Apple Draws Visitors with iTunes

[MacRumors]

Neilson/NetRatings (http://www.netratings.com/) released statistics on Monday about a surge in traffic at Apple..com in the week ending on October 19th.

This increase in traffic of 112% to more than one million unique visitors reflects interest and downloads of Apple's iTunes for Windows application.

Indeed, iTunes use appears to be on the rise, as both students at Stanford University (http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=12163&repository=0001_article) and Columbia University (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/28/3f9e2a48b30b6) seem to be taking advantage of Apple's jukebox offering. However, some behavior may be difficult to change.

Some Stanford students (http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=12163&repository=0001_article) are primarily taking advantage of iTunes' ability to share music on local networks. One student admits:


"Once you get the program, you can access the MP3 music library of anyone on the local network (so it’s almost as good as downloading, but you don’t fill up your hard drive) and, oh yeah, it’s not illegal. Woohoo."

[pyrotoaster]

It's great that people are downloading iTunes and - more importantly - liking it.

As for the semi-legal sharing, I don't care if they do it, but I wish they'd just shut the hell up about it. The last thing we need is an iTunes 4.1.2 with no network sharing whatsoever.

[loneAzdgari]

I wonder whether this is just Mac users or actually curious PC people. Why doesn't Apple release figures showing what platform these visitors are on?

[shadowfax]

well, you can only access the library of users who share their libraries. it's not really much different from internet streaming radio--you can't download them, you can't access them when the other guy's server is down, and you can't put them on your iPod.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by loneAzdgari
I wonder whether this is just Mac users or actually curious PC people.
It's PC people downloading iTunes. Apple's already reported over a million downloads of iTunes for Windows.

[JohnGillilan]

The sharing feature is definitely utilized by college students. On average, there are 100 shared libraries available at any given time on our network. (This number increased drastically after the Windows version was released).

[eyelikeart]

eh...again...it's the "Cat & Mouse" game...

there's always going to be a loophole someone will find...

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by shadowfax
well, you can only access the library of users who share their libraries. it's not really much different from internet streaming radio--you can't download them, you can't access them when the other guy's server is down, and you can't put them on your iPod.
True, but you can always use a little app like WireTap to record the song.

[Steven1621]

very incouarging information, especially in light of the new competition apple is facing in this field

[xtekdiver]

Bring it!

[Oats]

so this probably means these campuses will not be purchasing much music?

[arn]

well, you know... people don't stay in college forever.

When they leave college, they'll still be using iTunes. ;)

arn

[srobert]

Maybe while stopping at Apple to download iTunes, PC users will have a look at those sexy computers displayed here and there on the site.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by arn
well, you know... people don't stay in college forever.

When they leave college, they'll still be using iTunes. ;)

arn
Lol. :D
Well said, arn.

[hockeythug]

Originally posted by shadowfax
well, you can only access the library of users who share their libraries. it's not really much different from internet streaming radio--you can't download them, you can't access them when the other guy's server is down, and you can't put them on your iPod.

Yes, but unlike internet radio, you can choose exactly what songs you want to listen to. It's also useful for me, for example, if I go to the media lab to work, I have access to all my music from the G4 there.

[Rocketman]

Some Stanford students (http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=12163&repository=0001_article) are primarily taking advantage of iTunes' ability to share music on local networks. One student admits: [/B]


"Once you get the program, you can access the MP3 music library of anyone on the local network (so it’s almost as good as downloading, but you don’t fill up your hard drive) and, oh yeah, it’s not illegal. Woohoo."


There's an example of "compelled" viral marketing. You need iTunes to access your dorm music servers.

Rocketman

[dongmin]

Do you know of any shareware that let's you chat with other iTunes users, like you can on Carracho or Hotwire?

And what about something that combines the music of all the users on a net into a single database? Or is this starting to go into muddy legal territory?

[beefcake]

Stupid fragmented school network. I get a grand total of 1 library available as shared music.

I think the RIAA will have a hard time shutting this one down. It would be like prohibitting people from playing music loud becuase the guys two doors down might hear and enjoy the song.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by beefcake
Stupid fragmented school network. I get a grand total of 1 library available as shared music.

I think the RIAA will have a hard time shutting this one down. It would be like prohibitting people from playing music loud becuase the guys two doors down might hear and enjoy the song.

