PDA

View Full Version : Apple.com "Music" Tab becomes "iTunes"




Freg3000
Aug 22, 2003, 06:49 PM
Picture says it all....



vniow
Aug 22, 2003, 06:59 PM
Are we seeing a possible precursor to iTunes for Windows?

Hmm....

applemacdude
Aug 22, 2003, 07:05 PM
Or something bigger...

Hmm...Interesting...

FredAkbar
Aug 22, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by vniow
Are we seeing a possible precursor to iTunes for Windows?

Hmm....

That was my first thought too.

Freg3000
Aug 22, 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by vniow
Are we seeing a possible precursor to iTunes for Windows?

Hmm....

Great thinking there vniow. Once Apple gets iTMS up and going for Windows, people will have to download it (unless they buy an iPod, which I firmly believe will come with an iTunes 4 installation CD). So Windows users go to Apple's website....and then what? The Music tab might be a little too vague. The iTunes tab is perfect, and leaves no room for confusion.

"Click me and I'll show you how to get iTunes!"

FredAkbar
Aug 22, 2003, 07:21 PM
Is a September Paris Expo release of iTunes for Windows still a possibility, or will it definitely be later than that? I haven't really read many iTunes for Windows rumors.

Powerbook G5
Aug 22, 2003, 07:43 PM
This could be a very good move for Apple...making Windows users poke around on the Apple website and perhaps seeing something they like. "You mean there is something better than XP? Wow!"

xpormac
Aug 22, 2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
This could be a very good move for Apple...making Windows users poke around on the Apple website and perhaps seeing something they like. "You mean there is something better than XP? Wow!"


Don't see that happening :D

Powerbook G5
Aug 22, 2003, 08:02 PM
It happens more than you think. I've gotten 3 roommates and 2 best friends to switch by them just seeing my PowerBook ever day and playing with them at the store whenever I went to get something. A lot of the time, they are fed up with Windows and don't even realize there are alternatives.

skymaXimus
Aug 22, 2003, 08:49 PM
I think iTunes should be next to Quicktime. Switch it w/ .Mac and keep the software together and services together.

tjwett
Aug 22, 2003, 09:17 PM
i too think this will be the new spot to download iTunes for Windows and Mac. just like the Quicktime tab. kewl.

Potus
Aug 22, 2003, 10:14 PM
Unfortunately, teen girls don't think there's enough music at iTunes store. So they are flocking to other services.

Powerbook G5
Aug 22, 2003, 10:18 PM
Well it's a good thing I'm not a teen girl!

xpormac
Aug 22, 2003, 10:22 PM
people actually pay for music? :eek:

bikertwin
Aug 22, 2003, 10:25 PM
Or rather than signifying iTunes for Windows, maybe they did it for legal reasons. You know, the whole Apple Records thing.

Lord Bodak
Aug 22, 2003, 10:35 PM
I would guess the whole Apple Records thing was the cause for this.

If it was the term of some settlement with Apple Records you'd think we would have heard something-- but if it is _probably_ part of a settlement (i.e., not finalized yet), they may be doing it to get ready for the iTMS for Windows, to prevent changes after they start an ad campaign.

coumerelli
Aug 22, 2003, 10:36 PM
Maybe Steve wants to divert traffic as to not have anymore 'premature specification' ;)

After all, applemusic.com could end up being some sort of stand-alone site after iTunes for windows becomes avaliable.

Wonder Boy
Aug 22, 2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
"You mean there is something better than XP? Wow!"

I think it's more like "You mean there is something better than XP? I knew it! Though it wouldn't take much"


BTW Apple.com is down at 11:45 pm East Coast. I'm not sure if it means anything.

ashish100
Aug 22, 2003, 11:43 PM
yeah i think this is more to do with reaching an agreement with apple records (who?) than anything else. a pity really. coz iTunes if referring to 'Apple Music - the concept' is a little confusing

plus there's not as much promo for the music venture in the itunes name, compared with 'apple music'
meh

bobindashadows
Aug 22, 2003, 11:58 PM
I assumed this had to do with Apple Records.... unfortunately I wasn't the über-leet genius who first thought of it :points up thread:

tazo
Aug 23, 2003, 12:17 AM
If they release music for windows, I am going to flip; atleast now i wont have to buy from buymusic....:D

shecky
Aug 23, 2003, 12:17 AM
at the moment, if you click on the store link or the .Mac link, the "itunes" tab changes back to "music"

bad BAD web lackey for not updating all your graphics. no soup for you!!

