Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The iTMS "album-Only" restriction is not, in any example I've seen, based on popularity. It is based on song length. Their deal with the labels stipulates that all songs under a certain length would be $0.99 each, and that songs over that length would be "album only" unless the label makes an exception (which they have, at times, but most often not).

Amazon, most of the time, seems to sell these "double-length" songs at "double-length" prices - $1.29 to $1.49 so far as I've been able to find. Your example is the first too-long song I've seen on Amazon for "regular" price!

You are correct, although I have seen some songs going for $1.94 on Amazon as well. 3 of them are on Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here album. One of those songs isn't even that long, like 7 and a half minutes. The other two are over 12 minutes long so it's understandable. I guess for "American Pie," it's such a popular song that they realized people would not want to pay such a high price for it and that they were better off charging a lower price in order to get higher sales.

The only thing which has brought lower consumer prices on music in the past 20 years has been Apple's entry into the digital download business.

From what I can tell, even that has not helped much. We're still getting ripped off for the physical product and in many cases, the iTunes version is an even bigger ripoff than the physical product. The music industry is certainly in a free fall right now, and a big reason is because consumers finally have the choice to download a hit song from iTunes, other legal stores, or illegally. People aren't being forced to buy whole albums just to get one song. Prices are still ridiculous though and eventually they will realize that even with inflation, they are overcharging the consumer versus the 1960's and 1970's when there was a boom going on. They also need to realize that putting out good music will cause sales to go up. The labels are like Hollywood right now: out of ideas and out of creativity, at least as far as mainstream artists are concerned.
 
256 kbps isn't crappy quality, you bunch of sheep.

You realize Amazon is encoding a lot of the music with variable bitrate LAME V0, right? It's basically the best balance possible between sound quality and file size.
 
It's a pain in the rear, but you can convert to WAV in iTunes, then convert the WAV files to 128 kbps AAC. This is the only way I know of to losslessly convert between lossy formats. The other option: wait for a REAL iPod Touch to be released, meaning one with at least 60 gigs of storage.

This doesn't give you ANY better quality than going directly from MP3 to AAC.

The process you quote does this:

<click>
Load MP3
Decode MP3 -> WAV (no quality lost)
Save WAV
<click>
Load WAV
Decode WAV -> AAC (quality lost)
Save MP3

The direct method skips the middle save/load:
<click>
Load MP3
Decode MP3 -> WAV (no quality lost)
Decode WAV -> AAC (quality lost)
Save MP3

Functionally, the two are identical. You just cut out the saved WAV-file middle man if you convert "directly" between the two compressed formats.
 
All of this the day after Vivendi called iTunes' terms indecent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSL2488079220070924

Really makes you wonder what Amazon's margins are on each track sold.

I am an Amazon customer and like to see that, for once, they seem to be doing the right thing (unlike Unbox, which is sub-par). I will likely check twice to see if I can buy a track I want from Amazon instead of iTunes, but it's not going to stop me buying most of my music on CD, plus the occasional track or album on iTunes...

B
 
However, I disagree with your previous thought that Microsoft is somehow behind this. Like I said before, they're completely left out in the cold by this deal; the proprietary DRM and file formats they've tried to foist upon consumers and content providers left dead and broken by the roadside.

You know as well as I: If there is evil to be done in the world, Microsoft is right behind it :)
 
After reading those posts about Apple charging sales tax I looked back at some of my receipts from iTunes and they all say that tax is $0.00. And I live in California.

California sales tax does not apply to digital music downloads. If it did, Apple would be collecting it. California, last I heard, was considering reversing this policy (although that was last year sometime ... so obviously it hasn't happened yet).
 
you know... as much as i would like to support apple over amazon, amazon has an ok product, the fact that it actually works very easily with itunes shows amazon is really serious. This crap about others not working with itunes is stupid and they can not be taken seriously, but the fact that it is DRM free (not a big deal to me) but 10 cents cheaper does help some. The record labels are still pretty stupid for trying to take power away from apple, apple knows what they are doing, let them do it. I personally have no problem with variable pricing on songs as long as they dont go above 99 cents, so apple could budge on that. But it is truly apple that knows what they should charge, not the record companies, so the record companies need to pull their heads out of their butts and realize it pays off to be in business with the best of the best. Go to apple record labels and stop with your stupid demands, jobs knows what he's doing.
 
Amazon's media download service is HORRENDOUS

How dare you chastise Amazon.com. It's the best retailer in the world for good reason. They give their customers good prices, good shipping packaging, and a great deal on the free $25 order shipping. As far as I'm concerned, Amazon.com is up there with Apple as one of my favorite companies.

ARE YOU **** KIDDING ME? HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR 'UNBOX' MOVIE DOWNLOAD SERVICE?

