Every Mac user should register at Reals anti iPod site and post in their news forums, you can post their so you can fill the comments section about how Real discriminates with Mac users. Go register and infiltrate the enemy line
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
RealNetworks Slashes Song Prices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
nagromme said:This looks like trolling to me (total posts 4
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!
Take me, for example.
I own over 700 CDs - plus a few songs I've purchased from iTunes (OK, 'own' isn't exactly right, but you get the idea).
I haven't attended a concert in over 20 years - and did so back then only because my girlfriend insisted.
I suspect that the majority of people spend much, much more on recorded music than on live concerts.
http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.net/
Is up - Please go and have a look (nothing like the .org domain I promise!)
Mike
http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.net/
Is up - Please go and have a look (nothing like the .org domain I promise!)
Mike
http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.net/
thedoc1111 said:
you got one too many "e"'s in there buddy.
I dunno what everyone is complaining about. I mean sure if you wanna download from Real Networks fine go ahead. But, the iPod isn't "locked" it'll play any MP3 or AAC you throw at it. I don't really count the Real and Sony "formats", if you really want them burn them on a CD-RW, rip them and repeat. I mean sure it's nice to be able to download from both places, but Apple has worked very very hard to make the iPod and iTunes a success. It's harsh that Real has taken this music harmony away from Apple. Also I doubt this, but if there is a problem with music playing on the iPods (conversion errors) people might think there is something wrong with the iPod, giving Apple a bad rep.
This is sort of like taking credit for someone else's idea. Apple has made this wonderful product, the iPod. And now Real wants to make some money off of it, just like everyone else. Except Real has gone too far.
Just my thoughts anyway, everyones free to have their own opinion.
Aaah, but as far as I know it costs extra to burn the songs to CD (that is grapevine standard though, because I dont know whether anyone has ever actually bought anything from Real, just complained about them)
eeeeeesssss fixed too
Mike
eeeeeesssss fixed too
Mike
well I just used real's service cuse they had a few songs I haven't been able to find anywhere... now if I count out the horrible downloads I had to do BEFORE I could even buy the songs, and the fact they charged 20.00 to my account instead of just 2.94 I would have said it was great... counting that in though I have a very strong desire to kill everyone at real right now >.< I got my songs... march forward apple with unity and what not and slaughter them ^-^
nagromme said:This looks like trolling to me (total posts 4
Nobody could seriously believe that EVERY ARTIST can make more money from live performance than from a wider audience.
..........................
(And if you prefer "piracy" to "stealing"--either way, it's simply wrong.)
Yes i do believe. Besides the false assumption that for some reason people who hear a songs for free should not be counted as part of a wider audience (Note to Author: minus radio listeners, minus people listening to cds that they did not directly buy [parties,borrowing, overhearing].). I think its safe to say everyone here has at least HEARD something from an artist before they purchased their cd, otherwise why would you purchase their cd or subsequent cd, all fans start out by hearing songs for free.
CDs cost at most a dollar to produce in quantitiess of a few thousand, the price drops from there according to order size. Artists make similar margins as the cd manufacture, the rest of that 13 dollars is swallowed up in failed pop stars, advertising budgets for failed pop stars, limo service for failed pop stars , catering service for failed pop stars, etc, etc.
Studio production cost, cd cover designs and everything else related to the actualy cd's production is covered by the artist from the that 1 -2 dollar cut they get, before they actually get it. Its also worth noting that RIAA companies have been found before to have blatently ripped off artistsof royalities they are entitled to through various clever accounting schemes and balance sheet manipulation.
The only safe haven provided to artists is concert tours, for the most part concert tours are the express domain of artists. The profits made at these venues from cds, shirts, mechendise, concert tickets and such almost entirely taken in by the band itself, and for many small time to semi popular bands that make up the music community, minus britney, MJ, and justin, that usually amounts to more then their cd sale royalities.
So to answer you question yes, i do believe that most artists, all things considered are indeed better off if the recording labels did not exists.
