Does buying from iTunes Music Store mean you're committed f...


yeah, DRM is pretty much setting up a monopoly and locking you into it. Essentially evil (rather than working to satisfy consumers, it seeks to make them give business by not having a choice). And, the lesser of the evils is certainly microsoft-it lisences out it's DRM, so you can have choices of what do do with your music, and in where to get it if you already don't have choices about how you play it.

Of course, that would be if I chose based on the least-evil product. But I don't buy apple because microsoft is evil, I do it because microsoft sucks, and apple usually rocks.

So, there we have it, the sexy ipod and lovely itms rock, so much so that in 5 years, they'll probably suck, or at least have stifled any innovation in the market, because they will have an iron grip on the market. Which, will keep funding OS XI, at that point, and I'll be OK.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,075
963
New England
dontmatter said:
And, the lesser of the evils is certainly microsoft-it lisences out it's DRM, so you can have choices of what do do with your music, and in where to get it if you already don't have choices about how you play it.
Choices? Less evil? :confused:

Are you really talking about the MS DRM that can be used to a) prevent you from transferring a song to a portable device such as an MP3 player b) prevent you from burning a song to a CD c) expire on a given date and time and d) limit playback to a certain number of plays.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/faq.aspx

Seems like the MS DRM gives the content creator more choice in how to limit the consumer's use of their content, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as being less evil and or providing more choice to the consumer.

FairPlay OTOH is quite fair by comparison, you can transfer a protected song to any number of iPods, you can burn any song you buy from iTMS to CD and then rip the CD back with Apple Lossless or even WAV/AIFF and thus not worry about DRM or further compression loss. (Of course the price you pay is HD space.) If quality is not a big a concern, just go ahead and recompress to AAC, MP3 or WMA w/o DRM. No fuss no muss.

B
 

Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
18,677
1,183
New Zealand
MacBytes said:
Does buying from iTunes Music Store mean you're committed for life to Apple's FairPlay DRM?
No. (Note: I don't think this is legal in the US, so only click if you're in a civilised country :p)
 

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,364
1
dontmatter said:
...monopoly... ...Essentially evil... ...not having a choice... ...microsoft is evil... ...the sexy ipod and lovely itms rock, so much so that in 5 years, they'll probably suck...
Wow. Conspiracy theorist, communist, fanatic, pessimist, selfish and wrong all rolled into one.

Apple has no monopoly, there are other MP3 players than the iPod and there are other music download sites than iTMS. MS is evil? How so? :confused:
 

Neerazan

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2005
86
0
London, UK
I guess I must have nodded off and missed something...

I rip my protected AAC files to CD as audio, giving me a nice CD with nice album art that iTunes let me print out, a track listing on the back, almost like I had bought it down the shops. All very nice.

And I can put that CD with the few hundred others that I have collected over the years, in my living room, where friends can check out my collection, swap and borrow CDs, compare tastes, and all the stuff that having CDs on display (and books as well) allows us to do as social animals.

Without DRM there would be no way music companies would have ever entered into any deal with Apple. There would be no iTMS, and the power of the 'pod would be less than it is.

Live with it.
 

killmoms

macrumors 68040
Jun 23, 2003
3,722
13
Washington, DC
Until music is being sold legally at the iTMS in ALAC for 99 cents a track, I'll continue to make "singles only" purchases at the iTMS. I don't care about DRM so much—it has been proven it can be gotten around. I care about quality. I'm not going to pay nearly full album price to buy a 128kbps version of an album. AAC is good, but I rip at 192 VBR AAC, and I prefer higher (but have a laptop hard drive so need to conserve some space). I understand "convenience," but honestly, when you're a company of Apple's size, the bandwidth costs aren't going to kill you, and I don't endorse paying the same prices at lower quality in the name of convenience. If I'm not getting the full product, as I'm certainly not with compressed audio, why should I pay nearly the same amount?

As I get older and come into a steady job and salary, I plan on replacing my admittedly large illegal music collection with purchased CDs, or with purchased lossless files, should such a service arise. Sure, it doesn't make me a saint, but it is the right thing to do. But for now, the iTMS remains a free single + exclusives (live iTunes performances) store for me.
 

fixyourthinking

macrumors 6502a
Oct 24, 2002
665
0
Greenville SC
Cless said:
Until music is being sold legally at the iTMS in ALAC for 99 cents a track, I'll continue to make "singles only" purchases at the iTMS. I don't care about DRM so much—it has been proven it can be gotten around. I care about quality. I'm not going to pay nearly full album price to buy a 128kbps version of an album. AAC is good, but I rip at 192 VBR AAC, and I prefer higher (but have a laptop hard drive so need to conserve some space). ..
I recently did a market survey and not even two TOP musicians that participated in the survey, nor their producers could tell the difference between an iTunes music store song or the actual song from the CD ... not doubting you ... but saying you would most likely not be able to pick iTunes Song Coke vs iTunes Song Pepsi either.
 

