... for using iTMS. It plays on iTunes and iPods only. You can't convert ACC files directly to MP3s. Etc... For anyone who blindly used iTunes without knowing the limitations, they stopped using it after a few DLs when they found out the hard way.

I find iTMS's DRM to be fair and therefore use the service. If you don't like its limitations, go find another service that has DRM terms you do like or buy the physical CDs at a store. It's your choice. People should not be writing programs (or using programs) that circumvent the intended use of the iTMS music files. Apple is right to take action to stop it. If they do nothing, iTMS as we know it will cease to exist.

Jeff, you really need to get a clue. It's obvious you are missing half a brain here with that dribble you wrote.

I hope you are not an American. You would obviously vote for Kerry and are in favor of gun control.

I think it would be nice for people with MP3 players if they could convert the AAC files from the iTunes Music Store for that purpose.

However, there are at least two reasons why I think
Apple is justified in trying to prevent them from easily doing so:

1. Apple needs to maintain a good relationship with the record industry. Otherwise, most of the music would become only available in online stores that used "more secure" formats like WMA (of course, any DRM can be hacked eventually).

2. Apple needs to sell iPods. Selling music online does not result in much profit compared to what can be gained by selling many music players for use with that music. If it was easy to convert the music to MP3 format, then a number of people would likely opt for a cheaper MP3 player instead of an iPod.

That being said, I must say that I was able to recently purchase a 20GB iPod - even with the low budget my wife and I enjoy. We have not had any problems with Apple's music store and the DRM they use.

On one occasion, I had need to convert a few songs to MP3 and used the burn-to-CD-and-rip method. It was not very difficult and also resulted in a handy audio CD backup of the music. If I had an MP3 player instead of an iPod, I would probably not mind using that method to convert the files. Of course, I can't afford to buy a lot of songs each month like some :-)

"The thing to realize is that you have to own the music in order to decrypt it."

I don't think that's the point. I think the point is, once you decode it, what prevents you from sharing it with the rest of the world?

Let's face it. For every person who uses playfair legally, there will be 10x's as many people who will use it illegally. Just a fact in this day and age of the "What's in it for me for free generation".

"Jeff, you really need to get a clue. It's obvious you are missing half a brain here with that dribble you wrote."

Um, do you mean "drivel?" Or are you talking about basketball? Or milk? Brain damage indeed. I'm not even sure why you assume that Jeff is a liberal. You seem to have a very skewed sense of politics (as he has a skewed sense of where the vast majority of that money really goes). Maybe you should go clean your gun with the safety off....

1) New research is indicating that file sharing has no negative impact on music sales. It also shows that the stuff people are downloading is mostly stuff they would NOT have bought even had they not downloaded it.

2) How is file sharing demonstrably different from loaning your copy of a popular book to all your friends? or a cassette/LP/8-track/reel-to-reel tape/video disk/laser disk? from taping a TV show and loaning out the Betamax tape?

Um, do you mean "drivel?" Or are you talking about basketball? Or milk? Brain damage indeed. I'm not even sure why you assume that Jeff is a liberal. You seem to have a very skewed sense of politics (as he has a skewed sense of where the vast majority of that money really goes). Maybe you should go clean your gun with the safety off....

Of course he's a liberal. Conservatives are for freedom to do what you want (well, unless it might affect big business or what you do in the bedroom, esp. if you happen to enjoy the company of the same s**). Liberals are all about controlling what you can do and when you can do it. We know it was the liberals who passed the DCMA (OK, so it was a republican congress and senate, but Clinton signed it, so it must've been his fault).

Let's make sure we keep those g** people under wraps (keeping in mind the entire Apple user base is g**, I read it online somewhere) so we can protect the American way of life!

You know, I've posted many times on this isue with a message similar to yours. It's true that you should be honest about your intentions and honor the rights of the copyright holders. Stealing is stealing, no doubt about it, and sharing is stealing in this case. I'm a professional artist myself, and am well-versed in copyright matters.

But this is different. I've "cracked" the AAC protection often because I have more than 3 machines and have a need to play my music at more than 3 locations. I am not stealing, I am not sharing, I am not "pissing down the artists' back." I am just trying to play music that I have legally licensed for my own pleasure, and am trying to do something that has been protected under every copyright law right up to Sonny Bono's.