Appleidea
Aug 23, 2003, 02:27 AM
Apple will start the Europeana and Windows music service within a weak.
This are the following reasons:

a) Microsoft started his own download service in Europe.*
b) There are many company's that would start there own service in the U.S.A.

*It only started in England, but soon it will be in the rest of Europe.
The service is not very populair, because it's a copy of Apple's iTunes.

@shecky When you go to the store it is the same, the don't have updated it already.

nickmcghie
Aug 23, 2003, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Potus
Unfortunately, teen girls don't think there's enough music at iTunes store. So they are flocking to other services.

ok.. not enough music at iTMS.. i can agree with that.. but what exactly are these "other services" you talk about?

we all know that buymusic.com, which claims to have 300k tunes, in reality has closer to 200k tunes.. plus, most of the "more" tunes they have are random no-names (not that that's necessarily a bad thing) that teen girls aren't exactly interested in.. microsoft's newly launched music service is only available in england right now.. and the only other services i can think of are musicnet and pressplay, which most teenage girls have never even heard of

so i'm curious.. what "other services" are you talking about?

xpormac
Aug 23, 2003, 04:08 AM
Why are people paying for their mp3's :confused: :confused:





















when kazaa has them for free :D

FredAkbar
Aug 23, 2003, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by xpormac
Why are people paying for their mp3's :confused: :confused:

1. They prefer to be law-abiding.
2. They are worried about the RIAA threats.
3. iTMS is way more reliable than file sharing apps.
4. They like supporting their favorite company :D

Probably other reasons too...I know Steve Jobs named a bunch of them on April 28th when he unveiled the iTMS.

P.S. I don't buy music, I download it illegally. I'm just listing some possible reasons others might use iTMS over p2p.

xpormac
Aug 23, 2003, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by FredAkbar

P.S. I don't buy music, I download it illegally. I'm just listing some possible reasons others might use iTMS over p2p.


;)

chimay
Aug 23, 2003, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by xpormac
;)

I really don't understand you people !!!

Do you buy food ?
Do you buy cars ?
Do you buy/rent property ?

Why do you consider stealing music online (because you can) okay ?

If someone stole your work (mind you you're probably at school) and put you out of business, how would you feel !

ITMS is a step in the right direction for offering consumers a different type of service for buying music the way they want to. We should encourage this as much as possible.

People like yourself are making it difficult for the majority of users to get these types of new service.

Grow up and stop stealing.....

xpormac
Aug 23, 2003, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by chimay
People like yourself are making it difficult for the majority of users to get these types of new service.

Grow up and stop stealing.....


I use to pay $15 or so for 1 CD for 3-4 songs on that one CD that I wanted, I've bought a lot of CDs. I don't consider it stealing, I consider it payback :p

sparks9
Aug 23, 2003, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by FredAkbar
That was my first thought too.

No! That was MY first thought... really

:)

saint
Aug 23, 2003, 07:34 AM
Just slightly off topic...

I don't think that .Mac really deserves its own tab.

that is all.

Gus
Aug 23, 2003, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Lord Bodak
I would guess the whole Apple Records thing was the cause for this.


This is the correct answer.

Regards,
Gus

KLFloyd
Aug 23, 2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by xpormac
I use to pay $15 or so for 1 CD for 3-4 songs on that one CD that I wanted, I've bought a lot of CDs. I don't consider it stealing, I consider it payback :p

That's going to work really well for you in court. Stick with that.


Seriously,
I haven't downloaded anything from any of the P2P services in quite a while. I personally always felt a little uncomfortable with it ethically and I don't mind paying $0.99 to be able to pick and choose the tracks I want.

