Apple Draws Visitors with iTunes

[Phil Of Mac]

Are they really overpricing CD's? Considering the risk that a record label undertakes most of the time by signing artists (a minority of artists succeed), the high price may be justified. It's a bit higher, but would you prefer there was no RIAA?

You do? Then boycott them, fool. But don't try to have it both ways. If RIAA sells nothing of value, then you won't be stealing from them, I hope? If they sell something of value, then what's your freaking problem?

 

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by arn
well, you know... people don't stay in college forever.

When they leave college, they'll still be using iTunes. 😉

arn

Yes, and after they leave college, and get a high paying job, they'll buy a Mac.

Ah, the irony.

😉 🙄 😀

 

[blogo]

How much of the network does this librarysharing use, because on our school the teachers are totally against it because they say it uses way to much of the airport network. And are the airport stations like switches, because then a transfer from one computer to another one shouldn't really mean anything on overall network bendwith.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
You do? Then boycott them, fool. But don't try to have it both ways. If RIAA sells nothing of value, then you won't be stealing from them, I hope? If they sell something of value, then what's your freaking problem?

You're telling me to boycott purchasing music. Since this is the only channel of distribution, it's really a silly argument. I don't appreciate being called a fool over an unrealistic expectation. It's like saying boycott water because you don't like the government regulation of it, okay smart guy.

However, to address your point, I don't think I should have to pay for hundreds of failed corporate boy bands that didn't work out in the price of my CD. I should pay only for the artist I purchase. With the growing popularity of online music stores, there should be a system to track purchases and rate bands/artists accordingly. I would much prefer that than being spoonfed what the record company wants me to buy. Music popularity should happen at a grassroots level and not a top-down corporate approach. You telling me that I should pay for the failings of this top-down corporate approach is laughable.

Perhaps we see the value of CD differently, but that hardly makes me a fool. I'd say the person who wants to pay for failed coporate bands is the fool.

🙄

 

[stcanard]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Are they really overpricing CD's? Considering the risk that a record label undertakes most of the time by signing artists (a minority of artists succeed), the high price may be justified. It's a bit higher, but would you prefer there was no RIAA?\

This is probably O/T for the forum, but...

The whole problem is that they're not taking a risk.

99% of the time they're trying to sign artists that are a copycat of the current "hit" rather than taking the risk they're supposed to of signing new bands that may become the next big thing. It's the indie labels that are shouldering the risk, without the benefit of the taxation or litigation income.

Judging by how little there is to listen to on radio, and how any of my attempts to support local bands are directed into "fairness payments" (via recordable media taxes) to an association that isn't even redistritubting those payments to artists, I think I would be _way_ better off without an association that seems to thnk the Christina A<however you spell her last name> or Creed are the best way to leech my money.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by stcanard
This is probably O/T for the forum, but...

The whole problem is that they're not taking a risk.

99% of the time they're trying to sign artists that are a copycat of the current "hit" rather than taking the risk they're supposed to of signing new bands that may become the next big thing. It's the indie labels that are shouldering the risk, without the benefit of the taxation or litigation income.

Judging by how little there is to listen to on radio, and how any of my attempts to support local bands are directed into "fairness payments" (via recordable media taxes) to an association that isn't even redistritubting those payments to artists, I think I would be _way_ better off without an association that seems to thnk the Christina A<however you spell her last name> or Creed are the best way to leech my money.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

You raise a very interesting point. What is the value-added of the RIAA, from a consumer perspective? I mean, I certainly understand what they are doing for labels and artists to protect their rights but they don't really serve any useful purpose for the consumer.

edit: And their usefulness to the artist is definitely suspect.

 

[arn]

Re: Re: Can't easily share purchased music

Originally posted by illumin8
There is just no easy way to stream it to another computer in the encrypted format, without giving them the keys to decrypt the music first.

The iPod decodes it without any keys (I think).

I guess Apple could be embedding your password in with the AAC files... for the iPod .hmmm.

arn

 

[greenstork]

Re: Re: Re: Can't easily share purchased music

Originally posted by arn
Untrue!

The iPod decodes it without any keys.

I don't know how... but it does. 🙂

arn

So does this product from Andromeda. They must have figured out how to tap into the very same thing that the iPod does to decode.

