The Beatles Appear in iTunes Store

[KeithJenner]

The only fools are the ones who pay the money to Apple, for something they will never actually own. How can you "own" a digital music track? You deserve to be fleeced. You already own the medium onto which the music will be downloaded. Let us say, for one example, that by some incredible fluke of genius, that you were able to memorise the EXACT binary sequences that comprise the entire box set tracks, and type them into a hex editor. Would that make you a thief? no, just very clever indeed.

My point is this - noone except you owns your hard disk, and it is up to you how you manipulate the individual "01001001010010010111110" binary state of the cells that comprise the medium onto which the music is downloaded. Apple haven't sold you ANYTHING AT ALL, they have just manipulated the on/off state of the binary storage medium you own, to create a stream of data which represents and emulates the original, physical product/s!

My friends, you "own" precisely nothing, and you have paid hundreds of dollars for someone to change the state of the bits on your storage devices.

LOL!!!!

If it's ok with you I think I'll pay someone to change those bits for me. I think I've got better things to do with my time to be honest.

 

[glossywhite]

By that theory you are saying that paying a Sky Subscription for example is stupid aswell as you're not owning the shows your viewing?

Of course. Applies to all forms of virtual "products".

If it's ok with you I think I'll pay someone to change those bits for me. I think I've got better things to do with my time to be honest.

Better things to do with your time, but not with your money, evidently.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Of course. Applies to all forms of virtual "products".

Blimey. The future isn't looking too bright for you is it.

 

[Artmuzz]

You *knew* you could have got them for half the price, and yet you didn't? You are a fool.
You don't want to listen, ergo I don't care to debate any further.

whatever!...

BTW I was talking about spending money on quality not whether I could of got the phones cheaper and I don't take to kindly with getting called a fool.

 

[glossywhite]

Blimey. The future isn't looking too bright for you is it.

That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How does this subject bear even a passing relevance to the future of my life? If you could elaborate a little, maybe you'll (eventually) get to your point... or not.

whatever!...

BTW I was talking about spending money on quality not whether I could of got the phones cheaper and I don't take to kindly with getting called a fool.

Well, in that instance, you were foolish, and you just got called one. Also quite foolish, was the fact that you didn't explain yourself properly, ironically making yourself appear foolish without need.

 

[BaldiMac]

The only fools are the ones who pay the money to Apple, for something they will never actually own. How can you "own" a digital music track? You deserve to be fleeced. You already own the medium onto which the music will be downloaded. Let us say, for one example, that by some incredible fluke of genius, that you were able to memorise the EXACT binary sequences that comprise the entire box set tracks, and type them into a hex editor. Would that make you a thief? no, just very clever indeed.

My point is this - noone except you owns your hard disk, and it is up to you how you manipulate the individual "01001001010010010111110" binary state of the cells that comprise the medium onto which the music is downloaded. Apple haven't sold you ANYTHING AT ALL, they have just manipulated the on/off state of the binary storage medium you own, to create a stream of data which represents and emulates the original, physical product/s!

My friends, you "own" precisely nothing, and you have paid hundreds of dollars for someone to change the state of the bits on your storage devices.

LOL!!!!

Wow!

You can apply this to physical products, too! All these free atomic particles floating about that you could just rearrange into a Porsche! And some suckers pay for cars! Used ones even!

 

[MonkeySee....]

That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How does this subject bear even a passing relevance to the future of my life? If you could elaborate a little, maybe you'll (eventually) get to your point... or not.

You know when the cassette tape got replaced by the CD?

I'll let you work the rest out.

 

[glossywhite]

Wow!

You can apply this to physical products, too! All these free atomic particles floating about that you could just rearrange into a Porsche! And some suckers pay for cars! Used ones even!

Okay, make me an iPad please... I'll pay slightly more if you can do it within the hour, and teleport it to me. You did say you could do it, right?

You're being a pedant.

 

[Bluemeanie1976]

The only fools are the ones who pay the money to Apple, for something they will never actually own. How can you "own" a digital music track? You deserve to be fleeced. You already own the medium onto which the music will be downloaded. Let us say, for one example, that by some incredible fluke of genius, that you were able to memorise the EXACT binary sequences that comprise the entire box set tracks, and type them into a hex editor. Would that make you a thief? no, just very clever indeed.

My point is this - noone except you owns your hard disk, and it is up to you how you manipulate the individual "01001001010010010111110" binary state of the cells that comprise the medium onto which the music is downloaded. Apple haven't sold you ANYTHING AT ALL, they have just manipulated the on/off state of the binary storage medium you own, to create a stream of data which represents and emulates the original, physical product/s!

My friends, you "own" precisely nothing, and you have paid hundreds of dollars for someone to change the state of the bits on your storage devices.

LOL!!!!

You think you 'own' the music on a CD? You may own the cd, as I own my ipod, but you will never 'own' the music.

