PDA

View Full Version : 10 Reasons I won't use iTMS




oban14
Apr 2, 2008, 05:18 PM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it.

02 - A lot of music fans are happy to go and hunt down CDs at the cheapest prices possible which ultimately means it costs less for a CD than it does buying the tracks individually on iTunes. Get used to it.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to buy their music on CD (even vinyl) to get what they believe is the best reproduction of that music on their hifi equipment rather than paying for lossy downloads. Get used to it.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs excellent value for money. This is because they are discerning people who may break the law occasionally by downloading an album from BitTorrent or Usenet but ultimately buy the album if it is good. This means they never buy a bad CD meaning they are very pleased with CDs as a product and are more likely to go buy even more of them. Get used to it.

05 - Not all albums have only one or two good tracks on them. If you consider this justification for buying music track-by-track then knock yourselves out. However, by diligent selection, it is entirely possible to find wholly excellent albums that will keep you listening from start to finish. Get used to it.

06 - A lot of music fans are not politicians. If Sony, EMI or one of the big record companies release a good album, they will go buy it and enjoy it. They will possibly also go check out the product of small independent labels. If they are kept satisfied by good music and enough of it, they really don't care who marketed it. Get used to it.

07 - A lot of music fans feel they get more for their money by getting a plastic case, disk and some sleevenotes to read on the toilet rather than downloading it. Get used to it.

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves have ripped from their own collections as a matter of portability and convenience and never once go anywhere near iTunes. Get used to it.

09 - A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves because the former end up subsidising the latter by virtue of what they buy. Get used to it.

10 - By virtue of being a CD-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating DRM and DRM-peddlars like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.
:cool:



Eraserhead
Apr 2, 2008, 05:20 PM
^^ Fine, but 4 billion+ songs sold can't be completely wrong.

oban14
Apr 2, 2008, 05:23 PM
^^ Fine, but 4 billion+ songs sold can't be completely wrong.

Obviously. I suppose I'd consider iTMS under a few conditions:

1) Choice of format and bit rate, preferably FLAC but 320 MP3s would be okay.
2) Absolutely no DRM.
3) Cut the prices in half.
4) You buy the rights to the song - if your collection gets wiped out, you can re-download all the songs for free. You can also transfer (sell) ownership rights of these songs to someone else.

dsnort
Apr 2, 2008, 05:24 PM
Just kidding. Go ahead, express yourself! :)

joefinan
Apr 2, 2008, 05:24 PM
Then don't use iTunes Music Store and stop moaning about it.

My Mum always said "If you've got nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all."

basesloaded190
Apr 2, 2008, 05:27 PM
Just kidding. Go ahead, express yourself! :)

no i totally agree, im not joking, who cares, don't use it, they aren't going to shut it down cuz you don't shop there

xUKHCx
Apr 2, 2008, 05:29 PM
1. you can buy full albums on iTunes

2. convenience is also good. I'd rather pay £1 extra than spend my time walking to lots of music stores checking the prices.

3. Fair point but i doubt it will be long before lossless downloads are offered.

4. hardly a reason and "A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves" :rolleyes:

5. So you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. i.e. missing out on those two good tracks just because the album on the whole is rubbish. :rolleyes:

6. There are lots of independents on iTunes last time I checked.

7. fair point

8. I don't see how this is related to iTMS.

9. I don't see how this is related to iTMS.

10. Remember the Sony rootkit on CDs :rolleyes:. Also there is a movement towards non DRM in this field.

get used to it :rolleyes:

decksnap
Apr 2, 2008, 05:34 PM
Why does get used to it every sentence get used to it have to say get used to it get used to it at the get used to it end? I don't think anyone has to get used to or will notice you not using itms.

oban14
Apr 2, 2008, 05:38 PM
1. you can buy full albums on iTunes

2. convenience is also good. I'd rather pay £1 extra than spend my time walking to lots of music stores checking the prices.

3. Fair point but i doubt it will be long before lossless downloads are offered.

4. hardly a reason and "A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves" :rolleyes:

5. So you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. i.e. missing out on those two good tracks just because the album on the whole is rubbish. :rolleyes:

6. There are lots of independents on iTunes last time I checked.

7. fair point

8. I don't see how this is related to iTMS.

9. I don't see how this is related to iTMS.

10. Remember the Sony rootkit on CDs :rolleyes:. Also there is a movement towards non DRM in this field.

get used to it :rolleyes:

1. Can I sell them to someone else? What happens if my hard drive dies, can I just download them all over again? Is the quality as good as a CD?

If the answer to the above questions are all "no", we don't really need to go further. But hey, I'll humour you.

2. I buy 90% of my CDs online. half.com is just as easy as anything else online.

3. When lossless, uncrippled downloads are offered, I'll consider changing my point of view.

4. Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone downloading an album off of bittorrent or anywhere else, provided they delete it if they don't like it and buy it if they keep it. That's a moral call, though, and I know the law says differently in many countries.

5. I can still buy CD singles at a much cheaper price. I typically pay anywhere from 1.00 to 6.00 per album. Add a few bucks for shipping and it's still just as cheap... with all of these benefits:

1) No DRM
2) I can sell, lend, do whatever I want with it. I own it.
3) Rip into any quality and format I require.

6. There are even more independents NOT on iTunes.

7. Glad we can finally agree. ;)

8. The point is that you do not need iTunes... and iTunes can in fact be quite restrictive if you wanted to own an MP3 player with better sound quality than an iPod, for example.

9. You might be right. :o

10. The sony rootkit didn't hurt my mac much at all... how about yours? Again, if they get rid of the DRM and meet my other requirements I'll happily change my "tune", so to speak. :cool:

vanmacguy
Apr 2, 2008, 05:38 PM
I'm very happy that you're not using iTMS.

Get used to it.

dsnort
Apr 2, 2008, 05:43 PM
Why does get used to it every sentence get used to it have to say get used to it get used to it at the get used to it end? I don't think anyone has to get used to or will notice you not using itms.

I didn't read his post, didn't even notice that. It is sort of obnoxious. Kind of like those people that state their opinion, with no supporting fact, then qualify it all with "End of story". WTF, that doesn't even work in Philadelphia!

xUKHCx
Apr 2, 2008, 05:48 PM
1. Granted but as I said it is shifting towards high bit rates. The ability to sell them on is not something I had previously considered and as fair point.

2. Instant gratification is also a factor rather than having to wait for it to arrive but yes you can get it cheaper elsewhere but then again that arguement can also be levelled at amazon or any other retailer that is more expensive than the place you buy it from.

3. Thats what we all want

4. Have you considered that by downloading of bit torrent (even if you later delete it and buy the album) you are actually supporting those that wont because it uploads as well.

5. Pricing again refer to point 2 but the other benefits are good. You can burn the purchases though quite easily

6. Yes that is true but you seemed to suggest that only the big labels are on iTunes which isn't true.

7. yes

8. But not using iTunes is different to not using iTMS so it can not be a reason as to why you are not using iTMS.

9. yes

10. It didn't hurt my mac, but then again neither does the DRM and that isn't the point. DRM is less of a problem than some of the things that go one out there and the sony rootkit on CDs was actually very bad and worse than a little bit of DRM.

1. Can I sell them to someone else? What happens if my hard drive dies, can I just download them all over again? Is the quality as good as a CD?

If the answer to the above questions are all "no", we don't really need to go further. But hey, I'll humour you.

2. I buy 90% of my CDs online. half.com is just as easy as anything else online.

3. When lossless, uncrippled downloads are offered, I'll consider changing my point of view.

4. Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone downloading an album off of bittorrent or anywhere else, provided they delete it if they don't like it and buy it if they keep it. That's a moral call, though, and I know the law says differently in many countries.

5. I can still buy CD singles at a much cheaper price. I typically pay anywhere from 1.00 to 6.00 per album. Add a few bucks for shipping and it's still just as cheap... with all of these benefits:

1) No DRM
2) I can sell, lend, do whatever I want with it. I own it.
3) Rip into any quality and format I require.

6. There are even more independents NOT on iTunes.

7. Glad we can finally agree. ;)

8. The point is that you do not need iTunes... and iTunes can in fact be quite restrictive if you wanted to own an MP3 player with better sound quality than an iPod, for example.

9. You might be right. :o

10. The sony rootkit didn't hurt my mac much at all... how about yours? Again, if they get rid of the DRM and meet my other requirements I'll happily change my "tune", so to speak. :cool:

ezekielrage_99
Apr 2, 2008, 05:50 PM
Starting each point with a broad generalisation "A lot of music fans" and ending it "Get used to it" doesn't really add anything to the credibility of each point.

Phil A.
Apr 2, 2008, 05:52 PM
I've bought all my music from iTMS since it was available in the UK. I've found some albums are cheaper than CD, and some are more expensive but not significantly, and certainly not to the extent it makes a difference.
iTMS has opened my eyes to many new artists through the "recommendations" on there, and has been a completely hassle-free experience.
I don't understand your problem with not being able to re-download if your machine goes wrong: simply back up your music! If you buy a CD and damage it / lose it, you don't expect to be able to go back to the store and pick another one up, do you?
Also, what's the problem with DRM? Is it a practical or "moral" objection? Personally, I've never found it a problem at all, and if I wanted to move away from the iPod family, I can simply burn my music to audio CDs and re-rip them.
I guess it's horses for courses: get used to it ;)

andiwm2003
Apr 2, 2008, 06:16 PM
all of your points are valid. or at least a absolutey understandable personal choice (like reading album inserts on the toilet). i just don't get the "get used to it" thing. nobody is against your point of view. no reason to defend your point of view. so what is the point anyway:confused:

theBB
Apr 2, 2008, 06:17 PM
1. What happens if my hard drive dies, can I just download them all over again?
What happens if your CD gets scratched or lost, do the retailers give you another one?

Yes, it would be nice if Apple has offered a re-download option, but compared to CDs, the current situation is no worse.

northy124
Apr 2, 2008, 06:18 PM
@OP WTF is Get used to it. For it's kind of annoying.

BTW what are you basing your comments on about "everyone else" doing this and that. Where are the facts that most people do that. Who cares if you like CD more than iTunes, Personally I like iTunes More than CD for simplicity.

My 2¢

Northy

BornAgainMac
Apr 2, 2008, 06:20 PM
This is nothing wrong with NOT using iTMS. The original iTunes didn't have a music store section and Apple encouraged users to rip CDs in their ads.

Isn't it cool that you can preview music and discover new music and music that you are looking for on iTMS and then go out and buy the CD for less without DRM?

GoCubsGo
Apr 2, 2008, 06:31 PM
I think what is worse is that you wrote "get used to it" after every sentence. I for one am used to it and I couldn't care less what your issues are. You say "a lot of music fans" really? Who? Am I less of a fan because I use iTunes? Don't answer that because your opinion doesn't actually matter to me. get used to it.

I think you're misguided but if you want to buy CDs then buy CDs. I still buy DVDs but I don't bother telling people why I don't make liberal use of iTunes movie downloads. I just get used to it.

zap2
Apr 2, 2008, 06:34 PM
Ok, I'm used to it....


But I'll still use iTMS..soooo, you can buy from the store, and I'll use iTunes, and everyone is happy, right?

worriedmac
Apr 2, 2008, 06:34 PM
mp3 files are horrible sound quality unless you use a bit rate over 300.

psychofreak
Apr 2, 2008, 06:35 PM
mp3 files are horrible sound quality unless you use a bit rate over 300.
Most people can't tell, in fact most people's headphones aren't good enough to distinguish.

basesloaded190
Apr 2, 2008, 06:36 PM
Ok, I'm used to it....


But I'll still use iTMS..soooo, you can buy from the store, and I'll use iTunes, and everyone is happy, right?

im still happy, if i want it to be better quality i convert it to lossless which i prefer anyways

Killyp
Apr 2, 2008, 06:37 PM
mp3 files are horrible sound quality unless you use a bit rate over 300.

A good reason to use AAC, which sounds acceptable from 224k upwards...

worriedmac
Apr 2, 2008, 06:41 PM
I do like finding the drm free stuff on itunes. I prefer that to CD's and I never touch mp3's anymore. I only really like to buy CD's that have a different case than the usual plastic ones. The Gotan Project for instance. Meh buy whatever takes your fancy in the end.

GimmeSlack12
Apr 2, 2008, 06:42 PM
A lot of music fans ....

I thought this list was about you, not a generalization of people who you think think like you.
But as others have said, whatever. I don't use the iTMS because I find it easier to pirate music.

skubish
Apr 2, 2008, 06:54 PM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it.

02 - A lot of music fans are happy to go and hunt down CDs at the cheapest prices possible which ultimately means it costs less for a CD than it does buying the tracks individually on iTunes. Get used to it.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to buy their music on CD (even vinyl) to get what they believe is the best reproduction of that music on their hifi equipment rather than paying for lossy downloads. Get used to it.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs excellent value for money. This is because they are discerning people who may break the law occasionally by downloading an album from BitTorrent or Usenet but ultimately buy the album if it is good. This means they never buy a bad CD meaning they are very pleased with CDs as a product and are more likely to go buy even more of them. Get used to it.

