Actually, and sadly, mostly players don't have AAC compatibility, even some new ones coming out. I guess Amazon and others choose mp3 to guarantee compatibility with most, if not all, mp3 players (hence their name). Don't companies need to pay royalties for both mp3 and aac?
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.
Rhapsody Relaunches with iPod-Compatible MP3s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, and sadly, mostly players don't have AAC compatibility, even some new ones coming out. I guess Amazon and others choose mp3 to guarantee compatibility with most, if not all, mp3 players (hence their name). Don't companies need to pay royalties for both mp3 and aac?
I find this sentiment strange. I like Apple products too, but "LOYALTY" to a publicly traded multi-national company is a strange concept to me.
Do you have any tangible reason to use iTunes over Amazon or Rhapsody?
Yes to both.
I understand why these stores are selling MP3. There ARE a lot of players that are MP3 only. Not to mention the MP3-CD players.
I think, if we ever get all DRM-free iTunes you'll see more players support AAC. At that point there will be a LOT of AAC file out there and they'll all scramble to be a part of that.
But at the moment, the majority of AAC files out there have Apple DRM on it, so they won't play on other devices anyway. So why should the other players offer AAC playback now? Who's going to use it?
Yeah you're right, i didn't realize. Looks like most of the creative and sansa ones do it, and the zune, but its spotty for samsung, sandisk and all the other off brand ones. that's pretty lame.
Loyality
To Who? and why? They are charging more than the market can stand. Greed is not something to be loyal to. or the greedy leader.
To Who? and why? They are charging more than the market can stand. Greed is not something to be loyal to. or the greedy leader.
Yet another wrinkle to the old, vauge, and hard to enforce law..... Copying is as old as the hills. Look at how many times the uncopyrighted "Man of Constant Sorrow" has been released
First there were way to record your own lp's and 45's. I am too young to remember that, but told it was possible. then there were ways to record your own 8-tracks. Again, I am too young to remember that, but I had a few 8-tracks that were hand-written in my collection until the collection was lost in a fire in 1995.
Fast-foward to my life:
Cassette recorders in radios, cassette duplicators (dubbing) in stereos.
Now CD/DVD burners.
I have seen companies release an in-PC cassette player to burn your old cassettes to MP3.
Here is a link to a review of one:
http://www.redferret.net/?p=2448
And there are various ways to record your lp's /45's (old vynal records for you younger folks) to mp3 or CD. Just google it.
so the fact of song copying is a losing issue for all sides......
I have seen versions or interpretations where it reads that once your original purchased copy had been destroyed, you are also to destroy any copies you have made (so much for backups).....
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
I agree with most here that 30 seconds doesn't capture enough to identify the song in some cases so I do like the full track previews. I don't know how much of the market they will be able to break into with this though. I guess another option when it comes to legally purchasing music is always nice.
I agree with most here that 30 seconds doesn't capture enough to identify the song in some cases so I do like the full track previews. I don't know how much of the market they will be able to break into with this though. I guess another option when it comes to legally purchasing music is always nice.
Yet another wrinkle to the old, vauge, and hard to enforce law..... Copying is as old as the hills. Look at how many times the uncopyrighted "Man of Constant Sorrow" has been released
...
And there are various ways to record your lp's /45's (old vynal records for you younger folks) to mp3 or CD. Just google it.
so the fact of song copying is a losing issue for all sides......
I have seen versions or interpretations where it reads that once your original purchased copy had been destroyed, you are also to destroy any copies you have made (so much for backups).....
I've always been under the impression that if you already own an original copy of a recording, a simple transfer from one medium to another for personal archival purposes or for compatibility with different players is generally permitted (except where prohibited
*) under fair use doctrine.I'd not heard about any interpretations saying that copies must be destroyed if the original was destroyed too.
_________________
* by the DMCA
What makes you think that Apple wants DRM? Did you read this from more than a year ago? It's still the music labels that are requiring Apple to sell DRM music.
iTunes = AAC, others = MP3. So with MP3 either I get less quality for the same storage space or I get about the same quality at twice the storage space.
MP3 is more than two decades old now. I remember listening to MP3s on my old 486 DX2/66, on Windows 3.11 with WinPlay3.
And don't tell me to re-encode 256kbps MP3's into 128kbps AAC's.
You need to buy the Super CD, DVD Audio or CD if you are so concerned about quality.
Another twist to "so called pirating"...
Do you know that if your church has a CCLI (Contemporary Christian License), that they are allowed to record their own praise bands playing current copy-righted Christian songs and sell that recording to their congregation members for as much as $8.00 and keep the money?, they can also post free viewing/listening of any of the performances (which also includes the videos I put on youtube/God Tube that were done under the CCLI of my church - yes some of the original performer's songs were used, but the video I came up with).
*note - 90% of what I posted on youtube and God Tube is from one Artist who is a good friend of mine. He gave me persmission to use his music in any fashion (as long as it is Christian) and does not wish to get into this trying to interpret "hokey laws"
Another vague aspect is that Integrity Music Coporation does not agree with the CCLI and will prosecute any church that does not have an Integrity Copyright license and tries to use a song under the CCLI license, even if the artist has that song on CCLI websites and has a CCLI number posted.
