This just ain't Apples week. [Archive]

markw

03-17-2006, 02:59 PM

Your reason is pretty lame considering we're "coerced' into using one supplier for many of life's resources, services, and products. Like Microsoft hasn't asserted a long time monopoly over IE or their media files. Sychronization of sofware and hadware is not coercion. There is no proprietary monopoly here. I can take music from any commerical service, legal or not, and import files into iTunes and go from there. This is a non problem. The French should probably focus their efforts on eating less cheese and smoking less.Keeping a business system in step with many, many software problems is not the same as buying music. While the big, bad MS sticks in my craw, I'll admit that, on the whole, it has been a stablizing force in the computer industry. It provides and maintains a *stable* platform from which many applications are launched.

Now, do I need that for my music? No.

How would you like being told you can only by books from Barnes and Noble? I don't think so.

Would you stand for it if they told you can only buy hardware from Best Buy? I doubt it.

So, I don't see why you're so complacent about being forced, not coerced, into buying all your on line music from Itunes.

I'll keep my Sandisk which can be loaded from virtually anything, except Itunes of course. I like my freedom of choice. Just download, click and drag. Now, for those that can't or don't want do that, well, then perhaps the simplistic Itunes interface should be an option. but to force it on everyone? I don't think so.

I suppose you'll now want to say that this Ipod Hi Fi is the next best thing in the audio world too?

Mike Anderson

03-17-2006, 04:07 PM

Is the article really accurate? I haven't had any problem putting other music on my iPod.

As I understood it, the main objection people have is that music from the iTunes Store cannot be played on other devices -- not that the iPod can't play music from other sources.

So don't buy music from the iTunes Store. Even better, don't upgrade to iTunes 6, and just use jhymn to unlock your music.

paul_pci

03-18-2006, 11:39 PM

Mark, I think maybe you're misinformed about iTunes, although my clarification will do llittle to win you over. The music store within iTunes is merely one, and not the only one, means of purchasing digital music online. For instance, a friend and I had a subscription to emusic.com and I downloaded a few cds and imported them into iTunes and then to my iPod. Therefore your analogies really don't hold up, especially the Barnes and Noble one. Apple in no way claims or configures that the consumer can only buy music from the iTunes music store or that music acquired elsewhere won't work on iTunes/iPod. That's just not true. For me personally, most of the music I have on my iPod comes from my CD collection and some music downloaded from various sources which will remain unnamed. I've never bought a song from the music store, but I have plenty of music acquired from non iTunes sources. Your BB analogy might be more fitting, but I just don't see the problem. iTunes is free. Yes, you must have it to transfer music to the iPod, but really, where is the harm. Again sychronization is not coercion. Apple is not making you buy anything, nor are they preventing you from acquiring music from any other source. Again, I think you're misinformed here. There's nothing that you can do with your Sandisk that iTunes cannot accomodate to any user. I have great control and customization with iTunes and thus my iPod.

Lastly, I don't think the iPod or any related accoutrement is the latest great thing in hi-fi. Give me some credit; I'm not that delusional.

markw

03-19-2006, 06:31 AM

Groundbeef

03-19-2006, 06:50 AM

To answer your question.

1. You can only d/l music from Itunes if you have Itunes installed on your computer.
2. Music will only be d/l in apple format, not WMA.
3. I don't think that you can put that music onto another MP3 player w/out converting it to wma or mp3. format. Although I am open for correction on that point.

There are 3rd party work around software solutions for pulling music off your Ipod w/out Itunes. This is so you can d/l your own music onto another computer YOU own :)

paul_pci

03-19-2006, 10:21 AM

First two brief clarifications: iTunes is a software staging ground that has the Apple Music Store integrated into it. Secondly, as a staging ground, the music files exist independently of iTunes and thus you can do anything you want with them, including having drunken conversations if you so choose.

1.) Apple offers access through their website to the Music Store. As I have iTunes, when I clicked on that link, it opened my program, so for now I can't testify what happens with that link on computers w/o iTunes installed. It may prompt you to download iTunes, don't know.

2.) Apple is not a format; mp3 is a format, WMA is a format, etc. My understanding is that music via the Music Store is in mp3 and however convoluted it might be, iTunes does support various formats including WMA and mp3 files should be able to be converted to that format.

3.) Again, the music files have an independent existence to iTunes (it's just a program for organizing and ripping/burning). Therefore, if you have files mp3 or otherwise that you have organized and collected/downloaded using iTunes and another player supports that format, then yes, of course you can put those files onto that player. It's just a matter of locating those files in their respective folders. Again, I think you are misinformed because there's nothing arbitrarily restricted by iTunes. What I love about the interface with iPod is that I can first organize my exact playlists in iTunes and do a quick transfer to the iPod and it's a mirror image on the player. I know exactly where all the music is and how the playlists are organized.

Mike Anderson

03-19-2006, 10:41 AM

2.) Apple is not a format; mp3 is a format, WMA is a format, etc. My understanding is that music via the Music Store is in mp3 and however convoluted it might be, iTunes does support various formats including WMA and mp3 files should be able to be converted to that format.

My understanding is that the music you download from the iTunes Music Store is not mp3, it's another format altogether.

My only gripe with the iTunes music player software is that it doesn't play FLAC. However, it's free, and if you don't like it you can download something identical like Winamp.

As others are pointing out, some people here are confused about the difference between the iTunes music player software and the iTunes Music Store.

There is a legitimate gripe about music from the iTunes Music Store having DRM, and therefore being unable to play on alternate systems. One response is that you can always buy your music elsewhere if you don't like this arrangement.

Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who purchased large amounts of music from the iTunes Music Store who didn't understand how their use of it was limited. Thinking it was no different than having music from a CD or non-DRM mp3s, they went on to purchase other music-playing gear, and now they can't play their iTunes Store-supplied music on it.

Apple is partly to blame for this because they do not make it bloody clear to the average person how the music is limited in that fashion.

anamorphic96

03-19-2006, 12:47 PM

That article is dead wrong in that you can only use iPods with the iTunes music store. I have roughly 500 songs downloaded from emusic.com as well as Limewire and some other services. All someone has to do is convert them to MP3 if they are not already this way. Or if they want. Convert them to AAC. The only slight drawback is the iPod does not support WMA.

Apples biggest and #1 problem is the battery life issues.

emorphien

03-19-2006, 12:55 PM

Apples biggest and #1 problem is the battery life issues.
I don't much care for a managed interface, which is a problem for others I know and it's why they use third party software to transfer files to their player.

Other than that, it's a basic player for a big player price. Up until recently it didn't offer the features it should have (still misses some) and doesn't match others in sound quality.

I'm glad I bought my iRiver nearly 2.5 years ago. So far I've no need to upgrade from it. If it died on me, I'm not sure what I'd buy now. :(

paul_pci

03-19-2006, 12:57 PM

My understanding is that the music you download from the iTunes Music Store is not mp3, it's another format altogether.

My only gripe with the iTunes music player software is that it doesn't play FLAC. However, it's free, and if you don't like it you can download something identical like Winamp.

As others are pointing out, some people here are confused about the difference between the iTunes music player software and the iTunes Music Store.

There is a legitimate gripe about music from the iTunes Music Store having DRM, and therefore being unable to play on alternate systems. One response is that you can always buy your music elsewhere if you don't like this arrangement.

Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who purchased large amounts of music from the iTunes Music Store who didn't understand how their use of it was limited. Thinking it was no different than having music from a CD or non-DRM mp3s, they went on to purchase other music-playing gear, and now they can't play their iTunes Store-supplied music on it.

Apple is partly to blame for this because they do not make it bloody clear to the average person how the music is limited in that fashion.

