iTunes Conference Call

[MacRumors]

Apple is hosting a conference call today to mark the 1st anniversary of the iTunes Music Store

The following sites are providing live coverage of the event:

MacCentral (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/04/28/conference/index.php?redirect=1083141684000)
MacMinute (http://www.macminute.com/2004/04/28/itunescall)

[UKMacBod]

I was kind of hoping that Steve might have made some other announcements - either about iTunes Europe or iPods...

Still, great iTunes update though :)

[iChan]

wonder what is going to announced??? probably only a list of figures... I'm not too optimistic about new products

[Awimoway]

Interesting that he allowed the press and software releases ahead of his announcement for a change.

…Unless of course there is a surprise up his sleeve this morning, like an updated iPod, but I'm not holding my breath.

[stoid]

Steve's not one to let people steal his thunder, I'm still crossing my fingers for something big. Perhaps his almost habitual "Oh, and one more thing..." :D

[Snowy_River]

For those who've been complaining that 3 computers isn't enough, the limit being upped to 5 must be great news...

[stoid]

For those who've been complaining that 3 computers isn't enough, the limit being upped to 5 must be great news...

Hs anyone ever burned the 10 limit of CDs for any legal reason? I don't see any need for anymore than a few copies, and even 7 is much more than I need. Can someone shed some light on why a person might legally be burning that many copies of a single playlist?

[dukemeiser]

New iPods anyone?

[stoid]

Sorry guys, no iTunes Europe yet :(

[wdlove]

Steve seems to stay pretty much on message. The conference call was about the iTMS.

The good news is that we are just two months till WWDC. The broadcast will have started....

[Stella]

Since this is just a conference call, I really doubt any hardware shall be released.. unfortunately :-(
New iPods anyone?

[Rower_CPU]

Sorry guys, no iTunes Europe yet :(

Jobs: "We will be in Europe later this year." ;)

[asim]

itunes 4.5 working great... just tried out apple lossless... no probs but need to do some careful tests and then may reimport my classical cd library plus a few select others...

[Lancetx]

For those who've been complaining that 3 computers isn't enough, the limit being upped to 5 must be great news...

I know it is for me since we have 2 desktops and 2 laptops in our household. I can easily accept the limit only burning the exact same playlist 7 times instead of 10. The increase from 3 authorized computers to 5 is more than a fair tradeoff. :)

[stoid]

Jobs: I like to think that number of songs sold are helping iPod and Mac sales.

I'm sure you would Steve, now if you don't have any numbers to prove this, than no one else is going to join you in your little fantasy world. Now snap out of it and get me a faster G5!!

[RBMaraman]

Hmm...I think these statement may signal no Video-capable iPods anytime soon:

Jobs: we have to stay focused on the fact that people are buying iPods for music.

Jobs: Music is background activity -- movies are foreground activity -- music is the revolution here.

[Gherkin]

I'm sure you would Steve, now if you don't have any numbers to prove this, than no one else is going to join you in your little fantasy world. Now snap out of it and get me a faster G5!!

I'm ditching my PC and buying a Powerbook soon. I probably wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't for the iPod.

[irmongoose]

That's it, folks.

Pfff. No conference call necessary.




irmongoose

[Awimoway]

Press briefing is over. No new iPods.

[Lancetx]

I'm ditching my PC and buying a Powerbook soon. I probably wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't for the iPod.

I did the same thing last May when I bought my first ever Mac and an iPod. It may not be millions, but it has influenced at least a few switchers.

[jeffgarden]

I heard the new lossless format makes the songs like 30 megabytes each. Which i guess is "small" compared to importing without compression. But why would anyone import without compression anyway ? Seems pointless unless it's just to use for a DVD or something.

I was hoping for maybe like 2wice the space of 320bitrate AAC but this looks like each song is 3x larger

[stoid]

I'm ditching my PC and buying a Powerbook soon. I probably wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't for the iPod.I did the same thing last May when I bought my first ever Mac and an iPod. It may not be millions, but it has influenced at least a few switchers.

Really?!? That rocks! I guess it's just because my Windows friends are so hopelessly dependent on 'the system' that it would be easier for them to switch from the Matrix to the 'real world'.

But this is two people in this relatively small group of people responding in a matter of minutes! I'd say that is significant. I guess you can't really prove it with numbers any better than the RIAA can claim that Kazaa and piracy hurt CD sales. Go Apple!!

