Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is why I love Apple.

Sure, it's good business. (Apple is leaving a lot of money on the table because people are choosing to buy non-DRM music.)

But its also good for us.

A win-win.

I bet the music companies crapped their pants when they saw this. No way they are agreeing to it.
 
I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this. The labels are very anal about stuff like this, which is why they also went after Internet radio stations because they weren't paying the proper royalties for playing music on their radio shows. There was even a case of a restaurant owned by a celebrity (or was it athlete) in Philadelphia where the music company presented a bill in the tens of thousands because the restaurant had been using an iPod to play mood music without paying royalties. You can bet the labels are wanting to be paid for every additional download, just as they expect you to pay for a new CD if you lost the original or it got scratched up.

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in about this.

I think most people don't realize that when you go to a restaurant or are listening to music being played in a elevator or any other public place or business, you are listening to music that the owners of that establishment are probably paying a licensing fee to play.

I worked in a Dance studio for many years and we were advised by our lawyers that we could not even play the radio over our stereo system because it would violate copyright law. If we wanted to pipe music into the studio like that, there was a legal service that we could subscribe to and pay for to do that. We were even concerned that we couldn't play music from our own CD's during a dance lesson without paying royalties but most, if not all dance studios try not to think about that and just do it anyway.

For me, and most of the professional dance instructors that I know of, the iTunes store was a godsend. Prior to that, we would have to bring a CD case of 50-100 CD's of dance music to class. I would typically spend about $15 per CD for a disc that at best had 5-6 songs on it that I could use for teaching. Needless to say, my budget for music was limited and there was a limit to the number of CD's I could lug around with me anyway.

When the store opened, we were in heaven. Now I can purchase any song I want for only $.99! Every song I purchased I could use in class. No song downloaded is wasted. On top of that, iTunes opened new vistas (no pun intended) for previewing music. I quickly found out that many artists had arranged so many of my favorite dance songs in so many interesting ways. I have swing, cha cha, hustle, salsa and foxtrot versions of "Fever" that I can dance to. I found out that Elvis, Madonna, Ray Charles, Love and Rockets, Tito Puente, Rita Coolidge, Joe Cocker and so many artists have all created their own unique and interesting arrangements of this music. This is something I would never have been able to explore, enjoy and benefit from had it not been for the iTunes store. It makes it so simple to explore music. Talk about freedom! Not only that, but since the advent of the iTunes store, while I do not buy CD's at all anymore, this feature alone is responsible for me buying and enjoying more music than I ever did prior to 2002.

And there was another advantage.

I mentioned how many CD's we'd have to carry to class. It gets to be pretty cumbersome and heavy lugging so many CD's around but you had to do it. To cut down on the weight and make things a bit easier on ourselves we'd take the CD's out of the Jewel cases and place them in those carrying cases with the sleeves. That saved a lot of weight and made shlepping the CD's around a lot easier. Problem was, every time you slide a CD out and slide it back into the case you inadvertently, unnoticeably, introduce micro scratches to the surface of the CD. Every day the Salsa CD you have or the Foxtrot CD you play are pulled out, then slid back into its sleeve. Probably several times a day, several days a week, month after month until the playable surface of the disc is so covered with scratches one day a track you want to play wont play because the laser wont track properly and starts to skip that track. If you ever rented a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix or checked out a CD or Movie from the library flip it over and just look at all those scratches. On more than one occasion I've had to repurchase a CD because I just wore it out. These things do not last forever like you think they might.

Anyway, the DRM thing hasn't been an issue to me because now I have my complete music library on an iPod and my laptop that I can hook up to the stereo system in the dance studio and have a greater variety of music that I can teach with than ever before!
 
Sorry, but a little research goes a long way.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060320-6418.html

"Three out of four P2P users admitted to purchasing music after downloading it online, with 21 percent of P2P users saying that they have bought tracks they have also downloaded on more than 10 occasions. 25 percent admitted to purchasing previously-downloaded tracks only once or twice, while an additional 27 percent claimed to have done it less than 10 times, but more than twice. The end result is clear: people are buying music after downloading it on P2P, meaning that the industry has failed to recognize the marketing-like effects of P2P. Just as important, this should caution the industry against assessing each and every download to a "loss" to piracy, since the statistics clearly show that those engaging in P2P do buy music in not-insignificant numbers."
Those numbers are insignificant, pathetic even. In other words, the article states that 79% of music pirates either never buy music they've pirated or have bought less than 10 songs they've pirated in the past. Considering many, if not most pirated libraries are well into the hundreds and thousands of songs, <10 songs is a extremely small percentage.

