EU Commissioner Slams Music Lock-In 293
Nonu writes "EU Commissioner for Consumer Protection Meglena Kuneva has come out against DRM lock-ins like Apple's iPod-iTunes combo. Kuneva said she believes the tie-in that keeps music bought from the iTunes Store from playing on MP3 players other than the iPod was unreasonable. '"Do you find it reasonable that a CD will play in all CD players, but an iTunes song will only play on an iPod?" asked Kuneva. "It doesn't [seem reasonable] to me. Something must change."' The EU is in the midst of an effort to harmonize its consumer protection laws, and along with the question of DRM tie-ins it is also looking at mandating cooling-off periods during which customers could 'return' downloaded music."
DRM free music the only way forward. (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:Thanks Steve - why not offer DRM free music from artists and labels that you already have granted you permission?
All of your concerns are answered here (Score:2, Insightful)
For the record, I agree [slashdot.org].
As to the oft-repeated response to Jobs' statement, I answer those concerns in one of my previous responses [slashdot.org] to another similar response. Summary: it is nowhere near as technically, legally, and procedurally as simple as people seem to think it is, and the fact Apple isn't doing it now doesn't mean Jobs' DRM statement was just PR fluff that they floated out because they "knew" they'd "never have to
Re:All of your concerns are answered here (Score:5, Interesting)
So, even if they are not DOING it, Apple could have long ago said that yes they WILL do it and are currently WORKING ON IT. That Apple has said nothing of the kind is proof enough. And puh-leaze, don't give me any bunk about how Apple doesn't pre-announce things. They can and do when it suits them. If Jobs's anti-DRM stance were true, he could gain even more leverage over the big-5 by merely announcing the intent to go DRM-free for the labels that are OK with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any business processes besides contracts? It certainly doesn't seem to take long to, say, roll your own webcomic and start selling tshirts for it. I mean, not three days, but far less than three months, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no?
Or perhaps this is a pre-canned comment you keep ready to drop on someone who says something anti-ITMS?
Or perhaps I specifically and directly said it was a response to a previous similar statement, and even linked to that very response in my post, since it was directly on-topic and there was no reason to retype it all?
Anyway, I'll reply to the bit that did seem to intersect my comment
Actually, the entire response is on-topic, because it speaks to why Ap
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't really matter how many artists if you want to lead by example.
(e.g., why do some tracks I bought play on my Zune and others won't?). I know that a lot of people don't buy that argument, but frankly, it's perfectly legitimate.
This argument would be legitimate, but sorry. Apple haven't minded confusing ITMS customers [boingboing.net] in the past.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it from the 'artist's' point of view as a a pro DRM type, you are more likely to be seen a greedy, ass hat
Re: (Score:2)
Further, Apple may NEVER do this until it can be 100% across the board, like it or not, and we also don't know if one or more of the other major label contracts mandates that all music sold via the same store/mechanisms share the same controls. Even if the latter isn't the case, the former is still by far a legitimate enough reason for Jobs to not want to do it (e.g., why do some tracks I bought play on my Zune and others won't?). I know that a lot of people don't buy that argument, but frankly, it's perfectly legitimate.
I think this might have more truth in it than most at Slashdot are willing to admit. One of the iTMS' biggest strenghts has always been that the customer knows what he's getting - every time. There is no small print attached to certain albums, no extra gotchas, and the price is always the same. It's simplicity for the customer, and that's what Apple has been selling across the board, not just in music files. While it isn't fair towards the independents who could give a rat's ass about DRM, it still make
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Please note that this comment only applies directly to the US iTunes Store. The UK one, for example, does not have a fixed price per album, although most are £8.99 ($17.373 in American money), and quite a few albums do not allow the purchase of individual tracks.
Don't underestimate the music industry. (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect this, because if I was a DRM-loving music label, sitting on top of a whole lot of content that Apple really wanted, it's one of the conditions that I would insist on as an absolute.
If this condition didn't exist, then as you and others have pointed out, Apple could start selling some artists' works without DRM, and there's a chance that the market might favor them, because -- let's face it -- to a consumer, DRM sucks. The record labels aren't (completely) stupid; someone there, maybe an intern, junior staffer, or coffee-boy sat down at someone's unlocked computer and typed it into a memo once: "given a choice, people will probably choose the digital format that sucks least." Since they have decided that it is their purpose on Earth to deliver to consumers music in formats that Really Suck, and they also like making money, it follows that they'll do anything in their power to keep other people from releasing music in a less-sucky format. And at least back a few years ago when Apple and the labels were negotiating to get the iTMS started, they had more then enough clout to push such a codicil through.