Amazon THE BOOKSTORE is a nice place to shop. Amazon the "Media download store" is THE WORST ANTI-CONSUMER BUSINESS I HAVE EVER SEEN. EVER.
For All of you considering purchasing music from Amazon, please read this post.
Please read my post before you sign up to anything having to do with Amazon media download. Amazon sold out the consumer once, make NO MISTAKE THEY WILL DO THIS AGAIN.

Compare the following information about Amazon's movie download service with the ease BUYING a DVD from Target or Walmart.

Why Not to Buy Movies from the Amazon Unbox Video Download Service:

1) You don't even "own" the *** movie even though they call it a "sale"! You have a limited right to:
"pay a fee to view Digital Content a repeated number of times..... Upon your payment of the license fee, Amazon grants you a
non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to retain a permanent copy of Purchased Digital Content.."


AND...

"You do not acquire any ownership rights in the Digital Content as a result of downloading Digital Content. "

2) So you don't really own ANYTHING... and thats only if your download of a huge movie file isn't interrupted and Amazon decides to not let you restart the download.

"You bear all risk of loss for completing the download of Digital Content after purchasee, once we have made such content available to you, and for any loss of Digital Content you have downloaded... Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available for download... but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons and Amazon will not be liable to you if content becomes unavailable for further download"

content providers can revoke your ability to re-download content you already purchased? WTF?...
3) Well thank goodness I can creat a backup. I can create a backup right?


"You may make a back-up copy of Purchased Digital Content on removable media (e.g. recordable DVD) in the same format as the original downloaded file... Any back-up copy of the Purchased Digital Content on a DVD will not be playable on a traditional DVD player, but only on a permitted Authorized Device."

Ok, So I can burn a DVD backup so in case my computer crashes? Wait what? It won't play in my living room DVD player? the files are placed in a proprietary file container and encrypted? shucks...

4) Again, you don't own anything and they'll take it away if you do any of the following:
* don't allow their program perpetual access to the internet
* don't install mandatory program update
* uninstall the program
* nothing at all - they just want to randomly revoke your service and delete all your movies.. SNAP!


"If you violate any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or otherwise abuse the Service, your license to Purchased Digital Content will immediately terminate and Amazon may, in its discretion, immediately revoke your access to the Service without notice to you and without refund of any fees. ... Amazon shall have the right to automatically delete all Digital Content on your Authorized Device without notice to you. ... Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service, or any part thereof, at any time without notice to you, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such rights, even if your use of Digital Content is impacted by the change."

First of all, "abuse the service" - How does on do that? Seems conspicuously obscure compared to the rest of the legalspeak.
Alas, it does not matter, because everything else in that paragraph basically states: If we want to for no good reason, we can *** you and delete everything you 'own' and you don't get a dime back or a chance to appeal. And you won't even know why we did it! so go to hell!


5) Did I mention you can ONLY watch the content in your house ... or underground in a secret tomb, but only if it's just you. And you locked the hatch behind you.

"As used herein, 'Residence' shall mean a private, residential dwelling unit or a private individual office unit, but excluding hotel rooms, motel rooms, hospital patient rooms, restaurants, bars, prisons, barracks, drilling rigs and all other structures, institutions or places of transient or work-related residence as well as places, areas, structures, rooms or offices which are common areas or open to the public or to occupiers of separate Residences or for which an admission fee is charged"

So let me get this straight... If you buy a regular DVD from Amazon.com, you can play it anywhere you damn well please... but If I "purchase" an equally-priced inferior quality version I can only play on my computer, I can't watch it a hotel or motel room when Im traveling, a hospital room when I'm injured, a restaurant or bar (starbucks?), jail or prison, army barracks or drilling rigs (WTF?), or any other structure, institution (does college or camp count?) or places of transient (airport? car?) or work-related residence (my office? underwater scientific research vessel? ) or "places, areas, structures, rooms, or offices which are open to the public or to occupiers of seperate residences", So that would be your front yard, all your friend's houses, greygound buses, trains, subways, public parks, libraries, schools, rescue shelters, or anywhere else besides your house.

6) Oh... and one more thing (I just had to throw that one in)

Amazon reserves the right to make changes to this Agreement at any time. Your continued use of the Service following any such changes will constitute your acceptance of such changes.

What, so next week it's going to say "Amazon reserves the right to allow its employees to sleep with your wife at any time. If you or your wife do not agree to this, Amazon will revoke your service and delete all your *** movies!

I guarantee they are just offering the cheap DRM-free music because Universal it trying to run Apple out of the business and then when they succeed and Amazon's service gets popular, BAM! They'll have you chained up so quick with new restrictions in their "terms and conditions" you won't even know what hit you!


