ninety percent of what's on my iPod has been ripped from CDs I OWN. the remaining files i received from friends who ripped from their own CDs--and many of those are from my fiancee's collection. i did NOT receive any via illegal download sites.

if Real was the market leader and the iTMS never existed, their solution: 1. would be Windows-only 2. would kowtow to Microsoft's draconian DRM scheme...RIAA-friendly, not user-friendly 3. would double the current amount of piracy as a result

what an arsehat.

As long as this moron is at the helm of Real, they will continue to lose marketshare. Now that QuickTime can play WMP files, there's very little reason left (other than some exclusive stations) to even HAVE Realplayer around.

Apple would have probably bought the company years ago if Glaser weren't an even bigger egomaniac than Steve (who, it should be noted, has deflated his ego quite considerably since his cancer scare).

Apple is probably just biding their time and waiting for them to go downhill enough so that Glaser is forced out, and shortly thereafter Real becomes a unit of Apple.

Anybody want to go after him legally? What he has said is slanderous and defaming as a class...

For the record, Glaser does not know the law. It is not illegal for a person to make a copy of a lawfully purchased CD, and give that copy to a friend, provided the purpose of the transfer is not commercial. By commerical, I mean that you sell it to your friend, or your friend intends to sell it to somebody else. That would be illegal.

Section 1008 of the copyright statute provides that consumers may make non-commercial copies of recorded music without liability. Many people seem not to know this any more.

People like Glaser are distorting the law for their own gain.

is off his meds.

Again.

I've got about 75-100 songs on my iPod that I bought from ITMS. I've got about 15 gig of other mp3s that were ripped from my cds, or my wife's cds, or from friend's cds, or from library cds (which is, as far as I know, fair use). A lot of the "downloaded" mp3s I have were downloaded because I bought the song on cassette or LP, and it ended up being a lot easier to "creatively acquire" the mp3s rather than struggle with funky importing techniques.

This guy needs to get back in his tree.

He obviously never heard of personal CD ripping.

Rob just polled all of his friends to see what they had on their iPods. As neither of them was home when he called, he just looked on his own iPod and counted up the songs.

Car are sometimes used for bank robberies, for driving while intoxicated, and running over grandmothers and little children. Just like the iPods that Glaser claims are destroying the civilized world.

Get them off the road now!

Zaren, it is clearly not fair-use to rip somebody else's CDs for the purpose of using the ripped music in your iPOd. This is because arguably you would be deprving the copyright holder a sale.

However, it is lawful for a friend to give you a copy of a CD he owns. You can then rip that copy yourself. This is written into Section 1008 the Copyright Act, so Fair-use does not come into play here. It simply is legal. I beleive the reason is that when you buy a blank CD you are paying a tax that gets paid to the music industry.

To rip your own CDs, that is an issue of Fair-Use.

Every time this tool mentions interoperability, I wish someone would ask him how many non-Windows operating systems his music service supports.

# of mp3's I ripped from my own CDs: 5000 # of mp3's I bought from ITMS: 300 # of mp3's I obtained from other methods: 0 Value of iTunes + iPod: Priceless

I don't know any other way to explain his statements. iPods don't steal music people do...

First, the 25 songs comment is from some study/poll released a month or two ago. This isn't glaser just mouthing off.

However, his logic is completely off in left field somewhere.

First, he seems to think all iPod users look for interoperability (which is odd, since we already know the ipod is a closed system). I'm not sure what we're supposed to be wanting to be interoperable with, but it apparently is something that doesn't do iTMS music.

But music bought from Real won't play on the iPod, nor the Mac, nor certain windows machines, nor on other systems. So anyone using these systems are also are stealing music (obviously. Stop doing it! Now!).

Now, music from Real won't play on the iPod. Why? Oh, because it uses a DRM scheme that isn't supported by Apple and the iPod. So the problem with interoperability is DRM!

But, then, the only formats that are interoperable are those without DRM. Ergo, what he's saying is that DRM is bad. Yet he sells DRM'd music. Shouldn't he put his a** where his mouth is and start selling interchangable music?

BTW, just to be safe, don't go out in public with your iPod. The police may arrest you for copyright violation for stealing all that music on there (if you follow the guy's logic, owning an iPod is basically admitting to the world you are stealing music. h***, the RIAA should stop going after music downloaders through their ISPs. They should just go after Apple's iPod registration list and sue everyone on it!).

I guess my sister's OK. She's got a Creative Zen player, so she doesn't steal music.

I have bought over 500 songs from iTMS since it opened in a year and a half ago. I also have several CD's that I "bought" and ripped to iTunes.

Glaser is an idiot.

Regarding the response to my previous comment, I'm trying to understand how (or if) it's different if I make mp3s from a friend's cd vs. making mp3s from a library's cd.