05 - Not all albums have only one or two good tracks on them. If you consider this justification for buying music track-by-track then knock yourselves out. However, by diligent selection, it is entirely possible to find wholly excellent albums that will keep you listening from start to finish. Get used to it.

06 - A lot of music fans are not politicians. If Sony, EMI or one of the big record companies release a good album, they will go buy it and enjoy it. They will possibly also go check out the product of small independent labels. If they are kept satisfied by good music and enough of it, they really don't care who marketed it. Get used to it.

07 - A lot of music fans feel they get more for their money by getting a plastic case, disk and some sleevenotes to read on the toilet rather than downloading it. Get used to it.

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves have ripped from their own collections as a matter of portability and convenience and never once go anywhere near iTunes. Get used to it.

09 - A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves because the former end up subsidising the latter by virtue of what they buy. Get used to it.

10 - By virtue of being a CD-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating DRM and DRM-peddlars like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.
:cool:
nobody cares. Get used to it.

Victor ch
Apr 2, 2008, 07:03 PM
For me its like this: Pros: -Can buy the single only, -DRMs (means no ONE can listen to my music unless I authorize it) -Songs are available 30secs (or less) after being bought. Cons: Low Bit-rate; AKA low quality (although 256 is OK) - Poor Electronic catalogue... and thats it.

Victor

aethelbert
Apr 2, 2008, 07:13 PM
Well, OP, now that I know why "a lot of music fans" don't want to use iTunes, can you tell me why you won't use it? You write in a very harsh tone, especially with your "get used to it" clause after every point. Nobody here is against your decision, yet you write like we're all out to get you. I don't care, and I don't think that anyone else does. Get used to it.

...

I don't use the iTMS because I find it easier to pirate music.
That's nice. Thanks for sharing your illegal actions on the internet.

northy124
Apr 2, 2008, 07:21 PM
@ akonradi Everyone does it, The pirating thing. But it's harder than buying the dam album:eek: i can't find the temptations album anywhere:(

mallbritton
Apr 2, 2008, 07:28 PM
"Everyone" does not pirate music. I don't.

Regards,
Michael

jmadlena
Apr 2, 2008, 07:39 PM
"Everyone" does not pirate music. I don't.

Regards,
Michael

Even if that were somehow true, it is still no justification. I freely admit that have done it in my (slightly) younger years, so I'm not judging anyone. But I'm starting to buy all of the music that I got from friends so it will be as square as I can get; since I can't give back the time I already listened to it.

aethelbert
Apr 2, 2008, 07:40 PM
@ akonradi Everyone does it, The pirating thing. But it's harder than buying the dam album:eek: i can't find the temptations album anywhere:(
Not everyone pirates music. I for sure don't. And if you can't find it illegally, why not try getting it in a legal manner...

jmadlena
Apr 2, 2008, 07:43 PM
And @ the OP, the only scenario in which your 'get used to it' rhetoric would be justified is if a poster before you made a harsh statement about people that don't use iTMS, and claimed that they better change.

Otherwise you just sound like a fool; which I believe is the case.

zap2
Apr 2, 2008, 07:47 PM
I don't use the iTMS because I find it easier to pirate music.

Really? Easier how?, I'm just curious, back when I did(which was with Napster so quite some time ago), things we're ugly....iTunes certainly has easy of use( over the old P2P stuff)...I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm looking for some detail

DCBass
Apr 2, 2008, 08:58 PM
Why am I even dignifying this obnoxious post with a reply?

Fine, don't use iTMS... I don't either... nobody else gives a darn.

wth was the point of all of this anyway, aside from regurgitating any complaints that came up on day one of the iTMS?

If one wanted to have a substantive discussion on iTMS, we could certainly argue for ways iTMS could be made better. In fact, I think I will do just that and hijack this thread.

How could Apple make iTMS better? I see a few ways:

1. At least match Amazon on record label deals... match their price and DRM across the board if not beat them.

2. Allow more social aspects. Though this has never been Apple's strong point, they can certainly allow for something more than album reviews and iMix. How about letting users create their own profiles for others to see, containing their purchases (if they wish to display that), what they recommend, what they've reviewed, etc.

3. Simplification... I think iTMS is getting a little too crowded visually. Perhaps a redesign is in order, though I have no clever ideas for this one.

4. Movies: Rent to Own; 30 - 36 hour rental period (why not do this with disney first? then get the others to do it...) HD quality for comp dl too.

Please, feel free to add your own ideas or add-on / criticize what I've listed.

Hijack is now in progress...

Victor ch
Apr 2, 2008, 09:15 PM
@ akonradi Everyone does it, The pirating thing. But it's harder than buying the dam album:eek: i can't find the temptations album anywhere:(

Emm not everybody does it... I've done, I won't deny it, but I do avoid it, why? Because the musician(s) should get the $ they deserve and because the quality of such pirated music is just terrible; AAC Lossless or AAC @ high kbps FTW.

Victor

c-Row
Apr 3, 2008, 02:32 AM
5. I can still buy CD singles at a much cheaper price.

Which is all fine for tracks that get released as a single, but pretty much useless for the others.

lofight
Apr 3, 2008, 02:40 AM
iTMS is a great service for a big market, get used to it.
I've just read somewhere that iTMS is the nr.1 music retailer.

LouisBlack
Apr 3, 2008, 04:36 AM
I actually stopped reading after point number 2 as the whole 'get used to it' was far too annoying.

However, I do half agree with the 2 points that I read. You really forget how good CDs sound after listening to MP3s for ages. But then again, it's soo much easier to just flick to the next album or song on iTunes than walk over to the bookshelf and grab a CD...

BornAgainMac
Apr 3, 2008, 07:08 AM
Apple is the #1 retailer in music in the U.S.
Get used to it.. lol

ataboc
Apr 3, 2008, 07:44 AM
im still happy, if i want it to be better quality i convert it to lossless which i prefer anyways

So you're saying you can convert a lossy file to lossless one??

How does one do this??

gtyper
Apr 3, 2008, 09:38 AM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it.

Then download the album rather than individual tracks. Most "albums" suck to the extreme ... and only two cuts are usually worth a dang.

The newest Raconteurs album is one of the rare instances when the whole album is good. Of course, I guess indie bands have a leg up on making good albums.

02 - A lot of music fans are happy to go and hunt down CDs at the cheapest prices possible which ultimately means it costs less for a CD than it does buying the tracks individually on iTunes. Get used to it.

They want to waste gas and buy non-recyclable CDs then all the power to them. I'd rather get mine in a format that has the lowest eco-footprint.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to buy their music on CD (even vinyl) to get what they believe is the best reproduction of that music on their hifi equipment rather than paying for lossy downloads. Get used to it.

That's an admonition on iTMS but there are such things as lossless audio rips. FLAC/ALE are just two examples. I have the vinyl 96-khz/24-bit "Icky Thump" playing right this second through iTunes.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs excellent value for money. This is because they are discerning people who may break the law occasionally by downloading an album from BitTorrent or Usenet but ultimately buy the album if it is good. This means they never buy a bad CD meaning they are very pleased with CDs as a product and are more likely to go buy even more of them. Get used to it.

Still doesn't eliminate the carbon imprint.

I prefer releases like In Rainbows by Radiohead or Flashbulb's Soundtrack to a Vacant Life. Provide me a lossless alternative to physical media and I'll happily buy it.

I don't think ANYONE finds CDs to be a wonderful or excellent value. I don't know one person who wouldn't prefer having all their music in lossless audio and own 0 cds.

05 - Not all albums have only one or two good tracks on them. If you consider this justification for buying music track-by-track then knock yourselves out. However, by diligent selection, it is entirely possible to find wholly excellent albums that will keep you listening from start to finish. Get used to it.

Isn't this the same topic as 1? It's cheating to have the same thing twice.

06 - A lot of music fans are not politicians. If Sony, EMI or one of the big record companies release a good album, they will go buy it and enjoy it. They will possibly also go check out the product of small independent labels. If they are kept satisfied by good music and enough of it, they really don't care who marketed it. Get used to it.

What does this have to do with iTMS? iTMS tends to have more indie artists than the local shops.

07 - A lot of music fans feel they get more for their money by getting a plastic case, disk and some sleevenotes to read on the toilet rather than downloading it. Get used to it.

Oh boy! Plastic!

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves have ripped from their own collections as a matter of portability and convenience and never once go anywhere near iTunes. Get used to it.

Okay. A lot don't. So?

09 - A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves because the former end up subsidising the latter by virtue of what they buy. Get used to it.

Actually, the cost of CDs has dropped rather than increased since their inception.

The manufacturing cost of and printing of a CD is negligible. Transport and marketing is the cost. Why not remove it altogether and offer a digital lossless solution at a fraction of the cost?

Could anyone really say no to a $5 lossless recording?

10 - By virtue of being a CD-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating DRM and DRM-peddlars like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.

I don't know one person, iTMS or music-hack, that likes DRM. This argument is pointless.


I guess I don't get your whole point. I don't use iTMS because they don't offer lossless audio recordings. I don't purchase CDs typically because they are a rip-off and have such a negative eco-footprint.

I prefer a lossless digital solution for the sake of simplicity, organization and heaven forbid ... the environment. Get used to it.

So you're saying you can convert a lossy file to lossless one??

How does one do this??

No, you cannot. Once a lossy format has been used on a track, the file created will permanently be "lossy". It only has the chance of becoming "lossier" through transcoding (taking the same file and converting it to another lossy/lossless format).

You'll never get the missing sound or quality unless you re-rip the album and start from scratch.

Emm not everybody does it... I've done, I won't deny it, but I do avoid it, why? Because the musician(s) should get the $ they deserve

Then you might as well not buy CDs. As just one example:
Courtney Love Speaks Out (2000) (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html)

It's an older article, but the first one I found. Artists don't see a dime. It's why I won't support the CD industry. BUT -- I will purchase directly from the artist when they have digital copies available even when I'm not a huge fan. (examples: Flashbulb, Barenaked Ladies, Radiohead, Raconteurs)

the quality of such pirated music is just terrible; AAC Lossless or AAC @ high kbps FTW.

You just use the wrong pirates. Not that I'm advocating their cause ... but you can get pristine copies of MFSL/DCC and some rarer 1st pressing from other countries that put the American CD version to shame. You can also get vinyl copies, with range and heart to die for .... to think that digital piracy is somehow inferior is crazy.

oban14
Apr 3, 2008, 09:54 AM
I don't know one person, iTMS or music-hack, that likes DRM. This argument is pointless.


I guess I don't get your whole point. I don't use iTMS because they don't offer lossless audio recordings. I don't purchase CDs typically because they are a rip-off and have such a negative eco-footprint.

I prefer a lossless digital solution for the sake of simplicity, organization and heaven forbid ... the environment. Get used to it.

If no one likes DRM, why has iTunes sold over 4 billion songs? I think anyone opposed to DRM who still buys music through iTunes is an utter hypocrite; it just sends the wrong message to Apple and the music industry.

It's sad that so many people are willing to settle for mediocrity. I won't listen to an MP3 below 320.

yotoad
Apr 3, 2008, 11:36 AM
just use www.amazonmp3.com or buy CDs and rip them then

northy124
Apr 3, 2008, 12:38 PM
If no one likes DRM, why has iTunes sold over 4 billion songs? I think anyone opposed to DRM who still buys music through iTunes is an utter hypocrite; it just sends the wrong message to Apple and the music industry.

It's sad that so many people are willing to settle for mediocrity. I won't listen to an MP3 below 320.

Most people that use iTMS probably have iPods/iPhones etc etc so they don't care about DRM. Get Used To It.

Most headphones (Well most standard cheap headphones that everyone buys) can't handle some bitrates and stuff. Get Used To It.

:apple:

QuarterSwede
Apr 3, 2008, 01:08 PM
If no one likes DRM, why has iTunes sold over 4 billion songs? I think anyone opposed to DRM who still buys music through iTunes is an utter hypocrite; it just sends the wrong message to Apple and the music industry.

It's sad that so many people are willing to settle for mediocrity. I won't listen to an MP3 below 320.
Apple knows people don't like DRM because they now offer DRM free music and people are buying it. You'd be hard pressed to hear any difference between a 256kbps iTMS AAC file and the actual CD. And you definitely won't hear a difference while driving your car (where a lot of people listen to most of their music) or when in your house when the HVAC is on.

LeahM
Apr 3, 2008, 01:45 PM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it.