[stefman]

All this stuff is nice, but I was hoping for new iPods..I need to replace my 1st gen. 5 gig iPod...come on Steve

[wowoah]

I did the same thing last May when I bought my first ever Mac and an iPod. It may not be millions, but it has influenced at least a few switchers.

In a small way, I think the iPod's success is definitely helping the Mac by boosting Apple's brand image. Most PC users used to have this feeling that Apple customers were just rogue hippies using out-of-date computers. My girlfriend would never even consider a Mac until she fell in love with her iPod last year. She just bought her first PowerBook 12" last week, turning down the Dell Latitude X300 she had had her eyes on for the past year. Go Apple! ¡Viva la revolución! :)

[hughdogg]

Can someone shed some light on why a person might legally be burning that many copies of a single playlist?

Umm, Legally? I'm not sure, but I have a relative who makes custom holiday CD's for the family (about 20 each) with different holiday music on it each year. It is a nice little gift to get, and usable through most of the holiday season. Of course, he also got most of the music off Napster prior to the clamp down...

Cheers,
hughdogg

[rueyeet]

Hs anyone ever burned the 10 limit of CDs for any legal reason? I don't see any need for anymore than a few copies, and even 7 is much more than I need. Can someone shed some light on why a person might legally be burning that many copies of a single playlist?I can see someone making custom song mixes and giving it to friends, for example. When I did up the playlist for my neighbor's yearly kick-ass Halloween shindig last year I was debating making copies of the mix to put in the goodie bags she always gives out to everyone. It was only the lack of a printer to make cool Halloween-theme CD inserts, and the fact that the playlist ended up being two CDs, that stopped me. So there's one legitimate and legal (though grey-area) use for you.

However, that's the only time I've ever even wanted to make more than one copy, and as someone elsewhere pointed out, someone really out to make large numbers of copies would make one master copy, and then duplicate from that. So I agree with our Mr. Jobs: the reduction to 7 burns is a complete non-issue. Authorization of five computers is a MUCH bigger deal.

[irmongoose]

But giving your music to someone else, even if it it your friend... dots illegal! :eek: Bah gah bah! :D



irmongoose

[Exponent]

Regarding the addition of a lossless encoder, I think this is cool. Now, at the cost of a large hard drive, I can encode all my CDs in my collection once . Then I can let the computer create a lossy version when the need arises, in the best format for that application, using the encoders available at that time.

However, I have a big problem with the switch in CD burning policy. While for me this is a better deal (I use computers for playback far more often than CDs), it is greatly troubling that they switch policies on the fly, AND HAVE IT AFFECT MUSIC ALREADY PURCHASED!!!

We purchased music under one particular agreement. Steve Jobs makes a big deal out of the fact that with iTMS, you own, not rent the music. This is great - unless the original seller can change the terms of the sale after the transaction's been done. This appears to be the case.

As much as I admire what Apple has done for the music industry with iTMS, I feel that changing the terms of the DRM post-sale isn't right, and probably isn't legal. I hope that this can be resolved without a court case....

[nagromme]

Anyone else notice that in addition to Apple Lossless, the new QuickTime also improves conventional AAC too? Higher quality at the same bitrates apparently--although I doubt I'd notice since I never noticed any loss with AAC to begin with.

Not worth re-ripping anything for me, but some will like this. Apple already had better quality than WMA and MP3:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-05.html

[stoid]

Yeah, the distribution method is the only reason I would see needing more than a few burns, but I don't see that as legal. It's like buying a CD, making a bunch of copies and handing it out at a party or to your friends or something. Not legal.

[nagromme]

However, I have a big problem with the switch in CD burning policy.

What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs? If it was something legal, then you'll be glad to know that you can still can make as many as you want. Just replicate one of the 7. And you can still burn songs an UNLIMITED number of times--but can only burn 7 (formerly 10) IDENTICAL CDs without changing somethine--at least the order of tracks--to prove that you are not an automated mass-piracy operation.

Who does this actually inconvenience? Who needs more than 1 or 2 copies of a CD in addition to the master library and iPods?

Meanwhile, playback on five simultaneous computers is something some households will appreciate, saving them the re-authorization step that used to be needed. And THAT's retroactive too, which is very good :)

[jimboboc82]

I switched too ... purely because of my ipod, and due to me being an obesessed mac freak now, i'm sure i'll buy powermacs adn powerbooks regularly. (just need to finish uni and get some cash!)

