Apple Announces 25 Million Song Downloads 579
Tweder writes "On Apple's iTunes site, Apple has announced that music fans have purchased and downloaded over 25 Million songs from the iTunes Music Store. It seems the launch of the ITMS on the Windows platform has boosted sales tremendously." I suppose this is where I am expected to say something along the lines of, "I thought the recording industry said that this business model wouldn't work, that people won't pay for what they can download for free?" So, there you go.
Credit Where Credit's Due (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, Jobs already said as much himself [slashdot.org].
Re:Credit Where Credit's Due (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd support Itunes if it were its own industry, with its own music, like mp3.com. The problem with Itunes is it takes the flawed recording industry and extends their monopoly. This would be like steve jobs releasing a version of Microsoft Windows for the Mac, and expecting us all to use that. Its bullshit.
If I wanted to support the RIAA I'd buy buying CD's right now. Take a hint!
Support Itunes(RIAA)> [downhillbattle.org] but not the artists?
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what? The iTunes Music Store has hundreds of thousands of songs from independent labels. Labels that are not members of the RIAA. Including many labels that give their artists much better deals.
I'm a jazz fan, so one of my favorite labels is Concord Records [concordrecords.com], with such artists as Poncho Sanchez and Karrin Allyson. Go ahead, log on and listen to them, you might enjoy it. And supporting them doesn't support the RIAA!
RIAA Radar [magnetbox.com] is a neat site that lets you search for your favorite artist or label and find out whether they're RIAA-free or not.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd really like to be able to customize the recently added albums and such in this manner. Of course, since this is a new service, I expect more features of the type will becoming (hopefully not for a monthly fee).
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:3, Insightful)
No - because the RIAA makes it impossible (via Payola and monopoly) for any non-RIAA band to be widely heard. There are plenty of great bands out there that won't make it big until they sell out to the RIAA for pennies on the dollar.
iTunes and the like are getting us one step closer to circumventing the RIAA altogether. We only need one smart geek DJ at this point and the whole thing will get blown apart. My idea is as follows:
- Set up massiv
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, you just described commercial radio circa 1965. The fact that you cant find radio like that today has almost zero to do with the RIAA and a lot more to do with the fact that local ownership in radio today is at it's lowest point in history. Almost every major market radio station in the country in owned by 3 media corporations: Clear Channel, Viacom, or Infinity Broadcasting.
These 3 corporations, backed by never ending radio "consultants" that do focus group research, play the same genre based formats in every city in the USA. Thats why a rock station in Fairbanks, Alaska plays and sounds the same as one in Key West, Florida.
The RIAA has a role to play, but they are not responsible for the sorry state of the radio business. Total domination of the entire business by 3 companies and their hired lackeys are.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Then get informed.
Stop expecting Apple to jeopardize business relationships solely so that you can continue to be an ignorant shopper.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but if the entire reason the iTMS exists and is commercially viable is because of the RIAA, what motivation is there for Apple feature a seach option that alows you to exclude publishing members of the RIAA from a music search?
With the consolidation going on in the music industry right now, I'd think a bright, web-using person like you could search for music then figure out whether it's published by members of a group you want to support.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen no evidence that iTMS exists or is commericially viable because of the RIAA. In fact, Steve Jobs himself has said that they had to go to record labels one at a time [rollingstone.com] and convince them. After getting "kicked out" many times they managed to convince some labels. Warner signed on first, then Universal. The RIAA had nothing to do with it, and I wouldn't doubt they'd be opposed to it. True, these are labels that are members of the RIAA, but they are not the RIAA.
Although your point might not be directly valid, it still has merit. iTMS still would not have motivation to exclude RIAA members since they individually signed on to iTMS and helped make it successful. But I certainly wouldn't give the RIAA any credit in it.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way independent labels can compete is with the RIAA's off the service
this can't be right. when you're on a service like that where you can pick and choose tunes, marketing dollars etc ought to be LESS powerful and it becomes a more even playing field for the independent labels? it doesnt take me any longer to click a link to a non-RIAA label song to one that is.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
I always bought music because I liked it and wanted to be able to listen to it when I wanted to, over and over again, not to support the RIAA.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:4, Insightful)
It boils down to this; we're all sluts to convienence. I chose not to use these conviences because I'd rather live healthily and be able to do what I want to do than live a drugged, unnatural, unhealthy and ultamatly controlled existance. I like some of the music the RIAA puts out, but because I'm supporting terrorism by buying it, I refuse to buy any of it. Money is power, and while we shouldn't have to worry about someone acquiring so much that they can break the law and do as they please. I shouldn't have to think about what the person I'm buying from is going to do with the money in our society, but unfortunatly you've got to or else things can get real ugly real fast.
