Anti-Apple/iTunes Website

[hasselhoff]

Sorry if this is old...

How can they not get sued for using Apple's site design and their commercials??

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/victory.html

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000610.html

http://www.tunerecycler.com/


At least this one has a somewhat-worthy message.

[Gymnut]

Well, they do have a disclaimer on the bottom.

[Hodapp]

WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE HOW ANGRY I AM AT THESE PEOPLE!!!! I wish I could punch through the internet to their insolent anti-apple faces!!!! How could anyone say anything bad about iTunes? That's BLASPHEMY!

[virividox]

ahh let them be ignorant and stupid.

[vniow]

Originally posted by io_burn
How could anyone say anything bad about iTunes? That's BLASPHEMY!

Yeah, we can never let that happen since Apple is the grand savior as the sacred doctrine of the PPP so explicitly states, we shall piss on those who oppose us, a merry trail of urine shall slow where we have pillaged all those who dare speak ill of the second coming.

[MacBandit]

You are supporting them by linking to their site.

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by io_burn
WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE HOW ANGRY I AM AT THESE PEOPLE!!!! I wish I could punch through the internet to their insolent anti-apple faces!!!! How could anyone say anything bad about iTunes? That's BLASPHEMY! I seriously hope that's sarcasm. Otherwise you are the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen...

[Hodapp]

Originally posted by Counterfit
I seriously hope that's sarcasm. Otherwise you are the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen...

Why? Because I love iTunes? I've bought over 2000 songs off iTunes, and have no reason to stop until my iPod is full.

[7on]

Too bad these people don't factor in that artists sell millions of albums, then that 11 cents/song doesn't seem so bad. Don't know how much the artist gets per album though. It seems like these people want to justify downloading from Kazaa.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by io_burn
WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE HOW ANGRY I AM AT THESE PEOPLE!!!! I wish I could punch through the internet to their insolent anti-apple faces!!!! How could anyone say anything bad about iTunes? That's BLASPHEMY!

Why because they are exposing what is wrong with the music industry? Evidently they hit a nerve with Apple, because Apple did modify their "fair to musicians" statement.

For some like us iTunes is a great thing. For others it is the independent labels that is the answer.

The audio and movie industry has some very interesting accounting methods. And the internet for music is providing an opportunity for some to make their own money sidestepping the major labels. And the major labels hate the idea that they may have to drop the Jag for that Chevy Impala.

I see nothing wrong with them letting others know how iTunes works for the labels and artists. Apple themselves opened themselves up to them by making it seem that iTunes is the best thing for the music industry. I know many other businesses that would love to see 35% margins.

[gemio17]

don't agree with the anti-iTunes peeps- they don't understand that I don't want to buy an entire Kenny Loggins album just to get the one song I want- "Danger Zone" from Top Gun :D and I'm willing to pay 1$ for the convenience of not going to Tower to buy a whole overpriced K. Loggins cd to have it sit there for eternity collecting dust after I've uploaded it to my iPod....talk about consumer waste. I look at it as saving plastic, and possibly the environment?? :D

And if the artists are getting royally screwed, how do you explain Cribs on mtv?? Granted, there are all the indies etc. out there, but more likely than not, artists are getting more screwed by the slave contract they signed when they were rookies than by me buying a song off of iTunes

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by 7on
Too bad these people don't factor in that artists sell millions of albums, then that 11 cents/song doesn't seem so bad. Don't know how much the artist gets per album though. It seems like these people want to justify downloading from Kazaa.

Many artists don't sell that many. Using your math, if an album has 13 tracks at 11 cents per a track; that makes 1.43 per album. If an artist could sell a million, that gives them a profit of 1.4 million. Sounds great so far. The label makes 6.8 million on the same sales. But what the label does is charge the artist for almost everything they can out the artists 1.4 million. Often leaving them little left.

The site does seem to give mixed messages. The reference to Poisoned supports your Kaaza statement. But the link to RIAA Radar links to independent artists with a similar sound.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by virividox
ahh let them be ignorant and stupid.

Yea, they say Apple is screwing the artists, ah genius, the artists are getting EXTRA money because of what Apple is doing. Not only that, but the artists are actually getting more, because some of those who use iTunes may have done INSTEAD of getting it free thru a p2p.

[pingin]

Originally posted by MacBandit
You are supporting them by linking to their site.