In short: to a music executive, DRM must be universal. No music must be allowed to escape without it, because once people get a whiff of that sweet, sweet DRM-freeness, they're never going to want to come back. For that reason, it must be nipped in the bud, snuffed out before those independent-label hippies can use it to their advantage.
I doubt we'll see any DRM-free music in the iTMS catalog at least until the next big renegotiation between Apple and the labels, and even then, I'm not sure that Apple is really in a position to be dictating terms with them too severely. Apple has other concessions that they need to get first, chief among them is a renewed agreement to stay with the flat-rate pricing model of $1 a track, and not go to some variable-pricing model as the labels would prefer.
It's easy to paint the labels as a bunch of bumbling buffoons, who don't have the slightest concept of the modern digital economy, but I think this is a dangerous underestimation. They're nothing if not cunning, and moreover they have a lot of money with which to hire any number of smart, mercenary types (e.g. lawyers, consultants, etc.) to assist them in their paranoid delusions: it's inconceivable that the possibility of an upstart rival using a lack of DRM to try and compete didn't occur to them, and that once realized, they wouldn't have taken steps to minimize this possibility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed completely. Nice to see someone who admits instead of just spouting their (or pundits') opinions. (I include myself in that).
but I suspect that Apple has agreements in place with the major labels to the effect that all music sold through the iTMS will have the same DRM, regardless of where it comes from.
Again agreed (along with the rest of your comment for the most part).
BUT, if that is the case, Apple has to say some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... but I suspect that Apple has agreements in place with the major labels to the effect that all music sold through the iTMS will have the same DRM, regardless of where it comes from.
I suspect this, because if I was a DRM-loving music label, sitting on top of a whole lot of content that Apple really wanted, it's one of the conditions that I would insist on as an absolute
Well, I HAVE worked at an on-line music distribution company (Not Apple, but a pretty significant one) and I can tell you that no such restriction exists. Labels will approve/disapprove a particular DRM solution, but they do not have the authority to tell you you must use the same DRM for everyone else (because everyone else want their own control).
Usually what happens is that there are one or two labels who are REALLY strict (say, Universal) and for the sake of simplicity everyone else gets the same trea
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The same reason Apple is opposed to variable pricing: consistency. They don't want to clutter iTunes with complicated explanations of what you are and aren't allowed to do with each track of music. Consumers will get confused and pissed off when Britney Spears will play on their Zune but Christina Aguilera won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they aren't the issue. Those artist can be picked up around the net already DRM free at places like emusic.com and already have full interoperability with itunes, ipod and and generally cheaper than 99 cents a throw.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM free music is the only true path to interoperability, but the summary has an interesting alternative. The EU is talking about having a mandatory cooling off period for any DRM infected music where you can return it and get your money back. So anytime you want to listen to a song, you download it, listen to it, then return it.
It's the ultimate! this turns DRM against the industry and gives you free music. Or you can pay for non-DRM music. It would be too cool to screw the music industry by this method.
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe Apple sells DRMd music to tie the consumer to the iPod?
I agree with you, I don't think it's the only reason, but it certainly helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he's under contractual obligation, tell us about it.
He just looks like a hypocrite otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
*rolls eyes*
Maybe every time he's about to release press statement, he sees a really cute, fluffy kitten and so overcome by the cuteness, forgets all about it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He hasn't explained to anyone outside of Apple why he's doing what he's doing, so WMF is spot on - to infect tracks that have been requested remain DRM-free with DRM against artist's wishes, and then to go ahead and write an essay detailing how it's the music companies that are at fault for such a dodgy system is hypocrisy and lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Has she read Steeve Jobs' essay on DRM? (Score:4, Informative)
Jobs said that making all the songs on the iTunes store playable on different devices is possible, but giving out the encryption system to 100 different device makers without any overwatch is simply asking for disaster. Code has been leaked before (DVD discs anyone?), and this would be no exception.
It's not so much Apple's fault, because it's the music industry that said they cannot share their iTune songs, OR the encryption to play them on any other device, otherwise their license to sell online music would be revoked.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile if they cared so much about DRM then they'd pressure the music companies that exist in their own backyard and not a foreign company who has no choice other than to pull out of any country that prosec
Re:Has she read Steeve Jobs' essay on DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, it's lock in, lock in, lock in. It may conveniently tie in with some of the labels own ends, but this is all about making sure that iPod owners stay iPod owners.