It's just like lending someone a CD. Since it is your property, you have the right to do it - you just can't give them a copy. I think the RIAA would encourage sharing this way because it may yield more sales if measures are taken to prevent copying.

[soosy]

Originally posted by Oats
so this probably means these campuses will not be purchasing much music?

I don't think so at all.

I tend to think sharing music exposes people to more music that they'll want to buy for themselves. P2P programs don't particularly excel at downloading whole albums. The songs I've downloaded and love, I've eventually bought the cd for the whole album. For the songs I don't love, i don't listen to them and I wouldn't have bought them anyway. If I really like something, I don't want to have to connect to someone else and hope they are up, etc. I want it available for me any time. Plus, I think there is still a limit of 5 users being able to connect to one iTunes library.

I believe there was a British study a few months ago that indicated sharing actually increases music purchases. Unfortunately don't have the link handy.

At worse, I'd bet that the number of new purchases generated by people discovering new music just balances out the actual lost purchases due to downloading.

But maybe that's just my outlook 'cause I still buy real cds.

[CMillerERAU]

Originally posted by Oats
so this probably means these campuses will not be purchasing much music?

I've been very irked by my college's IT department. They use a packet shaper to give certain websites lower priority than others. This is to tward online file swappers from soaking up all the bandwidth. However, so far they keep the iTMS on the lowest priority. I can't even load the store's website in iTunes! So far they haven't done anything about it and I know there are a lot of us on campus who want to use it.

[SiliconAddict]

How do you access someone else’s music? I was at a friends house and plugged my laptop in. Poof. the title of my share showed up in my friends copy of iTunes but it kept prompting for my iTMS account user name / password. Do you have to associate the system as one of your 3 computers that can share your music?!!?! That some what sucks. :( I was under the impression, or I had read somewhere, any computer on the same local network can stream the iTunes music. Did this change in 5.1 or is this a Windows only “feature”

[dho]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
How do you access someone else’s music? I was at a friends house and plugged my laptop in. Poof. the title of my share showed up in my friends copy of iTunes but it kept prompting for my iTMS account user name / password. Do you have to associate the system as one of your 3 computers that can share your music?!!?! That some what sucks. :( I was under the impression, or I had read somewhere, any computer on the same local network can stream the iTunes music. Did this change in 5.1 or is this a Windows only “feature”

I have had the same problem :(

Although it hasnt been that much of anissue because I am only streaming my music to 2 other computers

[supercres]

Re: fragmented college network.

I have the same problem. I can only access music from people in my House (dorm). Fortunately, it's a 24-story high rise (Hamilton at Penn), so there are always some libraries available-- sometimes as many as 5 or 6. I know it's not a lot, but the number's only going to go up.

Plus, it helps my pimp my website:
http://supercres.net/archives/000223.html

[bigdog]

If you are streaming iTunes to another computer then it will ask for a username and password in one of two instances:

1) Your playlist is made up of many purchased songs from the iTMS. You cannot stream these songs except to another computer authorized under your account.

2) You told iTunes to require a password whenever anyone wants to use your shared music. Go to Preferences > Sharing and look to see if the 'Require password' checkbox is on and the field is filled out.

I have a bunch of music on my dual G4 here at work and share it to a few co-workers who aren't in my office. It works great.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by arn
well, you know... people don't stay in college forever.

arn

What? arn, you are destroying all my well laid plans!

[DeusOmnis]

we definately love the sharing network in my dorm. we're considering putting up signs to get more people to do it.

[pbooktebo]

I have to say that the restriction on playing purchased music is a problem for me and doesn't make sense.

Steve has said that shring music can be done with music you own, and when you buy an online track, you "own" it, so I think you ought to be able to share it.

Also, It often happens that the stuff I really love is stuff I buy, and I often want to share that. It's a hassle and if I were in an environment (like a dorm) where I could share with many users most of the time, I think this would be a disincentive to buy music from iTMS.

Any thoughts?

[supercres]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
we're considering putting up signs to get more people to do it.

Now that's an idea-- "Help build Hamilton's music community -- for free -- by legally sharing and listening to shared music!"

[tychay]

Originally posted by pbooktebo
I have to say that the restriction on playing purchased music is a problem for me and doesn't make sense.

I can't comment on the latter, but as to the former. "Burn" the song to a CD disc image and then import it back as AAC or MP3 (the tags should come in fine, though you'll lose the album covers). Then simply share this instead of your purchased music (you can use the checkboxes or share certain playlists to limit how sharing is done which is a good idea in general).