I don't need to use this software to do it, so I'm not upset about this move by Apple - they have to show due diligence in order to appease the record labels. I *am* upset about your assumption that everyone who breaks a copy protection scheme is a law-breaker or thief. I'm a perfect example of the opposite, and I think the DMCA is simply too far-reaching. It's bad, bad law that makes an honest person a criminal.

"I don't think that's the point. I think the point is, once you decode it, what prevents you from sharing it with the rest of the world?"

The point is, once you have a gun, what prevents you from killing the rest of the world with it? Maybe because it's illegal?

"Don't blame DMCA. Companies don't have to enforce DMCA. We should have the freedom to protect intellectual property and the freedom to decide to not be paranoid about it."

Companies will use whatever legal tool is available to them in order to protect their interests. The DMCA gives them too much power to restrict the rights of consumers.

"Theft is theft... and thieves always come up with a hundred self-serving rationalizations to justify their theft. It is no secret that the reason to crack AAC files is to distribute them for free to people who did not pay for them, and cheat the artists out of their money. So just be up front about it—a lot of people want to steal, and those who succumb to the impulse are just... thieves. Don't piss down the artists' backs and try to tell them it's raining."

Please. You want to talk about ripping artists off, maybe start looking at the RIAA. They're making billions and most recording artists never see a penny. Courtney Love wrote a very interesting paper on this topic. Essentially, until your 3rd or 4th best-seller CD the only money you make is through concerts.
The main reason for cracking FairPlay is not to share AAC files on P2P servers: it's to have free use of the music you paid for (for instance, if you want to play your iTunes collection on a Roku or Squeezebox network player). Yes, you could share this file, but you could just as well share the burned-and-reripped version, or buy the CD, rip it and share this better version. Bottom line, there are tons of ways to get music to share. If you already paid for your music at the iTMS instead of stealing it on a P2P network, chances are you're not a file swapper.

Anyway, at this point it doesn't matter, the cat's out of the bag and just like DeCSS PlayFair will reappear soon enough. But I agree with eddd, the DMCA is a horrible law that was only enacted because our politicians (and both sides are guilty) are completely sold out and do just what big business tells them to do.

What the heck does that have to do with anything? Of course you can have n*** c*** all over the place, as long as it doesn't encourage a violent act, etc. You'd be a dirtbag, not a criminal.

Apple's act makes sense, because when you buy iTunes songs you are agreeing to these license terms. This app solely exists so you can breach this contract. Now if you want to use the music for your own purposes, I suppose it's less obnoxious than using it to share, but the fact that it would encourage some to do so severely threatens the viability of iTunes. Apple had to act.

As for that indicating that the complainer (Jeff) is a Kerry voting Liberal, well, he's a bonehead for making the n*** comment, but anyone who doesn't vote for the corrupt, unamerican incompetents currently in office can't be all bad. So in that sense, I hope he is.

I said Jeff before, I meant Simon. Sorry.

I agree recent events make one ashamed to be an american, but this isn't one of those recent events.

OK, here's to those of you who lack the intelligence to see the connection: The law protects big business, but not the normal people. That's what DMCA and freedom of hatred, uh sorry, freedom of speech have to do with each other.

If you fail to see this connection, you indeed deserve the system you live under.

Use words like bonehead carefully, if you can't manage to think this far.

"The law [DMCA] protects big business, but not the normal people."

Simon, I agree with you completely — big business, corporations, the market, the economy have trumped human beings consistently in the last 25 years, and this is a shame and a travesty. I prefer capitalism to any other system, but unrestrained capitalism _requires_ a trampling of people and their rights. I am against trampling of rights.

Which is why I'm against restricting free speech. Do I like hearing neo-n**** or KKK rallies on my courthouse steps? Absolutely not. Do I agree with what those people have to say? Not in the slightest. Do I adamantly protect their right — and everyone else's right — to say what they want to say as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? You better believe it. Hate speech is bad, and I support laws against hate crimes. But speech should be protected in all but the most grievous instances.

You should be more concerned with your lack of voice in the direction of American politics — I'm assuming you are American — and the fact that laws like the DMCA (and the USA PATRIOT Act) restrict our rights and freedoms much more than the blather of some skinhead, thankfully to whom most people in this country no longer pay any heed. It is curious indeed how you can rage against the DMCA taking away some of your rights, and in the same breath try and steal other rights away from all of us, including yourself. Paradoxical, to say the least.