The only real solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
[devil's advocate]
I know that's what we'd like, and it's apparently what the EU and even Steve Jobs would like, but who's to say that it's really the "solution" for the music indust
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The only real solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's the point - most traditional media organisations have not yet grasped the concept that for digital media, there's only one market. They're stuck on the idea that DRM is a convenient way to artificially segment the global market and apply their traditional means based pricing mechanisms. Most software vendors realised the futility of this years ago and, with relatively few exceptions, have roughly comparable pricing worldwide. Yes, this means products are less affordable in poorer countries. Yes, this means price gouging is limited in richer countries. Ultimately though, this means that poorer countries get a leg up in selling their own software/digital content - behold the beauty of the free market.
Your assertion is that content owners have the 'right' to segment the market this way to maximise profits - I disagree. What gives them that right and why? They already have sufficient rights granted to them via Berne, WIPO etc to guarantee a worldwide monopoly on reproduction of their content. Where's the public interest in legal frameworks purely for enforcing variable price & availability depending on the physical location of the consumer? Does anyone validly believe Hollywood would stop making movies if they couldn't sell downloads to Fooistan for less than they sell to Canada without reducing the Canadian price?
Price discrimination in the digital age. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your conclusions are all right -- that such a scheme is impossible -- but I disagree with your premises, namely that doing such is a "right."
You have the "right" to try and sell your wares at whatever price you wish, but others have a right to not buy it, and buy it from somebody else if they prefer.
In general, you are a fool, if you try and sell a good in one place, at a price that's higher than what you sell it at in another place, plus the cost of transporting it from the latter place to the former. So, for example, if you sell records in Fooistan for $3, and it costs $1 to send a record from Fooistan to Baristan, then you will probably never be able to get much more than $4 for records in Baristan, because if you attempt to charge more, consumers will just end-run you, and have stuff shipped in from Fooistan, where it's cheaper. This is their right, and the sellers' right, under many historically-established doctrines, such as First Sale. (Which sadly no longer seems to exist in Great Britain, but that's a story for another day.)
The fact that people in Baristan might pay a whole lot more than $4 for your record, if they existed in a complete vacuum (i.e. where the cost of transportation from Fooistan was infinite), is totally irrelevant. You have no 'right' to that price, because it's provably not what the real-world market will bear when it's connected to other markets. It might as well be ignored, because it doesn't matter.
What computers do to information (among many other things) is make the cost of transporting it from one place to another, very, very low. So it ought to be basically impossible to sell a digital commodity in one place for a different price than you sell it in another, because people will just ship the files (at negligible cost) around your carefully-designed price-discriminatory barriers. In effect, cheaper communication and transportation (with information, these are the same thing) link the markets into one market, where there is but a single prevailing price for any fungible good. This is pretty basic economics here.
The sellers of some types of information, particularly entertainment, have attempted to defy this by erecting technical hurdles which prevent information from being easily transmitted from one place to another. In effect, they're making it harder to transport goods, thus allowing a greater difference in price to be created in different regions. With DVDs, this is done with region coding and locking. With iTunes songs, it's done with a flat prohibition on resale, enforced by per-user licensing. But like all DRM, these are inherently flawed and thus surmountable; the fact that they can be worked around means that you can only charge so much more for content in various areas, before it becomes worth the trouble to buy it from some other area and bypass the blocks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For them, the ability of other companies to sell iPod-playable music would be a complete win. In one fell swoop, they'd have almost total control back.
Imagine - the industry puts a demand for variable pricing starting at $2 for older music and topping out at $5 for just-released music. The alternative is that they'll withdraw the licence to sell music. Apple might stand firm as they've done in the past, but they now depend on ev
Wow.... Consumer's rights being advocated? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why just fight against DRM for iTunes, and not DRM for everything? If the EU commisioner was really fighting for consumer rights here, it should be all DRM'ed anything, music, movies, electronic books, etc., etc., should be able to be universally used on any device. Which essentially means that it needs to be universal. Problem here is that as such, DRM can not work.
