Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > wtf? license required?

Reply
Thread Tools

wtf? license required?

 
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, richard
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
> >> and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
> >> already made his money. So has the publisher. ...

> >
> >Seems you need to learn more about how the music industry works. Are you
> >suggesting that <pick an artist> records a song/album, and immediately
> >receives a million bucks? And nothing ever after that?
> >
> >You've never heard of royalties, I suspect.

>
> Royalties is not the issue, which I do know about.

No according to your summary above.

> The issue is the copyright license and who controls it.
> Microsoft says, in part, that because you are using their product,
> they can deny you YOUR rights simply because no license was detected.

Yes; you agreed to this when you purchase through their system or one
of their partners. You enter a code in the player; not a huge deal as
long as it works.
You can avoid it if you want: buy the CD or DVD.
See? Nothing has changed from previously, there's just a new choice.

> The question is, who exactly has the legal authority to issue this
> license? Not Microsoft. The only possible source of the license is the
> publisher.

Nope; the SELLER can also.
The publisher already gave the right to sell the product to the seller.
You accept that when you go to them to purchase it.

> But I do not believe they can limit the use to a set number
> of times that is not reasonable.

Was this purchased under a special condition or price?

> I would be happy with a 3 year limit
> rather than 10 times.

SO TELL THEM! The industry wants to hear about other options.
(They'll never agree to this, of course; most of the pop labels assume
you won't listen to a song more than a couple months. It's those months
they care about, and will protect from copying.)

> I'll bet that nowhere on any of these pay sites
> do they mention how many times you can use it, except maybe in some
> really fine print somewhere.

It's online -- there is no 'fine print' but there is an agreement. If
you don't read it, you shouldn't whine now.
(That's not to say that such agreements are always proper or even
legal, but not reading them is just dumb.)

> Let's say I downloaded a Mozart tune. I come to find out there's a
> license attached to it. Why? Because microsoft says it has to be
> there. Sorry.

Microsoft said nothing (unless they were the seller). It is the
publisher and seller that arrange this. Microsoft only provides the
program/code to do it.

> But works authored before the office opened for business
> do not fall under copyright laws. Public domain.

No, it has nothing to do with when the seller opened.
And copyrights can be extended in many ways, for many decades.

> Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
> behold, microsoft insists I must have a license. Bullshit.

Huh? No, the licensing comes frow the seller. It isn't inserted
automatically just because it's music, although using a Microsoft
program that might do it automatically is risky.

> I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
> not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.
> Ever again.

Fine -- but that has nothing at all to do with the rest of your
argument (that no one has any right to control the copying of their
products!)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Evan Platt
<evan@*******************************> wrote:

> I do not believe that if there's no other cars on the freeway that
> there should be a speed limit. But someone begs to differ.

Interesting side issue: do you believe anyone should show up if the car
crashes? Would you still expect fire services, ambulance services, and
pay for all debris removal?
Speed limits don't exist only because of other car speeds. They are set
partially by what a car and person can be expected to do.

> >Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
> >behold, microsoft insists I must have a license. Bullshit.

>
> If you performed it, recorded it and made the MP3, there would be no
> license issues with that file.

As long as he doesn't use a Microsoft tool to convert it. He seems to
be ignoring that he also makes an agreement with the tool used (as well
as the agreement he would make for online purchases, for special
offerings, etc.)

> >I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
> >not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
M.L.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2008
>> The issue is the copyright license and who controls it.
>> Microsoft says, in part, that because you are using their product,
>> they can deny you YOUR rights simply because no license was detected.


Not all multimedia files are DRM'd.

> Yes; you agreed to this when you purchase through their system or one
> of their partners. You enter a code in the player; not a huge deal as
> long as it works.
> You can avoid it if you want: buy the CD or DVD.
> See? Nothing has changed from previously, there's just a new choice.


>> The question is, who exactly has the legal authority to issue this
>> license? Not Microsoft. The only possible source of the license is
>> the publisher.


> Nope; the SELLER can also.
> The publisher already gave the right to sell the product to the
> seller. You accept that when you go to them to purchase it.
>
>> But I do not believe they can limit the use to a set number
>> of times that is not reasonable.


DRM can set several types of restrictions on a file, including setting
the number of times a file can be played.
see http://www.ezdrm.com/html/demo.asp

> Was this purchased under a special condition or price?
>
>> I would be happy with a 3 year limit
>> rather than 10 times.


> SO TELL THEM! The industry wants to hear about other options.
> (They'll never agree to this, of course; most of the pop labels assume
> you won't listen to a song more than a couple months. It's those
> months they care about, and will protect from copying.)


It's already possible for a DRM license seller to allow unlimited play.

>> I'll bet that nowhere on any of these pay sites
>> do they mention how many times you can use it, except maybe in some
>> really fine print somewhere.