The gripe here about downloading music from the music store may be correct, as I have yet to do so, and it makes sense from an industry point of view: how else could Apple convince the greedy, short sighted recording industry to let them sell mounds of digital music online, but to restrict the use and duplicating of it? But, at the end of the day, Apple's Music store is not the only game in town, nor is it the only source for music, digitally or otherwise. I thinik people like to hate ITunes/iPod simply because they're popular (it's popular to hate something that's popular) and not because there's a legitimate grievence there.

anamorphic96

03-19-2006, 01:01 PM

I thinik people like to hate ITunes/iPod simply because they're popular (it's popular to hate something that's popular) and not because there's a legitimate grievence there.

You nailed it Paul.

My only gripe with the iPod is the battery life. But there are now sites offering replacements at fair prices.

paul_pci

03-19-2006, 01:26 PM

yeah, I'm not to keen on my iPod's battery life, but I haven't yet been in a situation where I was using it for so long that it would run out before I could charge it, but that doesn't necessarily excuse the poor battery life.

I took another look at Apple's website and they claim that the Music Store files are AAC files. But, again, it wouldn't surprise me if purchased music would not be transferable to anything other than an iPod, although I would think one could burn it to a CD and go from there.

anamorphic96

03-19-2006, 01:44 PM

This place looks respectable for replacements.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Page.cfm?Parent=1225&ref=Google%20iPod%20Battery%20General&title=iPod%20Batteries%20%26%20Power%20Adapters

emorphien

03-19-2006, 10:04 PM

I thinik people like to hate ITunes/iPod simply because they're popular (it's popular to hate something that's popular) and not because there's a legitimate grievence there.
I agree, I've noticed that too. I don't hate the iPod or iTunes, there are some things about each that I don't like and the iPod certainly wouldn't be my choice of portable music player, but you have to respect its success and the appeals it does have.

The thing I do hate (moreso than the hating on iPod/iTunes) is the blind/blatant fanboyism with no basis that is so prevalent in support of the iPod. If anything that hurts it and makes it harder for any skeptic to take seriously.

It is what it is, it's a slick looking, easy to use player that's accessible to everyone. It's gone from sounding pretty crappy in early gens to sounding ok. It's got battery issues, they don't seem to hold up that well (but perhaps some people expect too much of it), and until recently it was priced awfully high for the features it had. Now it offers some pretty neat features that while not new, haven't been presented as neatly as they are in the current iPods.

I've never thought so much of the iPod as the innovator, but the refiner. It takes a lot of existing ideas and one-ups them. Even the early iPods weren't the first MP3 players, although some find them to be quite revolutionary. They aren't, they were evolutionary. The only thing they didn't improve (grumble grumble) is the sound quality. I'm still not quite fond of that :17:

topspeed

03-20-2006, 09:09 AM

Even the early iPods weren't the first MP3 players, although some find them to be quite revolutionary. They aren't, they were evolutionary. I think a very convincing argument could be made to the contrary. Apple may not have been first, but they are indisputably the single most important catalyst in popularizing MP3 players and bringing the format to the forefront of the public consciousness. I have a Shuffle and to be honest, have been astounded by the battery life. Maybe it's because it doesn't have to power a color screen, play videos, or whatever else it is people do with these things, but my battery lasts extraordinarily long. I'll also add I've crushed it with weights and dropped it countless times and despite it's fragile feel, it still works flawlessly.

The only thing they didn't improve (grumble grumble) is the sound quality. I'm still not quite fond of that :17:Rip your music lossless. If you can hear the difference between the source cd and the iPod (or any other player) at lossless, you either have killer headphones and/or far better hearing than I.

emorphien

03-20-2006, 02:10 PM

I think a very convincing argument could be made to the contrary. Apple may not have been first, but they are indisputably the single most important catalyst in popularizing MP3 players and bringing the format to the forefront of the public consciousness. I have a Shuffle and to be honest, have been astounded by the battery life. Maybe it's because it doesn't have to power a color screen, play videos, or whatever else it is people do with these things, but my battery lasts extraordinarily long. I'll also add I've crushed it with weights and dropped it countless times and despite it's fragile feel, it still works flawlessly.
I don't think battery life has been as big of a problem lately as it was earlier on. It still seems they don't live up to spec all the time, but they do much better than before.

As far as innovator vs improver, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Apple has been first at some things but mostly first at widespread marketable success. Technology wise it's usually me-too with a dash of "i did better."

Rip your music lossless. If you can hear the difference between the source cd and the iPod (or any other player) at lossless, you either have killer headphones and/or far better hearing than I.
I use MP3s ripped at highest settings with LAME for my portable listening to balance storage and sound quality. I'll leave best sound quality anchored at home from traditional tangible formats. I've never been that enthralled by MP3 playback from iPods however the newer ones are improved.

teledynepost

03-20-2006, 09:27 PM

I think it's just absurd to sell a $300 piece of equipment with a battery that can't be replaced.

anamorphic96

03-20-2006, 11:04 PM

I think it's just absurd to sell a $300 piece of equipment with a battery that can't be replaced.

Yes it can. Where did you here that ? Do a google search.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Page.cfm?Parent=1225&ref=Google%20iPod%20Battery%20General&title=iPod%20Batteries%20%26%20Power%20Adapters

teledynepost

03-21-2006, 12:27 AM

What? Do you have to dis-assemble it? I thought it was built in.

anamorphic96

03-21-2006, 12:51 AM

It is built in. But replaceable. You can send it in to Apple or other places that peform changes. Apple charges 100.00 bucks but their are others as shown in the link above.

teledynepost

03-21-2006, 08:02 AM

It is built in. But replaceable. You can send it in to Apple or other places that peform changes. Apple charges 100.00 bucks but their are others as shown in the link above.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was aware you could send it to Apple for 100 bucks. Absurd.

nightflier

03-21-2006, 12:40 PM

What no one is addressing here is that we're being asked to pay $1 a song for a lower quality format. No matter how you slice it, 12 ACC files downloaded & written to a CD (without artwork) will not sound like the store-bought disk. Who decided this lower-quality format should cost $1? Why not 25 cents or 10 cents, especially for those older re-re-re-re-released tunes?

The real danger is that this could become the only available source for music in the near future just because it is more convenient (and more profitable for them). That may be so, but in the end we're all paying more for something that is of lower quality and that we probably already own in another format. To top it off, the industry is trying its darndest to prevent me from transfering store-bought disks and tracks to my computer.

If you ask me, they are trying to kill the format altogether so that I won't have any other choice than to buy online. It's about quantity over quality (gee haven't we heard that before?). If it wasn't for open-source and open standards (we can thank the cheese-eating French and beer-drinking Germans for a lot of this), we would already be subscribing to a pre-established repetitive favorite 50 tunes for which we would be paying $30 a month for.

The iPod and iTunes are cute and cuddly, to be sure, but there is a bigger picture here.

paul_pci

03-21-2006, 02:36 PM

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

Groundbeef

03-21-2006, 05:29 PM

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.

These record compaines are not a non-profit charity. Like it or not, this seems to be the system that music listener's have been asking for. I can't count how many times I have bought a CD, only to find out I got 13 tracks of filler, and 1 hit. At least now I can spend the money for what I want, not what the record company puts out.

And the best part is, if I like to music, I can ALWAYS buy a hard copy (CD) if I want the full sound.

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

Mike Anderson

03-21-2006, 06:56 PM

What no one is addressing here is that we're being asked to pay $1 a song for a lower quality format.

I agree with this, and it's the primary reason I don't by music from the iTunes store (in addition to the DRM, which isn't a problem for me yet).

The real danger is that this could become the only available source for music in the near future just because it is more convenient (and more profitable for them).

This I doubt. In time, market forces and technological influences will drive the prices down and the quality up. You can already by better quality music for the same price at other sites.

Mike Anderson

03-21-2006, 06:59 PM

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

Nope, not with MP3s or any other lossless format. Once it's compressed, the extra information is lost forever, and no amount of burning to a CD will get it back.

There is lossless compression however (e.g. FLAC), but you can only compress so much. A typical CD can be compressed by about 50%.

