DVD Jon's DoubleTwist Unlocks the iPod 377
An anonymous reader writes, "On the 5-year anniversary of the iPod, Fortune Magazine has an article called Unlocking the iPod about Jon Lech Johansen's new venture. Slashdot briefly covered DoubleTwist earlier this month, and those of you who complained that he was not enabling iPod competitors to play FairPlay files will be happy to learn that according to the Fortune article he will also be going after the hardware market." From the article: "As [Johansen] and Farantzos explain DoubleTwist in a conference room they share with several other companies, he points to a sheet of printer paper tacked on the wall that has a typed quote Jobs gave the Wall Street Journal in 2002: 'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.' As Johansen sees it, Jobs didn't follow through on this promise, so it's up to him to fix the system... Johansen has written [two] programs...: one that would let other companies sell copy-protected songs that play on the iPod, and another that would let other devices play iTunes songs."
DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
No need for the word recent in there. It's not been a violation of any version of the copyright act. Fair use does NOT mean you have a RIGHT to do things like copy to other media or devices. Rather, it means that doing so does not violate copyright. The copyright holder has always been free to try to stop you by other means (contracts, technological means, etc).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.
On the other hand do you mean the music you download from Itunes? Read the licensing agreements and other agreements regarding music you buy from it. I don't own either thing (Itunes song or an Ipod) But I'm sure both limits the way you're allowed to use the item.
To my knowledge the Itunes song is licensed to you, for your use with itunes and Ipods. You arn't buying the song, you're buying a license to use it how they decide you can use it. Similar to Microsoft Windows (you might own the software and the CD key, neither really doesn't cost much, but the license to use Microsoft windows is what costs 100+ dollars, which is why your university might sell you it for 5 bucks. Because they sell you parts, but after you leave the school you lose the license. Again will they do anything? Probably not.)
As someone else said, if we talked ethically and morally we could argue this, but this is part of a licensing agreement you agree to when you create your accounts or make your purchases.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not concede this point at all. I'm definitely not agreeing to anything when I buy an iPod. Now, I know some folks (and courts) want to say that opening an iPod package or using an iPod signifies my consent to some onerous licensing agreement... but I feel (hope?) that eventually sanity and rationality will win out on the whole idea that vendors/manufacturers can modify the implied agreement (hallowed for, literally, millenia) that is embodied in the sale of a good, after the fact.
If I pay for something and someone gives it to me, I'm free to do with it whatever I please. Why does a manufacturer by virtue of manufacturing something have a right to modify that? Suppose that a manufacturer used a third-party to put items in packaging. Would that third party now have the right to incorporate a shrink wrap license that was binding into the packaging? If not, why not? Generally, their is at least one reseller in between myself and the manufacturer. They are generally not a party to the shrink wrap license. So when I paid the reseller for the iPod, what was I buying from them? If I'm buying a "right to use" (as licensed) from Apple, why did I pay a third party who is not a party to the license? Why didn't I have to pay Apple? If opening a package is significant of intent to enter into a contract (of which you were unaware prior to opening the package), what else might be? Walking into a room? Watching a television program? I hope that the miriad contradicitions embodied by this whole power grab will eventually cause it to fall under its own weight.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
Breaking fairplay on downloaded songs is a different matter but installing software to allow DVD Jon's DRM of choice isn't a problem as long as you don't weren't that attached to your warrenty or being able to get update the firmware on the iPod.
What the fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't and it doesn't. Where do people get these ideas?
The tra
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
You're talking about the EULA. The case is far from closed as to whether EULA's always
constitute legal and enforcable "agreements". Let's say I was given my iPOD as an opened
gift? Let's say I bought it on eBay? Let's say I'm 14 and I bought my iPOD and didn't
understand the EULA (which, even if I did understand it, it wouldn't mean diddly-squat because minors
can't agree to legally binding contracts). Hell, let's say I'm not particularly skilled with
the mouse and I pressed the wrong button?
And lets talk about due legal process for a second: What is legal due diligence when entering
into any binding agreement? Well, you show that contract to your lawyer of course. Now consider that
I've supposedly "agreed" to about 50 EULA's in 2006 so far...
What would legal due diligence set me back if I were to *responsibly* enter all of these
agreements? Let's say for the sake of argument its around $1500 per "contract". So
I'd be looking at around $75k in legal bills (so far) this year, were
I to have entered each of these contracts. Is this the expectation of the industry?
