RealNetworks Slashes Song Prices [Archive] - Page 2

hulugu

Aug 17, 2004, 06:54 PM

Actually I think the petition shows how pathetic Apple zealots can be.

If this were Apple doing the very same thing to another competitor who had a lock on the market you would all be behind Apple cheering. Another win for the "little guy" as everyone says. It really stings when it's turned around on Apple.

I've used, administered, developed on OSX, BSD, Linux, Solaris, and Windows and have had experience will the zealots of each platform. It's amazing how all of the Apple zealots sound just like the Windows ones you trash all of the time. In the end you are all alike, just behind what each considers a winning solution.

Apple is now the big-bad, Apple users who disagree are zealots. To think that Real is doing this out of a desperate attempt to get publicity and not for the good of the user is pure zealotism at its heart.
Silly me, and I thought that Real doing this, you know the guys who made Real Player the definition of spyware, who intentionally obfuscated the link to the free player, who created a buggy awful program and then tried to sell it as 'freedom.' Real took the iTMS idea, but cut out Mac users (that's me and I tend to take that personally), they tied their system to Windows Media Player because Microsoft needs another leg to their monopoly, and then they try to undercut my choice system in an attempt to gain market-share for theirs.
Just why exactly should I consider Real anything but a pimple on the ass of IT?
Apple has managed to create a good business, not a perfect one, but one that has real potential to change the face of digital music, challenge the over-riding, and dare I say choice-limiting, power of both Microsoft and the RIAA, and works with OSX. So, why do I want to choose Real again?
Oh right because they stand for 'freedom' and 'choice' and 'apple-pie' and 'grandma' and I'm just a dumb zealot for disagreeing. Thanks for taking the public discourse down to name-calling.
I still haven't seen the face of Masada.

GFLPraxis

Aug 17, 2004, 07:01 PM

I haven't read all 200 something messages, but...

WHY DON'T WE START A PETITION AGAINST REAL?

Can we do that! I bet we can get A LOT of people signing a petition against them.

http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/petition.html

Already been done.

Jerry Fritschle

Aug 17, 2004, 07:08 PM

Some posters have already mentioned that, in the course of applying other updates to iPod, Apple could 'break' Harmony without even meaning to. Of course, Apple would be portrayed as the villain of the piece. Real would sit back and just blame Apple for everything. They would have little call to support their own 'product.'

Whether Apple should 'open' the iPod is a legitimate question, perhaps deserving of a separate thread. However, Real is out of line--period. Any 'opening' of iPod (to the extent that it actually IS 'closed') should be done in an orderly fashion, with all vendors on the same page. This is the only way that the customer can expect proper treatment. As it stands, the iPod is Apple's product, and they should in no way be responsible for supporting Real's technology, as it has been applied.

Jalexster

Aug 17, 2004, 07:10 PM

Tell me, is Real's store open in Australia?
And also tell me, is iTMS open in Australia?

If Real's is open in Australia, then **** Apple. Real, Give me my Harmony! I want a music store dammit, and I don't care who it's from, as long as it's music works on my iPod!

And I'm gonna sign that Don't Break my iPod petition! Think about it, if all the people who buy thier music on competeing music stores are able to play their music on iPods, then that would mean that everyone that uses those other stores would get an iPod! Harmony is good!

I'm pro Apple, but they should open their arms wide, and support others. Feel free to berate me.

Edit: Here is my petition signiture! It's number 602!
602. Jalexster

Edit 2: About the avalability of the music stores, I don't know if Real's is open in Australia, but if it is, then I'll use it, because the iTMS sure isn't.
Don't get me wrong, if Apple opened the iTMS in Australia, Then I'd use that instead of course. However, I still think Harmony is a good idea. Open the iPod. It dosen't endanger FairPlay, it just allows more music on the iPod.

inkswamp

Aug 17, 2004, 07:46 PM

can i buy you a beer? beautifully stated...

Two please. :D

Thanks.

Highland

Aug 17, 2004, 07:49 PM

The iPod is already "open" -- it supports the format that 99% of music is purchased in, namely, CDs, as well as a number of other open formats, such as MP3s and unprotected AAC. What Real is complaining about is that the iPod doesn't happen to support their own, proprietary DRM.
Nailed it in one!

That's the TRUE argument.

It's not about 'freedom', it's about Real trying to make more money.

When you use RealPlayer to manage your iPod, RealPlayer does not delete any content from your iPod unless you specify.
The iPod was designed to be a one way transfer. This is to appease the RECORDING INDUSTRY, not for Apple's benefit. If the Real Player software works differently to iTunes Sync, then they risk losing all support from the record labels that supply their online store.

As for selling 192kbps songs... the store could have a few options. Actually, they really only need two, 128kbps and lossless.

I'm all for ONE non-proprietary format for ALL online stores, and I hope a time will come where this happens, but Real are not going about it the right way.

voicegy

Aug 17, 2004, 07:56 PM

http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/petition.html

Already been done.

Thanks for that. Done and done...Real, just roll over and die. :rolleyes:

LimeiBook86

Aug 17, 2004, 07:56 PM

I dunno, Apple made the iPod, they have the right to decide what they want people to play on it. Real Network just wants a piece of the iPod.

iPod = Coolness, then maybe Real Network = Coolness...(not at all cool)

I think this is horrible. If Apple can do anything, I think they should. Besides Apple knows what their doing, Real Network is just doing this for the money, they probably need it...badly...

:mad:

djsteele

Aug 17, 2004, 08:01 PM

I see you have no clue how this whole system works. Real has not hacked the DRM on iTMS files. They just have a method to add DRM to their own files that is compatible with Fairplay. They've cracked nothing. What they do is take the DRM off of their own files and apply DRM to them that works just like Fairplay does. The result is a Fairplay-compatible DRM file.

No cracking of DRM involved. Nothing's broken.

There's also absolutely nothing illegal about this. The algorithm behind Fairplay isn't patented. As I understand it, it's just a little fiddling with AES. It probably isn't patentable, even if Apple had tried. Patent protection is the only possible way Real could have been kept from doing this. But with no patent, there's nothing wrong being done here.

And if Real's selling at a lower price with higher quality, it might encourage Apple to try to match the competition. Competition is good.

While Apple may not have a patent on the DRM they have developed, it's still a violation of copyright law (which is the issue here) since Real had to "reverse engineer" the DRM files. It's illegal to reverse engineer a copyrighted product, thus the reason we can't make "legal" copies of DVD or CDs. While it may be technically feasible to do so, it's still illegal. That said, I'm all for competition. I'm an admitted Apple zealot, but only after YEARS of suffering through a Windows dominated suckfest. Competition is certainly great for us (the consumers) because it means lower prices and better products... And since we're talking about it, let's be "real"... Real Networks (nor Apple) wants competition in any market. That's why we have anti-trust laws... to avoid the monopolies of the world. (And no I don't believe MS is a monopoly, so don't go there.) Real would much rather "use" a "compatible" version of FairPlay to its advantage while circumventing the licensing fees that would normally have to incur from any other company with a similar process. For example, they have to pay a license for WMA compatibility... which incidentally also doesn't work on a Mac (even using MS's own Windows Media Player for Mac)... go figure.

Point is, the zealots are not responding because they are zealots... the consumers are making their voice heard... providing their "choice" for music freedom. It appears that we'd like the "freedom of music choice", so long as Real is not involved.

WebScud

Aug 17, 2004, 08:06 PM

I hoped on a friends PC to download an exclusive acoustic Something Corporate EP from. One problem. Any idea how to play .rax files on Panther? :confused:

jragosta

Aug 17, 2004, 08:21 PM

I must be missing something. If I own the best digital audio player, the iPod, and then have the ability to buy music from more then 1 site how is this bad?

I really think that having multiple site to buy songs for the iPod is the only way that iPod will stay the #1 digital music player. Otherwise once MS and more WMA site go online, Apple will follow in its traditional role of an innovator and not the leader in a field.

Even before Real stole Apple's technology you had the ability to buy music for your iPod from more than one site. You could buy CDs from a zillion stores or buy MP3 music from a variety of stores or AAC from Apple. Any one of those works with iPods.

Adding one more source doesn't increase your freedom of choice significantly. It does, however, lessen the value of Apple's intellectual property - and potentially create huge problems for Apple (such as when Harmony erases a few GB of music on someone's iPod and they call Apple to complain).

Harmony is theft. Pure and simple.

jragosta

Aug 17, 2004, 08:22 PM

Point is, the zealots are not responding because they are zealots... the consumers are making their voice heard... providing their "choice" for music freedom. It appears that we'd like the "freedom of music choice", so long as Real is not involved.

We like choice - as long as it's done legally and fairly.

If Real had created a system to sell MP3 files, no one would complain. But they didn't. They stole Apple's intellectual property and lessened the value of the brand (by creating a shoddy, clumsy knockoff).

supermegatron

Aug 17, 2004, 08:29 PM

We should start boycotting companies that preinstal real player with there machine for instance hp comes with real player so we stop buying hp printers until they stop preinstalling real player this is the way to get the message through to real 20 million + mac users boycotting companies that use there products has got to hurt them

GFLPraxis

Aug 17, 2004, 08:38 PM

Boycott HP? Nah, HP doesn't care if Mac users boycott them.
Besides, HP also preinstalls iTunes.

Nah, I'd rather boycott RealPooper, I mean Player.

Wardofsky

Aug 17, 2004, 08:38 PM

I don't care what Real does until any worthy music download service comes to Australia.

I never liked Real Player...

broken_keyboard

Aug 17, 2004, 08:38 PM

What if these crappy imitation files by Real cause the whole iPod software to reset and go in to an infinite loop etc..

Apple could use this as an argument, that Real's files could be harmful to their product.

GFLPraxis

Aug 17, 2004, 08:39 PM

Harmony is theft. Pure and simple.

I'm sorry, but this is just hilarious.

Harmony is theft. Does that mean I'll feel harmonious if I steal stuff? Or that anything that is in harmony is theft? :)

The way its written sounds very funny if someone didn't know what the subject was.

hob

Aug 17, 2004, 08:45 PM

Spades

Aug 17, 2004, 08:47 PM

While Apple may not have a patent on the DRM they have developed, it's still a violation of copyright law (which is the issue here) since Real had to "reverse engineer" the DRM files. It's illegal to reverse engineer a copyrighted product, thus the reason we can't make "legal" copies of DVD or CDs.

Unless Real outright copied Apple code, copyright law isn't going to help Apple any. Reverse-engineering is about specifically avoiding copying code. You figure out how something works so that you can make your own version of that. Reverse-engineering is not illegal. The DMCA, about as harsh of a regulation of copyright as there is, even specifically allows for reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability. In other words, there's a very clear exception in the law allowing what Real has done.

