April 28th Rumor Roundup

[suzerain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM in music service: Not for me

Originally posted by Molson
However, at what point does local streaming require you to pay royalties in much the same way that a radio station has to? That's an interesting debate..... Maybe rendezvous enabled iTunes streaming will be restricted to so many Macs at a time..... although it's bound to be more than 3. I think the 3 computer restriction will be only for the number of physical copies of the music files.

Yeah...well, now we're stumbling into the larger issue of how the Internet and WiFI and so forth are completely redefining terms like 'broadcasting', and how our current legal system really doesn't address the reality of what's possible nowadays.

Don't even get me started on Internet radio...the RIAA wants royalty payments on music, even if you aren't profiting from anything! In other words, they want you to pay them to advertise their product!

Oh well...I used to DJ here and there in the late '80s/early '90s, at live parties and on my college radio station. The one thing I would buy from this service is music that's out of print, or which I only have on an inferior format, such as remixes and 12" singles and stuff from the '80s and '90s.

But I have to laugh at all the people over at MacCentral that are excited about Apple signing the Eagles onto the service. I mean...how many times do these people want to spend money on Hotel Calfornia in their lifetimes?

And that brings me to my next point: if we're not buying the physical CD anymore, and we're essentially buying 'rights' to play this music on a certain number of computers, then Apple should keep allowing you to download the songs forever, as formats improve (i.e., when there is AAC2, or whatever).

The music industry needs to decide if they are selling us 'physical' files, or if they're selling us listening rights. I don't think they should be able to have it both ways, but unfortunately, at least in the USA, that's exactly what they're succeeding at getting right now.

 

[Wonder Boy]

Originally posted by iAlan

iMac, iBook, iPod, Nikkon Still Digital Camera, Sony Digital Video Camera...all add up to my iLife.


I have the same set up!

 

[sparks9]

Re: DRM in music service: Not for me

Originally posted by mstecker
I'll be so disappointed if Apple DRM-ups the new iPods and iTunes. I have a collection of mp3s that get served by NFS from my apple to a network of PCs in my house - streamed to a RIO reciever, get burned to CDs to listen to in my car MP3 player, etc. In short, I do a lot with them, and I don't want someone telling me how to use them.

I'd use the Apple music service all of the time for $10/album if I could get real, unencumbered music files - it's worth the $10 to be "legit", to save the time and trouble of finding things on a P2P network.

However, if Apple makes it difficult for me to use my music, why would I buy from them?

Think about it. For $10, I get a bunch of files that have all of these restrictions. For $13, I can go out and buy the CD, and rip it into iTunes, and get the same quality with no restrictions. Do the math, it doesn't make sense.

Really, my whole attitude towards Apple starts to change if they start messing with DRM. Why invest in an iPod? Why invest in a mac?

Harumph, I'll be really pissed off if this happens.

Then don't buy it - buy cds instead! Don't complain! Apple has to put some type of limitation on the songs or they would never get the rights to sell songs from the record companies.

 

[Molson]

iTunes 4 - mp4 only

If iTunes 4 does become mp4 only (ie only AAC encoding) does this mean that CDs burnt with mp4 files (like mp3 CDs at the moment) will be playable on car stereos and CD players that accept and play mp3 CDs?

 

[gwangung]

Rights management

once I own a copy of something, I ought to be able to do what I want with it, save for directly profiting from it myself.

Sorry, but if you do something like give away free copies of that something to all your friends and all of THEIR friends, I'm not sure you ought to be able to do that.

As someone who's creates stuff that people pay to see and hear, I care that I get compensated for what I do. If you open a window and let your friends in to see a show that you paid a ticket for, you;re not directly profiting from it...but you're sure as hell cutting into my revenues.

All this talk about the RIAA is bull****, anyway. Substitute the name of the artist in there and the argument falls apart. Until you can find a way to separate the artist from the RIAA, all you're doing is screwing the artist over.

 

[macphisto]

...my guess

Knowing Apple, and their love of surprises and secrets, I bet that Apple will introduce all of the products that have been swirling about (as far as the music service, iPods, and the mystery communication device), but I bet that Apple will slip in news of the new towers (970), just as an FYI/preview for the WWDC. Just a hunch,...or maybe a little more.

 

[macdong]

I listen to classical music, ONLY (yeah, call me freak).
And I've been wondering if Apple will include classical music in the music service.
Classical music can easily go beyond 30 minutes.
I'd be happier than ever if they do

 

[suzerain]

Re: Rights management

Originally posted by gwangung
As someone who's creates stuff that people pay to see and hear, I care that I get compensated for what I do. If you open a window and let your friends in to see a show that you paid a ticket for, you;re not directly profiting from it...but you're sure as hell cutting into my revenues.

All this talk about the RIAA is bull****, anyway. Substitute the name of the artist in there and the argument falls apart. Until you can find a way to separate the artist from the RIAA, all you're doing is screwing the artist over.

