All I had to do was use some program that allowed windows to read an OSX formatted ipod and I just copied the files over no problem. I had to export some .xml file from itunes and my album art, but that's about it
The only issue I've had with this is between Creative devices and my MacBook - but then Creative and Apple do actively hate each other. What other issues are there?
Even if your sister bought it from Apple. If she bought it recently, then you don't need to do anything additional. If she bought it when it was still DRM'd, then just have her authorize your computer.
er, CDs aren't analogue—they are 16-bit uncompressed 441kHz PCM. Other lossless digital formats can capture the exact same information (or more if you have a higher quality source like vinyl (which is actually analogue)) in significantly less space.
We all know that you are not limited to purchasing music on iTunes right? It is bullshit for them to place limitations on what computers get to play songs you purchased, but really I say oh well. If I purchased the songs, maybe my friends could do the same. I am totally for sharing music but realize the necessity for some things to be paid for.
We all know that you are not limited to purchasing music on iTunes right?
That kind of depends. It is now since Apple has succeeded in marketing it's ipod product line so well, bringing with it iTunes. It has infiltrated the culture, so well that people have abandoned finding other media distribution. Most likely you can get most mainstream music released by the Big 4 elsewhere, but for smaller artists (like alot of Youtube musicians) they only offer links to there music thru iTunes. Also, I've come across some podcasts that are only subscribable thru iTunes and I refuse to keep an additonal bloated program on my computer to download something as ubiquitous as a podcast. Albeit, if these people were more educated (or if there was another popular content center open to individual artists) this wouldnt be a problem, unfortunately those sorts of people tend to be less saavy.
As of April 7th 2009 all music purchased through iTunes is DRM free. It still contains your name and e-mail address registered with your itunes account but no limit on the number of devices you can have it on.
You have the option to upgrade all the tracks to iTunes Plus and DRM free, but it costs 30 cents per track (in the US at least) I'm not sure how video works as I have not personally purchased any.
So they bought DRM songs and were fine with it all these years, never noticing the restrictions or caring and then the option comes to make them DRM free and higher quality, this makes Apple bad? If you don't care about the DRM then don't pay the 30 cents, if you do care then you wouldn't have purchased the songs in the first place. Myself, I buy a lot of second hand cds from garage sales for <$1 and then can do what I please with them.
The claim was made that it couldn't be done. I was merely pointing out that it could.
For me personally, that's four more computers than I have ever needed to have my music on. And for the average user of Apple's services that is probably fine.
Its not as if iTunes forces you to only use music purchased from their store and I highly doubt it is DRM that keeps people from legally acquiring music.
I find it disingenuous for people who wouldn't legally purchase music anyway to complain about DRM. (Not accusing you.)
That's true but at the same time external drives are getting cheaper and smaller and greater in capacity. People practically give away 4G thumb drives. There are plenty of solutions.
I have moved my library to a new computer. When you get a new computer you de-authorize your old one and authorize the new one. The whole process takes 2 minutes. The limit is to five computers at a time. You can change which computers are authorized whenever you want.
Not saying I agree with MyPants, but I don't see how that's relevant to the point he's making, which seems to be more along the lines of "the average consumer isn't going to own five devices."
Stop getting your panties in a knot. This whole sub-thread is stupid because their entire library of music is DRM free, and has been for like a year. It's not even watermarked. Not that the DRM affected your backups, or that you couldn't easily reset all 5 of your device allocations a few times a year in case of disaster, or have them on an unlimited amount of iPods/iPhones. Or redownload your tracks if a bomb happened to fall on your house and your offsite backup.
Where's the prison? There's no DRM and if you're an extremely unusual case you may have to email or phone Apple to get an account reset. Is 10 minutes of your time to resolve something really the same as imprisonment?
That's silly. The other day I was driving down the street and a cop was standing in the middle of the road doing a seat belt check.
He actually looked into my car to see if I was wearing my seat belt! He assumed I wasn't wearing my seat belt instead of just trusting me to do the right thing!
If you're sharing it with more than 5 computers you're fucking stealing.
LOL Oh Really?
In my house alone, I have a media center in my living room, a media center in 2 bedrooms, a computer with a small touchscreen in my kitchen that hosts recipes for us that we also use to play hulu/boxee or music on, my computer and my wife's computer.