Yes, you do suffer some transcoding quality loss but this seems reasonable to me. I don't think your friends listening to your streams will care much about the loss.

Take care,

terry

[dethl]

Originally posted by arn
well, you know... people don't stay in college forever.

When they leave college, they'll still be using iTunes. ;)

arn

When you're just a lowly freshmen with a computer science degree waiting 5 years at the end of the road, its gonna feel like forever.

And heck yeah, I'll still be using iTunes...I have been since it ever came out :P

[greenstork]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
It's great that people are downloading iTunes and - more importantly - liking it.

As for the semi-legal sharing, I don't care if they do it, but I wish they'd just shut the hell up about it. The last thing we need is an iTunes 4.1.2 with no network sharing whatsoever.

Well freaking said! Shut up already, I was pissed enough about 4.01 dropping sharing over the net.

[flipflash77]

Originally posted by pbooktebo
I have to say that the restriction on playing purchased music is a problem for me and doesn't make sense.

Steve has said that shring music can be done with music you own, and when you buy an online track, you "own" it, so I think you ought to be able to share it.

Also, It often happens that the stuff I really love is stuff I buy, and I often want to share that. It's a hassle and if I were in an environment (like a dorm) where I could share with many users most of the time, I think this would be a disincentive to buy music from iTMS.

Any thoughts?

I guess you could see it that way. It certainly doesn't make it as seemless as we'd all like. But you can't really fault Steve on this one, it's still the RIAA and the demands of the labels to limit how much we can share. You can always point them to iTMS to listen to the 30-second preview...

[flipflash77]

Originally posted by greenstork
Well freaking said! Shut up already, I was pissed enough about 4.01 dropping sharing over the net.

<cough cough> you can still do that... just requires some extra stuff...

[greenstork]

Originally posted by flipflash77
<cough cough> you can still do that... just requires some extra stuff...

Oh I still have 4.0 so I don't even have to hack anything. It was designed to stream over the net. Is there software for 4.1.1. for the record, I have a Mac at work that I stream music from home.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by pbooktebo
I have to say that the restriction on playing purchased music is a problem for me and doesn't make sense.

Steve has said that shring music can be done with music you own, and when you buy an online track, you "own" it, so I think you ought to be able to share it.

Also, It often happens that the stuff I really love is stuff I buy, and I often want to share that. It's a hassle and if I were in an environment (like a dorm) where I could share with many users most of the time, I think this would be a disincentive to buy music from iTMS.

Any thoughts?
The reason why they won't allow this is because it would be too easy to capture the unencrypted digital version of the file off of the network and bypass the DRM restrictions, effectively unlocking your purchased music into normal AAC files. There is just no easy way to stream it to another computer in the encrypted format, without giving them the keys to decrypt the music first.

[ITR 81]

Got the news from friends in the UK and Japan. Anyone can buy music with this loopholes.

Folks overseas all you need to do is get someone in US to buy you USD certificate and have them send it to you. Friends in the UK are doing this currently. They send my buddy money in USD via Paypal and he makes out cert. to them for that amount to their email.

Also easier way is to get a US credit card which is what friends of mine in Japan are doing.

Hope this help you guys and gals out overseas and Canada.

[zamyatin]

Both articles are quite good. Well written, and they show the great uses students are putting to iTunes. I particularly liked the mention of using shared playlists as a way to find out about new genres and artists, and to find out what friends are listening to - a perfect use of the campus network!

Makes me wish I were back on campus. Kids these days; I wish we had then what they do now!

[zamyatin]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
we definately love the sharing network in my dorm. we're considering putting up signs to get more people to do it.

Go for it! Creating the signs will also hone your page layout skills, which could come in handy some day when looking for work.

[coolsoldier]

Here at UNM the network is too slow to stream music via iTunes :( It's a shame 'cause there's about 20 libraries shared now, but it wants to stop and rebuffer the stream every 15 seconds or so, so it's basically useless.

It's because they "reserve" most of the bandwidth for loading web pages, so streaming audio and video only works at low bit rates...

[Phil Of Mac]

Seems like iTunes needs to develop a streaming format that does ad hoc encryption and copy protection that prevents you from recording a stream :)

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Seems like iTunes needs to develop a streaming format that does ad hoc encryption and copy protection that prevents you from recording a stream :)

How? Anything you can listen to you can record There's not much they can do about that ;)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
How? Anything you can listen to you can record There's not much they can do about that ;)

You could at least kill the software that records the stream itself.