So, you've got some choices. Do you buy from the RIAA and support terrorism? Do you buy from indie bands and support them? Do you go onto a p2p app and do whatever the hell you want and risk economic extortion at the hands of the RIAA or do you say "fsck it" and never listen to music again?
And for those of you who think my using the term terrorism is wrong, think again. The RIAA is a cartel who's entire economic basis for survival is extortion of it's customers in one form or another. Sure you say, it's just music. But that isn't the whole truth. It's most of the music in all of the stores and on all the radio's. Combined with Bertlsman, Disney, News Corp, AOL time warner, and the 2 others I can't remember, and you have an effective media monopoly. Views that the big wigs don't like get censored from all media, and americans become as unsuspecting as hindu cows and as blind to the fact that what they do is actually killing people in other countries and the information they are getting is designed to manipulate them. I consider that terrorism, not on par with 9/11 or the some of the slaughters that go on in africa, or what the chinese do to their people, but it is still terrorism and it's still wrong.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, you may not like the RIAA, but please don't use the word terrorism where its not appropriate. We need a very strong word to describe 9/11 and some of the slaughters that go on in africa. Inappropriate use of the word devalues it's power.
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:3, Insightful)
the definition you quoted perfectly states the case for why the RIAA's actions could be considered terrorism, specifically, by the very groups (victims even) the RIAA terrorizes.
and since we're picking definitions most expedient to our argument:
TERRORIZE -
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do we need the recording industry? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's all in the artists hands now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Credit Where Credit's Due (Score:5, Informative)
kazaa vs. itunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:kazaa vs. itunes (Score:5, Insightful)
the writing is on the wall (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where does your money go? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, I think most people know exactly where the money goes. For a $0.99 song apple gets $0.30 to cover bandwitdh and server charges, about $0.65 goes to the labels and $0.05 goes to the artists. Of course the last two things vary depending on the contracts signed for each artist.
The more money labels
Re:Where does your money go? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where does your money go? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, why do you spend an hour and a half to download an album off kazaa instead of $10 to buy it off iTMS? Are you so poor you just can't afford $10? Does your cardboard box need a new roof? By the way, Rufus says there's good eats in the dumpster behind Mickey D's tonight.
Re:Where does your money go? (Score:5, Funny)
Guess some things ARE worth spending time on.
Re:kazaa vs. itunes (Score:3, Interesting)
Why no secondary benefits? Don't you think people may try a song because, hey, they heard about it and it's less than a buck, and, hey, it sounds pretty cool, so one click or three away from buying the whole thing?
A non-evil competitor. (Score:5, Interesting)
Profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Profit? (Score:4, Informative)
On iPod sales. This bears repeating.
So long as they are making money as the result of iPod sales, there is no "wondering where their money went"--there is a net gain so long as that, as a result of iTMS, they sell enough iPods to make up the difference.
According to their recent report iPod sales increased enormously thanks to iTMS, so they can afford to take a small loss in one area (that they hope to break even in one day) to boost another.
Long term? Get a bigger piece of the cake... (Score:5, Insightful)
iTMS is kinda like where amazon.com was, building itself up. The difference is, iTMS is going at near zero and is feeding the iPod cashcow, amazon.com was burning VC money faster than lightning. iTunes is even a migration app - get people to use that, and there's one app less they'll miss if going to a Mac.
Overall, you should rather ask yourself if anybody else can make money on it without relying on stuff like the iPod - if not, iTMS can keep the prices so low they that competitors won't enter the market, and yet high enough to make a nice profit. Right now the competition is big, and so the prices are slashed as low as they can go. iTMS will keep it there until they've established themselves as *the* place to go for music online, or maybe *the* place overall.
Kjella
Re:Profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is not making a profit isn't a bad thing if it increases positive mindshare and overall company value, which this is obviously doing.
Re:Profit? (Score:3, Informative)
4) Incomplete albums, and albums over $9.99.
I keep running into incomplete albums when browsing Capitol Records artists, such as The Four Freshmen, and Doris Day. Annoys the hell out of me - I'm about to plunk down the $9.99 for an album when I discover that it's incomplete - and it's priced above $9.99.
