OT - itunes now ready for prime time!!!

just noticed this - now i can buy from itunes without feeling slighted!!!

Quote
apple website -
For just 30¢ more per song, choose iTunes Plus songs that feature higher quality, 256 kbps AAC encoding ? twice the standard bit rate ? and no DRM (digital rights management). That means you can play it on iPod and other digital music players and an unlimited number of computers.

Not that I would ever do this, of course, but does that mean that those tunes would be directly importable into, say, FCP without going through those roundabout steps to disable the protection? The larger question is, have you "bought" additional "rights" to these tunes with your 30 cents, since DRM is eliminated?

Scott

does that mean that those tunes would be directly importable into, say, FCP without going through those roundabout steps to disable the protection?

No. It still isn't an AIFF file. Still is AAC, and still not liked by FCP.

The larger question is, have you "bought" additional "rights" to these tunes with your 30 cents, since DRM is eliminated?

HAHAHAAHAHAHA! Oh thanks for that. I needed a laugh. Whoo...had me reeling there. $.30 now gets you the sync rights...Classic.

OF COURSE NOT. That $.30 allows you to play it on NON-Apple hardware.

Oh my side hurts...all that laughter....


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Also... it appears they're burying your personal information inside that AAC file. Such that if you share it with a few thousand of your closest friends... the RIAA may come after you.

Thanks for the laugh, Shane, but you misunderstood the first part of the question. The article said DRM is not applied to these files, so I wondered if those "roundabout steps" that I won't mention, which enable you to convert iTunes AAC cuts to AIFF or whatever format you require, using QT or iTunes, would now not be needed. Seems to me that is DRM's function here, and without it the conversion would be more straightforward. Not that anyone would do it, of course. Or is the only function of DRM to prevent playing on anyone else's MP3 player?

No, it's pretty hilarious to think that 30 cents buys you synch rights, but I'll wager a lot of people will proceed with this believing that they are somehow absolved of those inconvenient rights issues. I predict lots of confused fallout from this move.

Scott

> I'll wager a lot of people will proceed with this believing that they are somehow absolved of
> those inconvenient rights issues. I predict lots of confused fallout from this move.

Ninety per cent of people are confused about copyright anyway. It amazes me how wrongheaded people can be about intellectual property. Probably because most people don't make a living at it. One New York Times letter even insisted, "Artists don't make art for money...if they did, there are easier ways to earn money." By that logic, any low-paying or difficult job should be deemed unworthy of protection and compensation. Makes no sense whatsoever.


www.derekmok.com

The DRM prevented the music from being played on devices that weren't iPods...and limited you to a set number of computers. That is gone now. But the ability to import these files into FCP is still not there. They are still AAC files and FCP doesn't work with AAC.

I was laughing at the sync rights comment...nothing more. And yes, more people will come forward and ask that.

sigh.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Quote

...And yes, more people will come forward and ask that.

Please don't feed the bear...

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I never feed that bear. Scott doesn't either it seems as he stated "those 'roundabout steps' that I won't mention"

We know...


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

I'm a bear so I will. Because its my human-inherent right to experiment in my own edit suite with any music I want that I have paid for. Its called "temp music", or "home video", or "goofing around without public exhibition". Any current laws that negate that are unconstitutional and will not stand the test of time. People have more rights than corporations. This is a completely separate issue from pirating -- which I discourage in both myself and friends. Its also the reason that iTunes is specifically set up to use even protected tracks for consumer home video production -- by design!

Speaking of iTunes, that is one of the ways to convert iTunes tracks that my friends above are being so coy about. There. iTunes export. Boo!

Even you discussed using temp music from CDs at the last LAFCPUG meeting. Its OK. Come out of the closet... :-)

Honestly, the coyness is irritating and disrespectful of our human rights. And it confuses the issue with piracy, which is an entirely different ballpark.

- Christopher S. Johnson (who is switching his cut today, from temp music to original music, because the composer is done)

> Any current laws that negate that are unconstitutional and will not stand the test of time.
> People have more rights than corporations.

That's Fallacy #1.

Copyright does not begin with corporations. It begins with the individual or group that created the original work. Copyright is what allows me to write a song, then pitch it to an artist and if s/he likes it, or his/her record label does, then I get paid. Without copyright, they can record my song without giving me any money or even credit.

It's this erroneous "Corporations are out to screw us with copyright" idea that confuses the issue. Copyright is first and foremost designed to protect individual ownership of intellectual property. It's only when that individual sells or licenses those rights that corporations become the owners.

And if you're talking about studio films or big-label music...the companies paid for it with the consent of the original artists. So what's the problem with the companies wanting to make money off it? If you have a problem with that, don't use the freakin' music. Simple as that. They're not twisting your arm.