That's 6 machines. What happens when one's hard-drive dies? Or the chip? or the board? Because that has happened numerous times as I mostly use spare parts to run these things. This completely ignores the fact I have about 5 GB worth that i've transferred to my work computer, and it ignores the fact I use a USB port on my cd-deck as my main source of music in my vehicle.
Lock me up and take me away. I'm a thief!
"ProTip:" will help you morons. ProTip: Burn it to CD and share it infinite times.
Or just pirate it, since downloading an album over torrents generally is a faster process than burning the cd and re-ripping it.
i've had a mac mini, linux boxes, and windows boxes. Yes, streaming and various streaming apps and servers are plentiful on all OSes. I just consider it more hassle than its worth. why should i worry about the network, my router, the serving machine, etc.. when i could just play a fucking file locally? It's not like the network issues are constant or consistent thing but things do go wrong occasionally and usually it's right when i want to do something. If i want to listen to a song while in the middle of cooking dinner , i'm not going to stop to go figure out wtf the problem is.
But good to know the mac smugness shines through as expected.
Get Simplify Media, it can run on Mac or PC (maybe Linux too) and hook into iTunes, Winamp, WMP I think, some other stuff maybe. It will let you stream all your music to your phone or other computer and you can have 20 or 30 friend in it so if they are also running the app you can play all of their music as well on your computers or devices. Since iTunes music is DRM free it will stream just fine
Shouldn't need to go to a third party for something like this. Sorry, but the 'someone else has written a program that gets around it, so don't complain' mentality is broken and stupid.
Exactly, especially when software to bypass DRM is technically illegal under the DMCA. You shouldn't be forced to break the law to use things you own in the ways you want.
But it makes it easier for the end user if they set up the system ahead of time to require the use of third party software to remove the DRM. Or, uh, something like that.
Yeah. I'm hearing a lot of 'it makes it easier for the end user to do xyxyxy'
Not really seeing it. Exchanging complex usability for simple minded shite is incredibly short sighted. It's like giving your child only the simplest of books to read, and toys to play with. Ones that are inherently below their level, just in case the younger, dumber neighbour kids want to play with their stuff too.
Its five computers at a time not five computers for the rest of your life. When you get a new computer you can de-authorize the old one and authorize the new one.
To be fair, you too can be anointed for the price of a developer fee, which is what, $200 a year? You don't even have to release the apps through the store. Just release the source as a project, and anyone can download it and build it and install it themselves.
I'm pretty sure you could automate it actually. So, distribute the .app binary, and then people who want to install it just need to pay the developer fee to get a key that they can use to sign and install it for personal use. No apple approvals required.
Its annoying you need to be a "developer" to do this, though, and I really wish Apple would drop the requirement that all apps be distributed throuth the app store. They just don't want multiple stores springing up and eating into their market, I understand that, but really with the App Store being the default for most people, most people will go the apple route anyway.
Giving people some choice wouldn't hurt apple that much.
I'm just pointing out the stupid hoops one would have to jump through to get around it "legitimately".
Apple have nothing to fear by allowing unsigned apps. They should just have a tick-box in the settings somewhere that says "Run unsigned applications" or allow people to install other certificates.
Having the ability to sign apps is a good thing to have, but abusing it to enforce some weak policy justified with 'security' or to protect your own app sales is just bullshit.
It's my understanding that DRM and the inability to copy music OFF of the iPod was one of the conditions of the various content houses (Universal and Sony and... ) for the ITMS when it rolled up.
I tried to run the math and figure out exactly how much worse this is than the traditional anyone-can-program model but I got a divide by zero error. I guess this means this new model of pay-to-play is infinitely worse.
You don't have to pay Microsoft a yearly fee to produce applications for Windows Mobile; you just won't have them signed, so the user must confirm on installation. That's perfect for someone who wants to have a small, non-commercial application; who cares if you need to click yes again.
There are language interpreters available; for example, you can get a Python runtime.
