Apple Branded Music Sharing Service...CONFIRMED??

[jholzner]

Hey everyone....take a look at this article over at the macobserver.com. According to the article both the LA Times and San Jose Mercury News today publised an article abot an Apple branded music sharing service....maybe Apple is going to announce it later today!! Guess we'll find out soon enough

http://macobserver.com/article/2003/03/04.6.shtml

[mac15]

I discussed this about 3 months ago in the apple.com disussion boards for the new itunes 4 if there was a new version coming.

I wanted a windowsmedia.com type system where people can listen to music for nothing of the net

[TMA]

Yowzers!
thanks for that!

Looks like maybe they've done an 'ATI' on Apple? I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for a new iTunes!

[Scab Cake]

According to the article, Apple will be using AAC for the encoding! Hooray for all you AAC kooks!

[Jaykay]

If its got a good repetoire of hard to find songs, i have no problem paying for that.

[SoonToGetAMac]

I think this may be a news conference, or mabye even an ad during prime-time TV, and that is why Apple's site is not updated

[Awimoway]

Several comments based on the article...

Sony's real sticking point is probably that it's heavily invested in Windows?

If Apple can't get Sony to sign on, will they kill the whole program? As everyone has mentioned, selection is critical to success.

The article only mentions the big five. If Apple does not seek them out, will smaller labels be able to join the program of their own initiative? Will enough of the smaller labels bother?

The article says the new program will come out in a month in an updated version of iTunes. Will this be iTunes 3.1 or the next major upgrade, v. 4, with Rendezvous?

Now that we know it probably will happen, who thinks that the program will be part of .mac?

The article is right in pointing out that Apple OSs have been largely overlooked with current pay-for-download services. This is further evidence that Apple isn't waiting around for third-parties to fill the gaps anymore.

I don't know much about the "Advanced Audio Codec" format. Will older/current iPods be able to play them?

(My apologies for cross-posting this from the older news thread on this subject, but my sense is that all of the discussion will move here now.)

[drastik]

I don't see why an older iPod would have problems with acc, its just a codec. There will need to be a software update for iPod, but that's quick and painless.

[srobert]

I just hope that there is a way to preview/sample music. Something like being able to listen the first 30 seconds, or the whole song with some sort of noise watermark. It would be a shame to download a song (and pay) and then realize it's not the version you were looking for. Samples also make it possible for you to discover new music.

[blueBomber]

this is a good step for the record companies... Hollywood already uses Apple to display all of their newest movies with quicktime, so why not use itunes to do the same with music.

I just hope Apple stays strong and doesn't resort to DRM (it's stuff like this that made me stray from the MS flock)

[buseman]

I don't think it will be a part of .mac, but rather iLife as they want it to be easy to to get into for every user.

[Matthé]

well not quite
but the ever complaining record companies can only benefit
it won't stop copying or sharing but at least there'll be an extra amount of people paying for music
$ .99 is not much
downloading a full album would still be cheaper than getting it in the store

I just hope it's not a .Mac service
I don't want .Mac

[robMaurizi]

I'd imagine that the service will be available to everyone, but perhaps the subscription price will be drastically reduced, if not free, for .mac subscribers....

I might just reinstate my .mac membership if that is the case :-)

-Rob

[Moxiemike]

Does anyone realize that this alone might be the trump card for Apple to get switchers in droves???

This is pretty revolutionary, and mainstream revoluntionary enough that the public can understand it (unlike, say, the newton or cube)

haha

"we're gonna innovate our way through the slump"

Steve-o was right on.

[backspinner]

I'm convinced it is for .mac people cheaper or something. They need an easy way for the payments and this can be accomplished by extending .mac.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by robMaurizi
I'd imagine that the service will be available to everyone, but perhaps the subscription price will be drastically reduced, if not free, for .mac subscribers....

I might just reinstate my .mac membership if that is the case :-)

-Rob

It wouldn't be free. It's not like .mac cost that much a month. Barely over having voicemail.

The hook might be.

"Sign up for .mac and every month get 5 free songs!!"

I know it won't be for .mac only. Apple may even roll the service out to PC users. Ubiquity is key here.

I think it's a somewhat good idea but it will matter on how "portable" the audio is.

I'm convinced it is for .mac people cheaper or something. They need an easy way for the payments and this can be accomplished by extending .mac.


The problem with that is .mac has 20% on a platform that has 3% total penetration of the market.

Apple would need to roll this out to everyone. Not just Mac users. or .mac user. Business 101 here.

[clonenode]

We can speculate that this will be a Mac OS only service, so even the Windows iPod owners will be left out. One more reason to switch!

[dongmin]

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Does anyone realize that this alone might be the trump card for Apple to get switchers in droves???

This is pretty revolutionary, and mainstream revoluntionary enough that the public can understand it (unlike, say, the newton or cube)

haha

"we're gonna innovate our way through the slump"

Steve-o was right on.

well no, since non-platform-specific pay-per-song services are already starting to appear, like on AOL. I'm sure as soon as Apple has any sort of successful with this, plenty of others will follow suit.

Apple, of course, could make things super user-friendly. Like integrating song search into Sherlock. And building in some sort of streaming sampling service into Sherlock/iTunes where with one click of a button, you buy the song and it's downloaded automatically to your HD and added to your iTunes library. Could be pretty sweet. The whole DRM thing could be tricky, but $1 a song doesn't sound too bad to me.

[chewbaccapits]

First of all, if an already small amount of .MAC users are to only benefit from this, wouldn't it be foolish to think it would work? I'm sure the record companies are not going to go for it if it involves the, what, 300-400 thousand subscribers of .MAC (not sure of the correct amount)only and the X number of iPod owners. Remember, Apple accounts for only 3% of market share in the world. Limiting to an already SMALL, but bright, pool of computer users would be dorky...My question is would the Windows ipods be LOCKED out of using this service?

[fixyourthinking]

The adoption rate would be minimal at best if it were limited to .Mac members only. Only a small percent of Mac users use .Mac - another small percent would use this service.

I would venture to say this will debut with new iPods and TWO version of iTunes. iTunes Pro and iTunes Lite

Lite will remain free and gain rendezvous/AAC support - Pro will have those features + "napster" and "editting"/"mixing" built in with new realistic types of visuals

[jethroted]

I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.

[chewbaccapits]

I don't pay for music..I get them for free...With this service, I will support APPLE's venture and start to pay for it...It can only better our little computer company.

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits

Remember, Apple accounts for only 3% of market share in the world.

No that's 3% of sales for every quarter the actual installed base is somewhere around 11%

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.

Yeah and some people though Apple was "crazy" for developing an MP3 player.

I'm still a fan of the CD myself. I'd just like to see them come down to an avg price of $7 and I'd be in Silver Platter Heaven.

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.


More than 80% of those who download music say they would pay reasonably if reliable, affordable, unrestricted, easy to use service were launched.

If the service would be gauranteed to have even HALF of what Napster was at it's peak, I would gladly pay $7.95 a month or 79 cents a song.

[backspinner]

.mac could be a small portion of the world, but the people paying for .mac are paying for their stuff. That way they could be the target market. Remember that they need a paying market, and not a big possible market that doesn't has money.

I bet that all the nay-sayers in this forum only buy cheap stuff so they are not the most interesting market. I, for one, would use this service, just like I enjoy my .mac account.

[MacManiac1224]

I think this is a great idea, Apple will be the first big company to endorse something like this, and it will bring a new revenue stream in for them. This shows me that they are becoming more of a services related company, which can only help them. I do not pay for music now, but if Apple comes out with this software, i will.

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.
My thought is that Apple is counting on most people not being total jerks. Take that however you like.

[drastik]

Nothing to keep a windows person fro having .mac, I'm sure many PC users do, you an mount just like on a mac. However, there is no iTunes for Windows, and I don't know of any ac support software in windows, so no PCers can use these product as is.

[JINX]

I don't get it. Is everyone just excited because this is an apple thing or because there is something truly innovative? While I appreciate that we all should be willing to pay for the music, I'm not sure what about this service will draw people when there are 20 ways to get the music for free and probably get a better selection at that.

And why would this make anyone a switcher? I've read the news releases and it just doesn't seem like anything too special other than it will be well integrated with iTunes.

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.

Yeah, I definitely see this point of contention, talk about an uphill battle. However, especially as of late, I've noticed the rampant 'poisoning' of songs on P2P networks (looped choruses, beeping, etc.) - of course, this isn't going to stop people from using these services, they'll just evolve into something different (say, smaller, trusted groups of users, for example). In having said that, I don't really have the time to invest in anything more involved than the current crop of tools (Limewire, Acquisition, etc.)... If I could get _rare_, specialized and mainstream songs all at a quality _I_ can choose, at a price much, much lower than a physical copy, I'd be for it.

The thing is - I do mean _much_ cheaper - I like liner notes!!!! For example, if we took this arbitrary amount of $1, times it by 11 songs (or so), that's $11. Potentially US$. I can go buy a CD for LESS, in CDN$. :eek:

Just my 2 coppers.

[drastik]

Originally posted by Codemonkey

The thing is - I do mean _much_ cheaper - I like liner notes!!!! For example, if we took this arbitrary amount of $1, times it by 11 songs (or so), that's $11. Potentially US$. I can go buy a CD for LESS, in CDN$. :eek:

I want much chaeper too, but where are you getting these under $11 CDs? Most CDs I see are an average of$17-$20 US. If Cds really cost $10, I think more people would pay for them.

[twelve]

why would i use this when i can find free songs everywhere else and i guarentee they will not have hard to find or anything on the hundreds of independent labels. what a waste of time and energy. go back to work on the G5, thank you.

[astomatous]

this will not amount to much of a revenue stream, more a switching schema. the music industry would feel themselves generous giveing apple 2%. this is about apple starting something great. the music industry is a bunch of vampires.

[backspinner]

Originally posted by twelve
why would i use this when i can find free songs everywhere else and i guarentee they will not have hard to find or anything on the hundreds of independent labels. what a waste of time and energy. nice flame bait :-)

You know what? Grown up people do pay for their music. That's a habit that comes with owning money (through a dayjob).

Children like these posters won't buy music even if it was 0,50$ a song, that's just nature.

I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by drastik
I want much chaeper too, but where are you getting these under $11 CDs? Most CDs I see are an average of$17-$20 US. If Cds really cost $10, I think more people would pay for them.

You're not understanding. Follow with me here:

$11 US = $16.25 CAD. I can buy CD's, most of the time, for about $14.99-$15.99 CAD.

Even if they _were_ more expensive CD's, say $17.99 CAD, the extra 2 dollars for liner notes, a nice silkscreened CD and a hard-copy, etc. Well, you get the idea.

This is based upon two assumptions: There are an average of 11 songs per CD, and that the micro-payment will be ~$1 US.

[patman_Z]

Is that because record companies are no longer needed because of the reduced cost of recording? Also what exactly is the record company providing? The artist can make and record the music, encode it, post it, and even advertise from start to finish. So why again are they needed? what do they give the consumer. But yes, being able to sample music would be required for me to care about this new apple service. I am not going to gamble even 1$ on a song that probably won't be that good. And if it will be perfect quality, and I can copy it to an iPod and cds, I guess that is ok unless an album has 22 songs!

I guess we will see

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by backspinner
I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.

Well put. I don't know either. I can download music, but it's hardly 'quality'. Definitely not CD quality.

Besides, I'm guessing "twelve" is his/her age...

<ducks>

[macstudent]

By Jon Healey, Times Staff Writer


Top executives at the major record companies have finally found an online music service that makes them excited about the digital future ? but it's only for Macs.

The new service was developed by Apple Computer Inc., sources said Monday, and offers users of Macintoshes and iPod portable music players many of the same capabilities that already are available from services previously endorsed by the labels. But the Apple offering won over music executives because it makes buying and downloading music as simple and non-technical as buying a book from Amazon.com.

"This is exactly what the music industry has been waiting for," said one person familiar with the negotiations between the Cupertino, Calif., computer maker and the labels. "It's hip. It's quick. It's easy. If people on the Internet are actually interested in buying music, not just stealing it, this is the answer."

That ease of use has music executives optimistic that the Apple service will be an effective antidote to surging piracy on the Internet, sources said.

Other legitimate music services have cumbersome technology and pricing plans ? motivated in part by the labels' demands for security ? that make them much harder to use than unauthorized online services, such as the Kazaa file-sharing system.

Although no licensing deals have been announced, sources close to the situation say at least four of the five major record companies have committed their music to the Apple service. It could be launched next month.

As promising as the new service is, however, there is a big limitation. Apple's products account for just a sliver of the total computer market ? less than 3% of the computers sold worldwide are Macs. The vast majority of the potential audience for downloadable music services uses machines that run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the service Monday, as did representatives from the five major record corporations ? Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group, Bertelsmann's BMG division and EMI Group.

The new service is so important to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs that he personally demonstrated it to top executives at all five companies, sources said. More than a dozen music executives have visited Apple since last summer and came away enthusiastic.

The executives also like the massive marketing plan designed by Jobs to educate consumers about the service.

The plan contrasts sharply with Apple's previous marketing campaign for Macs, which rankled many music executives who felt it promoted piracy. Apple's advertisements were emblazoned with the mantra "rip, mix, burn," referring to the computers' ability to copy songs and record them onto CDs.

Although the iPod has been hailed by many critics as the best portable music player on the market, Mac users have been overlooked by most of the label-backed online music services, including Pressplay, MusicNet and Listen.com Inc.'s Rhapsody.

As a result, Mac users may find it easier to make unauthorized, free copies of songs through an online file-sharing service like LimeWire than to buy a copy through a label-sanctioned service. Apple hopes to change that situation with its new service, which is expected to be included in an updated edition of the iLife package of digital music, photo and movie software.

Sources said Apple will make the songs available for sale through a new version of iTunes, its software for managing music files on Macs. Users will be able to buy and download songs with a single click and transfer them automatically to any iPod they've registered with Apple.

Rather than make the songs available in the popular MP3 format, Apple plans to use a higher fidelity technology known as Advanced Audio Codec.

That approach allows the songs to be protected by electronic locks that prevent them from being played on more than one computer. Still, sources say, Apple wants to enable buyers to burn songs onto CDs. That feature would effectively remove the locks.