Yes I'm a cheap bastard. But I'm thinking about getting an iPod anyways (used/refurb of course.) With the money that they earn from me, the original owner can go out and buy that shiny new i
Re:Profit? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Apple is actively negotiating for rights and fees in other countries. This is a headache in much of the world. I have no doubth that Apple has the infrastructure in place to roll out any country's service as soon as licensing is ironed out.
2) There are a BUNCH (over100) indie lables that just signed up for iTMS in the past month or two, we should start seeing indi music flood in to the service like a tsunami over the next few months. The indies are tripping over themselves to get on board with this store. on iTMS they are equals with the "big 5" in every respect. (on an interesting side note, I'm wondering if Apple will require all indies to use FairPlay, or will allow non DRM AAC files in the end).
3) DRM is not something I've not heard anyone seriously complain about. The few complaints/gripes I've read are from people who don't understand the rights you get from the store: You are free to use the music on any number of iPods (and what self respecting, RDF susceptible Mac user doesn't use an iPod or four), any number of CDs (which you can give away to friends and family) and in any movies or slide shows you create on DV, DVD, VCD, etc. all of this as long as it's not for commercial use.
Apple's music license specifically allows me to make a copy of songs and give them away; permanantly! This would be considered piracy with a CD or cassette where one archive/backup copy is allowed and there is no secondary distribution/use allowed.
If people think that iTMS has restrictive DRM, I can't imagine how many complaints there must be about other services that charge per CD burn, or limit you to two or three burns of a song or don't allow use of the music in any of your personal movies, or limit you to one or two protable players, etc.
Around and around we go (Score:5, Interesting)
if you dont have anything to say...don't say it.
if you think the story isn't worth posting...dont' post it
seriously do we really need a story every time ITMS reaches a nice number? 10 million, 20 million, 25 million...
It's popular we get it.
The real question is how is this affecting sales of ipods since it has already been determined that Apple doesn't make much if any money off of ITMS.
25 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong model. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, yeah. In case you didn't get that, the winner is Jobs.
Damon,
Re:Wrong model. (Score:4, Informative)
-
Rhapsody: 250,000 [yahoo.com]
-
MusicMatch: 150,000 [com.com] (scroll down - it's in the body of the article)
-
MusicNet: 175,000 [216.239.57.104]
- Napster: 80,000 (read this recently, can't find the source at the moment)
I use Rhapsody and, for the way I listen to music, it blows away iTMS. It's $10 per month for unlimited on-demand streaming. Of course I have to be connected to use it, but I'm always online anyway so that's not a problem. For a flat fee, I can explore all kinds of new music & listen to old favorites as well.Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Slashdot. You don't need to put a slant on a story. No matter how unbiased the submission is, rest assured that we'll find a way to turn it into a Microsoft conspiracy of some sort.
Breaking even yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Breaking even yet? (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, with the quality of music released these days, 25 million songs probably works out to be about 25 million albums.
I suppose this is where I should say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me guess, you're one of those people who routinely blasts the media for their context-less use of figures as well.
Sadly.... 25 Million is not that Much (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is probably the largest seller of online music and 25 million doesn't sound like a lot compared to the billions that other formats like CD's make (sure they cost more to sell but the actual physical medium is worth a lot less then the $13+ amount they are sold for).
Note that I'm not discounting the ability of Apple to increase but this news story was not as amazing as the editorial seems to suggest. We all knew apple was doing well but so far $25 mil (25 million songs * 99cents) is not big in it self.
I've downloaded 25 million songs too! (Score:5, Funny)
P2P is not for everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
The P2P apps have come a long way since their inception but it is still a struggle for non-technical people to come to terms with centralised servers and clientids.
Apple has always enabled ordinary people to use computers. This does not mean that they "dumb down" the technology, rather they lower the learning curve to allow people to at least get on and and working before they need to start seriously learning.
iTunes provides that portal for easy access to online content and it allows people to pay for it. I am sure if Apple had a free peer-to-peer site, we would be talking bigger numbers. But the success of iTunes is part of the overall Apple strategy and design guidleines.
What amazes me is that Apple are not making any money from it and are using it simply to sell mp3 players. How much are the record companies raking in on this and yet still complaining about the death of the music industry?