[mmalet]

I haven't checked my copy of the US Copyright Code yet, but I am inclined to think that it is illegal to use the iTunes Rendezvous sharing in the way described by this posting. First of all, it's a transmission of a digital sound recording, which implicates a lot of screwy (and strict) copyright rules that analog sound recordings aren't subject to. Second, by chatting about what they're doing, they're letting Stanford know what they're doing with Stanford's computer network. This implicates Stanford for contributory copyright infringement. It seems unlikely, though it is a bit of a worry, that Apple will be held responsible for this, since the main purpose of this kind of sharing is the (likely) non-infringing use of an individual for non-commercial purposes. But certainily anyone sharing in this manner or anyone operating a network that is being shared over in this manner, i.e. by opening up their cd collection for any random person to listen to thruogh rendezvous, should assume that it is NOT LEGAL...

[theipodgod16]

Originally posted by soosy
I don't think so at all.

I tend to think sharing music exposes people to more music that they'll want to buy for themselves. P2P programs don't particularly excel at downloading whole albums. The songs I've downloaded and love, I've eventually bought the cd for the whole album. For the songs I don't love, i don't listen to them and I wouldn't have bought them anyway. If I really like something, I don't want to have to connect to someone else and hope they are up, etc. I want it available for me any time. Plus, I think there is still a limit of 5 users being able to connect to one iTunes library.

I believe there was a British study a few months ago that indicated sharing actually increases music purchases. Unfortunately don't have the link handy.

At worse, I'd bet that the number of new purchases generated by people discovering new music just balances out the actual lost purchases due to downloading.

But maybe that's just my outlook 'cause I still buy real cds.


i totally agree...i saw a band called ima robot open for the white stripes about a month ago. I didnt like them. Last night, i downloaded one song illegally to listen to, (becaause the damn labels set it on ITMS to be by album only!!!) anyways, i loved the song, and am importing a store bought legal copy to itunes right now!

[P Rush]

As someone who wants itunes for windows to grow, I really don't care that Colleges and Universities are sharing their music over their dorm LANs. In fact Its a great thing! Apple wanted to get their product into the windows world, and post secondary institutions hold a large chunk of the market share of windows machines.

The more people with itunes, means more people using a quality Apple program which is a big step to giving Apple a good rep in the wintel world. Also, they will Rip more ACC rather than wma, and it helps ACC become the standard. This leads to ipod sales, and this leads to Mac sales.

Who cares if college students aren't using itunes for buying music. They are the future and will be buying a new system when they get their jobs after school. And last time I checked, the ITMS wasn't exactly declining in sales.

P RUSH

[ThorPrime]

one problem i have noticed is that due to the way some campus networks are set up, rendezvous only works very locally, like around a few buildings. However, having over 20 shared musics is better than the 4 we had before iTunes for windows. It would be nice if all the thousands of computers were linked though.....

Also, a trend that is already prevalent on college networks is the bypassing of P2P networks and putting AIM screen names in the sharing tab. Thus people use AIM to trade music files at outrageous speeds just like "The good old days" of napster.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by pbooktebo
I have to say that the restriction on playing purchased music is a problem for me and doesn't make sense.
Any thoughts?

It's hard to know where to start with this question but sharing should mean ONLY letting your friends listen to your music- not having copies of it. The licence for ALL musical works says so! Thus, you have NO right to GIVE them your music. It seems (not necessarily you) that a change has come to America that is, closely allied to European thought, which is, the individual really isn't that important... it is rather, the collective "we." This means, in this case, that an artist has no real worth... that the works of that artist, once acquired can be used in whatever manner the "owner" of those works deems fit. In the extreme example, a song, once obtained by "you" coud be given to a million people with NOT ONE penny going to the artist. This is what "MY rights" is all about. Unfortunately, THAT is not the truth.
Americans, stop your non-American thinking and take note that free enterprise- and freedom to act- do NOT cause harm to others and do not use stealing as the "norm." Pay as you go!
And the argument that artists don't get paid well by the record companies, so it's OK to steal their music is an extraordinary example of self-gratification at the expense of others. People have actually used the abuse of the record companies of their artists to justify stealing their music. Talk about getting whacked twice!!

