[edmetric]

Quote:

---

On the other hand, it seems like basic common sense to me that there's a big difference between making copies for yourself and making copies to give to friends.

---

The issue is whether it is private or commercial, not self or friends.
iTunes doesn't allow GarageBand use because everything must be considered commercial in the business model i.e. there is no private use under law or the business model.

[stevebert]

It's truly amazing to me the levels of passion and agument over this thing. Let's remember, people, Apple is not is the business of truth, light and ultimate justice. They are in the business of selling cool products for profit, and maybe, just maybe, changing the way technology serves individuals in a positive direction. There is a larger issue at work here, to be sure, but Apple did not invent this issue, they're just trying to do business within the limitations and confusion surrounding this thorny legal issue. Apple is not trying to abridge your civil rights nor lift your wallet without your consent. If you think the RIAA is screwing everyone and squeezing blood from a turnip (which I happend to think), then complain to the RIAA, complain to your congressman, boycott ringtones, but don't lay blame where it's not due, and by all means, put this into perspective and cut Apple a little slack.

[Deano1964]

Quote:

---

Have you actually read these articles to which you're referring? In every instance I can recall, and definitely in every article I've personally written, we've explicitly noted that we're providing the instructions in order to help users enjoy CDs and DVDs they own

---

Of course I have. That's why I said:

Quote:

---

Sometimes the articles in question take a coy "don't do anything illegal - wink, wink" approach

---

Quote:

---

You can believe what you want, but we don't write these articles to help people steal.

---

Maybe not. I don't live your mind or anyone else's at Macworld, so I can't say for certain. Maybe you really do intend for your readers to only rip legally. Maybe it deeply offends everyone at Macworld that anyone might use the information you provide to do anything as horrifyingly evil as rip a CD that a friend loaned to them. Maybe the iTunes libraries of every single writer and editor at Macworld are pure as the driven snow and are filled with nothing but legally purchased music.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I just don't believe it.
More likely: As a group, you folks at Macworld know full good and well that a large number of people use that information to rip illegally and that doesn't really bother you that much as long as the publication stays out of trouble legally. So, you stick in a disclaimer and sell your magazines.
Good for you. I honestly don't care. I'm just not willing to sit here quietly and be told that you are shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that there's gambling going on in Rick's cafe.
No matter how much to try to convince me otherwise, I refuse to believe any of this is about anything other than money.

[pemulwuy]

... I was impressed with the article too until I read foolishpuck's comments. Looking authoritative and being it obviously vary. And I reckon Terrin is patient and brave for hanging in there and getting back to us with more to back up his/her views in the face of disbelief (albeit fair enough that Dan held a different view) and ridicule (less fair from wondercow :-) Comments from others on history and purpose of copyright were cool as well.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Maybe the iTunes libraries of every single writer and editor at Macworld are pure as the driven snow and are filled with nothing but legally purchased music.

---

I can't speak for anyone else, by mine is. Does that make me better than anyone? Nope, not at all. But it lends credence to my claim -- the one you seem to feel is so hypocritical -- that I don't believe in stealing music.

Quote:

---

More likely: As a group, you folks at Macworld know full good and well that a large number of people use that information to rip illegally and that doesn't really bother you that much as long as the publication stays out of trouble legally. So, you stick in a disclaimer and sell your magazines.

---

Do we know that some people will use the information to steal content? Sure, we're not naive. But that's not why we provide the information, and if it were up to us, no one would use the information that way. We provide the information because there are legitimate uses for it. Should we not help our readers copy their own DVDs to their iPods, or their own CDs to iTunes, because some people might rip CDs or DVDs they don't own?
By your cynical logic, if we tell you how you can recover from a lost Mac OS X password, we're actually -- wink, wink -- encouraging you to hack into someone else's Mac. If we explain how to rescue your music off your iPod if your hard drive crashes and you lose your iTunes library, we're really -- wink, wink -- encouraging you to steal music from your friends' iPods.
Look, we're a technology publication. Lots of things in technology can be used for both right and wrong; if we avoided talking about anything that could possibly be used maliciously because we're worried about someone on our forums casting aspersions on our motives, we wouldn't be much use to our readers.
Beyond that, I don't know what else to say. After your last couple posts, it seems clear that the real issue here is your cynicism, not what Macworld has or hasn't written, so no amount of reasonable discussion is going to keep you from making unfounded claims. But I think I've made our actual motives clear enough for those willing to consider them.

[DarrenForbes]

Quote:

---

It's truly amazing to me the levels of passion and agument over this thing. Let's remember, people, Apple is not is the business of truth, light and ultimate justice. They are in the business of selling cool products for profit, and maybe, just maybe, changing the way technology serves individuals in a positive direction. There is a larger issue at work here, to be sure, but Apple did not invent this issue, they're just trying to do business within the limitations and confusion surrounding this thorny legal issue. Apple is not trying to abridge your civil rights nor lift your wallet without your consent. If you think the RIAA is screwing everyone and squeezing blood from a turnip (which I happend to think), then complain to the RIAA, complain to your congressman, boycott ringtones, but don't lay blame where it's not due, and by all means, put this into perspective and cut Apple a little slack.

