funds. Writing is one of the cheapest forms of art- it takes only time. Music and visual arts all have expensive material components. Magazines have printing costs. That money has to come from somewhere.

b2theory: You validate their activity by suggesting that I work around them.

You don't really have an option. You can lawyer up, and try to get some traction that way. Or you can change your business model. Life sucks, get a helmet.