02 - A lot of music fans are happy to go and hunt down CDs at the cheapest prices possible which ultimately means it costs less for a CD than it does buying the tracks individually on iTunes. Get used to it.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to buy their music on CD (even vinyl) to get what they believe is the best reproduction of that music on their hifi equipment rather than paying for lossy downloads. Get used to it.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs excellent value for money. This is because they are discerning people who may break the law occasionally by downloading an album from BitTorrent or Usenet but ultimately buy the album if it is good. This means they never buy a bad CD meaning they are very pleased with CDs as a product and are more likely to go buy even more of them. Get used to it.

05 - Not all albums have only one or two good tracks on them. If you consider this justification for buying music track-by-track then knock yourselves out. However, by diligent selection, it is entirely possible to find wholly excellent albums that will keep you listening from start to finish. Get used to it.

06 - A lot of music fans are not politicians. If Sony, EMI or one of the big record companies release a good album, they will go buy it and enjoy it. They will possibly also go check out the product of small independent labels. If they are kept satisfied by good music and enough of it, they really don't care who marketed it. Get used to it.

07 - A lot of music fans feel they get more for their money by getting a plastic case, disk and some sleevenotes to read on the toilet rather than downloading it. Get used to it.

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves have ripped from their own collections as a matter of portability and convenience and never once go anywhere near iTunes. Get used to it.

09 - A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves because the former end up subsidising the latter by virtue of what they buy. Get used to it.

10 - By virtue of being a CD-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating DRM and DRM-peddlars like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.
:cool:

01- a lot of music on itunes is available as an entire album. Get used to it.

02 - A lot of music is available on itunes is pretty cheap, 9.99 for an entire album is a deal, especially in major cities, even in my little city. Get used to it.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to keep their CD’s & Vinyl’s in MINT condition by not even opening the wrapper. Pay another 20 for a collectors cd? Nah, 9.99 for me, Itunes. Get used to it.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs cheap and scratch too easily. So they load it on their computer, put it on their ipod and then forget they had it and step on it. Get used to it.

05 – Not all albums are great. A lot of them suck. If you like 1 or 2, heck maybe 3 tracks, the artist makes more by selling each for $1 a piece then they do if someone just stole it off the net. Get used to it.

06 – WTF? Your obviously not going to find your neighbours band on itunes, you going to have to buy their album anyway. Plus its good coverage if/when they do get put onto itunes (ever see the little, we recommend this/users also liked this band/song). Get used to it.

07 - A lot of music fans feel are wasting all that paper and plastic that they throw out because who really wants another crotch shot of Miss Spears? Get used to it.

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves cannot find in their local music stores, heck some don’t even have music stores, who wants to buy from walmart? Not I. Get used to it.

09 - A lot of CD-buying music are sick of buying a CD and not liking it, they have become modern and bought from Itunes, with no regret. Music companies are still thriving. Get used to it.

10 - By virtue of being a Itunes-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating people who all they do is complain about music mediums like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.

1. Can I sell them to someone else? What happens if my hard drive dies, can I just download them all over again? Is the quality as good as a CD?

If the answer to the above questions are all "no", we don't really need to go further. But hey, I'll humour you.

if you have all your music on your ipod, then you can transfer purchases, I've done it, my pc crashed and I was lucky enough to still have my ipod.

Also if I'm not mistaken, isn't it illegal to sell the CD after you've been finished with it?

Oh yea: Get used to it. hehe

QuarterSwede
Apr 3, 2008, 01:59 PM
Also if I'm not mistaken, isn't it illegal to sell the CD after you've been finished with it?
Not unless you keep a copy of it.

Sky Blue
Apr 3, 2008, 02:04 PM
The OP is right here. It sucks that I had to sign a contract saying if I used iTunes I could never buy another CD again :(

MacNoobie
Apr 3, 2008, 02:07 PM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it.

02 - A lot of music fans are happy to go and hunt down CDs at the cheapest prices possible which ultimately means it costs less for a CD than it does buying the tracks individually on iTunes. Get used to it.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to buy their music on CD (even vinyl) to get what they believe is the best reproduction of that music on their hifi equipment rather than paying for lossy downloads. Get used to it.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs excellent value for money. This is because they are discerning people who may break the law occasionally by downloading an album from BitTorrent or Usenet but ultimately buy the album if it is good. This means they never buy a bad CD meaning they are very pleased with CDs as a product and are more likely to go buy even more of them. Get used to it.

05 - Not all albums have only one or two good tracks on them. If you consider this justification for buying music track-by-track then knock yourselves out. However, by diligent selection, it is entirely possible to find wholly excellent albums that will keep you listening from start to finish. Get used to it.

06 - A lot of music fans are not politicians. If Sony, EMI or one of the big record companies release a good album, they will go buy it and enjoy it. They will possibly also go check out the product of small independent labels. If they are kept satisfied by good music and enough of it, they really don't care who marketed it. Get used to it.

07 - A lot of music fans feel they get more for their money by getting a plastic case, disk and some sleevenotes to read on the toilet rather than downloading it. Get used to it.

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves have ripped from their own collections as a matter of portability and convenience and never once go anywhere near iTunes. Get used to it.

09 - A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves because the former end up subsidising the latter by virtue of what they buy. Get used to it.

10 - By virtue of being a CD-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating DRM and DRM-peddlars like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.
:cool:

Wow I'm not sure if I should be calling you grandpa or not seeing as how you sound like one of the aging hipsters that absolutely hates the "new" stuff because you feel its inferior to everything you had back in the day. Let me spell this out as best I can..

1. While people still like to buy whole albums these days its for the most part.. crap utter s*it and its the record companies job to fill the CD with the 10-15 tracks or so and give you 2-3 really good songs. Thats not to say they intentionally do it but to appease the masses with different songs that different people might like from a band. I absolutely despise purchasing whole albums knowing this fact and I do like the way that iTunes offers individual tracks that I like rather then be forced to pay the 10-20 bucks for crap I dont need.

2. LMFAO this is the kicker right here, yeah ok I dont see THAT many people rummaging around inside old vinyl shops looking for the best "deal" on a CD/Vinyl. If you cant afford it at lets say Wal-Mart and feel the need to "shop around" because its too pricey then you need to re-evaluate your financial situation from then on and shift focus.

3. *Sighs* here we go again not another reference to the old CD vs Vinyl wars where one side liked bit for bit reproduction of their music the other thought Vinyl had a "warmer" feel to their music. By the way if you were really that much of an audiophile and wanted the best possible medium to listen to your music on then you'd shop around for SACD's or the rare but obtainable music DVD formats which offer a lot better sound reproductions then Vinyl ever did. I'm sorry but I'm not clinging on to my old cassettes with the classics since these days companies do better jobs at restoring the classics.

4. LMFAO hahah CD's are pretty much the WORST deal you can find out there. I have yet to find a person that likes all lets say 12 tracks from their favorite band on every CD they own. For that reason alone the iTMS system works and it works well. Bittorrent and Usenets are mostly done by people that cannot afford what ever it is for downloading regardless if its some punk teenager trying to "stick it to the man", a college student that can barely afford tuition and housing but still want their music, or the occasional downloader that as you said wants to try and album, see if its any good and then if it is go buy it, if not then no money lost.

5. I dont see how this is a iTMS problem but uhh ok, fact is that if you're used to buying whole CD's and listening beginning to end then good for you but unfortunately at the MOST I've found maybe 5-8 tracks of a CD that I liked by my favorite band, on avg its 2-4 the rest I can put money elsewhere.

6. I dont care who markets the music honestly it depends on the artist and I personally wouldnt go lets say looking at music by the nettwerks label souly because my favorite band Delerium is on it, but to each their own.

7. Wow a valid point.. I agree I'd rather have a plastic case and an insert rather then some PDF file of an insert. Same goes for my games rather pay the extra $10 and get a tin case, a booklet and goodies I think anyone would we're a materialistic race.

8. Well theres tons of other software like Rhapsody's music player that will do the same thing as iTunes so what ever works for you.

9. Piracy is always going to be around, companies are always going to pass the buck onto the paying consumer thats just how business runs. I dont know how that relates to iTunes but...

10. I think Sony's rootkits are far worse then any DRM wrapper on a music file that Apple or any other company could place on their products. So as much as anyone wants to whine about how much DRM sucks (and I do applaud Apple for offering DRM free music) there's far worse out there that a company can put on a CD to mess up your computer. For me I'll stick with DRM over the latter (still want to be DRM free folks)

Cromulent
Apr 3, 2008, 02:20 PM
4) You buy the rights to the song - if your collection gets wiped out, you can re-download all the songs for free. You can also transfer (sell) ownership rights of these songs to someone else.

Haha, this made me laugh. Prepared to pay thousands if not millions of dollars per song for some artists then?

You don't buy the rights to a song when you buy a CD.

gtyper
Apr 3, 2008, 02:39 PM
If no one likes DRM, why has iTunes sold over 4 billion songs? I think anyone opposed to DRM who still buys music through iTunes is an utter hypocrite; it just sends the wrong message to Apple and the music industry.

It's sad that so many people are willing to settle for mediocrity. I won't listen to an MP3 below 320.

Well, DRM and <320-bitrate are two completely different arguments.

Argument 1) DRM.

People don't like the high price for gasoline, but they buy it anyhow because they need to get from point a to point b. Using this analogy for music, people buy the easiest thing to listen to music ... and that happens to be ITMS.

Argument 1) Low Quality.

While you or I may not like low quality, lossy encodes - the majority of people don't care. Need proof:
* Take a look at almost any CD's waveform and you'll see a lead brick that's pointed directly at your ears. Dynamic range has all but been crushed by studios looking for the biggest, loudest sound. The quality is being sacrificed so that things sound loud. But, people don't care.
* Look at what people listen to their music on. iPods with earbuds (even expensive ones) are incapable of truly playing the music to it's fullest. A decent encoded MP3 is more than enough for earbuds or computer speakers. Home theaters are the only place you really have need of lossless encodes and most people don't understand home theaters enough to get the most out of them.
* Finally: Look at the sales figures.

So, for me, iTMS isn't an option. Not until they offer me the ability to download lossless ALE/FLAC media and the studios allow them to readjust their cost points. The studios want to maximize a per sale profit and have neglected to realize in the case of digital media they would be better off reducing the per sale cost to a barebones number and make money through sheer volume of sales. They have no overhead in this universe, and they behave like dinosaurs. If they offered me $4-5 FLAC encoded albums ... I'd snap up releases almost as fast as I'd snatch up Eva Mendes.

FaasNat
Apr 4, 2008, 10:20 AM
What happens if your CD gets scratched or lost, do the retailers give you another one?

Yes, it would be nice if Apple has offered a re-download option, but compared to CDs, the current situation is no worse.
Maybe I missed it, but what was the OP's response to this?

oban14
Apr 4, 2008, 10:34 AM
Maybe I missed it, but what was the OP's response to this?

I was simply saying that IF I were to use iTunes, one thing that would strongly appeal to me would be the ability to re-download songs, albums, even my whole collection in the event of catastrophic hard drive failure, a house fire, or another issue.

No, if I lose a CD the record company won't send me another copy for free. But the advantage I have is that all my CDs are sitting on a shelf, and barring a house fire or theft, it won't ever be an issue. The only time I take them out of their cases is to rip them into a different format.

I've never had a house fire, I've never been robbed, and hopefully it'll never happen. That said, I've had a half dozen hard drives fail on me over the past 15 years or so. Sometimes I've lost MP3s, sometimes other data, sometimes nothing of consequence... but the fact remains that digital copies are incredibly limiting (particularly with DRM) as opposed to the freedom I have with CDs.

I have my CDs insured, and I suppose you can insure your digital library with an insurance company as well, though I've never tried. But on the surface, this "lifetime free replacement" would seem to be one of the killer abilities offered through digital distribution that isn't viable with CDs.

Well, DRM and <320-bitrate are two completely different arguments.

Argument 1) DRM.

People don't like the high price for gasoline, but they buy it anyhow because they need to get from point a to point b. Using this analogy for music, people buy the easiest thing to listen to music ... and that happens to be ITMS.

Argument 1) Low Quality.

While you or I may not like low quality, lossy encodes - the majority of people don't care. Need proof:
* Take a look at almost any CD's waveform and you'll see a lead brick that's pointed directly at your ears. Dynamic range has all but been crushed by studios looking for the biggest, loudest sound. The quality is being sacrificed so that things sound loud. But, people don't care.
* Look at what people listen to their music on. iPods with earbuds (even expensive ones) are incapable of truly playing the music to it's fullest. A decent encoded MP3 is more than enough for earbuds or computer speakers. Home theaters are the only place you really have need of lossless encodes and most people don't understand home theaters enough to get the most out of them.
* Finally: Look at the sales figures.

So, for me, iTMS isn't an option. Not until they offer me the ability to download lossless ALE/FLAC media and the studios allow them to readjust their cost points. The studios want to maximize a per sale profit and have neglected to realize in the case of digital media they would be better off reducing the per sale cost to a barebones number and make money through sheer volume of sales. They have no overhead in this universe, and they behave like dinosaurs. If they offered me $4-5 FLAC encoded albums ... I'd snap up releases almost as fast as I'd snatch up Eva Mendes.