Microsoft's EULA's state that upon disagreement with the EULA, products can be returned. And
yet none of Microsoft's software retailers (to my knowlege) accept returns on software.
So are these "agreements" being issued to consumers in good faith?
But let's talk about something much more basic:
THE EULA IS PRESENTED TO THE CUSTOMER AFTER THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE.
Tell me in what other industry a binding contractual agreement can be presented to a party
after the purchase?
My position: EULA's are rarely binding. And if you're afraid they are, just give all your
software to your (under 18 year old) kid as a present.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
I have repeatedly read the speculation that EULA's are not enforceable so I decided to check case law on the subject. A quick search shows that they have been upheld (at least in FL). Specifically, Salco Distribs. LLC v. Icode, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9483 (D. Fla. 2006) enforced a forum selection clause in some business software made by a company in Virginia. In order to do this, the federal court in FL had to find that the EULA was a binding contract. This is not exactly what is being discussed in this thread b/c the contract was between two businesses and the software company had really covered everything.
On a more general level the court said "In Florida and the federal circuits, shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreements are valid and enforceable contracts." The court then cited several cases to make the point, with a major one being ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). This one dealt with academic software being used in a commercial setting. The terms restricting use to academia was included in the EULA printed on the shrinkwrap, and is much closer to purchasing the ipod and using the itunes software. In that case, the court determined that the EULA was a binding contract.
I could do more research to figure this out, however, I have a bunch of homework to do as well. Given that IANAL (merely a law student) you can and should take anything I say with a large grain of salt, however, I would not just dismiss EULAs out of hand. If enforcement of the EULA would be very painful or prohibitive, you probably want to really think about what you are doing. I am not saying it is good law or that this is the way that things should be, but I would not count of a defense of unenforceability on EULA contracts.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
When I buy an iPod (or a song on iTunes for that matter), its mine and I can use it however I please. If instead I am entering a contract that grants me limited access to software/hardware:
Stores can not advertise "sale" of an iPod or have a "buy" button next to a song.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
No you're not.
I just bought a 30G video iPod from Apple, and I didn't agree to that when I bought it. Nor was there anything in the packaging, and interestingly, I didn't have to agree to anything when I turned it on (no EULA was present).
Further, people buying a used iPod didn't agree to anything like that either.
So I think this statement is false.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You didn't buy the records, you bought the right to listen those recordings. Because you now have the right to listen to them the producer is obligated to transfer the recording to the media of your choice.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, I've never seen "imprisoned" spelled with a slash.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what the previous
What I'm more interested in is how he plans to provide the backend authentication scheme that lets you authenticate and deauthenticate certain computers from your DVDJohn-iTunes account. There's a lot of 'other' stuff going on beyond just converting files to FairPlay.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I don't agree with the law. But I'm seeing if this can feasibly
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
What DVD Jon is doing is actually helping content owners "protect" their content on Apple's devices. Previously, if a company wanted to sell music for the iPod outside of the iTunes Music Store, they could not sell it with DRM. They could only sell it as MP3s, or perhaps as non-DRMed AAC files.
His actions could possibly violate a patent (if Apple, in fact, has a patent on its DRM system), but it doesn't violate copyright, so I don't believe it violates the DMCA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I quite likely misunderstand something here, but page 5 of the DMCA [copyright.gov] contains this:
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're new here. I think this [groklaw.net] is the blog you're looking for. Because on
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No one backs up. I learned that lesson by losing a HD (with tons of music on it, most all from CDs so it only cost me time). But how is his situation any different than if he ripped the music then the CDs got trashed (thrown out, broken, scratched beyond repair, etc)?
Apple may be nice, but if you pay to download something you're not very smart if you don't keep it backed up. I understand not backing up random e-mails and letters and photos, but if you pay for something you should safeguard it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why you are supposed to have multiple backups (not that I do). But what are the chances for the average person of losing both the backup and the main drive at the same time?
Like I said, Apple is nice (and I think they should be REQUIRED to let you redownload things by law). But to not have any backup is foolhardy.
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The license they keep is the authorisation database, informing them that I am entitled to have and be playing that song. Since this is a quintessential part of the service, yes, it does.