With FLAC you can always burn back to a CD, but there's no reason to (other than actually having to use a CD player) because FLAC is indistinguishable quality-wise from a CD.

emorphien

03-21-2006, 08:50 PM

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.
While that's true, that's no justification for charging $1 for a compressed track.

Allofmp3.com has the best price/quality structure I've seen. Unfortunately there's the questionable legality of "purchasing" your music there. To me it seems more like you're paying for the bandwidth, but the songs are free.

teledynepost

03-22-2006, 02:30 AM

Well new stuff is still released on vinyl so I don't think CD's are going to disappear entirely...

noddin0ff

03-22-2006, 06:51 AM

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

Just curious where you saw this? Are you referring to the iTunes Store? I don't see that indicated anywhere on the site. The iTunes Store support page reads.

"Purchased songs are encoded using MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format, a high-quality format that rivals CD quality. Songs purchased and downloaded from the Music Store are AAC Protected files and have a bitrate of 128 kilobits per second (kbit/s). The file extension is .m4p."

You can set iTunes to rip from CD at many bitrates but this, to my knowledge doesn't effect downloads from the store.

...and that bit about "rivals CD quality" may be true...if you compare it to wax cylinders...

Groundbeef

03-22-2006, 09:59 AM

I many have gotten ahead of myself. After checking into it a bit more you are probably correct. Itunes can RIP a CD at 320kbs. Sorry about that. I was equating "Import" with "Itunes". I need more sleep. Anyway procedure is listed below for anyone interested.

In your Itunes Interface, click on "Edit" on your upper left corner. Then select "preferences". Click on the "advanced" tab. Click on "importing" tab.
On setting click on "Custom" and scroll on down to 320kbs.

Also, it is interesting to note that in that same menu you can select the encoder you want to use. It is default to ACC Encoder, but there is a selection for MP3 and WAV encoders. Not sure if that is the actual file type or just how it comes into the computer. I may fool around with some of the weekly "free" files to see if it affects the file type that I receive.

noddin0ff

03-22-2006, 10:26 AM

I don't think it will effect the files you download (not the same as import). The iTunes Store determines that. It will effect the file created when you rip from a CD.

WAV or AIFF are non-compressed lossless. If you directly copy a file from an audio CD to your hard drive it becomes one of these formats. Essentially identical to the CD. PC's use WAV, Mac traditionally used AIFF. Now iTunes supports both on a Mac.

nightflier

03-22-2006, 10:57 AM

Beef,

As Mike pointed out, that does not justify the high price. I just checked out the allofmp3.com site, and I have to say that's a much better deal. 10-20 cents per song, download into any format or compression ratio, and own it. If more people knew about this, it would put iTunes out of business.

It's about time there was some real competition in this industry to bring prices back down to market-driven levels. And if this competition comes from abroad, then it's about time the US RIAA learns that they don't run the world. It's only a matter of time before China & India put up their own allofmp3 sites....

Groundbeef

03-22-2006, 02:25 PM

emorphien

03-22-2006, 03:16 PM

Its not so much that $.20 or $.30 a song is a bad deal. However, just because that is what you want to pay makes it doable.
I would like a new Ferrari for $50.00, however there are some fixed costs that need to be covered.

If labels are selling songs for $.30, how much is getting to the artist? $.01-.03? Is it worth the effort to sell 100,000 copies and make yourself $1-3k? I doubt it. Your pricing is not going to support any artist. The option for the artist to sell direct isn't very practical either, as servers cost money, as well as covering the bandwidth.

I don't think that the artists make very much off Apple either, but its a better amount than if they were selling at the price you suggest.

As a consumer nation we are constantly *****ing about price, and how we want to pay less. I find it ironic that members of this board will spend hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for sound equipement, and complain that $1.00 for a song is going to break the bank.

If the format is the problem, would you pay $2.00 for a lossless copy? Perhaps we need to look at a bit more money, not less to get what you want.

I for one do not have all the answers, but I am curious as to your solutions. I don't think that lowering the price for songs is going to do anyone any good however.
How much of that $0.99 you spend at the iTunes store makes it to the artist? Allofmp3 may not give much if any to the artist, but iTunes is giving a small portion to the artist as well.

Somewhere I've seen the breakdown of the iTunes money distribution, Apple gets a chunk, the record companies get a huge chunk and finally down to the artists with just a wee bit.

If a legit system structured like allofmp3 came up without the questionable legality and was offering a flat amount to the artists per song it'd kill. Lets say allofmp3.com inreases all their track prices by $0.10 it'd still be much less than iTunes and if you paid $0.99 for a track the quality would be far better than what iTunes offers and that $0.10 would go directly to the artist and recording company for instance. As it is right now I don't know how much of allofmp3s sales goes to them.

The point is a system could work which provided the user with more options and was priced better. Want to download a lossless format? Then you pay more for it, otherwise it should be less than $1 a track.

nightflier

03-22-2006, 03:27 PM

It's not that $1 is too much, but rather that it's always $1!

I don't know how allofmp3.com compensates the artists, but I can guarantee that the industry is a lot more upset about the $.20 price than the artists. With music downloads, the artists have the opportunity to sign a contract directly with the downloading company and skip all the distribution expense and inflated advertising costs (and big CEO bonuses) that go along with the old way of distributing music. This is why it was the industry and not the artists who were most upset with Napster. Granted there were a few ludites like Metallica & Dre who just didn't get it, but most artists, especially those who were not getting much play on the top-40 radio stations, embraced the MP3 format.

My point is that if iTunes had some real competition, then we would probably be somewhere around $.20 a song, and much less for older music. Allofmp3.com charges around that for a 192kbs track and more for a less compressed version; it's based on bandwidth. Apple charges $1 for most everything, and I would venture to guess that the artists still only get a penny or less because the industry is heaping on their middle-man fees. Right now, Apple is a virtual monopoly with the other guys coming in distant seconds, but they all charge around $1 per track, regardless of quality, compression, or age. Why is that? Because the industry is fixing the price to satisfy their stockholders. Last I remember that was still a crime (although laws are changing). There is no market competition inside our borders and it's about time there was.

I know quite a few independant artists, and I can tell you they all hate the RIAA. The only ones who don't are the dozen or so top artists who are in the limelight and the CEO's hibnubbing with them at those exclusive Hollywood parties. I don't know about everyone else, but I really don't care to continue to subsidize David Geffen's sports-car hobby.

noddin0ff

03-22-2006, 04:08 PM

I don't think allofmp3 compensates artists at all. If it ran in the states it would be illegal. It's probably not completely legal in Russia either but I doubt there's any chance of it being shut down. And, you are subject to the laws of the nation you live in, not the nation you shop in. Just because you can buy a joint in Holland, doesn't mean you can bring it back an smoke it in New York. Does buying that Rolex watch from the street guy with the briefcase full of them turn a profit for Rolex?

Why be surprised that downloads are uniformly priced? CD's are generally similar in price, DVD's are generally similar in price...heck, microwave oven are generally similar in price and no one suspects a microwave oven mafia fixing prices... it's the market. Stockholders like money. If you can't give them a profit they won't give you money to build a business. AND...there's plenty of market competition in our borders. How many online music sites do you need for competition????

The price is what the market will bear. The market bears a buck a song.

But I don't see a problem with artists getting a small percentage of the fee you pay for music relative to the take of 'The Man' in the middle. Isn't that all determined by the contract that the artist signs with their label? They sign because lots of little cuts still adds up to more than they'd see with out a label, or they wouldn't sign. Free choice. If artists want more they have to take their chances and hold out for more. They might not get it though.

Buying legit music in any form still supports artists. If you think allofmp3 is supporting artists, I've got some real estate I'd like to sell you.

nightflier

03-22-2006, 05:30 PM

nod, I think you're noddin' off thinking about that joint from The Netherlands (Holland is just a province, btw). The international laws that apply here are not necessarily invalid. There is no reason to make a blanket statement that outside US law, this site is not paying royalties to artists.

