Speedy2
Oct 7, 11:10 AM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
skunk
Apr 24, 03:40 PM
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.Give an example, please.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:09 PM
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done.
I sure wish Apple would have come up with a system for ripping DVDs to my computer and cataloging them, that I would have loved. How much you want to bet that never happens?
I sure wish Apple would have come up with a system for ripping DVDs to my computer and cataloging them, that I would have loved. How much you want to bet that never happens?
matticus008
Mar 20, 10:49 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
SLR2009
Jun 19, 10:08 PM
I've been getting dropped calls on my Iphone 3GS as well but it's gotten much worse over the last few months. It's gotten so bad that I'm hesitating in purchasing an Iphone 4G and was considering very strongly in switching over to a droid phone. AT&T's dropped calls are unacceptable.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
Grimmeh
Mar 18, 11:11 AM
AT&T will never have my business anymore. I used AT&T’s service for my older iPhone 3G I had bought off eBay. After a year, they decided to take it upon themselves to have me buy their data plan. I have, and never have had, a need for a data plan. I rarely find myself without Wi-Fi or I do without for those rare occasions (as if their service never has it’s outages). I told them I don’t need it, or ever use it.
They feel it’s fair to require me to pay for service I don’t need. My phone’s hardware is no different than the dinky little flip phone I’m forced to use until the contract expires (it was the only way for them to keep from charging me for data). Just because of the name of my phone they are telling me I need to buy more from them. That is terrifying if it’s legal.
Now, they are telling people that because their service is split amongst devices you need to pay more, too? Hah! What if you had to pay extra to have more than one phone on your land line? Or you had to pay extra for having more than one computer on your home Internet? Or more if you use a wireless router?
Wireless service companies in the U.S. (can’t speak for elsewhere) have people by the balls. I don’t like it.
P.S. Isn‘t it illegal if they sniff your data? Against privacy laws?
They feel it’s fair to require me to pay for service I don’t need. My phone’s hardware is no different than the dinky little flip phone I’m forced to use until the contract expires (it was the only way for them to keep from charging me for data). Just because of the name of my phone they are telling me I need to buy more from them. That is terrifying if it’s legal.
Now, they are telling people that because their service is split amongst devices you need to pay more, too? Hah! What if you had to pay extra to have more than one phone on your land line? Or you had to pay extra for having more than one computer on your home Internet? Or more if you use a wireless router?
Wireless service companies in the U.S. (can’t speak for elsewhere) have people by the balls. I don’t like it.
P.S. Isn‘t it illegal if they sniff your data? Against privacy laws?
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
Mousse
Apr 25, 06:14 PM
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:12 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 09:03 PM
It means that his motivation is to get rid of the gay and not necessarily the welfare of his patient.
The three-video interview I posted today doesn't tell me that motivates Nicolosi. He even says that, if homosexuals want to have sex, let them do it. See the first video.
You might want to learn a little about Courage, Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. His organization believes sexual orientation can change. But Courage doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation. Fr. Harvey and his colleagues try to help people who feel same-sex attraction live holy, chaste, celibate lives.
The three-video interview I posted today doesn't tell me that motivates Nicolosi. He even says that, if homosexuals want to have sex, let them do it. See the first video.
You might want to learn a little about Courage, Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. His organization believes sexual orientation can change. But Courage doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation. Fr. Harvey and his colleagues try to help people who feel same-sex attraction live holy, chaste, celibate lives.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:30 AM
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
No, that's nothing more than a shared characteristic of a "fad" and an established product.
Of course, if you consider the iPod a fad, then there's not a lot more to discuss. The iPod led to the iPod Touch, which is the foundation of the iPhone, which others then set about trying to copy.
So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
No, that's nothing more than a shared characteristic of a "fad" and an established product.
Of course, if you consider the iPod a fad, then there's not a lot more to discuss. The iPod led to the iPod Touch, which is the foundation of the iPhone, which others then set about trying to copy.
So, we're looking at a decade-long fad that turned the industry on its head, completely changed the way we consume and acquire music - changing the face of the music industry itself, and which led to the next generation of mobile devices. This fad also continues to sell, though in lower numbers, because the other identical fad includes phone functionality and accordingly sells in record numbers each quarter.
Some fad. Most companies would trade their established products in order to get in on some of these mysterious "long-term" fads that change the face of consumer tech. Would you like it better if we call them "ultra fads" or "super fads"? :confused:
twoodcc
Oct 10, 10:32 AM
it's too early to tell yet. this is all just speculation at this point. wait until more android phones and android 1.5 is out first
macintel4me
Sep 20, 05:31 AM
I think the HD is using just for caching the streamed content. My prediction is that Apple will come out with a SAN with iTV/FrontRow streaming smarts in it. This way we don't have to run into our office to turn on our computer so we can watch TV in our living room.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 9, 11:59 AM
Watch as Apple continues to drink Nintendo and Sony's milkshakes. It amazing that Nintendo is so dismissive of Apple's devices, when Apple is doing exactly what Nintendo did with the Wii. Blue Ocean strategy.
trrosen
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
I'm thinking the only proper response to someone violating a contract is to end the contract. (that is cut off your service) I don't think AT&T has a legal standing to say OK you broke our contract so we're going to unilaterally enter you into a new contract.
PS Something for all you "ITS MY DEVICE" people to remember. If you bought it on contract it's not your device until the contract has been fulfilled. Until then the sale is not complete and the Phone is AT&T's.
I'm thinking the only proper response to someone violating a contract is to end the contract. (that is cut off your service) I don't think AT&T has a legal standing to say OK you broke our contract so we're going to unilaterally enter you into a new contract.
PS Something for all you "ITS MY DEVICE" people to remember. If you bought it on contract it's not your device until the contract has been fulfilled. Until then the sale is not complete and the Phone is AT&T's.
diamond.g
Apr 9, 06:19 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 03:49 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 29, 03:55 PM
I dislike Greenpeace - their list may or may not have some relevance but this is one messanger I wouldn't mind shooting.
emotion
Sep 21, 06:05 AM
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
Apple's point is that your computer more or less has that capability (ok with an Elgato dongle), and in any case they don't want to follow that business model. I guess you're not the target audience.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
Apple's point is that your computer more or less has that capability (ok with an Elgato dongle), and in any case they don't want to follow that business model. I guess you're not the target audience.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
KnightWRX
May 2, 12:45 PM
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
Cougarcat
May 2, 09:35 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
All macs do have built-in anti-malware:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142457/2009/08/snowleopard_malware.html
Don't know how good it is, though.
All macs do have built-in anti-malware:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142457/2009/08/snowleopard_malware.html
Don't know how good it is, though.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:41 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
CQd44
May 2, 09:16 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:15 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