'Um, do you mean "drivel?" Or are you talking about basketball? Or milk? Brain damage indeed. I'm not even sure why you assume that Jeff is a liberal. You seem to have a very skewed sense of politics (as he has a skewed sense of where the vast majority of that money really goes). Maybe you should go clean your gun with the safety off...."

You my friend, have no sense of politics at all. I would also guess that you would be a Kerry voter as well. You see, liberals have the uncanny ability to pass controlling laws (gun control) and then circumvent the laws they "feel" are not in their best interest under the guise of "civil rights". (g** marriage issue). They even invent things, like the "separation of church and state", which does not exists anywhere in the constitution.
You apparently hate people with guns by your comment. So, I will leave you with this. Enjoy daydreaming about me blowing my head off while you fondle your same s** partner in your Godless home. I'm going to have a nice breakfast and celebrate the resurrection of Christ. (oops, that is hate speech in your book) Apparently hate speech, a liberal law, is one of those laws that you would have voted for had the chance, but don't "feel" you should adhere too as evident by your last sentence above. Wishing death upon anyone is no joke.

Finally. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I did mean drivel. Feel free to point out any more grammatical mistakes if you will, but please stay away from politics. There is already enough political cancer to deal with in Kerry.

Happy Easter!

INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE

Apple certainly pulled the plug to avoid repercussions from the RIAA.

As for this weird right-wing political c***. Do you rednecks even KNOW what liberal actually means? Check out the dictionary (in this case the Nisus Thesaurus):

liberal (as in "adult") n. : a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

liberal (as in "adult") n. : a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

liberal (as in "broad") adj. : showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

liberal (as in "liberal") adj. : having political or social views favoring reform and progress

liberal (as in "liberal") adj. : tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition


Sounds good to me. Sign me up!

"1) New research is indicating that file sharing has no negative impact on music sales. It also shows that the stuff people are downloading is mostly stuff they would NOT have bought even had they not downloaded it."

and how exactly does this make it legally, morally or ethically ok?

"2) How is file sharing demonstrably different from loaning your copy of a popular book to all your friends? or a cassette/LP/8-track/reel-to-reel tape/video disk/laser disk? from taping a TV show and loaning out the Betamax tape?"

i'll let you demonstrate the difference by naming one person who has shared a cassette/etc. with millions and millions of their closest friends. just one will do.

I agree with Beverson completely re: Freedom of Speech.

Coprporations get a ton of advantages in law....but people get the same legal advantages. YOU can sue someone of hire a] lawyer to issue a cease and desist order against someone who is doing something solely for the purpose of breaking a contract. It's easier for a Corp simply because it's easier for them to hire lawyers, and issues relevant to corporations are likely expensive enough to warrant the expense of a lawyer. Not so for the average person. I am not aware of anything in the DMCA which limits those affected by it to Corporations.

It is true that it may be easier for a corporation to get some tax breaks, etc. based on bringing in employment, raising the tax base, etc. But the people that make these determinations are...well...people. And for the most part, the public gets a say. Witness the Walmart case in LA this week. The people voted it down.

There is nothing to connect the freedom of speech and the fact that the law gives rights to everyone, that may be more relevant to corporations than to average individuals. Your alleged connection is ridiculous. While the n**** and KKK may be sub human in a moral sense, they are in fact people, and not corporations. Thus, the law you cite is protecting people, and not corporations in that case (though admittedly not normal or decent people). They have that right, and they use it.

In what way should the law protect "normal people" in the Apple case? In what way should it protect "normal people" regarding other people saying what you don't like? In what way is this law protecting big business but not normal people, except insofar as "normal people" don't generally have digital intellectual property and corporations may?

For all that the current administration wants to urinate on the constitution, and on the "normal people" in general, the underlying structure of our system protects normal people quite well.

The constitution is intended in part to prevent the dictatorship of the masses, by guaranteeing individual rights such as the freedom of speech.

While there are lots of reasons to be embarassed to be an american currently, Apple using the law to knock out a product that's sole purpose is to breach contracts with it is not one of them.

