RealNetworks Slashes Song Prices

[Mr_Ed]

Quite simply, what it does is screw up iPods. If I have 20 GB of music on my iPod (and I do) and then Real talks me into installing their player, it wipes my iPod. Some people will then call Apple to complain - even though it's clearly Real's fault. Not to mention, of course, that's it's a crappy, cheap imitation which is bad for consumers.

I don't know that Real's player would "wipe" your iPod and that does not concern me too much. I'm more concerned about Real's songs no longer being compatible after an iPod update from Apple (if anyone is dumb enough to actually buy into Real's scheme) and having Apple look like the bad guy. I realize that Apple can have whatever compatibility disclaimers are necessary in the iPod literature for legal purposes, but a sleazy outfit like Real is not above trying to play such problems to their advantage.

Apple currently holds a huge (by most estimates) percentage of the portable music player and online music business. I think they should be VERY public (as in some form of campaign) about compatibility caveats starting right now. Make prospective buyers understand that if they want to have the most elegant, easy to use, coolest portable music solution, they need to stay away from non-Apple and non-Apple licensed vendors for content.

"An Apple a day keeps the doctor away"
This advice is as good for your iPod as it is for you . . .

😉

 

[jettredmont]

I must be missing something. If I own the best digital audio player, the iPod, and then have the ability to buy music from more then 1 site how is this bad?

1) Real is an evil company; giving them a number of downloads to trumpet in a press release is aiding them (despite the fact that they're paying $.50 per song for the priviledge).

2) Real's "solution" is to lock you out of iTunes. You will forever-after have to use RealPlayer to manage your music, and if you open iTunes and sync to your iPod your Real-purchased music vanishes instantly (not because of an update from Apple but because iTunes always deletes music it isn't personally managing).

3) You paid a good $50-100 premium buying your iPod. Why? Most would say for ease of use, ease of synching, and the fact that it "just works". Real takes away all those advantages, as you now and forever have to use their clunky, bug-ridden, and system-infesting Windows software to manage your music. You might as well save your money and buy a Dell Jukebox or Rio product.

 

[thedoc1111]

You should grab the .com as well. It seems to be free still. Maybe not much longer.

I missed it by a few hours. Damn - Hopefully Real hasn't got it though, as there will be a parody there too no doubt!

doc

 

[jettredmont]

Originally Posted by GFLPraxis
http://www.bly.cc/realstore.jpg (iTunes ripoff)
http://www.bly.cc/real.jpg

That looks nothing like iTunes.

Window Media Player maybe, iTunes no.

Actually, it more resembles Real's original Jukebox application, circa 1997/8, which interface Microsoft ripped off to create its ironically superior Windows Media Player (I know, it's hard to think of WMP as "superior", but well ... when you're comparing anything to a Real product ...), plus a few "rounded edges" pioneered in the crashware "Real ONE" player (as in, "make sure this is the one application running on your computer, 'cause it's taking anything else running down with it!") which made their way into the WMP 8 product, and a left-panel reorg which started in WMP 8 and has now made its way back to Real.

Unfortunately, I can't locate a screen shot of the Real Jukebox 1.0 anywhere on the net. As opposed to MusicMatch 5 and WinAmp 1.0, which were out at around the same time ... shows how absolutely beloved this software was!

 

[Uragon]

Real: KNOCK...KNOCK
Apple: Who's there?
Real: Real
Apple: Real who?
Real: Releasing Harmony
Apple: huh?

Apple: Knock..Knock
Real: Who's there?
Apple: Can't
Real: Can't Who?
Apple: Can't guarantee Harmony working with iPod's newer updates.
Real: huh?

Real: Knock...knock...
Apple: who's there?
Real: Petty
Apple: Petty who?
Real: Pet(ty)ition Online (original)
Apple: huh?

Real: knock...knock
iPod Users: Who's there?
Real: Please
iPod Users: Please who?
Real: Please write nice comments..please..
iPod Users: huh?

iPod Users: Ding dong...ding dong
Real: no answer

iPod Users: Hello..helloooo?
Is there anybody in there?