[Phil Of Mac]

*hands rjwill246 a flame-retardant suit*

[greenstork]

Originally posted by rjwill246
so it's OK to steal their music is an extraordinary example of self-gratification at the expense of others. People have actually used the abuse of the record companies of their artists to justify stealing their music. Talk about getting whacked twice!!

Look, I'm not trying to say P2P file sharing is okay but you could look at your argument two ways. The record companies are self-gratifying at the expense of consumers and the artist by overpricing CD's. Their abuse has lasted for decades. Again, I'm not saying the file sharer is right, but neither are the record companies.

edit: You talk as if self-gratification is some dirty word. Everyone in this process is looking out for themselves. The file sharers steal so they won't get ripped off, the record companies overcharge to make more money and the artist isn't trying to simply produce art, they want to turn a buck. I can't blame the artist but their quest for cash ("self-gratification") is at the expense of the consumer, being overcharged by the record company.

And before you flame me for this, note that I don't think the record companies or the file sharers are right. the only party that is morally just here is the artist, but make no mistake that this person/band is also self gratifying at the expense of consumers.

[Phil Of Mac]

Are they really overpricing CD's? Considering the risk that a record label undertakes most of the time by signing artists (a minority of artists succeed), the high price may be justified. It's a bit higher, but would you prefer there was no RIAA?

You do? Then boycott them, fool. But don't try to have it both ways. If RIAA sells nothing of value, then you won't be stealing from them, I hope? If they sell something of value, then what's your freaking problem?

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by arn
well, you know... people don't stay in college forever.

When they leave college, they'll still be using iTunes. ;)

arn

Yes, and after they leave college, and get a high paying job, they'll buy a Mac.

Ah, the irony.

;) :rolleyes: :D

[blogo]

How much of the network does this librarysharing use, because on our school the teachers are totally against it because they say it uses way to much of the airport network. And are the airport stations like switches, because then a transfer from one computer to another one shouldn't really mean anything on overall network bendwith.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
You do? Then boycott them, fool. But don't try to have it both ways. If RIAA sells nothing of value, then you won't be stealing from them, I hope? If they sell something of value, then what's your freaking problem?

You're telling me to boycott purchasing music. Since this is the only channel of distribution, it's really a silly argument. I don't appreciate being called a fool over an unrealistic expectation. It's like saying boycott water because you don't like the government regulation of it, okay smart guy.

However, to address your point, I don't think I should have to pay for hundreds of failed corporate boy bands that didn't work out in the price of my CD. I should pay only for the artist I purchase. With the growing popularity of online music stores, there should be a system to track purchases and rate bands/artists accordingly. I would much prefer that than being spoonfed what the record company wants me to buy. Music popularity should happen at a grassroots level and not a top-down corporate approach. You telling me that I should pay for the failings of this top-down corporate approach is laughable.

Perhaps we see the value of CD differently, but that hardly makes me a fool. I'd say the person who wants to pay for failed coporate bands is the fool.

:rolleyes:

[stcanard]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Are they really overpricing CD's? Considering the risk that a record label undertakes most of the time by signing artists (a minority of artists succeed), the high price may be justified. It's a bit higher, but would you prefer there was no RIAA?\

This is probably O/T for the forum, but...

The whole problem is that they're not taking a risk.

99% of the time they're trying to sign artists that are a copycat of the current "hit" rather than taking the risk they're supposed to of signing new bands that may become the next big thing. It's the indie labels that are shouldering the risk, without the benefit of the taxation or litigation income.

Judging by how little there is to listen to on radio, and how any of my attempts to support local bands are directed into "fairness payments" (via recordable media taxes) to an association that isn't even redistritubting those payments to artists, I think I would be _way_ better off without an association that seems to thnk the Christina A<however you spell her last name> or Creed are the best way to leech my money.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by stcanard
This is probably O/T for the forum, but...

The whole problem is that they're not taking a risk.

99% of the time they're trying to sign artists that are a copycat of the current "hit" rather than taking the risk they're supposed to of signing new bands that may become the next big thing. It's the indie labels that are shouldering the risk, without the benefit of the taxation or litigation income.

Judging by how little there is to listen to on radio, and how any of my attempts to support local bands are directed into "fairness payments" (via recordable media taxes) to an association that isn't even redistritubting those payments to artists, I think I would be _way_ better off without an association that seems to thnk the Christina A<however you spell her last name> or Creed are the best way to leech my money.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

You raise a very interesting point. What is the value-added of the RIAA, from a consumer perspective? I mean, I certainly understand what they are doing for labels and artists to protect their rights but they don't really serve any useful purpose for the consumer.

edit: And their usefulness to the artist is definitely suspect.