That's been a sticking point for executives at Sony, sources said. The other four major record companies, however, appear ready to license their music to the new service.

No details were available on the price of the service, although one source said it would be competitive with other services in the market. Pressplay, for example, charges just under $10 a month for unlimited downloads, plus about $1 for each song that can be burned to CD or transferred to a portable device

[applejilted]

MOVE ON.... THIS IDEA IS JUST SO LAME AND SO YESTERDAY ...

99 cents per song is an outrageous price given the limitations. Let"s face it folks music is way overpriced in this Kazaa-dominated era that nothing short of a revolution in pricing will be acceptable .... just MHO

[nuckinfutz]

Apple could start out with Music...and then use the same infrastructure to offer Video and Data in the future.

This is much larger than just Music. If Apple can work out a decent DRM policy that consumers don't balk on then it's well worth the effort.

As the poster above illustrates. The P2P networks are being poisoned with bogus files.

This is merely the first salvo in an attempt to mold Apple into more of a Service provider(which is potentially VERY profitable)

We should welcome this with open arms as it's not going to harm us in any way.


MOVE ON.... THIS IDEA IS JUST SO LAME AND SO YESTERDAY ...

99 cents per song is an outrageous price given the limitations. Let"s face it folks music is way overpriced in this Kazaa-dominated era that nothing short of a revolution in pricing will be acceptable .... just MHO


It's not the idea that needs to be revolutionary it's the implementation. The pricing is not outrageous as most albums only have 3-4 good songs. That means you're "Album Price" is priced according to how much of the Album you like. Sounds fair and equitable.


What Apple needs to do is offer. Top Notch files.

I'd include all the proper tagging and even include lyrics by default when possible. The files need to be beyond reproach here to fly from the crap that's on Kazaa et al.

[littlejim]

I can't really see how this is going to work for me.

For example, I was in Central London yesterday. I dropped into HMV and picked up 5 CD's for 22 UKP (about $35). It was all back catalogue but very popular stuff.

You can pick up more recent music at a good price in shops and on the 'net and eBay.

So why I should spend even $7 downloading a CD when I can have a nice, shiny silver disc with a printed sleeve (that is also my backup if my iPod/Mac blows up or is stolen?). I don't get it.

I can only see myself using the service if there are some seriously rare tracks that are impossible to get on CD.

littlejim
---------

He's fallen in the water

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by patman_Z
[snip]The artist can make and record the music, encode it, post it, and even advertise from start to finish. [snip]
I guess we will see

This is what independent artists have been doing on sites like MP3.com for years. The revenue can actually help with their expenses, if they get popular enough. I know a few local bands that still use MP3.com to help market their music!

If this new Apple-branded music service had the ability to let indie bands distribute their music as well, I think that it would introduce independent groups to brand new audiences...

[edited for spelling]

[GeeYouEye]

I'm still cautious on this one. I personally find AAC to have very few advantages over MP3. You only reduce file size by 30%, and lose some quality in the process. Now if Apple could come up with a lossless codec to use instead. And I know I don't like the part about not being able to put downloaded music on more than one computer... in order to prevent putting a backup on an external HD and then hooking that up to another computer, it'll have to be tied to the HD and iPod. Which means, unless you have an iPod, you can't back up the music at all, meaning that the next virus, magnet, or sudo rm / -r turns your music into so much wasted cash. I do like the idea of free songs, or discounts, to .Mac members though.

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by backspinner
Children like these posters won't buy music even if it was 0,50$ a song, that's just nature.

I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.

You touch on the very arguement that people make with the RIAA and software companies.

Those that weren't going to pay for it to begin with aren't going to pay no matter what cost it is, how easy it is or how hard it is. Kazaa will eventually get to the point of being "napstered" - a new service will take it's place.

Just because someone downloads music for free does NOT mean they are stealing it

For instance, I downloaded the whole Chicago soundtrack, liked it, bought it.

I downloaded a whole Enya album, like it, bought it

I downloaded one track from the Solaris soundtrack, the rest the album is crap, haven't bought it, will keep the song, and enjoy listening to it.

If you can honestly sit 10 people in a room and ask them to listen to music Mp3 128-192k encoded and a CD ; then ask which is better or which is the Mp3 - and get them to tell the difference every time or even 2 times out of 10 then ..... well, you know, I'll give you an imaginary $100 or something.

[patman_Z]

Just to be clear, I am not saying music should be free, and I haven't downloaded it since before napster got on the radar. I think that more of the profits from the music should go to the artist, and not the recording cartel known as the RIAA. I also think that artists should be real, and write their own music. and maybe if things aligned properly we wouldn't have "reality shows" like pop stars. manufactured music is a bad thing.

[twelve]

Originally posted by backspinner
nice flame bait :-)

You know what? Grown up people do pay for their music. That's a habit that comes with owning money (through a dayjob).

Children like these posters won't buy music even if it was 0,50$ a song, that's just nature.

I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.

i work 9 to 5 everyday just like everyone else and i purchase plenty of music, probably 100 times as much as you do. a service like this is geared towards lazy out of touch people to be scammed into buying low quality music from companies completely out of touch with the music scene already. Can only play on one device, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE. Apple should be enabling the consumer with technology which gets rid of these concepts and back to providing kick butt hardware.

[snahabed]

I am all for Apple getting into this business. However, a 99 cent per song model is FAR too much.

Singles, as they used to exist, and still do EVERYWHERE but in the US, contain extra tracks, multimedia, and/or remixes... must of this content is better than the primary track. NONE of this will be translated, and therefore I will still have to go on XNap to get this stuff from my European friends.

For 99 cents, you get NO artwork, NO hardcopy backup, NO extra tracks. They have NO costs of producing CD's, buying cases, or printing liner notes. Moreover, the files will be COMPRESSED, whereas on CD they are not and therefore make the ideal backup master.

If I am to sacrifice all of this, it better be LOW cost, and my friends, 1 dollar per song just aint low cost enough. This is why the free services have worked, and the pay ones have not. Consumers aren't dummies. We know when we are being gouged. This service should be no more than 25 cents a song for an unfettered file. If one wants bonus tracks, uncompressed hard copy backup, artwork, liner notes, maybe 5.1 audio/dvd included (like Fischerspooner just released), then one can buy a CD... There, the whole is more than just the sum of its parts (the theoretical 10 25-cent tracks = $2.50).

The record companies have brought all their woes on themselves, by releasing horrid music, gouging consumers with mega-inflated prices, and killing off the singles market, which was the only way that a consumer "legally" could purchase a track without paying for tons of album-filler. Oh boo hoo RIAA, boo hoo.

[AntoineG]

Originally posted by drastik
I want much chaeper too, but where are you getting these under $11 CDs? Most CDs I see are an average of$17-$20 US. If Cds really cost $10, I think more people would pay for them.



Go to www.hmv.com and see for youself. Here in Canda you can buy brand new CD for less than 11$US and mint used CD for less than 11$CDN. I would never pay 1$US for a song unless I can copy it to a CD and I can sample it before buying.

[unc32]

if you wanted a whole album then this service would appeal to you. This is mainly for the albums were there are one or two of the songs which are worth listening to. You pay two bucks and get those songs...not the 9 other crappy ones and save 10 bucks. If the quality of the songs is high then this would be definetely worth is as the songs off kaaza are at a low bit rate and opften have pops and skips.

[patman_Z]

I agree about mp3.com, that is a good start. My friend Ed does that and seems to do ok for himself. I still don't know if I would "rent music" like that. renting because :
1. there is no hard copy
2. your drive passes away, you could lose thousands and not be able to get them back
3. the only product that you are buying is a little mp4 formatted file for a buck a piece (that technically you license. not own) with no production cost, and only the bandwidth to pay for. no CD, no distribution, no shipping. just post a song and people download it.


it is a profitable thing, but I don't see it as a good deal. I have spent a few hundred dollars for the albums I own, which on my iPod is about 6 or 7 gig. about 1700 songs, few hundred for hard copies--almost 2 thousand for mp4s. another thing, what about bonus dvd's like the system of a down's Toxicity? will there be bonus mpeg4 videos for free too?

[vanillamike]

Originally posted by adzoox
If you can honestly sit 10 people in a room and ask them to listen to music Mp3 128-192k encoded and a CD ; then ask which is better or which is the Mp3 - and get them to tell the difference every time or even 2 times out of 10 then ..... well, you know, I'll give you an imaginary $100 or something.

lol the imaginary $100 that was too funny.

This is an interesting concept. I think there are a lot of people out there who would find it convenient to download music and not have to go to the store to get it (shut ins and lazy people come to mind ;) ).

This is going to come off bad probably, but I am still a little soar over how much Apple products cost (even though I love them). However, what better demographic then Apple users? They have enough money to pump into their hardware why not give them something else to spend their money on like this music service :D

Mike

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by snahabed

For 99 cents, you get NO artwork, NO hardcopy backup, NO extra tracks. They have NO costs of producing CD's, buying cases, or printing liner notes. Moreover, the files will be COMPRESSED, whereas on CD they are not and therefore make the ideal backup master.

This service should be no more than 25 cents a song for an unfettered file.


I'm for it being reasonable, but 25 cents isn't enough. 79 cents or 99 cents is fair

Besides how do you know iTunes won't have a lyric viewer and album art visual plugin?

There are several iTunes plugins that do this kind of stuff now.

How do you KNOW that iTunes won't have buy one, get one mixed/remixed offers?

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
I don't pay for music..I get them for free...With this service, I will support APPLE's venture and start to pay for it...It can only better our little computer company.

Yup!!! 99c per song is a reasonable tag. I refuse to pay $12 for a CD with one good song. I will support Apple on this one!

[KLFloyd]

Artists have every right to make money off of their work but I think everyone's love for P2P file sharing with music is the fact that we're just so fed up with the insane prices the music industry is charging for CD's. I mean come on, $15 for something that costs you less than $1 to make?

I want to compensate artists for their work, but I also hate going out to buy an entire CD for one song I've been looking for a comprehensive music download site like this that supports the Mac for a while now and if Apple could provide this to me, BONUS!

I'd like to see something with either a $10 a month or less for unlimited downloads or maybe in the range of $0.75 per song. But as for .Mac, I'd like to see the .Mac subscribers get a little "bonus" for their subscription. Let's face it, I'm paying $99 a year for my email address and to support the company I?ve love. I and many other .mac subscribers, and have no real use for the other services .mac offers. homepage.mac.com/username isn't exactly a great URL for your web site and iDisk service is spotty at best. I use iCards maybe twice a year and have better anti-virus software. If Apple were to kick in 10 free downloads a month for .mac users I?d keep my subscription active.

Apple ventured into the Windows market with the iPod so I have no problem with them supporting iTunes 4 but I do agree this could be a good reason to get any lingering Switchers. Though from a business point of view, Apple may need to market it to Windows, but perhaps with limited options.

I had all but decided not to buy an iPod but this might make it worth it. Put me on the list, I?ll buy if this is all it?s cracked up to be. Here?s hoping to sooner rather than later.

A side note, with the LA Times leaking the story this isn?t a small leak for Apple, this is pretty major public knowledge now. Do you think this will prompt them to push up their timetable at all?

[pauld]

Is this a worldwide or USA deal I wonder?

[Foucault]

Apple is the best company to bring paid music service into the public. Their innovation and creative ideas can really create an environment where the music industry doesn't feel cheated and the consumer doesn't feel threatened. People will pay for service if it works, and Apple has proven over the years that they are a company to be reckoned with.

This relationship with the music industry might also make the iPod the most indespensible electronic product for the next five years.

[vanillamike]

Not to open the door on pricing strategies but I think they should offer single song downloads for the 99 cents and maybe a cut rate for the entire album.

Imagine those stupid rap CDs with like 28 tracks most of them being little skits and mother f*%ker this and that, they would cost a fortune. ;)

Mike

[robotrenegade]

Does that mean no more limewire?

[chewbaccapits]

I remember alot of naysayers with the iPod..."Apple going into an already crowded MP3 market will not work!!!", fast foward, one of the best MP3 players out there, hands down. This service, albeit, a very risky one, could be a great rabbit pulled out by APPLE's hat.

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by robotrenegade
Does that mean no more limewire?

We can only hope!

LOL. Oh. Wait. Do you mean for re-distributing paid-for songs, or to use the built-in MP3 player?

[LethalWolfe]

With the exception of rare albums or imports I don't pay more that $15 (pre-tax) for a CD so if you are paying $17-$20 you're shopping at the wrong store(s).


Originally posted by patman_Z
Is that because record companies are no longer needed because of the reduced cost of recording? Also what exactly is the record company providing? The artist can make and record the music, encode it, post it, and even advertise from start to finish. So why again are they needed? what do they give the consumer. But yes, being able to sample music would be required for me to care about this new apple service. I am not going to gamble even 1$ on a song that probably won't be that good. And if it will be perfect quality, and I can copy it to an iPod and cds, I guess that is ok unless an album has 22 songs!

I guess we will see


If record companies were no longer needed they wouldn't exist. Studio time, touring, advertising, and videos all cost money. And yes bands can shoe-string it and get by but if you want to "go national" that takes a lot more $$$ than most unsigned or indie label bands can afford. Record companies give bands money for all those things up front and hope that the band will be able to generate enough to pay them back. Record companies are like movie studio's in that the majority of their ventures fail to generate a profit or break even. Even though I hate mindless summer blockbuster films I realize that w/o them raking in the dough many quality indie flix probably wouldn't get released nationally in the US. Same thing goes for music. I'm not a fan of Ms. Spears or N'Sync but hopefully w/the money they generate the labels will sign a talented but less mainstream band that I might like.

The fundamental purprose for record companies and movie studio's is needed, but like most everything else envolving humans creed and corruption have f((ked it up...

I'm not big on the on the dial-a-song method. I'll d/l songs off a P2P network to see if I like it. If I do I'll buy the CD, if I don't I trash the songs. I guess I like having something tanglible <sp?> plus I like getting cover art and inserts and such.


Lethal

[the future]

Originally posted by adzoox

If you can honestly sit 10 people in a room and ask them to listen to music Mp3 128-192k encoded and a CD ; then ask which is better or which is the Mp3 - and get them to tell the difference every time or even 2 times out of 10 then ..... well, you know, I'll give you an imaginary $100 or something.