... wasn't that the whole point of the post? ;)

[airborne]

Originally posted by io_burn
WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE HOW ANGRY I AM AT THESE PEOPLE!!!! I wish I could punch through the internet to their insolent anti-apple faces!!!! How could anyone say anything bad about iTunes? That's BLASPHEMY!

I AM INFURIATED!!! How can they do this!? iTunes to me is like a sacred temple, and I weep to see it violated in such a way. I hope Steve Jobs hears about this because the last time someone took the name of Brushed Metal in vain, a lightning bolt shot straight out of his butt and smote them down!!

A glorious day that will be when the furious butt-lightning of Jobs, our holy Pixar CEO and contributor of clear plastic the world over, strikes these wretches to the ground.

ITUNES FOREVER!!!

[billyboy]

Apple aren't responsible for the way the music labels pay their artists. Apple are providing a medium to sell music over the internet.

To boycott or poo poo the store is like biting the hand that has the potential to feed you with as much music as you like.

The iTunes method of selling is going to help drive sales for the big five, which is why they supported iTunes with 200,000 tracks at kick off.

Equally so, regardless of how much the indie guys do or dont pay their artists, the store is also providing independent labels with a great opportunity to market their music.

So the model Apple have come up with is helping the Big Five, as well as providing an alternative to the Big Five.

The music lovers who would like to support the little guys, who quite frankly do seem to release far "better" music than the mainstream, then they should buy the indie tracks currently available from Apple and keep submitting requests for indie music. The more indy music, less Big Five being bought from iTMS, the more likely Apple is going to grow the indie library.

[pingin]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
Why because they are exposing what is wrong with the music industry? Evidently they hit a nerve with Apple, because Apple did modify their "fair to musicians" statement.



I agree.

And personally, I don't understand why people buy music from iTunes. It costs almost as much as a CD, has no resale value, and will sound crap as soon as you get a decent hifi (plus there are no liner notes, etc.).

The thing I do like about iTunes is being able to listen to excerpts of music before I (go out and) buy (the CD) :p

And a service I would pay for was a very cheap music rental service - say $20/month for unlimited access to the iTunes library with say acceptable but not great quality (96 or 64 kbps). It might be necessary to cap the daily download rate (to say 30 songs a day/user) for bandwidth reasons. (By the way, does anyone know what it costs Apple in bandwidth terms for each downloaded song?)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by pingin
I agree.

And personally, I don't understand why people buy music from iTunes. It costs almost as much as a CD, has no resale value, and will sound crap as soon as you get a decent hifi (plus there are no liner notes, etc.).

The thing I do like about iTunes is being able to listen to excerpts of music before I (go out and) buy (the CD) :p

And a service I would pay for was a very cheap music rental service - say $20/month for unlimited access to the iTunes library with say acceptable but not great quality (96 or 64 kbps). It might be necessary to cap the daily download rate (to say 30 songs a day/user) for bandwidth reasons. (By the way, does anyone know what it costs Apple in bandwidth terms for each downloaded song?)

Some of us don't have a decent enough stereo, or the ears to hear the difference. Now that I have some Pepsi caps (4 out of 6 rate so far) I probably will buy some music from iTunes.

One of the problems with the music industry is that many albums today only have 1 or 2 good tracks. The rest is garbage. Unlike what I felt in the Old Days (20 years ago) where most of the album was worth having.

While I don't see much difference now between a CD and M4A files, who knows maybe I will someday. For that reason i will buy solo songs from iTunes, but albums that i want (the whole thing) from wherever i can get the best price.

[DaveTheGrey]

lol

,laughing seems to be the best way to comment this crap.

It think that some people just have too muche time...

annoying

Dave

[pingin]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
Unlike what I felt in the Old Days (20 years ago) where most of the album was worth having.


what, the early to mid 80's? :confused:
any particular albums or artists in mind?

[OutThere]

I think that the website is leading people in many different directions.

a) It seems to be trying to justify the use of P2P apps to download music by saying that it is better than supporting major music labels.

b) It seems also to be saying that there is no way that you should listen to any big artists at all. All the big artists are signed with RIAA members. According to the RIAA Radar they have linked on their site, people are only morally allowed to listen to indie music, since it isn't signed with major labels. This is kind of a problem for anyone who likes somewhat more mainstream music. I like Phish, Phish is signed with Elektra. Am I a bad person if I buy a Phish CD?

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by io_burn
Why? Because I love iTunes? I've bought over 2000 songs off iTunes, and have no reason to stop until my iPod is full.