Making a copy of a DVD by breaking the encryption is not reverse-engineering. The action there is the breaking of encryption on a specific work. It's not the reverse-engineering of an algorithm. They're not at all alike.

Apple just doesn't have anything they can do about this. Only two things applied to the Fairplay software; copyright and secrecy. Since Real seems to be adding Fairplay to their files, and Apple never publicly released that software, it seems very unlikely Real copied Apple's code. As for the algorithm being secret, Real would again have to have screwed up and outright stolen information from Apple. Presumably Real isn't that stupid and they made a clean implementation. In that case, Apple has no recourse.

Yeah, it does suck for Apple. But then, it also sucked for IBM when the PC BIOS was reverse engineered. IBM clones were a big win for everybody else though. Maybe this will be too.

puckhead193

Aug 17, 2004, 08:49 PM

49 cents won't seem like much of a bargain when Apple updates the iPod to break all songs from Real's site...

ahhh. i was thinking that to... although people won't download the update if it won't allow them to play the song...they need to hide the feature and make new feature's availible so that people will upgrade the software to have these "newer" features

sockeatingdryer

Aug 17, 2004, 09:38 PM

Hey guys, I created a new petition addressed to RealNetworks concerning Harmony. Sign it.

http://www.petitiononline.com/0harmony/petition.html
------------
To:* RealNetworks

Dear RealNetworks & Rob Glaser,

We request that you cancel the Harmony software/service.

Your creation of Harmony is not for giving consumers "freedom of choice," but demonstrates the desperation of one company to prey & scavenge on, and siphon funds from one popular movement created by another, apparently much more creative one.

Harmony really destroys the user experience of the iPod, because it is not just a product, but a SEAMLESS relationship between it and the iTunes Music Store. By creating Harmony, you are only breaking that great, SEAMLESS relationship between the two.

The iPod/iTunes Music Store was created with the intent of that relationship by Apple, and RealNetworks has no right to manipulate the creation of another company or individual. That only shows your limited capability of running a corporation, and your lack of creative vision.

Many people with a common vision worked long and hard to make that vision come true. You simply cannot STEAL those hours, that energy, and most importantly, that vision right from under them. That would make you a thief.

If anyone "breaks" my iPod, it will be YOU, Rob Glaser. Don't mess with it.
Go out and create your own innovative service for once.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

mhouse

Aug 17, 2004, 09:42 PM

A lot of these arguments are interesting but esoteric. The copyright issue, whether Real did or didn't "crack" anything, and whether Apple should or should not 'open' the iPod not not, to my mind, the important topics.

Here is the only issue that matters to me.

Have you seen the tagline for Alien Vs. Predator? Whoever wins...we lose.

Its kind of the same deal here, folks. There *will* be a monopoly eventually. It cannot be avoided. Business models naturally evolve (or maybe devolve) into these things for the most part. Particularly in tech.

And the simple question is this: should Apple monopolize this piece of the pie or should fat-ass Microsoft get another helping of our "digital lifestyle." Because any victory for Real is damn sure, eventually, a victory for MS. Now, in all ugly candor, Microsuck may end up beating Apple at this game too, regardless of what Real does.

However, since Apple does have the advantage of a massive, leveragable marketshare this time (and a CEO with his hand deep, deep in the content side of the pie with Pixar), they do have a chance.

Raise your hand if you think Rob Glaser and Real stand a chance against Bad Billy Gates and Steve "Mad Dog" Ballmer...

I'm waiting...

So I say, in the immortal words from the pen of Kevin Smith:
"**** Real, **** them in their stupid *****!"

egor

Aug 17, 2004, 10:06 PM

11 pages of stuff I'm simply not going to read, so if its been said before, I apologise, honestly, you people are so selfish for having such a long discussion! :p

ANYWAY, I don't see the big deal, the profit to be had from the iTMS is minimal to Apple, obviously, not even a drop in an ocean. Its just to get people to buy iPods. Real provides music downloads that will work on the iPod, this will help increase iPod sales because Real's songs are cheaper. The iTMS still has the biggest library (although I still can't find stuff I want, yet it is easily available on Amazon (and cheaper than it would be on iTMS if I could've bought it)), so that will still be the main attraction.

I just don't get it, HOW does it damage apple? Forget about whether what Real did was wrong or not.

Also, wishing a company to go bust (making alot of people unemployed) isn't very nice.

LimeiBook86

Aug 17, 2004, 10:08 PM

I hoped on a friends PC to download an exclusive acoustic Something Corporate EP from. One problem. Any idea how to play .rax files on Panther? :confused:

Excuse my language, but what the hell is a ".rax"...

Why can't we just stick to the basics? MP3s and AACs?

We don't need Sony's R2-D2-C-3P0-T-16 format ;)

Maxx Power

Aug 17, 2004, 10:21 PM

I think you have many good points, however, to suggest that today's rock music is bloated and has excessive bass among others is absolutely a subjective opinion. If there is a such thing as subjective opinion :D . I think most genre of music needs to be on the cutting edge. We may not understand and appreciate new music just as we sometime do not appreciate cutting edge abstract art. Nonetheless, in due time, the bad new music will fade, and the good music will be incorporated into our culture. think of the alternative? What if rock cutting edge artist of today is e.g. the Rolling Stone. the like the Stones, but I don't think they are pusing the standard like they once had. Just my two cents.

Chomo

Anything that is new in the music industry is by definition cutting edge. Since average person doesn't have a measuring stick of how well composed the music is, how musical it is, what is music theory, etc... In those terms i just described, almost all of today's music is paltry compared to the classical era. As well, we subjectively depict what we think is good, or more appriopriately, what we like by the process of whether we like it or not. But this fails miserably when evaluating things formally. An objective evaluation would be based on prior knowledge of music, for example, someone who has been trained fully in music schools. This is a segment of the market where capitalism fails. There is no need for producing higher entertainment and well thought out, logical forms when despite how ridiculously simple and watered (dumbed)-down your material is, there is always some audience out there who was never educated in those faculties and will pay 20 dollars for something when they get 6.5 dollars an hour for their labour. Quite quickly, a lot of these new arts (highly unregulated and judged subjectively) fall to the lowest common denominators such as using beats to subsitute creativity, and using raging vocals to stimulate audience instead of well composed music, anyone can scream, but when you put that on a cd and charge an arm and a leg for it, it just isn't art. There is no such thing as commercial art, art originated as an expression form, a desire to create, to communicate and satisfy human's higher consciousness. These qualities can not, and will fundamentally never be able to become commercialized. Money is abstract, to prioritize money in a capitalistic system is central to the progress of the society, which by definition puts all other human qualities second, or even third to profit. It's only a progression that gets worse before it can be fixed or changed, that's why, relatively speaking, there was more good music in the 80's than there is now, and a lot more good music in the classical era than there is now. Putting your faith in time to clear away all things you disagree with including this one only makes you powerless against whatever confronts you now. In due time, we are all dead.

Jalexster

Aug 17, 2004, 10:23 PM

I am taking back what I said earlier. I don't know what came over me. Please forgive me, I will banish RealPlayer to the deep reigions known as forgetfulness.

I return to worshipping the iTMS and Apple. I will break my ties with supporting Harmony. Is it possible to remove your signiture from a petition? Ah dosen't really matter.

Although, just hurry up Apple and bring the iTMS to Australia dammit!

Maxx Power

Aug 17, 2004, 10:33 PM

have you heard of region coding? most every DVD player made (i said "most") only plays DVDs of one region. in fact, pop a DVD from Europe into your Mac and see if your DVD player doesn't want you to lock in a region. the MPAA requires this so i don't start selling my DVDs on eBay in China (and i'm sure there are a hundred other reasons, but for simplicity sake).

Region coding is a much milder form of freedom control. That is NOTHING compared to being in the same north america on planet earth owning a device that can decode nearly all popular formats but never being able to play them you got online legally even if you paid. And even then, they are not tagging on any new algorithms on your DVD's to prevent you from playing them on any given generation DVD player. Besides, I can speak the following because I have been to China, I can tell you that the DVD machines sold there are, if not the majority, then at least near 50% are multi-region. As well as a lot of the TV's VCR's are NTSC/PAL compatible. THe RIAA doesn't reach as far as the east end of the globe, and has no right excerising their demonic idiocity on unsuspecting folks there.

what utopia do you live in?? <sarcasm>yeah, and Apple should have just bought all the music at their local Sam Goody, ripped it to their servers and offered it free to any iPod owner.</sarcasm> somehow i think the RIAA had a say in what copyright constraints THEIR music came with. i think Apple did a pretty good job negotiating fair usage rights.

I live in a place of good intentions, honesty, cultural values instead of commercial values and common sense as well as the un-common sense. This may not be a physical location as you may know, and definitely never will exist in north america, but the difference lies in striving for something worthwhile instead of lost hopes and giving up to the pressure of the immediate surroundings. There is a world outside of competing evil corporations, just like there is a world outside of United States. Feel free to roam the physical world as well as the intellectual world.

MacFan26

Aug 17, 2004, 10:43 PM

Since average person doesn't have a measuring stick of how well composed the music is, how musical it is, what is music theory, etc...
I agree that the average person can't tell a well composed piece vs. garbage, but it's hard to do anything about it. Some people just don't have a certain appreciation for the arts. If classical music training was required just like math, maybe more people would realize that some stuff is just pure crap, and these people aren't even musicians. This kind of thing overlaps in a lot of areas though, like film. There is usually a difference between "star" and "actor." Most people don't really consider film art anyway, it's all "entertainment." There's really no stopping the things you're talking about, other than with education. But then if you think like that, you'll realize that the arts programs are always the first things to get cut in schools. In due time we're all dead?? Well, of course, but can't we at least try to enjoy something while we're here? I'm sure nothing I said made any sense. sorry, I can't even remember what thread this is... You think music was better in the 80's though? :confused: :D

Porchland

Aug 17, 2004, 10:49 PM

Real doesn't matter.
Napster doesn't matter.
Sony doesn't matter.

I think this whole market is going to change when Microsoft finally launches. Real is certainly struggling; they're not even denying it. Napster probably has an ouside chance to survive a little while longer. Sony will keep pouring money into Connect and try to prop up its iPod *ahem* BULLSH**! *ahem* killer.

Microsoft needs for one of the manufacturers to step forward with a major, marque device to challenge iPod. I think a single, solid competitor would actually be great for Apple.