In any case, they are pricing their downloads according to popularity and bandwidth use. To me that sounds a lot fairer that paying a flat, inflated uniform price across the whole industry. CD's are generally the same price but they shouldn't be. Just because they re-re-released AC/DC's Back-in-Black does not mean it's worth as much as Madona's Confessions. Microwaves, on the other hand, vary in price from $25 to $400, so that's actually not supporting your argument.

And I'm not an economist, but stockholders don't start businesses, they buy in when the companies go public. Hence the reason that privately held companies tend to play fairer (Edward Jones & Kingston come to mind).

$1 a song is what the US record industry arbitrarily decided on w/o letting the US market decide this. There was never any competition or fair market valuation here. No one was allowed to make a better mouse trap. Apple ran with the price the record industry imposed and somehow it became the standard. I don't know what kinds of back-door deals were made, but I know that anyone offering a lower priced option (Napster, MP3.com) was snuffed out.

This is why we have to look abroad for fair competition in the marketplace. It seems that the country that invented the market-driven system is now trying its darndest to kill it. Go figure. I believe that any artist should be able to sign a deal directly with an online provider like allofmp3.com and come out making far more than with all the middle-men who control the industry here in the US. Many artists have (Prince, Annie DiFranco, etc.). I also think it is outrageous that I should have to pay the same price for a Mozart Minuet recorded in the 50's as I would have to pay for a brand new pop hit.

So no, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should pay $1 per song across the board. Maybe some should be more, but most, if not all, should be less. A fair market means different prices, no?

noddin0ff

03-23-2006, 08:44 AM

There is no reason to make a blanket statement that outside US law, this site is not paying royalties to artists.
I'm not sure what you're saying there but I think it's pretty clear it's not legal to download from allofmp3 in the US and probably not legal in Russia either.

You could read this.
http://www.slate.com/id/2115868/

a small portion of which reads...
"2. Is Allofmp3.com actually legal?

Probably not. The discussion above about what Allofmp3.com is allowed to do with international distribution rights assumes the site actually owns those rights. It doesn't—at least not according to the recording industry. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry is the worldwide organization of recording companies, and it claims that Allofmp3.com has not been licensed to distribute its members' "repertoire" in Russia or anywhere else. While Allofmp3.com claims it owns distribution rights from the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, the record companies say, "Nyet."

or this
http://news.com.com/MP3s+for+pennies+Russian+cops+say+no/2100-1027_3-5586034.html
"The Russian site claimed it had licenses to do so from a local clearing house, but record labels have maintained that the licenses weren't valid. After long-standing complaints, the Moscow City Police Computer Crimes division completed an investigation earlier this month and recommended that prosecutors charge the site's operators with criminal copyright infringement.

"We have consistently said that AllofMP3.com is not licensed to distribute our members' repertoire in Russia or anywhere else," Igor Pozhitkov, regional director of IFPI Moscow--part of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry--said in a statement. "We are pleased that the police are bringing this important case to the attention of the prosecutor."

In any case, they are pricing their downloads according to popularity and bandwidth use. To me that sounds a lot fairer that paying a flat, inflated uniform price across the whole industry. CD's are generally the same price but they shouldn't be. Just because they re-re-released AC/DC's Back-in-Black does not mean it's worth as much as Madona's Confessions. Microwaves, on the other hand, vary in price from $25 to $400, so that's actually not supporting your argument.
Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. It's that simple. If people stopped buying them at that price, they'd be worth less. I like the bandwidth model though. I'd pay more for better quality. But then you might have artists making shorter songs so they could sell more...that'd suck.

And I'm not an economist, but stockholders don't start businesses, they buy in when the companies go public.
...and the money raised from selling shares of your company to stockholders raises capitol that can be used to develop new products or capabilities that your company wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to do, thus fostering further growth and innovation.

$1 a song is what the US record industry arbitrarily decided on w/o letting the US market decide this. There was never any competition or fair market valuation here. No one was allowed to make a better mouse trap. Apple ran with the price the record industry imposed and somehow it became the standard. I don't know what kinds of back-door deals were made, but I know that anyone offering a lower priced option (Napster, MP3.com) was snuffed out.
Whoa, there's a lot of paranoia here. No body got snuffed. They lost out in the market. The fact that other companies Napster, MP3.com existed indicate there was nothing preventing people from trying to make a better mousetrap. But you have to be legal and people have to be willing to pay enough to keep them in business. They lost.

The price per download isn't the price for music only. Its the price you pay for the whole experience. iPod owners found the whole ease and compatibility a plus and that adds value, making $1 seem like a good price. AND it should be clear that the iTunes music store was initially targeted at iPod owners, not the general music buying public. iTunes had a clear business model with very acceptable DRM restrictions that people were comfortable with. I highly doubt that $1 a song was arbitrary. They made a guess as to what people would pay for their service and the music it offered. Turns out it was a good guess.

So no, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should pay $1 per song across the board. Maybe some should be more, but most, if not all, should be less. A fair market means different prices, no?
A fair market is where all buyers and all sellers can legally conduct transactions. Buyers don't have to buy at the price sellers are willing to sell and conversely. I think all cars should be $10,000. That way I could afford a new hybrid.

Groundbeef

03-23-2006, 10:00 AM

I agree with you on this.

Just because someone "thinks" a price is to high, doesn't mean that it is. As you stated, I too would also like to pay $10,000 for a new car. But if I called Honda, and asked if I could buy it, they would hang up after laughing at me.

At some point these companies need to make money. I bet there are more than a few shareholders who are saying " $1.00 per song? We should charge triple that!" And in fact, if you have a Sprint PCS phone, and you want to purchase a song for your phone off the Sprint network, those will set you back $2.50 PER SONG.

Again, you have made the argument that $1.00 per song is to much. But you have no rational arguement as to why other than you "feel" its too much. At $1.00 per song I think the music is arbirtary. You are covering the cost of the network and the like.

Another way to look at it, is the airline, or cruise ship. Many have gotten their pricing structures way out of whack using online "clearinghouses" for selling excess tickets. The thought is, why let a plane fly with an empty seat right? Why not sell it for $1.00 before the plane leaves the ground. Then we have made $1.00 instead of letting an empty seat go. We can never get it back, so buck is better than nothing. Or is it?

I think the $1.00 is fine. If you want higher bitrates or lossless, you should PAY MORE.

Or propose a better mousetrap for us here on the board. I'd love to hear your business model.

noddin0ff

03-23-2006, 10:19 AM

Pretty soon we'll have open source digital rights management and then artist can sell direct to buyers and protect their work however they want. THAT'S my preferred model (even if I don't fully understand it!)

http://sourceforge.net/projects/oggs
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp

emorphien

03-23-2006, 10:59 AM

When you compare the cost of that $1 to what you can buy CDs for (I can get a lot of the CDs I want for $8-14 on Amazon.com) that $1 is too high given that you don't get it in a physical medium with the packaging and it's a lower quality audio format.

That's my main reason for disagreeing with the $1 for every song regardless of demand at the current quality offered. $1 should be a high quality compressed file at the very least.

Groundbeef

03-23-2006, 01:27 PM

No, I disagree with that.

The $1.00 per song/ $12-16 per cd is about right. Think about it. The whole always costs less than to purchase by piece. Its kinda like a value meal at a fast food restaurant. If you buy a Quarter Pounder Value Meal its like $3.99.

However, if you were to purchase the sandwich (stand alone) Fries (stand alone) and soda (stand alone) it would be like $5.49

Same with a CD. You want all the songs, buy the disc. Its cheaper. If you only want 1 song, you pay more PER SONG, but you only get what you want.
Or cable, if you buy the package, its cheaper than buying each premium channel on its own.

And, if you were not aware, you can purchase FULL albums from ITunes, and they are comparable price wise to the disc at a store. Added bonus, no sales tax!

