Forums | MacLife

iThinkIam wrote:

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

Are you serious? This is a rhetorical question right? You don't actually expect someone to answer it right?

caoimhin wrote:

[snip]
3)    Their Mac downloader application works seamlessly, putting your purchased music in the correct iTunes folder so that it is immediately available. Why do they put a 2nd copy of the purchased music in the users ~/Music folder?

I haven't been to the Amazon store, but I think that this duplication is an artifact of iTunes. My guess is that the Amazon store downloads your purchases into the user's Music folder, then upon noting that iTunes is handling the music files the Amazon program tells iTunes about the new files, at which iTunes adds the new files by duplicating these files into the appropriate iTunes folder. You can take advantage of this by backing up the additions while still having a copy in your iTunes library.

4)    Too few selections. This hopefully will change over time.
[snip]

That depends on whether or not the various music companies will make their catalogs available. Right now Amazon has deals with Universal and EMI, so they lack the catalogs of Sony/BMG and Warner. I'm not sure what may happen with the plethora of independent labels.

caoimhin wrote:

Just to address the original post since I've already prattled on about the RIAA

As the original poster, I'm finding the whole RIAA dialogue very interesting, but I have just not had the time to delve into the issues fully so I've remained quiet on the larger problems being discussed. On the use of Amazon's site, however, I can say that I have tried to use it but they just wouldn't let me into the system. Every one of my e-mail and credit card entries returns a sorry-out-of-geographical-area error even when using American information so I'm just out of luck at the moment--I must be too well-known in their database as whatever I do I am marked as an outsider.

That being said, I have, in a sense, actually hinted at an opinion on those larger issues. That is to say, math and music are often labeled as universal languages--understandable by people in any country--but the record companies would rather have it not so as they are obviously trying to squeeze as much out of their acquisitions as possible. This is apparently why we are unable to download songs from other iTunes stores: each country is charging different rates (not that our credit cards couldn't simply be charged), and the record companies want to keep us all in the dark, maximizing their profits. Businesses do try to maximize profits, but the record companies are doing so at the expense of the artists and the public, benefiting no one but themselves. Some will say that this is an international copyright problem, to which I say, fine, then make it truly international and bring the whole system into the modern age. The Internet has the potential of bringing down xenophobic barriers and music companies, as bearers of a universal language, should be made to open themselves up.

Cheers,
ptervin...can this really be the end

ptervin wrote:

...On the use of Amazon's site, however, I can say that I have tried to use it but they just wouldn't let me into the system. Every one of my e-mail and credit card entries returns a sorry-out-of-geographical-area error even when using American information so I'm just out of luck at the moment--I must be too well-known in their database as whatever I do I am marked as an outsider.


Cheers,
ptervin...can this really be the end

It's a shame you can't access it while you are here.
Since it isn't DRM'd or tied to the purchaser (afaik), perhaps a friend would allow you to use their American info to try the system out.

Even though I have reservations about UMG's motives, I don't have a problem with Amazon or anyone else competing with iTunes. If the labels didn't insist that drooping music sales is strictly the result of piracy, instead of conceding that it may also have something to do with their business model, I'd be a little more sympathetic.

In an example of a label, an artist, and iTunes 'getting it right'; iTunes has snuck in a (perfectly legal) soundboard recording of "High Water" available as a single at iTS.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSt … =263460831

There are 3 live bonus tracks with iTunes' Dylan07 offering, but apparently they are from previously released CD singles.


"Some of these bootleggers, they make pretty good stuff
Plenty of places to hide things here if you wanna hide 'em bad enough"
(well ptervin will get it, at least)

back on page 4 "the corporate shill" said...

iThinkIam wrote:

[...]
Most of my music is from independent labels and from CDs purchased long ago and I currently subscribe to eMusic and have resisted the Apple store due to its DRM policy.  I barely factor in this argument.

and

Apple is the evil, selfish, corporate establishment in this scenario.

Really, you people need to learn to read.

All of the criticism you heap against the "recording industry" for being so money hungry is my criticism of Apple. 