I'm speculating, but maybe the iPod creates a stream and then interprets that data to analog for listening.

edit: Nicecast will stream protected stuff too.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by greenstork
You're telling me to boycott purchasing music. Since this is the only channel of distribution, it's really a silly argument. I don't appreciate being called a fool over an unrealistic expectation. It's like saying boycott water because you don't like the government regulation of it, okay smart guy.

You can still buy independent, fool!

And I only mean "fool" affectionately.

Originally posted by greenstork
However, to address your point, I don't think I should have to pay for hundreds of failed corporate boy bands that didn't work out in the price of my CD. I should pay only for the artist I purchase.

There we go. Music labels should lose money!

Originally posted by greenstork
With the growing popularity of online music stores, there should be a system to track purchases and rate bands/artists accordingly. I would much prefer that than being spoonfed what the record company wants me to buy. Music popularity should happen at a grassroots level and not a top-down corporate approach. You telling me that I should pay for the failings of this top-down corporate approach is laughable.

You shouldn't pay for it. You should buy independent instead. If you don't think any RIAA music is worth the price, then don't buy it, and don't steal it either. It really is that simple.

Originally posted by stcanard
This is probably O/T for the forum, but...

The whole problem is that they're not taking a risk.

99% of the time they're trying to sign artists that are a copycat of the current "hit" rather than taking the risk they're supposed to of signing new bands that may become the next big thing.

That's irrelevant. A vast minority of them succeed. Therefore, it's still a risk to sign any one artist.

 

[stcanard]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That's irrelevant. A vast minority of them succeed. Therefore, it's still a risk to sign any one artist.

Not irrelevant. You're saying we should support the RIAA because they support new music.

Fact is, they dont' support new music. They support copying music [by trying to sign artists that sound like everyone else]

When the major labels start signing new artists, I'll support them. Right now they support copycats and therefore are not taking the risk. That is being pushed off to the indie labels, the biggest risk the major labels are taking is the bidding war on established indie artists.

Name ten artists from major labels in the last five years that have truly original sounds.

My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton

Looking at them I realize they all pioneered sounds. Not a single one started on a major label. I guess that's an accident of my taste; that's my top ten artists right now. Give me that.

Sony records or whatever is not taking that risk. Risk vs. reward that's what I want to see, and that's not what we're getting from RIAA supported sources.

 

[Eric_Z]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Are they really overpricing CD's?

Just as a little example, nine years ago here in Sweden a new CD cost about 99SEK.
Over that nine year period the inflation here in Sweden fluctuated around 2-3%,
so doing a little math we get 99*(1.03^10)= 133SEK = (rounding up) 139SEK

Here I've rounded up the time to ten years, using 3% inflation in the equation,
rounded up the end price and dissregarding the fact that the price of making(pressing/burning what ever it's called) a CD has fallen.
So that any "hidden" cost increases are covered plus leaving room for a little increase in profit per sold CD.

So what's the current price for a new CD sold here in Sweden? 200SEK Sometimes more, that's 50% more then my "prediction" above.
Now I know that record labels does not run a charety service, but this is just plain silly.

[Ed]Spelling[/Ed]

 

[gekko513]

Originally posted by Eple
How much of the network does this librarysharing use, because on our school the teachers are totally against it because they say it uses way to much of the airport network. And are the airport stations like switches, because then a transfer from one computer to another one shouldn't really mean anything on overall network bendwith.

Unfortunately the airport network works like a hub, so yes, transfer from one computer to another eats bandwidth from all computers on the same network.

 

[gekko513]

Originally posted by Eric_Z
Just as a little example, nine years ago here in Sweden a new CD cost about 99SEK.
Over that nine year period the inflation here in Sweden has been fluctuating around 2-3%,
so doing a little math we get 99*(1.03^10)= 133SEK = (rounding up) 139SEK

Here I've rounded up the time to ten years, using 3% inflation in the equation,
rounded up the end price and dissregarding the fact that the price of making(pressing/burning what ever it's called) a CD has fallen.
So that any "hidden" cost increases are covered plus leaving room for a little increase in profit per sold CD.

So what's the current price for a new CD sold here in Sweden, 200SEK sometimes more, that's 50% more then my "prediction" above.
Now I know that record labels don't run a charety service, but this is just plain silly.

