Posted on 04/05/2007 1:01:04 PM PDT by ozoneliar
EMI recently announced it would offer DRM-Free tracks on Itunes for a 30 cent premium. This means people can copy the songs freely. But, does this really change anything from a legal perspective? It is still illegal to make copies of music.
There is absolutely zero change from a legal perspective of copying. The main legal perspective would be if you circumvented Apple’s DRM in order to play your legally purchased songs on your non-iPod player. Such circumvention is possibly illegal due to a certain horribly-written section of a law, and it won’t be necessary anymore.
Correct. It is still illegal to make copies of music. However, the definition of legal copies is somewhat hard to determine.
Right now, under Apple’s usage rights, I am allowed to burn copies of music that I own and share them with friends. This is legal.
I have a friend who bought an album through iTunes. He is allowed to burn a CD with this music and give it as a gift to his friends, because this is covered by the iTunes usage rights.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a CD burner on his computer and so he asked me to help him burn the CD. I didn’t want to de-authorize my computer and re-authorize it, so I sent him over to an old computer I had with a DVD burner. Unfortunately, the DVD burner was flaky and so he could not burn it.
So I will have to un-authorize my computer, authorize it with his account and burn the CD.
What’s interesting about this is that this is all legal, just terribly inconvenient. Rules are being enforced fairly, but in a way that makes it a lot harder to do something that is perfectly legal by the usage rights to do.
The EMI tracks will have the same usage rights, but they will not be enforced. So if he bought the EMI tracks, he could copy them over to my computer and I could burn them onto a CD for him.
You might say, then, that this implicitly says that it’s OK to give copies of CDs of iTunes music to your friends. In fact, you can burn up to 7 copies of the same song sequence in a row, so it’s even legal to give away seven copies of your music. This implies that “normal” usage rights allow you to make that kind of distribution.
What is illegal is to go to a peer to peer music sharing network and make these copies available to 10,000,000 of your closest friends, because that will destroy potential sales of albums. If you give songs to your friends, they might still buy the singer’s new album, or tell their friends about it and convince them to buy it. But if you do the same to the public, they’ll just wait for more “free” music to become available.
So you can see that what you can legally do is different from what’s easy or convenient to do, which in turn is different from what’s clearly illegal that you can get away with doing anyway.
The DRM-free music will make it easier for you to do what’s legal, and hopefully not too many additional people will abuse their usage rights by going to the peer to peer networks where the real damage is done.
I think people are most excited about DRM-free music because they want to stream music using devices incompatible with FairPlay DRM. For example there are devices designed to stream music to speakers throughout your house. You would be able to use these devices with the EMI DRM-free music but not with other iTunes music.
I don’t think too many people are going to be interested in buying music from iTunes and putting it in their Zunes or even Sandisk Sansas. I think Apple realizes this is unlikely to say the least to do much to their entrenched music player market position and so from their viewpoint the DRM is nothing but a nuisance that was necessary at the time to get the record labels on board.
Hope that helps.
D
The usage rights that you have are granted by apple, without them even with DRM-Free music, it would be illegal to make a copy onto a cd.
All of EMI’s DRM-free music available on ITunes will have (or will soon have) an encrypted digital watermark that has a unique ID in the data. What does this mean?
Well, the unique watermark ID will be linked to an ITunes account, which will have IP, MAC, authorized devices, credit card info, home address from credit card info, etc., linked together in Apple’s databases.
So outside of pirates going in and signing up with iTunes with stolen credit cards and anonymous proxies,, the next batch of EMI funded RIAA piracy lawsuits will have a digital trail that will be easier to follow.
BUT, any one user of iTunes can give out what will be 7 copies of any song to friends, these friends can then transfer these copies again, or put them on a p2p network. Each copy will still contain the encrypted digital watermark, so the original legitimate purchaser of iTunes DRM-free music will be the easiest target of the RIAA in the upcoming test cases trying to hold the line on piracy of DRM-Free digital music. At that point it’s anyone’s guess as to how the legal challenges will pass through the courts.
One example:
A US citizen buys legit copy of EMI DRM-free music on iTunes. US citizen gives 1 copy out only, to a friend in Sweden. The Swede now puts the song on p2p networks. The American and the Swede have not broken any fair use laws in their respective home country. But theoretically the American can be charged with conspiracy to commit piracy in the US, and the Swede can be charged with piracy in the US. Even if the RIAA prevails, they have lost that track into the p2p wilderness forever unless they seed corrupt copies.
Who cares.....
I’m looking forward to using DRM-free iTunes on my cowon and sansa mp3 players. EMI has a huge collection of old recording I can’t buy anywhere, if they start posting the really old archives up on iTunes, I’m looking forward to d/l’ing some 1960’s jazz EMI has rights to, but has never released in digital format.
Musicians that want to pay their rent, for one.
Good people who despise theft, no matter the size of the crime, for another.
Should we stop prosecuting shoplifting at the convienence store now?
It doesn't change the copyright infringement laws, no.
Basically, DRM is analagous to a trigger lock -- an obstacle intended to prevent illegal misuse of a technology, but in actual practice a PITA to legitimate users. Downloading DRM-free music doesn't mean you are allowed to give it away to the rest of the world without permission, any more than buying a gun without a trigger lock means that you are allowed to shoot anybody who looks at you funny.
http://www.emimusicpub.com/worldwide/global/_print-songwriters-list.html
Great part of America’s cultural tradition.
Well you may have a point there, but copying a few songs for your personal use harms no other individual and the artist gets paid by the original transaction. As long as someone doesn't mass produce copies for distribution, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
That was, in fact, my point.
As far as I know, if you buy a CD you’re not supposed to be able to do anything with it but play it on a regular CD player, so ironically enough Apple’s usage rights might be more liberal than that of any other medium.
D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.