---

I think that passion level increased when the debate went into the legal (and moral?) right of copying CD's and giving them away to friends for their use. Oh, and the accusation of double standards for Macworld staff. Discussions of rights do seem to inflame the passions of Americans even if the rights in questions seems insignificant on a grander scale. Slippery slopes are often mentioned. I would have been shocked if Mr Frakes didn't defend his magazine against accusations of deliberately assisting in (what most people think is ) illegal piracy of music.
I was just interested in the idea of needing a licence to play the CD (Anybody got a definitive answer?) Not because I have lots of CD copies and am worried about the approach of the law enforcement agencies. I'm simply curious.
My mobile phone does not support ring-tones except for ones that you have to type in yourself one (monophonic) note at at time. I've programmed in a shoddy rendition of the CTU ring-tone; it's the best I can do. I wouldn't buy any ring-tones; to me the ring is just to tell you that somebody wants to speak to you and virtually any noise does that well enough.
Apple are getting a bit of stick because they seemed to try to block some simple ways of adding ring-tones. They may or may not be contractually or legally obliged to make attempts to block this. We will probably never know for certain but if you are a big ring-tone fan you'd probably best make the assumption that home made (and CD ripped) ring-tones may always be a pain to install and maintain on an iPhone. Third party teams will try to keep up but Just bear the inconvenience in mind when you make your phone purchasing decision.

[edmetric]

Quote:

---

I don't believe in stealing music.

---

What's your belief about hacking the iPhone to add third party apps DF?

[hgwells]

Wow! Good thing I don't seem to need ringtones! Seems like a lot of stress in the world just to find out your phone is ringing!
I can't help but be concerned should the community of "Ringtoners" find out about other issues, such as the possible use of nuclear weapons, climate change and, according to increasing numbers, possible planetary or species destruction as a result! Those who may know about such things would be well advised to protect the mental and emotional health of Ringtoners by not mentioning those and other such issues!
Ringtones...

[edmetric]

Quote:

---

...the possible use of nuclear weapons, climate change and, according to increasing numbers, possible planetary or species destruction...

---

End of the world is in the networking section. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif This thread is about whether rip means rip off, copy means copy, and locked means locked. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[bortz62]

In attempting to illustrate the limits fair use, the author of the article provides as an example that "youre not free to take the Macworld iPhone Superguide and give it to friends or resell it". Perhaps this is true of the PDF version (I don't know), but my understanding is I'm free to do what ever I want with the hard copy or CD-ROM version. Could someone from MacWorld please clarify this statement. Thanks.

[MyMac8MyPC]

We regularly read Macworld but rarely have a need to post here. However this thread is a notable exception. I want to thank Dan Frakes/Macworld for not censoring opposing views to their own (as many other forums might have done). I want to thank all those educated in this threads topic for bringing to light many facts generally unknown. This is without a doubt one of the best, most educating threads that I've read on the Internet in quite a while. Thanks to Terrin for all of their great insightful information and links. Whether you agree with them or not is not the issue. The point is that they have shared important information regarding how copyright law is not as many would have you believe. I for one appreciate all of the links provided, so that we could all learn more on this issue. I also agree with many here that ringtones are an entirely voluntary and an unnecessary purchase. People seem to buy ringtones to look 'cool' --- but many of us know that when their ringtone plays it often times has the opposite effect. All in all congratulations to Macworld for having such a great thread on this topic.

[Terrin]

I disagree with Macworld's take on this as well. Under the first sale doctrine you generally can give away a legally acquired copy of a copyrighted work, the same as you can give away a music CD or book that you legally own. Companies have tried to limit this right, but the courts have generally struck down such attempts. There is a bit of confusion in the area of software, but most courts have upheld the first sale doctrine here as well.
http://en.wikipedia....t-sale_doctrine
(I know it is Wikipedia, but it summaries the law well, and provides links).

Quote:

---

In attempting to illustrate the limits fair use, the author of the article provides as an example that "youre not free to take the Macworld iPhone Superguide and give it to friends or resell it". Perhaps this is true of the PDF version (I don't know), but my understanding is I'm free to do what ever I want with the hard copy or CD-ROM version. Could someone from MacWorld please clarify this statement. Thanks.

---

[edmetric]

Quote:

---

I want to thank Dan Frakes/Macworld for not censoring opposing views to their own (as many other forums might have done).

---

Why censure? We all accepted the terms of service, when we signed up the first time, to "agree not to post any material the content of which (i) is defamatory, libelous, obscene, indecent, abusive, threatening to others, or in violation of any law; or (ii) infringes the copyright, trademark right, or other intellectual property right of any third party." Furthermore, MacWorld claims the copyright on everything published here.
What infringes? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

I disagree with Macworld's take on this as well. Under the first sale doctrine you generally can give away a legally acquired copy of a copyrighted work, the same as you can give away a music CD or book that you legally own. Companies have tried to limit this right, but the courts have generally struck down such attempts. There is a bit of confusion in the area of software, but most courts have upheld the first sale doctrine here as well.

---

Keep in mind that this wasn't Macworld's view; this was an article by Mac Journals republished here.
As for what they wrote, I think what they meant -- and this is admittedly just my interpretation of the article -- is that you can't give away or sell a copy of the Superguide.
You're correct, Terrin, that that the First Sale Doctrine allows you to transfer ownership of a particular copy of a copyrighted work -- including a Macworld Superguide -- that you've purchased. (Of course, "transfer" means that you don't keep a copy for yourself.)