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. On a decent stereo system you (and everybody else) will be able to tell the difference 10 times out of 10.

[drastik]

It occurs to me that iTunes 4 is supposed to have rondevous support for playlists and files. This means that playing on one computer is moot, the files are just stored in one place but accessable by all on the network. This makes a lot of since, as wanting to have it on your Mac is natural, and is afforded ny this technology. Wnting to have it on a friend's MAc is not legal, and not possible with this tech.

Thats great, I really hope it happens this way.

[swayed]

i tried e-music for 3 months and really liked the service, lots of rare european stuff that is almost impossible to find as well as alot if indie bands and some other obscure stuff, plus no restrictions on downloading or burning all for 14.99 a month for 3 months. My only problem with the service (the reason I did not renew my subscription was the bitrate (128). Now if Apple could bring about a service like this with one pricing tier, unlimited downloads and you can do with the music what you like all in mp4 at a good bitrate, well then sign me up, cause I don't have the space for alot of cd's nor do i care about liner notes. If anyone can make a service like this work it will be Apple. Also I think someone posted an article where it said something about transfering the music to Apple registered Ipods; what about a 2 Ipod house, would that mean only one person gets access to certain songs, that would be a major bummer.

[pbrennen]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I'm still cautious on this one. I personally find AAC to have very few advantages over MP3. You only reduce file size by 30%, and lose some quality in the process. Now if Apple could come up with a lossless codec to use instead. And I know I don't like the part about not being able to put downloaded music on more than one computer... in order to prevent putting a backup on an external HD and then hooking that up to another computer, it'll have to be tied to the HD and iPod. Which means, unless you have an iPod, you can't back up the music at all, meaning that the next virus, magnet, or sudo rm / -r turns your music into so much wasted cash. I do like the idea of free songs, or discounts, to .Mac members though.

Apple doesn't need to come up with a lossless codec; a free, opensource codec already exists. flac.sourceforge.net also, ogg doesn't have any DRM and sounds, imo, better than mp3 at the same bitrate (and size). Apple has stated that they will not support DRM in their OS

[Nebrie]

If you're paying $15 a cd, you need to ditch your store and look somewhere else.

[arn]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I'm still cautious on this one. I personally find AAC to have very few advantages over MP3. You only reduce file size by 30%, and lose some quality in the process.

where did you see/read this?

arn

[sparks9]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I'm still cautious on this one. I personally find AAC to have very few advantages over MP3. You only reduce file size by 30%, and lose some quality in the process. Now if Apple could come up with a lossless codec to use instead. And I know I don't like the part about not being able to put downloaded music on more than one computer... in order to prevent putting a backup on an external HD and then hooking that up to another computer, it'll have to be tied to the HD and iPod. Which means, unless you have an iPod, you can't back up the music at all, meaning that the next virus, magnet, or sudo rm / -r turns your music into so much wasted cash. I do like the idea of free songs, or discounts, to .Mac members though.

I think it would be really cool if you had an account at Apples music service that "remembers" which tracks you've bought, and these tracks you should be able to download again and again so you won't waste your hard earned money if the computer dies...

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by the future
I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. On a decent stereo system you (and everybody else) will be able to tell the difference 10 times out of 10.

I have done it, and no one, even if side by side could tell. ANY audiophile can tell there are some highs and lows missing, but the average person can't and the average person doesn't care.

You also have to take into account that the better the system the better the MP3 sounds too.

[twelve]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Even though I hate mindless summer blockbuster films I realize that w/o them raking in the dough many quality indie flix probably wouldn't get released nationally in the US. Same thing goes for music.


This only applies to independent bands that then get signed to a major label. 99.9% of which do not and the analogy falls flat, or in other words, independent labels derive no extra benefit from the products of Major Mega artists.

[sparks9]

This is a very dangerous business, dealing with the big record companies! I hope Apple survives this "adventure"... :eek:


WOOHOO 100 posts! :D

[swdrumcp]

Several Points:

I agree that .99 each is a little steap, especially when theres very little to no coast involved. I believe .70 would be resonable. just think 100 songs will coast you 100 dollars, thats would not be hard to do.

Perhaps they should have a deal, say if you purchase 50 songs they only cost you .75 instead of .99

Will there be anyway to preview the songs. I dont want to buy a song and download it to find out I dont like it.

What about modem users, perhaps the interenet connection drops, does the portion of the song you recieved automatically deleate. Or are you charged full price for a song you didnt recieve?

Once you purchase the song you should be able to use it on other computers, ipod etc.... correct?

Yes AAC will work on old iPods its already supported.

And How much of A cut will Apple recieve??? Do they get .10, .20, .30 for each song? Do they get a percentage every month? Or doe record lables get all the profit and pay apple to use the service? I think this is a very interesting question. I am sure the record labels will get the majority of the profits however.

Thanks

[twelve]

Originally posted by adzoox
I have done it, and no one, even if side by side could tell. ANY audiophile can tell there are some highs and lows missing, but the average person can't and the average person doesn't care.

You also have to take into account that the better the system the better the MP3 sounds too.

http://www.e-tradepages.com/Images/front.jpg

[backspinner]

Originally posted by Nebrie
If you're paying $15 a cd, you need to ditch your store and look somewhere else. sorry to say, but in Europe we have to pay tax so a cd costs $20+

[QuiteSure]

Ok, so the service will only be available to people with a .mac account. Maybe Apple will offer a deal where you get your first 10 songs free when you sign up for a .mac account. I've heard there is a service were you pay $10.00 a month with unlimited downloads (on the Windows side?). I don't see that working on the Apple side, but I do see Apple leveraging .mac for this.

[sparks9]

Originally posted by backspinner
sorry to say, but in Europe we have to pay tax so a cd costs $20+

Yeah in Denmark the price for a new cd is ~20€ (~22$).
Way too expensive I think. Some time after the release you can get them for half the price though.

BTW: The number of cds sold in Denmark have been halfed in the last 2 years. Guess why....

[laodamas]

iTunes Music Service (speculation):
1. Fast, dedicated, reliable servers
2. AAC (mp3 sucks for high fidelity)
3. No legal issues to worry about, even on corporate or university equipment and networks.
4. Minimal DRM (Tied to a particular user, not a machine. Possibly a .Mac account)
5. $1 per song + network cost
6. The knowledge that you are not a thief, even if it means supporting RIAA labels.

2P2:
1. Unpredictable servers
2. Questionable quality of downloads
3. Huge legal issues. Possibility of being raided and charged for unlicensed content esp. on private equipment.
4. No DRM whatsoever
5. $0 per song + network cost (Will cost more if charged per byte or connection time)
6. The knowledge that you are a thief.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by twelve
This only applies to independent bands that then get signed to a major label. 99.9% of which do not and the analogy falls flat, or in other words, independent labels derive no extra benefit from the products of Major Mega artists.


The example may fall flat, but the analogy remains the same. Any label, independent or not, works on the premise that they'll have enough income generating bands to off-set the loss generated by bands that are not profitable. The only examples I think of that wouldn't fit this mold are big artists (or other independtly wealthy people) that start their own (usually small) small, private labels and don't neccisarily<sp?> need or expect the bands on their label to turn a profit.

Many of the "big" independent label's aren't really independent. They are just the "independent arm" of a major label (or in some other way affiliated w/a major).


Lethal

[timbloom]

I don't think this service would only be available to .mac users, but probably a worthwhile discount to them.

AAC audio is 30% the size, at the SAME quality.. no, don't go copying your mp3's to AAC, because you will only lose quality from going from one compression to another. So then you can have a same-sized AAC at better quality than mp3.. People that don't like any compression will have less to whine about.

I can see this service being available to only mac users to start off, and if successful, probably go on into the PC market, like the iPod did.

But don't make any assumptions about the service until apple officially announces it, because things change, and they do often before apple releases them.

[swdrumcp]

Damn all I was expecting from iTunes 4 was Rendevous. So will we get both Rendeveous and this???

Just imagine, one guy purchases a song, then another guy listens to it over rendevous, and likes it so much he purchases it. Seems the record companines are getting a hell of a deal this way, Essentially Apples technology is letting people hear the song and purchase them. I think Apple should get like 50% of the profits, sounds only far.

Unfourtunatley for all this new stuff I have no problem seeing apple making iTunes a purchase, say 39, or 49.

[sparks9]

Originally posted by swdrumcp
Damn all I was expecting from iTunes 4 was Rendevous. So will we get both Rendeveous and this???

Just imagine, one guy purchases a song, then another guy listens to it over rendevous, and likes it so much he purchases it. Seems the record companines are getting a hell of a deal this way, Essentially Apples technology is letting people hear the song and purchase them. I think Apple should get like 50% of the profits, sounds only far.

Unfourtunatley for all this new stuff I have no problem seeing apple making iTunes a purchase, say 39, or 49.

No this has to be free, you don't pay money to go into a musicstore.

[Apple][Forever]

how does this affect the old Apple Records lawsuit? Is that still even an issue?

[Jaykay]

imagine the ad campaign for this, digital hub eh?

[Jaykay]

Originally posted by patman_Z
I guess that is ok unless an album has 22 songs!



maybe there will be some kind of deal for whole albums and other things like artwork and videos.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.

I would gladly pay. Firstly, I don't download music because it is free and illegal to do so. I have no love for the record companies, but, being an artist myself, I don't like violating the rights of the artist. I'll download something if a band or artist permits it, but that's as far as I'll go.

Second, if Apple does this then I'd expect their offerings would be of a much higher quality than songs you can download for free. If they can protect it from being downloaded by others then even better, makes Apple's service more appealing.

I still prefer buying CDs, but if I can buy some online and burn them myself, saving some $$$ in the process and being able to print out the sleeves, then sign me up.

This service would be great for creating legal mix CDs as well. Maybe the best way to do it is discount complete albums.

Anyhow, I'd definitely sign up for a legal service that could deliver even obscure music. Hopefully Apple will be willing to distribute almost anything.

And other than music, this could allow for easy advertisement and delivery of Mac software - such as games, all from one source.

As for testing songs, what would be ideal is the ability to download a song for free and be able to listen to it for 24 hours before you buy it. If you like it, you've got to pay for it. If not, the music won't work. Apple could keep track of what you downloaded so you can't continually download the same song w/out paying. If you want it after that initial 24 hours, you've got to pay.

[greenstork]

To debunk some of the rumors in this thread. AAC takes up less space, between 30-50% less than mp3 depending on the bit rate. It is also much better sound quality than mp3, often indistinguishable from CD quality. MPEG 4 (AAC) also has the capabilities of displaying customized text and graphics accopanying the song, allowing for essentially an album cover, graphics, lyrics, etc. to flow into iTunes. I would guess that the new version of iTunes, if it is using MPEG 4, will have some sort of feature that includes text, graphics, etc.

It will basically do for music and individual songs, what DVD's did for movies. Extras are digitally included in MPEG 4 at much higher quality than mp3, taking up less space on your HD.

[network23]

I'm not sure where this would be feasible, but think about the fact that Firewire doesn't need a computer to network...

I can see someone walking up to a FW port somewhere with their iPod and plugging it in. A file on the iPod stores your identification and credit card info. On the iPod screen you are greeted with a Welcome message and menu of options: browse, search, listen, buy.

You use the iPod to find a song you want, decide to download it, and the charge is billed to your credit card automatically.

Cool, huh!

[speechgod]

Originally posted by Apple][Forever
how does this affect the old Apple Records lawsuit? Is that still even an issue?
My thoughts EXACTLY. In the settlement, Apple agreed not to enter the record industry. So this could make them in breech of that settlement. We shall see...

[a_kim]

HAHAHA. Thanks for the good laugh, TWELVE.

-Alex

[Timothy]

It occurs to me that this could be a force that will allow Apple to justify lower costing iPods. If they surmise that a significant portion of iPod users will become Music service subcribers, the cost of the iPod could then be subsidized to some degree by this additional flow of cash to the company.

If such is the case, it would benefit Apple greatly to put more iPods in the hands of users. Cheaper iPods would mean more iPods in the hands of potential customers for the music service. Here's hoping...

[benmac]

My predictions:
? iTunes 4 with rendez-vous and support for the Apple music service.
? New iPod with support for AAC, iTunes 4 and the Apple music service.
? New digital device (see new plastic enclosure (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=21160)) that connects to hifi to play music stored on a Mac and to TV to view movies/slideshows stored on a mac. It would have an Airport Extreme card, an ethernet port and be rendez-vous enabled.

Benj.

[Qball]

Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it?

YES! Maybe I'm a completely dishonest person, but with a little bit of effort, all of this can be had for free. If I sit down for a few hours, I might download 20 songs, which would cost me $20. Or zero if I just use Acquisition.

Eminem is the most downloaded artist right now, and he still made $29 million last year. I'm just having a really hard time convincing myself I need to pay for music.

[MacFan25]

A monthly fee that offers unlimited songs that you could download would be great.

[sweetaction]

how amazing would this be for indie labels? virtual international distro without having to deal with all the hassles. find your hard markets before you send out solid goods.

i hope that labels can opt in to this service. that would be amazing. how great would it to be able to find rare obscure and maybe even high quality live songs from your favorite bands?

the major labels are going the way of the dinosaur.

bring back the art, kill the industry

[nuckinfutz]

To debunk some of the rumors in this thread. AAC takes up less space, between 30-50% less than mp3 depending on the bit rate.

Actually that's impossible. AAC at 128 bits per second is the same date rate as MP3. What they're saying is an AAC@ 96bps should sound equivalent to 128-192 MP3.

They have been less than honest about this IMO. First I want to "hear" the proof. I've heard alot of woofing about AAC but no ones using it.

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by Qball
YES! Maybe I'm a completely dishonest person, but with a little bit of effort, all of this can be had for free.

Because you view the likelihood that you will be caught as inconsequential, you mistakenly characterize the music as "free."

Thieves who are never caught are still stealing.

If you are ever caught, what will be your defense?

1. "Everybody is doing it." Never works.
2. "The music is just too expensive." Never works.
3. "The artists make plenty of money." Never works.

I am simply amazed by the brazenly immoral tone taken by some of the posters on this thread.

Would you go into a restaurant and steal tip money off a table?

There's no difference.