Plus two of my friends are now about to switch because of my adoration for macs - you wouldn't find a pc user getting so enthusiastic!

[nagromme]

Quick run-down of all the iTunes news today--pretty good I'd say:

* Play on 5 computers at once in stead of 3 (and still store on unlimited others)
* Higher-quality AAC at the same bitrates
* Apple Lossless (on iPod too)
* Convert unprotected WMAs
* Free weekly downloads
* iMix community playlist sharing/rating
* Send music recommendation emails with art
* Easy CD art printing including mosaics of album covers and track listings
* Party Shuffle (Tutorial) (http://www.ipodhead.com/archive/000094.php)
* Save song previews in "wish list" playlists
* Radio station playlists from around the country
* Quick links to Music Store music similar to your own music
* Expanded catalog, 700,000 songs with many exclusives (70% market share)
* Music videos and movie trailers linked to soundtracks and audiobooks
* New marketing program for campuses

[Exponent]

[QUOTE=nagromme]What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs?[\QUOTE]

I've burned maybe 5 CDs total in the past year. It isn't that this would inconvienence me - actually, the 5 computer playback addition is of great value.

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

[stoid]

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

You were under no obligation to accept the new terms. They were not forced on you. You have NO case in a court of law. Period. End of story.

[nagromme]

Understood. But three things to look at:

1. The letter of the agreement, legally. I suspect the music labels and Apple DID follow the fine print we agreed to with the DRM. It's a shame pirates make DRM and such agreements a reality. A change in iTunes operation would seem to be legal. If it IS illegal as you suggest, then yes, punish it.

2. The effect of the agreement, in practice. What we can do with our music has now just INCREASED. The change includes a minor reduction and a major improvement.

3. What happens to your files you've bought. Nothing. Your computer will play them the same forever, and they are copyable to other computers, and burnable etc. under the OLD rights forever. Until you CHOOSE to upgrade iTunes. So if you are afraid that some future iTunes update will do some terrible thing, just back up your music to lossless form--like CD--before performing that update. You have a hypothetical way out of whatever scenario you're worried about.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you have to worry.

[dongmin]

In a small way, I think the iPod's success is definitely helping the Mac by boosting Apple's brand image. Most PC users used to have this feeling that Apple customers were just rogue hippies using out-of-date computers. My girlfriend would never even consider a Mac until she fell in love with her iPod last year. She just bought her first PowerBook 12" last week, turning down the Dell Latitude X300 she had had her eyes on for the past year. Go Apple! ¡Viva la revolución! :)For sure the iPod and the Apple Stores are helping Apple's image. But they're still hurt by the same issues they've always suffered: slow CPU development & expensive hardware. That's why the marketshare is stagnant at best (not that I'm complaining about marketshare--I am a happy Mac user and will be for a while).

[SilentPanda]

[QUOTE=nagromme]What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs?[\QUOTE]

I've burned maybe 5 CDs total in the past year. It isn't that this would inconvienence me - actually, the 5 computer playback addition is of great value.

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the original agreement it would say that they can modify the agreement. Which was probably that new agreement that you saw today in iTunes 4.5. Yeah maybe you didn't click it yet etc etc... yes your rights are being restricted. But... there are a ton of restrictions on things that we buy that we never ever encounter. Same thing with this. I never worry about if I've hit the CD burning limit because I burn 1 CD from a playlist. I guess if you have 8 places you have to keep the CD then you're in trouble but... yeah... don't buy them I guess... stick it to the man...

[idkew]

[QUOTE=nagromme]What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs?[\QUOTE]

I've burned maybe 5 CDs total in the past year. It isn't that this would inconvienence me - actually, the 5 computer playback addition is of great value.

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.


i am pretty sure you accepted this new policy when you installed iTunes 4.5 and clicked agree. did you actually read what you were agreeing to?

[Exponent]

You were under no obligation to accept the new terms. They were not forced on you. You have NO case in a court of law. Period. End of story.

Nope. Terms of sale can't change post sale, especially via a program update.

Some of you guys are neglecting to notice some fundamental changes the concept of ownership. Any precident set here, via a change that is favorable for many (and as noted by a poster earlier, not favorable to all) will pave the way for the content owners to yank our chain in the future.