Maybe the record companies in Europe have gotten so used to this huge profit, and that's the reason why we don't have the Music Store here yet.

 

[zim]

Re: Re: Can't easily share purchased music

Originally posted by flipflash77
I guess you could see it that way. It certainly doesn't make it as seemless as we'd all like. But you can't really fault Steve on this one, it's still the RIAA and the demands of the labels to limit how much we can share. You can always point them to iTMS to listen to the 30-second preview...

How hard do you think it would be to reverse it? Does apple have some universal control over our usage of our iTMS files? could they, assuming the RIAA grants, alter and open up the license with one single click or would every file need to be reconfigured.

I personally feel that there would be no harm and letting local networks share purchased music in this fashion, it is not going to harm anyone it may even boost apple iTMS sales.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by stcanard
Not irrelevant. You're saying we should support the RIAA because they support new music.

No I'm not.

I'm saying the RIAA prices music as they do to cover the costs of signing artists who only end up losing money. I am further saying that this is a legitimate reason for pricing music as they do, and if you don't like it, you can buy from independents. But stealing from the RIAA isn't justified.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
No I'm not.

I'm saying the RIAA prices music as they do to cover the costs of signing artists who only end up losing money. I am further saying that this is a legitimate reason for pricing music as they do, and if you don't like it, you can buy from independents. But stealing from the RIAA isn't justified.

You argument fails to clarify what joe consumer should do if he happens to like an artist that uses a major label. I don't see ignoring this artist as an option. The problem that I have is with the major labels and the RIAA, and the way they overprice their CD's. I do have a problem with them choosing for me what is popular. If this is a losing venture for them, stop overpromoting crappy artists and stop making good artists suffer from overcharging for their CD's.

I think we see the major record labels in a fundamentally different way. You see them as taking risks on new, up-and-coming artists. I see them sinking millions into bands they create and spoonfeed them to the masses. Obviously, the latter takes a lot of money. I don't want to pay for this. I'd venture to guess that other good artists on the label don't want that built in to the price of their CD either.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that the record industry is an extremely lucrative business. That said, you're fooling yourself if you don't think that they could be charging $10 a CD and still be making a healthy profit. If you think that they are losing money at $10 a CD, I'm not sure we're having the same convesation.

 

[arn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't easily share purchased music

Originally posted by greenstork
So does this product from Andromeda. They must have figured out how to tap into the very same thing that the iPod does to decode.

I'm speculating, but maybe the iPod creates a stream and then interprets that data to analog for listening.

edit: Nicecast will stream protected stuff too.

Those two products reside on the Mac. 1) Any application on that Mac has access to Quicktime which provides decoded streams. iMovie, etc... all play encrypted songs too, presumably by the same API.

2) Nicecast may just snag the raw decoded stream... in which case iTunes already decoded it.

Regardless, Nicecast can't play protected AAC files on computers that aren't authorized.

The songs on the iPod are transfered in the AAC format... so they are still encrypted. Somehow - every iPod is authorized. It's a different situation.

arn

 

[Dahl]

Originally posted by stcanard
Not irrelevant. You're saying we should support the RIAA because they support new music.

Fact is, they dont' support new music. They support copying music [by trying to sign artists that sound like everyone else]

When the major labels start signing new artists, I'll support them. Right now they support copycats and therefore are not taking the risk. That is being pushed off to the indie labels, the biggest risk the major labels are taking is the bidding war on established indie artists.

Name ten artists from major labels in the last five years that have truly original sounds.

My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton

Looking at them I realize they all pioneered sounds. Not a single one started on a major label. I guess that's an accident of my taste; that's my top ten artists right now. Give me that.

Sony records or whatever is not taking that risk. Risk vs. reward that's what I want to see, and that's not what we're getting from RIAA supported sources.

I haven't read the whole thread and I probably should.
I think there's a bit of "barking up the wrong tree" thing going here.