[wdodd]

Originally posted by MacFan25
A monthly fee that offers unlimited songs that you could download would be great.
That's what PressPlay is - $10/mo for unlimited downloads. You can also pay more if you want to burn a limited number of songs to CD or a portable device.

[Qball]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
Because you view the likelihood that you will be caught as inconsequential, you mistakenly characterize the music as "free."

Thieves who are never caught are still stealing.

If you are ever caught, what will be your defense?

1. "Everybody is doing it." Never works.
2. "The music is just too expensive." Never works.
3. "The artists make plenty of money." Never works.

I am simply amazed by the brazenly immoral tone taken by some of the posters on this thread.

Would you go into a restaurant and steal tip money off a table?

There's no difference.

All of your points are correct. I concede.

However, to borrow from one of your examples, I would say that I would never frequent a restuarant that I felt was ripping me off (too expensive, lame portions, portions that are too large, whatever). But if a friend had leftovers from the restaurant, I'd eat them!

When CD's first came out, the record companies said that costs would be high at first, just like CD players were, but that the costs would eventually fall in line with LP's and cassettes. Never happened, they lied.

And, in the past, we used double-cassette recorders with nary a stink -- you could borrow a friend's tape and make a copy. No moral "stealing" argument from the RIAA. But now that technology has greased the wheels, oh NOW we have a problem.

[Bateman]

A fuss was given when the VCR and tape recorder were released...

Have you ever taped something off the radio or a CD onto a tape? That too is stealing, but only in the sense that somebody says it is. Music has existed longer than the human race, humans just channel it, and i don't think that a force like that can be stolen. Anyhow, half the stuff that is being stolen i don't even consider music, just pop-abominations (scoff...scoff....)

Legal issues on this topic will forever be debated.

But hey, I'd pay for this service, i'd like it if there was a flat fee w/unlimited DLs though....


(EDit: QBall good job! Quicker on the draw!)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I'm still cautious on this one. I personally find AAC to have very few advantages over MP3. You only reduce file size by 30%, and lose some quality in the process.


Really? Seems the opposite of my experience, getting 40-50% smaller files with equal or better fidelity with the original. AAC employs a much better psychoaccoustic model than MP3, which is how it gets better results with fewer bits.

Now if Apple could come up with a lossless codec to use instead. And I know I don't like the part about not being able to put downloaded music on more than one computer... in order to prevent putting a backup on an external HD and then hooking that up to another computer, it'll have to be tied to the HD and iPod. Which means, unless you have an iPod, you can't back up the music at all, meaning that the next virus, magnet, or sudo rm / -r turns your music into so much wasted cash. I do like the idea of free songs, or discounts, to .Mac members though.

AAC (and WMP, for that matter) DRM does not keep you from copying files. It keeps you from using files branded to one computer on another computer. Usually (but not always), you can "back up" your computer's identifying key as well as the files themselves, in which case when you buy a new computer you can move all your files and your ID key over to the new computer and everyone's happy. Of course, this isn't perfect DRM (there is no such thing!), as there's nothing keeping you from just putting the same ID key on multiple computers, but it makes "casual copying" less convenient, which is about all DRM can really hope for in the first place.

Personally, I don't think the music companies should be too worried about people burning their songs to CD, etc. Yes, one can then rip the CD back out to high-bitrate MP3s, but you definitely lose quality with each burn/rip decode/encode cycle. IMHO, the CD is a convenient format, but not necessarily my archive format. I'd love to be getting better-than-CD audio via download, archiving these tunes in digital form, and burning to CD-quality for use in my car.

[wdodd]

Originally posted by greenstork
To debunk some of the rumors in this thread. AAC takes up less space, between 30-50% less than mp3 depending on the bit rate. It is also much better sound quality than mp3, often indistinguishable from CD quality.

Ummm, that's wrong. Bit rate is bit rate and takes the same amount of space in either format. The AAC promoters will tell you that AAC sounds better than MP3 at the same bit rate (128 vs 128), and sounds the same at a lower bit rate (96 vs 128). The hitch is that once you get up towards CD-quality (I'll say that means 192 kbps or better) the differences between the various formats start to disappear. At that point there are plenty of bits to play with, just differences in the accuracy of the encoder. I believe it is >very< hard to tell the difference between MP3, AAC, and WMA at >200kbps.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by adzoox
If you can honestly sit 10 people in a room and ask them to listen to music Mp3 128-192k encoded and a CD ; then ask which is better or which is the Mp3 - and get them to tell the difference every time or even 2 times out of 10 then ..... well, you know, I'll give you an imaginary $100 or something.

Hmmm. Well, I don't have very demanding ears (in know many others who are far more critical of subtle defects than I), but I can certainly tell the difference between a 128kbps and a 160kbps MP3 file for most popular music, and between 160kbps and the CD most of the time. 192k, and I can't distinguish it from the original CD in any case I've tried.

So, one more like me, and then eight others and we'll split your hypothetical $100!

[Qball]

Originally posted by Bateman
A fuss was given when the VCR and tape recorder were released...

Have you ever taped something off the radio or a CD onto a tape? That too is stealing, but only in the sense that somebody says it is. Music has existed longer than the human race, humans just channel it, and i don't think that a force like that can be stolen. Anyhow, half the stuff that is being stolen i don't even consider music, just pop-abominations (scoff...scoff....)



Listen, if an artist creates something and then you get your own copy for free, that's technically stealing. Humans don't channel music - they create it from scratch. It's just that this isn't a huge deal -- kinda like the difference between taking some pens from work and carjacking the boss' car!

I can only imagine the outrage if a struggling painter painted a masterpiece that the world only discovered when an evil lithographer stole the painting and made 100,000 copies. That's stealing!!! It would be a great Dateline NBC special, for sure.

However, the lamest defense of music file sharing is the right one -- we've been doing it for over 20 years now! Ever heard of "squatters rights?" If you erect a new fence in your backyard and accidentally place it one foot over the property line, into your neighbor's yard, after a certain amount of years, the property legally becomes yours. You technically stole his land! But squatters rights prevail. This same hair-brained argument can be made to defend music downloaders.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by KLFloyd

I'd like to see something with either a $10 a month or less for unlimited downloads or maybe in the range of $0.75 per song. But as for .Mac, I'd like to see the .Mac subscribers get a little "bonus" for their subscription. Let's face it, I'm paying $99 a year for my email address and to support the company I?ve love. I and many other .mac subscribers, and have no real use for the other services .mac offers. homepage.mac.com/username isn't exactly a great URL for your web site and iDisk service is spotty at best. I use iCards maybe twice a year and have better anti-virus software. If Apple were to kick in 10 free downloads a month for .mac users I?d keep my subscription active.


First: "Unlimited downloads" is a really, really bad idea. "All you can eat" plans work when there is a realistic limit for how much even the most determined consumer can eat. With unlimited downloads, say bought on a computer hooked up to a nice fat T3 to the backbone, how long do you think a determined user would take to download every known song, current and back catalogues? I would expect "volume" deals (and would love "album" deals with extras), but not an unmetered option at all.

Second: Giving away $10/month to .Mac users who are paying less ($100/12 months) than that for the .Mac service ... seems a bit overzealous for a service that is as new and not amazingly profitable as .mac is. Maybe $2-3 worth per month would fly, but I don't expect $10 would. Remember that Apple will likely be paying the music companies a set amount per downloaded song, and so Apple cant just give the songs away without losing massive amounts of money.

[Freg3000]

I'd like a new App from Apple-whatever it does. And about the AAC and the bit rate and all.....I don't think most everyday generic Mac users (to whom this is geared to I believe) even care how it's compressed or encoded. They just want it to sound good.

P.S. Not to say that people who like high quality sounding songs aren't everyday people, but, you know, like..... you know. :D

[mk_in_mke]

I have read a lot of replies in this forum and, with all due respect for all the mac community, I don't know if the discussion is really "what is the best sound quality"...

If Apple makes the move then the important point for us is : is it the right move? What are the tools that are going to support this move? Where is Apple going and what are they targeting...

I think that this is a logical move BUT is it what the market is expecting in the long term?

Positioning, positioning, positioning!

Michel

[dongmin]

Originally posted by sweetaction
how amazing would this be for indie labels? virtual international distro without having to deal with all the hassles. find your hard markets before you send out solid goods.

i hope that labels can opt in to this service. that would be amazing. how great would it to be able to find rare obscure and maybe even high quality live songs from your favorite bands?

the major labels are going the way of the dinosaur.

bring back the art, kill the industry

I wholeheartedly agree. I find buying CDs to be a major pain when you deal with indie lables. Sure it's fine if you live in a big city and you know of a specialist shop somewhere.

And finding music online (via Kazaa or whatever) that's not top-40 is also a huge pain. Especially on the Mac; I find the p2p clients for Macs to be inferior, unuseable in many cases.

It would be great if there was some sort of clearing house for indie music, not unlike eBay. The site or service would simply be an interface, charging a small commission, where any artist can sell their music directly to the consumer, and the artist can set their own price for the music. No distribution network would be necessary. This clearing house could work in conjunction with a group of internet radio stations. You hear a song on iTunes that you like, you click on the Artist button, and you're taken straight to the clearing house where you can hear more samples or buy the song directly. It could be one of the freest form of intellectual property transfer...

[wdodd]

Originally posted by jettredmont
AAC employs a much better psychoaccoustic model than MP3, which is how it gets better results with fewer bits.
The complaint I see raised against AAC over and over is that the psychoacoustic model hasn't been tuned very well yet. The Nero implementation is getting good reviews though, as is PsyTEL.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by wdodd
Ummm, that's wrong. Bit rate is bit rate and takes the same amount of space in either format. The AAC promoters will tell you that AAC sounds better than MP3 at the same bit rate (128 vs 128)

When I said that AAC takes up 30-50% less room depending on the bit rate I was saying that a normal mp3 is encoded at 128-192 but MPEG 4 is "noramally" encoded at 96. This 96 bits/sec is higher audio quality than mp3 at 192. Hence 50% less space for the same or higher quality. I understand that one bit equals one bit, this seems fundamental and basic.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
The example may fall flat, but the analogy remains the same. Any label, independent or not, works on the premise that they'll have enough income generating bands to off-set the loss generated by bands that are not profitable. The only examples I think of that wouldn't fit this mold are big artists (or other independtly wealthy people) that start their own (usually small) small, private labels and don't neccisarily<sp?> need or expect the bands on their label to turn a profit.

Many of the "big" independent label's aren't really independent. They are just the "independent arm" of a major label (or in some other way affiliated w/a major).


Lethal


Okay. So, Britney Spears sells $5 fudzillion in a day. The record company chooses to take these profits and:

1) Manufacture a Britney Spears look/sound/dance-alike to generate maybe only $4 fudzillion in a day (law of diminishing returns).

-or-

2) For the good of humanity and their altruistic karma, support a small band that makes $500 per year and might one day (after 100 more BS records) be up to $1 fudzillion in a year.

Yeah, I'm sure (2) gets picked a lot!

No, record companies do use mega-profits off their top-tier bands to support taking a "chance" on developing new bands/artists, so long as those new bands/artists look like they have a reasonable chance of making mega-sales themselves in a few years. However, the idea that profits for one type of music makes it more likely that a less popular type of music will be supported is just plain backwards.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Actually that's impossible. AAC at 128 bits per second is the same date rate as MP3. What they're saying is an AAC@ 96bps should sound equivalent to 128-192 MP3.

They have been less than honest about this IMO. First I want to "hear" the proof. I've heard alot of woofing about AAC but no ones using it.

Well, not really. AAC preserves the highs and lows of music where MP3 basically just cuts them off (seems there was a pretty graph of this around somewhere a few months back, comparing AAC, MP3, MP3Pro, and WMP ... maybe on tomshardware.com ...). Thus, while an AAC at 96kbps may well sound a lot like an MP3 at 160kbps across most of the accoustic range, in the "high" end it still beats MP3 hand over fist as MP3 has very little in the high range until you get into much higher bitrates. How well a codec represents a source at a specific setting is not just a single number; it is a set of numbers.

While at "30-50% smaller" (lower bitrates) the AAC matches MP3 accoustic quality for the most part across the board, it still greatly exceeds MP3 quality in the extremities of the range. Thus, AAC encoded files can be made 30-50% smaller than MP3s (assuming both were encoded from the same source) and still sound "better".

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Qball
All of your points are correct. I concede.

However, to borrow from one of your examples, I would say that I would never frequent a restuarant that I felt was ripping me off (too expensive, lame portions, portions that are too large, whatever).


Then don't buy music from the RIAA. Buy independants' music, assuming that more fits your value system, or don't buy music at all!


But if a friend had leftovers from the restaurant, I'd eat them!

Which is why this is a poor analogy. Food can only (normally ...) be eaten by one person. If it were somehow possible for your friend to go to this expensive restaurant, order a meal, eat the meal, then also allow everyone else standing in line to the restaurant to eat that meal, you'd have an equivalent analogy.

If your "friend" (however loosely you define that) is giving you his CD "leftovers" and physically removes them from his own possession, that is one thing (after-market sale). If he is keeping his "leftovers" then the analogy has failed.


When CD's first came out, the record companies said that costs would be high at first, just like CD players were, but that the costs would eventually fall in line with LP's and cassettes. Never happened, they lied.


Well, they didn't "lie". CDs definitely got cheaper, for them. They just got used to the profits and conveniently forgot to lower their prices fr the rest of us :) Which is why, if you hurry, you can get a whole $25 back from the RIAA over a price-fixing class action suit ...

If you ask the RIAA why CDs are so expensive, they'll say that while the per-unit costs are much lower, the overhead costs have skyrocketed. Studio rentals, editors, and promotions all cost money. Granted, it is the record company paying itself rent on a studio it owns and contracting from itself the editor who gets paid a salary, but these are called "costs" nonetheless.

But, in the end, it is your fault (and mine), not theirs, that CDs still cost as much as they do. In any market with inflexible demand, prices will rise to the limit of what the market will bear (ie, where the demand suddenly becomes "flexible"). If CDs were really too expensive, we wouldn't have been buying them these last 20 years.

On the other hand, today there are thousands of musicians out there peddling their wares for just a little over the cost of CD duplication. If you want low-cost music, that's your best bet.


And, in the past, we used double-cassette recorders with nary a stink -- you could borrow a friend's tape and make a copy. No moral "stealing" argument from the RIAA. But now that technology has greased the wheels, oh NOW we have a problem.