NEITHER THE MAJOR LABELS NOR APPLE INCORPORATED ARE DOING WHAT I THINK IS BEST FOR "THE MUSIC" OR THE CREATIVE ARTS AS A WHOLE.

The current non-DRM trend being a light of hope, however.

MissMarlay wrote:

[snip]
I have a friend who works with a significant indie label and he said that record labels have been screaming at Apple to open up their Apple-itunes Ipod only DRM for years, but, they still refuse, despite Steve Jobs writing an essay on DRM.

In other words, some record labels insisted on copy protection DRM (not ipod only DRM) 4 years ago when itunes launched - obviously nervous about piracy - but all the big majors have embraced DRM FREE (no copy protection) download sales recently. Apple look pretty silly now insisting on their Apple iPod only DRM.
[snip]

It would be quite simple for the record labels to allow Apple to release DRM-free tracks: re-negotiate their contracts with Apple as EMI did.

It is also rather disingenous to not include the simlutaneous reason why the record label execs were screaming at Apple: they also wanted to open up the iTunes catalog to variable pricing, especially higher prices for new and/or popular releases.

As far as I know, of the big 4 labels Sony/BMG and Warner have not made their catalogs available through any means without DRM. EMI has with both Apple and Amazon, and Universal Music Group has done so with Amazon (although there is some question on whether or not this will be permanent for UMG). If you know of sites where Sony/BMG and Warner sell their catalogs without DRM, please post those links.

iThinkIam wrote:

back on page 4 "the corporate shill" said...

iThinkIam wrote:

[...]
Most of my music is from independent labels and from CDs purchased long ago and I currently subscribe to eMusic and have resisted the Apple store due to its DRM policy.  I barely factor in this argument.

and

Apple is the evil, selfish, corporate establishment in this scenario.

Really, you people need to learn to read.

All of the criticism you heap against the "recording industry" for being so money hungry is my criticism of Apple. 

NEITHER THE MAJOR LABELS NOR APPLE INCORPORATED ARE DOING WHAT I THINK IS BEST FOR "THE MUSIC" OR THE CREATIVE ARTS AS A WHOLE.

The current non-DRM trend being a light of hope, however.

Except the labels are who insisted that DRM be placed on the iTS, not Apple.  Apple  has openly said they would embrace DRM-free music, if the labels would let them.  So who is evil, money grubbing, greedy now?

caoimhin wrote:

ptervin wrote:

On the use of Amazon's site, however, I can say that I have tried to use it but they just wouldn't let me into the system. Every one of my e-mail and credit card entries returns a sorry-out-of-geographical-area error even when using American information so I'm just out of luck at the moment--I must be too well-known in their database as whatever I do I am marked as an outsider.

I had a very similar problem when I tried to make a purchase. Apparently, Amazon pulled up everything I ever purchased from them over many years and had stored 4 different credit cards, all expired. Their crappy account portion of their site would indicate that I could modify my VISA account to show the current expiration date. But, NO it doesn't retain the changes! Which meant they would send me a "Refused Credit" notice and end the purchase! To make a much longer story short and readable, I had to delete all information about myself and enter new address and card numbers. This was quite frustrating to say the least.

So, you might try wiping out all your old (or current) information, then just put in the information that Amazon will accept.

On other purchases I have made at Amazon, when they had expired info I was re-directed to my personal info page where I could update/correct/change that info before being returned to the page where I could complete my purchase. caoimhin, you should let Amazon know about this problem with their MP3 pages.

ptervin, apparently the Amazon MP3 service is a US-only service for now.

EDIT: added last line for ptervin.

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2007-10-07 3:14 pm)

iThinkIam wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

back on page 4 "the corporate shill" said...


[snip]

I concede the point: you did MENTION being personally against DRM on page 4.

On the other hand, NONE of your ARGUMENTS (of which the above is not one) up until recently have been about DRM. Go ahead and review what you have written and try to see how anyone is to interpret your opposition to DRM from your arguments on "fairness," your misinterpretation of fair use (in which you echo an erroneous corporate view), your confusion between terrestrial and Internet radio licensing, your misunderstandings of the contracts between the labels and Apple (another corporate view), your claims that ripping MP3s from CDs is the same as piracy (another corporate view), your harping on how Apple should compensate for piracy done by others...I'm sure that I've missed some, but how any of these are to be interpreted by others as including your opposition to DRM is rather mysterious.

