This is why you should not use proprietary software. When you run software like this...

This is why you should not use proprietary software. When you run software like this, it serves the interests of the vendor, not the user.

blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-seriously/

What the fuck is this guy on about?
I can understand storing your own compositions losslessly as to avoid the cumulative error of transcoding lossy->lossy when distributing, but what he's saying makes no sense.
If anything mp3 padding would give more samples than the original wav...

Don't pay that much attention to his audiophile "science". This is about the lack of user freedom in the software world. People keep mocking free software/hardware advocates, and when something like this happens they are somehow surprised.

We should highlight things like this, the windows 10 debacle, and the simple logical conclusions of a world of proprietary software and standards. If we do not, we risk going down a path of tightly controlled information, not just by government, but by random companies that may or may not exist a decade or two from now.

The fact of the matter is that Apple didn't steal this person's music. They willingly gave Apple permission to do this shit. That's what you get when you don't fucking read the legal-binding contracts you agree to. Basically, the normie got what it deserved.

I'm certainly not denying that. Though someone should inform the author of his error so his article isn't dismissed on the grounds of technical misinformation

This is what happens when you install any type of proprietary software because they all have similar terms of service anyway.

Not really, but okay.

Yes, really, and it's not okay.

Proprietary software does this to you, free software does not.

I never said it was okay. Not all of them have similar terms. I'm against proprietary software as well.

And no, not all proprietary software literally scans your system to find ones to delete after uploading them to their server(s).

...

the comments section is closed unfortunately. Some of the comments contained intelligent discussion about audio file formats


indeed it serves them right. if they only new there's a GNU world

No, not all proprietary software does that, but they almost all ask you to waive your rights to litigation, to blame them for their shit fucking your shit up, and so on. They could well brick your computer and your only recourse is arbitration. This is true for 99.9% of proprietary software out there.

Obviously a company is going to cover their ass. That's common sense.

If you don't agree to the terms, don't use the software. Simple.

THIS IS WHY YOU USE SOFTWARE THAT RESPECTS UR FREEDOM

Its also true for free as in freedom software. Have you ever read any of the GPL's or BSD licenses? They all contain something similar to the following:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

So does that mean if i
sudo rm / -rf
its not THEIR FAULT

Yes, but when you have free software, you can know exactly what it does and does not put malware-like "features" on your software. The software really belongs to you, not the developer.

You're one of the reasons why libre software gets ignored and/or mocked.

It's not doing the same thing. Free software gives you no guarantee, but also keeps no secrets. Proprietary software not only does not give you any guarantees, but keeps secrets from you and acts in way you don't want it to.

The only ones mocking free software are idiots that are just waiting to have something like this happen to them. We have a fucking thread right now about MS bricking computers. We know that MS has forced Win10 upgrades on users, and yet somehow you think Free Software is in the same camp. You're a fucking idiot.

Free software doesn't keep secrets, but the particular "feature" of proprietary software this thread is about isn't really a secret either. The easiest way of discovering it wouldn't involve looking at the source code, even if it was available.

This is only one piece of software. All proprietary software may hide malicious code designed to oppress the user. Even if it did not have malicious code, the closed off nature of proprietary software is an evil in and of itself.

...

Like I said earlier, you're one of the reasons why libre software gets ignored and/or mocked.

This isn't about if the source-code is available or not. This is about the fact that a normie is butthurt about the fact that they were too fucking stupid to read the legal-binding contract they agreed to.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the source-code. Go sperg out somewhere else.

Free software isn't just about source code, but in any case. Can you tell me how this would happen in Free Software?

It seems to me, that this problem has everything to do with the proprietary nature of the software and not the "contract" wording, which shouldn't be legal in the first place, but that's a legal issue.

The fact is that Free Software does not suffer from evil code like proprietary software does. How do you explain this?

this looks like a perfect entry for Stallman's list of proprietary software acting like malware


indeed most free as in freedom software has a warranty waiver like that. In the case of GNU licenses it was meant to incentivize business models created around providing a warranty for money.