I will also estimate that the majority of the 21% who claim to have bought more than 10 songs they've pirated, have probably not made it to the 25 song mark.
 
DRM a problem? HOGWASH!

22 out of 100 songs are DRM-protected? Locked-in to an iPod? Hogwash!
Take your DRM songs, burn an audio (not MP3/AAC) CD, and reimport the CD into iTunes. Poof! DRM gone.

A hassle, you say? Hogwash again! How many iTMS songs do you have? Instead of Steve's 22, say you have 100. That's about 6 CDs at 15 songs per CD. Is it really awful to burn 6 whole CDs in your spare time.

Expensive, you say? Hogwash yet again! Blank CDs cost pennies.

This whole Euro-gov argument that DRM is burdensome & restrictive is a bunch of bellicose whining, and you European citizens should take your ill-informed governments to task.

Nuff said. Go Steve-O!

-K
 
22 out of 100 songs are DRM-protected? Locked-in to an iPod? Hogwash!
Take your DRM songs, burn an audio (not MP3/AAC) CD, and reimport the CD into iTunes. Poof! DRM gone.

A hassle, you say? Hogwash again! How many iTMS songs do you have? Instead of Steve's 22, say you have 100. That's about 6 CDs at 15 songs per CD. Is it really awful to burn 6 whole CDs in your spare time.

So, let me get this straight. Buy music encoded at 128kbps, burn it to CD, then re-import it? While this works, it's a surefire recipe for lousy audio quality. I don't really see this as an option.

-Rob
 
Government: Keep your DIRTY PAWS off our technology

Enough's enough. How many people in the various European governments who are fired up about iTunes even UNDERSTAND how it works? How many can check their email without some tech support kid walking them through it? How many know DRM from USB from TCP/IP?

This is a huge problem, not only in Europe, but everywhere. At a minimum, government officials should understand the issues they are legislating. Otherwise, they have no business coming up with boneheaded ideas like magically making all DRM systems interoperable. Idiots!

There's no way Apple is going to cave on this one. So, what's the choice? Shut down the music store in those countries? If I were a citizen of any country where such legislation was even being discussed, much less considered, I'd be writing to every elected official I could. They don't understand the subject they are legislating and that's very dangerous for their citizens.

-Rob
 
Anyway, the DRM thing hasn't been an issue to me because now I have my complete music library on an iPod and my laptop that I can hook up to the stereo system in the dance studio and have a greater variety of music that I can teach with than ever before!

That's great - for you. But what about those of us who would like to play our music on a SqueezeBox? Or Sonos player? Or car stereo? Etc. So long as Apple makes the products one needs, everything's peachy. But as soon as you want something NOT made by Apple, you're in trouble. This is the problem with DRM.

-Rob
 
Those numbers are insignificant, pathetic even. In other words, the article states that 79% of music pirates either never buy music they've pirated or have bought less than 10 songs they've pirated in the past. Considering many, if not most pirated libraries are well into the hundreds and thousands of songs, <10 songs is a extremely small percentage.

I will also estimate that the majority of the 21% who claim to have bought more than 10 songs they've pirated, have probably not made it to the 25 song mark.

First, are you honestly comparing a study to your "estimates"?

Second, buying ten songs you downloaded would probably equate to buying 10 albums. (It could be less -- if two or more songs downloaded are on one album, but it could make you buy two or more albums by the same band.) There are bands I never would have gotten into had I not downloaded their music, and now I own all their albums (in CD form). I used to download on p2p; nowadays I listen to iTunes 30 second previews and use Pandora. Before these services weren't really available or convenient for me.

Third, "pirates" that download a ton of music would likely not buy that music otherwise. It's not a lost sale.
 
Its well known that Mac users like their consumer freedoms removed by Apple - because "anything that Apple does must be a Good Thing" fan boi view.

How on earth is Apple removing consumer freedoms? What are you talking about???
 
Take your DRM songs, burn an audio (not MP3/AAC) CD, and reimport the CD into iTunes. Poof! DRM gone.