Don't believe me? Go read the "terms of service" in the 'UNBOX' Support area on Amazon.com ... Or read this article that provides more info on the issue:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15/amazon-unbox-to-cust.html

Please Join me in Boycotting Amazon's newly-found anti-consumer attitude and DON'T DOWNLOAD MUSIC FROM THEM!
 
I think that Universal should pay a price for their outrageously anti-iTunes stance .... make no mistake about it this may cause ITMS irreparable harm and may even lead to their eventual demise, and that wouldn't be good for anyone as Apple has fought this anti DRM battle on behalf of consumers ( see: "Like Amazon's DRM-Free Music Downloads? Thank Apple" .... ) http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/09/drm_part_one and now they are unjustly left out of the marketplace for DRM-free music (if in fact UMG has struck a deal with Amazon which they wouldn't cut with Apple) .... this strikes me as unfair business practices bordering on the criminal (RICO anyone)....

What could Apple's response be ? Buy out Universal .... use some of the $12+ Billion in cash reserves and buy them out (or use their extremely valuable shares as currency for a possible buy-out) ... short of doing that sign away their biggest artists and show them you mean business ... Apple cannot take this lying down there is too much at stake .....

Leave Britney alone!

:rolleyes:
 
The Amazon Store is a Scam

I can't believe you guys are falling for this. Do you think Universal is giving you DRM free songs at a cheaper price than iTunes without a catch?

Well, here's the catch. They're using digital watermarks.

According to Wired magazine:

"Universal confirms that it will be able to track down the MP3s on peer-to-peer networks using these watermarks."

Amazon has confirmed this. This Amazon store is a giant Trojan horse meant to take iTunes down so Universal can track every song, sue anyone who shares a song, AND dictate pricing however they wish.

As soon as iTunes is no longer dominant, they WILL jack prices up, as always. AND they'll sue the pants off anyone, as they'll have a massive, unprecedented database of consumers and direct evidence of piracy - all they'll have to do is look you up.

And you guys thought this was too good to be true... LOL
 
Winterspan, I've seen some absolutely moronic posts on this board, but that might take the cake.

I mean... Jesus Christ.

I can't believe you guys are falling for this. Do you think Universal is giving you DRM free songs at a cheaper price than iTunes without a catch?

Well, here's the catch. They're using digital watermarks.

According to Wired magazine:

"Universal confirms that it will be able to track down the MP3s on peer-to-peer networks using these watermarks."

Amazon has confirmed this. This Amazon store is a giant Trojan horse meant to take iTunes down so Universal can track every song, sue anyone who shares a song, AND dictate pricing however they wish.

As soon as iTunes is no longer dominant, they WILL jack prices up, as always. AND they'll sue the pants off anyone, as they'll have a massive, unprecedented database of consumers and direct evidence of piracy - all they'll have to do is look you up.

And you guys thought this was too good to be true... LOL

Why would you be sharing the files on peer-to-peer networks to begin with? You realize that it IS illegal....

Another idiotic post.

Comparing the two services is stupid to begin with. Video content providers have historically been much more obsessive about protecting their content.
 
Bottom Line (minus quality debate):
---Amazon is selling DRM-free,
---MP3 (i.e. play on any device, not just ipods, etc.),
---for a price that matches the lowest prices from other major sellers

For all of the issues (quality (I guess choice would be better), download service, billing, etc.) isn't this a great turn in the wars and handicaps over DRM, distribution, etc. All else aside, Amazon has decided to answer with a service that makes all of their music bypass all of the hastles and infighting and just let us listen (and share if we want, or burn CDs, or put it on multiple and different devices, or easily convert it, and truly, truly own it).
 
I can't believe you guys are falling for this. Do you think Universal is giving you DRM free songs at a cheaper price than iTunes without a catch?

Well, here's the catch. They're using digital watermarks.

According to Wired magazine:

"Universal confirms that it will be able to track down the MP3s on peer-to-peer networks using these watermarks."

Amazon has confirmed this. This Amazon store is a giant Trojan horse meant to take iTunes down so Universal can track every song, sue anyone who shares a song, AND dictate pricing however they wish.

As soon as iTunes is no longer dominant, they WILL jack prices up, as always. AND they'll sue the pants off anyone, as they'll have a massive, unprecedented database of consumers and direct evidence of piracy - all they'll have to do is look you up.

And you guys thought this was too good to be true... LOL

Did you not see the articles on how iTunes was storing personal info about you in the DRM free songs in the form of a watermark?
 
Winter Span,

Please, do tell. How is Amazon going to have me tied up in terms and agreements when I just bought the songs DRM-free? I'm not planning on sharing them on P2P or anything stupid like that, just like I wouldn't with anything from iTunes' DRM-free catalog. There's no extra terms here. I paid for my downloads, they're good quality, and they are mine to keep and use. There are no strings here. Comparing their crappy video download service with their new music service is ridiculous considering that one was wrapped in DRM and the other isn't.