[arn]

Originally posted by illumin8
There is just no easy way to stream it to another computer in the encrypted format, without giving them the keys to decrypt the music first.

The iPod decodes it without any keys (I think).

I guess Apple could be embedding your password in with the AAC files... for the iPod .hmmm.

arn

[greenstork]

Originally posted by arn
Untrue!

The iPod decodes it without any keys.

I don't know how... but it does. :)

arn

So does this product from Andromeda (http://www.turnstyle.com/andromeda/osx.asp). They must have figured out how to tap into the very same thing that the iPod does to decode.

I'm speculating, but maybe the iPod creates a stream and then interprets that data to analog for listening.

edit: Nicecast (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/nicecast/) will stream protected stuff too.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by greenstork
You're telling me to boycott purchasing music. Since this is the only channel of distribution, it's really a silly argument. I don't appreciate being called a fool over an unrealistic expectation. It's like saying boycott water because you don't like the government regulation of it, okay smart guy.

You can still buy independent, fool!

And I only mean "fool" affectionately.

Originally posted by greenstork
However, to address your point, I don't think I should have to pay for hundreds of failed corporate boy bands that didn't work out in the price of my CD. I should pay only for the artist I purchase.

There we go. Music labels should lose money!

Originally posted by greenstork
With the growing popularity of online music stores, there should be a system to track purchases and rate bands/artists accordingly. I would much prefer that than being spoonfed what the record company wants me to buy. Music popularity should happen at a grassroots level and not a top-down corporate approach. You telling me that I should pay for the failings of this top-down corporate approach is laughable.

You shouldn't pay for it. You should buy independent instead. If you don't think any RIAA music is worth the price, then don't buy it, and don't steal it either. It really is that simple.

Originally posted by stcanard
This is probably O/T for the forum, but...

The whole problem is that they're not taking a risk.

99% of the time they're trying to sign artists that are a copycat of the current "hit" rather than taking the risk they're supposed to of signing new bands that may become the next big thing.

That's irrelevant. A vast minority of them succeed. Therefore, it's still a risk to sign any one artist.

[stcanard]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That's irrelevant. A vast minority of them succeed. Therefore, it's still a risk to sign any one artist.

Not irrelevant. You're saying we should support the RIAA because they support new music.

Fact is, they dont' support new music. They support copying music [by trying to sign artists that sound like everyone else]

When the major labels start signing new artists, I'll support them. Right now they support copycats and therefore are not taking the risk. That is being pushed off to the indie labels, the biggest risk the major labels are taking is the bidding war on established indie artists.

Name ten artists from major labels in the last five years that have truly original sounds.

My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton

Looking at them I realize they all pioneered sounds. Not a single one started on a major label. I guess that's an accident of my taste; that's my top ten artists right now. Give me that.

Sony records or whatever is not taking that risk. Risk vs. reward that's what I want to see, and that's not what we're getting from RIAA supported sources.

[Eric_Z]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Are they really overpricing CD's?

Just as a little example, nine years ago here in Sweden a new CD cost about 99SEK.
Over that nine year period the inflation here in Sweden fluctuated around 2-3%,
so doing a little math we get 99*(1.03^10)= 133SEK = (rounding up) 139SEK

Here I've rounded up the time to ten years, using 3% inflation in the equation,
rounded up the end price and dissregarding the fact that the price of making(pressing/burning what ever it's called) a CD has fallen.
So that any "hidden" cost increases are covered plus leaving room for a little increase in profit per sold CD.

So what's the current price for a new CD sold here in Sweden? 200SEK Sometimes more, that's 50% more then my "prediction" above.
Now I know that record labels does not run a charety service, but this is just plain silly.

Spelling

[gekko513]

Originally posted by Eple
How much of the network does this librarysharing use, because on our school the teachers are totally against it because they say it uses way to much of the airport network. And are the airport stations like switches, because then a transfer from one computer to another one shouldn't really mean anything on overall network bendwith.

Unfortunately the airport network works like a hub, so yes, transfer from one computer to another eats bandwidth from all computers on the same network.