A hassle, you say? Hogwash again! How many iTMS songs do you have? Instead of Steve's 22, say you have 100. That's about 6 CDs at 15 songs per CD. Is it really awful to burn 6 whole CDs in your spare time.

Expensive, you say? Hogwash yet again! Blank CDs cost pennies.

If it's so easy why should we have to do it at all? If anyone can do this, why is the restriction there in the first place? Why can't they just sell it as DRM-free?

I consider it too much of an annoyance considering I'd be paying for the damn music. And it's not 6 CDs, it's however many songs you bought. If you bought 22 songs, it's 22 CDs. When I download a song, I want it DRM-free (reasons are outlined above in my posts and other peoples'). So I immediately have to burn it to a CD and then rip it.

Not to mention the loss of quality...
 
Not only France but the other European countries too who wanted to ensure consumer choice ( viewed as a bad thing by the Apple religious fan boi ).

It's not consumer choice that is viewed as a bad thing. It's hours on tech support lines. It's devices that don't work together. It's endless frustration.

Maybe you like to spend hours of your day tweaking your tech goodies so they work. I don't. I want to buy something, plug it in, and use it. Period. Apple makes this possible. It's not about being a "fan boi." It's about valuing how one spends one's time and looking at the computer not as a hobby for whiling away the hours, but as an appliance that JUST WORKS.

-Rob
 
Money-saving ip

If you bought 22 songs, it's 22 CDs. When I download a song, I want it DRM-free (reasons are outlined above in my posts and other peoples'). So I immediately have to burn it to a CD and then rip it.


Until the RIAA comes to their senses and allows Apple to end DRM, I'd suggest buying more songs at once--then you could burn more than one song to a CD. Buy 22 songs on 22 days, and if you can't wait at all to have a CD, then you need 22 CDs. But buy those songs in 4 batches and burn 4 CDs and you have saved some money. Plus, you have more useful discs that will play longer than one song.

Another tip: burn songs to CD-RW. Then you can re-use the same disc.
 
First, are you honestly comparing a study to your "estimates"?
No, I'm reinterpreting the numbers in the study.

Second, buying ten songs you downloaded would probably equate to buying 10 albums. (It could be less -- if two or more songs downloaded are on one album, but it could make you buy two or more albums by the same band.) There are bands I never would have gotten into had I not downloaded their music, and now I own all their albums (in CD form). I used to download on p2p; nowadays I listen to iTunes 30 second previews and use Pandora. Before these services weren't really available or convenient for me.
No, buying 10 songs would equal 10 songs. Buying 10 albums would equal 100 songs (based on 10 songs per CD). The study said "tracks" not "albums" - since iTunes the days of having to buy complete albums are gone.

Third, "pirates" that download a ton of music would likely not buy that music otherwise. It's not a lost sale.
So if pirating didn't exist people wouldn't buy music? What did people do before the internet? ...There wasn't music back then?
 
Those numbers are insignificant, pathetic even. In other words, the article states that 79% of music pirates either never buy music they've pirated or have bought less than 10 songs they've pirated in the past.

You asked for a link and basically accussed someone of making up number. I did a 1 minute Google search based on remembering something I'd read on Arstechnica and presented you with number from a music industry study

And instead of saying, "Okay, this is information I hadn't seen before." your argument is basically "Oh, the study is pathetic because I don't agree with it." What part of music industry sponsored study do you not get, or maybe one reason why the music industry is hurting so much is that it wastes its money commissioning pathetic studies like this, for no reason?

Here's another argument, without numbers since it's clear numbers isn't what you are really looking for. And by golly, it's from John Dvorak himself.

Why Steve Jobs is Right About Digital Rights

I would like to finish with the marketing observation that the record industry hates. During the heyday of Napster and open free music sharing and trading, when million of people swapped songs, the CD business was booming. Once Napster was shut down, and along with it the social network of music discovery, sales began to plummet. They are still falling.

Apparently these people are clueless about their own industry and how it works.

Now which category do you belong in? Or are you going to continue to insist on being the lazy contrarian while offering up no citations to back your own position?
 
You asked for a link and basically accussed someone of making up number. I did a 1 minute Google search based on remembering something I'd read on Arstechnica and presented you with number from a music industry study

And instead of saying, "Okay, maybe I was wrong about this." your argument is basically "Oh, the study is pathetic because I don't agree with it." What part of music industry sponsored study do you not get, or maybe one reason why the music industry is hurting so much is that it wastes its money commissioning pathetic studies like this, for no reason?