My argument regarding DRM is simple: I won't buy it, and the more people who don't like it but buy it anyway are sending the wrong message to Apple and the industry.

As for headphones and sound quality, there are a few issues. Right now, MP3 is the standard. Maybe in 6 years, we'll have FLAC capable players. CDs give people the flexibility to rip as many times at any quality they want.

The iPod is arguably the worst sounding MP3 player out there. There are much better sounding ones by Cowon and other companies. I use an ipod myself, and the difference between listening the headphone out of my mac versus the ipod is very noticeable. I can absolutely hear the difference between a 320 MP3 and a 128 very easily with my headphones. Granted, I use studio level cans and most people may not hear a difference with those ear buds that come with the ipods... I strictly use those when working out, where fidelity really doesn't matter as much.

Regarding dynamics, there are some albums that are mixed very high but still offer an incredible range in sound and fidelity. Check out Dave Friedman's work on the recent Flaming Lips albums or the MGMT album for a good example of how you can go well into the red while maintaining a tantalizing array of sonic variation.

gtyper
Apr 4, 2008, 10:53 AM
My argument regarding DRM is simple: I won't buy it, and the more people who don't like it but buy it anyway are sending the wrong message to Apple and the industry.

That's fair. It's why I won't buy CDs and drive a hybrid and power my house through a renewable energy company. The almighty buck speaks volumes.

I'm not against that argument. I don't like DRM either and don't purchase items with it when I don't have to. One of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of current model music downloads.

As for headphones and sound quality, there are a few issues. Right now, MP3 is the standard. Maybe in 6 years, we'll have FLAC capable players. CDs give people the flexibility to rip as many times at any quality they want.

CDs give the flexibility to rip it as many times as you wish at any quality level and so do lossless audio files. So, the argument dies there. A lossless audio file is a far more technologically advanced codec compared to current CD wavforms.

Currently I use ALE (Apple Lossless) on my iPods and home stereo. I can convert it to any quality level I wish.

All a CD does is give me something physical that i have to store - and worst of all it's a non-recyclable material.

The iPod is arguably the worst sounding MP3 player out there.

You could make the argument and it'd be flawed. It may not be the "best sounding", and that's arguable ... but to argue it's one of the worst?

Regarding dynamics, there are some albums that are mixed very high but still offer an incredible range in sound and fidelity.

Not a chance. Once mixed loud, there is no chance for dynamics. If they master it loud, then they HAVE to equalize the instruments. The waveform is restricted.

You can mix/master hot, but not too hot and retain quality ... but currently that's not the case with studios simply because people don't care about audio quality. Most albums are mastered hot to be the "next loudest album".

I've never had a house fire, I've never been robbed, and hopefully it'll never happen. That said, I've had a half dozen hard drives fail on me over the past 15 years or so. Sometimes I've lost MP3s, sometimes other data, sometimes nothing of consequence... but the fact remains that digital copies are incredibly limiting (particularly with DRM) as opposed to the freedom I have with CDs.

That's a flawed argument considering most CDs have a shelf-life of 10-15 years. The aluminum layer oxidizes over time and degrade.

I have my CDs insured, and I suppose you can insure your digital library with an insurance company as well, though I've never tried.

Oh dear lord. That's a suckers bet. You know what an insurance company will give you for your lost CDs? About as much as I will.

They'll assess the age, degradation, depreciation and current market value of a used CD ... and give you around, ohhhhh, like a buck per CD.

oban14
Apr 4, 2008, 11:12 AM
That's fair. It's why I won't buy CDs and drive a hybrid and power my house through a renewable energy company. The almighty buck speaks volumes.

I'm not against that argument. I don't like DRM either and don't purchase items with it when I don't have to. One of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of current model music downloads.


Yeah, I always smirk when I see people driving a Prius. A car designed for those bad at math but great at sucking up marketing. ;)


CDs give the flexibility to rip it as many times as you wish at any quality level and so do lossless audio files. So, the argument dies there. A lossless audio file is a far more technologically advanced codec compared to current CD wavforms.

Currently I use ALE (Apple Lossless) on my iPods and home stereo. I can convert it to any quality level I wish.

All a CD does is give me something physical that i have to store - and worst of all it's a non-recyclable material.


To me, physically storing CDs is easy. I have over 500 sitting on a relatively small shelf leaning against a wall. It's a shame that they aren't recyclable, but computer components are hardly environmentally friendly as well, particularly when you factor in the energy required to run them.


You could make the argument and it'd be flawed. It may not be the "best sounding", and that's arguable ... but to argue it's one of the worst?


I'd make that argument, provided were talking "mainstream" devices. There are probably 100 China only mp3 players that don't sound as good as the ipod, but by and large the ipod's sound quality has been sacrificed for form, design, and interface... which I agree are all excellent.


Not a chance. Once mixed loud, there is no chance for dynamics. If they master it loud, then they HAVE to equalize the instruments. The waveform is restricted.

You can mix/master hot, but not too hot and retain quality ... but currently that's not the case with studios simply because people don't care about audio quality. Most albums are mastered hot to be the "next loudest album".

Like I said, try Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots or The Soft Bulletin with some good headphones and a decent player - you'll be surprised.

That's a flawed argument considering most CDs have a shelf-life of 10-15 years. The aluminum layer oxidizes over time and degrade.



I have some CDs from 1989 that work quite well... Haven't had one CD go bad on me yet. Quite a few CD-Rs have, though.



Oh dear lord. That's a suckers bet. You know what an insurance company will give you for your lost CDs? About as much as I will.

They'll assess the age, degradation, depreciation and current market value of a used CD ... and give you around, ohhhhh, like a buck per CD.

Hopefully I'll never find out. Our whole place is insured for a dollar amount and I don't think it would be hard to get it out of them... they supposedly cover replacement costs. I'm not looking to buy them all back at 18.98 plus tax but I'd expect at least 5-10 dollars a CD, which is all I pay for them anyway.

I've had great luck with insurance companies in the past, but it was all for car related stuff. Like I said, hopefully I'll never find out...

Nugget
Apr 4, 2008, 11:25 AM
That's a flawed argument considering most CDs have a shelf-life of 10-15 years. The aluminum layer oxidizes over time and degrade.

To mirror oban14's comment -- I've been buying CDs since 1985 and have yet to see one degrade.

roland.g
Apr 4, 2008, 01:37 PM
I have 7500+ songs in my iTunes library, 2/3s or more of which are in AAC format ripped from the CD at 160 or 192 which is considered the equivalent of 192 to 224 at mp3 compression. Of my library at most 300-350 songs are iTS purchases simply because I owned a lot of music before and I don't buy a lot now. When my favorite bands release new albums, I buy the CD to have it. For older stuff, radio hits, etc, I go iTS for ease and buying single tracks.

Most audiophiles agree that ripping lossless is a waste of HDD space because you really are incapable of hearing it. There might be some compromise with compression but it is slim to none. You are certainly getting as good a quality with an AAC rip compared to the actual CD, which honestly isn't the best dynamic physical format available, not by a longshot. And if your high end cans don't sound as good out of your iPod as they do plugged into your Mac, maybe something is wrong with your iPod.

If you really think that DRM, player choices, whole albums etc, are not worth buying. Then that's fine. Do what you want. But really. You're just kidding yourself. Get used to it.

oban14
Apr 4, 2008, 01:45 PM
I have 7500+ songs in my iTunes library, 2/3s or more of which are in AAC format ripped from the CD at 160 or 192 which is considered the equivalent of 192 to 224 at mp3 compression. Of my library at most 300-350 songs are iTS purchases simply because I owned a lot of music before and I don't buy a lot now. When my favorite bands release new albums, I buy the CD to have it. For older stuff, radio hits, etc, I go iTS for ease and buying single tracks.

Most audiophiles agree that ripping lossless is a waste of HDD space because you really are incapable of hearing it. There might be some compromise with compression but it is slim to none. You are certainly getting as good a quality with an AAC rip compared to the actual CD, which honestly isn't the best dynamic physical format available, not by a longshot. And if your high end cans don't sound as good out of your iPod as they do plugged into your Mac, maybe something is wrong with your iPod.

If you really think that DRM, player choices, whole albums etc, are not worth buying. Then that's fine. Do what you want. But really. You're just kidding yourself. Get used to it.

Maybe your ears aren't as well trained, but I can absolutely hear the difference. I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with my ipod - it is a well known fact that the ipod is designed to sacrifice sound quality for the benefit of design. They could put in better chips, but the nano wouldn't be quite so small, and the battery life probably wouldn't be as good.

If you own a decent set of headphones, try it yourself. Listen to a track on iTunes, and then listen to it on your ipod. If you can't hear the difference, discussing fidelity with you is pointless.

I'm not sure how convincing myself that DRM isn't worth buying is "just kidding myself". I don't buy DRM anything, and that's the end of the story. People who are willing to settle for mediocrity (in the form of low bit rates) and DRM should go right ahead.

I'm just amazed that so many apparently grown adults are willing to put up with the same limitations as 14 year old girls, which is really what the majority of the iTunes market place is all about.

roland.g
Apr 4, 2008, 01:55 PM
Maybe your ears aren't as well trained, but I can absolutely hear the difference. I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with my ipod - it is a well known fact that the ipod is designed to sacrifice sound quality for the benefit of design. They could put in better chips, but the nano wouldn't be quite so small, and the battery life probably wouldn't be as good.

If you own a decent set of headphones, try it yourself. Listen to a track on iTunes, and then listen to it on your ipod. If you can't hear the difference, discussing fidelity with you is pointless.

I'm not sure how convincing myself that DRM isn't worth buying is "just kidding myself". I don't buy DRM anything, and that's the end of the story. People who are willing to settle for mediocrity (in the form of low bit rates) and DRM should go right ahead.

I'm just amazed that so many apparently grown adults are willing to put up with the same limitations as 14 year old girls, which is really what the majority of the iTunes market place is all about.

I've been to too many rock concerts to hear the difference. But I did say audiophiles. Not me. It's an acoustic myth, do your research. Or hang out with your headphones. Either way, hmm... Get used to it.

LeahM
Apr 4, 2008, 02:03 PM
Maybe your ears aren't as well trained, but I can absolutely hear the difference. I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with my ipod - it is a well known fact that the ipod is designed to sacrifice sound quality for the benefit of design. They could put in better chips, but the nano wouldn't be quite so small, and the battery life probably wouldn't be as good.

If you own a decent set of headphones, try it yourself. Listen to a track on iTunes, and then listen to it on your ipod. If you can't hear the difference, discussing fidelity with you is pointless.

I'm not sure how convincing myself that DRM isn't worth buying is "just kidding myself". I don't buy DRM anything, and that's the end of the story. People who are willing to settle for mediocrity (in the form of low bit rates) and DRM should go right ahead.

I'm just amazed that so many apparently grown adults are willing to put up with the same limitations as 14 year old girls, which is really what the majority of the iTunes market place is all about.

So, if an ipod degrades the quality of the music, are you still carrying around your CD walkman? It seems you won't settle for anything 'mediocre'.

Also again, if your computer crashes (as mine has once) you can transfew purchases from your ipod. Your songs are not lost forever

roland.g
Apr 4, 2008, 02:07 PM
So, if an ipod degrades the quality of the music, are you still carrying around your CD walkman? It seems you won't settle for anything 'mediocre'.

Also again, if your computer crashes (as mine has once) you can transfew purchases from your ipod. Your songs are not lost forever

Added to which backup is prudent.

oban14
Apr 4, 2008, 02:07 PM
So, if an ipod degrades the quality of the music, are you still carrying around your CD walkman? It seems you won't settle for anything 'mediocre'.

Also again, if your computer crashes (as mine has once) you can transfew purchases from your ipod. Your songs are not lost forever

One ipod won't hold all of my music files, but yes, I suppose whatever I had loaded on there would be safe.

I do use an ipod nano. Depending on what I'm doing, different bit rates and headphones are acceptable. Ipod ear buds are fine if I'm going out for a run, and 128 MP3s are fine in that environment. I'm considering purchasing a Cowon, but there are many aspects of the ipod I prefer... sound just isn't one of them.

For the home theater system, 320 is an absolute minimum. I can hear artifacts (particularly around high hat/cymbal sounds) with anything less.

So in short, more than anything, I want freedom. On some systems I need the highest possible bit rate, and in others it's not a huge deal. But you just can't get that flexibility and quality from iTMS at the moment.

I've been to too many rock concerts to hear the difference. But I did say audiophiles. Not me. It's an acoustic myth, do your research. Or hang out with your headphones. Either way, hmm... Get used to it.

Like I said, I can hear artifacts quite clearly. Pick up some Audio Technica closed circumaural cans and these things will really jump out at you.

I think iTMS is ideal for a 15 year old girl, but again, I'm just surprised so many adults are willing to put up with its shortcomings.