Whotheheck

Aug 17, 2004, 11:05 PM

How could anyone say having a sale on music is negative???? That's not bad. It's not desperate either. It's just a way to promote their service. If you think real is being desperate, at least they are not giving their music away for free like Apple (via the Pepsi promotion).

I say having a music sale is better for costumers. There is no way this can be a bad thing

Tulse

Aug 17, 2004, 11:08 PM

Quite quickly, a lot of these new arts (highly unregulated and judged subjectively) fall to the lowest common denominators such as using beats to subsitute creativity, and using raging vocals to stimulate audience instead of well composed music, anyone can scream, but when you put that on a cd and charge an arm and a leg for it, it just isn't art.

The Impressionists suffered similar accusations when they first displayed their paintings. Many museum-goers complain that their children could create a Pollock, or a Rothko, and that art should be judged by how "realistic" it is, how representational. That's a vastly conservative view of art, and one with which most art critics and historians would disagree.

There is no such thing as commercial art, art originated as an expression form, a desire to create, to communicate and satisfy human's higher consciousness. These qualities can not, and will fundamentally never be able to become commercialized.

My apologies for going a bit off-topic, but this statement is simply unsupported by the vast history of art, almost all of which was made either for patrons who were paying the bills, or for sale. Michelangelo was hired to paint the Sistine Chapel. Most of Mozart's work was done on commission. Modern artists, including not only painters but even innovators like glass sculptor Dale Chihuly (www.chihuly.com/) get paid for their work (a gallery in Toronto has one of Chihuly's monstrously large glass sculptures with a listed price of a cool $250,000 US). Artists are like everyone else -- they have to have food and shelter, and if they don't produce art that people buy, then they die of poverty. Van Gogh died poor, of course, selling only one painting in his life, and he produced wonderful work, but Monet sold many paintings and died relatively well off (in many cases, the extensive gardens he paints in his later works are his own). Is Van Gogh a better artist than Monet because he wasn't as "commercial"?

To bring this back on topic a bit, it ires me no end to see folks say that artists like musicians should only do what they do for love of art, and not for financial remuneration. You wouldn't ask a plumber to fix your toilet for free just because they may like doing plumbing, and we sure as heck don't expect professional athletes to play "for the love of the game". Why should music be any different? A huge number of non-musicians make money off of the products of musicians (from record label executives down to recording engineers and the folks that sweep up in the studio) -- why should musicians not also get a piece of that pie?

Artists who make art solely for art's sake usually starve. That's a pretty tough standard to hold folks to.

sjjordan

Aug 17, 2004, 11:26 PM

katanna

Aug 17, 2004, 11:27 PM

*sorry, I read about 30 of the posts and decided to skip the rest...*
2 questions?
Can you download Real music on a Mac? I looked at their sites (real.com, realnetwork.com, and their freedom site) and can find no link to music downloads...
When you download this music, can you burn a CD?
If I can download music from Real and burn it to a CD, I will buy the music for HALF PRICE and burn it to a CD and reimport it.
Some people are saying "ohh, it is just 50 cents." I choose to look at it as "half price!"
Also, I think that Apple would benefit to open it up to other people, but I think that Real is doing it all wrong.
For those of you that want to see the old petition, I found the link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/r4apple/petition.html
I couldn't get it to open in Safari, I had to use IE...
A few quotes from the petition:

Hi Rob! Nice to see you're reading your petition. I hope you notice many of these signatures are in vain. Steve will love this when they receive it. :) Good luck--you'll need it.

this service(real) is a sham. they illegally reversed engineered ipod technology to try to make money. thier crappy software and poor service will doom them, not apple's refusal to jump on thier sinking ship

Nice try!!!! Your software sucks, real

HAHA looks like this petition sure backfired
(and this was only #30 out of over 900!!! hehe)

Also to note... the petition that got bagged had 911 sigs on it... their new one, 724 (I don't know how long each has been open...)
Oh, ya, I signed up as a user at their Freedom website (using a fake e-mail, of course...) Anybody know what good comes out of this? The only thing I see you can do extra is change your settings and log out... lol
[/rambling] Any who, I thought I would point out these things, and if anyone could answer my questions, I would love you forever... but not like that...

Matthew

Maxx Power

Aug 17, 2004, 11:29 PM

Basically, people will go where their players go. People buy a device FIRST and then use an online music store. Apple needs to get their ipods out to as many people as possible. If you own an ipod, then there is no competition. We all know that there is no better music store than iTMS.

Apple should license AAC to everyone BUT real!

I would laugh for months

As far as i can recall, AAC is not apple's. Psytel and some one else jointly developed this for public use, infact, the psytel encoder, one of the best aac/mp4 encoders avaliable is free.

Capn_Moho

Aug 17, 2004, 11:36 PM

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the iPod and the iTunes Music Store. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. We shall talk ourselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!

katanna

Aug 17, 2004, 11:38 PM

"Nobody ever uses big fonts in messages."
lol

Any who, has anyone started a petition against Real, with nice legal sounding words like them?
I would sure sign that one!

Matthew

GFLPraxis

Aug 17, 2004, 11:48 PM

Capn_Moho

Aug 18, 2004, 12:02 AM

http://www.bly.cc/realstore.jpg (iTunes ripoff)
http://www.bly.cc/real.jpg

That looks nothing like iTunes.

Window Media Player maybe, iTunes no.

micvog

Aug 18, 2004, 12:02 AM

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16242&stc=1

That's hilarious!

My favorite is attached as currently on Real's Music Store FAQ.

hillbilly1980

Aug 18, 2004, 12:51 AM

I agree, this is a very good move by real, its unfortunate apple is being very microsoft regarding this. Content just wants to be free, artists make money from shows, screw the middle man. Unfortunatly apple's being the middle man here trying to control the entire supply chain.

katanna

Aug 18, 2004, 01:15 AM

OK, I finally found the real Real website (not the watered down Mac version, that shows nothing...), and I really want to buy some of their songs (they are cheep... what can I say...)
Any who, I will not be able to get on a PC until next week. Any idea how much longer they are going to keep up these half price tracks??

Matthew

Wardofsky

Aug 18, 2004, 01:46 AM

Someone said something about the influx in annoying filenames, it's killing me too.
.asx, .asf, .wmv, .wma and that's just Windows Media
.mp4, .mp3, .mpwhatever
Ick, too many.

Look, I don't think that Real made a good decision in allowing their files on the iPod, technically there are a lot of Windows people that would gladly see that happen.
If Real wants to sell it low, then they'll sell it low to get into the market and they way it sounds plenty of people will gladly switch from .99 to .49c it's just marketing tactics.

Every other online music store has just quickly thrown up a similair service with a similair price but with foreign formats to the iPod, if Real can supply a similair service with a lower price and higher compatibility they have a potential advantage.

But like I said, all Australia's got is the Big Pond Music (http://www.bigpondmusic.com/) and I will gladly see a better one coming.

thedoc1111

Aug 18, 2004, 01:48 AM

Any who, has anyone started a petition against Real, with nice legal sounding words like them?
I would sure sign that one!

Hope this is legalese enough for you

http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/

In fact it's so legalese that the last paragraph isn't English at all!

;)

We are over 200 Signatures ahead of Real atm, would be nice to keep it that way

Mike

CHess

Aug 18, 2004, 01:57 AM

Real is losing money with this attempt to undercut iTunes pricing. This is not going to benefit customers, except that Windows users might be able to buy up songs at 1/2 price. But, even though you CAN get the songs from Real right now cheap, are people suddenly going to buy all their songs from Real? How many people are actually going suddenly start buying up songs. The prices will go back up and maybe some of those buyers will keep buying from Real, but it's not going to bring music prices down to any degree.

Apple refused to deal with Real because Apple has better, more lucrative plans (Motorolla, others?). Plus, if a Mac user can't get music downloads from Real, what good are they?

Real is having a fit now and trying to make a lot of noise because they know they need the iPod. I think they recognize that there is no serious competition to the iPod on the immediate horizon and that's putting them in a bind. Hacking DRM and petitioning Apple are acts of desparation.

Real is waiving the banner of consumerism, but they don't give a flying **** about the Mac community and are really just trying to keep the numbers looking good for their investors. Unfortunately for them, they're expecting to take a loss from their big FIRE SALE.

:rolleyes:

ltgator333

Aug 18, 2004, 02:03 AM

Ok...
I really thought what Real was doing wasn't so bad, except the the way they were going about it and the fact that they are Real, and I've not personally used anything from Real so far that impresses me. Real may make decent products, I just haven't seen them. That and it's not like they thought this could be kinda ok, they went about this the right way and Apple told them no, not "reverse engineer our stuff and start a big ad compain in a hissy-fit cause we didn't let you guys license our stuff", they told them no. But, do I think that Apple should license they're stuff to other companies, yes, for a few reasons-
1) If Apple sets it up right with the licensing contracts they will lose no control over they're technology, and even if noone uses, let's say the iTMS anymore, they still make $ off licensing fees from they're competitors.
2) Keeping your cards really close to your chest makes people want to see your hand even more. Example, DVD Jon, I don't think I need to say any more. I don't think Apple really has a lot to lose by loosening it's grip at least a lil bit.
I think Apple should do this, but not with Real. Real has blatantly made a serious pain in the arse of themselves and really not gained anyone anything, not even themselves. At the prices they're selling the songs at they have pitched themselves into a money losing situation, barring a sheer miracle. And then, just to make it obvious that they do not completely intend to give this proclaimed "freedom of choice" I see it mentioned in this thread that non-Windows platforms are not supported.. freedom of choice, eh? The other problem with this is, it's not like Real is blind to other platforms, I've used Real's products on Linux and Mac, they know they exsist they have simply made a concious decision to exclude them. So for all you out there that think 'hey the open source community is to benifit from the ability to be compatible with Apple's stuff', just remember that benifit was basicly a backhanded complement. When going to Real's site you might as well be begging for table scraps.
Ultimately, I think Real will get what they deserve and sink back to what they were before all this started, but Apple needs to realize it they keep up they're selfish, go-alone attitude or this will not be the last time this happens, and unless they want to be veiwed to a certain extent as being in the same category as our buddies from Microsoft, they need to loosen up a little.

Wardofsky

Aug 18, 2004, 02:05 AM

petitioning Apple are acts of desparation.

Which is a why a few have popped up against Real :D

The Man

Aug 18, 2004, 02:34 AM

What people REALLY want is no DRM whatsoever! Now that would a great protest! And this also means a protest against copy protected CDs. We are the legal buyers of the music; we should NOT be punished in any way. The industry treats every legal buyer as a potential pirate. So people, start shouting that you don't want any DRM! Start petitions, boycott the music industry, and let our voices be heard! The music industry has caused this mess, so we should take our voices to the music industry.