 

[glossywhite]

You know when the cassette tape got replaced by the CD?

I'll let you work the rest out.

Because that really "affected" me, in such a profound way. Yes, your justification is sound and completely correct in every detail. I don't know how I could survive without CDs and tapes, none of which I own. Nope, I have to admit defeat here - they changed my life... honest!

 

[KeithJenner]

Wow!

You can apply this to physical products, too! All these free atomic particles floating about that you could just rearrange into a Porsche! And some suckers pay for cars! Used ones even!

It's funny you should say that actually. Just the other day, I went into my garage and found that all the assorted junk I had in there had randomly assembled themselves and totally by chance had turned into a Porsche.

The police came round later that day but I explained how it had all just happened by "some incredible fluke of genius" and they went away again.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're being a pedant.

Wait. You were actually being serious about your virtual goods argument?

 

[skidog1111]

I didn't even know the Beatles were not available on iTunes until yesterday.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Because that really "affected" me, in such a profound way. Yes, your justification is sound and completely correct in every detail. I don't know how I could survive without CDs and tapes, none of which I own. Nope, I have to admit defeat here - they changed my life... honest!

I'm not sure what your getting at now? All i was saying is that everything is turning digital. Its happening everywhere and it will be hard for you to avoid if you have any interest in music, movies, tv etc.

 

[glossywhite]

You think you 'own' the music on a CD? You may own the cd, as I own my ipod, but you will never 'own' the music.

I own the disc, I own the bits ON the disc, ergo I own the medium which represents a simulation of the music. I do not own the talent or creativity that has gone into making the music which is simulate by my copy of the representation of it, but I own the DISC, the BOX, and I can carry it/lend it/read the cover without a computer, and it won't get accidentally deleted, or secretly altered or removed, in case, one day, Apple decide to turn into Microsoft.

I see your point, but I'd rather OWN the physical medium.

 

[malnar]

I'm not a walking spectrum analyser, I just like to hear music coming in, and happiness inside, with smiles coming out. £200 is ridiculous, just as much as the pricing of Macs is ridiculous. I couldn't live with myself if I had spent £200 on something that simply puts music in my ears. Just because everything in the western world is prohibitively expensive, people seem to have "got used" to being fleeced - doesn't make it any more morally acceptable, ESPECIALLY when you consider how the people who make the equipment are exploited and the pittance they receive!

You can carry on using multi-paragraphs to justify wrong doing, and I'll carry on with my thinking that it is not right. Simple as that.

You're also giving the impression that you think that people who use $10 earphones are somehow missing out? Nope, we get the same level of enjoyment, and leave the store a little better off. If the company who sold the earphones reduced them to £30, would you suddenly assume they are inferior? I think you probably would. You've been told they are better, and your mind will convince you of such, because it knows you paid £200 for them. Psychology is a powerful thing, as much as you are going to deny it to yourself, it rules you, not the other way around.

There's no fleecing here, nor psychology. I think, actually, you may be guilty of this, however - you're convincing yourself that there's no way it's possible that there is something positive to be gained from higher-end equipment. It's really easy to do that, too, you know - and I'd say a LOT easier because it's so much easier to justify to yourself. There are all kinds of ridiculous shams in the audiphile world (cable risers being one absolutely hilarious one,) but speakers/headphones are not among them.

Buy what matters to you, whatever. Sound matters to me, a lot. You obviously don't care, that's fine. I really get excited hearing details that just can't be replicated in cheap headphones. You can think that's some kind of placebo if you want, but it's pretty hard to say that when you flip back and forth between several sets of varying quality headphones and notice a STRIKING difference in sound quality and the detail of the sound. I don't know why you're taking such offense at the possibility that people can both actually detect (and enjoy!) this and CARE about this while you don't.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's funny you should say that actually. Just the other day, I went into my garage and found that all the assorted junk I had in there had randomly assembled themselves and totally by chance had turned into a Porsche.

The police came round later that day but I explained how it had all just happened by "some incredible fluke of genius" and they went away again.

Even though it was exactly like the Porsche that was stolen earlier earlier in the day and had the same license plate and VIN? The police never believe me when that happens.

 

[glossywhite]

I'm not sure what your getting at now? All i was saying is that everything is turning digital. Its happening everywhere and it will be hard for you to avoid if you have any interest in music, movies, tv etc.

I didn't see what you were getting at from the very outset, ergo your comments are going to be ignored as irrelevant and a waste of my keystrokes, I don't mean that in an offensive manner, but if you had had a point to get to, thus far, to it, you would have got.

There's no fleecing here, nor psychology. I think, actually, you may be guilty of this, however - you're convincing yourself that there's no way it's possible that there is something positive to be gained from higher-end equipment. It's really easy to do that, too, you know - and I'd say a LOT easier because it's so much easier to justify to yourself. There are all kinds of ridiculous shams in the audiphile world (cable risers being one absolutely hilarious one,) but speakers/headphones are not among them.