There wasn't a purchase made of the cd in either case, there was no money exchanged to acquire the mp3s, and the goal of the library is to make the media they hold available to their users. If anything, I'm doing the library a service by returning the cd sooner and not keeping it out of circulation! :)

As stated by terrin in this thread, "Section 1008 of the copyright statute provides that consumers may make non-commercial copies of recorded music without liability... It is not illegal for a person to make a copy of a lawfully purchased CD, and give that copy to a friend, provided the purpose of the transfer is not commercial".

Where do people keep getting this notion that iTunes and the iPod are "closed"? Songs purchased from iTunes Music Store can be burned to CD, and then imported into any format you like including mp3 which can be played on pretty much anything. You can import music from all kinds of sources into iTunes which can then be put in your iPod; you're not limited to the iTunes Music Store.

If this were the "closed system" Apple's competitors/enemies keep trying to demonize Apple over, then the songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store could ONLY be played on an iPod and not be burned to CD or used by ANY other device. The iPod could ONLY play songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store and not be able to play music from CD's or any other source. THAT would be a "closed system".

Somebody needs to call the waaambulance for Glaser since his company has fallen down and can't figure out how to compete without whining.

much too easy to mock this guy.

It's safe to say that were the shoe on his foot instead of Jobs', he'd be saying, "RealPods don't steal music, people do!"

In any case, it's a stupid analogy as pointed out amply on this comments thread. MP3 players don't enable piracy; P2P clients, computers and poorly protected audio CDs do. If my bank account contained money that was obtained illegally from drug sales, does that mean that bank accounts should be banned?

And what's so special about the iPod in regards to pirated MP3's? I mean, is Glaser against MP3 players in general?

...sad whinings by an also-ran. With decllining marketshares, he is now trying to throw further sand into the gears of Apple and the iTMS, hoping to derail things that way, since his 'high-quality' product could not do so.

Insulting all potential customers is a good first strategy....

I think he may have contradicted himself:

"...it's called stealing. The average number of songs sold for the iPod is 25, and there are many more songs on iPods than 25. About half the music on iPods is music obtained illegitimately either from an illegal peer-to-peer networks or from ripping friends' CDs, which is illegal."

But then he says:

"...Apple has been able to use iTunes to help drive sales of its iPod, where it makes most of its money, while other services struggle to make on money on music."

So according to him Apple uses iTunes to push iPod sales, yet only 25 songs per iPod imply that people using iPods dont buy much from the music store? So in his words people buy iPods so they can steal music and not buy it from the primary marketing drive source of the iPod?

Wow, this guy IS on something....

Its like waking up one sunny morning and finding yourself in the middle of a comedy version of Animal Farm. Not quite sure which pig Glaser is but Steve Balmer is obviously Napoleon. Either way how do these people seriously think they can make such totally unsubstaniated claims and actually convince the sheep, sorry, people its true is beyond me.

Fariuse is not a black or white matter. The only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes.

It's important to understand that these factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.

The four factors judges consider are:

the purpose and character of your use the nature of the copyrighted work the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work. Moroever, Sony was able to successful argue that "time-shifiting" television shows with a VCR was Fari-use.

Many fair-use court battles have been written into the copyright act. One of them, I beleive, is you can legally make a backup of works you legally own. Fair-use also would likely allow you to rip MP3s from Cds you already own.

Fair-use, however, would not likely allow you to directly rip music from Cds taken from the library or from a friend. Why? Because in these situations you are essentially depriving the Copyright holder of compensation without any public interest being served.

When, however, you burn a CD and give it to a friend, you paid for the CD that you burned the copy on. That blank CD includes a tax which is paid to the copyright holders. You will notice, if you borrow a CD from the Library or a friend and rip directly from their CDs to your computer, no tax is paid on blank CDs.

This tax paid on blank CDs has nothing to do with Fair-use. It is just something that content holders drafted into the copyright act.

Check out:

http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/classes/copyright/copyright.htm

This will give you acomplete resource for attempting to understand copyright law.

Where did he get his numbers from? 25 songs max that are legal? Idiot. He has no clue what people do with their iPods. I have a 700+ CD collection, ALL legally purchased which fills up my iPod. This is another loser who can't stand Apple winning and people not wanting to buy Microsh*t's software and hardware from it's partners.

I admit to having a few (

Real Networks' CEO Rob Glaser ownes an iPod and he steals music, look now he admits it!

the rest of us honest slaves just listen to radio stations from all over the world on the internet...it much cheeper then supporting fools like this prime example.

The only sections of the copyright law that you have to look at are sections 101-107 of the 1976 act. Section 106 of the copyright act vests the right to make copies of a copyrighted work solely in the holder of said copyright. In most instances, that is the original author or the publisher. Section 107 of the act, governing fair use, is meant to protect use by educators and researchers, makers of parody, and the like. There is no defense under sections 106 or 107 for copying a song in its entirety, changing it to mp3, and putting it on your iPod. That is not fair use, and it is a violation of the copyright holder's right under section 106 of the act.