WRONG! (Score:5, Informative)
LG is not European [wikipedia.org] [You've made some Korean's very happy thinking so tho']
Why just fight against DRM for iTunes, and not DRM for everything? If the EU commisioner was really fighting for consumer rights here, it should be all DRM'ed anything, music, movies, electronic books
They are looking at DRM on all music - its just Apple's the biggest DRM dealer/pusher around at the moment.
Re:Wow.... Consumer's rights being advocated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How does Apple have a monopoly when I can walk into a Wal-Mart or Target and on the shelves right next to the iPods I see other portable music players with more features and lower prices? Apple does not have a monopoly with its iPod, the consumer has choices and they choos
Re:Wow.... Consumer's rights being advocated? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent: How does Apple have a monopoly when I can walk into a Wal-Mart or Target and on the shelves right next to the iPods
1) The parent specifically mentioned server OS's (where MS has multiple competitors in the market), other mp3 players don't count.
2) Apple's supposed monopoly is in the digital music market, not the portable music player market.
3) You don't understand what a monopoly is do you? Hint: It doesn't mean you have 100% of a market.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent: How does Apple have a monopoly when I can walk into a Wal-Mart or Target and on the shelves right next to the iPods
1) The parent specifically mentioned server OS's (where MS has multiple competitors in the market), other mp3 players don't count.I am disputing the GPs contention that "Apple who has a monopoly today on portable music players." They do not.
2) Apple's supposed monopoly is in the digital music market, not the p
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what the GP stated. The poster stated "Apple who has a monopoly today on portable music players."
Fair enough, I was too hasty - you were right to correct the GP.
Everything I stated is factually correct and I didn't imply in anyway that a monopoly is 100% of a market.
But you said
Re: (Score:2)
No, competitors are not enough. But there's practically nothing that forces the consumer to choose iTunes or iPod. iTunes doesn't really offer anything that some other store does not (apart from iPod-compatibility). And there's multitude of mp3-players out there, so people are not forced to choose iPod over the alternatives. And there are other stores out there that are comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Another Clueless Bureaucrat (Score:3, Informative)
WTF? Selling DRM-free music most certainly would address the underlying problem of interoperability -- in the worst-case scenario, DRM-free music in one format (e.g. AAC) could be transcoded to a different format (e.g. MP3), albeit not at optimum quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalist acts between consenting adults (Score:4, Interesting)
If consumers voluntarily buy a system that emplys DRM restrictions and Apple is voluntarily supplying it, where is the harm? Why should the government step in to prevent commerce between consenting adults?
Of course there are people out there that think government should be a "big brother" to keep its little brother, "the public" out of trouble.
I say I'm an adult. If I want to buy a system that employs DRM, it's my god damn business.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you pretty much nailed it. Obviously this EU official thinks you can't possibly expected to be accountable for your own actions and decisions. For cryin' out loud, she wants a "cooling off period" for the purchase of an inexpensive bit of three-minute entertainment? Doesn't anyone understand how absurd that sounds? It's bad enough when people want to "cool off" on their 60" plasma TV purchase the day after the
Re: (Score:2)
]{
Read the Fine Print, or else. (Score:2)
If the user was presented with a contract and just didn't bother to read it before agreeing, then I've no pity for them whatsoever. Maybe losing a dollar/euro/pound or two will teach them to read the fine print, before they lose something important -- like the
Re:Capitalist acts between consenting adults (Score:5, Insightful)
]{
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, I am not against DRM. I am just against vendor lock in of the stuff I bought. Actually I own a Mac and an iPod but I want the option of using something else in the future. In fact, I saw the sansa player, which I'd like to give a try, but there is no way to do that unless I do something deemed illegal to covert my music to a different format.
]{
Re:Capitalist acts between consenting adults (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case they do not do Big Brother things, they do not limit what you can do - it is actually DRM that limits what you can do and the various IP laws (by the government, actually). All they want now is that the music manufacturers can't squeeze you more than what the law grants to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet somehow "its own people" think it's in their interest to purchase IPods.
I guess you're one of those people that thinks big brother knows best.
no drm best, open drm better than nothing (Score:2)
However, in absence of that, I think a law, that essentially says that any digital product that is sold or otherwise licensed to a consumer (DRM or not) implicitly includes a license to the software required to play that media on the device of the consumers choice, would be the next best thing.
