Surprise: MSN article pokes fun at iTunes

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Kid Red, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. Kid Red macrumors 65816

    Dec 14, 2001
    Because some sounds on albums are silence containing no music but are sold as songs.

    So i guess Apple should instead individually label the one track silence as neither clean or explicit? Ah genius, it's label is based on the album's language as a whole, not as a individual track. But of course, since he works for M$ I can't expect much in the way of insightful and detailed investigative reporting involving anything Apple.
  2. zapp macrumors regular


    Aug 23, 2003
    At the very least you get the thirty second preview of the silence before you choose to buy it. Imagine all the poor fools that will buy the cd, they don't have a choice, they have to pay for the silence. But you are right, they are very nit picky. Kinda like napster bashing itunes for the way they sell music, then sell music for .99 cents a download. Wonder if napster sells silence too.

    But of course don't forget, silence is golden.
  3. idkew macrumors 68020


    Sep 26, 2001
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    you, stupid itms bashing.

    as a part of the album, apple is offering the track. apple did not tell the artist to put a silent track in their LP.

    i doubt apple is even expecting anyone to buy the Silence track alone, it is just part of the album, and the artist's creative intent.
  4. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Aug 15, 2001
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    The funny thing is, I think the tracks of silence for sale are really cool--the artist orignally put a chunk of silence into their album for an artistic reason, so why shouldn't that be for sale too?

    You're figureatively buying the same chunk of nothing on the CD, except now you have the option of not paying for it if you don't feel like it.

    Go artistic weirdness!

    (Incidentally, this was originally reported on As the Apple Turns as a humorous remark, and several Mac news outlets picked it up; the MSN writer probably saw it there.)
  5. 7on macrumors 601


    Nov 9, 2003
    Dress Rosa
    Hmmm, I wonder if the silence would only be playable on 3 computers as well? Can someone really copyright silence?
  6. acj macrumors 6502

    Feb 3, 2003
    When you take offense to fun-making you are insecure.
  7. Le Big Mac macrumors 68020

    Le Big Mac

    Jan 7, 2003
    Washington, DC
    Well, you could probably make your own silence track if it becomes a problem.
  8. Kid Red thread starter macrumors 65816

    Dec 14, 2001
    Insecure..ah..umm..about what? I take offense when someone ridiculous pokes fun at something I respect or support. If it was a valid argument, I would've kept my mouth shut (like someone else should have) but when they crack on Apple for following a common procedure (labeling a song based on it's explicit or non explicit nature) and selling songs as songs even tho those songs are silent. I don't see the validity of their biased argument other then a reason to say something negative about so a growingly poplar service on a rival platform.

    What's to be insecure of? Your statement isn't even relevant to this discussion.
  9. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Aug 15, 2001
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    I agree that it's really nothing to take offense at; it was clearly written as a humor piece (including a well known and very amusing quote toward the end that's completely unrelated to the iTMS), and they did also point out that the labels gave Apple the tracks to sell that way.

    Besides, it's taken nearly verbatim (with credit) from As the Apple Turns, which is about as humorously rabid a Mac-supporting site as exists. It was also reported similarly in MacNN, I believe MacMinute, and elsewhere (in fact, MacNN's blurb sounded somewhat more derogatory since it wasn't as clearly humorous).

    The article also implicitly points out an interesting, and equally humorous, offshoot of this: Were Apple to offer the same tracks of nothing for free, they could actually be sued by the owners of that particular block of silence. The article notes that a man who "preformed" a silence and gave credit to an earlier composer who "composed" a silent song was successfully sued for copyright infringement in 2002. Therefore, by offering a specific band's silence outside of the terms of the rest of the iTMS, they'd be violating their agreement with that label/group.

    Unless, of course, they set up their software to not only handle silence, but also designed their contracts so silent tracks were free. That's a lot of work for nine bits of nothing out of 500,000.

    I personally found this quite amusing, but entirely understandable from a tecnhical standpoint.
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
  11. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA

Share This Page