No "stink" was raised not because it was legal (don't call it "fair use" ... "fair use" doesn't cover duplication and distribution), but because the copies made in that manner were of low enough quality that the number of generations were limited, and thus the overall impact of copying was limited. With MP3s, copying (not encoding/decoding, file copying) is lossless, and thus the number of potential generations is limitted by the number of interested parties ... a single purchase could easily spread out such that everyone on the planet has a second-generation-quality copy.

Given that the previous situation was tolerated for technical reasons only, it is natural that technical progress would eventually make the situation no longer tolerable.

[wdodd]

Originally posted by greenstork
This 96 bits/sec [AAC] is higher audio quality than mp3 at 192.
Bold statement. I feel more comfortable that AAC is equal to MP3 at 30% lower bit-rates. AAC is pretty transparent to me at ~180kbps while MP3 is equally transparent at ~220kbps or so.

But it all still depends on the specific encoder and the specific music. Some listening tests have put AAC dead last on certain samples. Others show it near the top. When we have a better tuned AAC encoder, I'll be happy to jump on the wagon with you.

[patman_Z]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
With the exception of rare albums or imports I don't pay more that $15 (pre-tax) for a CD so if you are paying $17-$20 you're shopping at the wrong store(s).





If record companies were no longer needed they wouldn't exist. Studio time, touring, advertising, and videos all cost money. And yes bands can shoe-string it and get by but if you want to "go national" that takes a lot more $$$ than most unsigned or indie label bands can afford. Record companies give bands money for all those things up front and hope that the band will be able to generate enough to pay them back. Record companies are like movie studio's in that the majority of their ventures fail to generate a profit or break even. Even though I hate mindless summer blockbuster films I realize that w/o them raking in the dough many quality indie flix probably wouldn't get released nationally in the US. Same thing goes for music. I'm not a fan of Ms. Spears or N'Sync but hopefully w/the money they generate the labels will sign a talented but less mainstream band that I might like.

The fundamental purprose for record companies and movie studio's is needed, but like most everything else envolving humans creed and corruption have f((ked it up...




Lethal


My point with saying that they are no longer needed is because the technology has bottomed out in price, for less than 5K total you can have a nice recording studio. Granted that is a lot of money. Really all one needs to make music anymore is a nice mac and some software, and some microphones and a PA system of sorts (older ones that work just fine are pretty cheap). The touring is the only time the artists actually make money, they make very little on cd sales. The recording companies business model hasn't evolved with technology and now have less to offer. To the recording companies, it is about money, and that is all (have you seen teen idol?) Musicians are in it usually because they love music, some are foolish and want to huge stars, but you have a better chance of winning the lottery ....5 times. and yes, B spears, 98 degrees, and the new kids on the block are all foolish :-) It is just a shame that the recording cartel wont just go away, we would all be better off. Think about it, and you will see the disservice they actually do to the consumer.

[jettredmont]

[Obligatory obfuscated Disclaimer: IANAL, NDIWTB]

Originally posted by Bateman
A fuss was given when the VCR and tape recorder were released...

Have you ever taped something off the radio or a CD onto a tape? That too is stealing, but only in the sense that somebody says it is.


Well, it depends on how you use it. If you are "time-shifting" or (to a less-legally-defined sense) "format-shifting", you are within your "fair use" rights. However, if you are copying the program and giving a copy to someone else, you have violated the record company's copyright.

Again, as before, the record companies don't make a big deal about this because technologoically it can not cause them too much damage.

Music has existed longer than the human race, humans just channel it, and i don't think that a force like that can be stolen.



yeah, and so have stories and incisive commentary ... seems like I should be able to "republish" Stephen King's latest to give to all my "friends"!

Copyright law is well-established in this country; it is even in the constitution. If you don't like the law, then seek to have it changed, or find a society that believes in your "free love^H^H^H^Hmusic" ideals.


Anyhow, half the stuff that is being stolen i don't even consider music, just pop-abominations (scoff...scoff....)


Okay, so either you listen to that crap anyways (in which case you're an elitist hypocrite), or you copy the "other half" of music (and thus this comment is meaningless; more important is the fact that half of the music that is being "stolen" you do consider music), or you don't "share" music at all (in which case one would have to wonder why you are arguing this in the first place).

"I snuck into four movies today."

"That's stealing!"

"No it isn't! The other three movies at the theater were crap!"

Yeah, whatever.


Legal issues on this topic will forever be debated.


Legally, there is really very little dispute. The debate comes from those that wish to change the laws and/or who feel that certain parties have violated the "public trust".

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Qball
Listen, if an artist creates something and then you get your own copy for free, that's technically stealing.

Just to be difficult, it's actually technically copyright violation, not stealing.

[bellis1]

Whatever happened to musicians as performers and not studio sunken businesses. I absolutely hate the idea of paying for music. I firmly believe that we are beginning to be believe everything the record companies tell us. If musicians want to make music make it by putting on performances. And use the radio, internet, and CD's as a way to promote yourself as a musician not relying upon some piece of plactic or digital stream. Many people have not lost sight of that ideal. We have'nt forgot in New Orleans. And copy protection on the songs? You've got to be joking. I hope this pans out for apple just because of access and convenience. But I truly believe it is a terrible idea and makes me wonder all the more about where the rights of digital media are going. There's got to be other ways for artists to support themselves than to sell their souls to record companies. It will be a sad state when I have to start keying in pins to hear music. Absolutely absurd.

[AmbitiousLemon]

I would have to agree with snahabed, Codemonkey, vanillamike, and swdrumcp.

$1 per song is way over-priced. This is the only problem I see with the service.

Most albums I own (just scanning over them now) have 12-18 songs on them. Some even have as many as 25 (some have tracks nnot listed on the back of the cd that would bring the total number of tracks even higher).

I also have a large number of classical and punk albums that I bought brand new for $2-$8.

I haven't bought a new CD in about 5 years (I only buy used now — as do most people I know). But most albums in the US cost $15 - $22 (I can remember just a few years back when this number was more like $12-$17). This is all before tax but since Apple's service will probably be taxed It doesn't make much difference.

When I used to buy new albums I would shop at tower records or vinyl fetish. At both places I could find rare CDs, singles, and imports. So if I only wanted one song I would pay less. People who buy the whole album for one or two songs are an anomaly to me. Buy the single! But most artists I enjoy put out complete albums (i mean I like the whole darn thing).

So I do not understand why anyone would pay $12-$14 for a download album that would be encoded, have DMR, no cover art, cost more money to burn, can be lost form the computer easily, be lower quality, etc. When for a couple more bucks you can get the same music without the limitation and with the extras (and with a cd that has a much longer projected lifespan) brand new. Or you can buy used or discounted music for half that price and again don't get any of the limitations.

So even if we completely ignore the fact that you can get the same exact service by downloading acquisition or xnap this system is way over priced unless they change the pricing scheme.

$1 per song with the ability to redownload the song whenever you like for free. plus album cover, lyrics, etc. would be good for single downlaods.

$.50 per song for full album downloads with cover art and lyrics would be reasonable for full albums. again assuming you can redownload for free as long as the service is still runnning. this would mean you you pay about $6 for the average sized full album. Considering you would have to pay anough buck or two for burning and printing if you want the enarest equivalent to a store bought CD i thin that is reasinable pricing (you still lose quality and longevity of your music.)

but if there are no extras and no option to downlaod again for free then then even the pricing i describe wouldn't be worth it. if we take the service at face value (ie the pricing is as described in the article) then i cant imagine paying much more than $.30 per song. It is just too easy to go out and buy a actual CD that gives me everything I want with no sacrifices for a fraction of the cost this service offers.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by jettredmont
[Obligatory obfuscated Disclaimer: IANAL, NDIWTB]
Legally, there is really very little dispute. The debate comes from those that wish to change the laws and/or who feel that certain parties have violated the "public trust".

agreed. legally the matter is quite simple. copyright violation. cut and dry.

but you and others here make a critical error imho. you forget morality and legaility are not one and the same.

it is illegal to download music. i would argue that it is not immoral to download music. i would argue that people are fundamentally good and moral. and the simple fact that so many people download shoudl demonstrate that there is a conflict between the what is and what should be in the law.

i personally never follow the law. i follow my own morality. most often the two do not conflict. sometimes my standards are different than the laws standards.

i will not blindly follow a set of laws simply because they are the law. i actually think about what i feel is right and wrong and act accordingly.

if i was drafted into the war against iraq. i would not go. my actions would be illegal. but i would feel that i was acting in a moral manner.

be careful when framing your argument that you do not confuse legality and morality.

[CraigStanton]

I would gladly use this service but I don't think Apple will let me.

The problem is my address. I don't live in America or Canada. I live in New Zealand, and because of this simple fact I have been barred from many of the .Mac benifits that those in North America can enjoy.

I couldn't claim the free photo printing that originally convinced me to sign up for .Mac, I couldn't get any of the vouchers that they offered to many European countries as a replacement for the "free photo" deal, I couldn't enter the .Mac creativity contest and I can't even pay for the iPhoto printing service.

I don't expect Apple will include other countries in this new music service, but I do expect them to charge the rest of us the same amount anyway.

[DeusOmnis]

Originally posted by adzoox
I have done it, and no one, even if side by side could tell. ANY audiophile can tell there are some highs and lows missing, but the average person can't and the average person doesn't care.

You also have to take into account that the better the system the better the MP3 sounds too.


I've done it, and it was excessively easy to tell

[yumpin yiminy]

Haven't read everything here thoroughly, so excuse me if I am redundant.

--The Apple Records lawsuit is something which was settled, but I thought it was renegotiated somehow. I might be wrong but when the iPod was released I thought there was some finaggalling with McCartney and company to make sure toes weren't being stepped on.... too lazy to Google it....

-- This is good for Apple because how much could it cost to implement something like this? To maintain it? Unlike services which only offer music for money, Apple has an infrastructure in place that can accomadate it and which they make money from. So, sort of like Roxio re-issuing Napster, Apple will still make money from other related products regardless of a slow adoption rate or the relatively limited market they are pursuing, just Macs user/iPod owners vs. everyone under the sun.

--If Jobs is convince piracy (and where is the ol' Jolly Roger Flag these days) is more of a behavioral thing that technological thing then the notion may very well be that Mac users disporportionately "share" less music in comparison to PC users. Also, many Mac users are creatives who just won't steal and are more likely to buy. Those two things probably sound pretty good to record companies. Given most PC users are the bulk of digital piracy...well, once again, PC-only users make us Mac folk look reeeaal good.

--DRM: there has to be some portabilitity beyond just an iPod, but, if hooks are in place, like FWire connectivity and being able to use the iPod with various other devices like stereos of various types, then why burn it? That may be a naive reading of what Apple and the record companies are thinking but it might be the case. Sure the articles keep saying that you will be able to burn it to CD but there might be a notion that burning it to CD is more appealing than sharing it with Kaaza users. it is certainly a gamble.
Bottom line on that: mebbe Steve made some of his special KoolAid for record execs--whose parent companies are hurting, btw. This isn't exactly like the investment on any parties part is that great.

--the MP3 quality vs. AAC...i'm weak on this, but i thought MP3 does a high pass filter thing and cuts off highs and lows to acheive a steady bitrate. So, there is a noticable loss given the compression level. You'd think it would be noticable to true audiofiles, with multi-thousand dollar listening devices. To be able to buy uncompressed AAC--if such a thing is possible--might be just right and might fit in with 40 gig harddrives for the iPod vs. all that noise about the next iPod being a Watchman redux.
--will this work? who knows. extra bells and whistles need to be added and as a vertical integration strategy Apple does stand to gain, as do Mac users. For me, I would just like to be able to get in on the value added content making opps of enhancing the songs...making animations for promo vids or visualizations specifically made for specific songs.

[DeusOmnis]

Originally posted by MacFan25
A monthly fee that offers unlimited songs that you could download would be great.

Perhaps they could have multiple plans, because I buy music sparatically, and I dont want to pay 15 bucks some month that i download 2 songs.

Also, what about the smart ppl that will sign up for one month, download every song possible (I can dl at 900 kb/sec), and then not purchase another month until a year or so later (except for the hits of course).

[Timothy]

Ambitious...I was wondering if you'd pop up into this discussion. Remember when we went round and round on this issue a while back? ;-)

I say you're wrong. Downloading music off P2P networks is immoral...the "everybody is doing it" argument is lame. :rolleyes:

Is not...

Is too...

Is not..

Is too...

Maybe we should just link to our prior debate?

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by mk_in_mke
If Apple makes the move then the important point for us is : is it the right move? What are the tools that are going to support this move? Where is Apple going and what are they targeting...

I think that this is a logical move BUT is it what the market is expecting in the long term?

Positioning, positioning, positioning!

Michel

1. I think Apple will, to greater or lesser extent, make this deal more advantageous to .mac customers because even Apple recognizes that the service needs improving to justify the price.

Many have argued that the .mac customer base is too small for Apple to limit the product to them. But look at the flipside--Apple is thoroughly committed to .mac. It is a fee-based component of OS X. The integration will only get tighter, and they want to broaden that customer base. Making the program in some way better for .mac users will bring in more customers. I could easily see Apple integrating the iTunes 4 song-puchasing feature with .mac.

2. Now, to contradict myself, I think that many have correctly assumed that the iPod's success will prompt Apple to pursue other ways to cash in on the portable digital music consumer market. What this does is make buying an iPod all the more compelling. Therefore, either the article is wrong in saying that this product will only be available for Apple users or Apple will test run it with Apple users for the first year or so before expanding it to Windows (just as they did with the iPod itself).

3. Apple is not the only tech company to realize that fee-based, steady-stream products are in many ways more profitable than selling hardware or even software with its annual upgrades. Products like this will keep the hogs at the trough all day long.

4. This is further proof that they intend to utterly dominate the "digital hub" market. This product will work far better than everything else on the market, I have no doubt (Except for the one nagging doubt I have that selection will be limited to the big labels, and perhaps even a select list of titles from said labels?that would be a huge mistake. One of the things that makes Amazon, Ebay, and other Internet shopping experiences so great is that you can literally find anything and everything ever published, sold, made, etc. The same needs to be true for the digital music market.)