Things never break down even pricewise if you seperate them from the whole unit.

emorphien

03-23-2006, 03:57 PM

What you're talking about is usually true of things which are prepared and packaged individually. Neither of those things are necessary in the traditional sense when talking about intangible IP like downloadable music.

Either way you can defend iTunes' pricing structure all you want, I disagree with it for all the reasons mentioned. Perhaps we'll never agree, aint no skin off my back.

noddin0ff

03-23-2006, 04:51 PM

Well, a billion downloads were worth $1 a piece to somebody. However, its not worth it to me. I'm not paying $1 for a 192kbps song. I'd likely pay a buck if it were lossless though, even with DRM...probably only for singles that I wanted. If I want an album I buy it, new or used. CD's are likely to last longer than a hard drive, can be converted into any format you like and really haven't increased much (if at all) in price since they started coming out in the 80's.

And really, used at a local shop is a great way to support small businesses, hear some new stuff, and save some dough.

nightflier

03-23-2006, 11:57 PM

"The price per download isn't the price for music only. Its the price you pay for the whole experience. iPod owners found the whole ease and compatibility a plus and that adds value, making $1 seem like a good price. AND it should be clear that the iTunes music store was initially targeted at iPod owners, not the general music buying public. iTunes had a clear business model with very acceptable DRM restrictions that people were comfortable with. I highly doubt that $1 a song was arbitrary. They made a guess as to what people would pay for their service and the music it offered. Turns out it was a good guess."

Nod,

You're proving my case. By your own admission, the $1 price point was never tested in the market place. You say it was a guess, I say it was that Apple's hand was forced. In either case, it was an arbitrary price that was never subject to any competition. Napster (after the free downloads were removed) & mp3.com had a less expensive solution and the industry continued their legal attacks until they could no longer afford to defend themselves in court. Their demise was not the result of the market place as you suggested, but rather financial ruin at the hands of the industry. And the consumers where the big loosers in all this, not the artists, because they were never asked what they wanted.

I have also heard from many musicians that the industry does not want them to deal directly with companies that provide content (i.e. iTunes). As a matter of fact, the industry has a definite interest in not being squeezed out as the high-priced middle-man. Most musicians I have spoken to have been turned down by online content providers specifically because those providers were pressured by the industry. The content providers are threatened with loosing their access to the big-ticket top-40 artists that the industry owns the rights to. Again, no market forces at play here, just an unfair racket.

And while I commend the research on allofmp3.com's legal woes, it still does not make a case for $1 a song. As someone else pointed out, that price is substantially inflated when you consider the price of CD's off the shelf, which includes liner notes, a printed disk, and a CD case. A compressed download is not the same thing as a high-quality track on a CD, no matter how you slice it. Again, there is absolutely no reason it should be $1.

And no one here has yet addressed my other point: there is no justification whatsoever for charging the same for a top-40 pop track as a 5, 10, or 20 year old track. If a used CD on eBay from ten years ago is substantially less than a used CD realeased last year, then why don't downloaded tracks vary the same way? And how many of us are being asked to pay again for music we already own on a cassette, LP, or even an older CD, just because it is now downloaded? Shouldn't one be able to download a copy of an album one already owns? And even if there was a "processing fee" for this service, why should it be the same as brand new track?

All these are reasons why $1 a track is inflated. And when the Chinese, the Indians, and the Europeans start putting out their own allofmp3.com clone sites, this will become even more apparent. The fixed prices in the protected American market are not the standard by which the rest of the world should be forced to conform to. This fantasy can't continue on forever, folks. So the idea that, just because someone outside the US does not follow American law means that they are criminally involved, is so xenophobic and arrogant, it's easy to see why our economic policies are so hated anywhere outside our borders.

$1 a song is an invention with no basis for existing. And while there are thousands of consumers who have lemming-like accepted it as the market price, this says nothing about its validity as a fair price. The very fact that every industry-sanctioned site charges that very same price regardless of compression, format, bandwidth-use, or age, is a case-in-point that this has never been tested in the market place. It should send chils down everyone's spine that this is accepted so readily by so many.

Heck with such a gullible consuming public, maybe they'll also be willing to pay $500 a month per household for an arbitrary war....

noddin0ff

03-24-2006, 08:08 AM

You're proving my case. By your own admission, the $1 price point was never tested in the market place. You say it was a guess, I say it was that Apple's hand was forced. In either case, it was an arbitrary price that was never subject to any competition.
OK, now whose smokin'? One BILLION songs were purchased at $1 a pop. I'd say that's a healthy test of the market. In fact that's the only test of the market. You offer to sell at a price, people decide if they want to pay the price. You make money when they buy. It doesn't matter what the mark up is, it doesn't matter what your profit margin is. It's all about buyers and sellers being happy. If you don't want to pay $1 you do something else.

Napster (after the free downloads were removed) & mp3.com had a less expensive solution and the industry continued their legal attacks until they could no longer afford to defend themselves in court. Their demise was not the result of the market place as you suggested, but rather financial ruin at the hands of the industry. And the consumers where the big loosers in all this, not the artists, because they were never asked what they wanted. The industry has a right to sue. They did so. The courts don't allow you to file suits with out any merit. I think it's unfortunate that courts can be used to intimidate, BUT, Napster lost at the hands of a free and independant judiciary system that is the foundation of freedom and democracy and open markets in this country. If you want to be the Che Guevara of downloadable music that's one thing, but this paranoia that 'The Industry' is denying you rights that you don't have in the first place is just weird.

I have also heard from many musicians that the industry does not want them to deal directly with companies that provide content (i.e. iTunes). As a matter of fact, the industry has a definite interest in not being squeezed out as the high-priced middle-man. Most musicians I have spoken to have been turned down by online content providers specifically because those providers were pressured by the industry. The content providers are threatened with loosing their access to the big-ticket top-40 artists that the industry owns the rights to. Again, no market forces at play here, just an unfair racket.
Yes, it is kind of a racket. That's the way the world works. It takes a lot of resources for a provider to negotiate separate transactions with a million wanna-be-a-rock-stars. So they negotiate with 'The Industry'. I'm all for open source. I hope it works.

And while I commend the research on allofmp3.com's legal woes, it still does not make a case for $1 a song. As someone else pointed out, that price is substantially inflated when you consider the price of CD's off the shelf, which includes liner notes, a printed disk, and a CD case. A compressed download is not the same thing as a high-quality track on a CD, no matter how you slice it. Again, there is absolutely no reason it should be $1.
I wouldn't call a google search of 'allofmp3 legal' research. Any bonehead could do it. The only justification for $1 a song is that people will pay it and people are willing to sell it to them at that price. I personally don't think it's worth it, but many do. The end result is that I do not own any downloaded music. That's my choice.

And no one here has yet addressed my other point: there is no justification whatsoever for charging the same for a top-40 pop track as a 5, 10, or 20 year old track. If a used CD on eBay from ten years ago is substantially less than a used CD realeased last year, then why don't downloaded tracks vary the same way? And how many of us are being asked to pay again for music we already own on a cassette, LP, or even an older CD, just because it is now downloaded? Shouldn't one be able to download a copy of an album one already owns? And even if there was a "processing fee" for this service, why should it be the same as brand new track?
Well, the way its supposed to work is that after a period of time that allows artists to profit from their efforts, then their exclusive copyright ends and the work becomes public domain and thus FREE. You can thank the RIAA for supporting Clinton which encourage Clinton to sign legislation to extend copyright for a very long time. Until that time, the price is set by the market.

All these are reasons why $1 a track is inflated. And when the Chinese, the Indians, and the Europeans start putting out their own allofmp3.com clone sites, this will become even more apparent. The fixed prices in the protected American market are not the standard by which the rest of the world should be forced to conform to. This fantasy can't continue on forever, folks.
I can already buy DVD's pirated in China and sold on eBay for less than US retail, does that mean the market is fixed by 'The Industry'? No, it means that piracy is cheap, wherease legal production, licensing, and paying the artists costs more so prices need to be higher. Other countries can do what they want with their laws. There's no fantasy. The American market isn't protected. Music is by and large an American product, made in America and sold to relatively weathy Americans.