My only complaint is that iTMS seems to still several months later have a relatively small collection. I spent over an hour the other night sampling music trying to find new tunes to load up on my iPod for the gym and only could find two songs that interested me. Hopefully this will change with time.

The big thing is that Apple really needs to roll out iTMS for Windows and iTMS for the rest of the world. Other companies have already jumped into this arena and while I believe Apple has by far the best plan people are going to tend to stick with what they already use.

zoetropeuk
Aug 23, 2003, 08:24 AM
People stealing music are just cowards. You love stealing music but I bet you don't have the balls to physically shoplift the CD's from a traditional retailer.

You hide behind your desks like the typical little computer geeks you are.

I just hope that some musician breaks into your house/apartment or dorm room and steals back their music plus your mac and any other possession that you've poured your heart and soul into.

You're just making music more expensive for the rest of us. You're just a bunch of useless w@nkers !!!!!!!!!

xpormac
Aug 23, 2003, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by zoetropeuk
People stealing music are just cowards. You love stealing music but I bet you don't have the balls to physically shoplift the CD's from a traditional retailer.

You hide behind your desks like the typical little computer geeks you are.

I just hope that some musician breaks into your house/apartment or dorm room and steals back their music plus your mac and any other possession that you've poured your heart and soul into.

You're just making music more expensive for the rest of us. You're just a bunch of useless w@nkers !!!!!!!!!


Oh...this just makes me and i'm sure a few others just laugh :rolleyes: . I've never heard the term w@nker before, lol.

e-coli
Aug 23, 2003, 09:12 AM
Or the record companies decided not to renew or extend their contract with Apple due to the onslaught of new music download services with much more restrictive DRM (which the record companies like).

...and Apple is reducing equity in iTMS.

I hope not, but...

Potus
Aug 23, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by nickmcghie
ok.. not enough music at iTMS.. i can agree with that.. but what exactly are these "other services" you talk about?

we all know that buymusic.com, which claims to have 300k tunes, in reality has closer to 200k tunes.. plus, most of the "more" tunes they have are random no-names (not that that's necessarily a bad thing) that teen girls aren't exactly interested in.. microsoft's newly launched music service is only available in england right now.. and the only other services i can think of are musicnet and pressplay, which most teenage girls have never even heard of

so i'm curious.. what "other services" are you talking about?

I have a friend who has three daughters. The oldest wanted them to ditch their iMac and go to WinDoze. The oldest disdained Macs for the reason that rocks the boat of many teens "my friends have windoze." Couple of weeks ago, I persuaded my friend to upgrade her computer: increase RAM, get DSL, load OS X, pitched iTunes for easy downloads and burning, etc. Another friend put in a several hours getting her system dialed in. Now the kids "like" the computer but when I talked to my friend on Thursday she said her daughter had just called her about a subscription service (my friend didn't remember the name ["it's just $9.00 a month"] which had more music. I pointed out that many services limit burning and the quality is poor. But the refrain is: "It' just $9.00..."

I don't pretend to know what music 16 year old girls are listening to: I'm just passing on the word. Despite the fact that the Mac experience (incl. iTunes) is better, it hasn't stopped WinDoze from world domination. For Americans in particular, quantity trumps quality every time.

LFrascogna
Aug 23, 2003, 10:04 AM
Have you ever been to microsoft's site. You can't find anything on there. It is a jumbled mess of software updates and random news quips. I got lost trying to find a download for my girlfriend's computer. Then you go and look at the 7 tabs at the top of apple's website, it is amazing. I just don't understand it. Does Microsoft have to make everything hard. I think non Mac users think it is just too easy.

xpormac
Aug 23, 2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by LFrascogna
Have you ever been to microsoft's site. You can't find anything on there. It is a jumbled mess of software updates and random news quips. I got lost trying to find a download for my girlfriend's computer. I just don't understand it. Does Microsoft have to make everything hard. I think non Mac users think it is just too easy.