People say that this protest would be futile, but if everybody would just stick with it. People believe that they cannot change the industry, but we can. This is what's wrong with the people: They are scared to let their real voices be heard and do something active to change things. Where are the rebels these days?

It is because nobody as a community or society has the guts to stand up to anything that the industry plays us like a fool! If we want to change things, we have to stand tall!

Aargh, what am I doing? I'm playing the idealist. I cannot change the people. Heck, I will not even listen to myself. Who will start the voice to boycott all DRM online music stores? Who will start the voice to boycott all copy protected CD's in shops? Not me, that's for sure. Maybe I’ll even buy a DRM protected song or two. This is what's wrong with the world: People are just like me!

P.S. Real also isn't really going to change things for the consumer.

nagromme

Aug 18, 2004, 02:39 AM

MacFan26

Aug 18, 2004, 02:47 AM

I will NOT buy copy-protected CDs.
I won't either. If I'm going to spend $15-20 on a CD, I won't stand for it being copy-protected. iTMS songs however do allow more freedom, and considering I only use music from there for personal use anyway, I don't need to make lots and lots of copies.

MacMyDay

Aug 18, 2004, 02:52 AM

I can just tell what a great company Real are

Other Real Idea's (http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/18005/18005.html)

The Man

Aug 18, 2004, 02:54 AM

Question:

Will selling unprotected music online cause the sales of music to plummet because of the dishonesty of people who rather share their purchase than let others buy for their own? Or will it actually drive the music sales up? What do you think?

Loge

Aug 18, 2004, 02:55 AM

I will NOT buy copy-protected CDs. CDs are the standard for music buying, and a boycott there can be valuable.

But I will also not try to kill downloadable singles. Apple's DRM is far broader than I need for my use, so I'll accept the necessary evil.

Apple's DRM is clear and consistent. That on music discs is neither. With many discs being sold today, you don't even know what devices it will play on.

thedoc1111

Aug 18, 2004, 03:30 AM

I'm going to host this (http://www.blogmac.net/real/) at
http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.net/
when the domain name propagates.

Any comments?

http://www.blogmac.net/real/

doc

spinko

Aug 18, 2004, 05:12 AM

Real blog.. as long as it lasts (http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

this is what you'll find on the blog, hilarious...

.... And what's up with this site [see the url above]? It will go down in web history as the most pathetic corporate brainwashing exercise ever ... I've received Spam from Latvian-based penis enlargement companies that I respect more than the stinking, bloated dead-corpse of a lame-excuse for a website that I see here ....

MacQuest

Aug 18, 2004, 05:14 AM

Remember, they _asked_ Apple multiple times and were turned down.

Hey genius, "it's not what you do, but HOW you do it".

Telling Steve Jobs that if Apple doesn't license it's Fairplay DRM technology that they will look into a joint venture with Micrapsoft, isn't so much "asking" as it is "threatening". Apparently it was an idle threat at that, seeing as how they are going to extreme measures to try and tap into Apple's iTunes/iPod market.

I suspect that Rob Glasser will be walking funny after Steve Jobs shoves his New Balance sneaker up his a$$! :D

munkle

Aug 18, 2004, 05:28 AM

Don't know if this has already been mentioned but if you want to buy a track you can actually burn to CD the price isn't 49 cents - this just keeps getting worse and worse! :rolleyes:

Loge

Aug 18, 2004, 05:51 AM

Don't know if this has already been mentioned but if you want to buy a track you can actually burn to CD the price isn't 49 cents - this just keeps getting worse and worse! :rolleyes:

What is the price if you want to burn to CD? How many times can you burn it? Anyone know?

Online music stores should state their usage rights clearly up front, and not buried in small print.

jragosta

Aug 18, 2004, 06:05 AM

jragosta

Aug 18, 2004, 06:10 AM

Wardofsky

Aug 18, 2004, 06:46 AM

So much for 'freedom of choice'.

As Mr. Bush once said "There 'oughta be limits to freedom"...
Nah, Apple had it in the bag from the start.

vienna

Aug 18, 2004, 07:52 AM

Hey genius, "it's not what you do, but HOW you do it".

Telling Steve Jobs that if Apple doesn't license it's Fairplay DRM technology that they will look into a joint venture with Micrapsoft, isn't so much "asking" as it is "threatening". Apparently it was an idle threat at that, seeing as how they are going to extreme measures to try and tap into Apple's iTunes/iPod market.

I suspect that Rob Glasser will be walking funny after Steve Jobs shoves his New Balance sneaker up his a$$! :D

Also, I was reading an interview with Rob Glaser on CNET and he states openly that they were working on Harmony before they even approached Apple. So Rob either figured Apple would say no or he just doesn't care. At least if Real had waited until Apple said no before starting development of Harmony it might imply they had some class, but as it is they just look like a bottom feeder.

anaquin

Aug 18, 2004, 08:02 AM

WHY DONT WE JUST ALL SIGN FOR A NEW PETITION TO REALN. TO STOP ALL OF THIS ·%&(&! ?????

I BET WE GET MORE VOTES IN OUR SIDE THAN THEIRS!

MacQuest

Aug 18, 2004, 08:07 AM

Don't know if this has already been mentioned but if you want to buy a track you can actually burn to CD the price isn't 49 cents - this just keeps getting worse and worse! :rolleyes:

Or better and better. Depends on how you look at it. ;) :D

iMeowbot

Aug 18, 2004, 08:16 AM

WHY DONT WE JUST ALL SIGN FOR A NEW PETITION TO REALN. TO STOP ALL OF THIS ·%&(&! ?????
It's already happening.

I love this stuff. Big mean Apple put restrictions in their product that make it hard for poor little Real to, um, put restrictions in their product. :rolleyes:

msconvert

Aug 18, 2004, 08:35 AM

I'm going to host this (http://www.blogmac.net/real/) at
http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.net/
when the domain name propagates.

Any comments?

http://www.blogmac.net/real/

doc

You should grab the .com as well. It seems to be free still. Maybe not much longer.

MattG

Aug 18, 2004, 09:34 AM

Sleazy.

shamino

Aug 18, 2004, 09:59 AM

It's illegal to reverse engineer a copyrighted product
No. It is perfectly legal to reverse-engineer a copyrighted product, you can't copy that product. This is how Compaq was able to release an IBM-compatible BIOS chip for their PC clones.

The DMCA prohibits reverse engineering encryption/DRM schemes that are intended for use as copy protection systems, but that does not prohibit the broader case of reverse engineering everything else that has a copyright.
thus the reason we can't make "legal" copies of DVD or CDs.
That is copying, not reverse-engineering.

Reverse-engineering a CD would be to study it and use the results of that research to develop a way to make your own CDs, or to make your own player.

And, BTW, you can make legal copies of CDs. As long as you don't give or sell them to anybody else, you can make all the copies you want.

Copying DVDs for personal use is illegal, not because of copyright law, but only because you have to break the disc's encryption to do it - and that is illegal under the DMCA.

jbembe

Aug 18, 2004, 10:00 AM

I'd love to see the following:

Breakage of Harmony compatibility (who cares anyways, any songs purchased can always be burned and ripped into iTunes. I certaintly won't be purchasing any PC only harmony songs...)

And to make sure everyone does the update:

Increased battery life by more efficient software (dream)
Added features such as multiple on the go playlists and deletion of songs from an on the go playlist.

Now available on ALL iPod models!!! Go Real, piss Apple off!

:D

shamino

Aug 18, 2004, 10:03 AM

The DMCA, about as harsh of a regulation of copyright as there is, even specifically allows for reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability. In other words, there's a very clear exception in the law allowing what Real has done.
Not quite. I've read that section of the DMCA.

The interoperability clause says that you may reverse-engineer a DRM scheme in order to get your software to work run on a DRM-protected operating system, or to diagonse incompatibilities.

It explicitly states that this is the only reason.

Reverse-engineering a DRM scheme so that you may apply it to your own documents without a license is not permitted.

jettredmont

Aug 18, 2004, 10:22 AM

In case no one saw this:

Cnet's daily buzz:
_________________________________________________________________
"Real, Apple, low prices--oh, my!
Creating technology that cracks iPod encryption and makes RealNetworks' downloadable music compatible with the player: superexpensive. Selling downloadable songs for 49 cents and albums at half price: big-time money loser. Marketing the Harmony technology and the cheap songs: again, mucho moolah. Watching Apple go absolutely ballistic? Priceless."
_________________________________________________________________
Why are there so many apple haters out there? Is it pure jealousy or what...

By the way, I hate real too and I've made it a point to always uninstall their software on any PC I work on.

Expecting CNet to say something nice about Apple is like expecting Fox News to endorse Kerry. It ain't gonna happen. CNet has an institutionalized bias against Apple and all things Apple, as it has proven time and time again.

whooleytoo

Aug 18, 2004, 10:30 AM

jettredmont

Aug 18, 2004, 10:38 AM

P.S.: if you think only Apple users hate Real, you're wrong. *Everybody* hates them (I can't count the number of Windows systems I've re-installed because of their damn crappy software)

Exactly. I hated Real before I ever came to love the Mac. Of the dozens of Windows users I know, I'm pretty sure hatred of Real is one unanimous sentiment. Real sucks.

People who have been working with computers for more than a few years tend to hate Real for its past transgressions. Newbies tend to defend Real, until they get burned themselves. Real, on the other hand, appears to be doing all it possibly can to ensure that those newbies turn into shell-shocked veteran Real haters at a highly efficient rate. It's the one thing Real does really well.

Spades

Aug 18, 2004, 10:38 AM

The interoperability clause says that you may reverse-engineer a DRM scheme in order to get your software to work run on a DRM-protected operating system, or to diagonse incompatibilities.

It explicitly states that this is the only reason.

Reverse-engineering a DRM scheme so that you may apply it to your own documents without a license is not permitted.

I've read that section, and it seems to say that reverse-engineering is allowed as long as it's not intended to circumvent the protection on access to a work. Harmony doesn't allow you to circumvent Fairplay, so this reverse-engineering would seem to be allowed.

whooleytoo

Aug 18, 2004, 10:42 AM

I will NOT buy copy-protected CDs. CDs are the standard for music buying, and a boycott there can be valuable.

Philips - who created the CD digital audio standard - were against these copy protected CDs being labelled as audio CDs, since they're not standard and may not play on all players. They even suggested a skull and crossbones logo as an alternative! Nice to see a company taking such a strong stance that benefits consumers.

But I will also not try to kill downloadable singles. Apple's DRM is far broader than I need for my use, so I'll accept the necessary evil.