And, lest this be forgotten: who was slinging around the accusation of "Apple fanboi"? This is especially laughable when considering Czachorski and frankly, who have been very critical of Apple on many problems. Of course, you aren't expected to know that, but you might reign in on your penchant of using personal insults and concentrate on the arguments instead.

My opposition to DRM is only mysterious because you assume I have some axe to grind, which I don't.

Also, a fanboi is likely the only person to be critical of companies minor faults.  I also fail to see where being a fanboi is much of a critcism, and certainly its not a personal insult nor was it intended as such.

I explained why I find the Apple loyalists as having a contradictory view on this, and I have not "harped" that Apple SHOULD compensate for the piracy of others.

I've stated quite clearly that Apple's lack of piracy prevention in its software and hardware constitute the iPod as accelerating the rate of piracy.  Its mostly just guilty of its own success, and I fail to see how Apple taking what would amount to about 5-6% of its PROFITS as for being all that much of hardship.

I think ALL mp3 devices should have a 1% blanket royalty on them.  I think this argument only gains weight as we move to non-DRM sales.

It's simple, what is better...

Restricted DRM devices and with no blanket royalty along with 3-5 flavors of DRM, or a blanket royalty along open devices, software, and formats?

My preference is clear.

1) You used fanboiz in a negative context several times as someone who was incapable of seeing the logic of your arguments because of their love of Apple.
2) You have been grinding an axe against Apple and Apple alone throughout this entire thread. You have not been stating clearly throughout that you want ALL companies to pay this royalty, but you have clearly been stating that you want Apple to pay it. Even now when you do say both you want Apple to pay 5-6% and others to pay 1%. And yet you claim to want to be fair???
3) It is not an either or choice. How about DRM-free music sold everywhere and playable on any device? That choice wasn't even in your list of options. You sound like a politician giving a false choice between two items without leaving the door open for other possible solutions.

How does the option of a blanket royalty gain weight as we move to non-DRM sales? Only the record companies can decide wether or not to sell non-DRM versions (which they do on every CD by the way) and yet if they make that decision it becomes clearer in your mind that the hardware manufacturers should be forced to pay for that decision with this tax on their devices???

Frank

Czachorski wrote:

...completely flawed logic.

Ya think?

Czachorski wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

I explained why I find the Apple loyalists as having a contradictory view on this, and I have not "harped" that Apple SHOULD compensate for the piracy of others.

Go post your same views on a PC-centric web site, or a non-Apple site and you will get slammed the same way.  This is a mess created by the labels that have angered and alienated all of their customers, regardless of the products they use.

You do realize you posted this on an Apple forum?  No?  Marching into a forum full of a specific user group, and then blame their MAINSTREAM stance on the characteristics of that group is just completely flawed logic.

Uh, no.  Not at all.  That loyalists would be blind to their loyalty is not exactly a news flash, I don't know why you assume I am surprised.

The Zune already includes a blanket royalty that goes to at least UMG, afaik, so I fail to see how your point is valid anyways.  They are the closest and most similiar competition to the iPod, imho.

i really don't care if everyone or only a few people agree with me, its just my opinion.  I'm a tad surprised at the reactions though, which border on over reactions imho. 

Whatever.

If I wasn't a bit of an Apple fanboi myself I would not have the opinion that Apple should "act differently."

iThinkIam wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

[snip]
I concede the point: you did MENTION being personally against DRM on page 4.

On the other hand, NONE of your ARGUMENTS (of which the above is not one) up until recently have been about DRM. Go ahead and review what you have written and try to see how anyone is to interpret your opposition to DRM from your arguments on "fairness," your misinterpretation of fair use (in which you echo an erroneous corporate view), your confusion between terrestrial and Internet radio licensing, your misunderstandings of the contracts between the labels and Apple (another corporate view), your claims that ripping MP3s from CDs is the same as piracy (another corporate view), your harping on how Apple should compensate for piracy done by others...I'm sure that I've missed some, but how any of these are to be interpreted by others as including your opposition to DRM is rather mysterious.