So the idea that, just because someone outside the US does not follow American law means that they are criminally involved, is so xenophobic and arrogant, it's easy to see why our economic policies are so hated anywhere outside our borders.
PUT DOWN THE DRUGS AND BACK SLOWLY AWAY! Let's suppose that allofmp3 is legal under Russian law (even though it's apparently not legal there either). THEN, if you were RUSSIAN, using their service is legal. Now lets suppose you are not Russian, but rather live here in the US where laws are different. As a US citizen and you are subject to US law. allofmp3 is most certainly illegal under US law. Is that a difficult concept to grasp? It's a very simple concept that doesn't require fear of Russians nor feelings of superiority. And what exactly are these hated policies?

$1 a song is an invention with no basis for existing.
Hostess Twinkies are an invention with no basis for existing but I pay for them.

And while there are thousands of consumers who have lemming-like accepted it as the market price, this says nothing about its validity as a fair price. The very fact that every industry-sanctioned site charges that very same price regardless of compression, format, bandwidth-use, or age, is a case-in-point that this has never been tested in the market place. It should send chils down everyone's spine that this is accepted so readily by so many.
Earth to spaceman Spiff. Every time a song is purchased, the market is tested.

Heck with such a gullible consuming public, maybe they'll also be willing to pay $500 a month per household for an arbitrary war....
There's a sucker born every minute.

nightflier

03-24-2006, 02:21 PM

Nod,

We're going around in circles here and I don't think you're addressing the problems inherent in $1 a song. Are you telling me that you stand by these statements?

"One BILLION songs were purchased at $1 a pop. I'd say that's a healthy test of the market. In fact that's the only test of the market....It doesn't matter what the mark up is, it doesn't matter what your profit margin is."
- If the price is $1 everywhere in the US, there is no "market." Where is the competition in this "market"?

"If you don't want to pay $1 you do something else."
- There is no other download solution that is legal. That's the problem.

"...a free and independant judiciary system that is the foundation of freedom and democracy and open markets in this country."
- I don't even know where to start. Let see, does Rodney King ring a bell? Speaking of bells, how do you like your cell phone choices? How about what OS you're running on the computer you're reading this on? Oh I don't know, what else we got... How about torturing people to death and getting a 3-month suspended sentence for it? Or how would you like to go find the "real killer" with OJ in tow? Some free and independant judiciary system...

"this paranoia that 'The Industry' is denying you rights that you don't have in the first place is just weird."
- I take it you haven't really spoken to any musicians lately?

"Yes, it is kind of a racket. That's the way the world works."
- Didn't you just say it's a free & fair system? Desliksia?

"It takes a lot of resources for a provider to negotiate separate transactions with a million wanna-be-a-rock-stars. So they negotiate with The Industry."
- That's not accurate. Independant artists are offering much lower prices (as low as .01 cent per download) to compensate providers for their troubles, but the providers aren't biting. I know several musicians who were told specifically that the provider did not want to jeopardize their relationship with the music industry by offering lower prices for competing downloads from unsigned artists. They were told to go put up their own websites. And this is a widespread problem in this industry, not just a rare case.

"the way its supposed to work is that after a period of time that allows artists to profit from their efforts..."
- This does not address my objection to old music costing the same as new. It also does not address why we should pay again for music we already own (at the same rates as what we don't own). Let's stick to the issue at hand.

"You can thank the RIAA for supporting... legislation to extend copyright for a very long time."
- I can see that the "free and independant judiciary system" really helped here. And how does this support innovation and the creative process? How does this benefit the consumer? What am I supposed to be thankful for?

"I can already buy DVD's pirated in China and sold on eBay for less than US retail."
- I'm not talking about pirated music. I'm talking about music that is legal under non-US laws.

"Other countries can do what they want with their laws."
- This is just the kind of arrogance that's going to come bite us Americans in the rear, one day.

"The American market isn't protected."
- Econ 101: ever heard of a tarif? Why do US copyright laws fly in the face of everyone else's?

"Music is by and large an American product, made in America and sold to relatively weathy Americans."
- Ever heard of Classical music? How about Latin music (no, not from the Romans...)? I can't believe I'm reading what you're writing. If you're referring to pop & country music, well that's because it comes primarily from the same top artists with very little variety or innovation in excessive quantity. It's the new economic motto: quantity over quality, because it makes us money. But this glut of mediocrity pales in comparison to the music produced everywhere else in the world.

"As a US citizen you are subject to US law. allofmp3 is most certainly illegal under US law."
- That still does not make it illegal under international law. Last I checked, US law was not the law of the world. To claim that it should be is both xenophobic and arrogant. Since they are hosted inside Russia, how exactly are they criminal? I did a little checking and almost all the legal disputes against allofmp3.com are from US courts. Isn't that trying to impose US law abroad?

"And what exactly are these hated policies?"
- Uh, have you been outside the US lately (that cruise to the Bahamas doesn't really count)? The Europeans are up in arms about the appalling quality of the beef we are importing, Kenyans are livid over the genetically modified foods we are forcing down their throats, we have been accused of having a worse human rights record than the Syrians, and the Indonesians are reeling over the toxic waste we are dumping on their islands. I can go on, but that would fill the limits of what this thread can hold. And just to stay on point, the US RIAA is one of the most hated organizations in this industry around the world.

"Hostess Twinkies are an invention with no basis for existing but I pay for them."
- And they are good for you, they make you smarter, and will provide a convenient defense should you decide to go postal at the office. NOT. You're not making a good case with this analogy.

"Every time a song is purchased, the market is tested"
- There is no market if the price is fixed at $1. The operative term being "fixed." Didn't we cover this already? Oh, that's right you're Nodin0ff, again. I guess you're already coming down from that Twinkie sugar high.

"There's a sucker born every minute."
- Well if you're willing to pay $1 a song or $500 for a war to make someone else rich, who's the sucker?

noddin0ff

03-24-2006, 02:57 PM

Um, Nightflier. Have you thought about moving to Europe? You might find you're happier there.
Whoo boy, where to start....

***"
You can thank the RIAA for supporting... legislation to extend copyright for a very long time."
- I can see that the "free and independant judiciary system" really helped here.
****
The judiciary doesn't make laws. That's the role of Congress.

****

"this paranoia that 'The Industry' is denying you rights that you don't have in the first place is just weird."
- I take it you haven't really spoken to any musicians lately?
****
Are musicians paranoid too?!

****
"If you don't want to pay $1 you do something else."
- There is no other download solution that is legal. That's the problem.
****
I see. So you agree that allofmp3 is illegal. POINT NODDIN

****
"Other countries can do what they want with their laws."
- This is just the kind of arrogance that's going to come bite us Americans in the rear, one day.
****
What's arrogant about acknowledging that other countries make their own laws?

****
"The American market isn't protected."
- Econ 101: ever heard of a tarif? Why do US copyright laws fly in the face of everyone else's?
****
Um, copyright laws are not tarifs. Nor are music downloads subjected to tarifs. Your point?

Let's see...
Europeans and Beef: Kenyan's and GMO's, Syrians, Toxic waste..... And you're worried about paying a buck for a song?

****
- If the price is $1 everywhere in the US, there is no "market." Where is the competition in this "market"?
****
The competition is evident in the fact that several download options exist, some are failing, some are starting up. I'm truely sorry you can't score that old album produced during your teething years for $0.99. But you see, no one wants to sell it for $0.99 cents and they're willing to wait for someone to pay $12. Why? Because they like money!

nightflier

03-24-2006, 04:02 PM

Look, we can go back & forth with the insults, but it's still $1 pretty much anywhere in the states. What other evidence do you want that there is no competition? Competition is about offering a better mouse trap value. If all mouse traps are $1, then there is no competition.