Buy what matters to you, whatever. Sound matters to me, a lot. You obviously don't care, that's fine. I really get excited hearing details that just can't be replicated in cheap headphones. You can think that's some kind of placebo if you want, but it's pretty hard to say that when you flip back and forth between several sets of varying quality headphones and notice a STRIKING difference in sound quality and the detail of the sound. I don't know why you're taking such offense at the possibility that people can both actually detect (and enjoy!) this and CARE about this while you don't.

Okay, I respect your point of view, and maybe I don't get it, because I haven't tried £200 earphones. I cannot say I disagree with you, any more than I could give an opinion on the iPad to my ranting friend, before I owned one. I respect your opinion totally, and I'll now close this matter, as I am no audio expert, and I am sure you know more than me, ok?

thanks mate

[EDIT] Maybe my ears cannot distinguish the subtleties and nuances that I'd need to recognise the presence of, because everyones' hearing is different.

 

[nemaslov]

No, anyone who thinks there is depth in the Beatles output is musically ignorant. I truly am sorry for you.

Now, as a business, the Beatles are very interesting to study and that is really how they impacted society.

But candidly, I don't think there is a single innovation they produced. Not one. And they really were very poor musicians their entire careers, technically and creatively.

Actually the business was in a way their weak point during their career. You probably don't have knowledge of all the studio techniques they created intentionally and unintentionally. They didn't the digital fixes to fall back on. Things like automatic double tracking, tape loops, backwards guitar sounds. Using speakers as microphones-wiring them in reverse, Helter Skeleter some feel is the first Metal song. Some many of the thing the did in the studio influences many other producers and artists. The first music videos too. McCartney was obviously the best musician in the group but the others were good too. Not perfect or precise, but that pretty much what rock and roll is about.

 

[netdoc66]

New Era for digital downloads

I think it's funny that everyone has internalized this news as to how it affects them personally but what it actually means and what Apple is crowing about is the final acceptance by copy holders of legendary music is that downloads are here to stay and ain't nothing changing that. More copy holders will release their catalogs making the whole of all music assessable for download. THAT IS a BIG DAY for us whether you guys like it or not.

PS: I'm not a fan of the new but I'll play with their toys.

 

[KeithJenner]

I see your point, but I'd rather OWN the physical medium.

I take it from that that you are arguing against purchasing downloads specifically, rather than purchasing full stop.

I assumed that your argument was just one of the more outlandish justifications that people come up with for not paying for music, but now I'm not sure.

I prefer to have the physical disc, but for a lot of people lack of space, or the fact that their music budget is very small anyway is enough to counter any concerns about losing files or sneaky tricks by Apple.

 

[Artmuzz]

Well, in that instance, you were foolish, and you just got called one. Also quite foolish, was the fact that you didn't explain yourself properly, ironically making yourself appear foolish without need.

You are a fool for calling me a fool all because I paid a lot of money for earphones that have good sound quality and I didn't realise I could of got them cheaper anywhere else. So what you are saying that anyone who pays for good quality is a fool?

Nuff said

 

[vastoholic]

I'm sorry but you can't compare $3 headsets to $200 headsets. Try comparing a set of $20-$30 in-ear buds with your $200 headset. The difference will not be quote as evident. Now I will not argue if you truly can hear a difference, but know that most Joe Schmoe's can't or don't care to hear that kind of difference for the extra price tag.

I have a set of $20 in-ear buds that i find far superior to Apples normal ear buds and right on par, if not better than than their $70-80 in-ear buds.

I do consider myself a low end audiophile. Listening to the large range of sounds and tracks on a nine inch nails recording or hearing the highs and lows of a Hans Zimmer arrangement. Sound is important to me.

You are a fool for calling me a fool all because I paid a lot of money for earphones that have good sound quality and I didn't realise I could of got them cheaper anywhere else. So what you are saying that anyone who pays for good quality is a fool?

Nuff said

Anyone who pays for the perceived notion of good quality is a fool. Again, if you really truly can hear $150 worth of difference in those headphones, then by all means, you've made a valid purchase. But if your mind is telling you the sound quality is amazing because you spent an amazing amount of money on it, that's different.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Helter Skeleter some feel is the first Metal song.

Johnny Be Goode - 1958

 

[Artmuzz]

I'm sorry but you can't compare $3 headsets to $200 headsets. Try comparing a set of $20-$30 in-ear buds with your $200 headset. The difference will not be quote as evident. Now I will not argue if you truly can hear a difference, but know that most Joe Schmoe's can't or don't care to hear that kind of difference for the extra price tag.

I have a set of $20 in-ear buds that i find far superior to Apples normal ear buds and right on par, if not better than than their $70-80 in-ear buds.

Yeah, my £30 Sennheiser CX300 earphones sounded far superior to Apple's £70 earphones.