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,364
1
adzoox said:
I recently did a market survey and not even two TOP musicians that participated in the survey, nor their producers could tell the difference between an iTunes music store song or the actual song from the CD ... not doubting you ... but saying you would most likely not be able to pick iTunes Song Coke vs iTunes Song Pepsi either.
I guess it would depend what you played it through.
 

1macker1

macrumors 65816
Oct 9, 2003
1,375
0
A Higher Level
For me, i'm done with iTunes music store, and back to real CD's. There are a line of cell phones (sony ericsson s710a) and other Mp3 products that are coming out and i'll say over 30% of my music has that damn DRM on it. So bye bye iTMS.
 

road dog

macrumors regular
Mar 12, 2004
196
0
yeah--- pretty much

yes, as long as you buy music from apple, you are "renting" it and subject to the terms of their music store service. go read the terms of service at their web site and you'll see what they allow you to do with the music you rented.

i say rented, because if you owned it, you could do whatever you wanted with it, not what apple says you can.

for example... last year, apple said... no more burning in any software other than itunes... and shazam... no more burning in toast.
 

Passante

macrumors 6502a
Apr 16, 2004
861
0
on the sofa
Can't we burn a MP3 cd of our protected AAC files and then reimport them into ANY MP3 player we want to? I don't see any restrictions that lock me in forever. Just minor limitations that are easy to circumvent if need be.
 

Photorun

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2003
1,216
0
NYC
mpw said:
I guess it would depend what you played it through.
Indeed, people with lackluster computer speakers wont hear the difference or if you take your iPod in the car and play music over the sound of road noise, you wont hear that much or any difference from a CD ripped 192 kbps (or higher) or a 128 kpbs ADC, waht have you. However even a person with undecerning ears could pick out some difference and not ALL 128 iTunes downloads are created equal, as in the way whomever rips then puts the DRM on there maybe varies, I could play you two tracks Death Cab for Cutie's "Brother's on a Hotel Bed" and Bob Mould's "Paralyzed," both purchased from iTMS last week, one sounds almost hifi, the other sounds all washed out and tin-canny (if there's such a word). Both Mould and Cutie are audiophile artists but to make sure I wasn't losing my mind I borrowed each album from a friend who still buys CDs, played them, both sounded awesome (at least from a technically well engineered and mixed standpoint), I then ripped them to my machine (oh no, I'm "stealing" music... BS!!!) and played them again at the same kbps and quality-wise they're identical. So this to me is an added concern in iTMS, different downloads of different quality.

Overall though, and since that one record exec, posted here in MacBytes, whined about how he should get a cut of the iPod success (note: I meant what I said... "HE" should get a cut, basically these are rich, soulless, white, crooks running music industries not concerned with artists, or copyrights, only what can make them filthy rich), unless it's more independent artists who run their own labels, like Mould, if I hear any song from the major labels that are trying to screw consumers (but no worse than they've screwed the creative endeavors of musicians and championed mediocrity in the music business) I'm going the illegal route, and I think everyone should. Total anarchy, make the big labels go bankrupt, musicians will continue to make music and the song selling industry would rise from the ashes, hell, there's already many very good if not excellent artists doing it DIY because they (like 99% of all) artists have been screwed by the big labels. The only people who would lose by crippling and destroying the big evil clueless record labels are the rich execs and the envy of Satan, the RIAA, a bunch of wealth pr*ck lawyers lining their pockets on the hard work of others. Tear it all down, build it all back up again.

Sorry I got off topic.
 

1macker1

macrumors 65816
Oct 9, 2003
1,375
0
A Higher Level
A waste of time and resources.
Passante said:
Can't we burn a MP3 cd of our protected AAC files and then reimport them into ANY MP3 player we want to? I don't see any restrictions that lock me in forever. Just minor limitations that are easy to circumvent if need be.
 

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,364
1
Photorun said:
… So this to me is an added concern in iTMS, different downloads of different quality…
Surely you’re going to get that problem with any download site, it’s got little to do with monopoly and probably got more to do with the files supplied by the artist or their representative to the site.

Photorun said:
….that one record exec, posted here in MacBytes, whined about how he should get a cut of the iPod success (note: I meant what I said... "HE" should get a cut, basically these are rich, soulless, *white*, crooks running music industries not concerned with artists, or copyrights, only what can make them filthy rich)….
“that one” “HE” “these” so from one guy’s specific comments you taint all music execs, or just the white ones?

Many artists are in the business for the money and a lot of those that aren’t happily take million dollars deals so you can’t lay the blame just at the door of the business men who enter in to perfectly legal contracts.

If you think you’re being exploited rather than steal their product why don’t you just pick up a guitar and play live to yourself?

Business is business but you don’t have to be a customer. The law is the law but you don’t have to be a thief. Stupid is stupid but you don’t have to be a racist.
 

fixyourthinking

macrumors 6502a
Oct 24, 2002
665
0
Greenville SC
mpw said:
I guess it would depend what you played it through.
iPod 3rd gen 15GB for iTunes song

Sony portable CD walkman $59.99 model for original

Both sent to (2) Bose stereo speakers via the headphone port AND through JVC studio headphones

Not only could the listeners not tell the difference - 71% of those tested picked the iTunes Music Store download as the better quality song. 26% picked no difference & 3% picked the original CD.