And yes, you really should try and talk to some musicians or foreigners sometime, or at least stop eating twinkies, they seem to affect your ability to answer the questions.

Getting back to iTunes, I agree that they provide a convenient and simple interface for the most part, but where did they come up with $1 a song? I'd really like to know. Maybe someone else can chime in (if they're still following this thread).

Mike Anderson

03-24-2006, 09:05 PM

"The judiciary doesn't make laws. That's the role of Congress."

Actually, that's nothing more than a talking point thrown out by conservatives who dislike whatever the judiciary is doing at a given point in time.

The fact is, the judiciary also makes law. It has been so since the inception of this country. In fact, that tradition far preceded the inception of this country.

It's called "common law", and it's an old English tradition we inherited from day one.

And don't let the conservatives put one over on you. Even Justice Scalia is up for making law when it suits his purposes. See the case of Boyle v United Technologies (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=487&invol=500), for one example.

swicken

03-25-2006, 12:26 PM

Let me clear things up for people, since you don't seem to understand exactly what is going on.

They made the iPod recognize a wide variety of formats, their main one of choice being the AAC (Apple Audio Codec)

Which in my opinion is fine, since it's a better means of compression then the MP3 anyway, provides better quality sound.

The only reason you can 'only' use the iTunes interface to import music on to your iPod is on account of the fact that after writing the files to your iPod it then writes an index file that the operating system on the iPod can recognize.

They didn't restrict access in any way, and not using iTunes is as simple as downloading a python script that builds the same index file FOR YOU, you just put the file on your iPod and double click it whenever you want to rebuild the index. Or you can even choose to change the operating system on the iPod (yes they didn't restrict that either).

Yes battery problems are an issue, but I doubt an issue they wanted.

You're not 'forced' to use any one store, people just don't know how to use other ones and still put it on the iPod. The french court battle is over digital compression methods, because Apple and Sony both use their own compression method for files on their stores, which makes them unplayable on other players.

That should be their right.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Scott

noddin0ff

03-25-2006, 07:46 PM

Mike Anderson

03-26-2006, 08:08 AM

I'm not aware that copyright law has its roots in common law, but it wouldn't surprise me, because so many statutes do.

People today are used to the idea that statutes are the only form of law, but that's really a modern phenomenon. Originally, judges made a lot more law than they do today; the proliferation of statutes was a byproduct of industrialization, which required a greater degree of uniformity and predictability.

But judges today really do still make law. At the federal level it happens in a several different ways. One form is the "federal common law" I referred to above, e.g. the Boyle case. This can be changed by statute, should Congress decide to "overrule" the Supreme Court on an issue of federal common law.

But the Court also makes law by interpreting the Constitution, and that sort of law cannot be overturned by Congress (see Marbury v. Madison). One obvious example is the language you hear cops say on TV every time they arrest somebody: "You have the right to remain silent..." If the police don't say it before conducting a custodial interrogation, any statements you make cannot be used against you in a prosecution.

That's not a statute passed by Congress; that's a rule the Supreme Court created in the Miranda case. In fact Congress even tried to modify this once, and the Court said they couldn't do it.

Kam

03-27-2006, 02:15 PM

uncle kam wants to tell a story....

copyright law grew out of the constitution (article 1, section 8, which granted congress the right to make laws "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;") and was later codified with the 1790 copyright act (and subsequent trademark and patent laws), and then much later, mr. disney founded a bunch of really interesting characters and made a company, and then later Mr. quincy jones made a whole lot of great music... and a bunch of record company's had a bunch of other artist sign away all the rights to the music they made so the company owned that music...and then much later after all these people made the art that they wanted to make, all that stuff they made was about to fall into the public domain (which means that you, me, and everyone we know could use it for free without having to pay them, or their heirs as the case with mr. disney, or, more precisely, their corporate entities with the case of mr. disney). so to avoid such a horrible fate of those characters and music (because... god knows how much the reputations of artists like beethoven have suffered since falling into the public domain... or Bram Stoker's work.. .or mary shelley's work... or well.. you can see how much all those older artists work have really suffered and been disrespecte today now that they are in the public domain), disney and quincy jones and many other music publishers decided to talk to that good 'ol bunch a guys known as congress and ask them to change that 1790 act just a leeeeetle bit, just one leeeeetle section in it only, the section that gives someone the right to continue to hold that monopoly on those works of art... and congress agreed and gave 'em more time. Then a bunch of years later, THAT extension was about to come and pass... so Disney got together with everyone else and again said, hey... you know we sure would appreciate it if you (those good 'ol gentlemen from congress) would give us another 20 years to stop anyone from using our stuff again... and what do ya know!!?? they agreed (EDIT: for the FOURTH time to extend that deadline). so mickey and donald, and gone with the wind and wizard of oz remained the highly coveted properties that they are today. Now when that twenty years is up... who do you think will go back to congress and ask for yet another extension?

so yes... there are a few corporations that you can point to and ask: Gee mister... arent you just using your clout and money and lawyers to influence congress and tell them to change the 1790 code in order to protect the works of people long since gone, and money that you've made... hmm... maybe 1,000,000,000 times over rather than allow property just like beethoven and mozart and other works of art that did, (and should of) eventually fallen into the public domain? couldn't you argue that the constitution really wanted to protect the artist who created the work of art, or the scientist who came up with the invention and not some shareholder of a company who bought that piece of artwork from the artist nearly a hundred years ago? why would you want to do that mister? oh... i guess you should make more money on those things... i guess THAT really is the end-all, be-all reason for everything... we really all should just make more money....

(ok... off of soapbox, and rant over! whew, have had a few already today!)
:)

nightflier

03-27-2006, 02:36 PM

Mike Anderson

03-27-2006, 05:57 PM

copyright law grew out of the constitution (article 1, section 8, which granted congress the right to make laws "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;")

Nope, the idea of copyright law predates the Constitution by decades, if not centuries. Like many other parts of American law, it was borrowed from English law.

As far as I know, the first copyright <i>statute</i> dated back to 1710, known as the Statute of Anne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne). Without researching it, my guess is that it was a common law development preceding the statute.

Learn somethin' new every day, don't cha? :)

noddin0ff

03-27-2006, 06:34 PM

Kam

03-27-2006, 08:12 PM

Nope, the idea of copyright law predates the Constitution by decades, if not centuries. Like many other parts of American law, it was borrowed from English law.

As far as I know, the first copyright <i>statute</i> dated back to 1710, known as the Statute of Anne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne). Without researching it, my guess is that it was a common law development preceding the statute.

Learn somethin' new every day, don't cha? :)

danke very much! did not know that at all! always just knew of the origins of the us statute, which, am sure, had some connection to the queen anne one beyond just the constitution letting congress make it, since that's prolly where they made it from!
knowledge is a great thing... never stops. :)

Mike Anderson

03-27-2006, 09:15 PM

danke very much! did not know that at all! always just knew of the origins of the us statute, which, am sure, had some connection to the queen anne one beyond just the constitution letting congress make it, since that's prolly where they made it from!
knowledge is a great thing... never stops. :)

Very true; I have the benefit of an education from one of the top law schools, so I know firsthand what a cornucopia of knowledge the law presents.

Intellectual property law isn't my area of expertise though. Here's more from Wikipedia, for what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright

swicken

03-31-2006, 07:05 AM

"The french court battle is over digital compression methods, because Apple and Sony both use their own compression method for files on their stores, which makes them unplayable on other players....That should be their right."

Should it? That's like if Verizon were to say that you cannot call anyone on the Cingular network. Not only would it force most people to buy into both networks and own two phones, but it would also hamper the whole industry.

Likewise, when one purchases the legal right to listen to a song purchased on the iTunes network, one should not be forced to buy an iPod to listen to it. It should be playable on an iRiver player too.

You can convert to MP3, and even if you couldn't, apple can provide **** in whatever format they want. You choose to buy it in that format, knowing you can only use it on your computer or on an ipod.