> It's online -- there is no 'fine print' but there is an agreement. If
> you don't read it, you shouldn't whine now.
> (That's not to say that such agreements are always proper or even
> legal, but not reading them is just dumb.)
>
>> Let's say I downloaded a Mozart tune. I come to find out there's a
>> license attached to it. Why? Because microsoft says it has to be
>> there. Sorry.


> Microsoft said nothing (unless they were the seller). It is the
> publisher and seller that arrange this. Microsoft only provides the
> program/code to do it.
>
>> But works authored before the office opened for business
>> do not fall under copyright laws. Public domain.


> No, it has nothing to do with when the seller opened.
> And copyrights can be extended in many ways, for many decades.
>
>> Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
>> behold, microsoft insists I must have a license. Bullshit.


> Huh? No, the licensing comes frow the seller. It isn't inserted
> automatically just because it's music, although using a Microsoft
> program that might do it automatically is risky.
>
>> I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
>> not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.
>> Ever again.


> Fine -- but that has nothing at all to do with the rest of your
> argument (that no one has any right to control the copying of their
> products!)


Not all wma and wmv files are DRM'd.

 
Reply With Quote
 
M.L.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2008
>>> Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
>>> behold, microsoft insists I must have a license.


>> If you performed it, recorded it and made the MP3, there would be no
>> license issues with that file.


> As long as he doesn't use a Microsoft tool to convert it. He seems to
> be ignoring that he also makes an agreement with the tool used (as
> well as the agreement he would make for online purchases, for special
> offerings, etc.)


Microsoft has nothing to do with converting a homemade audio file to
MP3.

>>> I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
>>> not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.


That's unnecessarily drastic since not all wma or wmv files are DRM'd.
Sellers must pay for DRMing a file. At www.ezdrm.com you can purchase a
set number of DRM licenses for a set fee and match them to your files
for download. You can also set various download and play restrictions on
the files.

There are various freeware programs that allow you to hack those
licensed files to remove the DRM restrictions. They really work. Note
that you must download the licensed file to your computer first. Using a
file licensed from another computer won't work (this is called
individualization). See:
http://undrm.info/remove-DRM-protect...htm#fu4m13fix2

From one I've been reading, DRM is being rejected by many publishers and
might not be around much longer, especially since it has been hacked.
However, different protection schemes might replace it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Evan Platt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2008
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:25:58 -1000, Mitch <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Evan Platt
><evan@*******************************> wrote:
>
>> I do not believe that if there's no other cars on the freeway that
>> there should be a speed limit. But someone begs to differ.

>Interesting side issue: do you believe anyone should show up if the car
>crashes? Would you still expect fire services, ambulance services, and
>pay for all debris removal?
>Speed limits don't exist only because of other car speeds. They are set
>partially by what a car and person can be expected to do.


<WHOOSH>

My comment was meant as sarcasm for RtS's comment that he doesn't
believe MS or anyone else should be allowed to restrict the number of
times a audio file can be played or copied.

Yes, I'm all for speed limits and enforcing them.

But as I'm one of the people who come when 911 is called, I think it's
best I not comment or answer your (hopefully) rhetorical questions.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lookout
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2008
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:23:05 -0500, richard <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:19:13 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>richard wrote:
>>
>>> It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
>>> and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
>>> already made his money. So has the publisher. ...

>>
>>Seems you need to learn more about how the music industry works. Are you
>>suggesting that <pick an artist> records a song/album, and immediately
>>receives a million bucks? And nothing ever after that?
>>
>>You've never heard of royalties, I suspect.

>
>Royalties is not the issue, which I do know about.
>The issue is the copyright license and who controls it.
>Microsoft says, in part, that because you are using their product,
>they can deny you YOUR rights simply because no license was detected.
>
>The question is, who exactly has the legal authority to issue this
>license? Not Microsoft. The only possible source of the license is the
>publisher. But I do not believe they can limit the use to a set number
>of times that is not reasonable. I would be happy with a 3 year limit
>rather than 10 times. I'll bet that nowhere on any of these pay sites
>do they mention how many times you can use it, except maybe in some
>really fine print somewhere.
>
>Let's say I downloaded a Mozart tune. I come to find out there's a
>license attached to it. Why? Because microsoft says it has to be
>there. Sorry. But works authored before the office opened for business
>do not fall under copyright laws. Public domain.
>
>Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
>behold, microsoft insists I must have a license. Bullshit.
>
>I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
>not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.
>Ever again.


I had no idea anyone had any .wma files
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Evan Platt
<evan@*******************************> wrote:

> >> I do not believe that if there's no other cars on the freeway that
> >> there should be a speed limit. But someone begs to differ.

> >Interesting side issue: do you believe anyone should show up if the car
> >crashes? Would you still expect fire services, ambulance services, and
> >pay for all debris removal?
> >Speed limits don't exist only because of other car speeds. They are set
> >partially by what a car and person can be expected to do.