 

[Maxx Power]

I agree that the average person can't tell a well composed piece vs. garbage, but it's hard to do anything about it. Some people just don't have a certain appreciation for the arts. If classical music training was required just like math, maybe more people would realize that some stuff is just pure crap, and these people aren't even musicians. This kind of thing overlaps in a lot of areas though, like film. There is usually a difference between "star" and "actor." Most people don't really consider film art anyway, it's all "entertainment." There's really no stopping the things you're talking about, other than with education. But then if you think like that, you'll realize that the arts programs are always the first things to get cut in schools. In due time we're all dead?? Well, of course, but can't we at least try to enjoy something while we're here? I'm sure nothing I said made any sense. sorry, I can't even remember what thread this is... You think music was better in the 80's though? 😕 😀

I agree with most of your thinkings. Good call. But make yourself different from a pure observer and become an interpreter. Why do these things happen ? I suggested a few times now that it is because of the way capitalism places marketable value, or money over all the other things in life that is not consumable, such as non-popular talents, real art, environment, education, conscience, good will, honesty, those are not marketable or at least not profitable topics. Most of us living in north america are brought up corporate, and live a money driven life, because the only culture indigenous to this land would be the way of the indians, and we slashed them away. Replaced the real culture of the land, fit for the land by a commercial culture where the values depend on what is profitable. This is why, for the more educated and open-minded intellectuals such as you and I and perhaps a dozen more here and there, we observe a sharp decline at least in a few of today's artistic faculties. The transition from artistic to mass production of music, paintings, etc was not a sharp one, and few caught the trend and even lesser pointed it out to be a bad thing. I agree with you that we should try to enjoy somethings while we're alive, but try to enjoy the things that is worthy. Or the way I judge it, if i'm spending time with something, It has to be worthy of my time. If the creater never put any/enough thought into it, I chances are, will not bore myself eventually with it. Rise above and enjoy the better. Not many appreciates or understands this these days, use this gift well.

 

[Maxx Power]

1) Real is an evil company; giving them a number of downloads to trumpet in a press release is aiding them (despite the fact that they're paying $.50 per song for the priviledge).

Realize that all corporations are inherently evil. Not just Real. Real is just in this particular fundament more evil than others, perhaps.

 

[nagromme]

I'm afraid, I don't understand this. Non standard, copy protected CDs are wrong, but proprietary copy protected downloadable songs are good? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be taking dramatically different positions on CDs vs online music.

My exact word about download DRM was "evil," not "good" 🙂 But no, I will not boycott downloads to force them to be sold DRM-free. It's not going to happen, and I have no other legal source of singles (or albums so conveniently). DRM or no, the iTunes model represents change that isn't all to the benefit of the RIAA.

And yet I WILL boycott protected CDs, because another viable option exists... they can sell REAL CDs 😀 Thus, a boycott is effective.

And the protection on CDs interferes with my use. The DRM on iTunes doesn't.

So yes, my position/purchasing decision is different for iTunes (I'll do it) vs. for protected CDs (I won't). That only makes sense.

If someone wants to boycott iTunes as a protest against DRM I can understand that choice, but it's really two different animals.

 

[Mandril Design]

Real? More like Steal!

We at Mandril Design are as disgusted at Real's piracy as we are at their trying to pretend this is some kind of civil rights issue. We have created a new logo for them we think pretty much sums it up and are hereby donating it to the pro-Apple, anti-Real community.

 

[nagromme]

Pay more to burn?

Don't know if this has already been mentioned but if you want to buy a track you can actually burn to CD the price isn't 49 cents - this just keeps getting worse and worse! 🙄

Does someone have a link to that info? Or is it just rumor that got repeated as fact? I don't see that in Real's terms:

http://www.real.com/terms/musicstore_terms.html
And
http://musicstore.real.com/music_store/help?tab=terms

(I do see that albums aren't really $4.99. They are half off--which is often more than $4.99. And note as expected, the low pricing is a limited-time deal which Real is ready to cancel without notice.)