Obviosly though the Labels, DO , exist and as such they are using their billions of dollars to saturate the market with britney spears, making it [URL="http://www.cdbaby.com/about]next[/URL] to impossible for bands to go it alone. Which is something i love about itunes, the fact that it cuts a fair deal for all labels, regardless of size ( independent). Artist would not only succeed with out labels in todays itunes(-drm) world, but would florish.
DRM is still evil,because it takes control of content out of our hands. International companies and programmers decided what scenerio we can and can not use the content we purchase, at best they will never be able to concieve every possible use, at worst they will bill us for each one.
I hold you to account for crimes you have commited, but I defend to the death your right to commit them.
- Keith Page (or if you prefer, Genesis 3:22)
By the way, i'm going to assume your american, p2p is LEGAL in canada, where i live, here i share my songs with my internet friends, they give their songs to me, legally. Your terms apply to only 300 million of you, they are backwards and outdated, welcome to the new world.
Keith
(as always grammer is for chumps)
All apple needs to do is include a little message when a ipod boots up saying the end user agrees to own use itunes music something like what a nintendo has when it starts up if real bypasses that they are basically breaking the law
Personly I find it good that someone did this. It good for consummers.
Being a windows user will I download Real Player Hell not. Real player is crap on windows just like it is on a Mac. It is bloated with spyware, uses to many system resourses, takes over all media types it can play with out letting me choose. It a pain in the ass to fix it and get it all straighten out. (Last time i did it I just said screw this and reinstalled WMP and winamp to get it all put back together the way I like it.)
As for the apple software I like how it lets me choose not to make it my default player for media types. Quicktime is well crap on windows and it only plays quicktime files for me. Itunes is not my defualt media player for mp3s and music. I have it set up for winamp to be that. iTunes is my main media player. ect
Real player in the end is just crappy software that I would never install but it does open the door up for compition and compisition is always a good thing to consummers. Apple should just deal with this and figure out a way to keep there consitmers with out resestoring to breaking real player files. I think apple shoudl open it up to more since it would follow with apple policy on stuff and apple seems to complain went stuff is not open up for there OS
Being a windows user will I download Real Player Hell not. Real player is crap on windows just like it is on a Mac. It is bloated with spyware, uses to many system resourses, takes over all media types it can play with out letting me choose. It a pain in the ass to fix it and get it all straighten out. (Last time i did it I just said screw this and reinstalled WMP and winamp to get it all put back together the way I like it.)
As for the apple software I like how it lets me choose not to make it my default player for media types. Quicktime is well crap on windows and it only plays quicktime files for me. Itunes is not my defualt media player for mp3s and music. I have it set up for winamp to be that. iTunes is my main media player. ect
Real player in the end is just crappy software that I would never install but it does open the door up for compition and compisition is always a good thing to consummers. Apple should just deal with this and figure out a way to keep there consitmers with out resestoring to breaking real player files. I think apple shoudl open it up to more since it would follow with apple policy on stuff and apple seems to complain went stuff is not open up for there OS
Mandril Design said: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.
Very cool! I love it, I replaced the Real Player Icon to this in OS X, so when ever in the rare occasion I use real, I'll think of you
I'm an artist........give me money!
This is your iPod (shows normal iPod)
This is your iPod on RealNetworks (shows sick iPod)
Enough said.
<going to make crappy comic>
Please note that radio is not free. You may not pay to hear a song on the radio, but the station is paying for every song they broadcast. Groups like ASCAP collect royalties from stations and distribute them to the labels, where they are (supposed to be) distributed to the artists.hillbilly1980 said:
Do you seriously believe that concert promoters don't rip off artists just as much as the record labels do?hillbilly1980 said:
Any substantial tour (meaning not a local garage band playing at a local bar) is going to be subsidized by a record label and/or a professional concert/tour organization. If the concert doesn't pull in enough ticket sales, the band won't see a penny. (All those union workers and equipment rentals get paid even if nobody comes to the show.) Depending on the contract, the band may even be expected to pay for any losses.
Concerts are no safe haven compared to record contracts. You're just swapping one set of problems for another.
Have you actually spoken with any musicians about this?hillbilly1980 said:
I have. While there are a lot of benefits of going independant (no advances against royalties to payback, a larger share of CD sales proceeds, own your own copyright), there are also a lot of big drawbacks (finance your own production, advance money to the CD duplicators, getting your CD onto store shelves, non-local radio-coverage, etc.)