They're not holding my backup. Remember, they're holding the "product" that I license, since I never own it, remember? And this one goes out to all those "copyright infringement is not theft! you don't lose anything by copying! it costs no more, it takes no more space, no-one loses anything!" - they hold the product because that is their service. They're not holding your individual backups for you. This argument is fatuous, at best.
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:4, Informative)
http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/09/
http://digg.com/apple/Itunes_Lets_People_Re-Downl
A call/e-mail to apple's tech support may be in order for you.
Note that I've not verified this but I'll take Wil's word on it. In any case it's worth a try.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the iTunes 4 days (right after the iTMS showed up on the scene), you would download the song, and when it was done downloading, it would notify the remote-side (the iTMS) that the file was received, then it would generate the DRM wrapper (which required further calls to iTMS). Once, after it had already downloaded the track but had not yet generated the DRM, it timed out when connecting to the iTMS and dropped the file in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is your fault for not reading the terms of service, which are quite clear that you are paying for the rights to the song and the ba
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, how quickly the tables turn for Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Informative)
iTMS already has a 'backup'; the server-side copy that they're selling to everyone else. And you'd be a fool not to believe that they archive every single user's buying history (Heck, probably even what songs you sample) for marketing/later resale. All's that missing is a connection between the two (which, given other posts in this thread, apparently already exists if you call in person to ask for it).
Love is the real concern.. (Score:3, Funny)
OK.
I lost them when I loved,
Can you talk about it in public?
So what did I do?
Please tell us all about it!
What is stopping developers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
niave (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple wants to DRM their music that is their choice. If people want to buy DRM music that is their choice. No one is forcing you to buy iPods, iTunes, or CDs, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Just because it's socially acceptable to hack DRM doesn't mean its legal or right.
It's called 'freedom' (Score:5, Funny)
Re:niave (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. And yet, imagine if there was a company which *did* keep promises. Those promises, over time, might actually MEAN something.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, "WE THE PEOPLE" grant "creators" the temporary right to restrict others from copying their work. We in no way, shape, or form grant a permanent right to restrict others from copying works. So, what happens at the end of "the temporary right"? I mean, will iPods suddenly allow us unrestricted use of legally purchased files?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then they would have a financial incentive to keep their promises. Wouldn't that be a Good Thing?
Re: (Score:2)
But they are violating the terms of the spirit of copyright laws of the constitution. Like others have said... Copyrights are tempoary and DRM circumvents this aspect of the law.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe he is just using it to show what a hypocrite Steve Jobs is? People talk about him like he is the Computing Savior or something to Bill Gates' Satan, but he is just really a different flavor of evil -- with better marketing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> really a different flavor of evil -- with better marketing.
Can I get a big ol AMEN! And DVD-Jon has found the weakest link to attack Steve's dreams of empire. Left unchecked, Steve is on course to pretty much own media distribution. But this new product will have one of two results;
1. DT passes legal muster. iTunes is dead and Steve's odds are zero. Hint: Walmart is one of iPods major reta
Real's iPod attempt vs DT (Score:3, Interesting)
What Real was trying was totally different and could NOT have been stopped by a patent fight. Real was trying to add a module to an iPod to support THEIR closed garden DRM scheme. And as should have been obvious to a small child, Apple thwarted it by continually changing the firmware/software in the iPod. Real produced code implementing Real's DRM schemes was totally legal and immune to a patent fight though.
This
DVD Jon's not going about it right (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that he's writing software that allows people to copy music to device they DON'T own. To send the files over the net. To burn copies and sell them on the street.
If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again (through FairPlay or whatever else). If the user wa
Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again
And what of the copy to another device? How exactly do you dictate what happens to it?
Look. Jon is simply giving people The Tools to do whatever they would wish to do with their purchases. If you do something illegal with the tools, that's your problem. Same could be said of owning a car. Or a gun. Or a freaking two by four for that matter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As I mentioned, it would lock itself each time with whatever DRM happened to be on the device. He doesn't need to make it impossible to pirate -- just difficult enough that people will only copy files to devices they own. Same as Apple -- their rules are pretty open. You could always burn CDs from the iTunes store and recode to MP3. (And brother, don't tell me about lost quality. You got subpar quality when you bought
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pardon me, but what happens if the device you own doesn't support any DRM whatsoever?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not if it involves "circumventing technical measures" that prevent you from doing that. At least, where I live, the law is very clear in that it's illegal to circumvent such technical measures, even for the purpose of doing things that are otherwise allowed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work is (Score:5, Insightful)
The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties. While that sounds a bit over the top, imagine a world where there were no DVD Jon's to show that the big corporations locks can be picked. Imagine a world where the emporer's new clothes were never laughed at?