Needless to say, the software, or at least the specification to create the software, would need to be made available to any company or indi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, what is the current cut that an artist gets currently? I bet it's not significantly greater than the point they get for physical media. Fucking the artist is still fucking the artist.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I find the theoretical lower quality (unnoticeable on my crappy sound system) of a ten-second download to be a valid trade-off for the convenience of saving the half an hour going to the record store & back, followed by five minutes ripping the CD onto my computer in a similar lossy format & finding somewhere to store it. Not to mention I don't have to buy the filler tracks if I don't want them, and that iTunes has a vastly b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea here is not to circumvent DRM - that would still be illegal or otherwise restricted - but to permit any device/any OS/any app to play the music you legally own.
The advantage of this is it permits the market to decide what DRM is best and most
Zune (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the ZuneTunes TM songs. Have you seen the number of hoops to get to the store? Have you seen the layers on the onion to buy a tune? Did you notice that the songs do not take dollars to buy but require a new currancy called Zune Points to buy a tune? The Zune store is so obscure up a dead end alley that nobody is bothering.
Anybody seen any big announcements that they have sold their first million tracks? Me neither.
why? (Score:2)
In fact, there's a lot of music you can't get on iTunes, and must buy elsewhere.
iPods play MP3s great, too.
People are buying there by choice.
It's peoples' own money (Score:2)
Re:It's peoples' own money (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes lock-in is a red herring (Score:2)
How different is this from Pay-Per-View or premium movie channels? How different is FairPlay from, say, Macrovision?
With PPV, you bought the movie. But that doesn't mean you can watch it forever. In fact, due to Macrovision, you may not be able to record it at all (assuming your VHS, DVR, or recording device honors Macrovision).
Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant. The principle exists. You can only watch your PPV movie on a dev
Re:iTunes lock-in is a red herring (Score:5, Insightful)
With Macrovision, when I sell or give you my DVD, it will play in your player. It will play in anybody's player in the same region.
What happens when you mail me your iTunes track?
Re: (Score:2)
it is also looking at mandating cooling-off periods during which customers could 'return' downloaded music."
I would love to see that come true. The digital distribution of music is in its current state unfair, apart from the fair use thing everybody in slashdot argues, after you download a copy of whatever music you download, you in fact have *nothing* more. So, at the end you are paying for nothing. Well, you are just paying for a se
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Manufacturers of 8-track players are not prevented from producing CD players. There's nothing even approaching lock-in in that scenario. It's obvious that you can't toast your bread with a corkscrew. But why wouldn't you be able to toast it with a toaster made by another company?
Console games lockedto consoles, WMP windows only (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Console games lockedto consoles, WMP windows on (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not a question of people wanting to do more than they should be able to with their music. It is, in actuality, the exact opposite. It is a prehistoric music industry attempting to do more than they should be allowed to with the artists' music, because it realizes that it is dying. Apple's DRM is a result of this. Apple had no real choice in the matter. If they wanted to sell RIAA-endorsed music, they had to provide DRM of some sort. Yet Apple most certainly is benefitting from FairPlay. Whether you would like to admit it or not makes no difference. They have in effect cornered the music download market, and are in a position where they could, if they felt strongly enough, start making inroads toward the eventual death of DRM. Maybe we have actually witnessed the beginning of this with Steve Jobs' recent "Thoughts on Music" open letter, yet I remain unconvinced. It would be a trivial thing, as well as a great symbolic gesture, for iTMS to cut the DRM requirement for indie labels and unsigned artists, yet they have not. If it has anything to do with the contract that they signed with the RIAA, then that can be taken to court and quite easily be dealt with.
Secondly, the fact that WMA and PlaysForSure are Windows-only is a red herring. PlaysForSure is at least licensed out. That has nothing to do with the issue, of course. PlaysForSure is also a form of DRM, and should be abolished along with FairPlay. I would imagine that the European Union feels the same way about both of the DRM implementations respectively. Attempting to apply bias before having given sufficient thought to something is defective. Judge the past along with the present. Consider relations between the EU and Microsoft over time, and then try to make an informed hypothesis as to how this situation will further unravel.
Lastly, the fact that iTunes is not locked-in to OSX has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. I do not understand why you even mentioned this unless it was yet another attempt to obfuscate the true concern. iTunes is available on both Macintosh and Windows-based computers for one simple reason: more customers equal more cash flow.