In Related News.... (Score:3, Funny)
ITMS shows microeconomic theory works. (Score:5, Insightful)
The success of ITMS is that it shows that Jobs understands two things the RIAA does not: microeconomics and marketing. Think about it: iTunes Music Service isn't competing with the PressPlay, Napster 2, Real, or any of the other turkeys who assumed that people would simply want to buy their unfriendly, ad-crippled, bloated services out of a sense of duty, or just because they were feeling guilty.
No, I believe Apple intended all along to compete with a different class of "competitor:" Kazaa, LimeWire, AIMster and the others. Apple, in essence, pretended it was competing in a commoditized market, by which I mean a market in which the price of goods are in free-fall (or in this case, actually free). How does one compete in a commoditized market? By differentiating the brand with things the other commodity players can't provide: quality ("CD-quality" tracks), convenience (reliable, near-instant downloads), ease-of-use (easy searching and browsing), and bundling (integration with iTunes). This is something the other (albeit "illegal") competitors cannot match.
Folks can -- and undoubtedly will -- argue until the cows come home about whether ITMS is simply perpetuating the RIAA's cartel. (I personally feel that the RIAA's destruction is as pre-ordained as the setting sun, but that's a thread for another discussion). But you have to give Jobs credit for outside-the-box thinking, and for a willingness to take on an unconventional class of competitor.
Big shocker (not) (Score:5, Interesting)
The iTunes Music Store makes little if no profit. At all.
Why, pray tell, is this not a problem for Apple? Because Apple uses the iTMS as a Trojan Horse to sell more iPods. And they make a bundle on every iPod. Between the iTMS and iTunes for Windows, there's a lot more iPods being sold nowadays than there were when the iPod was just a Mac novelty (OK, a Windows version came out with the first refresh, but it was Firewire-only and used MusicMatch).
Sure, iTunes locks you into buying songs in AAC format. At least it's an open spec. Most of the Windows jukeboxes lock you into buying Windows Media songs, 'nuff said. And nobody of any significance offers downloadable unencumbered MP3 files. If you buy, you get DRM. Apple's is at least fairly transparent.
What iTMS does prove is that there is a demand for buying one-off songs and permanent downloads. It proves that the subscription model the publishers wanted to force down the buyers' throats was a stillborn idea. It also proves that most of the other music stores that are springing up right now are doomed - because unless there's a secret cabal lined up to screw Apple out of extra money, the only way any of these companies can compete is if they use their stores to help sell high-margin peripherals. Like their own MP3 players.
Now, if some other company comes up with a player that's a far better unit than the iPod, attaches it to a store, and manages to wrestle the lead from Apple, then Apple might have problems justifying staying in the music biz at zero profit. But this kind of thing is right up Steve's alley, and I doubt he'll let this lead slip away without a fight. You know, it wouldn't be the first time Dell walked away from a market with a bloody nose. It doesn't happen often, though.
Plus, as formats go, once you buy into a DRM format they've got you for good. Every iTunes for Windows user is one that'll probably never go to Windows Media.
Back away from the Reality Distorition Field (Score:3, Interesting)
But we tend to forget what Steve Jobs clearly says in light of all this hype:
Why, pray tell, is this not a problem for Apple? Because Apple uses the iTMS as a Trojan Horse to sell more iPods.
I only partially believe what Jobs has to say on the matter because he certainly is playing this up for effect (the effect of not alienating the free-downloads-or-die-and-kill-music-middlemen crowd). Once the infrastructure for iTMS is in place and paid
2004 is the year that music goes to "free" again. (Score:5, Interesting)
This will have the side affect of creating an even larger hit based marketplace. Hits will generate the vast majority of downloads, and the most amount of money for the artists. The return of the single as the product of choice. For most artists and most songs this will generate very little money.
It will be very hard on the CD distribution system as more people get most of their music online. This will also have the side affect of making the used CD industry more difficult as there will be less content available. Which will probably be good for the music industry in the long run.
Legal music, free for the consumer, is going to be the most disruptive force in the industry.
The Next Wave... (Score:5, Interesting)
The music industry is looking for additional ways to profit off the downloading scene...
As reported by the LA Times [latimes.com], Apple and Time Warner have started offering specially designed Lord of the Rings CD-Rs [thirddoor.com].
These limited edition blank CDs are specifically designed for users purchasing the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King soundtrackfrom Apple's iTunes Music Store.