I'm a mac user and think its pretty simple, I dont understand. Can you not follow the menu on the left side of the screen?

.jason
Aug 23, 2003, 10:41 AM
I tend to read alot of articles in the "major" press about Apple. The one thing I've noticed when they talk about iTMS is they almost exclusively refer to it as just plain iTunes. I think Apple may be picking up on this and making sure that when iTunes Windows edition comes out, that people will connect the dots.

gideonblaze
Aug 23, 2003, 10:59 AM
The changing of the Music tab to iTunes most likely has to do with Apple's ongoing negotiations with the Beatles' music company Apple Corp.

Back in the day, in order to secure rights to use "Apple," Jobs supposedly promised Apple Corp. that Apple Computer would not enter the music market.

When Apple (Computer) launched the iTunes Music Store, there were fresh rumblings from Apple Corp. that it violated the earlier commitment.

ennerseed
Aug 23, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by zoetropeuk
You're just making music more expensive for the rest of us. You're just a bunch of useless w@nkers !!!!!!!!!

ok now really, do you actually think the price of music would go up or down if everybody was "buying" it bringing their sales up incredibly?
If you answer "Down" {BzzZZzzt} Sorry Bob, you are incorrect! You don't win anything. The correct answer is "Well Up of course, because The RIAA are a bunch of greedy a$$holes. As soon as they see that the product will be bought at this refukindiculous price, they will raise the price, and then if they see that the product will be bought at this .... and so on and so on." {ding ding dinnnng} Yes you are correct! You win a clear conscience and the knowledge to know when to fight against greedy monopolist that care about nothing more than getting the most they can from the all the good little consumers in the world.

thank you very much for playing:
"Please Don't Post Ridiculously Ignorant Stuff"

neutrino23
Aug 23, 2003, 03:30 PM
If you click on the Store tab then the Music tab is still there (as of a short time ago). Clicking on Music directs you to iTunes.

BillyShears
Aug 23, 2003, 04:07 PM
Do you anti-KaZaA people not know what "theft" means?

Definition: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft)
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

(Emphasis mine)

Downloading music is not "theft", or "stealing" since the original owner of the music is not deprived of his or her work. This is the difference between walking into a record store and shoplifting a CD, as opposed to downloading on using a p2p service. If you shoplift, the owner of the store loses a CD, which is worth money. If you download song, who has lost anything? There is only the loss of "potential" sales, which is impossible to place a monetary value upon, since one may not have bought the CD with the song they downloaded on it, were it not available "free."

This is not to say it is moral or legal to download songs from a p2p service. It isn't. However, consider my situation. I live in a smallish town... I can listen to about 7 FM radio stations: dance, top 40, dance, "new music", dance (yes, again), country, classic rock. This is with a good radio in my car. In my house, I get only top 40, dance and country. I have a rather different taste in music. Generally older stuff, but some things you will never hear on radio. My friends are generally the same. The way we hear about music is word of mouth. "Ever heard of X?" Then I go and download a few songs. If I like the songs, you buy the album, usually within a week. If I don't like it, I delete it. Why would I want to keep it on my computer otherwise? So, the record company lost no money, yet I downloaded for free. They probably gained money, since there are only about 3 people I can absolutely trust to recommend good music. If they recommend it, I just buy the CD without the download.

Consider this, too. I went out and bought, along with 3 other CDs, Radiohead's "Hail to the Theif" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000092ZYX/qid=1061672176/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3005429-3654434?v=glance&s=music&n=507846) (great album, btw) Now, on the back it says "Copy Controlled," which should have tipped me off not to buy. However, it also says 'Compatible with... Mac OS X' (among others). I assumed this would mean I could copy over the songs to iTunes. And, lo and behold, I could. BUT the first track (2 + 2 = 5) copied over complete silence (except for about 10 seconds of the end) Thinking this was just a glitch, I tried again. Nothing. Tried again. Nothing. So I hopped on Poisoned and grabbed the track. Was that wrong? I bought the CD, they screwed me. I don't expect to have to return a CD because it's incompatible and is designed as if I am a theif. I evened the playing field by downloading the song... BUT I had to take MY time to do that, rather than getting what I was promised when I bought the CD. I still feel scammed having paid full price for the CD.