It all boils down to people liking a certain music and wanting to do things with it, but not being willing to pay for it. It's like coveting somebody else's wife. The law can't succumb to those wishes. If you can't pay, you don't get the product. Simple, logical. That's civilized society.


www.derekmok.com

I'll buy your comment about copyright. I was off technically. But then you confuse piracy again and I was careful to differentiate the two.

Nothing I described denies one cent of income from anyone.

- Christopher

That's spot on, and remember, on assignment, when you transcribe and lay copyrighted music against picture (synch) you are just as culpable of infirngement as the producer who requested temp track. Lawsuits can zing right to your edit suite and name you in the complaint, as accomplice.

Track at your own risk! or get some of those great copyright-free library tracks-- you know, the Elevator Collection.

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Set Video Only In and Out with Control I or O !

The FCP KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com

Chris...yes, I use temp music...POPULAR music in my cuts. As I mentioned at the meeting, I use PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN soundtrack music in my current show. And yes, I downloaded ONE of them from iTunes (found the first soundtrack for CHEAP used at the local CD store).

But the issue is that MOST of the people who want to use music want to use it for REAL...and are confused about the rights. So I for one won't pass on the info.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Loren, that may be on the law books, but it is immoral and will not stand the test of time. There are no damages like in piracy. Its only a cultural brainwashing that has us believe anything different. "Separate but Equal" was also once a law.

Bring on the legal challenge.

Let me be clear: there is a guy selling Spiderman 3 DVDs outside my building right now -- this very minute. He should be busted. But he has an inherent human right to go home, back up his Spiderman 2 DVD he bought at Target, and rip the footage and play with it in a FCP timeline and make a funny home video out of it, without public exhibition.

- Christopher

Copyright issues come up on this forum about once every 2 weeks. None of us here are copyright lawyers and none of us can or will sift through the thousands of pages that are Copyright law or it's doctrine of Fair Use. So basically, while we all might think we understand what we can and cannot do, we don't. What we do understand is the bottom line; get permission if you want to use it for public use, or don't use it.

And who knows, there be be a line in those thousands of pages that clearly states anyone whose ancestors came over on a raft from Greenland between 1200AD and 1492AD are entitled to use anything they damn well please without permission from anyone providing they can prove their ancestor landed in Portsmouth Massachusetts on the corner of Elm street and Vine.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Shane, I dont run into those people, so I cant speak for them. Some people drink and drive. I dont. So I still have a right to make drinks sometimes and drive at others. And I can publish how to do both.

- Christopher

> Loren, that may be on the law books, but it is immoral and will not stand the test of time.
> There are no damages like in piracy.

It's strange, Chris, because it seems to me what you do is within the law but your thinking is off. Film professionals use it all the time to test out what genres, mood, arrangements, tempos, dynamics etc. they want on the film. No experienced editor in here is confusing it with piracy.

> Loren, that may be on the law books, but it is immoral and will not stand the test of time.
> There are no damages like in piracy.

That's wrong as well. Let's say copyright law were changed to what you describe: There's no copyright protection, and any user can use music or any other intellectual property in any context if there's no monetary gain, and if the property is given credit. Then a neo-Nazi extremist group can use Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" as the background music for one of its recruiting and publicity videos, use video footage from your film, and credit both you and Led Zeppelin in its video without ever asking for your permission. In your scenario, you aren't protected, you can't sue, and they don't ever need to get your okay. And the credit becomes a damning thing because it implies that you and Led Zeppelin condone white supremacy. Does that sound right to you?


www.derekmok.com

You are right Michael. There ARE lots of twists and turns. That is why it is so important that you provide a board like this where public discourse can take place. Its the antidote to only hearing Disney's voice on the evening news or Wall Street Journal. This is the whole point of Al Gore's new book.

Again, I cannot overemphasize my belief in sensible intellectual and artistic property and that an artist get every last cent of what is coming to them. I have never used Limewire music or Bit torrent for feature films.

But I do use temp music that I have bought, and will continue to do so. And I might even make a doodle of a Mickey Mouse in my notebook!

So, thanks for the democracy-space, Michael.

- Christopher S. Johnson

wow, i didnt mean to start a big discussion. im just glad that purchased itunes music wont sound like ass anymore

derekmok Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's strange, Chris, because it seems to me what
> you do is within the law but your thinking is off.
> Film professionals use it all the time to test
> out what genres, mood, arrangements, tempos,
> dynamics etc. they want on the film. No
> experienced editor in here is confusing it with
> piracy.