What I am going to do is wait until they provide "pre-burned" CDR's like RedHat does... That would be cool.
iTunes will continue to grow. (Score:5, Informative)
No profit? Think again (Score:5, Insightful)
Switchers... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm very happy with my OSX now, and considering one of those shiny dual 1.8 G5s...
Re:Switchers... (Score:3, Interesting)
The music industry's resistance explained (Score:5, Interesting)
It's understandable....only time will tell if it happens, and that will be directly influenced by the attitudes of major artists towards record labels in securing contracts.
One can only presume that there will similarly be successful online mp3 sites, who have the ability to see musical ability in artists that identifies with the markets taste, and have power in the music industry. Will it be Sony/Universal/EMI/....or will it be the new tech startups......
In the mean time, the argument is still valid that many people will still copy mp3's when they haven't paid for them, even if they were 10c a song. Argument is also valid that whilst those people exist, they will usually put more effort into finding a way to crack protection than actually spending what should hopefully become, a fair price for music online.
Note to industry: bloody hell music is over priced!
View from 1999 (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the article [slashdot.org]
Looks like the 'exceptional salesperson' was Steve Jobs. Wonder if anyone imagined back then that the RIAA would turn out to be so vindictive!
25 Million ONLY? (Score:3, Funny)
I think we all know what's happening here: the same computer users who put up with windows are content with the 30 second song previews.
Re:25 Million ONLY? (Score:4, Interesting)
Win XP only makes up about 8% of the OS share on home PCs, which is only about three times higher than the share of OS X.
When you look at it that way, the numbers aren't too out of whack.
Assumptions... (Score:3, Insightful)
And you would be assuming that the people who are paying for iTunes songs are people who would otherwise have downloaded the songs for free. I've seen no evidence that shows this. For all we know, the people buying iTunes songs are completely the same group of people who would also buy the CDs. Personally, I doubt that iTunes has had much of an impact at all on pirated music. Those who download for free already have no problem with downloading music for free, so why would they change and start paying?
Also, don't forget that iTunes is not supposed to make money in and of itself. It's meant to sell iPods. Jobs has already stated many times that iTunes is not supposed to (and won't) make money, at least for Apple.
Stop the straw man arguments! (Score:3, Insightful)
My interest in using iTMS is very high now - the only reason I don't use any of the online music stores is because I don't want to be locked into one store/one mp3 player (software)/one mp3 player (hardware). But once a standard is defined, I'll be there to buy.
But I wouldn't use iTMS, or any music store, if the old Napster were still around, or if Kazaa were any good for finding the music I am interested in. Back when Napster was king, I could find any song I wanted for free. As a result, I didn't buy a CD for a couple years (file sharing over the college network helped too). Now Napster is gone, and Kazaa has a ton of phony files that have made it a hassle to use. As a result, I'm willing to pay so that I don't have to waste a lot of time finding the free version on Kazaa - since time, after all, is money.
My friends who can still find what they want on Kazaa have no interest in using music stores. Those who can't, do.
I'm not saying it's all or nothing. There are some users who always would have paid for their music, and some who never will. But there are also a HUGE number of users - and they're not just computer geeks, remember Newsweek had a cover story on Napster - who will pirate the music if it's easy, and pay for it it's hard to pirate.
It used to be really, really freaking easy to pirate music. Let's stop pretending that the music industry was saying that it would never sell mp3s online. It was saying it wouldn't sell mp3s online as long as doing so just made it incredibly easy to pirate them.
The pundits (Score:3, Interesting)
The all-time best example of failed Apple predictions is of course this one:
"Folks, the Mac platform is through..." - John C. Dvorak, 1998
Then there's this recent gem:
"Stick a fork in 'em -- this Apple is cooked." Robert Thomson, Financial Post, 2/20/03
But my current favorite is this example of damning with faint praise:
"While praising Apple's service, analysts caution that its success won't necessarily transfer completely to the Windows environment. " - John Borland, c|net news, 7/28/03
It's the audiophiles that lose... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is compression. We are now sacrificing music quality for quantity. Can I download the real 16 Bit PCM tracks from ITunes? No? Then why does Pat Metheny need to think about recording the next album with pro gear? Who cares about all those quiet subtleties and nuances if the compression just throws them out?
What I'm saying is that yea, I'm paying less for music these days with ITunes and the like, but I'm also getting less quality that before. Many people don't take that into account. So while we enjoy the grand number of titles available to us, the corporates are quietly creating a class system to the music we enjoy.