As for iTMS, I will continue to buy CDs at the store. I like the record store. I like getting recommendations from a human. I like having something physical to show for my money. I like listening to the FULL album, how it was intended to be heard. I like being able to do what I want with what I bought... absolutely no DRM. (The DRM in iTMS is nice, though) Maybe I'm just weird like that. I could see using iTMS to make a very specific CD, though, for a presentaton, or a joke... something where I needed a wide variety of songs on one CD.

Does anyone know what the possibilities of Apple buying Apple Records?

gopy
Aug 23, 2003, 04:53 PM
I don't think that there's anyone here who advocates stealing from artists.

What makes the Napster progeny so attractive is that artists don't get money *anyway*. However, if more big artists start funding their own studios and selling the songs online, all of a sudden the publisher is bypassed--save for Apple's tiny fee--and the money goes to the artist. I think that I'd buy a lot more songs if that were the case...

Anyway, the shift from 'Music' to 'iTunes' enforces the shift in medium (record -> tape -> cd -> digital file), so Apple can be at the forefront of this movement, with medium (iPod) and content (the labels). (Hmm, Sony might have been able to push the Betamax more forcefully if they'd owned Columbia back then...)

billyboy
Aug 23, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by ennerseed
ok now really, do you actually think the price of music would go up or down if everybody was "buying" it bringing their sales up incredibly?
If you answer "Down" {BzzZZzzt} Sorry Bob, you are incorrect! You don't win anything. The correct answer is "Well Up of course, because The RIAA are a bunch of greedy a$$holes. As soon as they see that the product will be bought at this refukindiculous price, they will raise the price, and then if they see that the product will be bought at this .... and so on and so on." {ding ding dinnnng} Yes you are correct! You win a clear conscience and the knowledge to know when to fight against greedy monopolist that care about nothing more than getting the most they can from the all the good little consumers in the world.

thank you very much for playing:
"Please Don't Post Ridiculously Ignorant Stuff"

So whats your next mission for the betterment of society, robbing the rich to feed the poor. :rolleyes:

Its quite funny until the bit about the consumers. You arent a good little consumer matey - unless of course you work for nothing these days and barter your way through life - so maybe dont take the moral high ground where there is none.

A large mass seem to use the internet to steal music and whatever else they can, because they feel they can do so with impunity and can steal without being particularly brave about it, and then come out with pseudo bollocks about having right on their side against the big bad businessmen.

So prices go up or up due to RIAA´s efforts to milk the market? hmmmm, welcome to the real world of market forces where time heals most things. The point is, if someone puts time and effort and a bit of original thinking into a product, at whatever stage of the marketing process, they do have the right to ask for a bit or a lot of money for their efforts, then you as a good consumer have a choice - either pay up and look big, or pass on it, and actually do the unthinkable and go without something you dont want to pay the asking price for. Its a hard life eh?

If you go the legal route and just dont buy and also dont steal musical product that some companies want to sell, you eventually force the supplier to rethink his /her pricing strategy. This could take a long time, which doesnt sit well with impatient butterfly headed pirates who need everything now. If the music companies insist on higher prices to cover less sales then the hands-on battle isnt yours, oh Revolutionary Robin Hood, to get the prices realistic. It is up to the people with the ultimate control - the artists and other sharp businessman with an eye for a legal and sustainable opportunity.

(I discount you here, but stand corrected if you are one of the milli fractions of a percent of pirates who fall into those 2 categories.)

So keep on using your Mac from a filthy rich corporation, and enjoy your trainers and cars and stereos and so on that I presume you paid for, and get a grip.

The long term benefits to all of Apple´s 99 cents service for hassle free and legal music is a move that probably flies over the head of most pirates, and it is this ignorance that Apple are going to have to fight if they are going to persuade a hardened and somewhat deluded sector of society to go to their web page and actually pay for iTunes MS.