--

Incidentally, my first post attributed to Jeff the comment because a later post against Jeff seemed to me (without going back and checking, my bad) to be against what Simon said. I actually agree with Jeff completely to the extent that Apple's act is intended to fight vs. the theives not vs. legal users, and theives are theives.

This is not about free speech, it's about the fact that the law protects Apple's corporate rights better than those of every single American citizens. It doesn't matter if it's black families being terrorized by KKK or jews being attacked by skinheads or nurses being killed by some freaks because the work in a clinic that tolerates abortion. It's not of importance here.

You can theorize the whole day about how important freedom of speech is. I agree, but it's totally irrelevant, because while you praise this freedom installed over 200 years ago you miss the removal of freedom TODAY.

The corporate US enjoys your praises. It distracts you from the fact that they are s******* you. But, is there such a necessity to be content? We are living in a country that says Apple is allowed to tamper with people just because these people are smarter programmers than Apple's DRM fellows. Great. Instead of punishing people stealing music, programmers are harassed.

You speak about the freedom of speech, but approve the prosecution of thinking. Reminds me of Orwellian visions. How unconcerned you pursue the path to fascism baffles me.

Good luck there.

It's my music, I paid for it, I will do with it as I wish.
And no I don't share my music with anyone on any P2P network.

The site and software are now hosted at Sarovar, an open-source hosting site in India (which like most sane places, does not have a DMCA, and isn't even party to WIPO).

http://playfair.sarovar.org/

v0.50 is available as a batch drag-and-drop Cocoa binary. Nice little app. Needs an icon, though.

As for all you smack-talking drivel-spouting twits (on both sides): get over yourselves. The software is perfectly legal in every sane country in the world. You have no idea what you're giving away with your pro-Apple zealotry this time around.

Why do most LIBERALS then hate to be called liberals? Because it doesn't have the same meaning as shown in dictionaries. That's why.

The are constantly distancing themselves from the word. I wonder why?


On topic: Who cares? I don't.

"The site and software are now hosted at Sarovar, an open-source hosting site in India (which like most sane places, does not have a DMCA, and isn't even party to WIPO)."

The same process of intense lobbying that took place in the US and ended up with the enactment of the DMCA is happening right now in th e European Union. Unless citizens there wake up they will eventually have to deal with the same c*** we put up with in the US.

I would expect India to become subject to intense pressure from Western governments if it becomes known as a "safe haven for pirates" (as the RIAA would see it). Eventually it will have to cave in, and I guess the project will move to China :)

Um....the law DOES protect blacks from being terrorized, jews from being attacked, etc. sheesh.

EVERONE's rights are protected. Those rights include contractural rights....such as the contract those who sign up for iTunes agree to. This app is solely intended to violate that contract. In what way is this fascism? Being an Apple fanatic? etc. Microsoft has similar rights, and their licenses are far more restrictive. If you don't agree with a license, don't. I have a mac as my prefered machine partly because I choose to not be subject to MS's draconian licensing. Should the law protect people violating that license? NO! Should you disagree and thus not buy MS products subject to such a license? sure.

I note you haven't answered a single question I asked. What should the law do in any of the cases you are drawing this strange analogy to?

RE:nam_pog and "Liberals"

Liberals aren't bothered by being called liberal. They are bothered that narrow minded fools think it's an insult without having a clue what it means.

I used to generally support republicans because of the general "get the government out of my face" fundamental idea. That idea has now changed.

Now republicans seem to think the government should be able to control every single aspect of your life, from your sexual preference, to what you read, etc. It claims "Terrorism" or "911" for whatever disgusting anti-american act it promulgates. Not to mention the fiscal irresponsibility, and mindless swaggering to the detriment of all americans.

I know many republicans who are disgusted by the narrow-minded hate rhetoric of the current administration, not to mention it's incompetence and that danger it created for all americans. Many of these people are now democrats. Others are not, but won't vote for the current president in the next election, because mickey mouse would do a better job. I don't like Kerry but would vote for him to be dictator before giving bush 4 more years.

A brief reading of the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" might be in order for those who think that their "rights" are being trampled because of laws against theft.

The right to property—in all its forms, physical and intellectual—is the foundation of all liberty, which the Framers realized, and which citizens of the former Soviet Union can attest. So the argument that freedom is threatened by the protection of intellectual property rights is transparently self-servingly, and frankly, almost too puerile to warrant serious discussion. To attempt to torture the argument into a Free Speech issue is bizarre.