It even has worship leaders in a frazzle on whether they can sing current songs in church, copy songs for the chior to practice with, ect. Most churches will have a copy of the CCLI as it was written when they first obtained a license and will follow that.
then there is that vauge thing of "What if my praise band leaves our church building and performs at another church for an event? I am still part of the church that has the license, but I am taking the music outside of that building and performing it elsewhere."
There is one interesting aspect of one version of the law I read - It is up to the artist to enforce, not the Government or the states. I think the artist (or whoever holds the rights) has to file the complaint (for example when Michael Jackson went after Paul McCartney for royalties on playing old Beatles songs. Paul McCartney was a Beatle and wrote 1/2 to most the songs, but since Michael Jackson bought the rights to the songs produced under the Beatles name - Paul has to pay Michael). Now that is dumb, but good business on Michael's part.
- I don't think there will ever be a happy medium. Like one person said, there is no jail large enough to hold everyone who has ever copied a song. and where is the line drawn, who is to enforce it, and what about these artists these days who are switching producers and record labels left and right (or coming up with there own). I remember a few rappers who could not even rap their old hits because they were produced under another record company.
Do you know that if your church has a CCLI (Contemporary Christian License), that they are allowed to record their own praise bands playing current copy-righted Christian songs and sell that recording to their congregation members for as much as $8.00 and keep the money?, they can also post free viewing/listening of any of the performances (which also includes the videos I put on youtube/God Tube that were done under the CCLI of my church - yes some of the original performer's songs were used, but the video I came up with).
*note - 90% of what I posted on youtube and God Tube is from one Artist who is a good friend of mine. He gave me persmission to use his music in any fashion (as long as it is Christian) and does not wish to get into this trying to interpret "hokey laws"
Another vague aspect is that Integrity Music Coporation does not agree with the CCLI and will prosecute any church that does not have an Integrity Copyright license and tries to use a song under the CCLI license, even if the artist has that song on CCLI websites and has a CCLI number posted.
It even has worship leaders in a frazzle on whether they can sing current songs in church, copy songs for the chior to practice with, ect. Most churches will have a copy of the CCLI as it was written when they first obtained a license and will follow that.
then there is that vauge thing of "What if my praise band leaves our church building and performs at another church for an event? I am still part of the church that has the license, but I am taking the music outside of that building and performing it elsewhere."
There is one interesting aspect of one version of the law I read - It is up to the artist to enforce, not the Government or the states. I think the artist (or whoever holds the rights) has to file the complaint (for example when Michael Jackson went after Paul McCartney for royalties on playing old Beatles songs. Paul McCartney was a Beatle and wrote 1/2 to most the songs, but since Michael Jackson bought the rights to the songs produced under the Beatles name - Paul has to pay Michael). Now that is dumb, but good business on Michael's part.
- I don't think there will ever be a happy medium. Like one person said, there is no jail large enough to hold everyone who has ever copied a song. and where is the line drawn, who is to enforce it, and what about these artists these days who are switching producers and record labels left and right (or coming up with there own). I remember a few rappers who could not even rap their old hits because they were produced under another record company.That is the choice the manufacturers made. Just as it's your choice to buy one or not. AAC is an open format that anyone can support. Microsoft even supports it with the Zune.
Another twist to "so called pirating"...
Do you know that if your church has a CCLI (Contemporary Christian License), that they are allowed to record their own praise bands playing current copy-righted Christian songs and sell that recording to their congregation members for as much as $8.00 and keep the money?, they can also post free viewing/listening of any of the performances (which also includes the videos I put on youtube/God Tube that were done under the CCLI of my church - yes some of the original performer's songs were used, but the video I came up with).
*note - 90% of what I posted on youtube and God Tube is from one Artist who is a good friend of mine. He gave me persmission to use his music in any fashion (as long as it is Christian) and does not wish to get into this trying to interpret "hokey laws"
Another vague aspect is that Integrity Music Coporation does not agree with the CCLI and will prosecute any church that does not have an Integrity Copyright license and tries to use a song under the CCLI license, even if the artist has that song on CCLI websites and has a CCLI number posted.
It even has worship leaders in a frazzle on whether they can sing current songs in church, copy songs for the chior to practice with, ect. Most churches will have a copy of the CCLI as it was written when they first obtained a license and will follow that.
then there is that vauge thing of "What if my praise band leaves our church building and performs at another church for an event? I am still part of the church that has the license, but I am taking the music outside of that building and performing it elsewhere."
There is one interesting aspect of one version of the law I read - It is up to the artist to enforce, not the Government or the states. I think the artist (or whoever holds the rights) has to file the complaint (for example when Michael Jackson went after Paul McCartney for royalties on playing old Beatles songs. Paul McCartney was a Beatle and wrote 1/2 to most the songs, but since Michael Jackson bought the rights to the songs produced under the Beatles name - Paul has to pay Michael). Now that is dumb, but good business on Michael's part.
And if you're wondering why I have done some research on the subject and find it hard?