FredAkbar
Aug 23, 2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by BillyShears
Downloading music is not "theft", or "stealing" since the original owner of the music is not deprived of his or her work. This is the difference between walking into a record store and shoplifting a CD, as opposed to downloading on using a p2p service. If you shoplift, the owner of the store loses a CD, which is worth money. If you download song, who has lost anything? There is only the loss of "potential" sales, which is impossible to place a monetary value upon, since one may not have bought the CD with the song they downloaded on it, were it not available "free."

Exactly. If I didn't download songs, I just wouldn't get them at all--I've not depriving anyone of anything.

For example, I could probably download the Panther GM when it comes out. But am I going to? No. I'm going to pay for it.

MetallicPenguin
Aug 23, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by shecky
at the moment, if you click on the store link or the .Mac link, the "itunes" tab changes back to "music"

bad BAD web lackey for not updating all your graphics. no soup for you!!

Yeah actually I had to remind Apple (feedback) about this the first time it changed from whatever to Music. :p I'm sure they'll realize it later.

gwangung
Aug 23, 2003, 07:04 PM
Downloading music is not "theft", or "stealing" since the original owner of the music is not deprived of his or her work.

Um, right.

I SELL my music. Downloading MY music is taking money from me, because you're depriving ME of MY right to sell the music or distribute it as I see fit. I created it, I get that right...it ain't yours to do that.

simX
Aug 23, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by BillyShears
Consider this, too. I went out and bought, along with 3 other CDs, Radiohead's "Hail to the Theif" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000092ZYX/qid=1061672176/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3005429-3654434?v=glance&s=music&n=507846) (great album, btw) Now, on the back it says "Copy Controlled," which should have tipped me off not to buy. However, it also says 'Compatible with... Mac OS X' (among others). I assumed this would mean I could copy over the songs to iTunes. And, lo and behold, I could. BUT the first track (2 + 2 = 5) copied over complete silence (except for about 10 seconds of the end) Thinking this was just a glitch, I tried again. Nothing. Tried again. Nothing. So I hopped on Poisoned and grabbed the track. Was that wrong? I bought the CD, they screwed me. I don't expect to have to return a CD because it's incompatible and is designed as if I am a theif. I evened the playing field by downloading the song... BUT I had to take MY time to do that, rather than getting what I was promised when I bought the CD. I still feel scammed having paid full price for the CD.

You should go back to the store, return the CD, and say it is defective. If it doesn't work with your computer and won't allow you to rip it, then it is defective and you have the right to return it. The Compact Disc standard does not allow for such technologies, and thus it is not a CD if it has copy protection.

If you really feel mean, go to the store and buy *ALL* their copy-protected CDs. Go home, try to rip each one to your computer, and return the ones that don't allow you to do that (presumably all of them). This will force the store to return the CDs to their manufacturers (since they're defective), and eventually they'll get the message. If nothing else, the store will be incredibly inconvenienced and will refuse to stock those copy-protected CDs.

skymaXimus
Aug 24, 2003, 01:30 AM
As of right now there are two different iTunes pages
http://www.apple.com/ilife/itunes/
and
http://www.apple.com/itunes/
which is very un-apple. Mr. Webmaster needs to get to work.

BillyShears
Aug 24, 2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by gwangung

Um, right.

I SELL my music. Downloading MY music is taking money from me, because you're depriving ME of MY right to sell the music or distribute it as I see fit. I created it, I get that right...it ain't yours to do that.

No, I never said it was anyone's right to redistribute your music, but that isn't theft. You aren't deprived of anything, you can still distribute it as you see fit, no one is hindering your ability to do that. Think about theft from a store. If I steal a CD, that owner is without the CD... they can't sell it. If I download a CD, the owner still has the CD, and still can make a profit off it. I'm not saying downloading music without paying is right, but it's not "theft." Things aren't as clearcut as a slogan like "theft is theft."


Originally posted by simX
You should go back to the store, return the CD, and say it is defective. If it doesn't work with your computer and won't allow you to rip it, then it is defective and you have the right to return it. The Compact Disc standard does not allow for such technologies, and thus it is not a CD if it has copy protection.