Possessing a crowbar does not grant the moral right to break into a house, loot it, and distribute the booty to passersby. If one does that, he is not "excercizing freedom of speech," but simply breaking and entering. Likewise, the possession of a cracking program does not grant one the moral right to pass out intellectual property to those who have not paid for it.

Neither law nor morality proscribe personal "fair use" type duplication. However, both law and morality are smart enough to see the difference between that type of activity and wholesale peer-to-peer fileswapping, which is the elephant in the living room in all such discussions.

Just burn a CD if you need MP3.

Neither free speech nor thievery is the issue here. It's right to use. Possession of PlayFair does not make one a thief. Use of this software does not make one a thief either. Quoting the constitution does nothing but show how off the point you are. There are two forces here at work.

1) People's desire to use what they purchased how they wish hence the invention of this software, which the inventor has a right too according to the constitution.
2) Apple protecting the position they are in with the RIAA and their responsibility to their shareholders with regard to iPod sales.

In a society where freedom of the people is deemed so important, this should be a non-issue. #1 should prevail. However since this country no longer cares about the people, but rather the corporations, hence the problem and DMCA. You side with #2. You must have a stake in a corporation. Apple I would guess.

All you have done with your posts are to call people who use or wish to use this software thieves, of which I took offense with earlier. I'm no thief, I just want to use my purchased music on my Tungsten T3 without any more loss to the product I purchased. I should be able to do that without being forced into an iPod. If I have to break the law, I will as I have learned over time that not all laws are fair and just.

"If I have to break the law, I will as I have learned over time that not all laws are fair and just."

yeah, that's a good stance to take. one would think the road to take would be to go about changing the law, not breaking it.

the issue is that, yes, one should be able to use purchased music for their own personal use as they need. unfortunately there are people who have decided that they will use music any way they want, laws, companies, artists be damned. this creates a necessity to protect these laws, companies and artists. perhaps unfair to those who do not break the law, but none the less necessary.

The law should have not been put into place to begin with. Perhaps people should pay more attention to the lawmakers that are effecting their life rather than the T&A on television and big screens. You missed my point.

One way to have a law changed is for the majority not to adhere to it and let a society force a change. Another is to pay or pander a corrupt judge with an agenda. There are plenty in the 9th circuit.

I paid for the music. I will decide how I use it (within the bounds of the law). I couldn't possibly care if that offends Apple, or if someone on this board thinks it is immoral. I have no interest in supplying anyone with the songs that I paid good money for, they and the people who think I am a thief can go to h*** together.

I will wait to see if legally, Apple has a leg to stand on. They may have a case, on the other hand it wouldn't be their first or even hundredth frivolous lawsuit.

Music bought in the iTMS is done so under a certain licensing agreement, just as it is when you buy a CD - it's just different terms. You do NOT have the right to circumvent the DRM to have your way with the tunes. If this bothers you, don't buy music from the iTMS, buy a CD and rip it instead.

Exactly MacNorway. These people do not own the music. They own the right to use it within the limits set forth in the licensing agreement.

Thus, Fairplay's sole purpose is to allow people to breach their contracts. Of COURSE Apple would shut it down. If they didn't, they may be waiving portions of their contract.

I doubt Apple cares too much if someone buys a tune, and puts it on their Palm. However, the same app allows people to steal the music as well. It doesn't matter if individuals may not be sharing the tunes. It's not like Apple can only shut down Fairplay to the extent people use it to share the music.

Fairplay threatens the viability of iTunes...which is the primary thing driving up apple's stock price lately. Hmm. Why would they shut down fairplay? Can't imagine.

Sheesh.

Unless you already own it.

Jeff I don't own an iPod and cds skip like crazy in my jeep. I have a non apple mp3 player that requires me to convert music to play on it.

I've already spent $50 on the iTMS and plan on purchasing more music. I have downloaded two songs on limewire in the last 6 months one I later purchased on the store once it was available, and the other I have checked on and requested multiple times.

If there is an application out there that I can use to play my music fairly, why can't I use it?

"You do NOT have the right to circumvent the DRM to have your way with the tunes." "These people do not own the music. They own the right to use it within the limits set forth in the licensing agreement."