It started with 45s vs. LPs. Then cassettes vs. CDs. Now it's 1 dollar downloads for singles, $12.99 for real CD's, or $20 for 24 Bit SACDs.
My point is that the quality of the music is less, but the price we pay for the real thing hasn't changed like we originally wanted it to. So we've quietly made a subconsious sacrifice that we are somehow getting what we wanted all along. I say no, this is wrong. What I wanted in reality was a cheaper CD or SACD, not some cheap knock-off that stands in their place.
The music industry is more than happy to sell you cheap quality music so that you'll eventually go out an buy the real thing...FOR THE SAME OLD PRICES! How have we ended up doing better?
Let me download the real 16 Bit PCM tracks from ITunes and I might change my tune. Until then, stop all this glorifying the download services. They all suck.
Just my opinion.
+1
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Must people, like me, who were big buyers of retail(brick and mortar) music went to downloading music online for free because it was easier than heading down to the local music store.
It wasn't that I wouldn't pay for the music, it was just that it was easier to download it with a better selection of music. Now there are even easier ways to download music such as iTunes and other related services. I prefer to use them now than battling with file sharing systems. So now that it is the easiest meathod for me, that is what I use.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
The inherent problem with the music industry is that they have forgotten they should be making it easier to listen to music. Obtaining music nowadays is no easier than it was 30 years ago, and in fact, it's become slightly harder due to raised pricing (more than inflation), the reduction of music sampling opportunities (less music on the radio, no in-store sampling), and the introduction of technologies which make it more difficult to listen to bought music the way you want (the various copy protection systems). This is why itunes is so successful. It makes sampling and obtaining music dramatically easier, while at the same time lowering prices.
If I was a music industry exec I'd be spending all my time finding ways to make it easier for customers to buy my product. But then, that's just crazy talk.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
More than that, I find it's a lot easier to find music you like when you can listen to it, rather than staring at a CD cover and wondering what it sounds like.
Yes I know you can play CDs in some sto
Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Kazaa sure has a LOT of music out there. But it is not in a quick accessible format like the iTMS. I can search, sample, and buy hundreds of songs very quickly. Each and every song is complete and prefectly encoded to my satisfaction. I don't have to download entire songs just to see if I like them or even see what genre the songs fit in. I don't have to screw with too many people downloading from one person and sit "in a line" to get the song. I don't have to worry about only getting 10kbytes/s while my connection is 100kbytes/s.
With iTMS I can find things quickly, easily, without a hitch at the cost of only a few bucks a day. Thats cheaper then some people's smoking habbits. It's something I will have around with me always, sitting on my iPod, etc..
A quick comment on the iTMS vs Napster/Others. A feature that a lot of people overlook that I have found quite pleasing is the integration of your purchased iTMS songs with iMovie & iDVD. I don't believe Microsoft's WMA stuff is able to integrate into their "Movie Maker" program. With iMovie I can just drag purchased songs onto tracks, same with iDVD..
Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
WMA does integrate into Movie Maker just like that, actually.
This comment in particular strikes me as a bit odd. Not only can you use the protected WM
Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)
And amazingly, the QT API calls to play sound files, including
And I think there's a plugin for Winamp now to allow it to use the QT API on Windows to play these files.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
All you're paying for is convenience
Nope. You are also paying for
1. Quality - You can be sure that the song you just downloaded doesn't go like "What the f*ck do you think you're doing!" [hitsquad.com]
2. Peace of mind - Nobody is going to come to your home and sue you for copyright infringement.
3. Moral Satisfaction - You actually PAID for it, rather than copying the art work of someone else without permission.
and more...
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
I love it when people forget we're talking about AAC, not MP3. 128 kb/s AAC far surpasses most 192 kb/s VBR MP3s.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're:
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
If I spend 20 minutes downloading a song on Kazaa then four songs cost me an 1 hour and 20 minutes of my life. If I spend 5 min per song on iTunes then those same four songs cost me 20 minutes of my life.
That's an hour difference for four songs. I'm saving $4.00 over that hour. That's "working" for far less than minimum wage to the get the song "free" on Kazaa. Unless you're unemployed, iTunes is a much better monitary value too.
TW
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
You want to really change the digital landscape? Go after the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [loc.gov].
It's unlikely you'll get the law overturned without the work of your local Congresspeople, so go to them. If anything, politicians are easier to move by means of protest and petition than big business. The RIAA will always make the connection of lower sales with piracy, not protest, and as long as they also work hand-in-hand with the media machine, the tide will take forever to turn.