LeahM
Apr 4, 2008, 02:26 PM
Like I said, I can hear artifacts quite clearly. Pick up some Audio Technica closed circumaural cans and these things will really jump out at you.

I think iTMS is ideal for a 15 year old girl, but again, I'm just surprised so many adults are willing to put up with its shortcomings.

Meh, quit whining. and get used to it.

northy124
Apr 4, 2008, 02:26 PM
I'm just surprised so many adults are willing to put up with its shortcomings.

Not everyone is like you can cares about sound, they care about listening to music on the move. And the sound would be affected if they are walking/jogging down a street.

Cameront9
Apr 4, 2008, 05:17 PM
Like I said, I can hear artifacts quite clearly. Pick up some Audio Technica closed circumaural cans and these things will really jump out at you.

I think iTMS is ideal for a 15 year old girl, but again, I'm just surprised so many adults are willing to put up with its shortcomings.

The iTunes store is designed to appeal to the widest possible range of people. You may be able to hear the difference, but many people cannot. Hearing is not the same in all people--some have more sensitive ears than others. I myself am hearing impaired and would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between 128kbs AAC and the original CD.

Just because people are adults does not mean they automatically make decisions the same way that you do, or value the same things. The fact is, for the majority of people, the bit rate offered in iTunes is enough. It's the best possible combination of space versus quality.

Also, keep in mind that iTunes Plus tracks are 256kbs AAC, without DRM. Again, most people would be hard pressed to tell you the difference between these tracks and the original CD. The average quality of hearing simply isn't that good. No, not everything is DRM free yet on the iTunes store, but I would wager the day is coming.

If you don't like the iTunes store, that's fine--no one is forcing you to use it and you can still buy CDs as long as they are physically made. But there is no reason to come here and lambast others for their decisions.

gtyper
Apr 4, 2008, 05:24 PM
Yeah, I always smirk when I see people driving a Prius. A car designed for those bad at math but great at sucking up marketing. ;)

Don't know how I'm bad at math.

I get 42 mpg which is everywheres better than the 16mpg I was getting in my InfinitiFX.

To me, physically storing CDs is easy. I have over 500 sitting on a relatively small shelf leaning against a wall. It's a shame that they aren't recyclable, but computer components are hardly environmentally friendly as well, particularly when you factor in the energy required to run them.

I have over 2800 Apple Lossless CDs sitting on a terabyte hard drive and room for more.

As for computer components, depends on what you do with them. When it comes to energy - not an issue when you use solar and wind. I don't feel one iota of guilt using renewable energy.

I'd make that argument, provided were talking "mainstream" devices.

I don't know enough about media players on the high end of the scale. If they sound better, I wouldn't know. I don't use an iPod to power speakers or anything outside of a pair of Shure earbuds.

Like I said, try Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots or The Soft Bulletin with some good headphones and a decent player - you'll be surprised.

Have 'em. Flaming Lips aren't my cup of tea. More my girlfriend's. She swears by them. But as far as hot albums go - it's not even a massively retarded hot mastering. It's loud, but not mastered loud.

I'd be interested in seeing the waveform. That's the only way of knowing. Of course, I've been listening to them for the length of this post and I'm getting a brick headache .... so maybe it is a bit loud.

I have some CDs from 1989 that work quite well... Haven't had one CD go bad on me yet. Quite a few CD-Rs have, though.

You should have some that last. The shelf life is only guaranteed for 10-15 years (although they'll tell you it's safe for 50-100 ... and it may be). To me though, it's a foolish concept.

I can't wait until I can get a failsafe 1TB flash option and not have to worry about moving parts and pieces crtapping out on me.

Hopefully I'll never find out. Our whole place is insured for a dollar amount and I don't think it would be hard to get it out of them... they supposedly cover replacement costs. I'm not looking to buy them all back at 18.98 plus tax but I'd expect at least 5-10 dollars a CD, which is all I pay for them anyway.

An insurance company's replacement cost and yours will typically vary.

I had a brand new (2 week old) laptop stolen from my brother's barracks in Hawai'i. I got 90% of the value of the laptop because they would only give me money to get a laptop "like" the one I had.

ataboc
Apr 5, 2008, 11:36 AM
Here's two articles I find interesting:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity


When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink, the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide.


[Currently Listening To: Music I Didn't Pay For]

For quite a long time I've been intending to post some sort of commentary on the music industry - piracy, distribution, morality, those types of things. I've thought about it many times, but never gone through with it, because the issue is such a broad, messy one - such a difficult thing to address fairly and compactly. I knew it would result in a rambly, unfocused commentary, and my exact opinion has teetered back and forth quite a bit over the years anyway. But on Monday, when I woke up to the news that Oink, the world famous torrent site and mecca for music-lovers everywhere, had been shut down by international police and various anti-piracy groups, I knew it was finally time to try and organize my thoughts on this huge, sticky, important issue.

For the past eight years, I've worked on and off with major record labels as a designer ("Major" is an important distinction here, because major labels are an entirely different beast than many indie labels - they're the ones with the power, and they are the ones driving the industry-wide push against piracy). It was 1999 when I got my first taste of the inner-workings of a major record label - I was a young college student, and the inside of a New York label office seemed so vast and exciting. Dozens of worker bees hummed away at their desks on phones and computers. Music posters and stacks of CDs littered every surface. Everyone seemed to have an assistant, and the assistants had assistants, and you couldn't help but wonder "what the hell do all these people do?" I tagged along on $1500 artist dinners paid for by the labels. Massive bar tabs were regularly signed away by record label employees with company cards. You got used to people billing as many expenses back to the record company as they could. I met the type of jive, middle-aged, blazer-wearing, coke-snorting, cartoon character label bigwigs who you'd think were too cliche to exist outside the confines of Spinal Tap. It was all strange and exciting, but one thing that always resonated with me was the sheer volume of money that seemed to be spent without any great deal of concern. Whether it was excessive production budgets or "business lunches" that had nothing to do with business, one of my first reactions to it all was, "so this is why CDs cost $18..." An industry of excess. But that's kind of what you expected from the music business, right? It's where rock stars are made. It's where you get stretch limos with hot tubs in the back, where you get private jets and cocaine parties. Growing up in the '80's, with pop royalty and hair metal bands, you were kind of led to think, of course record labels blow money left and right - there's just so much of it to go around! Well, you know what they say: The bigger they are...

In those days, "piracy" was barely even a word in the music world. My friends and I traded MP3s in college over the local network, but they were scattered and low-quality. It felt like a novelty - like a digital version of duping a cassette tape - hardly a replacement for CDs. CDs sounded good and you could bring them with you in your DiscMan, and the only digital music you could get was as good as your friends' CD collections, anyway. It never occurred to any of us that digital files were the future. But as it turned out, lots of kids, in lots of colleges around the world, had the same idea of sharing MP3 files over their local networks, and eventually, someone paid attention to that idea and made Napster. Suddenly, it was like all those college networks were tied together, and you could find all this cool stuff online. It was easier and more efficient than record stores, it was powered by music fans, and, well, it was free. Suddenly you didn't have to pay 15 to 18 bucks for an album and hope it was good, you could download some tracks off the internet and check it out first. But you still always bought the CD if you liked it - I mean, who wants all their music to be on the computer? I sure didn't. But increasingly, more and more people did. For college kids, Napster was a Godsend, because you can all but guarantee two things about most college kids: They love music, and they're dirt poor. So it grew, and it grew, and it started to grow into the mainstream, and that's when the labels woke up and realized something important was happening. At that point they could have seen it as either a threat or an opportunity, and they, without hesitation, determined it to be a threat. It was a threat because essentially someone had come up with a better, free distribution method for the labels' product. To be fair, you can imagine how confusing this must have been for them - is there even a historical precedent for an industry's products suddenly being able to replicate and distribute on their own, without cost?

For quite a while - long after most tech-savvy music lovers - I resisted the idea of stealing music. Of course I would download MP3s - I downloaded a lot of stuff - but I would always make sure to buy the physical CD if it was something I liked. I knew a lot of musicians, a lot of them bewildered at what was happening to the industry they used to understand. People were downloading their music en masse, gorging on this new frontier like pigs at a troff - and worst of all, they felt entitled to do so. It was like it was okay simply because the technology existed that made it possible. But it wasn't okay - I mean, let's face it, no matter how you rationalized it, it was stealing, and because the technology existed to hotwire a car didn't make that okay, either. The artists lost control of distribution: They couldn't present albums the way they wanted to, in a package with nice artwork. They couldn't reveal it the way they wanted to, because music pirates got the albums online well before the actual release date. Control had been taken away from everyone who used to have it. It was a scary time in unfamiliar territory, where suddenly music fans became enemies to the artists and companies they had supported for years. It led to laughable hyperbole from bands like Metallica, instantly the poster-children of cry-baby rich rock stars, and the beginning of the image problem the industry has faced in its handling of the piracy issue. But still, at the time, I understood where they were coming from. Most musicians weren't rich like Metallica, and needed all the album sales they could get for both income and label support. Plus, it was their art, and they had created it - why shouldn't they be able to control how it's distributed, just because some snotty, acne-faced internet kids had found a way to cheat the system? And these entitled little internet brats, don't they realize that albums cost money to create, and to produce, and to promote? How is there going to be any new music if no one's paying for it?

On top of that, I couldn't get into the idea of an invisible music library that lives on my computer. Where's the artwork? Where's my collection? I want the booklet, the packaging... I want shelves and shelves of albums that I've spent years collecting, that I can pore over and impress my friends with... I want to flip through the pages, and hold the CD in my hand... Being a kid who got into music well past the days of vinyl, CDs were all I had, and they still felt important to me.

It's all changed.

In a few short years, the aggressive push of technology combined with the arrogant response from the record industry has rapidly worn away all of my noble intentions of clinging to the old system, and has now pushed me into full-on dissent. I find myself fully immersed in digital music, almost never buying CDs, and fully against the methods of the major record labels and the RIAA. And I think it would do the music industry a lot of good to pay attention to why - because I'm just one of millions, and there will be millions more in the years to come. And it could have happened very, very differently.

As the years have passed, and technology has made digital files the most convenient, efficient, and attractive method of listening to music for many people, the rules and cultural perceptions regarding music have changed drastically. We live in the iPod generation - where a "collection" of clunky CDs feels archaic - where the uniqueness of your music collection is limited only by how eclectic your taste is. Where it's embraced and expected that if you like an album, you send it to your friend to listen to. Whether this guy likes it or not, iPods have become synonymous with music - and if I filled my shiny new 160gb iPod up legally, buying each track online at the 99 cents price that the industry has determined, it would cost me about $32,226. How does that make sense? It's the ugly truth the record industry wants to ignore as they struggle to find ways to get people to pay for music in a culture that has already embraced the idea of music being something you collect in large volumes, and trade freely with your friends.

Already is the key word, because it didn't have to be this way, and that's become the main source of my utter lack of sympathy for the dying record industry: They had a chance to move forward, to evolve with technology and address the changing needs of consumers - and they didn't. Instead, they panicked - they showed their hand as power-hungry dinosaurs, and they started to demonize their own customers, the people whose love of music had given them massive profits for decades. They used their unfair record contracts - the ones that allowed them to own all the music - and went after children, grandparents, single moms, even deceased great grandmothers - alongside many other common people who did nothing more than download some songs and leave them in a shared folder - something that has become the cultural norm to the iPod generation. Joining together in what has been referred to as an illegal cartel and using the RIAA as their attack dogs, the record labels have spent billions of dollars attempting to scare people away from downloading music. And it's simply not working. The pirating community continues to out-smart and out-innovate the dated methods of the record companies, and CD sales continue to plummet while exchange of digital music on the internet continues to skyrocket. Why? Because freely-available music in large quantities is the new cultural norm, and the industry has given consumers no fair alternative. They didn't jump in when the new technologies were emerging and think, "how can we capitalize on this to ensure that we're able to stay afloat while providing the customer what they've come to expect?" They didn't band together and create a flat monthly fee for downloading all the music you want. They didn't respond by drastically lowering the prices of CDs (which have been ludicrously overpriced since day one, and actually increased in price during the '90's), or by offering low-cost DRM-free legal MP3 purchases. Their entry into the digital marketplace was too little too late - a precedent of free, high-quality, DRM-free music had already been set.

There seem to be a lot of reasons why the record companies blew it. One is that they're really not very smart. They know how to do one thing, which is sell records in a traditional retail environment. From personal experience I can tell you that the big labels are beyond clueless in the digital world - their ideas are out-dated, their methods make no sense, and every decision is hampered by miles and miles of legal tape, copyright restrictions, and corporate interests. Trying to innovate with a major label is like trying to teach your Grandmother how to play Halo 3: frustrating and ultimately futile. The easiest example of this is how much of a fight it's been to get record companies to sell MP3s DRM-free. You're trying to explain a new technology to an old guy who made his fortune in the hair metal days. You're trying to tell him that when someone buys a CD, it has no DRM - people can encode it into their computer as DRM-free MP3s within seconds, and send it to all their friends. So why insult the consumer by making them pay the same price for copy-protected MP3s? It doesn't make any sense! It just frustrates people and drives them to piracy! They don't get it: "It's an MP3, you have to protect it or they'll copy it." But they can do the same thing with the CDs you already sell!! Legal tape and lots of corporate ********. If these people weren't the ones who owned the music, it'd all be over already, and we'd be enjoying the real future of music. Because like with any new industry, it's not the people from the previous generation who are going to step in and be the innovators. It's a new batch.