Not all developers might be interested in bargaining a warranty with concerned users, but I would guess the terms in proprietary software EULAs are much more meticulous because their purpose is to make the user as defenceless in court as possible, since they have already charged you (most of the time) for other reasons.


what are those reasons? ridicule? I don't care about fallacious criticism

If they had read the legal-binding contract, they would have prevented this from happening in the first place. Of course using libre software is better, no-one is arguing that it isn't.

The point of the matter is that you should always be reading the fucking things you agree to. You're trying to force an issue that isn't relevant in this situation, which doesn't help anyone, especially the FLOSS community.

No, you're attempting to force this into an issue that isn't relevant at this time. I've said it before, I'm all for FLOSS and entirely against proprietary software.

I'll make what happened to the normie mentioned in the OP as simple as I can for you, since you (and if you're not the same person as I am responding to, then the other user as well) don't understand:

Every piece of software out there has a similar agreement. You're essentially saying the same thing I am, that with proprietary software you may be agreeing to be used and abused and not even know it because you do not know what the software may actually do. The only other option is to not use software or use freedom-respecting software.

Literally the only part that is similar in every one of them is the part where they cover their ass, which is understandable.

Other than that, no, they differ majorly quite a bit, sometimes seeming similar, but not always.

And no, I am not essentially saying the same thing you are. I am speaking about the fact that the normie hadn't read the terms they agreed to. If you think that is "essentially the same thing", you are either mentally retarded or are so far gone that you don't even realize how retarded you sound. I've already said before, if you do not agree to the terms, do not use said software. If you agree to the terms without reading them, then that's your own problem when something happens that you don't like.

The normie literally could have avoided this entire thing by READING THE FUCKING TERMS. That is the point.

When you agree to something like this without reading, you have no idea what you are giving them permission to do. So, like said before, READ THE FUCKING TERMS.

No wonder why we're never taken seriously by quite a lot of people, you idiots who keep trying to make everything about the source not being readily available to your liking are literally the reason why the FLOSS community is a joke. Even rms would be face-palming right now. He would make note that the software is proprietary, but at least he would acknowledge the actual issue at hand being the main part of the discussion.

Sperg about the source being closed when it's relevant to the main topic at hand. Not just to try to force it as the main issue.

This is the same of all proprietary software. It seems you don't understand free software, since you keep bitching about source, but nobody mentioned that. Free software is about more than simple access to the source code.

...

All proprietary software is fundamentally unfair to the user and should not be used.

You seem to not have read the thread. Come back when you have.

Why not to use proprietary software in a nutshell.

macfags never gonna learn

Not really. While I agree with the general statement, this whole "FREE ONLY FREE ONLY PROPRIETARY LOL!" is so fucking annoying and wrong. If you're careful, proprietary software is fine.

But of course the "free" advocates will argue you're too stupid or the subject too complex and will claim victory for free software over proprietary software even if it's fucking terrible!

No, you massive cock swelling, this has everything to do with FLOSS and the availability of the source code. If a product under a free license does something shady, it gets forked, people spread the word, and soon everyone forgets about the shady version. Actually developers know that and you'll very rarely see someone trying to pull something like it (that isn't backed by a letter agency).

Is that video card real? I want one.

It's an 8800GT, they were a good card at the time, but pretty slow these days.

If you really want paedophilic images on your graphics card, why not just print some stickers?

I'd wonder why though, even with a side window, you'd hardly be able to see it.

I don't want pedophiliac images on my video card, I want OP's.

why the fuck would anyone guarantee the function of software they were not paid to deliver? on what grounds do you think its acceptable for software that is advertised as delivering a function and sold commercially to not guarantee certain functionality?

You can just not use Apple Music. There are alternative proprietary services, and no, not everyone forgets about that "shady" version you are speaking of (read: systemd).


What are you even talking about? This isn't even related to not guaranteeing certain functionality. Even if it was, see above. Libre software is not the only one with alternatives.