And FYI here's a link to the store site, since Real tries to keep Mac users out 😉

http://musicstore.real.com/music_store/home

I like that their official help and support info (FAQ) still says Real downloads CANNOT be used with iPod 🙂

 

[GFLPraxis]

That looks nothing like iTunes.

Window Media Player maybe, iTunes no.

The buttons and colors are different, but the interface to get to the music store is exactly the same.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Actually, this is a brilliant idea on Real's part.

Think about it.

A) Start a petition against Apple.
B) Get thousands of people to sign it so they can make comments against Real.
C) Point out to Apple that thousands of people have signed the petition, leaving out that most of them were against Real.
D) Profit!

 

[shamino]

I've read that section, and it seems to say that reverse-engineering is allowed as long as it's not intended to circumvent the protection on access to a work. Harmony doesn't allow you to circumvent Fairplay, so this reverse-engineering would seem to be allowed.

DMCA, section 1201 says (emphasis mine):

`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

Please note the sections that I hilighted in the above.

The reverse engineering clause is talking about reverse-engineering a program so that you can make sure your own software is compatible with it. They are using a very narrow definition of "interoperability" here.

For instance, if your own music player is somehow crashing whenever QuickTime is installed, and you have determined that knowledge of QT's DRM code is necessary for you to fix your bug, and Apple won't help you, you have the right to reverse-engineer it.

But note the word "sole". All other reasons are invalid. This includes reverse-engineering a DRM for the purpose of selling your own implementation or making compatible documents.

Real could reverse-engineer FairPlay if there was no other way to make their own media player work on systems with iTunes or QuickTime installed, but they would only be able to do so as needed to make their software work right. What they're doing now, with Harmony, goes beyond what the DMCA allows.

Now, it is possible (as has been suggested here by others) that Real managed to come up with an iPod-compatible DRM without reverse-engineering FairPlay in any way. If they actually did this, then Apple doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but I would consider it very unlikely that Real was able to do this. And I don't think Real's claim that they only used publicly-available information will wash, when that public information is all the product of other people's reverse-engineering work.

 

[shamino]

I'm afraid, I don't understand this. Non standard, copy protected CDs are wrong, but proprietary copy protected downloadable songs are good? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be taking dramatically different positions on CDs vs online music.

The big difference (to me, anyway), is that nobody expects iTMS downloads to be universally portable. People do expect CDs to be portable.

If the copy protected CDs were all clearly labeled "this disc is copy protected and may not work on your equipment", then I wouldn't have a problem. I still wouldn't buy it, because I want to use the disc in ways they don't want to allow (e.g. play on my Mac and rip into iTunes), but I wouln't say they have no right to sell the discs.

But they don't label the CDs like this. Most of the time, they're not labeled any differently from non-protected discs, or the labeling is in some fine print inside the packaging, where you can't see it until after you purchase the disc. Which I just consider unscrupulous business practice. If you're selling a protected disc, say so. If you're afraid that telling the world what you're doing will hurt sales, this should be a big hint that you're doing the wrong thing. No business has the right to deceptive practices.

WRT iTMS, I would definitely prefer non-DRM files. But I don't think thre's anything wrong with Apple not selling tracks this way. The reason is that there's no deception involved. Everybody (or at least everybody who bothers to ask) knows the DRM terms up front, so there are no surprises when you discover that they can only be loaded onto iPods or played on five computers. I don't even have (much) problem with the various WMA-based services, if they clearly inform you of the DRM terms in advance of your purchase (which Real does not - go and try to find the DRM terms on their web site without first purchasing a subscription).

I am willing to buy from iTMS, because their songs play everywhere I would want to play them. On my Mac, on my Windows PC, and on my stereo equipment (after burning audio CDs).