(Edit: I erased "...a program update that doesn't warn you", because while I've downloade the update, I'm not sure if it warns you to a DRM change.)

[stoid]

Nope. Terms of sale can't change post sale, especially via a program update.

Some of you guys are neglecting to notice some fundamental changes the concept of ownership. Any precident set here, via a change that is favorable for many (and as noted by a poster earlier, not favorable to all) will pave the way for the content owners to yank our chain in the future.

(Edit: I erased "...a program update that doesn't warn you", because while I've downloade the update, I'm not sure if it warns you to a DRM change.)

Yes, when downloading the update you have to accept new terms of service which includes the modified.

If you think about it this way, before you had 3 computers burning 10 times (30 CDs) now you have 5 computers burning 7 times (35 CDs). That's 5 extra copies of the CD. :D

If you didn't want to change your terms of service you simply don't update and stop using the service while still enjoying to your music under the original DRM.

And until someone says they have legal desire to burn more than 7 copies of one playlist (hell, I challenge anyone to even present a legal scenario!) then your 'best for most' argument is moot, it's 'best for all'.

[Dahl]

I'm just glad iTunes now has videos, I'm sure they will have a huge library in no time. It's about time too, since Yahoo's Launch is anti Mac.

[ropbo]

Go Apple! ¡Viva la revolución! :)

Revolution ? Well, when you buy a song on the ITMS, you keep paying 99% to the record labels that use the money to advertise artists like Britney Spears, 50 Cents and others. So, to me that's not revolution.

Revolution is gonna happen when the artists deal direct with the online music stores. Then you'll be paying .50 a song, which is fairer, and the artists will earn what they deserve. Everybody wins.

The way it goes today, just the record labels win ( and Apple off the iPod ). You're still spending lots of money on songs.

Rodrigo Otavio Paes de Barros Otaviano

[nagromme]

The few people who have bought Microsoft-protected WMA music have always had options if they wanted to switch to iTunes and iPod: 1) burn to CD then re-rip as AAC/MP3 (double-compression loss may be noticeable) or 2) re-rip as lossless WAV/AIFF (pure original sound, but takes up lots of space on HD or iPod).

Now there's a great new compromise: Burn your WMA purchases to CDs (a lossless step), then import into iTunes as Apple Lossless (another lossless step). You have the exact original WMA sound--at a file size bigger than AAC, but half what a normal lossless CD rip would be. A good option.

(PS... If you have a legal reason (?) to burn more than 7 there are SO many ways to do it, with iTunes alone. Re-import one of the 7 and it has NO DRM. Or shuffle the songs, burn 1, shuffle them back to original, and you get a fresh 7 burns. It's 7 IN A ROW that's the limit. Hardly a limit! And no, giving free music to your friends is not legal--it's piracy.)

EDIT: Can't you just get the best of the old AND new terms if you want? Since the 5 authorizations is managed outside iTunes, that should apply even to people using the OLD iTunes--who will still get the old 10-burns-in-a-row too. So keep the old iTunes on a machine if you wish. The 10 burns is a non-issue on so many levels...

EDIT AGAIN: ONE of the methods to get around the CD limitations has been removed: re-shuffling the playlists. If you legally need more than 7, your best bet is to re-import losslessly.

[stoid]

Revolution ? Well, when you buy a song on the ITMS, you keep paying 99% to the record labels that use the money to advertise artists like Britney Spears, 50 Cents and others. So, to me that's not revolution.

Revolution is gonna happen when the artists deal direct with the online music stores. Then you'll be paying .50 a song, which is fairer, and the artists will earn what they deserve. Everybody wins.

The way it goes today, just the record labels win ( and Apple off the iPod ). You're still spending lots of money on songs.

I think the revolution referenced was Apple's come back into more respectable market share since people were buying Mac's because of awesome iTunes/iPod experiences. ;)

Apple did announce today that they have 450 contracts with independent artist labels, so you can't say they aren't trying.

[The following is said in utter ignorance of how the market _actually_ functions]
Question: What would happen if artist would not sign with the "Big 5" and go with independent (less greedy?) labels? Wouldn't that be another solution to the poor-artist-getting-ripped-off dilemma?
[/ignorant statements]

I think that overall, this is great day for Apple and Apple fans!