I do not understand how the Slashbots can be so liberal, pro-choice, and pro-freedom when the issue suits their bias, and yet as soon as Apple is brought up, they turn into mindless, apologetic shills spouting inadequate excuses left and right.
crap (Score:2)
Badly hidden lobbyism (Score:4, Interesting)
WMA: Microsofts usual way of doing things. Use the market share of Windows to push forward the format. Many stores consider DRM and choose Microsofts because Windows is nearly everywhere and they will have an instant consumer base. While one can choose from a few players, I have yet to see a system that allows you to use it without Windows. So you have a choice with players but a large collection keeps you sticking with windows.
Fair-Play: You can choose from two operating systems but you can only use Apples Players. You have a little more freedom choosing your computing platform but the devices are more limited.
Of course Apple had to open itself towards Windows. Without it, they would not have the userbase that made them successful.
In the end though, there is not much difference between the two. Why is it that she attacked Apple then? In Europe WMA has a significant market share and the domination of the iPod is far from as big as in other parts of the world. I believe she is as bought by the music industry as those in the EU implementing ever more drastic copyright regimes. Why? It's a known fact that the big 4 love and hate Apple at the same time. Getting Apple to open up their DRM would most probably reduce the power of the position they are in now. With Apple's market share, Jobs can actually resist the big 4 labels and not raise prices for certain tracks, somthing the majors want for quite some time. But less power for Apple doesn't mean less sales and revenues for the music industry.
Therefore, if she was actually fighting for consumer rights, she'd attack DRM and with that the major 4, Apple and Microsoft at the same time. But nobody in the EU fights agains the powerful lobby of the music industry. They usually get what they want fairly easily. Attacking Apple however helps the music industry.
I'm sure it's the same kind of **** we've been seeing for quite some time now -- badly concealed lobbyism and nothing more.
Almost as wrong as the article on Norway (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All CD's do NOT play in ALL players! (Score:2)
I do not buy copy protected CDs. When offered copy protected CDs as gifts, I attempt to return them as they do not play in my car & converting them to MP3s is a pain in the ass. I suggest that the commissioner push the music publishers to abandon this instead of harping on apple. Currently,
Old (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Codin
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Burn The iTunes Tunes To CD and Rip Them Back (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be disingenuous (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say there are two main reasons (which are really just different side of the same reason):
Re:Burn The iTunes Tunes To CD and Rip Them Back (Score:5, Interesting)
You made some assumptions there which I'm not even going to bother to actually specifically address, but I will enumerate:
You are assuming:
- allofmp3 are Russian mob.
- I "throw money" at Russian mobsters.
- I "steal" music
- I feel I am moral for "stealing" music
- I am going on and on about "sketchy legal loopholes"
- I am an experienced e-lawyer (sarcastically)
- I know that the artist is not getting financial any benefit whatsoever
- You think I might bother arguing that the RIAA just has to contact...
- We both know that allofmp3 are/were skirting the law
- I benefited from allofmp3
- I am an asshat
- The
/. zeitgeist is close-minded
- I have a problem with "big business" taking advantage of the GPL
- Something about Apple and blogs
- I feel big business exploits musicians
- And I benefit from that
Truly lame... If you can't take a post which said, essentially, that iTunes is not as convenient as allofmp3 --and that I think it could offer the same level of service-- and turn it into your own projectionist ramble, then good luck with that. FWIW, other than being an asshat, there're only two other assumptions you made which have an element of truth in them, as far as I can see.If you don't think allofmp3 offer[s/ed] a great service, that's your problem. I have no problem paying for music at a reasonable rate --hell, I have thousands albums on vinyl, countless tapes, and tons of CDs. I've paid for them all. But I know what music is worth to me. I'm virtually NEVER going to pay even $10 for an album anymore if I only want one or two or three tunes off of it. Since some time in 2002, the only places I've been getting new music have been free publicity offerings by bands/labels or allofmp3. Cut that off, and I'll just stop consuming. I can perform well enough to get my musical kicks, and I have a decent library of existing music. $1 a song is a ridiculously overinflated price, for digital delivery, by at least an order of magnitude. Am I ripping someone off @ $1 an album? Nope. Not remotely. If it's good, then I'm a fan (and a collector), if it isn't, then I'll delete it myself, and spread my opinion that it's garbage. I've spent more money on music in my life than food, so your silly assertions are garbage to me.