I'm afraid, I don't understand this. Non standard, copy protected CDs are wrong, but proprietary copy protected downloadable songs are good? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be taking dramatically different positions on CDs vs online music.

Mr_Ed

Aug 18, 2004, 10:44 AM

Quite simply, what it does is screw up iPods. If I have 20 GB of music on my iPod (and I do) and then Real talks me into installing their player, it wipes my iPod. Some people will then call Apple to complain - even though it's clearly Real's fault. Not to mention, of course, that's it's a crappy, cheap imitation which is bad for consumers.

I don't know that Real's player would "wipe" your iPod and that does not concern me too much. I'm more concerned about Real's songs no longer being compatible after an iPod update from Apple (if anyone is dumb enough to actually buy into Real's scheme) and having Apple look like the bad guy. I realize that Apple can have whatever compatibility disclaimers are necessary in the iPod literature for legal purposes, but a sleazy outfit like Real is not above trying to play such problems to their advantage.

Apple currently holds a huge (by most estimates) percentage of the portable music player and online music business. I think they should be VERY public (as in some form of campaign) about compatibility caveats starting right now. Make prospective buyers understand that if they want to have the most elegant, easy to use, coolest portable music solution, they need to stay away from non-Apple and non-Apple licensed vendors for content.

"An Apple a day keeps the doctor away"
This advice is as good for your iPod as it is for you . . .

;)

jettredmont

Aug 18, 2004, 11:00 AM

I must be missing something. If I own the best digital audio player, the iPod, and then have the ability to buy music from more then 1 site how is this bad?

1) Real is an evil company; giving them a number of downloads to trumpet in a press release is aiding them (despite the fact that they're paying $.50 per song for the priviledge).

2) Real's "solution" is to lock you out of iTunes. You will forever-after have to use RealPlayer to manage your music, and if you open iTunes and sync to your iPod your Real-purchased music vanishes instantly (not because of an update from Apple but because iTunes always deletes music it isn't personally managing).

3) You paid a good $50-100 premium buying your iPod. Why? Most would say for ease of use, ease of synching, and the fact that it "just works". Real takes away all those advantages, as you now and forever have to use their clunky, bug-ridden, and system-infesting Windows software to manage your music. You might as well save your money and buy a Dell Jukebox or Rio product.

thedoc1111

Aug 18, 2004, 11:09 AM

You should grab the .com as well. It seems to be free still. Maybe not much longer.

I missed it by a few hours. Damn - Hopefully Real hasn't got it though, as there will be a parody there too no doubt!

doc

jettredmont

Aug 18, 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by GFLPraxis
http://www.bly.cc/realstore.jpg (iTunes ripoff)
http://www.bly.cc/real.jpg

That looks nothing like iTunes.

Window Media Player maybe, iTunes no.

Actually, it more resembles Real's original Jukebox application, circa 1997/8, which interface Microsoft ripped off to create its ironically superior Windows Media Player (I know, it's hard to think of WMP as "superior", but well ... when you're comparing anything to a Real product ...), plus a few "rounded edges" pioneered in the crashware "Real ONE" player (as in, "make sure this is the one application running on your computer, 'cause it's taking anything else running down with it!") which made their way into the WMP 8 product, and a left-panel reorg which started in WMP 8 and has now made its way back to Real.

Unfortunately, I can't locate a screen shot of the Real Jukebox 1.0 anywhere on the net. As opposed to MusicMatch 5 and WinAmp 1.0, which were out at around the same time ... shows how absolutely beloved this software was!

Uragon

Aug 18, 2004, 11:45 AM

Real: KNOCK...KNOCK
Apple: Who's there?
Real: Real
Apple: Real who?
Real: Releasing Harmony
Apple: huh?

Apple: Knock..Knock
Real: Who's there?
Apple: Can't
Real: Can't Who?
Apple: Can't guarantee Harmony working with iPod's newer updates.
Real: huh?

Real: Knock...knock...
Apple: who's there?
Real: Petty
Apple: Petty who?
Real: Pet(ty)ition Online (original)
Apple: huh?

Real: knock...knock
iPod Users: Who's there?
Real: Please
iPod Users: Please who?
Real: Please write nice comments..please..
iPod Users: huh?

iPod Users: Ding dong...ding dong
Real: no answer

iPod Users: Hello..helloooo?
Is there anybody in there?

Maxx Power

Aug 18, 2004, 11:45 AM

I agree that the average person can't tell a well composed piece vs. garbage, but it's hard to do anything about it. Some people just don't have a certain appreciation for the arts. If classical music training was required just like math, maybe more people would realize that some stuff is just pure crap, and these people aren't even musicians. This kind of thing overlaps in a lot of areas though, like film. There is usually a difference between "star" and "actor." Most people don't really consider film art anyway, it's all "entertainment." There's really no stopping the things you're talking about, other than with education. But then if you think like that, you'll realize that the arts programs are always the first things to get cut in schools. In due time we're all dead?? Well, of course, but can't we at least try to enjoy something while we're here? I'm sure nothing I said made any sense. sorry, I can't even remember what thread this is... You think music was better in the 80's though? :confused: :D

I agree with most of your thinkings. Good call. But make yourself different from a pure observer and become an interpreter. Why do these things happen ? I suggested a few times now that it is because of the way capitalism places marketable value, or money over all the other things in life that is not consumable, such as non-popular talents, real art, environment, education, conscience, good will, honesty, those are not marketable or at least not profitable topics. Most of us living in north america are brought up corporate, and live a money driven life, because the only culture indigenous to this land would be the way of the indians, and we slashed them away. Replaced the real culture of the land, fit for the land by a commercial culture where the values depend on what is profitable. This is why, for the more educated and open-minded intellectuals such as you and I and perhaps a dozen more here and there, we observe a sharp decline at least in a few of today's artistic faculties. The transition from artistic to mass production of music, paintings, etc was not a sharp one, and few caught the trend and even lesser pointed it out to be a bad thing. I agree with you that we should try to enjoy somethings while we're alive, but try to enjoy the things that is worthy. Or the way I judge it, if i'm spending time with something, It has to be worthy of my time. If the creater never put any/enough thought into it, I chances are, will not bore myself eventually with it. Rise above and enjoy the better. Not many appreciates or understands this these days, use this gift well.

Maxx Power

Aug 18, 2004, 11:48 AM

1) Real is an evil company; giving them a number of downloads to trumpet in a press release is aiding them (despite the fact that they're paying $.50 per song for the priviledge).

Realize that all corporations are inherently evil. Not just Real. Real is just in this particular fundament more evil than others, perhaps.

nagromme

Aug 18, 2004, 11:49 AM

Mandril Design

Aug 18, 2004, 11:58 AM

nagromme

Aug 18, 2004, 12:08 PM

Don't know if this has already been mentioned but if you want to buy a track you can actually burn to CD the price isn't 49 cents - this just keeps getting worse and worse! :rolleyes:

Does someone have a link to that info? Or is it just rumor that got repeated as fact? I don't see that in Real's terms:

http://www.real.com/terms/musicstore_terms.html
And
http://musicstore.real.com/music_store/help?tab=terms

(I do see that albums aren't really $4.99. They are half off--which is often more than $4.99. And note as expected, the low pricing is a limited-time deal which Real is ready to cancel without notice.)

And FYI here's a link to the store site, since Real tries to keep Mac users out ;)

http://musicstore.real.com/music_store/home

I like that their official help and support info (FAQ) still says Real downloads CANNOT be used with iPod :)

GFLPraxis

Aug 18, 2004, 12:19 PM

That looks nothing like iTunes.

Window Media Player maybe, iTunes no.

The buttons and colors are different, but the interface to get to the music store is exactly the same.

GFLPraxis

Aug 18, 2004, 12:21 PM

Actually, this is a brilliant idea on Real's part.

Think about it.

A) Start a petition against Apple.
B) Get thousands of people to sign it so they can make comments against Real.
C) Point out to Apple that thousands of people have signed the petition, leaving out that most of them were against Real.
D) Profit!

shamino

Aug 18, 2004, 01:38 PM

I've read that section, and it seems to say that reverse-engineering is allowed as long as it's not intended to circumvent the protection on access to a work. Harmony doesn't allow you to circumvent Fairplay, so this reverse-engineering would seem to be allowed.
DMCA (http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html), section 1201 says (emphasis mine):
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
Please note the sections that I hilighted in the above.

The reverse engineering clause is talking about reverse-engineering a program so that you can make sure your own software is compatible with it. They are using a very narrow definition of "interoperability" here.

For instance, if your own music player is somehow crashing whenever QuickTime is installed, and you have determined that knowledge of QT's DRM code is necessary for you to fix your bug, and Apple won't help you, you have the right to reverse-engineer it.

But note the word "sole". All other reasons are invalid. This includes reverse-engineering a DRM for the purpose of selling your own implementation or making compatible documents.

Real could reverse-engineer FairPlay if there was no other way to make their own media player work on systems with iTunes or QuickTime installed, but they would only be able to do so as needed to make their software work right. What they're doing now, with Harmony, goes beyond what the DMCA allows.

Now, it is possible (as has been suggested here by others) that Real managed to come up with an iPod-compatible DRM without reverse-engineering FairPlay in any way. If they actually did this, then Apple doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but I would consider it very unlikely that Real was able to do this. And I don't think Real's claim that they only used publicly-available information will wash, when that public information is all the product of other people's reverse-engineering work.

shamino

Aug 18, 2004, 01:53 PM

I'm afraid, I don't understand this. Non standard, copy protected CDs are wrong, but proprietary copy protected downloadable songs are good? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be taking dramatically different positions on CDs vs online music.
The big difference (to me, anyway), is that nobody expects iTMS downloads to be universally portable. People do expect CDs to be portable.

If the copy protected CDs were all clearly labeled "this disc is copy protected and may not work on your equipment", then I wouldn't have a problem. I still wouldn't buy it, because I want to use the disc in ways they don't want to allow (e.g. play on my Mac and rip into iTunes), but I wouln't say they have no right to sell the discs.

But they don't label the CDs like this. Most of the time, they're not labeled any differently from non-protected discs, or the labeling is in some fine print inside the packaging, where you can't see it until after you purchase the disc. Which I just consider unscrupulous business practice. If you're selling a protected disc, say so. If you're afraid that telling the world what you're doing will hurt sales, this should be a big hint that you're doing the wrong thing. No business has the right to deceptive practices.