[powermac]

In a small way, I think the iPod's success is definitely helping the Mac by boosting Apple's brand image. Most PC users used to have this feeling that Apple customers were just rogue hippies using out-of-date computers. My girlfriend would never even consider a Mac until she fell in love with her iPod last year. She just bought her first PowerBook 12" last week, turning down the Dell Latitude X300 she had had her eyes on for the past year. Go Apple! ¡Viva la revolución! :)

I made the decision to switch about 24 hours after my girlfriend got me an iPod. :D

[cxny]

Anyone got a link to the conference call?

[idkew]

Nope. Terms of sale can't change post sale, especially via a program update.

Some of you guys are neglecting to notice some fundamental changes the concept of ownership. Any precident set here, via a change that is favorable for many (and as noted by a poster earlier, not favorable to all) will pave the way for the content owners to yank our chain in the future.

(Edit: I erased "...a program update that doesn't warn you", because while I've downloade the update, I'm not sure if it warns you to a DRM change.)

you are wrong. simply wrong.

you agreed apple could change the terms at its will. you agreed again when you clicked "accept" after installing 4.5.

you never owned any of the music you purchased. you are licensed to use it. you do not own it.

select items from Terms of Sale:
CONTENT USAGE RULES
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.

You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.

You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.

You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.

Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.

The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.

Refer to Terms of Sale for more detailed information on Usage Rules.

and finally:
Apple reserves the right to change the terms and conditions of sale at the iTunes Music Store at any time. Customers are encouraged to review the Sales Policies on a periodic basis for modifications.

[stoid]

Anyone got a link to the conference call?

Yep. (http://www.macminute.com/2004/04/28/itunescall) :D ;)

[Mr. G4]

I heard once Elton John said that he always buy CDs in multiple copy because he wants to have the same music in all his houses. Of course, if you are Sir Elton John you can afford to do that :)

So lets say that you have 8 houses around the world this new limitation is an inconvenient :)

What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs? If it was something legal, then you'll be glad to know that you can still can make as many as you want. Just replicate one of the 7. And you can still burn songs an UNLIMITED number of times--but can only burn 7 (formerly 10) IDENTICAL CDs without changing somethine--at least the order of tracks--to prove that you are not an automated mass-piracy operation.

Who does this actually inconvenience? Who needs more than 1 or 2 copies of a CD in addition to the master library and iPods?

Meanwhile, playback on five simultaneous computers is something some households will appreciate, saving them the re-authorization step that used to be needed. And THAT's retroactive too, which is very good :)

[stoid]

you never owned any of the music you purchased. you are licensed to use it. you do not own it.

Wait, Steve's told me all along that I DO own my music (and not renting it). :eek: :mad:

[iMeowbot]

Can someone shed some light on why a person might legally be burning that many copies of a single playlist?

Bad things happen to CDs in cars. A lot. :) And cars go to places where worse things would happen to iPods, so they still have a job.

[idkew]

Wait, Steve's told me all along that I DO own my music (and not renting it). :eek: :mad:

you are licensed to use it forever, not on a time basis. you do not OWN the music, in the traditional sense of the word. you own a very limited license.

[Mantat]

Oh... its so typical of you to always look for a class action suit at the first 'problem'... Lawers, rejoice!

By putting the CD burning limit from 10 to 7 Apple doesnt change anything about the music you already own. ITS THE PLAYER that changed! IF you dont agree with the change, just stay with iTunes 4 and no prob.

On the other end, I agree that changing policy like this sucks. They should only be allowed to change it if it improve the customer satisfaction not because of the majors.

[nagromme]

Bad things happen to CDs in cars. A lot. :) And cars go to places where worse things would happen to iPods, so they still have a job.

How do cars create a need for more than seven backup copies PLUS the master copy on your computer(s)?

It seems like one CD in your car and a backup at home would meet that need.

Disregard, if you were joking :)

[Rower_CPU]

Here's the real question with the 7 burn limit on playlists: does rearranging or trashing and recreating the playlist reset the counter?

[dontmatter]

Is sharing on five computers worth burning 7 playlists? I wonder. if you make a great mix and want to give it to all your friends, you could run into the 7 limit, but I would be more likely to run into the limit by sharing the files directly with friends.

Thank GOD for the .99 staying the same, though. Man I'm glad for that one.