>
> <WHOOSH>
>
> My comment was meant as sarcasm for RtS's comment that he doesn't
> believe MS or anyone else should be allowed to restrict the number of
> times a audio file can be played or copied.
>
> Yes, I'm all for speed limits and enforcing them.
>
> But as I'm one of the people who come when 911 is called, I think it's
> best I not comment or answer your (hopefully) rhetorical questions.


No, I didn't take that as sarcasm because I'd heard it as a serious
statement far too often. Some people just don't understand the issue is
a little broader than the cars nearby.

Anyone want to bet whether Richard was actually talking about someone
else's protected tracks?
 
Reply With Quote
 
NotMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
"Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:19:13 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
| <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|
| >richard wrote:
| >
| >> It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
| >> and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
| >> already made his money. So has the publisher. ...

Wrong.
| >
| >Seems you need to learn more about how the music industry works. Are you
| >suggesting that <pick an artist> records a song/album, and immediately
| >receives a million bucks? And nothing ever after that?
| >
| >You've never heard of royalties, I suspect.
|
| Royalties is not the issue, which I do know about.
| The issue is the copyright license and who controls it.
| Microsoft says, in part, that because you are using their product,
| they can deny you YOUR rights simply because no license was detected.
|
| The question is, who exactly has the legal authority to issue this
| license? Not Microsoft. The only possible source of the license is the
| publisher. But I do not believe they can limit the use to a set number
| of times that is not reasonable. I would be happy with a 3 year limit
| rather than 10 times. I'll bet that nowhere on any of these pay sites
| do they mention how many times you can use it, except maybe in some
| really fine print somewhere.

It does not matter much what MS says or does the copyright owner has that
call. Further lacking a legitimate legal original licensed copy of the work
product you don't have ANY RIGHTS. Even first or fair use. (both of which
are much more restrictive than you seem to understand or want to
acknowledge.

|
| Let's say I downloaded a Mozart tune. I come to find out there's a
| license attached to it. Why? Because microsoft says it has to be
| there. Sorry. But works authored before the office opened for business
| do not fall under copyright laws. Public domain.

The compilation may not be public domain copyright but the performance and
recording are under copyright.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Phat Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2008
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:02:19 -0600, "VanguardLH"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Aw, got your hand slapped for stealing. Some musicians actually
>figure that if you want to hear their stuff then you have to pay for
>it. So what do you for a career where you let everyone steal your
>value? Or don't you work yet? Maybe the site where you got the .mp3
>file will let you buy it so you can then get the license.

Probably a mechanic, they're allways giving people free camshaft's and
then charging them $500/hr to install their free camshaft's....
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phat Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2008
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:36:39 -0500, richard <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>Under the "Fair Use" doctrine of the copyright laws, I don't need
>THEIR permission. They do not have the legal right to limit the number
>of uses.

Let me see if I follow you correctly. Suppose I pay you $50 a day for
the service of being my butler. Under the "Fair Use" agreement, if I
sleep every night from Midnight till 8am, and my neighbor allways
sleeps from 8am till 6pm, and another neighbor sleeps from 6pm till
midnight, I could just work out arangements to where when I'm sleeping
and working, my neighbors can "Borrow" your services. Since I
allready paid you for a day's worth of work and a day is technically
24 hours, then you must therefor work for my neighbors as well as me,
because you've allready gotten paid for and it is perfictly acceptable
under your "Fair Use" law to lend you out to several people at the
same time without getting permission from yourself. Only glitch in
your theory, the Fair Use Law strictly prohibits allowing someone else
to listen to the music at the same time as yourself is listening to
the music. Eg. you can allow them to borrow the CD, but you can not
listen to the ripped version of a copied version until they return the
CD back to you. That is after all what the fair use law is all about.

>So if you don't want to mess around with the issue, don't use windows
>media player format to record with. Ahhh but that is precisely what
>the vendors do because the RIAA insists they do or they can't sell the
>music. If someone were to file a lawsuit on this issue, it will be an
>interesting case for sure.

Yeah, it'd go down in history as the stupidest lawyer in history for
taking the case!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Request for a downgrade from x64 OEM license to 32-bit OEM license =?Utf-8?B?SmVyZW15IFdvbmcg6buD5rOT6YeP?= Windows 64bit 58 09-22-2005 11:33 PM
What license to choose for Python programs? (PSF License vs. GPL/LGPL) Volker Grabsch Python 2 07-25-2005 12:06 PM
Wireless MP3 license problems =?Utf-8?B?V2lyZWxlc3MgV2Vhcnk=?= Wireless Networking 1 09-28-2004 11:50 PM
Pix 501 VPN License Issue - Not freeing License Jens Haase Cisco 1 01-29-2004 08:29 PM
Re: CrystalReports runtime (at client's place) license issue JohnFol ASP .Net 0 08-06-2003 01:01 PM



Advertisments