Forums | MacLife

Czachorski wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

Where does the word fair even belong in business (or in life, for that matter)?

That's what's so stupid about the whole thing.  No one pays these ridiculous levies out of a sense of "fairness."

The only place where the word fair belongs is in discussions of communism and socialism.  Since that is the direction that our country seems to want to go these days, perhaps we should get use of the "fair" trump card from now on.

I for one thinks that direction a joke, and any system designed to be "fair" at the expense of individuals operating in their own best interest (capitalism) will always fail.

Ah I see, so it's good if not super fabulous for Apple Incorporated to protect its profits and interests, but not for the Recording Industry and Artist's Association to do the same?

Do you have any idea how stunningly you've argued against notions of fairness or sharing and for being as greedy as possible and getting yours at the expense of others?

It's flat out stunning!

My COMPLAINT is that Apple has become just like major labels, which, for the most part, I don't really care for!!! 

You all have essentially just explained why the RIAA can do no wrong, because all I have really done is apply the idea of "is it fair?"  I guess it must also then be "perfectly fair" for the RIAA to sue the smurf out of people and do whatever it takes to halt illegal downloading. 

Hopefully, with Amazon selling mp3s and not running a closed proprietary store/platform that pretty much also requires one to purchase Apple hardware [my point / criticism all along]... people are running out of excuses to justify their addiction to [edit] illegal downloading and more people will act in a "fair" and legal manner.

Last edited by iThinkIam (2007-10-06 9:25 pm)

iThinkIam wrote:

[snip]
Hopefully, with Amazon selling mp3s and not running a closed proprietary store/platform that pretty much also requires one to purchase Apple hardware [my point / criticism all along]... people are running out of excuses to justify their addiction to downloading and more people will act in a "fair" and legal manner.

Wow. If you seriously think that this has been the point of your arguments "all along," then you must considering (re-)taking writing classes on getting your point across. Most of your arguments in this thread make no sense in this context.

Alien wrote:

Moron.

,xtG
.tsooJ

you forgot to call me a corporate shill...

iThinkIam wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

[snip]
Hopefully, with Amazon selling mp3s and not running a closed proprietary store/platform that pretty much also requires one to purchase Apple hardware [my point / criticism all along]... people are running out of excuses to justify their addiction to downloading and more people will act in a "fair" and legal manner.

Wow. If you seriously think that this has been the point of your arguments "all along," then you must considering (re-)taking writing classes on getting your point across. Most of your arguments in this thread make no sense in this context.

Not, you've been taking my critical responses to other's posts and have been attributing them to me.  You've pretty much confused yourself.

It's why I've mostly been ignoring you, your posts have made no sense to me.

You simply have not been arguing in a coherent manner. If you think that your complaints on Apple locking iTM purchases to the iPod were covered by your claim of the "fairness" of the media corporations demanding a percentage of iPod sales, or by your complaints on downloading pirates, or by your claim that people ripping their own CDs for their private purposes are themselves pirates, then I strongly suggest that most of your arguments have never made it past your fingers.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Wow. If you seriously think that this has been the point of your arguments "all along," then you must considering (re-)taking writing classes on getting your point across. Most of your arguments in this thread make no sense in this context.

Not, you've been taking my critical responses to other's posts and have been attributing them to me.  You've pretty much confused yourself.

It's why I've mostly been ignoring you, your posts have made no sense to me.

You simply have not been arguing in a coherent manner. If you think that your complaints on Apple locking iTM purchases to the iPod were covered by your claim of the "fairness" of the media corporations demanding a percentage of iPod sales, or by your complaints on downloading pirates, or by your claim that people ripping their own CDs for their private purposes are themselves pirates, then I strongly suggest that most of your arguments have never made it past your fingers.

Yey dude, I have no idea wtf you are talking about.  I was critically responding to bratboy awhile back which you somehow thought was my argument, and have been CRITICAL of DRM throughout.  I understand why a corporation would want it, and I have been critical of "being corporate," for which Apple is as guilty as the RIAA.

Let me unmuddy this once, I think it is fair for a blanket royaty to be placed on devices that are part of the lost revenue to the labels.  I don't give a rat's ass if its Apple's fault or not.  I also think the RIAA should then chill the smurf out.  I also think Apple should replace all of its music with the "plus" files, and allow any hardware to work with iTunes.

mtpalms wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

...Hopefully, with Amazon selling mp3s and not running a closed proprietary store/platform that pretty much also requires one to purchase Apple hardware [my point / criticism all along]... people are running out of excuses to justify their addiction to [edit] illegal downloading and more people will act in a "fair" and legal manner.