The tests were repeated twice more - 1st time = 4% picked the original - 2nd time = 1% (1 person) picked the original

With that low of a margin ... you could almost chalk it up to lucky guess.

Most people also fit a certain personality profile who picked the original too - but I won't get into that.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
You can easily and legally remove iTMS DRM without losing quality

road dog said:
...if you owned it, you could do whatever you wanted with it, not what apple says you can.
You can't legally do "whatever you want" with a CD, either.

But the DRM (which the record labels--NOT Apple--demanded) at iTunes is, at least, generous as DRM goes. (Keep your music on unlimited computers--Mac AND PC--playable on any 5 simultaneously. No need to connect the the 'net--or keep paying--to keep the music playable. Change which 5 machines at will, burn CDs at will unless you try to mass-pirate them which requires extra steps, and use unlimited iPods. Re-rip to use non-iPod players, Linux, etc.)

I wish there were NO DRM, but thank the pirates and the RIAA for that. I still like the ease of iTMS, and the ability to buy just one song from an album, legally. I have never detected a quality problem. I don't like the IDEA of lossy compression--getting high-quality JPEGS from clients instead of TIFFs bugs me too--but in practice, I can't tell the difference--and compression even makes shopping by modem practical. Audiophiles with the right training and equipment are free to disagree and buy their music in other ways. iTunes and the iPod will happily take CDs as well.

If anyone's afraid that someday Apple will go under and you'll lose the ability to choose which 5 computers you can play/burn on, I have good news. In that worst-case scenario, you have a way out of iTunes DRM. To legally remove iTunes DRM without losing quality, just burn to CD (one-click easy) and then re-rip (another click) into WAV, AIFF, Apple Lossless, or whatever format you choose that won't introduce any loss. Now you can use any OS, any jukebox, and portable player--as long as it's compatible with plain old audio CDs.

Doing this means an extra step--but you do it once and then never again. Use a CD-RW to avoid waste if you wish, but having audio CD backup copies is nice anyway--playable in cars etc. Doing this also means using more HD space (unless you opt for a second round of lossy compression), which is getting cheaper all the time--on computers and players alike.

Ideal? No. But a perfectly good way out "just in case" you ever need it. Your iTMS music WILL play at the full quality of the original download, forever, on any device you ever want, with no approval from Apple needed. Re-rip to lossless and you're free.
 

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,364
1
adzoox said:
iPod 3rd gen 15GB for iTunes song

Sony portable CD walkman $59.99 model for original

Both sent to (2) Bose stereo speakers via the headphone port AND through JVC studio headphones...
I'd say that's not a particually scientific result as you've got to take inot account the difference in player as well as music file.

Wouldn't a truer result be found by either ripping the CD to full quality sound file and output both from the PC equipment or rip the 'lesser' quality downloads to CD and play both through the CD player?
 

mrsebastian

macrumors 6502a
Nov 26, 2002
744
0
sunny san diego
"Instead of having a single digital content server to serve up all my music and movies, regardless of where I buy them from, I need special extenders like docks so that something Fairplay-compliant like an iPod can be connected to the whole system and "browsed" as a separate source of audio. Uh, that wasn't the idea folks."

well mr audiophile, you are full of [bleep]. first off, you're not an audiophile. if you were, then aac/mp3 would never in a million years be of high enough quality for you to listen to. let's be honest. you have some money and paid someone an ungodly amount of money to build a nice entertainment system that will run everything in your house. now, if it's that important to have all your files on one system without having to plug in your ipod (gasp!), i suggest that you (1) find a system compatible with aac/mp3/aiff from apple, (2) use software out there to strip the drm, or (3) burn a cd that you can then have your system rip to it's own drive, as that's probably the way it's designed anyway.
 

GaelDesign

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
70
0
California
I don't like DRM very much and wish I could avoid it, but the fact of the matter is the people who write these kinds of articles are lying via not telling the whole truth, i. e., you aren't locked into a DRM format at all. Burn the album to a CD and that's that. No DRM. Duh, duh, and double-duh.

Jared
 

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,386
130
Purcellville, VA
Passante said:
Can't we burn a MP3 cd of our protected AAC files and then reimport them into ANY MP3 player we want to?
No. If you try, you'll find that the protected files don't get burned.

But you can burn an audio CD, rip that back in MP3 format, and burn an MP3 CD from those files.

Works fine. I've done it. (I recommend you use a CD-RW disc for the audio CD, so you can erase and re-use it when you're done.)
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
The three iTunes songs that I do have (free downloads) won't play becuse it claims I have installed it on more than 5 computers, so there is no way I'd ever pay to download songs. Plus I like having a cd, so I dont lose all my songs if my hard drive crashes.
 

cujo91999

macrumors newbie
Jan 6, 2004
10
0
latergator116 said:
The three iTunes songs that I do have (free downloads) won't play becuse it claims I have installed it on more than 5 computers, so there is no way I'd ever pay to download songs. Plus I like having a cd, so I dont lose all my songs if my hard drive crashes.
You can deauthorize computers in itunes so you can play them.