Other than that, sounds like I nice little bundle of news, not spectacular, but not shabby in the least, either.

[iMeowbot]

How do cars create a need for more than seven backup copies PLUS the master copy on your computer(s)?

Scratches and sun damage, mostly. I'm extraordinarily cruel to my CDs! It's a succession of replacements, not multiple copies at once. I tend to leave them loose in the console, fiddling with cases doesn't work so well on the highway. Changers aren't really an option for rentals, etc.

It seems like one CD in your car and a backup at home would meet that need.

It's a heck of a lot more convenient to burn straight from the iTunes library, than to grab a CD from the stacks and re-rip it every time.

[Exponent]

you are wrong. simply wrong.

you agreed apple could change the terms at its will. you agreed again when you clicked "accept" after installing 4.5.

you never owned any of the music you purchased. you are licensed to use it. you do not own it.

select items from Terms of Sale:

Apple reserves the right to change the terms and conditions of sale at the iTunes Music Store at any time. Customers are encouraged to review the Sales Policies on a periodic basis for modifications.

Nope - you're the one that's wrong. Conditions of sale can change, sure - on new purchases from the store. I have no problem if they are creating FairPlay DRM rights 1.1, which applies to new purchases.

But if they are telling me that terms of sale change regarding previously made purchases, than we're all heading into a brave new world here. I'm almost positive this is a violation of contract law.

To those who say that I'm too eager to have lawyers jump in, guess what - I'm an engineer, and by rights despise lawyers. But trust me - these media companies that we "purchase" this content from have lawyers up the wazoo, there to help these companies clamp down continuously on reasonable usage rights.

I hope that this does not require a court fight, but shifting the licensing restrictions on previously purchased goods is a concept that must be nipped in the bud.

[iMeowbot]

Is sharing on five computers worth burning 7 playlists? I wonder. if you make a great mix and want to give it to all your friends, you could run into the 7 limit, but I would be more likely to run into the limit by sharing the files directly with friends.

If you're making a batch of CDs all at once like that, you could burn just one from iTunes and then use a general-purpose CDDA copy program to do the rest. With the new lossless codec, I suppose you could import from the first CD back into iTunes and burn from those rips.

[dontmatter]

If you think about it this way, before you had 3 computers burning 10 times (30 CDs) now you have 5 computers burning 7 times (35 CDs). That's 5 extra copies of the CD. :D


Can you really do that? (and who has five computers anyway?)

Still don't know what I think about the retroactivness though... sure, you don't have to sign the new agreement, but..... you're kinda forced into it (I presume you have to sign it to downoad more music from ituens). I would want to, as the five computer thing is more important than the 7 CD thing for me, but I don't like the principal of them changing it for the music you already bought, even if you don't HAVE to accept the change.

[idkew]

Nope - you're the one that's wrong. Conditions of sale can change, sure - on new purchases from the store. I have no problem if they are creating FairPlay DRM rights 1.1, which applies to new purchases.

But if they are telling me that terms of sale change regarding previously made purchases, than we're all heading into a brave new world here. I'm almost positive this is a violation of contract law.

i have tried to find the agreement we agreed to when we installed 4.5...

but, it does not say one way or the other, the text i quoted was fairly ambiguous about if it can changed the rights to already licensed songs. it would not be a violation if we agreed to it when we purchased the music. i am guessing apple has you agreed to that when you sign up for the iTMS... but i can't find my license.

found it (http://www.info.apple.com/usen/itunes/terms.html):

You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.

You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case.



so- in other words. apple has you by the balls. they can change the license as they see fit, and cancel the iTMS whenever they like, and you can never listen to your songs again. All legal.

[Lancetx]

so- in other words. apple has you by the balls. they can change the license as they see fit, and cancel the iTMS whenever they like, and you can never listen to your songs again. All legal.

No, if the iTMS is ever cancelled it wouldn't keep you from still being able to play all of the songs you currently have. You could simply just burn them all once to audio CDs and you're done. You could do with them whatever you want from there.

[idkew]

No, if the iTMS is ever cancelled it wouldn't keep you from still being able to play all of the songs you currently have. You could simply just burn them all once to audio CDs and you're done. You could do with them whatever you want from there.

better do it before apple de-authorizes iTMS. after that, they are wasted bytes.

[Lancetx]

better do it before apple de-authorizes iTMS. after that, they are wasted bytes.