I am not willing to buy from Real or the WMA-based stores because their files will not play on my Mac and have other DRM terms that I object to. But I don't begrudge them the right to sell under those terms, as long as they inform their customers in advance of purchase.

I don't see this as a double standard.

 

[Spades]

The reverse engineering clause is talking about reverse-engineering a program so that you can make sure your own software is compatible with it. They are using a very narrow definition of "interoperability" here.

You didn't look at subsection 2.

`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

So you may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs. Or in other terms, Real may develop and employ Harmony to circumvent Fairplay for the purpose of enabling interoperability of their software with the iPod's software. To the extent that doing so doesn't violate the DMCA that is.

 

[brooklyn]

Here's Cnet's artical on Real's Harmony vs Apple Mighty iTunes

 

[whooleytoo]

And yet I WILL boycott protected CDs, because another viable option exists... they can sell REAL CDs 😀 Thus, a boycott is effective.

Well.. judging by the recording industy's thick skin, I'd say an anti-protected-CD boycott has as little chance of success as an anti-DRM boycott! 😉

But you make a good argument, thanks for the explanation.

Even though I can't fathom the bitterness in this thread towards Harmony, Real's position is a little strange. Harmony is a technically inelegant solution currently that relies on Apple's goodwill in not breaking it. But surely if Apple has any intention of opening the iPod/iTunes market, they'll license Fairplay to other music stores (or, perhaps even other music player manufacturers). They certainly wouldn't open it by allowing Harmony in.

It seems to me Harmony is just a red herring; it's just to force Apple's hand into opening up Fairplay. I can't imagine many people starting to build a Harmony music collection in the hope it'll continue to work on iPod.

 

[vienna]

So you may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs.

But is Harmony 'an independently created computer program' which operates with the programs on the iPod. I may be missunderstanding but doesn't Harmony just stick Apple's Fairplay DRM on music download from the 'Real' music store, in which case isn't it the music files which are operating with the iPod software. Surely Harmony doesn't directly operate with the iPod software so is this a legitimate excuse for Real or not ?

 

[thedoc1111]

No, the Real software reencrypts the helix drm protected music before it is put on the iPod with a Fairplay DRM clone.

Which is SO different from selling Fairplay encrypted songs without a licence from Apple.

Mike

 

[vienna]

But my point is that it is the DRM encrypted music files that are interoperable with the iPod software, not Harmony itself. In which case wouldn't that mean that Harmony was not created for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, but rather enabling the interoperability of DRM music files with other programs (i.e. the iPod software). Is there a distinction here between programs and music files ?

 

[nagromme]

Well.. judging by the recording industy's thick skin, I'd say an anti-protected-CD boycott has as little chance of success as an anti-DRM boycott! 😉

Haven't some protected-CD schemes already died in the market? Plus stores have to take them back sometimes if they won't play... I can see the opposition being enough. Not enough to make the RIAA change, but maybe enough to make the stay the same (real CDs) 🙂

 

[hillbilly1980]

I can't understand how so many people are readily willing to subscribe to drm and stick their rights up some corporations a**, trusting they will come out smelling like roses.
Harmoney is EXACTLLY the reason people fear/ed DRM.

Look Microsoft, AOL and others tried in the mid 90's to create garden internet's, areas of the web that were only accessible to their own subscribers, if you wanted to visit an aol hosted sites you need to be on aol, if you had another ISP you would pay a "discounted" fee to access aol's content,mail,im networks. By the controlling the content they figured they could control the users, who cried foul and demanded providers allowed unfettered access across all networks.

DRM is the evolution of the cd, yet unlike the move from vinyl -> 8 track -> cassette-> cd this time record companies have figured out a way to turn your songs into little police men, telling you when, how and what you can play them on. This is a very fundemental shift, that puts our freedoms into the hands of corporations who do not have YOUR best interests at heart. We stop telling computers what to do, they tell us what we're allowed to do.