Politicians though are terribly practical - they have to renew their existence constantly so they live on the balance of popular issues. Right now, without proper organization, your identity is being defined by the RIAA 500lb gorilla. We're a speck by comparison. We need to jump, en masse, onto these scales to at least show some popular volume, to garner attention. Grass-roots activism is always where the greatest power lies. You have to be active and pressure your local and state representatives to change the law. Make it uncomfortable in their home-states and they won't take you for granted.
But I believe that we have to do it in a way they can grasp - protesting at rallies, marches, actual mail. As much as I like email, I get results more often with a physical letter - if one morning your rep received 500 or 1000 letters about the law, they would take notice. If the next day they find a few hundred people protesting at their re-election rally, and at every rally, then the pressure mounts. Think Flash mobs, but with a political point.
I really don't think we'll ever displace the gorilla sitting on our asses and jotting off emails or crashing servers. We need to get in their faces and make them know we're real and we're really pissed off.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they have to?
Do you seriously think the music companies would agree on letting a company distribute non-DRM'ed music?
But the option could of course be to not sell music. But maybe Apple wish to sell music.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the tone of statements like these. They make you sound so sure that this will happen. We already have an endless stream of DRM-less music available at your local music store. It's not DRM that keeps people downloading from Kazaa, it's ease of use. This is why ITMS is working so well. One click and it's done. Just like Kazaa except that you don't have to try 45 downloads to get a good copy of Justin Timerlake singing a hip hop version of "Truckin'".
Of course, that doesn't address the primary users of Kazaa, kids with no damn money. It's not a coincidence that you hear of kids getting sued by RIAA. No matter what, DRM or no, these people will trade music because they can. It's too easy not to, and they can spend the $20 they save on fucking McDonalds.
next time give it a shot with popular bands
Someone did. And it's working very well. If you'd stop downloading from Kazaa for a couple of seconds (because you're protesting DRM, I know..) you'd see ITMS works very, very well, and is a good compromise between fans and the record companies. There is a reason why everyone and their damn brother is copying ITMS pretty much feature for feature. Because it works.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
iTMS doesn't carry the type of artists that I like to listen to. Do a search on iTMS for "Dirt Bomb" "Z-Ro" or "Devin the Dude" then search for them on Kazaa. You'll be amazed at the difference.
Come on now, the iTMS featured artists right now are Toby Keith, and Yo Yo Ma. Maybe their selection will impr
Uh...Devin the Dude has a few songs on iTMS (Score:4, Funny)
So request it and quit complaining... (Score:3, Informative)
Once you've done that, drop a letter to the record company of the artist you want has signed with. Let them know you want them to distribute their music on iTunes. Apple is very good about getting new content, you just have to let them know what you want.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Not for long [slashdot.org]. And not because the recording industry hasn't tried [slashdot.org] to [slashdot.org] impose [slashdot.org] DRM [slashdot.org] on [slashdot.org] CDs [slashdot.org] (there have been many other
--Mark
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereupon she decided it sounded way too complicated to deal with, and decided she didn't want to bother with it. The fact is the public is bothered by DRM, they just aren't bothered by in a moral or philisophical sense, more in a convenience sense. The thing is that while iTunes wins out right now in convenience, they still aren't anywhere near as convenient as getting plain old unencumbered MP3s, which are the industry standard and supported by all the hardware we've already invested in.
The value of online music purchasing is fast easy downloads and very low search costs (you know you're not going to waste time downloading a bad rip, an RIAA fake, etc.). You waste much less time - paying a buck a song for this service is a good deal, and you get warm fuzzies knowing at least some tiny fraction of the money goes to the artists. These value propositions wouldn't be decreased by using unencumbered MP3s - the people whose time has no value will keep using Kazaa etc. and searching for the good copies among the shit.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
When she asked "why not?" you could have simply said "because they don't sell it in MP3 format, they sell it in a format that only the iPod plays."
One thing I've learned through years of being a geek: NOT EVERYONE WANTS AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE DO. When they ask us a question they want the SIMPLEST RESPONSE POSSIBLE. If you had answered her questions in these ways she probably would have said "Oh", bought a few songs from the iTMS and went out and bought an iPod. It's not like the thing is bad or something.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Stores and businesses have been doing that for years and years. Any store that doesn't just put a box of their goods out on card tables in a vacant lot with a drop box to put payment in is 'treating their paying customers like (prospective) criminals', no matter how different the rhetoric sounds the way you put it.