You have way too much money to burn, dude.:(

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
Many artists don't sell that many.

So true... I read somewhere not to long ago that some 2% of album releases account for 80% of music sales. Very sad.

[airborne]

Originally posted by sethypoo
You have way too much money to burn, dude.:(

Too much?! You can't spend enough money in my sacred iTunes temple! I've purchased easily 500 or 600 tracks so far and my iPod still has gigs and gigs free! I've thrown away all of my old CDs because they weren't blessed by Steven Paul Jobs!

Sure, I live in a roach-infested apartment on the corner of Mugway and Rapestreet, but every penny I earn I give right back to Stevie. If I could have my direct deposit sent straight to Apple I would, gladly!!

iTunes rules!!!!!

[d-fi]

Now i think that apple is taking their fair cut (35 cents) of a song since they advertise, supply servers, bandwith, etc.

Now if you can explain to me why the record label that does basicly nothing when it comes to iTunes gets (roughly) 55 cents and the musician gets 9 cents.

Now in most cases the artist writes the music (yes i know there are exceptions). The artist pays to have it recorded either on their own or out of their royalties. If the artist has a decent record contract they only have to pay for half of the cost of the music video (often costs WAY more then recording the album).

Now you say they should have signed a better deal. Guess what if they didn't sign that contract the record company will just get another artist who will sign that contract; because to them its about the money not the music

Now i'm starting to stray from my point do you think the record company should get 55 cents of a iTunes sale?

Yes the record company pays to get songs on the radio. But realy apple is running iTunes and this is just bunus cash for the record company.

for the average artist who most likely hasn't paid off their debt to the record company gets 9 cents to go toward that debt.

I don't think iTunes is bad, if anything it gives you a chance to hear if a album is good or not before you buy it because i do support buying good music major label or not :D

But i know i wouldn't cry if the major labels when bankrupt tomorrow :D

d-fi

[coolsoldier]

People have these misguided ideas of what iTunes is. It has a target market, most of which will listen to Top40/Pop music anyway, whether they download it illegally, buy the CD's, or download via iTunes. Of those three, buying via iTunes is best for those artists. Whatever the people who make these websites believe, no distribution system can instantly change the musical tastes of millions of kids.

What iTunes does do is place independent artists next to major-label ones. That's one better than anything else can do with a Top40 audience.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by pingin
what, the early to mid 80's? :confused:
any particular albums or artists in mind?

Queen, Billy Joel, America, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Styx - to name a few.

[kirs]

I thought you were talking about this site (http://jacobschatter.blogspot.com).

[kuyu]

It's a matter of time until the RIAA really deals a major blow to kazaa users. I wouldn't be suprised to see millions of songs, secretly released by the RIAA, that contain the nastiest virus ever coded. The RIAA has the money to pay mcafee and norton NOT to release the fix. The virus would basically render any computer with the bug totally unusable.

Also, the RIAA would not be prosecuted by the government. One, because they did the anti-piracy laws such a favor. And two, because people willingly downloaded the virus.

As long as the RIAA put up an obscure page on their site which said what songs were infected, they can't be held liable.

I bet that would bring kazaa to its knees in about 4 hours.

[djbombjack]

People seem to forget that artists have been getting screwed by record labels since year one.

This is nothing new, and is pretty factored in when you sign a deal. And remember, if an artist is getting screwed, it's usually his or hers manager's fault.

Artists with even an ounce of common sense know that the real money comes from shows, endorsements and merchandise anyway.
(Believe me, i've been a part of the 'industry' for the past 12 years - but not on the label end).

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by kuyu
It's a matter of time until the RIAA really deals a major blow to kazaa users. I wouldn't be suprised to see millions of songs, secretly released by the RIAA, that contain the nastiest virus ever coded. The RIAA has the money to pay mcafee and norton NOT to release the fix. The virus would basically render any computer with the bug totally unusable.

Also, the RIAA would not be prosecuted by the government. One, because they did the anti-piracy laws such a favor. And two, because people willingly downloaded the virus.

As long as the RIAA put up an obscure page on their site which said what songs were infected, they can't be held liable.

I bet that would bring kazaa to its knees in about 4 hours.

It would be illegal no matter who released that sort of virus. It's not up to RIAA to determine if someone is a criminal or not it's up to the courts. All people are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law in the united states even if the person walks into a McDonalds and throws 8 grenades killing everyone that person is still innocent of the crime until the court says otherwise.