The point being that this only serves to help illuminate, in the minds of lawmakers, how feeble the current DRM schemes and laws really are, whether the work is ultimately found illegal or not.
Re:The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work (Score:2)
It takes a foreigner to show us the trees in the forest.
Too bad he isn't a US citizen- I would nominate him for the Prez!
Go DVD Jon!
Re:The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, alternatively, it proves that DRM alone isn't going to stop people from doing illegal things with content, and we need to crack down on tools made to circumvent the DRM to protect the *AA's interests.
And since the government holds the interests of the corporations over civil rights, it's the latter interpretation that gets used, and we get the DMCA, which is then globally enforced, because the USA is currently King of the Hill.
Heroes (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, "DVD Jon" has a big target painted on his back. As soon as the large international multimedia corporations use their political influence to normalize intellectual property laws on both sides of the pond, they'll come after him. This isn't about copy protection, per se. It's about creating and preserving monopolies. It's about making huge piles of money outside the constraints of competition.
DMCA type laws are a perversion of the
The Johansen Twist (Score:2)
Serves 'em right. (Score:5, Insightful)
If music really needed DRM to be a profitable business, I wouldn't still be able to buy CDs. So the only reason I can buy a CD and turn it into MP3s yet can't buy those MP3s to start with is because some jackass in a skyscraper either doesn't understand his own business or is trying really hard to pretend not to.
That should get some discussion going.
Why do you, bums, still use iTunes, etc.? (Score:3, Interesting)
All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" — what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.
The "Joe Sixpack" you pretend to be concerned about may be excused, but you — your real concern — may not. You — the /.-crowd — know full well, that the DVD you are buying can not be put online for everyone to donwload (whether it is, actually, stealing, or merely copyright violation is irrelevant). You knew, iTunes will limit your downloads and sharing abilities...
So, why do you buy these things from these corporations and other entities you so dislike? Was life really so miserable before DVDs and portable digital-audio players? It was not. And now, despite all of the above-listed limitations, it is only better...
Re:Why do you, bums, still use iTunes, etc.? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" -- what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.
Your commentary is all well and good, but it is not practical. The problems with DRM are problems with the law and problems with the industry. People act in their own interest. That might mean a person wants a particular song from a particular band so they endure DRM to get it. That might mean a band wants to be heard, so they pay money to give away their copyrights and accept DRM restricting their songs from being heard by future generations, in the hopes that the cartel that runs the industry will allow them to reach the mainstream audience.
Sure, educated and enlightened people can boycott the mainstream, but that will not stop the problems DRM and an illegal cartel cause for society. Your argument is analogous to someone in prohibition era Chicago saying, "we all know the violence and corruption caused by booze smuggling organized crime is killing people, so why doesn't everyone just stop drinking?" People want to drink, and they want to listen to popular music and they want to get it instantly, online. Even if that means they download it from a file sharing network or they put up with DRM that prevents future generations from being able to hear the music they will. The solution is not to try to change society, but to change the laws so that they give society what it wants.
But you are missing the rest of the quote! (Score:4, Funny)
'but the other devices you own will all be iPods.'
Sort of the Henry Ford line of thinking: ... as long as you want black."
"You can have any color Model T you want
What's the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy a CD, I can stick it in my computer and rip it into iTunes. That's legal, right?
If I buy a DVD, why can't I do the same thing? Rip it into iTunes, put it on my iPod, import it into other programs and play with it, etc.
Is there a fundamental difference between video content and audio content?! Why? Is it just that CDs were invented before DRM? That when CDs were standardized, the technology didn't exist to import and "get at" that audio content - technology that for the media companies "necessitated" DRM?
So, back to the question: Is it legal to import CDs? (I hope so.) Is it legal to import DVD's a la DVD Jon's software? (I assume the media companies would say no.) Why?!