Here's another argument, without numbers since it's clear numbers isn't what you are really looking for. And by golly, it's from John Dvorak himself.

Why Steve Jobs is Right About Digital Rights



Now which category do you belong in? Or are you going to continue to insist on being the lazy contrarian while offering up no citations to back your own position?
Sorry, you misinterpreted my statement (perhaps partially my own fault and I'm sorry for that).

I was never questioning the study itself, rather I was questioning the way the numbers were interpreted. Basically, the study found that nearly 80% of all music pirates never pay for the large majority of the music they steal, leaving only 21% who have ever bought more than 10 songs they've pirated (keep in mind, many of these pirates have illegal libraries of hundreds of songs).

How is this supposed to convince me that "people buy albums once they've listened to pirated music" - if anything it convinces me that this is only, at the most, partially true for 20% of the Canadian population.
 
So if pirating didn't exist people wouldn't buy music? What did people do before the internet? ...There wasn't music back then?

What people are saying is that piracy contributes to the music business in a significant way, because if people don't hear about a song, it definitely won't get bought. To ignore the social networking aspect of music sharing means you are basically saying that it would be pointless to spending money on TV advertising. Heck, why spend $5 million making a music video that you give free to MTV if word-of-mouth marketing (whether via piracy or other means) is so worthless?

On thing is certain, and it ain't piracy that is causing CD sales to fall by double digits each year.
 
Steve is full of it, right here and now.

He issues a lot of platitudes- things you all seem to like to hear- but he does not act on it. So I say BS Steve- put your money where your mouth is.

If you are REALLY for DRM-less music, do it. There is PLENTY of DRMless music right now- emusic for one. Same songs on iTunes have DRM- WTF?

So shut the F up Steve, quit your whining UNLESS you are gonna do something. Then, just do it. But this pie in the sky wishful thinking does not cut it, especially when YOU can do it different! Especially when you CAN make it happen.

Sorry, Steve, no pass on this one.

What?
You must not have read the article, as it clearly states the DRM is the record companies requirement.
Beyond that, the only reason they offer an iTunes Store is to complete the package. They sold iPods before a store existed… I don't think they really give a crap about the iTunes Store other than as a convenience to those who wish to use it. The store doesn't cause people to want an iPod.

WTF makes you think SJ can do anything about anything other than close it all down if they piss him off? He's only CEO of Apple.
 
How is this supposed to convince me that "people buy albums once they've listened to pirated music" - if anything it convinces me that this is only, at the most, partially true for 20% of the Canadian population.

If you actually did a search, you would fine plenty of studies that show piracy is not responsible for a decline in music sales, and more than a few that show piracy may indeed be helpful to the music business. The problem is that the music industy isn't exactly happy about those reports, and would prefer not to talk about it as it is quite embarrassing given their claims in court and Congress about the threat of music piracy.

BTW, there is a distinction to be made about "casual piracy" via P2P networks by individual consumers and industry pirates who are in the business of counterfeiting CDs by the millions. I'm talking about the former, and definitely against the latter.

I've already read the reports on a variety of websites from 2-3 years ago, so I'll leave it up to you to try and educate yourself on this matter.
 
What people are saying is that piracy contributes to the music business in a significant way, because if people don't hear about a song, it definitely won't get bought. To ignore the social networking aspect of music sharing means you are basically saying that it would be pointless to spending money on TV advertising. Heck, why spend $5 million making a music video that you give free to MTV if word-of-mouth marketing (whether via piracy or other means) is so worthless?

On thing is certain, and it ain't piracy that is causing CD sales to fall by double digits each year.


That was damn fine. Bravo.
 
What people are saying is that piracy contributes to the music business in a significant way, because if people don't hear about a song, it definitely won't get bought. To ignore the social networking aspect of music sharing means you are basically saying that it would be pointless to spending money on TV advertising. Heck, why spend $5 million making a music video that you give free to MTV if word-of-mouth marketing (whether via piracy or other means) is so worthless?

On thing is certain, and it ain't piracy that is causing CD sales to fall by double digits each year.
That's what the radio is for. ;)
...or even the 30 second preview in iTunes, or MTV, or AOL music. There are plenty of legal alternatives that can be used to discover music, but they aren't utilized - why? ...Because that's not why people pirate music - they pirate music because they don't want to (or plan on) paying for their music.