Yea, what of it dickhead!!!!

Maclawdude, no offense, but you are absolutely incorrect. Where in the Copyright Act of 1997 does it say to only look at Sections 101 through 107? That would be absurd, since Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act, whichj modifed the copyright act, was drafted in 1992.

Section 1008 reads:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

Moreover, you have incorrectly represented Section 107, which concerns Fair-Use. Straight from the Copyright Office's website:

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value"

The act itself, as well as the courts, note these factors are not conclusive. Ripping a Cd you already own would be covered under this doctrine. If it were not, Apple's iTunes would not let you do this, as that would be illegal (facilitating copyright infringment is illegal). The situation is almost analgous to a VCR legally being allowed to copy a show, so you can watch it later at a time of your chosing.

PS:

I learned copyright from one of the acknowledged experts on the topic. I know what I am talking about.

Of course, I meant to say the Copyright Act of 1979 above. My point still stands.

know why there will never be one piece of Real software on any of my computers! Thank god for Real Alternative.

Rob Glaser's the head of a media-oriented company and he doesn't have years of collected music sitting at home? Surely he's old enough to remember that people used to actually buy physical copies of music.

I've been collecting CDs for 20 years, and analog formats longer than that. All my CDs and about 10% of my tapes and LPs are digitized now. And on my iPod.

CDs are the way to go if you care about sound quality. You can always rip the CD for your iPod but you need the CD for it to sound good on your nice stereo.

>>>>>>If you want interoperable music today, there is a very easy solution: it's called stealing. The average number of songs sold for the iPod is 25, and there are many more songs on iPods than 25. About half the music on iPods is music obtained illegitimately either from an illegal peer-to-peer networks or from ripping friends' CDs, which is illegal. But it's the only way to get non-copy protected, portable, interoperable music.

This is so absurdly funny. Apparently 'friends' can still buy CDs, but people who own iPods can't....I'm not sure what happens with friends who own iPods; I guess they buy CDs to lend out but they don't rip them for their own library...

for not calling him on the obviously fallacious argument.

@$$H0LE for thinking people are so stupid as to actually lend any weight to this argument and thereby this dumb@$$!

I have over 3000 songs, books, and videos in my iPod. EVERY SINGLE ONE is legitimately owned by myself. I am deeply offended by this man's statements and he has ruined any reputation his company ever had.

I as soon as I finish this comment I will delete ALL 'Real' products from my computer. I will never again knowingly use another of their products, free or otherwise.

Want to know why this ...shole is screaming like that about Apple?

Read this carefully:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Glaser

Yeah, you read right: He's a good friend of Ballmer-I-blast-everyone-who-make-better-than-me.

"We can compete but isn't it better to wait until you have a slam dunk solution in the portable context?,"

Yep, which is what Apple did, which is why Real or any player they might ever come up with does not matter. The iPod and ITMS is THE slam dunk. For a change, market share can't be argued with. Hey, at least he refrained from using the words "iPod killer" in this interview.

Associating general statistics to a specific brand is self serving. If he made these remarks about music players in general, and not singling out the iPod, nobody would care.

In response to Real CEO Rob Glaser's widely reported comments that most iPod users fill their devices with stolen music, we believe this might be more particular to Seattle than it is here in the UK.

While we understand Real's service is wholly incompatible with iPod's (with the exception of the on / off relationship Harmony has with iPod's) many iPod owners in the UK download MP3's from Wippit where the company is reported to a third place position in the local market. In fact although Wippit's growing catalogue is comprised of a majority 66% protected WMA files, 83% of music downloads sold through Wippit are unprotected and iPod compatible MP3s, a ratio of more than 4:1 in favour of MP3s.

Our customers are not only downloading to iPods of course as MP3 files are also compatible with the vast majority of digital media players including mobile phones.

Wippit CEO Paul Myers comments, "We may not be as well known in the US as we are here with only a well informed 12% of our customers coming from there, but if Rob wants a service to fill his iPod legally he could do a lot worse than trying our $90 a year unlimited, download to own subscription service."

See Wippit Subscription TV Review on Channel 5's Gadget Show: http://wippit.com/presscoverage_gdshow.aspx

let's not forget eMusic, the largest download service after iTunes. All MP3s. It's a great service I highly recommend it.

Glaser is bitter due to conflict of interest. He wants what he cannot have: an iPod.

Yeah, and a well read report some years ago before there was an iTunes Music Store showed most Boomers were "illegally" downloading song files they already had rights to because they owned the album and just didn't want or didn't know how to digitize the record. And LP licenses allowed for a copy of the original, although it was assumed it would be on tape as the only option back then.