Yes, the record labels screw over artists, and they should change their ways, but artists without labels aren't much better off either. It's just exchanging one problem for another.
Timelessblur said:
It is in no way good for consumers. Perhaps you haven't been reading posts here.
A) Real is being hypocritical- they claim "Freedom of choice", but then give a warning "You must be using Windows to use the music store".
B) It breaks the iPod! When you sync the music from RealPlayer to the iPod, it deletes all your iTunes music. And of course, when you sync your iTunes to the iPod, it deletes all your RealPlayer music. The iPod is designed to work seamlessly with iTunes- RealPlayer destroys that and trashes any music you already have.
C) Of course, Real makes crappy software.
D) If Apple ever releases an iPod update that updates the DRM (as it has done in the past), it might accidentally break all the Real music. Real will then make Apple look like the bad guy.
GFLPraxis said:
Harmony is quite new, and I believe they've announced a Mac version is coming? Give them a chance. After all, Apple didn't provide iTunes for Windows immediately either.
GFLPraxis said:
It does not 'break the iPod'. And I'm not aware of it deleting your iTunes music - do you have a link stating this? (I'm genuinely curious).
GFLPraxis said:
Hard to disagree there..
GFLPraxis said:
It might accidentally break it.. or it might deliberately break it too. In which case I'd have to pity any customer who bought lots of Harmony songs for their iPod - as they'd be trapped between Real making assurances it can't keep, and Apple deliberately trying to break compatibility.
Real does not produce a jukebox program for the Mac, and iTunes doesn't support any protected file formats other than Apple's, so there's no point in Real's music store selling to Mac users.GFLPraxis said:
GFLPraxis said:
RealPlayer on Windows does not delete files installed by iTunes.
GFLPraxis said:
RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X is a native, drag-install, AltiVec-optimized application with a Cocoa UI. What is crappy about it?
whooleytoo said:
Of course, but Apple never bashed the competition for "lack of choice".
If you're gonna accuse the competition of "lack of choice" and claim to offer that choice, you shouldn't limit the user!
Real should either stop the "we provide freedom of choice!" slogan, or provide Mac support.
I'm fairly certain I saw earlier posts to this effect in this thread. I've been reading since page 7.
Maybe not even deliberately. Think about it. When PlayFair cracked the DRM, Apple updated the iPod DRM.
Apple, of course, isn't gonna make the updated update Real's songs, just THEIR DRM. Guess what? Apple didn't do anything purposely. But now Real's songs don't work.
So "freedom of music choice" is "freedom of using Windows for choosing our music".
Perhaps I misread earlier posts. But I seem to recall that iTunes manages the iPod by syncing, and if files are added on by RealPlayer, then you try to sync with iTunes, the Real files would be gone.
It doesn't access the Real music store, so you still have to use crappy software to access the store
Besides, RP10 for Mac is the first non crappy version of realplayer I've ever used. The windows version is still crap, and all previous versions were crap.
shamino said:
Yep i do believe that good concert promoters, just like record labels don't rip off artists, "As Much", obviously people need to paid for their work, obviously there are risks of financial loss when planning a tour. That's business, i'm not sure where this fluffy pillow world is that doesn't have risk, but if you can tell me i think i would like it.
shamino said:
Good for you, I live with some.
I'm pretty sure the whole point of this small part of my orginal argument is that cd's are effectivly dead, or will be in very short order. There is no production costs or even shelves for that matter when your selling online. Recording labels DID provide a service 100 years ago, when they only way to get your music to fans was the print records, ship them to stores and market them through radio. However the RIAA is useing its chokehold grip on the industry to force feed us the DRM, pill, they figure this will ensure it has a hand in shaping the new market for its own purpose, and some people are letting it.
Right now apple is ( or was, not sure if its out now) in production of a backend applications for labels, and independent labels(one band labels, bands who have their own labels) that basicly streamlines the process of organizing, creating, and publishing music to the Itunes store. Everything the recording industry does now, can be done at home, from you mac, in an evening with your band.
shamino said:
Kinda like the American Revolution exchanged the problems with the queen to problems with its own government. We have given the labels enough slack, no more slack, this problem is as much a problem of joe public as it is the record execs, we have not, as a public, demanded better. Now we can and we should.