If you really feel mean, go to the store and buy *ALL* their copy-protected CDs. Go home, try to rip each one to your computer, and return the ones that don't allow you to do that (presumably all of them). This will force the store to return the CDs to their manufacturers (since they're defective), and eventually they'll get the message. If nothing else, the store will be incredibly inconvenienced and will refuse to stock those copy-protected CDs.

I would, and I considered it, but there is generally a no-return policy on CDs. I can imagine trying to return an opened CD and explaining that I was trying to copy it. This would take a lot of my time, and time is money. I do support the idea, though... I guess I'm just lazy. Also I like my independant record store, I don't want to cause them any trouble. BTW, I read somewhere Radiohead supports P2P..... kind of funny.

Potus
Aug 24, 2003, 03:08 PM
Theft is the taking of anything of value with the intent to permanently deprive. Value can be determined by the "owner" thereof, however transitory. Therefore, if I work in a store and you take from me the key I use to open the bathroom, even though it is not my key, but actually the store owner's, nevertheless the taking is a theft.

BillyShears
Aug 24, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Potus
Theft is the taking of anything of value with the intent to permanently deprive. Value can be determined by the "owner" thereof, however transitory. Therefore, if I work in a store and you take from me the key I use to open the bathroom, even though it is not my key, but actually the store owner's, nevertheless the taking is a theft.

In that case I am depriving you of the use of said key, since you no longer have it. If I download your music, I am not depriving you of your ability to sell your music and make a profit.

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 24, 2003, 03:48 PM
This is really getting ludicrous, but I'm tossing my two cents in anyway.

Let's start over again with the definition of the word "theft" as set forth previously:

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny

People who are comparing this to shoplifting CDs are going about this the wrong way. The physical CDs are the store's property, but the content is not. However, there is no physical property involved in downloading music, there is only content. The "personal property" in question is the content.

So who rightfully owns the content in question? It's a rhetorical question; the owner is obviously the copyright holder, who is (in the case of contracted records) the recording studio.

When you download music illegally, you are depriving the ability of the studio to make a profit off of the sale of the content to you. That is theft.

BillyShears
Aug 24, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
When you download music illegally, you are depriving the ability of the studio to make a profit off of the sale of the content to you. That is theft.

If anything... at the worst you are depriving the studio of potential profit from you. You may also raise the potential of sale. I had never heard of Beta Band before... someone mentioned it offhand, so I downloaded a couple tracks. Loved them. Bought 3 or 4 of their CDs within a week. Like I said... if I download a song, I may go and buy it the next day. The studio still has the chance to make the money from me. I'd have to download a full-quality CD, print off covers on glossy paper, etc for my chances of buying the CD to be null. Also, there is no guarantee I would have bought the CD anyway.

So what we are stealing, exactly, is potential of sale. But if we are going to say that anything that lessens the likelihood of someone buying the CD is theft, then is not a bad review of the CD "theft"? They'd be taking away the ability of the studio to make profit off anyone who reads the review.

Potus
Aug 24, 2003, 05:17 PM
You can steal intangibles such as future rights to use even if the rights are only based only on a potential to vest. Another example is identity theft. Music/copying is in the area of "intellectual" property, as compared to real property or personal property. Each type of property has different hallmarks and therefore the hallmarks of deprivation are different. ["Fox News Network trademarked the phrase "Fair and Balanced" in 1998 to describe its news coverage, and network lawyers claimed that Mr. Franken's use of the phrase in his book would "blur and tarnish" it."]

ZeppelinArmada
Aug 24, 2003, 05:18 PM
I hope this is an early sign that iTunes will be appearing on PC. Many of my PC friends are very anxiously awaiting the iTunes music service. If it doesn't happen soon they may just join one of the PC ones out there.

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 24, 2003, 07:20 PM
Billy-

In my mind, the issue has nothing to do with people who download music to "try before they buy". The issue is all about people that download music so they NEVER have to buy music. THAT is stealing.