WRT iTMS, I would definitely prefer non-DRM files. But I don't think thre's anything wrong with Apple not selling tracks this way. The reason is that there's no deception involved. Everybody (or at least everybody who bothers to ask) knows the DRM terms up front, so there are no surprises when you discover that they can only be loaded onto iPods or played on five computers. I don't even have (much) problem with the various WMA-based services, if they clearly inform you of the DRM terms in advance of your purchase (which Real does not - go and try to find the DRM terms on their web site without first purchasing a subscription).

I am willing to buy from iTMS, because their songs play everywhere I would want to play them. On my Mac, on my Windows PC, and on my stereo equipment (after burning audio CDs).

I am not willing to buy from Real or the WMA-based stores because their files will not play on my Mac and have other DRM terms that I object to. But I don't begrudge them the right to sell under those terms, as long as they inform their customers in advance of purchase.

I don't see this as a double standard.

Spades

Aug 18, 2004, 02:47 PM

The reverse engineering clause is talking about reverse-engineering a program so that you can make sure your own software is compatible with it. They are using a very narrow definition of "interoperability" here.

You didn't look at subsection 2.

`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

So you may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs. Or in other terms, Real may develop and employ Harmony to circumvent Fairplay for the purpose of enabling interoperability of their software with the iPod's software. To the extent that doing so doesn't violate the DMCA that is.

brooklyn

Aug 18, 2004, 02:50 PM

Here's Cnet's artical on Real's Harmony vs Apple Mighty iTunes (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5448666.html?tag=cnetfd.ldgif)

whooleytoo

Aug 18, 2004, 02:53 PM

And yet I WILL boycott protected CDs, because another viable option exists... they can sell REAL CDs :D Thus, a boycott is effective.

Well.. judging by the recording industy's thick skin, I'd say an anti-protected-CD boycott has as little chance of success as an anti-DRM boycott! ;)

But you make a good argument, thanks for the explanation.

Even though I can't fathom the bitterness in this thread towards Harmony, Real's position is a little strange. Harmony is a technically inelegant solution currently that relies on Apple's goodwill in not breaking it. But surely if Apple has any intention of opening the iPod/iTunes market, they'll license Fairplay to other music stores (or, perhaps even other music player manufacturers). They certainly wouldn't open it by allowing Harmony in.

It seems to me Harmony is just a red herring; it's just to force Apple's hand into opening up Fairplay. I can't imagine many people starting to build a Harmony music collection in the hope it'll continue to work on iPod.

vienna

Aug 18, 2004, 03:07 PM

So you may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs.

But is Harmony 'an independently created computer program' which operates with the programs on the iPod. I may be missunderstanding but doesn't Harmony just stick Apple's Fairplay DRM on music download from the 'Real' music store, in which case isn't it the music files which are operating with the iPod software. Surely Harmony doesn't directly operate with the iPod software so is this a legitimate excuse for Real or not ?

thedoc1111

Aug 18, 2004, 03:32 PM

No, the Real software reencrypts the helix drm protected music before it is put on the iPod with a Fairplay DRM clone.

Which is SO different from selling Fairplay encrypted songs without a licence from Apple.

Mike

vienna

Aug 18, 2004, 03:53 PM

But my point is that it is the DRM encrypted music files that are interoperable with the iPod software, not Harmony itself. In which case wouldn't that mean that Harmony was not created for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, but rather enabling the interoperability of DRM music files with other programs (i.e. the iPod software). Is there a distinction here between programs and music files ?

nagromme

Aug 18, 2004, 04:11 PM

Well.. judging by the recording industy's thick skin, I'd say an anti-protected-CD boycott has as little chance of success as an anti-DRM boycott! ;)

Haven't some protected-CD schemes already died in the market? Plus stores have to take them back sometimes if they won't play... I can see the opposition being enough. Not enough to make the RIAA change, but maybe enough to make the stay the same (real CDs) :)

hillbilly1980

Aug 18, 2004, 05:18 PM

I can't understand how so many people are readily willing to subscribe to drm and stick their rights up some corporations a**, trusting they will come out smelling like roses.
Harmoney is EXACTLLY the reason people fear/ed DRM.

Look Microsoft, AOL and others tried in the mid 90's to create garden internet's, areas of the web that were only accessible to their own subscribers, if you wanted to visit an aol hosted sites you need to be on aol, if you had another ISP you would pay a "discounted" fee to access aol's content,mail,im networks. By the controlling the content they figured they could control the users, who cried foul and demanded providers allowed unfettered access across all networks.

DRM is the evolution of the cd, yet unlike the move from vinyl -> 8 track -> cassette-> cd this time record companies have figured out a way to turn your songs into little police men, telling you when, how and what you can play them on. This is a very fundemental shift, that puts our freedoms into the hands of corporations who do not have YOUR best interests at heart. We stop telling computers what to do, they tell us what we're allowed to do.

The realplayer scenerio is one example of where this is going. The recording studios have demanded that all online vendors sell copy protected songs. Consumers buy into the right restriction for the sake of convience, not realizing or not caring that drm rights are never going to get less restrictive and could well hinder new innovation after new innovation for generations to come.

By including drm in content, competitor's devices can suddenly differentiate between eachother's conetn and "police" themselves. Disney content won't play on sony players, panasonic headphones can't be used with apple ipods. All the time it is argued, the Artist the Artist, they aren't making their 1%.

DRM is an effort by a billion dollar industry to save itself in a world where it's become obsolute. One day a kid woke up and said, i can do better, and he did, and its p2p and to a lesser extent the internet and stores like iTunes. The fundemental purpose of the recording industry is to get songs from artists to listeners. They are a distributer, behind all the fancy cover art, store fronts, and hollywood parties is a warehouse of cds going from here to there. P2P changed the rules and showed the world there was a much more efficient way to get music from artist to listener. Artists become more popular, they sell more concert tickets they make more money. Smart artists promote sharing, they know if they have good content their music will spread they will book more openings and make far more money then cd sales would allow them. At the same time you cut out an entire industry, music become incrediablly cheap and everyone wins, (expect britney but she's pretty much set for life, don't cry for britney).

K i'm tired, so in conculsion ****** all your drm sucking ********** and your supporting of a dead industry to the detriment of the rest of us.

Let the revolution continue
Keith
(grammer is for chumps)
:)

shamino

Aug 18, 2004, 05:26 PM

You didn't look at subsection 2.
`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
So you may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs. Or in other terms, Real may develop and employ Harmony to circumvent Fairplay for the purpose of enabling interoperability of their software with the iPod's software. To the extent that doing so doesn't violate the DMCA that is.
This is talking about programs not documents.

If Harmony could not run on the same computer with iTunes installed on it, then this would apply. If Harmony could not run on a computer with an iPod attached, this would apply. If there was any problem with any part of the Harmony program not running on the same computer with a FairPlay-enabled software package, it would apply.

A music file is a document, not a program. There is no provision for document interoperability, only program interoperability.

As I said before, generating documents in someone else's proprietary format is not a protected activity and is not covered by the DMCA's reverse-engineering clause.

MacFan26

Aug 18, 2004, 05:28 PM

Rise above and enjoy the better. Not many appreciates or understands this these days, use this gift well.
Thanks, I'll try :)

nagromme

Aug 18, 2004, 05:50 PM

This looks like trolling to me (total posts 4 :D ), but...

P2P changed the rules and showed the world there was a much more efficient way to get music from artist to listener. Artists become more popular, they sell more concert tickets they make more money. Smart artists promote sharing, they know if they have good content their music will spread they will book more openings and make far more money then cd sales would allow them.

Nobody could seriously believe that EVERY ARTIST can make more money from live performance than from a wider audience. Some artists create music in ways that can't be performed live. Some artists may not WANT to perform live... why should they be forced to? And lots of artists that have never been successful live have an avid fanbase of listeners/buyers all the same. You seem to be suggesting that if people did not pay anything for recorded music, they would get it for free and then spend all that money AND more on tickets to live performances. Some people don't even like concerts--much less like them enough to suddenly go to huge numbers of additional concerts just because they got free music off of P2P!

If artists want to give away music to the world without compensation--the "smart" ones as you say--then that's their choice. But there needs to be another way. It's a shame that the RIAA has gained so much power, but stealing from artists "for their own good" isn't actually something you'll find most artists supporting. They deserve compensation for their creative work--EVEN if they voluntarily signed a contract with a record company you don't like.

You seem to be trying to justify wanting something for free. There's no justifying it. You are doing wrong if you are pirating songs.

K i'm tired, so in conculsion ****** all your drm sucking ********** and your supporting of a dead industry to the detriment of the rest of us.

Please outline exactly how boycotting iTunes/DRM stores is going to change the world, finish the RIAA, or help artists. :D I would also be interested in knowing of other places where I can buy a single song without stealing from the artist.

(And if you prefer "piracy" to "stealing"--either way, it's simply wrong.)

Macmaniac

Aug 18, 2004, 06:16 PM

Every Mac user should register at Reals anti iPod site and post in their news forums, you can post their so you can fill the comments section about how Real discriminates with Mac users. Go register and infiltrate the enemy line;)

jragosta

Aug 18, 2004, 07:05 PM

This looks like trolling to me (total posts 4 :D ), but...

Nobody could seriously believe that EVERY ARTIST can make more money from live performance than from a wider audience. Some artists create music in ways that can't be performed live. Some artists may not WANT to perform live... why should they be forced to? And lots of artists that have never been successful live have an avid fanbase of listeners/buyers all the same. You seem to be suggesting that if people did not pay anything for recorded music, they would get it for free and then spend all that money AND more on tickets to live performances. Some people don't even like concerts--much less like them enough to suddenly go to huge numbers of additional concerts just because they got free music off of P2P!

Take me, for example.

I own over 700 CDs - plus a few songs I've purchased from iTunes (OK, 'own' isn't exactly right, but you get the idea).

I haven't attended a concert in over 20 years - and did so back then only because my girlfriend insisted.

I suspect that the majority of people spend much, much more on recorded music than on live concerts.

thedoc1111

Aug 19, 2004, 02:10 AM

Is up - Please go and have a look (nothing like the .org domain I promise!)

Mike

http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.net/

LimeiBook86

Aug 19, 2004, 02:17 AM

Is up - Please go and have a look (nothing like the .org domain I promise!)

Mike

http://www.freeedomofmusicchoice.net/

you got one too many "e"'s in there buddy.

I dunno what everyone is complaining about. I mean sure if you wanna download from Real Networks fine go ahead. But, the iPod isn't "locked" it'll play any MP3 or AAC you throw at it. I don't really count the Real and Sony "formats", if you really want them burn them on a CD-RW, rip them and repeat. I mean sure it's nice to be able to download from both places, but Apple has worked very very hard to make the iPod and iTunes a success. It's harsh that Real has taken this music harmony away from Apple. Also I doubt this, but if there is a problem with music playing on the iPods (conversion errors) people might think there is something wrong with the iPod, giving Apple a bad rep.