My question is how long is DRM-free (and often lower priced) music on Amazon going to last?
Universal to offer DRM free music in 6 month trial
Especially in light of Nine Inch Nails' fuming about Universal's predatory pricing on their latest CD.

Is the idea to undercut iTunes until it ceases to exist? And what is the point if Apple doesn't profit from iTS anyway?
Except that Apple seems to be the hold-out on insisting on labels not dictating iTS prices.

On the one hand, labels accuse Apple of not charging enough, on the other they offer lower prices to other services, DRM-free, and in Amazon's case at least, reasonably high bit rates.

How can that not smell rotten?

My guess is what is temporary about it is that it will take about that long for UMG to open their own online store.  I would not be surprised to see them continue with some retailers online.

NINs issue was with Australian CD prices iirc, and I don't know what or why thats the way it is. 

Also, its not just UMG, its NBC - Universal, so its also about TV and Movies as much as it about music.

I have never heard or read anyone say that iTMS was not charging enough for music, only that the cost of music in the iTMS store was likely not recouping the loss to the illegal downloads that those same files were likely generating.  Sounds more like whining then a statement of fact to me....

Last edited by iThinkIam (2007-10-06 10:33 pm)

ActionAttackJohn wrote:

256kbps? What is this, 2002?

I encode at 192kbps VBR (via lame)

Other than file size, what's wrong with 256kbps?
It results a file a little big for my taste - but that's excellent audio quality.

mtpalms wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

... only that the cost of music in the iTMS store was likely not recouping the loss to the illegal downloads that those same files were likely generating.  Sounds more like whining then a statement of fact to me....

Eh what? I thought you'd left.

Eh what?  I thought you were an adult.  My mistake...

Last edited by iThinkIam (2007-10-06 11:15 pm)

iThinkIam wrote:

I'd like the to think the creative arts weren't defined by those rules, as they are collaborative by nature.

Music, as one of the creative arts, became defined by those rules the minute the labels turned them into a business.

Czachorski wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

I'd like the to think the creative arts weren't defined by those rules, as they are collaborative by nature.

Music, as one of the creative arts, became defined by those rules the minute the labels turned them into a business.

No, they are defined by the rules of the contracts they sign.  The labels share revenue with the artists.  Apple shares revenue with both from iTMS.  There are no  "rules" in the free market, quit making smurf up.

How is Apple selling an iPod from the Apple Store so radically different from them selling a file from the iTMS?

iThinkIam wrote:

Ah I see, so it's good if not super fabulous for Apple Incorporated to protect its profits and interests, but not for the Recording Industry and Artist's Association to do the same?

Hopefully, with Amazon selling mp3s and not running a closed proprietary store/platform that pretty much also requires one to purchase Apple hardware [my point / criticism all along]... people are running out of excuses to justify their addiction to [edit] illegal downloading and more people will act in a "fair" and legal manner.

1) I love how in your mind you think the RIAA "protecting its profits and interests" is the same thing as them TAKING Apple's iPod profits. That is priceless.

2) You do realize that Amazon's MP3s are playable on the iPod right? You further realize that people aren't going to stop buying iPods just because Amazon is selling MP3s, right? I know that I've already purchased some songs from Amazon and they are already on my iPod. I just love how you think that Apple set up this system to screw everyone. Before they set this up you COULDN'T buy songs online in any reasonable manner. Why don't you get down on your knees and thank them for getting the freaking ball rolling in this regard? Somebody had to do it and the record companies weren't doing it on their own. I just love how you think Apple is evil because they wanted people to be able to buy digital music in order to play it on their digital device.

If you would get over your hatred of Apple you might actually be able to think of some better solutions to this problem and direct your energy towards them.

Frank

iThinkIam wrote:

I have never heard or read anyone say that iTMS was not charging enough for music, only that the cost of music in the iTMS store was likely not recouping the loss to the illegal downloads that those same files were likely generating.  Sounds more like whining then a statement of fact to me....

1) It is well documented in article after article where music execs are interviewed that they want control over pricing so that they can charge more for newer or more popular music.

2) Why should the money generated from iTMS sales be high enough to recoup the cost of stolen music? The two have NOTHING to do with one another. iTMS songs are protected so they CAN'T be shared. Where do you think the songs that are being shared online are coming from? They come from people buying CDs, ripping them, and then sharing them. So, put your blanket royalty on Walmart, Best Buy, or Amazon since they are the ones selling most of the CDs in the US and those CDs are leading directly to illegal music sharing.

Frank