[wdodd]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Also, what about the smart ppl that will sign up for one month, download every song possible (I can dl at 900 kb/sec), and then not purchase another month until a year or so later (except for the hits of course).
The current offerings (PressPlay) use DRM so that you can only listen to those songs if your account is still current.

[bones]

Um... why is a RUMOR "CONRIFIRMED!!" just because the LA Times publised it? For all we know, their sources were mac rumor sites.

Don't be silly. news.com has published false Apple rumors gleaned from the web before, i wouldn't put it past the LA Times.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Timothy
Ambitious...I was wondering if you'd pop up into this discussion. Remember when we went round and round on this issue a while back? ;-)

I say you're wrong. Downloading music off P2P networks is immoral...the "everybody is doing it" argument is lame. :rolleyes:

Is not...

Is too...

Is not..

Is too...

Maybe we should just link to our prior debate?

think we could find it? that was awhile ago. dont think anyone read it all but you and me though.

[arn]

Originally posted by wdodd
The current offerings (PressPlay) use DRM so that you can only listen to those songs if your account is still current.

Well, they had different information... so presumably a seperate source.

arn

[Winston Smith]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sparks9
[B]This is a very dangerous business, dealing with the big record companies! I hope Apple survives this "adventure"... :eek:

I'm stunned it took until the middle of page 3 of a 5 page post for this to be pointed out.
The big record companies are huge scared animals right now generally because of their complete inability to change at the same speed as the rest of us. So their fight back is to try and control and its wrong.

Personally I have bought more music since having iTunes and the likes of Limewire because I can try before I buy, however I will not buy copy protected CD's. (These are a UK only thing at the moment where a PC can't read the "CD" or it might mess up the optical drive, the scared animals won't try it in the US as its the biggest market)

So for some artists I'm only left with download and its already been pointed out that the P2P services are being polluted with doctored content.

So the Apple link sounds like a great idea; but then scared animals make sure the great idea is only available to 3% (max) of us - this however gives them a legal argument of being 'in touch' with new tech. Then the system its on won't allow the 99c purchase to be shared even between 2 iPods in the same household + all the other calmer rants that have come before.

Oh and why do I want AAC when we all now are fully tuned to MP3?

I think I'd be happier to just have vinyl with a good system and a bit of care it was nearly as good as MP3, reasonably cheap and I could borrow a mates copy to put on a tape that was ok.
Of course not I've changed, but some elements were good particularly borrowing someone elses to discover it was good and that I didn't want a tape I wanted the best quality there was so I bought it - even as a 'child'!
That part has never changed but people in big offices who never listen to the stuff they sell can't understand that and get unnecessarily scared.

This could be good thing for Apple, it could bring more switchers to this beloved platform, but it really scares me that Apple could get burned because you can't trust these dinosaurs - after all they can't see that its them trying to kill their business.

Excuse the rant etc. its late over here.......

[Winston Smith]

Originally posted by CraigStanton
I would gladly use this service but I don't think Apple will let me.

The problem is my address. I don't live in America or Canada. I live in New Zealand, and because of this simple fact I have been barred from many of the .Mac benifits that those in North America can enjoy.

I couldn't claim the free photo printing that originally convinced me to sign up for .Mac, I couldn't get any of the vouchers that they offered to many European countries as a replacement for the "free photo" deal, I couldn't enter the .Mac creativity contest and I can't even pay for the iPhoto printing service.

I don't expect Apple will include other countries in this new music service, but I do expect them to charge the rest of us the same amount anyway.

Sorry everyone I forgot to include this point in my previous post
Enough bitterness for one night..:mad:

[guifa]

Originally posted by sparks9
Yeah in Denmark the price for a new cd is ~20? (~22$).
Way too expensive I think. Some time after the release you can get them for half the price though.

BTW: The number of cds sold in Denmark have been halfed in the last 2 years. Guess why....
I can only guess. I tried to find a place to buy Jupiter Day's album. Looked everywhere, couldn't find a place online from which to buy it. I finally gave up and (since I stay legal with my music) sent an e-mail off to Sony Music DK. Got a message back wondering how I (being from the States) had heard about Jupiter Day. I sent back close to a page long story how I arrived there (going from Spanish class, to Basque music, to other forms of Euro music, to Danish music [D-A-D, Me & My] and then finally hearing Jupiter Day.....just more in depth) and I got an e-mail back asking what my address was and that for my "amazingly long journey" I'd get a copy for free :D . Like 4 days later I got the album, plus their three singles.

The really funny part? This whole story is true.

[bkassing]

So this might be the stupid question, but if Apple goes ACC, what happens to MP3? Do they all get converted? I have 10GB of MP3. ITunes would have to support both and rip both, right?

[Squire]

I believe it will work for a couple of reasons:

1) Mac owners are obviously willing to pay for quality- look at the prices of the machines. So, perhaps, the average Mac user is more apt to shell out a few bucks for some good quality tunes and the interface than the average PC user.

2) Apple has a cult-like following. A large percentage of Mac users would probably want this to succeed so they'd support it.

3) As someone else mentioned, a lot of Mac users are involved- in some way- in creative fields and can more easily empathize with musical artists.

I also believe that the .mac users will get some perks that others don't get. Perhaps iDisk backup of downloads?

Can someone please explain how this could hurt Apple? So they spend a few million getting the interface tweaked. Is that all they'd be out if this service fails? I say give it a shot. Why not?

Squire

[SoonToGetAMac]

Yeah, but you could conserve quite a bit of HD space if you re-ripped the CDs to AAC (much smaller file for same quality). I know I will be doing this in phases, whenever I get a chance.

[wdodd]

Originally posted by bkassing
So this might be the stupid question, but if Apple goes ACC, what happens to MP3? Do they all get converted? I have 10GB of MP3. ITunes would have to support both and rip both, right?
MP3 isn't going away any time soon. Even if AAC is noticeably better at lower bit rates, people aren't going to throw away all the MP3's that they've ripped and encoded or throw away all the devices/software that only support MP3.

What you might see is that iTunes would give you a choice to encode to either MP3 or AAC. The iPod would have to be updated to support decoding AAC. It remains to be seen if this can be delivered as a firmware update to existing iPods. We're all hoping that the existing iPod owners will be supported (and the chances seem good).

You will be disappointed if you transcode from MP3 to AAC. A copy of a copy made in this manner will sound a lot worse than encoding to AAC from the original CD. Some people might do it to save disk space, but I would keep my MP3 collection and consider encoding new music to AAC. Personally, I still like MP3 for the flexibility it gives me to play back on a number of devices and software.

[wdodd]

double post

[marcsiry]

Can someone please explain how this could hurt Apple? So they spend a few million getting the interface tweaked. Is that all they'd be out if this service fails? I say give it a shot. Why not?



It's not like there's a massive outlay of cash happening here. An Applescript running overnight to encode the AACs- a bit of code to add browse and buy- and all the info comes via EDI from the publishers anyway.

They'd be foolish not to do it if there was a demand for this- and there clearly is. I know I'll buy when it's available.

[kcmac]

Anyone think it would be possible as part of the music download that it could also download the words? Could they scroll on the screen or be a part of the visuals as a viewing option?

Rendezvous is the answer to the one computer issue. Awesome.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by bkassing
So this might be the stupid question, but if Apple goes ACC, what happens to MP3? Do they all get converted? I have 10GB of MP3. ITunes would have to support both and rip both, right?

No, if you rip AAC from mp3 you are just recompressing an already compressed mp3. You will actually lose quality from the mp3. In order to get the benefits of higher sound quality, you will need to start over from scratch, ripping all of your library from CD.

[mlnjr]

Will I be able to segregate AAC files from mp3s?

I've got over 12 GB of mp3s, all ripped from CDs I own (and I'm not even finished ripping my collection.) I've been ripping them all at 192, using VBR, which means that a lot of the tracks get encoded at upwards of 200. Virtually indistinguishable from full-quality CD audio to my ears, unless I'm listening with headphones (there seems to be less presence in the mp3s compared to the originals. The music is "less stereo" and closer to mono, if that makes any sense.) I'm willing to put up with that, because I only use iTunes for playing my CDs jukebox style or making mixes. For full-CD duplication, I use Toast.

I'm interested to see what's in store with this rumored upgrade to iTunes featuring AAC support and downloading. If the quality is that much better with even smaller sizes, I'd consider using the download service.

People complaining about the number of low-quality, error laden files on the P2P networks might want to look into Usenet newsgroups. The alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.* groups don't seem to have anything other than high-bitrate encodings, and they take requests. ;) I don't use Usenet to download entire albums, but instead download one or two tracks to see if an album is worth purchasing.

BUT I've got to say that the online distribution method I like the best is livephish.com (http://www.livephish.com). Phish's sound engineer Paul Languedoc records every show from the soundboard, dumps it onto a TiBook, inserts track breaks and fadeouts, then uploads the files somewhere. All shows are available for purchasing no more than 48 hours after the performance, and the tracks are available in .mp3 format (128, I think) as well as in Shorten (.shn), which is a larger file size but absolutely lossless. .Shns cost more, but I'd rather pay $12.95 for THREE DISCS WORTH of full-quality audio from one concert than pay a buck per song. The Phish deal includes PDFs of CD cover inserts, too.

[maxterpiece]

I think the key here is that apple has to recognize that if this is going to be successful, it has to have appeal across the board. I have confidence that Apple will be able to make the service relatively simple and easy to use, but if I can't find the music that I'm interested in when I'm interested in it, I'm not going to integrate this software into my life. I'll get bored with it and forget about it. If, however, there is more than just billboards top 200 and X's greatest hits, then there would definitely be times when I'd pay to be able to download some music at a high reliable quality and bandwidth. Time is money and if I have to waste time dealing with unreliable music downloads, I'm losing money.
I don't think it's realistic that when this product is released the offerings will be that diverse, but maybe in a year?

Shake your a$$. watch yourself.

[zac4mac]

This could work, if..

.mac sub gives you low quality - 64k AAC maybe - unlimited "preview" downloads.

99cents/song or 7-9 bucks/album for uncompressed one-clik purchase. With .pdf info.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
Because you view the likelihood that you will be caught as inconsequential, you mistakenly characterize the music as "free."

Thieves who are never caught are still stealing.

If you are ever caught, what will be your defense?

1. "Everybody is doing it." Never works.
2. "The music is just too expensive." Never works.
3. "The artists make plenty of money." Never works.

I am simply amazed by the brazenly immoral tone taken by some of the posters on this thread.

Would you go into a restaurant and steal tip money off a table?

There's no difference.

Music is free, it's having a hard copy from the music company that's carries a fee. How can you compare stealing tips to downloading mp3s? I can record on the radio a damn good copy of any song I want. I can record on Tivo/VHS and damn video I want, hey all for FREE and LEGAL. So how is downlaoding a dumbed down copy of a music file illegal? How is using a legally store bought GO GO VIDEO amchine to MAKE EXACT COPIES of VHS movies legal, but downloading an avi and joining the file segments then converting it to mpg and either leaving it on my computer or burning a copy to a CD illegal?

How many of you OWNED A STEREO WITH 2 CASSETTE DECKS!?!?

Immoral? That's what's silly. That you some how feel like dudley do right and all us downloaders are eveil villians who are only doing WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THE EARLY 80s!!!

It's only illegal when the big corporations think it's denting their pockets.

So I guess I've stole tips of tables since I bought my first LEGAL stereo with 2 cassette decks. I'm so evil and immoral :rolleyes:

[Kid Red]

Oh yea- Anyone else catch the HNN clip about Apple releasing a music service next month where users can download songs for a buck a peice? Very interesting news.

Nice to see Apple getting press and nice to see Apple rumors getting that much attention and nice to see Apple of the news.

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by Kid Red
Music is free, it's having a hard copy from the music company that's carries a fee. How can you compare stealing tips to downloading mp3s? I can record on the radio a damn good copy of any song I want. I can record on Tivo/VHS and damn video I want, hey all for FREE and LEGAL. So how is downlaoding a dumbed down copy of a music file illegal? How is using a legally store bought GO GO VIDEO amchine to MAKE EXACT COPIES of VHS movies legal, but downloading an avi and joining the file segments then converting it to mpg and either leaving it on my computer or burning a copy to a CD illegal?

How many of you OWNED A STEREO WITH 2 CASSETTE DECKS!?!?

Immoral? That's what's silly. That you some how feel like dudley do right and all us downloaders are eveil villians who are only doing WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THE EARLY 80s!!!

It's only illegal when the big corporations think it's denting their pockets.

So I guess I've stole tips of tables since I bought my first LEGAL stereo with 2 cassette decks. I'm so evil and immoral :rolleyes:

When you capture media that is streamed (radio, Tivo), the copyright owner is compensated as part of his property rights during the streaming process. When "hard copy" media is converted into mp3s and then disseminated over the web, there is no compensation to the copyright owner. This is the fundamental legal difference.

If you disagree with the laws about property rights you are free to contact your elected representative or move to a communist country.

If you wrote a great song, wouldn't you want compensation for it?

If ten million people wanted a copy, wouldn't you want compensation in kind?

If you knew that ten million people were listening but only ten thousand were paying, would you possible consider a different line of work?

These are all considerations that go into this debate.

[wdodd]

Originally posted by Kid Red
Music is free, it's having a hard copy from the music company that's carries a fee. How can you compare stealing tips to downloading mp3s? I can record on the radio a damn good copy of any song I want. I can record on Tivo/VHS and damn video I want, hey all for FREE and LEGAL. So how is downlaoding a dumbed down copy of a music file illegal? How is using a legally store bought GO GO VIDEO amchine to MAKE EXACT COPIES of VHS movies legal, but downloading an avi and joining the file segments then converting it to mpg and either leaving it on my computer or burning a copy to a CD illegal?
You're missing an obvious point which is that you can make legal copies for backup purposes provided you OWN a copy of the VHS tape. In the same way, it's perfectly legal to make MP3's of CD's that you bought and paid for, as long as those MP3's are for your personal use. I used to make tapes of LP's that I bought so I could play that music in the car. That was legal then and is now. But making tapes from friends' albums was never legal.

[LethalWolfe]

jettredmont:

I didn't meant to imply that funds that Spears brings in goes dirctly to unknown bands. But if a major label is having money trouble who is going to go first, the big name super star or the talented yet unknown artist? If a major label is getting money hand over fist from their super stars they will be more likly to spend money on a band that doesn't neccesarily look like it will shoot up the pop charts.