Says you. Legally, I might not have the right. But for myself, I OWN MY MUSIC, and f*** the company that tells me otherwise. Instead of me not buying the music if I don't agree with the license agreement, maybe the company should NOT SELL it to me if they don't like what I'm going to do with it after I've obtained it. Companies think they can have their cake and eat it too: charge me insane prices and then even after I've paid, force me to use the music as they want. That's BULLSHIT.

You know what would happen in your world, where cameras watch everything people do and a person is immediately punished should they do anything wrong? Nobody would buy anything, because they'd be too scared of the consequences should they do anything wrong. Humanity would be crushed into sitting in front of their bleak computers, diligently performing their tasks without complaint. Automations. 1984.

Thank god that most of the time, people are left alone to do what they will, without the majority imposing some belief system on them like "piracy is theft!" I am free to believe how I want to believe, download what I want to download, rip, mix, burn, pirate, share, crack, and play on whatever damn system I see fit. It's my life and I will do what I want with it.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to understand that laws are only a useful guideline for keeping a resemblence of order in society. Laws are created by PEOPLE, people which are sometimes smart, sometimes stupid, sometimes good, sometimes evil. My opinion of licencing agreements is that the majority of time, it's a way of the company trying to regulate my life after I've bought their product, something they don't have the right to regulate. Why should I follow their rules about how to live my life? Am I suppose to just bow down like a good little whipping boy and take it, because it's the "moral" thing to do? Clue for the clueless: "moral" is just language imposed to make you feel shame in doing something so you won't do it. It's FUD which imposes a method of control.

Free your mind. Companies don't care about you, what they care about is their profits.

"Says you. Legally, I might not have the right. But for myself, I OWN MY MUSIC, and f*** the company that tells me otherwise. Instead of me not buying the music if I don't agree with the license agreement, maybe the company should NOT SELL it to me if they don't like what I'm going to do with it after I've obtained it. Companies think they can have their cake and eat it too: charge me insane prices and then even after I've paid, force me to use the music as they want. That's BULLSHIT."

Look, we all totally sympathize with you wanting to "own" your music. But the fact of the matter is, you made an agreement to fulfill particular DRM terms. Ordinarily you have fair use rights when you buy music, but the DMCA makes it a *crime* to circumvent copy protection, which is what DRM is.

You think DMCA is a bad law. I agree wholeheartedly. I think we should keep our fair use rights, which would allow something like PlayFair to be used legally. Unfortunately, such is not the state of the law right now. I'm not so naïve to think we're going to be able to change the law any time soon, either. So if you want to circumvent the law and use something like this anyway, *I* don't hold it against you. But you have no right to be claiming the moral high ground, either. You are breaking the law and your contract with iTMS by using this. If you're fine with that, just be fine with it and don't go on this wannabe rant about owning the music and F&CK the company blah blah.

But the fact of the matter is, you made an agreement to fulfill particular DRM terms. Ordinarily you have fair use rights when you buy music, but the DMCA makes it a *crime* to circumvent copy protection, which is what DRM is.

Note that there are two separate issues here. I'm not at all sure that circumventing Fairplay violates the terms of the iTMS licence (which I can't seem to find - anyone have a link to it?). It does violate the DMCA if you're in the US (and soon a similar and worse law in the EU). Note that those are two separate issues - the DMCA isn't something that the purchaser agreed to.

The licence does say something about the number of computers you can use and the number of CD copies you can make, so those are indeed terms the purchaser agrees to. But that doesn't actually mean those copies need to retain the Fairplay wrapper, assuming they started with one (apparently some downloads at the iTMS don't). It may be within the agreement to circumvent Fairplay and manage one's own use of the track - it just violates the DMCA.

The DMCA violates everyone, of course, but that's another kettle of fish. ;)

"But you have no right to be claiming the moral high ground, either. You are breaking the law and your contract with iTMS by using this."

Sorry for being so angry with my post. I'm not (claiming high moral ground). In fact, I fully admit that sometimes I'm wrong in pirating things- I've tried more and more to pay for what I can (unless it's going to make me go broke).

I just get annoyed at how people jump on and claim law or some other justification for taking THEIR high moral ground over everyone else. Especially because all their shouting isn't unlikely to stop anyone from doing what they've already made up their mind that they are going to do. It's wasted energy.