We should boycott drm because it undermines our free will, something every generation seems to have fought for, except the most recent, in the last 200 years.
We should boycott big labels because they are dishonest and manipualitve, this is already happening as seen by the dropping cd sales year after year. Which has little to do with p2p, which is legal, and actually increases cd sales.
I hold you to account for crimes you have commited, but I defend to the death your right to commit them.
- Keith Page (or if you prefer, Genesis 3:22)
and just for the record....apple made a great combination with the ipod and itunes then the music store. they have a solution for you to buy music online from THEM. why should they cater to other online music stores with the worlds best mp3 player? BUNCH OF FREELOADERS come up with your own device jeeze. apple makes the hardware and enhances it with a certain level of a QUALITY EXPERIENCE. if you dont like it then buy a different device. dont you see...this is very apple. look at OSX and the hardware. they control the whole widget and it works. now if someone really wants to take apple on then they should do as i stated above...come out with their own product instead of being the vampires they are and screaming "no fair apple". you know what, that sounds like every free loader i've ever met.
Yes apple does this, apple creates a set of tools which one can use to "CREATE", "DISPLAY", "REPLAY" and "EXPERIENCE" content that can then be moved, played, replayed, displayed, and experienced on any other platform.
I can't think of one example of an apple application that restricts content in the way itunes and ipods do.
There is a disinction.
Digital rights management, yeh.
I can't think of one example of an apple application that restricts content in the way itunes and ipods do.
There is a disinction.
Digital rights management, yeh.
Apple doesn't apply any DRM or restrictions to content that YOU create.hillbilly1980 said:
And you do not have the legal right to do anything you want with content that other people create.
Your point about not liking DRM has been made. Lots of us even agree with much of it. But your paranoid ranting against everything associated with iTunes and iPods is getting very boring already.
good thing apple doesn't make razor blades...
(read this for explanation)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2c04d39e-ec5a-11d8-b35c-00000e2511c8.html
(read this for explanation)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2c04d39e-ec5a-11d8-b35c-00000e2511c8.html
Yet another clueless journalist
This is more of the same old FUD that idiot journalists have been throwing around about Apple for years. All it demonstrates is that:
1. He doesn't understand the value of a well-designed SYSTEM.
2. He doesn't understand the value of controlling your own intellectual property.
3. He doesn't even have any clue about what an iPod really does (for example, he apparently never learned that iPods work with all CDs and all MP3 files - which cover 99% of all the music out there.
They really ought to require an intelligence test for journalists. OTOH, they wouldn't have anyone to fill up the magazines.
davem2020 said:
This is more of the same old FUD that idiot journalists have been throwing around about Apple for years. All it demonstrates is that:
1. He doesn't understand the value of a well-designed SYSTEM.
2. He doesn't understand the value of controlling your own intellectual property.
3. He doesn't even have any clue about what an iPod really does (for example, he apparently never learned that iPods work with all CDs and all MP3 files - which cover 99% of all the music out there.
They really ought to require an intelligence test for journalists. OTOH, they wouldn't have anyone to fill up the magazines.
We need another option...
However, we have to recognize that Apple is using its market position, largest marketshare of HD-based Mp3 players and largest digital music store in a kind of tension that uses one to accelerate the other. Real is scum, and Glaser's not really interested in freedom or choice, except for his choice to buy another Ferrari from his well-lined pockets, however he is ultimately right. A closed system sucks, whether it be WMA files or Fairplay AACs. Ultimately, for digital music to grow the format war will need to end. Personally, I'd like to see the equivalent of HTML (name your favorite standard), a single body of which all the major players belong (Apple, MS, Sony, etc.) which guides the technology. This way no one company gets to own the standard and guide its fate.
Apple can still make money on both ends, both by selling outstanding hardware and by continuing to evolve the music store. Sony can also have a store, but I can download from my favorite (or from the one which has music I like or which works with my computer [not all will works with Macs unfortunately].