Granted, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon. :rolleyes:

[aswitcher]

The biggest thing for me from this update is being able to put all our music on my wifes PB account which I cna now access from my account. Up until that happened I think I needed music to be copied to both accounts on the same machine which seemed such a waste.

[elo]

Oh... its so typical of you to always look for a class action suit at the first 'problem'... Lawers, rejoice!

By putting the CD burning limit from 10 to 7 Apple doesnt change anything about the music you already own. ITS THE PLAYER that changed! IF you dont agree with the change, just stay with iTunes 4 and no prob.

On the other end, I agree that changing policy like this sucks. They should only be allowed to change it if it improve the customer satisfaction not because of the majors.


I loathe this sort of comment. The average salary for lawyers in the US is only $40,000. Only 7% of American lawyers ever set foot in a courtroom. Our job, most of the time, is to help people and institutions better understand the law so that they are fully cognizant of their rights and obligations under it. In other words, the legal system tries (and tries hard) to minimize the number of suits and disputes. This is a fundamental part of civil procedure classes, and every lawyer I know makes an affirmative effort to avoid disputes and lawsuits when possible.

The class action device is a limited exception to the above, for one simple reason: most class actions are issues that affect numerous people, but where the injury to each particular plaintiff is small enough that that person would be unlikely to assert his rights in the absence of the class action device. And because of the potential for abuse, an attorney prosecuting a class action lawsuit has to overcome enormous procedural obstacles to even have the class certified. (All this is before a trial would ever take place, and most of the time it is all done at the expense of the plaintiff's law firm itself. (Yet another safeguard against a frivolous action.))

In this case, those upgrading to iTunes 4.5 execute a new contract, so there's likely nothing to contest, even if someone wanted to. (That's thanks to the work of lawyers, not in spite of it.) Given that Apple was able to get something many people were clamoring for (use of purchased songs on more machines), and traded something most people never used, it's likely that they had to renegotiate their agreement with the record companies to do it. Painting this as a loss to consumers seems silly to me.

elo

[applebum]

I find it funny that as the digital age expands, our expectations of what is "ours" and what we can do with "our" stuff increases exponentially. Just 10 years ago, if you bought a CD you had rights to that CD. You couldn't back it up other than making a tape copy - no one did that. If your friend wanted a copy, you made them a tape, but that was in real time so they had to be a really good friend. Otherwise you told them to go get their own. If you wanted to listen to that music at work, you took that CD to work. To listen in the car, you took that CD with you in the car. If, God forbid, you got a scratch on that CD and it became unreadable....you had to go buy another one if you wanted to listen to that music again. And you couldn't ask for a free replacement since you already owned that music.

Now we act like DRM is the worst thing in the world, yet even with DRM we have much more flexibility than we did in the "old" days. We can make exact copies - 7 now, we can have "our" music playing on 5 different computers at the same time, we can stream it from one place to the other, we can save it on as many iPods as we want, we can purchase it without leaving the house, we can instantly share it with all our friends and even strangers. And yet we still worry because they change it after a year and now we can only get 7 burns but we can now have it on 5 computers and omg what happens if the ITMS goes under....No matter what rights they put on it, it will never be as restrictive as it was just 10 years ago. And even if ITMS goes under, as long as we have backed up our music, we don't have to worry about losing our music. Things are only getting better - let's keep it in perspective.

[sushi]

Nope. Terms of sale can't change post sale, especially via a program update.
I believe that you are licensing to use the music rather than purchasing the music itself.

AFAIK, a licence can change at anytime. You have the choice of accepting the change, or not. By installing the iTunes upgrade you have agreed to the change. No one is forcing you to upgrade.

Sushi


EDIT: Spelling

[sushi]

Wait, Steve's told me all along that I DO own my music (and not renting it). :eek: :mad:
You do not own the music when you purchase a CD either.

You are only licensing the use of it.

Just like software these days.

Sushi

[sushi]

(and who has five computers anyway?)
I do!

Currently have 10 (8 Mac and 2 PC).

Sushi

[nagromme]

Apple could pull the plug on iTMS totally and your purchases will still play, and still be burnable losslessly and without DRM, making them universally playable forever.

Your computer doesn't check in with Apple to play a song, nor to burn it. If Apple were to make some kind of update that deletes or disable everyone's music (do we really fear that?) then you'd just opt out of the update, or burn to CD (or other backup method) before doing the update.