Derekmok, I think the opposite was the case: that under the current bad law, it is NOT legal to use temp music, and the first handful of posters here were behaving like frightened little school girls about it.

> > Loren, that may be on the law books, but it is
> immoral and will not stand the test of time.
> > There are no damages like in piracy.
>
> That's wrong as well. Let's say copyright law
> were changed to what you describe: There's no
> copyright protection, and any user can use music
> or any other intellectual property in any context
> if there's no monetary gain, and if the property
> is given credit. Then a neo-Nazi extremist group
> can use Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" as the
> background music for one of its recruiting and
> publicity videos, use video footage from your
> film, and credit both you and Led Zeppelin in its
> video without ever asking for your permission. In
> your scenario, you aren't protected, you can't
> sue, and they don't ever need to get your okay.
> And the credit becomes a damning thing because it
> implies that you and Led Zeppelin condone white
> supremacy. Does that sound right to you?

While it is possible that example could indeed be constitutional, my argument was much more conservative. I was excluding large public exhibitions. The Electronic Frontier Foundation may take you up on that challenge, though. All I was saying was that a Nazi-idiot could play with the Led Zep music in the privacy of their home all they want.

- Christopher S. Johnson

that under the current bad law, it is NOT legal to use temp music

I would like you to point that part out in the copyright law, and site ONE case where someone was prosecuted for doing so.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

wayne granzin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wow, i didnt mean to start a big discussion. im
> just glad that purchased itunes music wont sound
> like ass anymore


Wayne, at this time in our history, a big discussion is a good thing to have! So thank you. As professional editors who use temp music from time to time, and make our own unique intellectual property, we are the perfect people to be discussing the finer points of this. We are on both sides! That gives us a good vantage point.

- Christopher

Shane Ross Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that under the current bad law, it is NOT legal to
> use temp music
>
> I would like you to point that part out in the
> copyright law, and site ONE case where someone was
> prosecuted for doing so.


Beats me! I'm just going by all of the fretting folk who were implying such a law at the beginning of this thread. Perhaps I shouldn't have given them the benefit of the doubt? I think they called it a synch-law or some such. You and I are on the same side on this. I say "show me" too.

Honestly, I think there is more agreement here than anything else. I was just trying to uncover the timid B.S. at the beginning of this thread. It was as if nobody was owning up to using the temp music method and ripping music that they had paid money for. And that timidity was from a cultural pressure that is complete B.S. Was I being so unclear? I'm sorry if I was.

-Christopher

> I say "show me" too.

Yes. It's the part that says "Any unauthorized duplication, with or without monetary gain".

Seriously, the industry is much more lenient than it is given credit for. Technically speaking, even making a mix tape out of your albums back in the '80s was a violation of copyright. As is making MP3s. But while the industry doesn't want to put those exceptions into the actual law (for fear of setting a dangerous precedent that can destroy the industry), it has never prosecuted one person making one mix tape to listen to in a car. College students whine about being prosecuted. Well, who the hell told them to put an MP3 into a peer-to-peer sharing service and therefore making thousands, if not millions of copies? I'd probably guess than less than one per cent of iPod users get prosecuted or fined, and they're all making MP3s. But those majority of people, the ones who don't open their files to millions of other users to download "just to be nice", won't get the RIAA knocking on their door. Temp music is the same, especially since it potentially generates revenue for music companies (if a film wants to license a song. For example, I used Buffalo Springfield's "A Child's Claim to Fame" as temp music on a film I was doing a temp festival sound mix on, and the director liked it so much that she did the legal work to get the rights. So the music company profits.


www.derekmok.com

Yes. It's the part that says "Any unauthorized duplication, with or without monetary gain".

Well, the RIAA considers ripping the song from your CD and putting it onto your iPod "unauthorized duplication" as well. But they have YET to go after someone for that.

If it is for TEMP music...it is cool. No one will come after you.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

"Any unauthorized duplication, with or without monetary gain".

That wouldn't stand a Supreme Court test. And that kind of test is closer to my moral compass than some lobbyist-arm-twisted fly-by-night law.

- Christopher

And just to stir things up some more (heh heh) what about year-limits on copyright? Like 50 or 100 years, and then it enters the public domain for the public good? Keeping a cultural history alive, like keeping the soil fertile. Disney took advantage of this by swiping the Snow White and other stories. But isnt it good that Snow White is public domain now. Should Shakespeare be public domain?

- Christopher

The RIAA have stated that they don't see copying a legit CD to your iPod as a crime, and that it comes under fair use.

Graeme

By the way, do I understand correctly that the RIAA is not affiliated with any government organization and has no elected positions from the public?

- Christopher