Newspapers are a good example: It used to be that people read newspapers to get the news. That was the distribution method, and newspaper companies controlled it. You paid for a newspaper, and you got your news, that's how it worked. Until the internet came along, and a new generation of innovative people created websites, and suddenly anyone could distribute information, and they could distribute it faster, better, more efficiently, and for free. Obviously this hurt the newspaper industry, but there was nothing they could do about it, because they didn't own the information itself - only the distribution method. Their only choice was to innovate and find ways to compete in a new marketplace. And you know what? Now I can get live, up-to-the-minute news for free, on thousands of different sources across the internet - and The New York Times still exists. Free market capitalism at its finest. It's not a perfect example, but it is a part of how the internet is changing every form of traditional media. It happened with newspapers, it's happening now with music, and TV and cell phones are next on the chopping block. In all cases technology demands that change will happen, it's just a matter of who will find ways to take advantage of it, and who won't.

Unlike newspapers, record companies own the distribution and the product being distributed, so you can't just start your own website where you give out music that they own - and that's what this is all about: distribution. Lots of pro-piracy types argue that music can be free because people will always love music, and they'll pay for concert tickets, and merchandise, and the marketplace will shift and artists will survive. Well, yes, that might be an option for some artists, but that does nothing to help the record labels, because they don't make any money off of merchandise, or concert tickets. Distribution and ownership are what they control, and those are the two things piracy threatens. The few major labels left are parts of giant media conglomerations - owned by huge parent companies for whom artists and albums are just numbers on a piece of paper. It's why record companies shove disposable pop crap down your throat instead of nurturing career artists: because they have CEOs and shareholders to answer to, and those people don't give a **** if a really great band has the potential to get really successful, if given the right support over the next decade. They see that Gwen Stefani's latest musical turd sold millions, because parents of twelve year old girls still buy music for their kids, and the parent company demands more easy-money pop garbage that will be forgotten about next month. The only thing that matters to these corporations is profit - period. Music isn't thought of as an art form, as it was in the earlier days of the industry where labels were started by music-lovers - it's a product, pure and simple. And many of these corporations also own the manufacturing plants that create the CDs, so they make money on all sides - and lose money even from legal MP3s.

At the top of all this is the rigged, outdated, and unfair structure of current intellectual property laws, all of them in need of massive reform in the wake of the digital era. These laws allow the labels to maintain their stranglehold on music copyrights, and they allow the RIAA to sue the pants off of any file-sharing grandmother they please. Since the labels are owned by giant corporations with a great deal of money, power, and political influence, the RIAA is able to lobby politicians and government agencies to manipulate copyright laws for their benefit. The result is absurdly disproportionate fines, and laws that in some cases make file sharing a heftier charge than armed robbery. This is yet another case of private, corporate interests using political influence to turn laws in the opposite direction of the changing values of the people. Or, as this very smart assessment from a record executive described it: "a clear case of a multinational conglomerate using its political muscle to the disadvantage of everyone but itself." But shady political maneuvers and scare tactics are all the RIAA and other anti-piracy groups have left, because people who download music illegally now number in the hundreds of millions, and they can't sue everyone. At this point they're just trying to hold up what's left of the dam before it bursts open. Their latest victim is Oink, a popular torrent site specializing in music.

If you're not familiar with Oink, here's a quick summary: Oink was was a free members-only site - to join it you had to be invited by a member. Members had access to an unprecedented community-driven database of music. Every album you could ever imagine was just one click away. Oink's extremely strict quality standards ensured that everything on the site was at pristine quality - 192kbps MP3 was their bare minimum, and they championed much higher quality MP3s as well as FLAC lossless downloads. They encouraged logs to verify that the music had been ripped from the CD without any errors. Transcodes - files encoded from other encoded files, resulting in lower quality - were strictly forbidden. You were always guaranteed higher quality music than iTunes or any other legal MP3 store. Oink's strict download/share ratio ensured that every album in their vast database was always well-seeded, resulting in downloads faster than anywhere else on the internet. A 100mb album would download in mere seconds on even an average broadband connection. Oink was known for getting pre-release albums before anyone else on the internet, often months before they hit retail - but they also had an extensive catalogue of music dating back decades, fueled by music lovers who took pride in uploading rare gems from their collection that other users were seeking out. If there was an album you couldn't find on Oink, you only had to post a request for it, and wait for someone who had it to fill your request. Even if the request was extremely rare, Oink's vast network of hundreds of thousands of music-lovers eager to contribute to the site usually ensured you wouldn't have to wait long.

In this sense, Oink was not only an absolute paradise for music fans, but it was unquestionably the most complete and most efficient music distribution model the world has ever known. I say that safely without exaggeration. It was like the world's largest music store, whose vastly superior selection and distribution was entirely stocked, supplied, organized, and expanded upon by its own consumers. If the music industry had found a way to capitalize on the power, devotion, and innovation of its own fans the way Oink did, it would be thriving right now instead of withering. If intellectual property laws didn't make Oink illegal, the site's creator would be the new Steve Jobs right now. He would have revolutionized music distribution. Instead, he's a criminal, simply for finding the best way to fill rising consumer demand. I would have gladly paid a large monthly fee for a legal service as good as Oink - but none existed, because the music industry could never set aside their own greed and corporate ******** to make it happen.

Here's an interesting aside: The RIAA loves to complain about music pirates leaking albums onto the internet before they're released in stores - painting the leakers as vicious pirates dead set on attacking their enemy, the music industry. But you know where music leaks from? From the ****ing source, of course - the labels! At this point, most bands know that once their finished album is sent off to the label, the risk of it turning up online begins, because the labels are full of low-level workers who happen to be music fans who can't wait to share the band's new album with their friends. If the album manages to not leak directly from the label, it is guaranteed to leak once it heads off to manufacturing. Someone at the manufacturing plant is always happy to sneak off with a copy, and before long, it turns up online. Why? Because people love music, and they can't wait to hear their favorite band's new album! It's not about profit, and it's not about maliciousness. So record industry, maybe if you could protect your own assets a little better, **** wouldn't leak - don't blame the fans who flock to the leaked material online, blame the people who leak it out of your manufacturing plants in the first place! But assuming that's a hole too difficult to plug, it begs the question, "why don't labels adapt to the changing nature of distribution by selling new albums online as soon as they're finished, before they have a chance to leak, and release the physical CDs a couple months later?" Well, for one, labels are still obsessed with Billboard chart numbers - they're obsessed with determining the market value of their product by how well it fares in its opening week. Selling it online before the big retail debut, before they've had months to properly market the product to ensure success, would mess up those numbers (nevermind that those numbers mean absolutely nothing anymore). Additionally, selling an album online before it hits stores makes retail outlets (who are also suffering in all this) angry, and retail outlets have far more power than they should. For example, if a record company releases an album online but Wal-Mart won't have the CD in their stores for another two months (because it needs to be manufactured), Wal-Mart gets mad. Who cares if Wal-Mart gets mad, you ask? Well, record companies do, because Wal-Mart is, both mysteriously and tragically, the largest music retailer in the world. That means they have power, and they can say "if you sell Britney Spears' album online before we can sell it in our stores, we lose money. So if you do that, we're not going to stock her album at all, and then you'll lose a LOT of money." That kind of greedy business ******** happens all the time in the record industry, and the consistent result is a worse experience for consumers and music lovers.

Which is why Oink was so great - take away all the rules and legal ties, all the ownership and profit margins, and naturally, the result is something purely for, by, and in service of the music fan. And it actually helps musicians - file-sharing is "the greatest marketing tool ever to come along for the music industry." One of Oink's best features was how it allowed users to connect similar artists, and to see what people who liked a certain band also liked. Similar to Amazon's recommendation system, it was possible to spend hours discovering new bands on Oink, and that's what many of its users did. Through sites like Oink, the amount and variety of music I listen to has skyrocketed, opening me up to hundreds of artists I never would have experienced otherwise. I'm now fans of their music, and I may not have bought their CDs, but I would have never bought their CD anyway, because I would have never heard of them! And now that I have heard of them, I go to their concerts, and I talk them up to my friends, and give my friends the music to listen to for themselves, so they can go to the concerts, and tell their friends, and so on. Oink was a network of music lovers sharing and discovering music. And yes, it was all technically illegal, and destined to get shut down, I suppose. But it's not so much that they shut Oink down that boils my blood, it's the ****ing ******** propaganda they put out there. If the industry tried to have some kind of compassion - if they said, "we understand that these are just music fans trying to listen to as much music as they can, but we have to protect our assets, and we're working on an industry-wide solution to accommodate the changing needs of music fans"... Well, it's too late for that, but it would be encouraging. Instead, they make it sound like they busted a Columbian drug cartel or something. They describe it as a highly-organized piracy ring. Like Oink users were distributing kiddie porn or some ****. The press release says: "This was not a case of friends sharing music for pleasure." Wh - what?? That's EXACTLY what it was! No one made any money on that site - there were no ads, no registration fees. The only currency was ratio - the amount you shared with other users - a brilliant way of turning "free" into a sort of booming mini-economy. The anti-piracy groups have tried to spin the notion that you had to pay a fee to join Oink, which is NOT true - donations were voluntary, and went to support the hosting and maintenance of the site. If the donations spilled into profit for the guy who ran the site, well he damn well deserved it - he created something truly remarkable.

So the next question is, what now?

For the major labels, it's over. It's ****ing over. You're going to burn to the ****ing ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire. And it's your own fault. Surely, somewhere deep inside, you had to know this day was coming, right? Your very industry is founded on an unfair business model of owning art you didn't create in exchange for the services you provide. It's rigged so that you win every time - even if the artist does well, you do ten times better. It was able to exist because you controlled the distribution, but now that's back in the hands of the people, and you let the ball drop when you could have evolved.

None of this is to say that there's no way for artists to make money anymore, or even that it's the end of record labels. It's just the end of record labels as we know them. A lot of people point to the Radiohead model as the future, but Radiohead is only dipping its toe into the future to test the waters. What at first seemed like a rainbow-colored revolution has now been openly revealed as a marketing gimmick: Radiohead was "experimenting," releasing a low-quality MP3 version of an album only to punish the fans who paid for it by later releasing a full-quality CD version with extra tracks. According to Radiohead's manager: "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD then we wouldn't do what we are doing." Ouch. Radiohead was moving in the right direction, but if they really want to start a revolution, they need to place the "pay-what-you-want" digital album on the same content and quality level as the "pay-what-we-want" physical album.

Ultimately, I don't know what the future model is going to be - I think all the current pieces of the puzzle will still be there, but they need to be re-ordered, and the rules need to be changed. Maybe record labels of the future exist to help front recording costs and promote artists, but they don't own the music. Maybe music is free, and musicians make their money from touring and merchandise, and if they need a label, the label takes a percentage of their tour and merch profits. Maybe all-digital record companies give bands all the tools they need to sell their music directly to their fans, taking a small percentage for their services. In any case, the artists own their own music.

I used to reject the wishy-washy "music should be free!" mantra of online music thieves. I knew too much about the intricacies and economics of it, of the rock-and-a-hard-place situation many artists were in with their labels. I thought there were plenty of new ways to sell music that would be fair to all parties involved. But I no longer believe that, because the squabbling, backwards, greedy, ownership-obsessed major labels will never let it happen, and that's more clear to me now than ever. So maybe music has to be free. Maybe taking the money out of music is the only way to get money back into it. Maybe it's time to abandon the notion of the rock star - of music as a route to fame and fortune. The best music was always made by people who weren't in it for the money, anyway. Maybe smart, talented musicians will find ways to make a good living with or without CD sales. Maybe the record industry execs who made their fortunes off of unfair contracts and distribution monopolies should just walk away, confident that they milked a limited opportunity for all it was worth, and that it's time to find fortune somewhere else. Maybe in the hands of consumers, the music marketplace will expand in new and lucrative ways no one can even dream of yet. We won't know until music is free, and eventually it's going to be. Technological innovation destroys old industries, but it creates new ones. You can't fight it forever.

Until the walls finally come down, we're in what will inevitably be looked back on as a very awkward, chaotic period in music history - fans are being arrested for sharing the music they love, and many artists are left helpless, unable to experiment with new business models because they're locked into record contracts with backwards-thinking labels.

