[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When your car breaks down and the problem is with a particular part, who gets sued, the car manufacturer for selling you the car, or the maker of this particular part?

Thank you for using the correct 'breaks' and not 'brakes'. It pisses me off when people use the wrong one.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When your car breaks down and the problem is with a particular part, who gets sued, the car manufacturer for selling you the car, or the maker of this particular part?

Bad analogy. Do you blame your Mac because your ISP goes down? Apple is under contract with the labels to provide DRM to sell music. That contract must be renegotiated for them to sell music without it. If the labels agree to that, then the problem is solved, but it is up the label to make that move. Apple can't just sell DRM-less music of a labels content, without going through them. So as I was saying. The labels need to be the source of the attack to get the issue resolved.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When your car breaks down and the problem is with a particular part, who gets sued, the car manufacturer for selling you the car, or the maker of this particular part?

More like: Do you sue the manufacturer of your DVD player when it won't work because the electricity company decides to switch voltages or frequencies?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But they could only get the cracks fixed within their own store, just like it is now... What would the difference be?

If you would bother to read the article, it actually says that cracks are fixed in the iTunes store, the iTunes software, and the iPod. And that it's difficult enough to disseminate these fixes as it is. If these segments are spread among a dozen competing companies, it would be pretty much impossible.

You should read the article some time. This argument was actually quite central to his point. Might make it easier to avoid questions that have already been answered, or analogies that no longer make sense.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Bad analogy. Do you blame your Mac because your ISP goes down? Apple is under contract with the labels to provide DRM to sell music. That contract must be renegotiated for them to sell music without it. If the labels agree to that, then the problem is solved, but it is up the label to make that move. Apple can't just sell DRM-less music of a labels content, without going through them. So as I was saying. The labels need to be the source of the attack to get the issue resolved.

Maybe, but looking at the electricity analogy in the next post in addition to your ISP, the ISP and the electricity companies are selling a service. If Apple did not make a cent from the sale of music and simply funneled everything over to the record companies, they too would be selling a service. As it stands, they are selling both a service and the content itself. As long as they are selling content, these laws apply to them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

If you would bother to read the article, it actually says that cracks are fixed in the iTunes store, the iTunes software, and the iPod. And that it's difficult enough to disseminate these fixes as it is. If these segments are spread among a dozen competing companies, it would be pretty much impossible.

You should read the article some time. This argument was actually quite central to his point. Might make it easier to avoid questions that have already been answered, or analogies that no longer make sense.

I read the article very carefully, thank you.

However, I don't think any reasonable person would claim that Apple would have to be responsible for making these third party services update their Fairplay infrastructure to include these fixes developed by Apple, nor was I. Is Microsoft responsible for companies that choose to not update their Windows machines?

As long as Apple continues to only be responsible for keeping their own service secure, this seems no different than their current arrangement.

[exca1ibur]

Keyword which you finally used which I have been stating this entire point (THEM). Apple is licensed to sell content. Its not their product, per se. This isn't an Apple only issue. This is a contract issue that has to be renegotiated, and the labels are the ones with the ball in their court. They have the final say on whether or not anything happens because.... its their content. Apple has no final decision on the situation is all I've been trying to say. They have a voice in the matter just as we do, just a bigger one being they can actually sit at the table.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I read the article very carefully, thank you.

However, I don't think any reasonable person would claim that Apple would have to be responsible for making these third party services update their Fairplay infrastructure to include these fixes developed by Apple, nor was I. Is Microsoft responsible for companies that choose to not update their Windows machines?

As long as Apple continues to only be responsible for keeping their own service secure, this seems no different than their current arrangement.

Wouldn't that kind of depend upon what's actually written into the contract between them and the record labels?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As it stands, they are selling both a service and the content itself. As long as they are selling content, these laws apply to them.

That is, of course, precisely why they are being targetted by various governments.

How effective the defensive argument is that they aren't actually able to change the terms, we shall see.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Keyword which you finally used which I have been stating this entire point (THEM). Apple is licensed to sell content. Its not their product, per se. This isn't an Apple only issue. This is a contract issue that has to be renegotiated, and the labels are the ones with the ball in their court. They have the final say on whether or not anything happens because.... its their content. Apple has no final decision on the situation is all I've been trying to say. They have a voice in the matter just as we do, just a bigger one being they can actually sit at the table.

Right, my argument is only based on how I'm interpreting the law, not the practicality and most productive way of solving the problem. I agree that the most direct way to solve the problem would be to go after the labels.

However, Apple is (re)selling this content. As long as they do, they have a responsibility to keep this within the law. They are not simply providing an infrastructure so that the record labels can sell their content, they are making money off of selling this content themselves - they are selling both the content and the service.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Wouldn't that kind of depend upon what's actually written into the contract between them and the record labels?

Yes, but I honestly can't see Apple wanting to take responsibility and accept liability for coordinating efforts of resellers of Fairplay protected music to keep their services secure. It makes no sense to me no matter how I look at it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

That is, of course, precisely why they are being targetted by various governments.

How effective the defensive argument is that they aren't actually able to change the terms, we shall see.