This is sort of like taking credit for someone else's idea. Apple has made this wonderful product, the iPod. And now Real wants to make some money off of it, just like everyone else. Except Real has gone too far.

Just my thoughts anyway, everyones free to have their own opinion.

:cool:

thedoc1111

Aug 19, 2004, 02:23 AM

Aaah, but as far as I know it costs extra to burn the songs to CD (that is grapevine standard though, because I dont know whether anyone has ever actually bought anything from Real, just complained about them)
eeeeeesssss fixed too

Mike

Muzukun

Aug 19, 2004, 02:58 AM

well I just used real's service cuse they had a few songs I haven't been able to find anywhere... now if I count out the horrible downloads I had to do BEFORE I could even buy the songs, and the fact they charged 20.00 to my account instead of just 2.94 I would have said it was great... counting that in though I have a very strong desire to kill everyone at real right now >.< I got my songs... march forward apple with unity and what not and slaughter them ^-^

hillbilly1980

Aug 19, 2004, 03:10 AM

This looks like trolling to me (total posts 4 :D ), but...

Nobody could seriously believe that EVERY ARTIST can make more money from live performance than from a wider audience.

..........................

(And if you prefer "piracy" to "stealing"--either way, it's simply wrong.)

Yes i do believe. Besides the false assumption that for some reason people who hear a songs for free should not be counted as part of a wider audience (Note to Author: minus radio listeners, minus people listening to cds that they did not directly buy [parties,borrowing, overhearing].). I think its safe to say everyone here has at least HEARD something from an artist before they purchased their cd, otherwise why would you purchase their cd or subsequent cd, all fans start out by hearing songs for free.

CDs cost at most a dollar to produce in quantitiess of a few thousand, the price drops from there according to order size. Artists make similar margins (http://www.cdbaby.com/about) as the cd manufacture, the rest of that 13 dollars is swallowed up in failed pop stars, advertising budgets for failed pop stars, limo service for failed pop stars , catering service for failed pop stars, etc, etc.

Studio production cost, cd cover designs and everything else related to the actualy cd's production is covered by the artist from the that 1 -2 dollar cut they get, before they actually get it. Its also worth noting that RIAA companies have been found before to have blatently ripped off artists (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/05/spitzer_tells_m.html)of royalities they are entitled to through various clever accounting schemes and balance sheet manipulation.

The only safe haven provided to artists is concert tours, for the most part concert tours are the express domain of artists. The profits made at these venues from cds, shirts, mechendise, concert tickets and such almost entirely taken in by the band itself, and for many small time to semi popular bands that make up the music community, minus britney, MJ, and justin, that usually amounts to more then their cd sale royalities.

So to answer you question yes, i do believe that most artists, all things considered are indeed better off if the recording labels did not exists.

Obviosly though the Labels, DO , exist and as such they are using their billions of dollars to saturate the market with britney spears, making it next ("http://www.cdbaby.com/about) to impossible for bands to go it alone. Which is something i love about itunes, the fact that it cuts a fair deal for all labels, regardless of size ( independent). Artist would not only succeed with out labels in todays itunes(-drm) world, but would florish.

DRM is still evil,because it takes control of content out of our hands. International companies and programmers decided what scenerio we can and can not use the content we purchase, at best they will never be able to concieve every possible use, at worst they will bill us for each one.

I hold you to account for crimes you have commited, but I defend to the death your right to commit them.
- Keith Page (or if you prefer, Genesis 3:22 (http://www.aish.com/torahportion/mayanot/The_Determinism_of_Free_Will.asp))

By the way, i'm going to assume your american, p2p is LEGAL in canada, where i live, here i share my songs with my internet friends, they give their songs to me, legally. Your terms apply to only 300 million of you, they are backwards and outdated, welcome to the new world.

Keith
(as always grammer is for chumps)

supermegatron

Aug 19, 2004, 05:42 AM

All apple needs to do is include a little message when a ipod boots up saying the end user agrees to own use itunes music something like what a nintendo has when it starts up if real bypasses that they are basically breaking the law

Timelessblur

Aug 19, 2004, 06:37 AM

Personly I find it good that someone did this. It good for consummers.

Being a windows user will I download Real Player Hell not. Real player is crap on windows just like it is on a Mac. It is bloated with spyware, uses to many system resourses, takes over all media types it can play with out letting me choose. It a pain in the ass to fix it and get it all straighten out. (Last time i did it I just said screw this and reinstalled WMP and winamp to get it all put back together the way I like it.)

As for the apple software I like how it lets me choose not to make it my default player for media types. Quicktime is well crap on windows and it only plays quicktime files for me. Itunes is not my defualt media player for mp3s and music. I have it set up for winamp to be that. iTunes is my main media player. ect

Real player in the end is just crappy software that I would never install but it does open the door up for compition and compisition is always a good thing to consummers. Apple should just deal with this and figure out a way to keep there consitmers with out resestoring to breaking real player files. I think apple shoudl open it up to more since it would follow with apple policy on stuff and apple seems to complain went stuff is not open up for there OS

LimeiBook86

Aug 19, 2004, 09:19 AM

We at Mandril Design are as disgusted at Real's piracy as we are at their trying to pretend this is some kind of civil rights issue. We have created a new logo for them we think pretty much sums it up and are hereby donating it to the pro-Apple, anti-Real community.

http://www.mandrildesign.com/real.gif

Very cool! I love it, I replaced the Real Player Icon to this in OS X, so when ever in the rare occasion I use real, I'll think of you ;)

nagromme

Nobody could seriously believe that EVERY ARTIST can make more money from live performance than from a wider audience.

I'm an artist........give me money! :D

This is your iPod (shows normal iPod)
This is your iPod on RealNetworks (shows sick iPod)
Enough said.

<going to make crappy comic>

shamino

Aug 19, 2004, 09:21 AM

Yes i do believe. Besides the false assumption that for some reason people who hear a songs for free should not be counted as part of a wider audience (Note to Author: minus radio listeners, minus people listening to cds that they did not directly buy [parties,borrowing, overhearing].).
Please note that radio is not free. You may not pay to hear a song on the radio, but the station is paying for every song they broadcast. Groups like ASCAP collect royalties from stations and distribute them to the labels, where they are (supposed to be) distributed to the artists.
The only safe haven provided to artists is concert tours, for the most part concert tours are the express domain of artists.
Do you seriously believe that concert promoters don't rip off artists just as much as the record labels do?

Any substantial tour (meaning not a local garage band playing at a local bar) is going to be subsidized by a record label and/or a professional concert/tour organization. If the concert doesn't pull in enough ticket sales, the band won't see a penny. (All those union workers and equipment rentals get paid even if nobody comes to the show.) Depending on the contract, the band may even be expected to pay for any losses.

Concerts are no safe haven compared to record contracts. You're just swapping one set of problems for another.
So to answer you question yes, i do believe that most artists, all things considered are indeed better off if the recording labels did not exists.
Have you actually spoken with any musicians about this?

I have. While there are a lot of benefits of going independant (no advances against royalties to payback, a larger share of CD sales proceeds, own your own copyright), there are also a lot of big drawbacks (finance your own production, advance money to the CD duplicators, getting your CD onto store shelves, non-local radio-coverage, etc.)

Yes, the record labels screw over artists, and they should change their ways, but artists without labels aren't much better off either. It's just exchanging one problem for another.

GFLPraxis

Aug 19, 2004, 10:30 AM

Personly I find it good that someone did this. It good for consummers.
OS

It is in no way good for consumers. Perhaps you haven't been reading posts here.

A) Real is being hypocritical- they claim "Freedom of choice", but then give a warning "You must be using Windows to use the music store".
B) It breaks the iPod! When you sync the music from RealPlayer to the iPod, it deletes all your iTunes music. And of course, when you sync your iTunes to the iPod, it deletes all your RealPlayer music. The iPod is designed to work seamlessly with iTunes- RealPlayer destroys that and trashes any music you already have.
C) Of course, Real makes crappy software.
D) If Apple ever releases an iPod update that updates the DRM (as it has done in the past), it might accidentally break all the Real music. Real will then make Apple look like the bad guy.

whooleytoo

Aug 19, 2004, 10:45 AM

It is in no way good for consumers. Perhaps you haven't been reading posts here.

A) Real is being hypocritical- they claim "Freedom of choice", but then give a warning "You must be using Windows to use the music store".

Harmony is quite new, and I believe they've announced a Mac version is coming? Give them a chance. After all, Apple didn't provide iTunes for Windows immediately either.

B) It breaks the iPod! When you sync the music from RealPlayer to the iPod, it deletes all your iTunes music. And of course, when you sync your iTunes to the iPod, it deletes all your RealPlayer music. The iPod is designed to work seamlessly with iTunes- RealPlayer destroys that and trashes any music you already have.

It does not 'break the iPod'. And I'm not aware of it deleting your iTunes music - do you have a link stating this? (I'm genuinely curious).

C) Of course, Real makes crappy software.

Hard to disagree there..

D) If Apple ever releases an iPod update that updates the DRM (as it has done in the past), it might accidentally break all the Real music. Real will then make Apple look like the bad guy.

It might accidentally break it.. or it might deliberately break it too. In which case I'd have to pity any customer who bought lots of Harmony songs for their iPod - as they'd be trapped between Real making assurances it can't keep, and Apple deliberately trying to break compatibility.

grobbins

Aug 19, 2004, 12:31 PM

A) Real is being hypocritical- they claim "Freedom of choice", but then give a warning "You must be using Windows to use the music store".
Real does not produce a jukebox program for the Mac, and iTunes doesn't support any protected file formats other than Apple's, so there's no point in Real's music store selling to Mac users.

B) It breaks the iPod! When you sync the music from RealPlayer to the iPod, it deletes all your iTunes music. And of course, when you sync your iTunes to the iPod, it deletes all your RealPlayer music. The iPod is designed to work seamlessly with iTunes- RealPlayer destroys that and trashes any music you already have.

RealPlayer on Windows does not delete files installed by iTunes.

C) Of course, Real makes crappy software.

RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X is a native, drag-install, AltiVec-optimized application with a Cocoa UI. What is crappy about it?

GFLPraxis

Aug 19, 2004, 01:30 PM

Harmony is quite new, and I believe they've announced a Mac version is coming? Give them a chance. After all, Apple didn't provide iTunes for Windows immediately either.

Of course, but Apple never bashed the competition for "lack of choice".

If you're gonna accuse the competition of "lack of choice" and claim to offer that choice, you shouldn't limit the user!
Real should either stop the "we provide freedom of choice!" slogan, or provide Mac support.