The realplayer scenerio is one example of where this is going. The recording studios have demanded that all online vendors sell copy protected songs. Consumers buy into the right restriction for the sake of convience, not realizing or not caring that drm rights are never going to get less restrictive and could well hinder new innovation after new innovation for generations to come.

By including drm in content, competitor's devices can suddenly differentiate between eachother's conetn and "police" themselves. Disney content won't play on sony players, panasonic headphones can't be used with apple ipods. All the time it is argued, the Artist the Artist, they aren't making their 1%.

DRM is an effort by a billion dollar industry to save itself in a world where it's become obsolute. One day a kid woke up and said, i can do better, and he did, and its p2p and to a lesser extent the internet and stores like iTunes. The fundemental purpose of the recording industry is to get songs from artists to listeners. They are a distributer, behind all the fancy cover art, store fronts, and hollywood parties is a warehouse of cds going from here to there. P2P changed the rules and showed the world there was a much more efficient way to get music from artist to listener. Artists become more popular, they sell more concert tickets they make more money. Smart artists promote sharing, they know if they have good content their music will spread they will book more openings and make far more money then cd sales would allow them. At the same time you cut out an entire industry, music become incrediablly cheap and everyone wins, (expect britney but she's pretty much set for life, don't cry for britney).

K i'm tired, so in conculsion f**k all your drm sucking a**holes and your supporting of a dead industry to the detriment of the rest of us.

Let the revolution continue
Keith
(grammer is for chumps)
🙂

 

[shamino]

You didn't look at subsection 2.

`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

So you may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs. Or in other terms, Real may develop and employ Harmony to circumvent Fairplay for the purpose of enabling interoperability of their software with the iPod's software. To the extent that doing so doesn't violate the DMCA that is.

This is talking about programs not documents.

If Harmony could not run on the same computer with iTunes installed on it, then this would apply. If Harmony could not run on a computer with an iPod attached, this would apply. If there was any problem with any part of the Harmony program not running on the same computer with a FairPlay-enabled software package, it would apply.

A music file is a document, not a program. There is no provision for document interoperability, only program interoperability.

As I said before, generating documents in someone else's proprietary format is not a protected activity and is not covered by the DMCA's reverse-engineering clause.

 

[MacFan26]

Rise above and enjoy the better. Not many appreciates or understands this these days, use this gift well.

Thanks, I'll try 🙂

 

[nagromme]

This looks like trolling to me (total posts 4 😀 ), but...

P2P changed the rules and showed the world there was a much more efficient way to get music from artist to listener. Artists become more popular, they sell more concert tickets they make more money. Smart artists promote sharing, they know if they have good content their music will spread they will book more openings and make far more money then cd sales would allow them.

Nobody could seriously believe that EVERY ARTIST can make more money from live performance than from a wider audience. Some artists create music in ways that can't be performed live. Some artists may not WANT to perform live... why should they be forced to? And lots of artists that have never been successful live have an avid fanbase of listeners/buyers all the same. You seem to be suggesting that if people did not pay anything for recorded music, they would get it for free and then spend all that money AND more on tickets to live performances. Some people don't even like concerts--much less like them enough to suddenly go to huge numbers of additional concerts just because they got free music off of P2P!

If artists want to give away music to the world without compensation--the "smart" ones as you say--then that's their choice. But there needs to be another way. It's a shame that the RIAA has gained so much power, but stealing from artists "for their own good" isn't actually something you'll find most artists supporting. They deserve compensation for their creative work--EVEN if they voluntarily signed a contract with a record company you don't like.

You seem to be trying to justify wanting something for free. There's no justifying it. You are doing wrong if you are pirating songs.

K i'm tired, so in conculsion f**k all your drm sucking a**holes and your supporting of a dead industry to the detriment of the rest of us.

Please outline exactly how boycotting iTunes/DRM stores is going to change the world, finish the RIAA, or help artists. 😀 I would also be interested in knowing of other places where I can buy a single song without stealing from the artist.

(And if you prefer "piracy" to "stealing"--either way, it's simply wrong.)