I am strictly arguing for principles, and against the arguments pirates use to defend their illegal practice. It is absolutely not OK to steal music in any way.
 
That's great - for you. But what about those of us who would like to play our music on a SqueezeBox? Or Sonos player? Or car stereo? Etc. So long as Apple makes the products one needs, everything's peachy. But as soon as you want something NOT made by Apple, you're in trouble. This is the problem with DRM.

-Rob

Nothing prevents me from playing 97% of my music to those devices now. (In fact, 100% through my car). If you are one of those people that needs to play 100% of their music through these devices then all you have to do is go out and buy the CD's.

Besides, as soon as I want something NOT made by apple, I just buy it and load it on my computer or iPod. I've copied CD's that I originally purchased, LP's and tapes that I transfered, things that I've recorded on my own, DVD's that I've ripped to my computer and iPod, television shows that I've recorded and transfered from my VCR and eyeTV. If there was a song or CD not on the iTunes store I went out and bought it, ripped it to my computer and copied it to my iPod. I play them through my car stereo system, on my computer connected thru HDMI to my TV.

If apple closed down the iTunes store tomorrow what would change versus the way things were prior to 2002? We would all be forced to buy CD's and rip them DRM free on our computer just like we can today. Just no digital downloads. No single track purchases. Would I like it if there were no DRM? Yah, sure. Do I care? Not all that much because I don't like the alternative of not having the store. Besides, I'm betting that 10 years from now DRM will be a thing of the past. And so will CD's and DVD's. They'll be gone just like 8 Track tape, reel to reel, Beta, CAV and CLV video disks, Laserdisks (which I have several hundred movies on), 8", 5.25" and 3.5" floppy disks, Bernoulli and Zip disks. There's a very interesting article in this months Wired magazine. The new CD of the future may be Flash drives. The article reports that software companies are now considering putting there software on small flash drives instead of CD's or DVD's and they hint that record companies may soon follow by publishing album collections on flash and selling the product this way.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72656-0.html?tw=wn_index_7
 
That's what the radio is for. ;)
...or even the 30 second preview in iTunes, or MTV, or AOL music. There are plenty of legal alternatives that can be used to discover music, but they aren't utilized - why? ...Because that's not why people pirate music - they pirate music because they don't want to (or plan on) paying for their music.

I am strictly arguing for principles, and against the arguments pirates use to defend their illegal practice. It is absolutely not OK to steal music in any way.

Dude, you are way wrong.
The radio plays who pays. That's it. Mostly garbage, not discovery at all.
iTunes 30 sec. preview? Ya, if I knew what artists and albums I was going to be interested in, even though I've never heard of them. Forgot the discovery part there…
AOL, well, is limited to AOL members!
Plenty huh?

MOST PIRATED MUSIC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ANYWAY. Ask the pirates themselves. Some stuff is cool to have, but not cool enough to seek out and pay $15 for.
 
Dude, you are way wrong.
The radio plays who pays. That's it. Mostly garbage, not discovery at all.
iTunes 30 sec. preview? Ya, if I knew what artists and albums I was going to be interested in, even though I've never heard of them. Forgot the discovery part there…
How do you know which songs to pirate? You should be able to apply the same searching technique to iTunes.

iTunes will also suggest music for you based on music you've purchased in the past, but of course, this only works if you purchase your music. ;)

AOL, well, is limited to AOL members!
Plenty huh?
You'd possibly have an argument if AOL charged for their memberships. ;)

MOST PIRATED MUSIC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ANYWAY. Ask the pirates themselves. Some stuff is cool to have, but not cool enough to seek out and pay $15 for.
If it's good enough to steal it's good enough to pay for. ...And if you don't pay for it you're not entitled to own it.
 
…snip- The new CD of the future may be Flash drives. The article reports that software companies are now considering putting there software on small flash drives instead of CD's or DVD's and they hint that record companies may soon follow by publishing album collections on flash and selling the product this way.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72656-0.html?tw=wn_index_7

YES! That's what I've been saying ever since a 512MB stick cost $30. I figured with new better encoding we could get away with 512MB vs. the 700MB CD's. And the price increase over CDs is justified in the "new format" hypeage. Bring on the "never scratch another damn disc!":D :D :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.