Like I said before, I think the current way the labels are setup is ********, but I believe that the fundamental philosphy behind a record label is still sound.


Lethal

[PretendPCuser]

OK, i haven't read the entire thread here, but:

Will Apple be licensing music libraries? I'm sure that the big 5 music companies aren't going to just say: "Here, take our IP (intellectual property) and if you make money on it, great, we'll take 50%." Doubtful. I'd be interested to know the details surrounding how this got worked out with recording companies.

A person who thinks that this wouldn't take a tremendous amount of capital may not realize that there's more to it than setting a script and a bunch of servers...i guarantee that whatever agreement is worked out between Apple and the record companies is in the hundreds of pages and someone's getting millions and millions of dollars if this turns out to be factual.

my 2 centavos

[applejilted]

Case in point that 99 cents per song is too expensive...an excerpt from Sony Corp CEO Idei recent interview (which is a must read BTW):

"Idei: The music industry has been spoiled. They have controlled the distribution of music by producing CDs, and thereby have also protected their profits. So they have resisted Internet distribution. Six years ago I asked Sony Music to start working with IBM to figure out how to offer secured distribution of their content over the Net. But nobody in Sony Music would listen. Then about six months ago, they started to panic. They have to change their mindset away from selling albums, and think about selling singles over the Internet for as cheap as possible—even 20 cents or 10 cents—and encourage file-sharing so they can also get micro-payments for these files. The music industry has to re-invent itself, we can no longer control distribution they way we used to. Most entertainment executives understand this, but how to exactly execute on this model is more difficult. "

[JGowan]

There are very few albums that, upon the Maiden Listen, I said WOW to every track. Most albums, even from the best of artists, take some time to grow on me as artists are trying new styles of songs to stay fresh. Many times, it takes 3 or more "audio viewings" ( :D if you please) for the songs to really make sense to me. There are many albums that initially I hated that turned out to be great albums once I had given the artist a decent chance.

For this very reason, it's hard to get excited about a service that will hinder me from knowing what the whole collection is about. I'll use the service to get good songs from albums I KNOW are duds, but I like the experimentation of listening to an artist and letting his music have to time to speak to me.

Also, I'm HATING the rumor that says that the files will only be playable on the computer that downloads the tune. That doesn't sit well with me, the owner of multiple MACs (an iMac, a Dual 1GHz and soon, a 17" PB)... Don't tell me I have to pay a pretty large price (99¢ is too high in my opinion) and then say I can only use it on one computer. That's bogus.

If Apple is able to make a go of this and both Apple and record artists and their companies make money AND the consumer is excited then, I'll be happy even if I rarely download anything from it. I'm pro-Apple, but I'm not going to be wrangled into a new service just because it has the apple logo on it. I'm still not a DOT-MAC customer.

Ultimately, I wish these guys the best.

iJim

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by applejilted
Case in point that 99 cents per song is too expensive...an excerpt from Sony Corp CEO Idei recent interview (which is a must read BTW):

[snip]

Cool! Do you have a link to the article handy?

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Kid Red
Music is free, it's having a hard copy from the music company that's carries a fee.


False. All music is copyrighted (by default, any "artistic" or "academic" work is automatically copyrighted upon creation). After a "short" period of time ("short" having been redefined by Disney et al to be 99 years after the death of the artist ...) then the music is "free", or more precisely, public domain. Copying a copyrighted work without permission is copyright violation (which has been redefined by RIAA et al as "stealing" and "piracy", when it is only related to the first and the second is nothing more than fear-mongering word-play).

Taking a hard copy of an artistic work is not copyright violation; it is theft. There is no "public domain" time for the physical copy; 200 years after the author's death, stealing it is still stealing.

Coyright violation, however, has never required physical removal of an object. Making a copy of Stephen King's latest novel, even on your own paper and with your own hands, is copyright violation (even if you never sell said copy!).

How can you compare stealing tips to downloading mp3s? I can record on the radio a damn good copy of any song I want. I can record on Tivo/VHS and damn video I want, hey all for FREE and LEGAL.


Correct. Its called time-shifting and is covered under "fair-use" rulings (although, to be pedantic, the rulings only strictly apply to the case where you tape a broadcast, watch/listen to it exactly once, then destroy the tape ... archival of content is not tested in the courts and so is not strictly speaking covered under "fair use"). "Fair Use" applies when you are taking content that you have legal access to, and "time-shifting" that content so that you can enjoy it at a more convenient time. The Diamond/Rio ruling expands "time-shifting" to "media-shifting", but the "legal access" requirement remains.

So how is downlaoding a dumbed down copy of a music file illegal?


It is illegal (a copyright violation) because you do not have legal access to the original. Yes, you do have legal access to the radio broadcast, and you can copy it from that if you so desire, but someone else's CD is not something you have legal access to (and, I might add, the "owner" of a CD can not "permit" you access to the CD's contents without physically transferring the CD to you, just as I can't buy SK's latest book and "let" all of my nearest friends make a copy of it, although I can hand my copy to someone else to read to my heart's content.)

How is using a legally store bought GO GO VIDEO amchine to MAKE EXACT COPIES of VHS movies legal

It is not, assuming you are talking about videos ou did not make. All commercial videos are also technically protected by MacroVision, which prevents the "Go Video" machine from dubbing them onto a new VHS tape, which is why the Go Video machines are so widely available. Note that even without MacroVision, the Go Video machines would be fully legal (see Rio judgement), but the marketplace interests would not promote them as widely.

but downloading an avi and joining the file segments then converting it to mpg and either leaving it on my computer or burning a copy to a CD illegal?


If you have free and legal access to the originals, then media shifting is not illegal. In the vast majority of cases, if you are downloading AVI's off the net, then you don't have free and legal access to the original media, and this is wholly illegal.


How many of you OWNED A STEREO WITH 2 CASSETTE DECKS!?!?


I have, and I have to admit I gave out maybe a handful of "mix tapes" to my friends. However, the bulk of usage that dual-cassette deck got was in playing two-tape "albums", and in dubbing over band performances and rehearsal bits to which I had full and legal access and permission.

See the "Go Video" arguments above. Dual-cassette tape machines are fully legal, as they have legitimate legal uses. This does not mean that all uses of the devices are legal.


Immoral? That's what's silly. That you some how feel like dudley do right and all us downloaders are eveil villians who are only doing WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THE EARLY 80s!!!


You have, since the early 80's, been dubbing songs from CDs owned by people you don't know much less have physical access to, and/or distributing copies you made off songs you "owned"? Then yes. You are an evil villain.

I'm no "Dudley Do Right". As I said, I've dubbed tapes before as well. However, doing so was a copyright violation, no matter how many people do it, and now that the act has real financial consequences and damages, it has to be stopped. You have a real and fundamental misunderstanding of the law. Correcting that misunderstanding does not make me better than you in any way, it hopefully just makes your understanding better than it was before.


It's only illegal when the big corporations think it's denting their pockets.


No, it has always been illegal. The law is only enforced when there is a financial reason to enforce it. Until recently, distributing second-generation copies of copyrighted material has been prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, and hence has not been a financial threat worthy of the money it would take to stop it. That has all changed.


So I guess I've stole tips of tables since I bought my first LEGAL stereo with 2 cassette decks. I'm so evil and immoral :rolleyes:

If you've been distributing copies of albums you bought, then yes. You don't need a dual cassette deck machine to do that (any cassette recorder with an audio in jack, couple with any music player with an audio out jack will do quite nicely), but whatever. If that's what you've been doing with your dual cassette deck, then you have been violating copyright.

Physical availability of a machine or technology does not justify all uses of that machine or technology. Just about anyone can go to their nearest WalMart and buy a gun or a nice big hunting knife. Shooting and skinning your neighbor, however, continues to be frowned upon in most parts of the world.

[LethalWolfe]

D@mn jettredmont that was a nice post. :)


Lethal

[LeafyGreens]

Ever wondered about the "Music" folder on your iDisk? Perhaps Apple will be putting something in there for you...

[Gus]

Well crap. The AP has finally picked up this story. Now, if Apple DOESN'T come up with the goods, Wall St. will make them pay for it. I really don't have an opinion on this yet. If it is true, I will wait to pass judgement until the REAL details have been released.

Oh yeah, 20 GB iPods are now in the Refurb list. Guess new iPods are around the corner, huh?

Regards,
Gus

[MacMumm]

First of all, I would like to say I have been reading these boards for years, and finally decided to respond. I am a very big fan of all types of music, and thought I would take this chance to make my first post.

I think this would be a great service for Apple. I currently have over 5700 songs in iTunes, almost completely ripped from my personal CD collection of over 600 CDs. I admit that I have used Limewire in the past, but only use it to replace a song that would not rip correctly from a CD (scratches, etc.). I cannot say how many times I have purchased a CD, only to find out there are only 1 or 2 songs I like. I would gladly pay $.99 for a high quality song.

I noticed a lot of people complaining about the quality of the song, and how they can "easily" tell the difference between an MP3 file and CD audio burned to a CD. I personally own an Alpine CD player for my car which includes something called Media Expander. With this enabled, I would love to have somebody tell me the difference between the original CD, and an MP3 CD I burned with MP3's encoded at 192 kbps and VBR. A lot of the listening quality of MP3 burned discs depends a LOT on the quality of equipment it is being played on. I also work where higher end home theater equipment is sold. I have tested MP3 encoded discs many times on different equipment. When it comes to customers, I have yet to have anybody be able to tell the difference between the two files.

As for everybody who says they like having linear notes, lyrics, etc. I feel the total opposite from that. I have a wall full of CD's I am tired of looking at. I have encoded every single song I want, and haven't taken one off the rack since. I can burn any CD I like from my computer in a matter of minutes, and be on my way. I just find it to be very easy this way, and it sure takes up a lot less space!

I do think Apple needs a way to preview songs. This would not be a big deal...look at Columbia House, or any other online site that sells music. You can easily preview a low-quality clip from the song to see if you like it. iTunes already plays online media, so I don't see this being any problem at all if this service becomes available.

I also agree strongly there should be a way to download the song again, if it becomes lost in a hard drive failure, or anything else. This would just be another reason they could charge $.99 per song. Again, this should be no problem at all for Apple to impliment. If Netflix can keep track of the movies I have rented, Apple can keep track of the songs I have purchased.

The mention of a lyric/album viewer in the next version of iTunes sounds great. It would be nice to see a photo of the album cover when listening to the song. Lyrics may be a little tricky, but then again, I am not even close to a programmer.

All in all, I think this is an exciting time for Apple. It could be a risky move, but it seems like to do something wonderful and big, you have to take risks.

Now that I have made an entirely long-winded post for my first one, I better shut up!

P.S. On a totally different note, has anybody had problems with OS X 10.2.4 and their menu bar clock? If I install it, my clock goes nuts, and defaults back to December 1969. It is not the battery, the local Apple techs have already ruled that out. Thanks!

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
D@mn jettredmont that was a nice post. :)


Lethal

Ditto.:)

it was like a debate between a valedictorian and "Special Ed".:D

[bignumbers]

According to Boston's ABC affiliate Channel 5, the Apple service will be a fixed monthly cost with unlimited access to music. They've run the story twice (Wed 11pm, and early Thursday on the regular local news).

[Gus]

Jettredmont, that was indeed a nice post. Thank you!

I would just like to add that some of you have this "Robin Hood" complex about your habits; you steal things (music, information, software, etc.) and because you are stealing it (obstensibly) from a "Big Corporation", you justify it as being right, or worse, legal. Remember, copyright laws are intended to protect those who have the direct link to the creative process. The musician/artist/composer/author, etc. it counting on the money made from their creative output to live.

Granted, the "Big 5" labels are making a killing off of these artists, but to fight this, the artists themselvess need to take a stance of some sort, but they seem relatively happy. Just because you don't like a law or a rule doesn't mean you can break it, and then justify it as "being the right thing". I refer to Jettredmont's comments about filetting your neighhbors. Just because you don't like your neighbors because their dog craps in your yard, you can't barbeque Fido for it without a legal consequence.

Ok, I'm rambling now.

Just think of this: before copyright laws existed, Mozart made his living as a self-employed composer, the first self-employed composer at that. Because so many people were obtaining copies of his music, rewriting them in their opwn hand, and then publishing them as their own, the man made no money. He died in a pauper's grave (mass grave) in Vienna. Instead of people buying his music, they bought illegally copied versions, and Mozart made ni money.

I'm done. :o

Regards,
Gus

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by Gus
Just think of this: before copyright laws existed, Mozart made his living as a self-employed composer, the first self-employed composer at that. Because so many people were obtaining copies of his music, rewriting them in their opwn hand, and then publishing them as their own, the man made no money. He died in a pauper's grave (mass grave) in Vienna. Instead of people buying his music, they bought illegally copied versions, and Mozart made no money.


And because he made no money he died at an early age from a treatable disease. Had he the money to afford adequate medical care he could have prolonged his life for decades, thereby further enriching the world with much much more magnificent music than we today enjoy.

THUS are the consequences of downloading "free"music off the p2p services of the world.

[jeffberg]

More support, On my local news, KTLA they said that Apple would have a new music service within a couple of weeks for their macs and iPods.

[RBMaraman]

The E! Entertainment network claims to have direct confirmation from Apple that they are launching a music service with a monthly fee and huge discount for .Mac members.

[Awimoway]

I find it interesting that our comrade David Pogue just ran a story (today, I believe) about the evolving online music industry, but didn't drop so much as a hint, as far as I could tell, about an Apple download service--other than the topic of the article itself.

[JGowan]

Originally posted by MacMumm
I noticed a lot of people complaining about the quality of the song, and how they can "easily" tell the difference between an MP3 file and CD audio burned to a CD. I personally own an Alpine CD player for my car which includes something called Media Expander. With this enabled, I would love to have somebody tell me the difference between the original CD, and an MP3 CD I burned with MP3's encoded at 192 kbps and VBR. A lot of the listening quality of MP3 burned discs depends a LOT on the quality of equipment it is being played on.I have to say DAMN STRAIGHT! I used to play my ipod through an AIWA car stereo (it was the only thing I could find locally that had a mini-input.) Unfortunately, my car got broken in and the radio was stolen. I replaced it with a more expensive unit (JVC's KD-SH707) and was amazed at how much better my MP3s sounded, even with the same speakers. Truly amazing.