And, lest this be forgotten: who was slinging around the accusation of "Apple fanboi"? This is especially laughable when considering Czachorski and frankly, who have been very critical of Apple on many problems. Of course, you aren't expected to know that, but you might reign in on your penchant of using personal insults and concentrate on the arguments instead.

My opposition to DRM is only mysterious because you assume I have some axe to grind, which I don't.

Your other arguments have been completely unrelated to DRM--that you continue to conflate them with your opposition to DRM is mysterious.

Also, a fanboi is likely the only person to be critical of companies minor faults.  I also fail to see where being a fanboi is much of a critcism, and certainly its not a personal insult nor was it intended as such.

Then re-read what you posted earlier. If you did not intend such to be insulting, then I again suggest to you that your intent never got beyond your fingertips.

I explained why I find the Apple loyalists as having a contradictory view on this, and I have not "harped" that Apple SHOULD compensate for the piracy of others.

I've stated quite clearly that Apple's lack of piracy prevention in its software and hardware constitute the iPod as accelerating the rate of piracy.  Its mostly just guilty of its own success, and I fail to see how Apple taking what would amount to about 5-6% of its PROFITS as for being all that much of hardship.
[snip]

There are a couple of contradictions right here. You say that you haven't said that Apple should compensate for the piracy by others, yet in the very next sentence you accuse Apple of "accelerating the rate of piracy." So who exactly is doing the piracy? If your argument is that the iPod itself "helps" music piracy, then what does not? This is again the presumption of entitlement by the entertainment industry that all should pay for the abuse by some. Part of the reason why computers generally do not include such fees is because for once the entertainment industry was faced with another already mature industry that didn't feel like being pushed around. That Microsoft caved in with the Zune doesn't make it right: it only means that MS made this move to position itself strategically with the media companies--a move that is likely to bite back in the future because this sets the precedence for MS to concede to other demands.

Also you want DRM-less music, but you also wanted Apple to employ something to enforce piracy prevention--what magical solution are you proposing?

And BTW: the next time you get a financial windfall, make sure to send me about 5-6% of it--after all, since it's a windfall, it cannot be "all that much of hardship." You can even take the expense of sending it to me out of my cut.

I won't repeat frankly's argument on your dubious either-or situation.

MissMarlay wrote:

besides, how Apple can reconcile their supposed stance on DRM, when they refuse to license their Apple Ipod Only DRM on itunes and more recently, how they bricked the iphone?

Because Apple signed a deal with the devil when they entered the telephone business.

Ringtones are a product the industry wants total control over, as they feel that songs uses as ringtones are a public performance and are used for identification purposes beyone the intent of the record company and the artist, i.e., a "derivative work".  I know this whole "ringtones are public performances" thing is daft, but the record companies and the cell phone industry takes it completely seriously.  They want ringtones to be licensed in a similar manner as a song used in a movie or TV show.   And they (through lobbying) have the legal power to back it up.  Cell phone companies are complacant with this because it's a revenue stream, and the cell phone industry are basically snake oil salesmen.  Apple has to play ball the way they want things done, which is a difficult position for a company that usually goes it alone or is the trend setter, not the follower. 

The only reason the iPod has as much customization and control over content is the paradigm was established before the record companies had enough power over electronic music (as in MP3, not Moby and Kraftwerk) to stop them.  Look at all the restrictions on the Zune.  If Apple started the iPod now, it would be saddled with the same restrictions.

I had a bad feeling about this whole iPhone thing from the start.  I knew that Apple could make a kick-ass telephone, but I knew that the actual, physical telephone was not the cause of all the headaches in the marketplace.  Fortunately for Apple, the cell phone industry has trained people to like being raped in the ass when it comes to celluar "service", so Apple's only real problem will be dealing with the Apple Faithful who expected the iPhone to be treated like a real Apple product.

Last edited by Gatchaman (2007-10-07 6:35 pm)