Ummm...that's a load of crap. The "artists" screwed themselves when they chose to sign on with a bunch of scumsucking leeches. They are part of the same machine...I have no more (or less) sympathy for them than I do for the lawyers that are vigorously fighting for the DMCA, or the members of the mafia who have to be paid in order to get a song on the radio.

If you chose to be a member of this group, that's not my problem -- it's yours.

Whenever I can give my money directly to artists...I'm more than happy to, like when I see my a band play at a bar, or buy a painting. But when 'artists' sign away the rights to their work in order to join a corporate machine whose sole intent is packaging things for commercial consumption, they cease to be anything even resembling 'artists' at that point, and are just purveyors of corporate greed.

I'm sorry, but art for me does not include: (a) DRM; (b) legalized hacking into your computer; (c) eavesdropping on communications; (d) industry-wide price collusion; and (e) organized crime controlling distribution mechanisms.

Maybe for you, that is 'art'. I call it corporate greed.

To get back on topic, if Apple's joining this party (stifling listeners' rights) with this service, then I'll pass. That's all I'm saying.

And you're right that I shouldn't be able to give your work away; I meant to refer to personal -- or scholarly -- fair use.

 

[gwangung]

Whenever I can give my money directly to artists...I'm more than happy to, like when I see my a band play at a bar, or buy a painting. But when 'artists' sign away the rights to their work in order to join a corporate machine whose sole intent is packaging things for commercial consumption, they cease to be anything even resembling 'artists' at that point, and are just purveyors of corporate greed.

Hrm. Basically, what you're saying is that if I do it in front of 30 people, it's art, but if I get help and get it distributed to a 100,000 people, I stop being an artist?

Sorry, but that just sounds screwed up to me.

I understand the problems with the overzealous use of DRM, but I sure as hell want to get paid if someone gets my stuff and likes it. Make as many copies as you want for yourself; play it for your friends, but give me some respect...don't just give it away to them.

 

[Wardofsky]

Someone please kill me, my iPod is arriving on Monday!! (AUS time so technically it will still be Sunday in the US)

 

[trebblekicked]

luckily, i don't have the problem of supporting the wicked RIAA when i buy music. whenever i buy a cd, i either buy it A) direct from the label or B) from my local, non-chain record store. i have not bought an album from one of the five major labels in eight years, and i don't see an instance when i ever will again.

the record industry is run by greedy pigs who leech off of quasi-talented twenty-somethings and middle-aged has beens and barely-legal bombshells while endevouring only to clean out your average teenager's allowance every week. F*** them.

But if Apple can make a buck off them, i say go nuts. Just won't be one of mine. I doubt apple will even bother to sign up the labels that i acually support (merge, matador, thrill jockey, orange twin, cloud, etc etc etc)

 

[Paul Turpin]

Whenever I can give my money directly to artists...I'm more than happy to, like when I see my a band play at a bar, or buy a painting. But when 'artists' sign away the rights to their work in order to join a corporate machine whose sole intent is packaging things for commercial consumption, they cease to be anything even resembling 'artists' at that point, and are just purveyors of corporate greed

This is bull. There is lots of grey area in between. How do you differentiate between a large label and a small label - where do you draw the line between those deemed evil and should therefore be stolen from and those that are small enough to be cool and should not be stolen from. Or are you saying all record labels are evil - even the ones with one employees and two bands? It will be interesting to see how independent labels are dealt with in this whole thing. They seem to have the most to gain and the most to lose!

After reading this discussion for a while I clicked on the MacRumors advertiser and found their FAQ to be exactly on topic - and pretty much exactly what I agree with......

5. How does LUCKYDISC feel about filesharing and peer-to-peer networks?

Ah...the inevitable question! We feel that filesharing and peer-to-peer networks are innovative new technologies and should in no way be censored or prohibited simply because some people choose to abuse them. After all, no more would suggest outlawing crowbars because they can be used to break into someone's house!

That said, LUCKYDISC is totally opposed to the illegal sharing of music and other copyrighted material via peer-to-peer networks. In recent years, a lot of attention has been focused on how the record industry does business. Consumers and artists alike are routinely outraged by the major labels' predatory and arbitrary business practices. While one can argue that major labels are anything but fair, there is simply no excuse for stealing music.

When you share music, you take money out of an artist's pocket. Period. Every album is something of a gamble for the record industry. The label puts up a lot of money to produce and market an album with very few guarantees. If the label doesn't see sales, that artist will likely be dropped, or worse, remain contractually obligated, yet prohibited from recording new material. Sure, artists sometimes sign very bad deals and labels often shirk their responsibility to fully promote a record. None of this justifies stealing music.

LUCKYDISC does, however, believe in fair use. Although there are differences of opinion on what constitutes fair use, we feel that if you buy something (ie: a music CD), you have the right to copy it for personal use. It is our belief that the consumer should never be prevented from ripping music to MP3, MP4, etc., transfering music to his or her iPod (or other such device), or making a custom mixed CD. LUCKYDISC opposes any legislation or other such efforts to prevent the consumer from exercising his or her fair use rights.