As Jello Biafra sang:
"tin-earred,
graph-paper brained
accountants
Instead of music fans
Call all the shots at giant record companies now
The lowest common denominator rules
"Forget honesty
Forget creativity
The dumbest buy the mostest
That's the name of the game
"But sales are slipping
And no one will say why
Could be they put out one too many lousy records"
Cheers [&Sorry for the long post].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Burn The iTunes Tunes To CD and Rip Them Back (Score:4, Interesting)
For example if I purchase a CD I do not own the physical media in a way I can say it is my property but the artist gives me permission to listen to the works within and the physical medium is merely just a symbolic representation of that agreement.
If I own a cassette tape of an artist should I be able to listen to the same tracks of DVD-Audio quality? Why not? As everyone here knows that even in the day of the cassette tape the original recording (which you have a license to) was done at a much higher fidelity they just didn't have the ability to mass distribute it(cost effectively of course)
So wouldn't this be like buying a hard copy of a book that was made on a poorly maintained press with smears within its pages, would it be wrong to download a copy in digital form? Is the artist or copyright holder missing out on something?
Re:Burn The iTunes Tunes To CD and Rip Them Back (Score:4, Informative)
I think it all comes down to choice with regard to quality.
You will never get 1:1 quality with a CD. Its a sample of the sound, and has a degree of loss. Not much of a loss as it samples at 44 KHz, but still a loss.
Most people will say that the loss on a CD is less than the threshold of hearing. I'd agree with that in general. There is more loss on a MP3 or AAC file, but if its less than the threshold of hearing for you, does it matter? Probably not. If you are a real purist, you'll probably play off vinyl to avoid sampling/compression errors. Not that most music systems could do justice to this level of sound quality, and vinyl does scratch
Now I personally think that apple should sell music without DRM free and high quality. Possibly apple feels the same about this also, as they are in this game to sell ipods, not music.
If you are buying 128 Kb/s AAC (equivalent to 192 Kb/s MP3 roughly), burning it to a cd and re-ripping in high quality, perhaps you should consider one of two options:
1. Rip into a loseless format. If you are doing very high quality MP3's (around 320 kb/s) you might as well use a lossless code as the size difference isn't that much anyway, and you will have no degredation from the original on playback.
2. If disk space is an issue, use AAC, not MP3, as it should generally lose much the same information on the second pass encoding. MP3 drops different types of sounds to save space, so it makes more sense to use a similar codec on the second pass.
Or, where possible, use a music provider that doesn't encrypt your music [amiestreet.com].
Anyway, just my 2c worth,
Michael
Re: (Score:2)
The problem remains the same: Convenience. The better you want your quality, the more you'll have to sacrifice te achieve it.
I don't care for lossless when I play an MP3 in the train, for startes because the train makes more no
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The best part is, the encoding artifacts sound just like the music!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Reasonable? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. It is their measures to prevent piracy which is keeping me from buying music. DRM CD's, and incompatible audio tracks are showstoppers for me. Next in line is low quality and high prices. They need to improve in all 3 areas to regain me in their sales figures.
1 Compatibility
2 Quality
3 Price
They have a long way to go.
Jobs has less leverage now (Score:2)
Still... put your money where your fucking mouth is, Jobs. You've got enough weight to pressure the record companies out of the stone age.
Jobs had a very difficult time even getting the iTunes store off the ground. Since then the labels have pushed back very hard. They've tried to institute differential pricing, which would allow them to charge more for popular songs and *cough* less for unpopular songs. They've kept their margins quite high on iTunes sales. They've thrown considerable money behind a ho
Re: (Score:2)
This is news to me. Tell me more! Better yet, I'll buy a track from you. Send it to me. Be sure to include a warranty when it doesn't play on my iPod.
A single copy of a CD will play in any CD player.
A single copy of an iTunes song will not play in any iPod.
If you don't believe me, I'll send you an iTunes song to enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
If I mail you a DVD or VHS tape, you can play it. If I mail you an iTunes song, I doubt you can play it.
The song won't play without a secure transfer of the keys. When you are done with a CD or DVD, you can pass it on to someone else. Take the iTunes song from your friends computer and send it to another friend. See anything not the sam
yes! thank you! (Score:2)
i don't understand how Apple or Microsoft or Napster or anyone can be bl
Re: (Score:2)
Digital audio can be played on virtually anything with a CPU and a speaker/line-out, without much difference in processing requirements, and most media players (iPod included) have a processor powerful enough to decode practically any format (see Rockbox).
Games have massive requirements, and each game is created specifically for a certain system. iTunes is not creating music specifically for the iPod; iTunes is simply encoding it wit
Re: (Score:2)