BillyShears
Aug 25, 2003, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Billy-

In my mind, the issue has nothing to do with people who download music to "try before they buy". The issue is all about people that download music so they NEVER have to buy music. THAT is stealing.

OK, but by the same token this person may never have bought the CD in the first place, yet they downloaded the one song. Now, there was never a potential of sale, the record company had ZERO chance of making money off this person. What have they been deprived of? I understand that this is wrong: if you want it, buy it (like I do), but I wouldn't call it theft.

Potus: it is in the IP domain, but it is not IP THEFT. If someone steals your identity you can no longer use it as you would. (eg. your credit cards have larger bills, etc.)

ckelley
Aug 25, 2003, 07:20 AM
Just where exactly did you get a Copy Protected version? Mine's not. I bought it just a few weeks ago.

Just wondering, it seems odd to do that.

rjgjonker
Aug 25, 2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by gwangung
I SELL my music. Downloading MY music is taking money from me, because you're depriving ME of MY right to sell the music or distribute it as I see fit. I created it, I get that right...it ain't yours to do that.

I don't see how people downloading your music make it impossible for you to sell your music.

Downloading music illegally might be both morally wrong and illegal, but that doesn't make it theft.

rueyeet
Aug 25, 2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by BillyShears
OK, but by the same token this person may never have bought the CD in the first place, yet they downloaded the one song. Now, there was never a potential of sale, the record company had ZERO chance of making money off this person. What have they been deprived of? I understand that this is wrong: if you want it, buy it (like I do), but I wouldn't call it theft.

The difference is: If you neither buy the CD, nor download the song, you don't have their music and you haven't paid for it.

If you don't buy the CD, but download the song, you do have their music, and you haven't paid them for it. When you get something without paying for it, and its owner has not given their permission for that to occur, it's generally understood to be theft, plain and simple. Quoting the dictionary only shows that you're using the letter of the law to violate its spirit.

Such arguments--along with the "the RIAA steals from the artists, so it's okay to steal from them" excuse--are just an attempt to morally justify getting something for nothing. I wonder if you'd feel the same about it if it was YOUR paycheck at stake....after all, the artists may be being ripped off of most of the sales income by the greedy-ass record execs, but when you buy the music, they at least get their pittance. When you don't buy the music, they get nothing at all, and your not buying the music won't change the system that ensures that.

SiliconAddict
Aug 25, 2003, 11:52 AM
Can I ask why Apple doesn't allow users to browse the list of songs without iTunes? Its annoying not knowing what they do and don't have. I've had to ask a few iBook users I know to look up some songs for me.
If Apple really wants to push their music store let the people browse!

BillyShears
Aug 25, 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by rueyeet
The difference is: If you neither buy the CD, nor download the song, you don't have their music and you haven't paid for it.

If you don't buy the CD, but download the song, you do have their music, and you haven't paid them for it. When you get something without paying for it, and its owner has not given their permission for that to occur, it's generally understood to be theft, plain and simple. Quoting the dictionary only shows that you're using the letter of the law to violate its spirit.

Such arguments--along with the "the RIAA steals from the artists, so it's okay to steal from them" excuse--are just an attempt to morally justify getting something for nothing. I wonder if you'd feel the same about it if it was YOUR paycheck at stake....after all, the artists may be being ripped off of most of the sales income by the greedy-ass record execs, but when you buy the music, they at least get their pittance. When you don't buy the music, they get nothing at all, and your not buying the music won't change the system that ensures that.

Yes, I am agreeing it is morally wrong to get something that usually costs money without paying for it. It is not theft, though. I'm not saying it's not illegal, immoral, and doubleplusungood, but it is not theft. By quoting the dictionary I am obeying the letter of the law, which is the true spirit of the law.

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny

Why would they add "with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same", were it not necessary?

andyduncan
Aug 26, 2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by shecky
if you click on the store link or the .Mac link, the "itunes" tab changes back to "music"

even on the pages that have the "new" itunes gifs, the alt text is still "Music".