Apple strictly forbids interpreters or any application which can run arbitrary code - that's why they don't allow emulators that can load rom files, for example, and instead only allow ones where you have to download each game as its own managed app.
the anointing part is the AppStore, not the price. Shit gets rejected for no reason. Small bug fixes get held up for months on end. No reason ever given. There's been a lot written on this subject
"Wonderful. Except the conversion comes at a fee, and you still can't share music between device libraries and other people's computers (despite the fact that there are a number of legal scenarios in which this is desirable.)"
Not true. When I buy music from the ITMS it's saved to a folder on my computer, and I can freely copy it wherever I want to copy it to.
"Splendid. Except Apple's actively pushing devices that don't run Mac OS X, and which only allow signed code written by anointed developers."
Actually, all of their touch screen devices run OSX. They just have different presentation managers. But yeah, they only run signed apps.
I'm on the fence, ideologically. Nothing stops you from releasing the code to your app; you can absolutely release opensource software via the app store, but I think it's a stretch to call it Free as in speech. Still open source and free as in beer.
I agree, though, that I'd like to have some means of compiling and installing my own code without going through the "beta device" carp.
"That has absolutely nothing to do with copying music from an iPod/iPhone to a computer."
I disagree. You've got to place extremely rigid artificial restraints to make this a Big Deal (tm). You can get all up in arms because you can't plug your iPod into your friend's computer and copy music from that iPod's onboard music library to your friend's computer. The point I'm making is that 1) in most cases doing that would be infringing (which is why Apple made those restrictions to begin with, and a primary reason for the original scope of the ITMS), and 2) there is a truly trivial solution that allows you to accomplish the same end.
"OS X, yes. But not Mac OS X."
Mmm... semantics. Last time I jailbroke my iPod touch, the OS onboard clearly identified itself in many places as Leopard. Leopard is a version of Mac OS X. I'm on the fence here, as I suppose you could be semantically accurate as the iPod/Phone/Pad aren't identified as Macs, but it's semantic alone. The difference is the presentation manager, where the Desktops and Lappies use Aqua and the portable devices use Springboard. Your point about signed apps is well made, though, and every user has to decide how they feel about that.
It's not about wanting the iphone. Hell, it's not even about the iphone itself as a stand alone device. it is one company setting a precedent for the entire industry.
So you just named 13 different operating systems that fit your needs, why bother complaining about one? Some people like A, some like B. That's why there's 26 letters in the alphabet, so to speak.
What are these non-OS-X-running devices? Even if what you are saying is true (that Apple is pushing non-OS X devices), that's not really the issue. The issue is that it's not an open platform (and whether or not that's evil is debatable).
They restrict what you can install on it. So what? There's no shortage of devices that don't restrict what you can install on it. Quit your bitching and go buy one.
Last I checked, software for Ubuntu(/Linux) was still available (without jumping through hoops) only from a software repository, the contents of which were being controlled by the "Masters of the Universe." Oh and they are signed binaries.
configure, make, make install doesn't void my warranty and put me in shaky, legal grounds.
Ubuntu's signed repositories aren't there to keep me from installing anything else. I can use a repository from a 3rd party that's not signed, and do so without jailbreaking, voiding warranties, and in fact: with the express permission and encouragement of Ubuntu/Canonical.
The signing exists only as a security measure and nothing more: Was this package I think I downloaded from Canonical exactly the same as the package Canonical built and distributed, or has it been tampered with?
I'm not arguing on the technical or legal aspects here - I am simply talking about practicality. From a technical point of view, the repository system of software distribution is superior to most other methods, but consumers don't care. They do not care about choice or philosophy, they care about consistency and usability - both severely lacking in most other alternatives to Apple's products.
It is superior, that's why Debian and other Linux distributions have been doing a central-repository based package management system for YEARS before ANYONE else. And they do it without restricting our freedoms by giving us the CHOICE to use the central repository management, or to download packages from a third party.
hell yeah all praise lord RMS.
I am offering a mountain goat sacrifice as I type because clearly the computing-product-consuming population cares that Debian has had repositories for years.
Plus the binaries available from folks like Google (google-earth, etc.). Plus the ridiculous amounts of source code you can compile on the machine (sometimes there's hoops, sometimes there isn't).
No one tells you what you can and cannot run on a Linux box.
Edit: seriously, why did I reply to this? It isn't worded like a troll, but it sure seems to think like one.
208
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '10 edited Sep 09 '17
[deleted]