That's why iTunes is better than the music rental services. They can and DO disable your downloads when you stop your recurring payment.

[Snowy_River]

Apple could pull the plug on iTMS totally and your purchases will still play, and still be burnable losslessly and without DRM, making them universally playable forever.

Your computer doesn't check in with Apple to play a song, nor to burn it. If Apple were to make some kind of update that deletes or disable everyone's music (do we really fear that?) then you'd just opt out of the update, or burn to CD (or other backup method) before doing the update.

That's why iTunes is better than the music rental services. They can and DO disable your downloads when you stop your recurring payment.

Well, as my own experiences have shown, it is quite possible for you computer to become de-authorized, and then, if Apple's iTMS servers aren't around for your computer to check in with, you can't play your music any more. Also, if you burn them to a CD, yes, that CD still has the original quality, but if you rip them back onto your computer you lose quality. So, we do have to hope that Apple keeps their iTMS servers up, even if iTMS goes under. Either that, or we have to keep our eyes out for things like PlayFair to allow us to 'unwrap' the DRM off our pAAC files so they can be played even if the iTMS servers are gone...

[jaw04005]

[QUOTE=nagromme]What were you doing that needs more than 7 identical CDs?[\QUOTE]

I've burned maybe 5 CDs total in the past year. It isn't that this would inconvienence me - actually, the 5 computer playback addition is of great value.

But this isn't the point. Doesn't it bother you that you "purchased" music, recognizing there are some - but very specific - limitations built in, and then then a year after the purchase, the seller can change the rules on you? This is unheard of!

I have a bad feeling that this represents a contract violation, and will result in someone, perhaps a class action, suing Apple.

But if you think about it don't you actually get more burns? I mean originally we could use 3 computers with 10 burns per playlist (3x10=30 total burns). Now we get 5 computers with 7 burns per playlist (5x7=35 total burns). Or does iTunes keep up with the playlist throughout all of your authorized computers?

[jettredmont]

How do cars create a need for more than seven backup copies PLUS the master copy on your computer(s)?

It seems like one CD in your car and a backup at home would meet that need.

Disregard, if you were joking :)

You didn't get it.

If you live in, say, Tucson, AZ, and have the silly habit of leaving your dye-based (CD-R) CDs in your car stereo, you will tend to find that such CDs become unplayable after a few weeks of the summer heat (on average; sometimes a single day's peak sun can ruin it). In that case, the average user either has to bypass the copy protections (by burning and re-ripping, or by "silent track" manipulations), or change their "perfect mix" (which is blasphemous to a large number of folks who don't "mix" at all but instead just burn the album complete and unaltered the way the band originally "intended" it), every couple of months.

Note that dye-based CD-R media has a significantly higher rate of corruption due to heat than "pressed" factory CDs. A pressed CD will last significantly longer (perhaps even neraly indefinitely) in the Arizona sun than a CD-R.

IMHO, the whole CD-burn limit deal is silly. If I wanted to make a bunch of CDs for my friends, any limit on CD burns (no matter how low) does nothing more than make me burn one CD out, then re-import the CD as lossless (compressed or not) and burn from that lossless collection of tunes. There is a very minor loss in quality here if you don't use error correction in the rip, but even that's not noticeable. And, after this one, 5-minute detour, I don't have a 7-burn or 10-burn limit, but instead an infinite burn capacity (limitted only by how many CD-R disks I can shove in to burn).

But, obviously, the "7 burns" thing was a compromise. It's not a "natural" number like "5" or "10", but rather a negotiated compromise between the two.

[jettredmont]

Can you really do that? (and who has five computers anyway?)


Yes, you can do that (the playlist count is kept on the computer, not on the central server, for reasons which should be obvious). It's not really a true benefit as most people don't have five computers with CD burners and iTunes, but still ...

And, who has five computers? I do. Granted, not all of them play tunes. But I definitely have three that need to play tunes (one at home; one at work; and the laptop when I'm traveling), plus one more that might need to play tunes (the kids' computer at home), and I "lost" one of my allocated computers due to foolishly reinstalling Panther on a box without deauthorizing it first (oops.) So the five-computer limit is really nice for me. Now my effective limit is "4", which is one more than what I absolutely need, instead of "2", which was one less.