I don't think it even matters. If Apple cannot resell this content in a legal manner, they shouldn't - it's that simple.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, but I honestly can't see Apple wanting to take responsibility and accept liability for coordinating efforts of resellers of Fairplay protected music to keep their services secure. It makes no sense to me no matter how I look at it.

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.

duh.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.

duh.

What is the source of this miscommunication here, and why do you insist on being so condescending?

I was never suggesting that Apple become liable for the security of licensed Fairplay content. I was suggesting that Apple simply license Fairplay content, make the fixes available, but do not assume a position of liability.

Clear now?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was never suggesting that Apple become liable for the security of licensed Fairplay content. I was suggesting that Apple simply license Fairplay content, make the fixes available, but do not assume a position of liability.

Did you even read Steve's essay? They can't. They are contractually obligated to make sure Fairplay stays patched on all devices that Fairplay runs on. If they don't, they are in violation of their contract, and the record companies pull out of iTunes.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't think it even matters. If Apple cannot resell this content in a legal manner, they shouldn't - it's that simple.

That is exactly what I have been saying. I'm just giving the option for a solution TO that problem. Which is for the labels and Apple to renegotiate the contract. That is the only way you can get DRM-Free music, 'legally'. You can't point the finger at Apple to just open up Fairplay without the label having the final say on this.

[besson3c]

However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

I interpreted this to mean music originating from Apple's service (i.e. "our" DRM system, "our" iTunes store). Apple has an exclusive DRM license with Fairplay, but if this were to change and Apple were to license FP to, say, Sony, would Apple still describe Sony's DRM as "our" DRM? I'm saying no, that Sony would assume ownership and liability over their service, with Apple taken out of the picture just like how now I feel that Apple's service/content they sell virtually puts the record labels out of the picture as far as the law is concerned.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I interpreted this to mean music originating from Apple's service (i.e. "our" DRM system, "our" iTunes store). Apple has an exclusive DRM license with Fairplay, but if this were to change and Apple were to license FP to, say, Sony, would Apple still describe Sony's DRM as "our" DRM? I'm saying no, that Sony would assume ownership and liability over their service, with Apple taken out of the picture just like how now I feel that Apple's service/content they sell virtually puts the record labels out of the picture as far as the law is concerned.

He specifically says that they would have to watch over all the licenses and make sure they implement new versions of DRM. Plus, if Apple updates their DRM but Sony doesn't, we are back to where we started. Two rival incompatible DRM formats.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I interpreted this to mean music originating from Apple's service (i.e. "our" DRM system, "our" iTunes store). Apple has an exclusive DRM license with Fairplay, but if this were to change and Apple were to license FP to, say, Sony, would Apple still describe Sony's DRM as "our" DRM? I'm saying no, that Sony would assume ownership and liability over their service, with Apple taken out of the picture just like how now I feel that Apple's service/content they sell virtually puts the record labels out of the picture as far as the law is concerned.

That would be based on the contract between whichever two parties are involved however they negotiate it.

[besson3c]

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.

Here is another quote... If Apple licensed FP to Sony, wouldn't it be Sony that was licensing music from the music companies at this point?

I'm not sure where in the essay you get the idea that Apple would be contractually responsible for all licenses. All I see is just evidence that suggests that these leaks would jeopardize the security of DRM, which Jobs goes on to say he'd prefer to not have anyway.

[analogika]

No, APPLE owns FairPlay, and APPLE has the distribution deals with the labels. If APPLE licenses FairPlay to Sony, Sony devices could play stuff bought from the iTS. That's all.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not sure where in the essay you get the idea that Apple would be contractually responsible for all licenses. All I see is just evidence that suggests that these leaks would jeopardize the security of DRM, which Jobs goes on to say he'd prefer to not have anyway.

Which part of this sentence do you not understand:

However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

Apple is responsible ENTIRELY for fixing ALL leaks that would jeopardize the security of DRM, completely regardless of what Mr. Jobs himself might like to or not like to see, have, or eat.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here is another quote... If Apple licensed FP to Sony, wouldn't it be Sony that was licensing music from the music companies at this point?

I'm not sure where in the essay you get the idea that Apple would be contractually responsible for all licenses. All I see is just evidence that suggests that these leaks would jeopardize the security of DRM, which Jobs goes on to say he'd prefer to not have anyway.

He would prefer to have the music without the DRM, not to have neither, which is what would happen if the DRM were taken away without the labels' consent.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Which part of this sentence do you not understand:


Apple is responsible ENTIRELY for fixing ALL leaks that would jeopardize the security of DRM, completely regardless of what Mr. Jobs himself might like to or not like to see, have, or eat.

The quote suggests that Apple is liable for the security of their DRM on their store, their liability or lack thereof on other stores is ambiguous, at least within this particular quote.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The quote suggests that Apple is liable for the security of their DRM on their store, their liability or lack thereof on other stores is ambiguous, at least within this particular quote.

They are liable for the security of FairPlay on every device that music from the iTunes Music Store can be played on.

Is that clear enough?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

They are liable for the security of FairPlay on every device that music from the iTunes Music Store can be played on.

Is that clear enough?

I'm still not certain that I agree, but frankly this bickering is boring me. I don't think any of us have enough knowledge of the nature of these contracts, but whatever, if I'm wrong I'm wrong... It's not a big deal.