[gekko513]

Originally posted by Eric_Z
Just as a little example, nine years ago here in Sweden a new CD cost about 99SEK.
Over that nine year period the inflation here in Sweden has been fluctuating around 2-3%,
so doing a little math we get 99*(1.03^10)= 133SEK = (rounding up) 139SEK

Here I've rounded up the time to ten years, using 3% inflation in the equation,
rounded up the end price and dissregarding the fact that the price of making(pressing/burning what ever it's called) a CD has fallen.
So that any "hidden" cost increases are covered plus leaving room for a little increase in profit per sold CD.

So what's the current price for a new CD sold here in Sweden, 200SEK sometimes more, that's 50% more then my "prediction" above.
Now I know that record labels don't run a charety service, but this is just plain silly.

Maybe the record companies in Europe have gotten so used to this huge profit, and that's the reason why we don't have the Music Store here yet.

[zim]

Originally posted by flipflash77
I guess you could see it that way. It certainly doesn't make it as seemless as we'd all like. But you can't really fault Steve on this one, it's still the RIAA and the demands of the labels to limit how much we can share. You can always point them to iTMS to listen to the 30-second preview...

How hard do you think it would be to reverse it? Does apple have some universal control over our usage of our iTMS files? could they, assuming the RIAA grants, alter and open up the license with one single click or would every file need to be reconfigured.

I personally feel that there would be no harm and letting local networks share purchased music in this fashion, it is not going to harm anyone it may even boost apple iTMS sales.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by stcanard
Not irrelevant. You're saying we should support the RIAA because they support new music.

No I'm not.

I'm saying the RIAA prices music as they do to cover the costs of signing artists who only end up losing money. I am further saying that this is a legitimate reason for pricing music as they do, and if you don't like it, you can buy from independents. But stealing from the RIAA isn't justified.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
No I'm not.

I'm saying the RIAA prices music as they do to cover the costs of signing artists who only end up losing money. I am further saying that this is a legitimate reason for pricing music as they do, and if you don't like it, you can buy from independents. But stealing from the RIAA isn't justified.

You argument fails to clarify what joe consumer should do if he happens to like an artist that uses a major label. I don't see ignoring this artist as an option. The problem that I have is with the major labels and the RIAA, and the way they overprice their CD's. I do have a problem with them choosing for me what is popular. If this is a losing venture for them, stop overpromoting crappy artists and stop making good artists suffer from overcharging for their CD's.

I think we see the major record labels in a fundamentally different way. You see them as taking risks on new, up-and-coming artists. I see them sinking millions into bands they create and spoonfeed them to the masses. Obviously, the latter takes a lot of money. I don't want to pay for this. I'd venture to guess that other good artists on the label don't want that built in to the price of their CD either.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that the record industry is an extremely lucrative business. That said, you're fooling yourself if you don't think that they could be charging $10 a CD and still be making a healthy profit. If you think that they are losing money at $10 a CD, I'm not sure we're having the same convesation.

[arn]

Originally posted by greenstork
So does this product from Andromeda (http://www.turnstyle.com/andromeda/osx.asp). They must have figured out how to tap into the very same thing that the iPod does to decode.

I'm speculating, but maybe the iPod creates a stream and then interprets that data to analog for listening.

edit: Nicecast (http://www.rogueamoeba.com/nicecast/) will stream protected stuff too.

Those two products reside on the Mac. 1) Any application on that Mac has access to Quicktime which provides decoded streams. iMovie, etc... all play encrypted songs too, presumably by the same API.

2) Nicecast may just snag the raw decoded stream... in which case iTunes already decoded it.

Regardless, Nicecast can't play protected AAC files on computers that aren't authorized.

The songs on the iPod are transfered in the AAC format... so they are still encrypted. Somehow - every iPod is authorized. It's a different situation.

arn

[Dahl]

Originally posted by stcanard
Not irrelevant. You're saying we should support the RIAA because they support new music.

Fact is, they dont' support new music. They support copying music [by trying to sign artists that sound like everyone else]

When the major labels start signing new artists, I'll support them. Right now they support copycats and therefore are not taking the risk. That is being pushed off to the indie labels, the biggest risk the major labels are taking is the bidding war on established indie artists.

Name ten artists from major labels in the last five years that have truly original sounds.

My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton

Looking at them I realize they all pioneered sounds. Not a single one started on a major label. I guess that's an accident of my taste; that's my top ten artists right now. Give me that.