There are a lot of great music on major labels, so it's not the labels not putting out great albums. It's the media, that needs to wake up. MTV and Clear Channel hold so much power and they couldn't care less about good music or not. If they changed their playlists a bit, sales of different albums would probably change along with it.

btw. There is a difference between a band putting out an EP to test the waters before going to a major and a band who only can live in "an indie world ". Beastie Boys, MofM and Rage all started on major labels, ok B Boys had an EP or something, but it's not like they didn't want a major label deal.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by greenstork
You argument fails to clarify what joe consumer should do if he happens to like an artist that uses a major label.

If he likes the artist enough to pay the "inflated" price, if that artist's music is worth $14 an album or $.99 a song on iTMS, then he's not victimized by choosing to buy the music.

Originally posted by greenstork
The problem that I have is with the major labels and the RIAA, and the way they overprice their CD's. I do have a problem with them choosing for me what is popular.

Do you have enough of a problem with it that you're willing to give up RIAA music in order to stop them?

Originally posted by greenstork
I think we see the major record labels in a fundamentally different way. You see them as taking risks on new, up-and-coming artists. I see them sinking millions into bands they create and spoonfeed them to the masses. Obviously, the latter takes a lot of money.

They are taking risks. The vast majority of artists that are signed by a major label fail to make a profit. They lose money on them. In order to make a profit, the record labels need to make enough money on successful artists to make up for their losses signing losing artists.

Originally posted by greenstork
I don't want to pay for this. I'd venture to guess that other good artists on the label don't want that built in to the price of their CD either.

It's not like someone put a gun to their head and forced them to sign with the label. They agreed to it, and if you buy music from the RIAA, you're agreeing to it too.

Originally posted by greenstork
However, there is no doubt in my mind that the record industry is an extremely lucrative business. That said, you're fooling yourself if you don't think that they could be charging $10 a CD and still be making a healthy profit. If you think that they are losing money at $10 a CD, I'm not sure we're having the same convesation.

I don't know if they would be losing money at $10 a CD. And, for that matter, unless you've analyzed their SEC filings, you don't know either.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by stcanard
Name ten artists from major labels in the last five years that have truly original sounds.

You don't *have* to have an original sound to be a good artist.

Originally posted by stcanard
My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton

Looking at them I realize they all pioneered sounds. Not a single one started on a major label.

Rage Against The Machine pioneered an original sound, if you count rapping repetitive lyrics over a guitar and drum loop and screaming the title of the song as the refrain to be a "sound". It's an original sound, but it's not that great. I would rather listen to someone else's music that may not be an original sound, but at least it's good.

 

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by stcanard

My "most recently played" playlist contains the following artists:

Nirvana
Sarah Mclachlan
Nine Inch Nails
Methods Of Mayhem
Beastie Boys
The Crystal Method
Rage Against the Machine
Front Line Assembly
Sublime
Eric Clapton

Maybe you should focus part of your anger at your favorite artists for signing with major labels in the first place. Do they not understand the evils of the recording industry as well as you do? The fact is, they are happy to participate in this 'corrupt' system in exchange for the opportunity to get RICH and FAMOUS beyond their wildest dreams (an opportunity the independent labels can't really offer).

There are a lot of greedy people in the record industry... and they're not all executives.

 

[greenstork]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't easily share purchased music

Originally posted by arn
Those two products reside on the Mac. 1) Any application on that Mac has access to Quicktime which provides decoded streams. iMovie, etc... all play encrypted songs too, presumably by the same API.

2) Nicecast may just snag the raw decoded stream... in which case iTunes already decoded it.

Regardless, Nicecast can't play protected AAC files on computers that aren't authorized.

The songs on the iPod are transfered in the AAC format... so they are still encrypted. Somehow - every iPod is authorized. It's a different situation.

arn

arn, good insight, thank you.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Flowbee
Maybe you should focus part of your anger at your favorite artists for signing with major labels in the first place. Do they not understand the evils of the recording industry as well as you do? The fact is, they are happy to participate in this 'corrupt' system in exchange for the opportunity to get RICH and FAMOUS beyond their wildest dreams (an opportunity the independent labels can't really offer).

There are a lot of greedy people in the record industry... and they're not all executives.

I'm with you part of the way on this Flowbee but I can't really fault an artist for signing with the big label. I think it's often a choice between big paycheck vs nothing at all. In other words, I don't think indy labels and big record labels line up for artists. I think the choice is often record deal with a big label or no record deal at all.