So what can you and I do to help usher in the brave new world? The beauty of Oink was how fans willingly and hyper-efficiently took on distribution roles that traditionally have cost labels millions of dollars. Music lovers have shown that they're much more willing to put time and effort into music than they are money. It's time to show artists that there's no limit to what an energized online fanbase can accomplish, and all they'll ever ask for in return is more music. And it's time to show the labels that they missed a huge opportunity by not embracing these opportunities when they had the chance.

1. Stop buying music from major labels. Period. The only way to force change is to hit the labels where it hurts - their profits. The major labels are like Terry Schiavo right now - they're on life support, drooling in a coma, while white-haired guys in suits try and change the laws to keep them alive. But any rational person can see that it's too late, and it's time to pull out the feeding tube. In this case, the feeding tube is your money. Find out which labels are members/supporters of the RIAA and similar copyright enforcement groups, and don't support them in any way. The RIAA Radar is a great tool to help you with this. Don't buy CDs, don't buy iTunes downloads, don't buy from Amazon, etc. Steal the music you want that's on the major labels. It's easy, and despite the RIAA's scare tactics, it can be done safely - especially if more and more people are doing it. Send letters to those labels, and to the RIAA, explaining very calmly and professionally that you will no longer be supporting their business, because of their bullish scare tactics towards music fans, and their inability to present a forward-thinking digital distribution solution. Tell them you believe their business model is outdated and the days of companies owning artists' music are over. Make it very clear that you will continue to support the artists directly in other ways, and make it VERY clear that your decision has come about as a direct result of the record company's actions and inactions regarding digital music.

2. Support artists directly. If a band you like is stuck on a major label, there are tons of ways you can support them without actually buying their CD. Tell everyone you know about them - start a fansite if you're really passionate. Go to their shows when they're in town, and buy t-shirts and other merchandise. Here's a little secret: Anything a band sells that does not have music on it is outside the reach of the record label, and monetarily supports the artist more than buying a CD ever would. T-shirts, posters, hats, keychains, stickers, etc. Send the band a letter telling them that you're no longer going to be purchasing their music, but you will be listening to it, and you will be spreading the word and supporting them in other ways. Tell them you've made this decision because you're trying to force change within the industry, and you no longer support record labels with RIAA affiliations who own the music of their artists.

If you like bands who are releasing music on open, non-RIAA indie labels, buy their albums! You'll support the band you like, and you'll support hard-working, passionate people at small, forward-thinking music labels. If you like bands who are completely independent and are releasing music on their own, support them as much as possible! Pay for their music, buy their merchandise, tell all your friends about them and help promote them online - prove that a network of passionate fans is the best promotion a band can ask for.

3. Get the message out. Get this message out to as many people as you can - spread the word on your blog or your MySpace, and more importantly, tell your friends at work, or your family members, people who might not be as tuned into the internet as you are. Teach them how to use torrents, show them where to go to get music for free. Show them how to support artists while starving the labels, and who they should and shouldn't be supporting.

4. Get political. The fast-track to ending all this nonsense is changing intellectual property laws. The RIAA lobbies politicians to manipulate copyright laws for their own interests, so voters need to lobby politicians for the peoples' interests. Contact your local representatives and senators. Tell them politely and articulately that you believe copyright laws no longer reflect the interests of the people, and you will not vote for them if they support the interests of the RIAA. Encourage them to draft legislation that helps change the outdated laws and disproportionate penalties the RIAA champions. Contact information for state representatives can be found here, and contact information for senators can be found here. You can email them, but calling on the phone or writing them actual letters is always more effective.


Tonight, with Oink gone, I find myself wondering where I'll go now to discover new music. All the other options - particularly the legal ones - seem depressing by comparison. I wonder how long it will be before everyone can legally experience the type of music nirvana Oink users became accustomed to? I'm not too worried - something even better will rise out of Oink's ashes, and the RIAA will respond with more lawsuits, and the cycle will repeat itself over and over until the industry has finally bled itself to death. And then everything will be able to change, and it will be in the hands of musicians and fans and a new generation of entrepreneurs to decide how the new record business is going to work. Whether you agree with it or not, it's fact. It's inevitable - because the determination of fans to share music is much, much stronger than the determination of corporations to stop it

NightStorm
Apr 5, 2008, 11:43 AM
Can we start a "10 reasons why people feel compelled to come into an iTunes subforum off of a Mac community discussion forum and tell others exactly why they feel iTunes contributes to the killing of baby seals" thread? :rolleyes:

Eric5h5
Apr 5, 2008, 03:43 PM
4. LMFAO hahah CD's are pretty much the WORST deal you can find out there. I have yet to find a person that likes all lets say 12 tracks from their favorite band on every CD they own.

Well, now you have. I'm very picky about the music I buy, and it's typical that I'll like every song on an album. At most I'll dislike one or two, but that's quite rare. Maybe you need to find some better bands who can actually write music consistently. ;)

No, if I lose a CD the record company won't send me another copy for free. But the advantage I have is that all my CDs are sitting on a shelf, and barring a house fire or theft, it won't ever be an issue.

That's not an advantage, that's a liability. With digital music, there's something you can do called "back up," and the backup is identical to the original. Get used to it. If you're storing everything on one hard drive, you're insane and are just asking for trouble (and that applies to everything, not just music). If all your music is digital, then it's immune to a house fire or theft.

--Eric

cheekybobcat
Apr 5, 2008, 04:43 PM
I actually love iTMS. I find to be convenient, fair, has a great selection, and overall to be a good setup. Although I do like owning my CD albums that I can touch and behold, iTunes is easier to press and download then to drive out and by the album; especially when the iTunes album will more then likely be cheaper then the store.

benzslrpee
Apr 11, 2008, 10:36 PM
your hearing starts deteriorating around your mid 20's and it only goes downhill from there. this applies for all humans and self-proclaimed audiophiles fall into the homo sapien category last time i checked.

so if you're 13, congrats and enjoy hearing sounds that most adults can't hear. if you're around or slightly past the stated age range...you're probably not hearing what you think you're hearing. if you're over 35 then it's all just in your head. get used to it...actually, you really have no other choice in this matter unless you can reverse certain biological processes like cell death.

out of your "what CD's can do" list i can do with what i get from iTunes. well, i can't sit on the pot and flip through the CD inserts like i used to so my alternative is Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2008. not a bad trade off in my opinion :D

aznav
Apr 20, 2008, 11:06 PM
Why does get used to it every sentence get used to it have to say get used to it get used to it at the get used to it end? I don't think anyone has to get used to or will notice you not using itms.

Please translate.

GimmeSlack12
Apr 20, 2008, 11:55 PM
Really? Easier how?, I'm just curious, back when I did(which was with Napster so quite some time ago), things we're ugly....iTunes certainly has easy of use( over the old P2P stuff)...I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm looking for some detail

I will answer you questions. I'll try to explain in ambiguous terms. I don't want to break any forum rules.
Napster was a breakthrough for transferring files (music if you will), and though it was relatively fast its success was born based on high speed internet speed becoming available. It was anything but elegant.
Nowadays you can achieve high quality files (at a high bit rate) and get the complete album. Same thing iTunes does. Though "TPB" offers Zero cost.
I guess I have to retract my previous 'easy' statement and rebut with 'relatively easy'. Though I've seen a lot of protocols come and go, IRC might not be a familiar term to all and John Doe next door might think that AOL is complicated. You have to know a bit to get what you want.

Mac OS X Ocelot
Apr 21, 2008, 12:05 AM
1) You don't have to use iTMS. Get over it.

2) You are very annoying. Get over it.

3) Your point would be better taken if put in a discussion format and not in a snobby take-that-establishment way. Get over it.

GimmeSlack12
Apr 21, 2008, 12:15 AM
I'm just surprised so many adults are willing to put up with its shortcomings.

Not to be rude, but I imagine most adults don't have a stick up there ass. You're insight for not using the iTunes store is noted. You're free to go spend your money chasing the audio dragon.

ReanimationLP
Apr 21, 2008, 01:20 AM
I feel this is rather relevant to the thread.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/128347333970156250nooneunderstan.jpg

Dagless
Apr 21, 2008, 02:49 AM
I've bought about 50 or so songs off iTunes. I prefer getting them from CD but what the hell, I just want the song sometimes.

I've got a good sound system but I don't just sit there and put music on, smiling at the quality of it. I put music on and work so I'm not fussed at all over the quality. Most of my music is 128-160kbps AAC barring a few Lossless Hemisync tracks.

Oh and most of the time I don't bother with albums. There are only a handful of albums that I like all the songs on.

G4DP
Apr 21, 2008, 03:18 AM
1 - You clearly have to much time on your hands. Get over it.

2 - You obviously don't have a girlfriend/boyfriend. Get used to it.

3 - You're going to end up sad and lonely.

4 - We couldn't give a ****!

Jelite
Apr 21, 2008, 03:44 AM
http://www.elviscostello.info/disc/official/misc/get_over_it.jpg

Now available on iTMS.

Kardashian
Apr 21, 2008, 04:06 AM
1. Who asked you if you do or don't shop there, and who wanted the reasons you do or don't? I certainly don't. Get used to it.
2. iTunes is the number one music retailer in the US. Get used to it.
3. You can purchase full albums on iTunes, which often include the music videos and digital booklet (sleeve) - oh, and cheaper than the CD. Get used to it.
4. Billions of sales really can't be wrong. GET USED TO IT.
5. No other hardware manufacturer and online, or physical store, offers the seamless use that iTunes and the iPod, it the iTV has.

By the way, why are you copy and pasting 'Get Used To It' after each sentance? It's as though your venting some sort of sour anger towards iTunes but deflecting it on to us, a sort of 'HA! You'll never have me as a customer, so there, get used to it!'. Why the bitterness? If you don't shop there, it really won't hurt or spite Apple - they'll be just fine without you. No need to be so personal.

You're not being forced to shop there, so don't.

[snip]

Now available on iTMS.

This made me laugh out loud... a lot.

Dustman
Apr 21, 2008, 06:44 PM
1. Can I sell them to someone else? What happens if my hard drive dies, can I just download them all over again? Is the quality as good as a CD?

If the answer to the above questions are all "no", we don't really need to go further. But hey, I'll humour you.

2. I buy 90% of my CDs online. half.com is just as easy as anything else online.

3. When lossless, uncrippled downloads are offered, I'll consider changing my point of view.

4. Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone downloading an album off of bittorrent or anywhere else, provided they delete it if they don't like it and buy it if they keep it. That's a moral call, though, and I know the law says differently in many countries.

5. I can still buy CD singles at a much cheaper price. I typically pay anywhere from 1.00 to 6.00 per album. Add a few bucks for shipping and it's still just as cheap... with all of these benefits:

1) No DRM
2) I can sell, lend, do whatever I want with it. I own it.
3) Rip into any quality and format I require.

6. There are even more independents NOT on iTunes.

7. Glad we can finally agree. ;)

8. The point is that you do not need iTunes... and iTunes can in fact be quite restrictive if you wanted to own an MP3 player with better sound quality than an iPod, for example.

9. You might be right. :o

10. The sony rootkit didn't hurt my mac much at all... how about yours? Again, if they get rid of the DRM and meet my other requirements I'll happily change my "tune", so to speak. :cool:

Like, Are you seriously on here to pick a fight? People here are quick to pick up on that, and what you don't realize is that no one cares if you don't like the service. Take your own advice and get used to it.

applegoddess09
Apr 21, 2008, 06:47 PM
only in america would someone come to a pro-apple site and tell us why they hate it. wow.

aznav
May 18, 2008, 02:04 PM
Being my first post on MacRumors I guess I just need to...
GET USED TO IT!:D

TheSpecialist
May 18, 2008, 02:05 PM
Being my first post on MacRumors I guess I just need to...
GET USED TO IT!:D

Did you really had to dig this stupid thread up as your first post:p good start hehe. Get used to it.

California
May 18, 2008, 02:48 PM
Whatever, it is a free market

so buy your cds; we are already used to it.

Or don't use iTunes == we don't have to get used to it because we don't care.

however, you just made me want to buy more cds.

queshy
May 18, 2008, 03:43 PM
whatever, nobody is forcing you to buy them. good thing apple didn't take your recommendations for the iTMS, lol, otherwise they might not have sold as many songs as they did.

corywoolf
May 18, 2008, 03:54 PM
Obviously. I suppose I'd consider iTMS under a few conditions:

1) Choice of format and bit rate, preferably FLAC but 320 MP3s would be okay.
2) Absolutely no DRM.
3) Cut the prices in half.
4) You buy the rights to the song - if your collection gets wiped out, you can re-download all the songs for free. You can also transfer (sell) ownership rights of these songs to someone else.