It does not 'break the iPod'. And I'm not aware of it deleting your iTunes music - do you have a link stating this? (I'm genuinely curious).

I'm fairly certain I saw earlier posts to this effect in this thread. I've been reading since page 7.

It might accidentally break it.. or it might deliberately break it too. In which case I'd have to pity any customer who bought lots of Harmony songs for their iPod - as they'd be trapped between Real making assurances it can't keep, and Apple deliberately trying to break compatibility.

Maybe not even deliberately. Think about it. When PlayFair cracked the DRM, Apple updated the iPod DRM.
Apple, of course, isn't gonna make the updated update Real's songs, just THEIR DRM. Guess what? Apple didn't do anything purposely. But now Real's songs don't work.

Real does not produce a jukebox program for the Mac, and iTunes doesn't support any protected file formats other than Apple's, so there's no point in Real's music store selling to Mac users.

So "freedom of music choice" is "freedom of using Windows for choosing our music".

RealPlayer on Windows does not delete files installed by iTunes.

Perhaps I misread earlier posts. But I seem to recall that iTunes manages the iPod by syncing, and if files are added on by RealPlayer, then you try to sync with iTunes, the Real files would be gone.

RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X is a native, drag-install, AltiVec-optimized application with a Cocoa UI. What is crappy about it?

It doesn't access the Real music store, so you still have to use crappy software to access the store ;)
Besides, RP10 for Mac is the first non crappy version of realplayer I've ever used. The windows version is still crap, and all previous versions were crap.

hillbilly1980

Aug 19, 2004, 04:13 PM

Please note that radio is not free. You may not pay to hear a song on the radio, but the station is paying for every song they broadcast. Groups like ASCAP collect royalties from stations and distribute them to the labels, where they are (supposed to be) distributed to the artists.

Do you seriously believe that concert promoters don't rip off artists just as much as the record labels do?

Yep i do believe that good concert promoters, just like record labels don't rip off artists, "As Much", obviously people need to paid for their work, obviously there are risks of financial loss when planning a tour. That's business, i'm not sure where this fluffy pillow world is that doesn't have risk, but if you can tell me i think i would like it.

Have you actually spoken with any musicians about this?

I have. While there are a lot of benefits of going independant (no advances against royalties to payback, a larger share of CD sales proceeds, own your own copyright), there are also a lot of big drawbacks (finance your own production, advance money to the CD duplicators, getting your CD onto store shelves, non-local radio-coverage, etc.)

Good for you, I live with some.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of this small part of my orginal argument is that cd's are effectivly dead, or will be in very short order. There is no production costs or even shelves for that matter when your selling online. Recording labels DID provide a service 100 years ago, when they only way to get your music to fans was the print records, ship them to stores and market them through radio. However the RIAA is useing its chokehold grip on the industry to force feed us the DRM, pill, they figure this will ensure it has a hand in shaping the new market for its own purpose, and some people are letting it.

Right now apple is ( or was, not sure if its out now) in production of a backend applications for labels, and independent labels(one band labels, bands who have their own labels) that basicly streamlines the process of organizing, creating, and publishing music to the Itunes store. Everything the recording industry does now, can be done at home, from you mac, in an evening with your band.

Yes, the record labels screw over artists, and they should change their ways, but artists without labels aren't much better off either. It's just exchanging one problem for another.

Kinda like the American Revolution exchanged the problems with the queen to problems with its own government. We have given the labels enough slack, no more slack, this problem is as much a problem of joe public as it is the record execs, we have not, as a public, demanded better. Now we can and we should.

We should boycott drm because it undermines our free will (http://www.aish.com/torahportion/mayanot/The_Determinism_of_Free_Will.as), something every generation seems to have fought for, except the most recent, in the last 200 years.
We should boycott big labels because they are dishonest and manipualitve, this is already happening as seen by the dropping cd sales year after year. Which has little to do with p2p (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/30/1537232&tid=141&tid=187&tid=95"), which is legal (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/p2p_lives_on/), and actually increases cd sales (http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/34544.html).

I hold you to account for crimes you have commited, but I defend to the death your right to commit them.

- Keith Page (or if you prefer, Genesis 3:22)

beatle888

Aug 19, 2004, 07:12 PM

I cant read all the posts on this topic but just in case no one posted this before....and even if they did its sweet enough to repeat.....

As one comment by 'Steve Jobs' in the original petition says, "Great petition Rob, keep up the great work."

:p

beatle888

Aug 19, 2004, 07:21 PM

and just for the record....apple made a great combination with the ipod and itunes then the music store. they have a solution for you to buy music online from THEM. why should they cater to other online music stores with the worlds best mp3 player? BUNCH OF FREELOADERS come up with your own device jeeze. apple makes the hardware and enhances it with a certain level of a QUALITY EXPERIENCE. if you dont like it then buy a different device. dont you see...this is very apple. look at OSX and the hardware. they control the whole widget and it works. now if someone really wants to take apple on then they should do as i stated above...come out with their own product instead of being the vampires they are and screaming "no fair apple". you know what, that sounds like every free loader i've ever met.

hillbilly1980

Aug 20, 2004, 02:38 AM

shamino

Aug 20, 2004, 10:15 AM

Yes apple does this, apple creates a set of tools which one can use to "CREATE", "DISPLAY", "REPLAY" and "EXPERIENCE" content that can then be moved, played, replayed, displayed, and experienced on any other platform.

I can't think of one example of an apple application that restricts content in the way itunes and ipods do.
Apple doesn't apply any DRM or restrictions to content that YOU create.

And you do not have the legal right to do anything you want with content that other people create.

Your point about not liking DRM has been made. Lots of us even agree with much of it. But your paranoid ranting against everything associated with iTunes and iPods is getting very boring already.

davem2020

Aug 20, 2004, 11:59 AM

good thing apple doesn't make razor blades...

(read this for explanation)

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2c04d39e-ec5a-11d8-b35c-00000e2511c8.html

jragosta

Aug 20, 2004, 09:39 PM

good thing apple doesn't make razor blades...

(read this for explanation)

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2c04d39e-ec5a-11d8-b35c-00000e2511c8.html

This is more of the same old FUD that idiot journalists have been throwing around about Apple for years. All it demonstrates is that:

1. He doesn't understand the value of a well-designed SYSTEM.

2. He doesn't understand the value of controlling your own intellectual property.

3. He doesn't even have any clue about what an iPod really does (for example, he apparently never learned that iPods work with all CDs and all MP3 files - which cover 99% of all the music out there.

They really ought to require an intelligence test for journalists. OTOH, they wouldn't have anyone to fill up the magazines.

hulugu

Aug 20, 2004, 11:50 PM

This is more of the same old FUD that idiot journalists have been throwing around about Apple for years. All it demonstrates is that...He doesn't even have any clue about what an iPod really does (for example, he apparently never learned that iPods work with all CDs and all MP3 files - which cover 99% of all the music out there.
Actually I just read the article, and he does mention that an iPod can hold any file, from word documents to Mp3. But, he seems to ascribe to the theory that Apple is preventing competition by requiring iPod owners to use iTMS for digital downloads. He's not entirely wrong and his examples are actually quite good. Think of toner manufactures like Lexmark who claim that by creating a ink cartridge that works with Lexmark printers the DMCA has been violated.
However, we have to recognize that Apple is using its market position, largest marketshare of HD-based Mp3 players and largest digital music store in a kind of tension that uses one to accelerate the other. Real is scum, and Glaser's not really interested in freedom or choice, except for his choice to buy another Ferrari from his well-lined pockets, however he is ultimately right. A closed system sucks, whether it be WMA files or Fairplay AACs. Ultimately, for digital music to grow the format war will need to end. Personally, I'd like to see the equivalent of HTML (name your favorite standard), a single body of which all the major players belong (Apple, MS, Sony, etc.) which guides the technology. This way no one company gets to own the standard and guide its fate.
Apple can still make money on both ends, both by selling outstanding hardware and by continuing to evolve the music store. Sony can also have a store, but I can download from my favorite (or from the one which has music I like or which works with my computer [not all will works with Macs unfortunately].
Currently, we have a decent choice and a really bad one. Either allow Apple to have the whole kit, player and store, or let Microsoft have it. If Apple gets it, at least everyone gets to play (except for those poor Linux guys), but if MS gets it then it will be another leg for them to stand on (and keep losing money in the console market).
But, these choices are not ideal.
If Microsoft loses this, it will be their own fault for being so anti-competitive in the first place. I'm uncomfortable with Apple using DMCA to keep Real out. But, I don't mind Real getting kicked around, Glaser is wrapping himself in 'freedom of choice' language because he sees a chance. If Glaser was in the same position Apple was he'd be doubling the song prices and adding spyware to every machine. Oh, and Apple users would be up the creek.
They really ought to require an intelligence test for journalists. OTOH, they wouldn't have anyone to fill up the magazines.
If they did that, they should also require CEOs and politicians to pass similar tests. Hey Shrub, good luck buddy. ;)
Some journalists are very good, others are so busy writing copy they rarely have time to research what they're talking about. Not really a defense, but I've worked for two college newspapers, and it is very hard to get everything straight if it's not your beat.

The article is good, but it does miss the salient points of the problem. If it's not Apple, it's Microsoft. That's a choice, but not the best one.

Mr_Ed

Aug 21, 2004, 09:41 AM

Yup. I checked this morning and the web site has been overhauled. You cannot comment on their posted stories anymore and only a handful of fresh stories are there. Any previously posted comments are gone as well. The older ones (including endorsement of PublicKnowledge.org) are gone. What a bunch of nimrods! :D

munkle

Aug 22, 2004, 05:23 AM

Not sure if people are still checking out this thread but saw this and thought it was amusing, The top ten real reasons Rob Glaser is going after Apple (http://www.billpalmer.net/ipodgarage/ipod000144.html) :D

MacFan26

Aug 22, 2004, 05:18 PM

shamino

Aug 23, 2004, 09:36 AM

...But, he seems to ascribe to the theory that Apple is preventing competition by requiring iPod owners to use iTMS for digital downloads.
But that is not a requirement, and never has been.

The iPod can work with any music download site that doesn't use DRM. And there are many perfectly legal sites that fit this category.
Real is scum, and Glaser's not really interested in freedom or choice, except for his choice to buy another Ferrari from his well-lined pockets, however he is ultimately right.
Real does not have the moral high ground here. They have a long history of filing lawsuits against third parties that try to make player software that can receive Real-format streams.

They want the ability to reverse-engineer Apple's tech, but the want to prevent anybody else from reverse-engineering their own.