In this brave new world of DRM, the rules are made by what The Companies technologically let you do, rather than what the laws actually decree. I am sure that once CDs go by the wayside, all content (audio, video, commercial software) will be DRM'd and authenticated to "make sure" that you cannot distribute it in any way once it gets to you - no matter what media is used to get it to you. I'm not looking forward to it.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the answer to your question:
A Redbook standard compliant CD (with the little CDAudio logo) does not have encryption or other protection placed on the music. The raw 44.1 kHz stream is encoded on the disk for all the world to read. Making a non-infringing copy of this stream for yourself and manipulating it is legal under Fair Use (and to a certain extent, the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992).
An IEEE standard compliant DVD encrypts the video content with a symmetric key system (CSS), and then hides the key on a non-writable section of the disc. Breaking this encryption violates patent and/or contract law. The interoperability clause of the DMCA, which DVD Jon uses as his basis for the legality of his system, allows you to break the CSS encryption on DVDs in order to play them on your Linux box. However, the patent on the CSS encryption system allows the DVD Copy Control Association to only license the technology to companies that pay a licensing fee; creating an implimentation of CSS without paying the licensing fee violates patent law, and creating an incomplete version of the spec (for example, ignoring the Do Not Fast Forward flag) violates the contract you signed when obtaining a license. The reverse engineering is legal, but the implementation of the reverse-engineered technology is illegal, under different laws. Unencrypted DVDs are legal to rip, for the same reasons it is legal to rip CDs.
That's the way it is, and the reason why ripping a CD is legal and copying a DVD is not legal. The question of whether this is how things SHOULD be is left as an exercise for the reader.
How to convert a song from Freeplay to Non-DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
#2 Buy MP3 Freeplay Songs from Apple iTunes for your iPod or to play on iTunes.
#3 Open up Audacity, select your sound card output as the source, check the volume. Get the record button ready on a new audio file. Hit the record button in Audacity and hit the play button on iTunes, when the iTunes program is finished playing the song, stop the recording and cut out the silence between the song playing and "Export" to MP3 or OGG or whatever format you wish to export to. (Might need the LAME library to make a MP3)
#4 You now have a MP3 or OGG file without any DRM, quality may vary. Play it on your Non-Freeplay, Linux, OS/2, BeOS, whatever system or music player.
If the RIAA and Apple throws a hissy fit about this, reference the MPAA verses BetaMax case and the RIAA verses Casette recorders case, and see how TiVO brought about digital rights to make recordings of TV shows, movies, songs, etc as long as you paid for access to them first or got them off a free broadcast.
Remember as long as you own the rights to listen to a song, you have a right to a backup. This method does not remove DRM, nor does it crack it, in fact it does not even modify the original SafePlay file, all it does is make a standard audio file recording of the audio file you have the rights to listen to anyway. The downside is that it takes a long while to convert your collection over that way, but the upside is that it is not costly to do so.
You and you. (Score:3, Funny)
Thing is, lost in the transcription is that Jobs was talking to two people. To clarify:
"If you [the consumer] legally acquire music, you [the copyright holder] need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you [the consumer] own."
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's fairly easy to further degrade shitty quality 128k AAC files from iTunes. All you do is burn an audio CD from shitty quality compressed DRM'd AAC files and then rip that CD into another shitty, lossy, and compressed audio codec of your choice (in this case MP3).
Great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And a complete pain. Tell that to someone who has bought say 20-50 CDs worth of music off iTunes (not me, I just have the free album that came with my iPod).
"You can use whatever player you want. All you have to do is waste 50 blank CD-Rs (or a CD-RW)) by copying your music to CD then back. Best of all, after you've wasted all that time, you'll have to waste space by using lower compression just to get it to sound about the same."
The fact is, I'd have a hard time switching off the iPod if I wanted to unle
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.anythingbutipod.com/ [anythingbutipod.com]
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy, perhaps, but time-consuming and labor intensive. Not exactly what you would be paying for when using iTunes, whose major selling point is convenience (at least, it's neither cheap, nor do you get great value).
``You might have to rip at higher bitrate to make sure you capture all the original audio information,''
It won't help. The A
Re: (Score:2)
And I agree that buying commercial CDs is a better way to go if you want better audio quality. Again, that's a separate issue.
Re:Cool Jon! (Score:4, Informative)
mixing metaphors like there's no tomorrow (Score:5, Funny)
Old news - download jhymn (Score:3, Informative)
http://hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/ [hymn-project.org]
There is even a previous slashdot article [slashdot.org]...