Did you not see the articles on how iTunes was storing personal info about you in the DRM free songs in the form of a watermark?

ROFL. Well said my friend. Apple was putting watermarks in their DRM-free songs. I know because I bought some of them and it had the same kind of watermarking.
 
I can't believe you guys are falling for this. Do you think Universal is giving you DRM free songs at a cheaper price than iTunes without a catch?

Well, here's the catch. They're using digital watermarks.

According to Wired magazine:

"Universal confirms that it will be able to track down the MP3s on peer-to-peer networks using these watermarks."

P2P sharing is probably too much anyway.
I believe most people buy DRM-Free music, the purpose is not to share it through P2P.
 
Hey, Chris Welch...

You called me a moron...

But think about this. What if you gave a friend a copy of your Amazon mp3 - a song he really liked. And YOUR FRIEND put it on a P2P network. Or...

What if someone hacked your computer and somehow, someway, a song or two of yours ended up on a network? Or...

What if your college roommate used your laptop, and went to download some new songs from a P2P net, not realizing it "shared" your music folder as well. And bang, again, you get sued.

We could go on all day like this. If you want to fall victim to Universal's trap - be my guest. But a friend of mine works for a rival record label, and he says Universal has wanted direct customer purchase watermarks from day one, and Apple wouldn't do it.

He says the labels are planning an all-out assault to save their business, and deep watermarking is the key. He says they know well and good that most pirating comes from people ripping CD's and uploading them. So, they want to place as many song files as possible out in the wild that have a specific customer watermark - your name, address, credit card - so there is an ecosystem of stolen songs that can at least be tracked.

That's why they're giving them away for cheaper than iTunes. Don't be a fool.
 
But a friend of mine works for a rival record label, and he says Universal has wanted direct customer purchase watermarks from day one, and Apple wouldn't do it.

Sounds like a totally unbiased, knowledgeable source, Bob!

And as for any of your examples, well.. None of that would happen to me, because I'm not an idiot.

I purchased the music. I know it's for my use only. If a friend really likes a song, well, I don't think he'd have a problem buying it, do you?

Who still uses P2P networks these days anyway?
 
Hey, Chris Welch...

You called me a moron...

But think about this. What if you gave a friend a copy of your Amazon mp3 - a song he really liked. And YOUR FRIEND put it on a P2P network. Or...

What if someone hacked your computer and somehow, someway, a song or two of yours ended up on a network? Or...

What if your college roommate used your laptop, and went to download some new songs from a P2P net, not realizing it "shared" your music folder as well. And bang, again, you get sued.

We could go on all day like this. If you want to fall victim to Universal's trap - be my guest. But a friend of mine works for a rival record label, and he says Universal has wanted direct customer purchase watermarks from day one, and Apple wouldn't do it.

He says the labels are planning an all-out assault to save their business, and deep watermarking is the key. He says they know well and good that most pirating comes from people ripping CD's and uploading them. So, they want to place as many song files as possible out in the wild that have a specific customer watermark - your name, address, credit card - so there is an ecosystem of stolen songs that can at least be tracked.

That's why they're giving them away for cheaper than iTunes. Don't be a fool.

Here's a solution. Delete the watermark from the "comments" section of the file in iTunes. Or: Buy some CD-RW's. Burn the songs to a CD-RW and rip them back into iTunes completely free and clear. Repeat as many times as needed with different songs and albums with the same CD-RW since it's rewritable.
 
No, LoganT.

Show me where Apple watermarking (on EMI songs only) is customer-specific with name and location - AND - show me where Apple has made that information available to the RIAA or the record labels.

You can't. Apple specifically said they won't do that. Amazon, however, has - and they've already done it with Unbox, stupid.

Also, the songs on Amazon MP3 are priced differently. I see singles on there for .89 on up to 1.97.

I have friends in the industry. If they tell me the labels are working an angle on this, I believe them. If you want to be a sucker, and trust Universal, just because the songs are cheap now, I guarantee you'll be hurting when they start raising prices.

So, in order to afford them, I suggest you get a real job and make some real money. It must suck being a broke, little whiner.
 
Here's a solution. Delete the watermark from the "comments" section of the file in iTunes. Or: Buy some CD-RW's. Burn the songs to a CD-RW and rip them back into iTunes completely free and clear. Repeat as many times as needed with different songs and albums with the same CD-RW since it's rewritable.

Yeah. Then just go ahead and buy DRM tracks while you're at it :rolleyes:

Gosh.
 
HTML:
Chris Welch: Who still uses P2P networks these days anyway?


Only millions of people. LOL.

The music industry estimates P2P networks have cost them billions in lost revenue. Yah, that's no big deal.

Oh, and the new watermarking is a new process you guys don't even know about. It's not something just "hanging around" in a comments section in the "properties" file.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.