Sony records or whatever is not taking that risk. Risk vs. reward that's what I want to see, and that's not what we're getting from RIAA supported sources.
I haven't read the whole thread and I probably should.
I think there's a bit of "barking up the wrong tree" thing going here.

There are a lot of great music on major labels, so it's not the labels not putting out great albums. It's the media, that needs to wake up. MTV and Clear Channel hold so much power and they couldn't care less about good music or not. If they changed their playlists a bit, sales of different albums would probably change along with it.

btw. There is a difference between a band putting out an EP to test the waters before going to a major and a band who only can live in "an indie world ". Beastie Boys, MofM and Rage all started on major labels, ok B Boys had an EP or something, but it's not like they didn't want a major label deal.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by greenstork
You argument fails to clarify what joe consumer should do if he happens to like an artist that uses a major label.

If he likes the artist enough to pay the "inflated" price, if that artist's music is worth $14 an album or $.99 a song on iTMS, then he's not victimized by choosing to buy the music.

Originally posted by greenstork
The problem that I have is with the major labels and the RIAA, and the way they overprice their CD's. I do have a problem with them choosing for me what is popular.

Do you have enough of a problem with it that you're willing to give up RIAA music in order to stop them?

Originally posted by greenstork
I think we see the major record labels in a fundamentally different way. You see them as taking risks on new, up-and-coming artists. I see them sinking millions into bands they create and spoonfeed them to the masses. Obviously, the latter takes a lot of money.

They are taking risks. The vast majority of artists that are signed by a major label fail to make a profit. They lose money on them. In order to make a profit, the record labels need to make enough money on successful artists to make up for their losses signing losing artists.

Originally posted by greenstork
I don't want to pay for this. I'd venture to guess that other good artists on the label don't want that built in to the price of their CD either.

It's not like someone put a gun to their head and forced them to sign with the label. They agreed to it, and if you buy music from the RIAA, you're agreeing to it too.

Originally posted by greenstork
However, there is no doubt in my mind that the record industry is an extremely lucrative business. That said, you're fooling yourself if you don't think that they could be charging $10 a CD and still be making a healthy profit. If you think that they are losing money at $10 a CD, I'm not sure we're having the same convesation.

I don't know if they would be losing money at $10 a CD. And, for that matter, unless you've analyzed their SEC filings, you don't know either.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by stcanard
Name ten artists from major labels in the last five years that have truly original sounds.

You don't *have* to have an original sound to be a good artist.

Originally posted by stcanard
My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton

Looking at them I realize they all pioneered sounds. Not a single one started on a major label.

Rage Against The Machine pioneered an original sound, if you count rapping repetitive lyrics over a guitar and drum loop and screaming the title of the song as the refrain to be a "sound". It's an original sound, but it's not that great. I would rather listen to someone else's music that may not be an original sound, but at least it's good.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by stcanard

My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton


Maybe you should focus part of your anger at your favorite artists for signing with major labels in the first place. Do they not understand the evils of the recording industry as well as you do? The fact is, they are happy to participate in this 'corrupt' system in exchange for the opportunity to get RICH and FAMOUS beyond their wildest dreams (an opportunity the independent labels can't really offer).

There are a lot of greedy people in the record industry... and they're not all executives.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by arn
Those two products reside on the Mac. 1) Any application on that Mac has access to Quicktime which provides decoded streams. iMovie, etc... all play encrypted songs too, presumably by the same API.

2) Nicecast may just snag the raw decoded stream... in which case iTunes already decoded it.

Regardless, Nicecast can't play protected AAC files on computers that aren't authorized.

The songs on the iPod are transfered in the AAC format... so they are still encrypted. Somehow - every iPod is authorized. It's a different situation.

arn

arn, good insight, thank you.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Flowbee
Maybe you should focus part of your anger at your favorite artists for signing with major labels in the first place. Do they not understand the evils of the recording industry as well as you do? The fact is, they are happy to participate in this 'corrupt' system in exchange for the opportunity to get RICH and FAMOUS beyond their wildest dreams (an opportunity the independent labels can't really offer).

There are a lot of greedy people in the record industry... and they're not all executives.

I'm with you part of the way on this Flowbee but I can't really fault an artist for signing with the big label. I think it's often a choice between big paycheck vs nothing at all. In other words, I don't think indy labels and big record labels line up for artists. I think the choice is often record deal with a big label or no record deal at all.