Currently, we have a decent choice and a really bad one. Either allow Apple to have the whole kit, player and store, or let Microsoft have it. If Apple gets it, at least everyone gets to play (except for those poor Linux guys), but if MS gets it then it will be another leg for them to stand on (and keep losing money in the console market).
But, these choices are not ideal.
If Microsoft loses this, it will be their own fault for being so anti-competitive in the first place. I'm uncomfortable with Apple using DMCA to keep Real out. But, I don't mind Real getting kicked around, Glaser is wrapping himself in 'freedom of choice' language because he sees a chance. If Glaser was in the same position Apple was he'd be doubling the song prices and adding spyware to every machine. Oh, and Apple users would be up the creek.
Some journalists are very good, others are so busy writing copy they rarely have time to research what they're talking about. Not really a defense, but I've worked for two college newspapers, and it is very hard to get everything straight if it's not your beat.
The article is good, but it does miss the salient points of the problem. If it's not Apple, it's Microsoft. That's a choice, but not the best one.
Actually I just read the article, and he does mention that an iPod can hold any file, from word documents to Mp3. But, he seems to ascribe to the theory that Apple is preventing competition by requiring iPod owners to use iTMS for digital downloads. He's not entirely wrong and his examples are actually quite good. Think of toner manufactures like Lexmark who claim that by creating a ink cartridge that works with Lexmark printers the DMCA has been violated.jragosta said:
However, we have to recognize that Apple is using its market position, largest marketshare of HD-based Mp3 players and largest digital music store in a kind of tension that uses one to accelerate the other. Real is scum, and Glaser's not really interested in freedom or choice, except for his choice to buy another Ferrari from his well-lined pockets, however he is ultimately right. A closed system sucks, whether it be WMA files or Fairplay AACs. Ultimately, for digital music to grow the format war will need to end. Personally, I'd like to see the equivalent of HTML (name your favorite standard), a single body of which all the major players belong (Apple, MS, Sony, etc.) which guides the technology. This way no one company gets to own the standard and guide its fate.
Apple can still make money on both ends, both by selling outstanding hardware and by continuing to evolve the music store. Sony can also have a store, but I can download from my favorite (or from the one which has music I like or which works with my computer [not all will works with Macs unfortunately].
Currently, we have a decent choice and a really bad one. Either allow Apple to have the whole kit, player and store, or let Microsoft have it. If Apple gets it, at least everyone gets to play (except for those poor Linux guys), but if MS gets it then it will be another leg for them to stand on (and keep losing money in the console market).
But, these choices are not ideal.
If Microsoft loses this, it will be their own fault for being so anti-competitive in the first place. I'm uncomfortable with Apple using DMCA to keep Real out. But, I don't mind Real getting kicked around, Glaser is wrapping himself in 'freedom of choice' language because he sees a chance. If Glaser was in the same position Apple was he'd be doubling the song prices and adding spyware to every machine. Oh, and Apple users would be up the creek.
If they did that, they should also require CEOs and politicians to pass similar tests. Hey Shrub, good luck buddy.jragosta said:
Some journalists are very good, others are so busy writing copy they rarely have time to research what they're talking about. Not really a defense, but I've worked for two college newspapers, and it is very hard to get everything straight if it's not your beat.
The article is good, but it does miss the salient points of the problem. If it's not Apple, it's Microsoft. That's a choice, but not the best one.
Lame-o FreedomOfMusicChoice web site not allowing comments anymore . . .
Yup. I checked this morning and the web site has been overhauled. You cannot comment on their posted stories anymore and only a handful of fresh stories are there. Any previously posted comments are gone as well. The older ones (including endorsement of PublicKnowledge.org) are gone. What a bunch of nimrods!
Yup. I checked this morning and the web site has been overhauled. You cannot comment on their posted stories anymore and only a handful of fresh stories are there. Any previously posted comments are gone as well. The older ones (including endorsement of PublicKnowledge.org) are gone. What a bunch of nimrods!
Not sure if people are still checking out this thread but saw this and thought it was amusing, The top ten real reasons Rob Glaser is going after Apple