From my late teens to mid twenties I worked promoting, producing, and marking "local" cover and original rock bands.
From my late teens to mid twenties I also was a DJ.
The from the time I turned 30 to now, I have worked with various worship pastors to produce backdrops, music videos.
Music was my life until a few years ago. I have also done a lot of reading on copyright laws as I ran my own website for 8 years that had church resource material on it, as well as some praise and worship songs. eventually I gave up and took down everything that was not from the music Artist I am good friends with (who self publishes his music), and also started writing my own Christian publications. the website no longer exists, but the videos can be found at:
HTTP://YOUTUBE.COM/SHERVIEUX
AND HTTP://GODTUBE.COM/SHERVIEUX
I may start a smaller version of my original website when I buy a .mac account after the release of Mobile Me.
I've always been under the impression that if you already own an original copy of a recording, a simple transfer from one medium to another for personal archival purposes or for compatibility with different players is generally permitted (except where prohibited
I'd not heard about any interpretations saying that copies must be destroyed if the original was destroyed too.
_________________
* by the DMCA
Did you also know that as a teacher, you can copy up to one full chapter of a book (without buying it) for your students, but as a student or regular person, even quoting / copying one paragraph can be considered plagerism and also breaking copy right laws if the owner wants to press charges?
if you go to http://copyright.gov you can read the laws. Here is something interesting right from that site:
Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is archival copy, not backup copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.
Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:
the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
you are the legal owner of the copy; and
any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.
You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).
It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.
so if what I bolded is the case, does that mean Norton Ghost (save and restore as they call it now) and Time Machine can be construde as copyright infringement?
Other interesting things:
Does the Copyright Office give legal advice?
No. The Copyright Office does not give legal opinions concerning the rights of persons in cases of alleged infringement, contracts, or the copyright status of any particular work other than the information shown in the records of the Office.
How do I get my work published?
Publication occurs at the discretion and initiative of the copyright owner. The Copyright Office has no role in the publication process.
How do I collect royalties?
The collection of royalties is usually a matter of private arrangements between an author and publisher or other users of the author's work. The Copyright Office plays no role in the execution of contractual terms or business practices. There are copyright licensing organizations and publications rights clearinghouses that distribute royalties for their members.
Here is the exact wording of the "Fair use Act"
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of fair use. Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised July 2006
i havent gone thru all the pages on here but from what ive seen and read so far all this rhapsody is doing is selling mp3's ???. As an artist on itunes and as a user of itunes store as well. I find this to be just plain stupid and daft yep fair enough there going to sell mp3s that can be used on ipods all types and in itunes. But whats the big deal as so many have said get software record full preview tracks and whalla i didnt buy it. DRM on music files is so easy to bypass that i dont know why they even bother...
Oh and if your intrested in who i am you can listen to my 30 second previews right here http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=278720860&s=143444
Oh and if your intrested in who i am you can listen to my 30 second previews right here http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=278720860&s=143444
Yes
I do. When I buy Apple it helps me because I own a nice slice of AAPL pie.
Plus, I'd rather offer my $$ to an innovative company that will develop revolutionary products. Not a company that creates eBook readers that resemble fax machines from the 1980's.
Nonetheless, I love Amazon for other reasons. I buy all my college textbooks/gifts/photo equipment there.
I do. When I buy Apple it helps me because I own a nice slice of AAPL pie.
Plus, I'd rather offer my $$ to an innovative company that will develop revolutionary products. Not a company that creates eBook readers that resemble fax machines from the 1980's.
Nonetheless, I love Amazon for other reasons. I buy all my college textbooks/gifts/photo equipment there.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
competition is always good. Nothing more to say about it really
competition is always good. Nothing more to say about it really
You first comment about owning AAPL makes perfect sense and is a good reason to stick with iTunes.
I am not so sure about your second point. I am not sure what the Kindle has to do with their mp3 store. Why would you like to give money to Amazon for books, but not music? Surely there are other places to get textbooks/gifts/photo equipment that don't create "Book readers that resemble fax machines from the 1980's".
I was thinking the same thing. Either:
1) Apple wants to keep DRM for most tracks in order to continue to foster the iPod/iPhone/iTunes relationship. Although, this I think is doubtful considering Jobs' open letter on DRM from last year.
2) The music labels are colluding in an attempt to blunt Apple's ability to define terms and be the largest music retailer. This seems more likely considering the bristly relationship that Apple has with the music industry and statements from the music industry aimed at Apple.
Ultimately, Apple's been able to sell 4 Billion songs and has succeeded where numerous others, including Microsoft, have failed. I don't see the music label's strategy working.
Theres one thing I dislike about Itunes..
And thats the lack of a subscription based service. Let me spend 14.99 per month or so and get a hundred songs, or 21.99 for unlimited songs or even 1000 songs per month....
I dislike the pay per song plan now. I dont download as much now as I would if I had a flat rate plan...
And thats the lack of a subscription based service. Let me spend 14.99 per month or so and get a hundred songs, or 21.99 for unlimited songs or even 1000 songs per month....
I dislike the pay per song plan now. I dont download as much now as I would if I had a flat rate plan...