Equipment definitely can make or break an MP3.

[MaxArturo]

If it is, I'll pay for it. I used to pay for a service for music-finding and it didn't do much good. Called "E-MusicFind" or something. It only had rare tracks and no pop ones like I like to listen to. And no Chinese pop which I just love. It'll need to have foreign access, then I'll buy it.

[yumpin yiminy]

Originally posted by MacMumm

P.S. On a totally different note, has anybody had problems with OS X 10.2.4 and their menu bar clock? If I install it, my clock goes nuts, and defaults back to December 1969. It is not the battery, the local Apple techs have already ruled that out. Thanks!
From the Apple support pages:
Symptom

After updating to Mac OS X 10.2.4, the computer date resets to 1969 or 1970.

Products affected


Mac OS X 10.2.4 Update

Solution

Use a network time server:

1. Connect to the Internet if you are not already.
2. Choose Apple menu > System Preferences.
3. Choose View > Date & Time.
4. Click the Network Time tab.
5. Select "Use a network time server".
6. Click Set Time Now.

Note: If you are not always connected to the Internet (for example, you use a PPP dial-up modem), you may need to repeat these steps after starting up the computer.


This document will be updated as more information becomes available.

It is a bug, I reckon.

[MacMumm]

Thanks Yumpin, I had been waiting since the update for this information on the 1969 date problem on my G4. I happened to look after posting this morning, and noticed the post you put on here. It is funny not even the service techs know anything about it.

Also, thanks JGowan for putting your 2 cents in on the MP3 playback. I have some rather powerful equipment in my car, and I know it makes a difference, I just don't know at what point it does. I think it is mostly in the firmware/software in the deck itself that makes the biggest difference. The only thing that bothers me is the possibility that AAC files will not play in my deck at all!

[Timothy]

I don't think Apple can do a quiet roll-out of this service, rather, I think they need something splashy. Certainly, they'll launch a big media campaign with it...but initally, how will they do it?

My guess is that they will do a press event much like when the iPod was released. Can anyone recall how much lead time we had with that event? Was it announced a week before the actual event?

Alternatively, do we know of any pre-existing events that Apple is participating in within the next month that may serve as a platform for an announcement of this kind?

This may help us determine the "when" of this and new iPods, since I'm reasonably confident that they'll announce them both at the same time...

[alset]

Originally posted by Jaykay
If its got a good repetoire of hard to find songs, i have no problem paying for that.

Maybe they could take that a step further... Record companies may be willing to rerelease music that is out of print, as it would cost nothing to manufacture and ship. I'd pay for lot's of music that I listened to when I was a kid and can't find today.

Dan

[ear2ear]

I spend a lot of time on another message board (www.okayplayer.com) where an employee of MCA Records posts named "label_guy" (the site is for a bunch of artists, some of which are signed to MCA).

Anyway, today he made a few posts regarding a new remix being available for $0.99 per download on March 11th.

He would not provide any other details at the moment.

Does it have anything to do with Apple, I don't know, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

(MARCH 11)

[Squire]

Do any of you think that the new "Now Shipping" upgrade of the Apple website is lame? Do they usually do that?

My guess is that the "We Mean Business" page had been up for longer than planned and they were just trying to change things a little until the next revolutionary product, upgrade, or service arrives.

Or maybe I'm just crazy.

Squire

[Awimoway]

I wonder if it was to distract a little from this controversy that Thinksecret stirred up:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/pbdelay.html

OTOH, I am surprised that TS's report caused as little uporar as it. That's downright scandalous, even for the high tech industry, in my judgment.

[Squire]

Originally posted by Awimoway
I wonder if it was to distract a little from this controversy that Thinksecret stirred up:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/pbdelay.html

OTOH, I am surprised that TS's report caused as little uporar as it. That's downright scandalous, even for the high tech industry, in my judgment.

Good point. A red herring. They're really saying, "We're shipping SOMETHING, people!"

Squire

[twelve]

Originally posted by Gus
Jettredmont, that was indeed a nice post. Thank you!

I would just like to add that some of you have this "Robin Hood" complex about your habits; you steal things (music, information, software, etc.) and because you are stealing it (obstensibly) from a "Big Corporation", you justify it as being right, or worse, legal. Remember, copyright laws are intended to protect those who have the direct link to the creative process. The musician/artist/composer/author, etc. it counting on the money made from their creative output to live.

Granted, the "Big 5" labels are making a killing off of these artists, but to fight this, the artists themselvess need to take a stance of some sort, but they seem relatively happy. Just because you don't like a law or a rule doesn't mean you can break it, and then justify it as "being the right thing". I refer to Jettredmont's comments about filetting your neighhbors. Just because you don't like your neighbors because their dog craps in your yard, you can't barbeque Fido for it without a legal consequence.

Ok, I'm rambling now.

Just think of this: before copyright laws existed, Mozart made his living as a self-employed composer, the first self-employed composer at that. Because so many people were obtaining copies of his music, rewriting them in their opwn hand, and then publishing them as their own, the man made no money. He died in a pauper's grave (mass grave) in Vienna. Instead of people buying his music, they bought illegally copied versions, and Mozart made ni money.

I'm done. :o

Regards,
Gus

some people just don't live in reality. do you honestly think people think twice about burning a cd of something to a friend. the law is broken and no one cares so why do you?

[QuiteSure]

What stops someone from buying software, refusing to install because the buyer didn't like the terms of the licensing agreement, then returning the software to the vendor?

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
What stops someone from buying software, refusing to install because the buyer didn't like the terms of the licensing agreement, then returning the software to the vendor?

Well now, there's a conundrum: even if you wanted to return the software, you couldn't - most (all?) software resellers have a final-sale policy on software. Opened or not, it can't be returned.

So, a very good question indeed!

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by Codemonkey
Well now, there's a conundrum: even if you wanted to return the software, you couldn't - most (all?) software resellers have a final-sale policy on software. Opened or not, it can't be returned.

So, a very good question indeed!

That's all very interesting. Technically, according to the software companies, the end user does not buy software, they buy a license to use the software. But you don't know the terms of the license before you open the box. And it's true -- most if not all software vendors will not accept opened software boxes.

Imagine the novice software buyer who buys his first piece of software thinking that he OWNS THE SOFTWARE, then actually reads the license and discovers he doesn't, and refuses to participate in this system. What recourse is there for him?

[melchior]

when i bought windows 3.1 (i know, i'm a bad person)

the disks (hehe, disks) themselves were inside a plastic bag, that are clearly marked that by opening the bag, not the box, you are agreeing to the license.

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by melchior
when i bought windows 3.1 (i know, i'm a bad person)

the disks (hehe, disks) themselves were inside a plastic bag, that are clearly marked that by opening the bag, not the box, you are agreeing to the license.

Yep, but the issue lies in that once you've cracked the cellophane on the box, you can't return it... which makes agreement/disagrement with the EULA a moot point... :(

It's a weird concept - shelling out cash (some times thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars) for software, that a) you never own and b) may not even want to use after reading the EULA, but seemingly have no other recourse than to either throw away the software, or just choose not to use it.

Neither of those options seem very cost effective.... :confused:

[peterjhill]

Just got back from ten days in London without a computer, so sorry for the late comment...

Audible lets you burn a CD of their content that can be played in any normal cd player (that plays cd-r's that is), BUT iTunes will not let you rip that audio cd into an mp3 or even copy the "song" files from the cd to your drive and open them. I am assuming that Apple is doing something subtle to the tracks. I am sure that someone can write something that can extract the content, but for the casual user, it works fairly well at keeping them from distributing multiple copies of each Audible track. Apple also only lets you burn an audible track one time.

Something like this could be put into a music sharing system fairly easily. They could pretty much do what they do for Audible, just do it for music tracks.

I hope they do come out for a service like this. I would love to be able to download a few songs from new artists (legally) before I buy an album. A dollar per song isn't too bad. I hope they also have an option to buy the whole album at a discount. Even better, if you pay $3 to get three songs, then want to buy the album, you would only pay <discount price for entire album> - <how much you have paid for songs on album>

That would make it a pretty darn cool service. If they added on top of that a way to print out your own liner notes and disk labels, it would rock!. I would think it would be trivial to allow that to be done, have them in pdf format, support direct to disk printers, it would be a hit.

[alset]

Originally posted by twelve
some people just don't live in reality. do you honestly think people think twice about burning a cd of something to a friend. the law is broken and no one cares so why do you?

What a refreshingly short-sighted response that was to a well thought-out reamrk.

I guess it would have to personally injure you before you cared if someone stole your coworker's car.

Dan

[melchior]

can i just mentioned, dan I guess it would have to personally injure you before you cared if someone stole your coworker's car.

Dan even though it has been said a thousand times.

copyright infringement IS NOT stealing, do not equate the two things and perpetuate the RIAA propaganda. copyright infringement is wrong. it's against the law. it's a criminal offense. BUT, it is not stealing. no physical property is lost, only intellectual property. very different.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by melchior
copyright infringement IS NOT stealing, do not equate the two things and perpetuate the RIAA propaganda. copyright infringement is wrong. it's against the law. it's a criminal offense. BUT, it is not stealing. no physical property is lost, only intellectual property. very different.

Semantics.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by melchior
can i just mentioned, dan even though it has been said a thousand times.

copyright infringement IS NOT stealing, do not equate the two things and perpetuate the RIAA propaganda. copyright infringement is wrong. it's against the law. it's a criminal offense. BUT, it is not stealing. no physical property is lost, only intellectual property. very different.

i would have to disagree with the statement i bolded in your quote. though it is illegal it is not wrong. do not confuse morailty and legaility. often the two coincide, but not always.

modern intellectual property rights are anachronistic. the conflicts raging regarding digital media simply brings to light the inherent hypocracy and illogical nature of the intellectual property rights laws in this country. the sooner everyone admits to this and decides on fixing the situation rather than trying to force our modern lifestyles into ancient laws the better off we all are.

[melchior]

sorry, ambitiouslemon, you're right. i was letting my own beliefs taint my statement. i do, personally, believe copyright infringement is wrong. but that is an opinion, not a fact.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by twelve
why would i use this when i can find free songs everywhere else and i guarentee they will not have hard to find or anything on the hundreds of independent labels. what a waste of time and energy. go back to work on the G5, thank you.

Please, please, don't crowd the boards with a comment that has already been expressed several times...Your repetition is not really contributing to the discussion AT ALL...But what really annoys me is your G5 comment. Let's think about this:

The G5 is a processor. To a great deal, processors depend on, hmmm, PROCESSOR DESIGNERS/MANUFACTURERS, like Motorola. I think most sensible people would agree that Apple has no fault in Moto's inability to manufacture processors...Anyway, Apple has a hardware AND software division. Now, I find it highly doubtful that you would send iTunes programmers to go work on designing a motherboard for the G5, but that's just me.

Sorry for being curt, but I'm sick of people laying undeserved blame on Apple.

[iMook]

I think copyright infringement is "wrong", though that doesn't prevent me from using KaZaA :D . I don't think you can argue that copyright infringement is "right". I mean, you ARE stealing music. It's not like that music was released free of charge by the artists into the public domain. No, the artists slapped a price tag on their CDs.

Why? Because they want a financial return for their work. One of the main reasons my friends dpon't download the songs from their FAVORITE bands, but dl everything else, is because they feel that they're supporting the people whose music they love.

I really can't see how you argue that copyright infringement could be morally right, at least the way it's being applied to digital music.



P.S. - what's the speculative timetable for this music service release/ipod update?

[Nepenthe]

Fresh from Mac Daily News, an article adressing the question of whether-or-not the Apple music service will be Macintosh-ONLY.

"We've received information from multiple sources that suggest that rumors of Apple's forthcoming online music service will not be "Mac-only" as most rumors have described. Rather, information we've received suggests that Apple's music service will be "iPod-only," meaning that Windows iPod users will be able to use the rumored service. We stress that this information remains unconfirmed and should be categorized as "rumor," as is the "music service" itself at this point."

http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P763_0_1_0

[legacyb4]

Strangest thing just happened...

March 28, 9:35 pm (Tokyo time)

Was browsing through the Radio stations to find a station to tune in to and wham!, a whole list of station appeared in the iTunes radio list.

Things like "For Kids", "Personal Broadcasts", and a whole lot of other stations popped up for ever so briefly with channel listings, but no service enabled.

A few minutes later, the station list disappeared and reverted back to the standard fistful.

Any idea what that was?

CHeers.

[Awimoway]

No, but it's very interesting.

Assuming you saw something not ready for primetime, the question is whether it has anything to do with the rumored music buying program.

[JGowan]

Originally posted by peterjhill
Audible lets you burn a CD of their content that can be played in any normal cd player (that plays cd-r's that is), BUT iTunes will not let you rip that audio cd into an mp3 or even copy the "song" files from the cd to your drive and open them... I am sure that someone can write something that can extract the contentOne work around is "Audio Hijack" and "Audio Hijack Pro" ... the latter allows MP3 recording from any applications, wereas the first only records in AIFF (big files -- bad for books)

http://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro

The quality is very good.

[zach]

Originally posted by peterjhill

That would make it a pretty darn cool service. If they added on top of that a way to print out your own liner notes and disk labels, it would rock!. I would think it would be trivial to allow that to be done, have them in pdf format, support direct to disk printers, it would be a hit.

Yeah, I totally agree.

Even though download whole albums off limewire, i always go buy the album afterward, because i want to have the art, liner notes, and CD art. That is the only thing that has kept me from signing up for the other music services (yes, i do have a PC as well as my ibook, damn it). But if you could print out art and liner notes, i would love to use a service, especially if it was Apple....

And I think a lot of other people feel this way too. Hey, I could be wrong, but that is the feeling i have been getting from my friends....

[bretm]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Yeah and some people though Apple was "crazy" for developing an MP3 player.

I'm still a fan of the CD myself. I'd just like to see them come down to an avg price of $7 and I'd be in Silver Platter Heaven.

Oh for crying out loud, that's what a cassette tape used to cost me in 1985!
Who wouldn't be in Heaven?