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
It treat's you like a prospective criminal. If you were an honest consumer, you wouldn't even think of playing that music on a non-apple product or sharing it with a friend. You'd just buy another copy!
Sorry man, (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry if that offends you. I know I should just leave the car open, because anything else is simply assuming that all the people walking the streets are criminals.
I guess I'm just disrespectfull of my fellow man.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
One day, you may well have to deal with someone who looks at Kazaa as a tool built specifically for copyright infringement (which it was; P2P may have legal uses but, be honest folks, 99.9999 percent of the traffic is in copyrighted material) and who
Re:Pressure to work with non-iPod devices (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:0 from me thanks to DRM (Score:5, Informative)
I want the freedom to use it on whatever device I want, with whatever software I choose.
God I hate all the moronic comments along these lines every time this topic comes up. YOU DO HAVE THAT FUCKING FREEDOM! At least as much as you do with a CD. Or are you one of those people who wants the freedom to use a CD on whatever device you want? News flash: a CD is also a form of DRM as well as a type of compression (called digitization). It's just that you're so familiar with it and the methods used to access the music that you don't think twice about that stuff. Apple has, by far, the least restrictive online music distribution scheme and all your bitching isn't producing anything better. I'd thank you to put up or shut up.
Re:0 from me thanks to DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe, just maybe, you need to consider different analogies. ;)
Re:0 from me thanks to DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, I agree in practice, as this eats CD-Rs like mad, and adds at least $0.02 per track, not including time-costs.
Seems like that's all the copyright police are really demanding. Not that it be impossible to de-DRM stuff, or even hard to understand, just annoying. You can't even say that this is an analog hole attack, because that entire path starts digital and stays digital.
Quality loss? Nope... just byte bloat in that path. You could make a perfect copy to an uncompressed
So really, saying you're boycotting anything that has any DRM at all is throwing a baby out with the bathwater. This is DRM that's so easy to defeat you can't call it a respectable hack.
Software Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Would be an interested idea, at least.
Re:This business model wont work. This is marketin (Score:3, Informative)
Not all music labels are members of the RIAA. Just the big ones. Lots of great artists are signed with independent labels, many of those labels don't screw their artists, and many of those good independent labels are on iTunes.
Wondering whether your favorite band is RIAA-free or not? Click here... [magnetbox.com]
Re:but what does the RIAA think? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Although it seems like more music companies are getting directly involved in the online music biz, I haven't seen any reports on what orgs like the RIAA really think about these commercial online music offerings."
RIAA on Napster/Penn State agreement [riaa.com]
iTMS is a reseller, just like Amazon or Tower Records. And, a sale is a sale. Apple launched iTMS with the cooperation of the artists and record companies. I'm sure the record companies who've shared in Apple's good fortune are thrilled.
Re:That model (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all of the iPods Apple is selling as a result that is what's making it work for them.
Arguing that the model isn't working because Apple isn't making any money off iTunes is like arguing that the DVD model isn't working because Best Buy isn't making anything off DVD sales (which may be true considering how much they discount).
Guess what? The model works. In the latter case, Best Buy makes money because as long as you're in the store to buy the $9.99 DVD on sale, you pick up some blank CDs, a new pair of headphones, a monster cable, or something else with much higher markup. But the movie company still makes plenty of money off the DVD. Everybody wins.
Same with iTunes. The model works. Apple attracts customers with the music store, and makes a profit by selling iPods. They don't lose money on everyone else, they just don't make a lot of profit. But the recording companies and artists make plenty of money. And remember, they're not all evil - just the RIAA. Apple has hundreds of thousands of songs from non-RIAA labels now.
The RIAA may be doomed, but legal online music downloading is here to stay.
Re:Unfortunately The Industry Will Probably Say (Score:3, Insightful)
"Unfortunately what the industry will probably say is "Look using the RIAA to sue everyone because we don't know how to adjust our business model, has really paid off!"
They have adjusted their business model. For example, they've embraced online distribution through sites like iTMS, and it's paid off very well. The record companies are learning that online distribution can work. If by adjusting the business model you mean to stop asking that people pay for music, that is not going to happen.
A frien
Re:for good or ill (Score:3, Informative)
People say there is no cost to digital ditribution, but bandwidth, serv