Ever hear of a little thing called bandwidth?

alphaod
May 18, 2008, 09:03 PM
1) Convenience.
2) I buy the songs I want, not the introductions I won't listen to or that instrumental section.
3) I can find music I cannot find on CDs.
4) Good price for what I get.
5) It's there, why not take advantage of it?
6) I don't illegally download music.
7) If you buy the wrong song and listen to it, Apple will give you a refund if you ask nice enough; if you buy the wrong CD and open it, nobody will let you return it.
8) I don't mind the 128kbps quality; those songs are not much different on CDs.
9) It doesn't stop me from buying CDs.
10) I spend about $30-$40 on music a month; that I can buy 30-40 songs I will listen or 3 CDs with 5 songs I'll listen to.

Obviously. I suppose I'd consider iTMS under a few conditions:

1) Choice of format and bit rate, preferably FLAC but 320 MP3s would be okay.
2) Absolutely no DRM.
3) Cut the prices in half.
4) You buy the rights to the song - if your collection gets wiped out, you can re-download all the songs for free. You can also transfer (sell) ownership rights of these songs to someone else.

1) Too complicated for the average buyer; I like technology, but I won't spend 5 extra seconds deciding if I want FLAC, OGG, or 320kbps MP3.
2) Yes, EMI music doesn't have DRM; more to come.
3) What so Apple will make -$.50 a song? You know how low the margins on the songs are?
4) You don't buy the song; you buy the rights to listen to it; no you can't sell your license away. Technically you don't own the music on the CDs either; you just own the CD itself. If it were your music to own, you can copy it and sell it, but you can't! You don't own the music on your CDs.

Ever hear of a little thing called bandwidth?

No idea. Oh you mean my 50/20 FiOS connection? :D

huck500
May 18, 2008, 11:28 PM
Yeah, I always smirk when I see people driving a Prius. A car designed for those bad at math but great at sucking up marketing. ;)


Here's my math on the Prius:
I save about 40 minutes/day driving the Prius, because in California I can solo in the carpool lane. 40 minutes of my time is worth about $33, so $165/week, or $660/month, which is $160 more than my Prius payment.

Smirk away, though, if it makes you feel good.

Also, you should phrase your arguments a little more carefully if you want people to take you seriously. The hyperbole makes you sound thoughtless.

cubbie5150
May 19, 2008, 03:35 AM
I don't buy from iTMS nor Amazon anymore, and have instead opted to go back to buying CD's & ripping them... DRM & crappy, lossy formats were the reason for me. I've upgraded my desktop audio setup, and decided that ALAC is the way to go for sound quality (according to my ears).

oban14
May 20, 2008, 01:12 PM
I don't buy from iTMS nor Amazon anymore, and have instead opted to go back to buying CD's & ripping them... DRM & crappy, lossy formats were the reason for me. I've upgraded my desktop audio setup, and decided that ALAC is the way to go for sound quality (according to my ears).

Good for you! It's always nice to see someone else out there who isn't willing to settle for mediocrity. :)

nuckinfutz
May 20, 2008, 01:46 PM
I don't like mediocrity either but unless an album has 3 good songs I like I don't buy the CD.

As with all things in life more choice is nigh always preferrable to less choice.

I still buy CDs because they give me flexibility and that's worth a premium on some albums. However the efficacy of .99 tracks cannot be denied for perusing and finding new music. The immediacy of hearing and song and searching, finding and purchasing on iTunes is unparalleled.

I do not get caught up in bits/bytes and all that mumbo jumbo. Music is an art form and the essence of it isn't just in how pure the sound is but how emotive the music is. Nirvana's Nevermind can't hold a candle to Pearl Jam's Ten regarding engineering quality but it didn't matter because the content was so superior it didn't matter.

I'll continue to use whatever tools I have at my disposal to find and support artists.

daneoni
May 20, 2008, 02:03 PM
I fail to see the point of the rant. Personally i use any medium that eventually gets me the music i want. This means sometimes i use CDs, downloads (not only ITMS), torrents or whatever. Obviously no one medium is perfect. I also cant remember the last time i liked all the tracks on an album.

If one medium isn't giving you what you want (ITMS) then use something else. Tis not like ITMS will change automatically tomorrow because you posted your frustrations on MR (apple.com/feedback) might have helped.

Also what's with the 'music fans' & 'get used to it'? speak for yourself mate. billions of sales from iTunes would suggest 'music fans' in their majority dont actually mind the ITMS hence there's really no incentive for Apple to 'get used to' anything

Granted some of your frustrations are valid but thats just it they are your frustrations not majority's

cmcbridejr
May 20, 2008, 02:37 PM
I think downloadable MP3s, CDs, and vinyl all have their place and uses.

I am a deejay, so I like to buy vinyl of hard to find tracks and stuff that I would mix in a set. Vinyl also has a certain characteristic sound to it that CD or MP3 can't reproduce. However, there is no way that I could ever consider buying only vinyl, due to the ridiculously high cost (sometimes over $10.00 for 2 tracks) and the limited availability of albums. On top of that, vinyl takes up a lot of physical space and it is not very portable (you can only listen where there is a turntable, which can weigh around 20 lbs).

CDs are great, as they have that clean and loud sound to them due to the way they have been mastered. I will certainly buy a CD if it is a classic album, but not if only a few tracks are good and the rest of the whole album sucks. Also, I remember my old portable CD player that I had to carry in my hand wherever I went, as it took up a size larger than the CD itself and would not fit into my pants pocket. It's not fun carrying around something everywhere you go. Kind of like carrying a purse. Like most men, I don't like to carry anything that can't fit into a pocket.

Downloadable MP3s (or AAC and whatever else) are really great for purchasing singles. Take the band "The Bravery" for example. In my opinion, they have only 2 good tracks that are on 2 separate albums. There is no way I would purchase both of those two albums at full CD or vinyl price just to get the only 2 tracks that I like. Most importantly, I can take MP3s with me wherever I go, as the player will fit into a pocket.

So, to sum up my rant over your rant, every media format has its place and uses.

If you don't like iTMS, then don't use it. Not everyone thinks like you.

srobert
May 20, 2008, 02:43 PM
If the answer to the above questions are all "no", we don't really need to go further. But hey, I'll humour you.



It's sad that so many people are willing to settle for mediocrity. I won't listen to an MP3 below 320.



Yeah, I always smirk when I see people driving a Prius. A car designed for those bad at math but great at sucking up marketing.



I'm just amazed that so many apparently grown adults are willing to put up with the same limitations as 14 year old girls, which is really what the majority of the iTunes market place is all about.



I think iTMS is ideal for a 15 year old girl, but again, I'm just surprised so many adults are willing to put up with its shortcomings.



It's always nice to see someone else out there who isn't willing to settle for mediocrity.


Wow. You must really look down on me with disdain for liking iTunes for what it has to offer despite its shortcomings.

Enjoy your choice, its a perfectly legitimate and viable one. But, if you'd allow me the audacity, in the future, might I suggest not treating those who don't adhere to your rigid doctrine as vulgar thick-witted buffoons?

IgnatiusTheKing
May 20, 2008, 02:45 PM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it.

02 - A lot of music fans are happy to go and hunt down CDs at the cheapest prices possible which ultimately means it costs less for a CD than it does buying the tracks individually on iTunes. Get used to it.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to buy their music on CD (even vinyl) to get what they believe is the best reproduction of that music on their hifi equipment rather than paying for lossy downloads. Get used to it.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs excellent value for money. This is because they are discerning people who may break the law occasionally by downloading an album from BitTorrent or Usenet but ultimately buy the album if it is good. This means they never buy a bad CD meaning they are very pleased with CDs as a product and are more likely to go buy even more of them. Get used to it.

05 - Not all albums have only one or two good tracks on them. If you consider this justification for buying music track-by-track then knock yourselves out. However, by diligent selection, it is entirely possible to find wholly excellent albums that will keep you listening from start to finish. Get used to it.

06 - A lot of music fans are not politicians. If Sony, EMI or one of the big record companies release a good album, they will go buy it and enjoy it. They will possibly also go check out the product of small independent labels. If they are kept satisfied by good music and enough of it, they really don't care who marketed it. Get used to it.

07 - A lot of music fans feel they get more for their money by getting a plastic case, disk and some sleevenotes to read on the toilet rather than downloading it. Get used to it.

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves have ripped from their own collections as a matter of portability and convenience and never once go anywhere near iTunes. Get used to it.

09 - A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves because the former end up subsidising the latter by virtue of what they buy. Get used to it.

10 - By virtue of being a CD-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating DRM and DRM-peddlars like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.
:cool:

You don't like the iTunes Music Store. Fine. I rarely use it myself because of DRM. There are lots of other places to get music. Get used to it. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=163856011)

alphaod
May 20, 2008, 02:54 PM
Good for you! It's always nice to see someone else out there who isn't willing to settle for mediocrity. :)

Do you really believe ripping that lastest rap song in lossless is any different than 128kbps? It's not like anyone can understand what they are singing anyways. I buy on the iTMS what I know won't make a difference; if I need the difference, say classical music, I still buy CDs off Amazon.

lag1090
May 20, 2008, 03:29 PM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it....

If you're going to start a thread about why you are not going to use the ITMS, then I would suggesting that you start your points with "I," rather than "A lot of music fans." Otherwise, title the thread appropriately.

Secondly, your inclusion of "Get used to it," at the end of each point doesn't do anything. That is, if you want to avoid making yourself seem entirely arrogant.

Dustman
May 20, 2008, 06:10 PM
One ipod won't hold all of my music files, but yes, I suppose whatever I had loaded on there would be safe.
.

You have 160 GB of music?

Hawkeye411
May 20, 2008, 06:17 PM
Why does get used to it every sentence get used to it have to say get used to it get used to it at the get used to it end? I don't think anyone has to get used to or will notice you not using itms.

Yea ... what the heck is "Get used to it" supposed to mean??

PlugNPray95
May 20, 2008, 11:30 PM
01 - A lot of music fans prefer to listen to entire albums from start to finish rather than picking tracks from an album to put into a playlist. Get used to it.

02 - A lot of music fans are happy to go and hunt down CDs at the cheapest prices possible which ultimately means it costs less for a CD than it does buying the tracks individually on iTunes. Get used to it.

03 - A lot of music fans prefer to buy their music on CD (even vinyl) to get what they believe is the best reproduction of that music on their hifi equipment rather than paying for lossy downloads. Get used to it.

04 - A lot of music fans find CDs excellent value for money. This is because they are discerning people who may break the law occasionally by downloading an album from BitTorrent or Usenet but ultimately buy the album if it is good. This means they never buy a bad CD meaning they are very pleased with CDs as a product and are more likely to go buy even more of them. Get used to it.

05 - Not all albums have only one or two good tracks on them. If you consider this justification for buying music track-by-track then knock yourselves out. However, by diligent selection, it is entirely possible to find wholly excellent albums that will keep you listening from start to finish. Get used to it.

06 - A lot of music fans are not politicians. If Sony, EMI or one of the big record companies release a good album, they will go buy it and enjoy it. They will possibly also go check out the product of small independent labels. If they are kept satisfied by good music and enough of it, they really don't care who marketed it. Get used to it.

07 - A lot of music fans feel they get more for their money by getting a plastic case, disk and some sleevenotes to read on the toilet rather than downloading it. Get used to it.

08 - A lot of music fans do own iPods and non-proprietary players in order to play the music they themselves have ripped from their own collections as a matter of portability and convenience and never once go anywhere near iTunes. Get used to it.

09 - A lot of CD-buying music fans hate music thieves because the former end up subsidising the latter by virtue of what they buy. Get used to it.

10 - By virtue of being a CD-buying music fan, it is perfectly possible to be an honest user of music whilst hating DRM and DRM-peddlars like Apple and iTunes. Get used to it.
:cool:

So you wont buy from ITMS because 'alot of music fans' dont.....


Can you be anymore of a conformist?

alphaod
May 20, 2008, 11:35 PM
You have 160 GB of music?

My iTunes library is 200GB thank you very much.

gusapple
May 20, 2008, 11:57 PM
It's sad that so many people are willing to settle for mediocrity. I won't listen to an MP3 below 320.

So, you really walk into a record store, pick up the CD that you want, then proceed to ask the guy at the desk if the CD you're buying is anything below 320? What if it turned out to be 319? Then you would reject it? That is harsh. Tell the Beatles that there will always be room for them in my collection.

I'm just kidding, but that statement seemed a little harsh. Get used to it...

energiie
May 21, 2008, 11:21 PM
harsh
itunes music store is better.
lol

PYR0M310N
May 22, 2008, 05:32 AM
You know what? I'm a student. This means i don't have vast amounts of money lying around. Get used to it.

This means that if i filled my ipod with 320kbs files it would fill up a lot quicker than if i used 128kbs. This would mean I couldn't have all my music in one place accessible when I want it.

Using 128kbs music is no issue to me. As i said, I can't afford to go out and buy £100 headphones that have wonderful bass. I would love to, but it just isn't a option. Therefore i have to use my standard iPod ones.

So i think everybody saying that we all want higher bit rates is a huge generalisation. Most people don't even know what they are and most people couldn't even tell the difference. Get used to it.