Don't like that? Then use a service that provides songs in MP3 format. People are allowed to provide content thats platform dependant, always have been.
Do people tell software developers that they have to make linux versions of their software?
Forcing people to use windows to use certain software would fall under the same realm. Microsoft would be guilty of the same thing. But, they provide the stuff, they can provide it any way they want.

Like I said, if you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's not infringing on anyones rights though.

EDIT: Also, Verizon should be allowed to provide a service that would only allow you to call their own network, they own the network after all. Just no one would buy the product.

nightflier

03-31-2006, 08:48 PM

swicken

04-01-2006, 07:38 AM

Swick,

"Verizon should be allowed to provide a service that would only allow you to call their own network, they own the network after all. Just no one would buy the product."

If they owned every section of the network that might be true. But can you say unequivocally that they own every satellite, land-based relay point, every source of power that powers these, every standards protocol that makes communication possible and every receiving cell phone? I doubt it.

But even if they did, the same is not true for Apple. They do not own "the network" which is the Internet. Just because they own the delivery server and some of the receiving music players, does not mean that they can make their technology only compatible with these endpoints. If they want to use the Internet to sell their product, they have to make it compatible with the other technology companies there, many of which have been there a lot longer than Apple and have helped build the Internet.

This is what so many people forget: no one owns the Internet. Any technology that uses the Internet as a medium for communication has to abide by the open standards that make the Internet a useful medium in the first place. Attempts at privatising or locking out parts of the Internet only serve to destroy it's usefulness. Apparently those smelly cheese eating French understand that.

"Their own network" I didn't say they owned all of it, I said they should be allowed to limit people to calling only their own network.

Basically you didn't understand what I said. I was just using your example which doesn't even parallel, really you only supported me by saying all of that stuff.
As for the rest of your post, its stupid, and I'll tell you why.

The internet doesn't belong to any one person. What you're talking about has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SITUATION AT ALL. Apple offers a service, the service is available on the internet, they pay for the bandwidth and the RIGHTS to host the music. They can host it in whatever format they want. I mean come on, do people complain about like, porn sites only hosting in .wmv format. Thats not universal but people still pay for their porn.

There are no standards on the internet, thats one of the facts of it. It's an open medium because people can do whatever they want on it. If that is hosting in AAC rather then MP3 then they should have that right. People offer services that aren't open, apple just gets picked on because theirs is more popular then the others. Look at say, Valves Steam system. It's valve (and now other) games available via streaming through their program called 'Steam'. You have to buy the game from them, and you can only use the steam program to play the game. In no way can you play any game offered on steam without the steam client.

But I guess the internets a free medium and they should offer it in a way that it can be played seperate from their program right?

Theres about a million examples of the same thing. All of the legitimate because people have the right to do whatever the hell they want with their own product.

OH and privatising parts of the internet in no way destroys its usefullness, it just gives people alternatives should they want to pay for it. The point is YOU choose.

Anyway, I should get back to working, well not really, but reading the post makes me head hurt.
Please in your response to this one try to read and comprehend.

Thankyou

ToddL

04-01-2006, 08:16 AM

Getting back to iTunes, I agree that they provide a convenient and simple interface for the most part, but where did they come up with $1 a song? I'd really like to know. Maybe someone else can chime in (if they're still following this thread).

Cd's have an average of 15 songs on them and usually in the $12-$20 range the averages out to little over $1 per song so minus the packaging you are paying right about the same.

Seperately:
I have to say that I back Apple on having a legitimate form of selling soft versions of songs rather than stealing them and distributing them. Putting them in an exclusive format makes it a little more difficult to steal.

I make money from music and it is not very much to begin with. It is a job. How would you take it if your boss told you that he didn't value your entire weeks worth of work so he is just not going to pay you for it.
If I want to give away music I will put it on Myspace etc. and do it myself not leave it up to someone sticking it in MP3 format and giving it away.
It would be nice for Apple to have a universal format for every player but then there is no safegaurd against theives.
(Not that I have never been guilty myself):(

nightflier

04-03-2006, 01:06 PM

Swick,

Just so this doesn't sound like I'm bashing Apple, I'll be writing this response on a Powerbook. Apple makes great products, and I know that Steve Jobs is doing what he can to alleviate the restrictive policies of the RIAA and MPAA. That said, I maintain that the RIAA and MPAA are strong-arming Apple and others to maximize profits for the shareholders of the companies they represent and thereby stifling innovation (including Apple's), competition, and progress, IMHO.

You started off with: "As for the rest of your post, its stupid, and I'll tell you why.... What you're talking about has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SITUATION AT ALL."

For an AR newbie, you sure can get irritatingly insulting. I read your post carefully, so let's dispense with the attitude, and there's really no need to shout, either. The point I am making is that a proprietary technology that only "members" can take part in (as in a Verizon-only network), defeats the purpose of the technology since it excludes all non-members. The only way for this system to be viable is for the technology to be universal, which is a monopoly. If you want to defend monopolies, I think you'll be in the minority, here.

"Apple offers a service, the service is available on the internet, they pay for the bandwidth ..."

Correction: companies do not pay for bandwidth. They pay for access to the Internet, that's all. They may pay for more access points to maximize the number of people that can access the service at any one time, but once it's out on the Internet they are not responsible for the bandwidth that is being consumed. That responsibility falls on governments who maintain their section of the Internet.

"They can host it in whatever format they want.”

That is also incorrect. Because they are using the Internet to sell their service and find new customers, they have to abide by the agreements (both national and international) that allow their service to be accessed. These are the protocols that make up the Internet. A proprietary technology may be efficient, but that does not legitimize its legality. Torture is efficient too, but it's still illegal. Once these devices communicate via the Internet, they cannot exclude competitors from participating. If the format is playable on other devices like an MP3 file, then that's great, but if it only plays on Apple players, then that's exclusive, and thus does not abide by the international agreements that make up the Internet's protocols.

By the way, your example about porn sites does not apply because there is enough competition between these sites that customers can choose which sites provide the content they prefer in the format they need. A site that only offers wmv files, is only loosing customers. And unlike music files, it's perfectly legal to download a wmv file and convert it to a mpg file or any other format. So Swick, if you really want to view that porn file, I'm sure there is a freeware program out there that can convert it to another format for you. And you won't be a criminal for doing so.

"There are no standards on the internet, thats one of the facts of it. It's an open medium because people can do whatever they want on it."

Uh, what alternate universe are you living in? Ever heard of ICANN? The IETF? Maybe patent law was just a fantasy concocted by aliens? Is the UN foreign to your vocabulary too? Wait a minute, weren't we talking about copyrights? Well you can't have that without the rest, you know...

"Look at say, Valves Steam system. It's valve (and now other) games available via streaming through their program called ‘Steam'. You have to buy the game from them, and you can only use the steam program to play the game. In no way can you play any game offered on steam without the steam client."

From your English, I'm having trouble making out what you're saying, but I guess the gist of it is that this is a proprietary game network that operates over the Internet (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't play the game). If that's what this is, then they have to use standard protocols (IP, web browser interfaces, etc.) to allow people to play the game over the Internet, right? And these standard protocols make it possible to play the game using any computer. One doesn't need a Valve Steam computer (i.e. the hardware) to play the game. It can be played on a Mac, PC, Linux computer etc. Apple, on the other hand, is creating technology that restricts non-iPods from enjoying the music. The EU is simply asking for Apple to share this technology with other manufacturers, that is, to make the technology an interoperability standard.

"...people have the right to do whatever the hell they want with their own product."

Not if they want that product to be used on the Internet. Think of the Internet as a road. It's owned by the towns it travels through. The rules are fairly standard and allow you to travel from town to city to country. But because you are driving on that publicly owned road, you cannot do whatever you want in that car that you own. For example, you may not drink alcohol in your car, you cannot play your music too loud, or use human slaves to propel your vehicle. Owning the car does not entitle you to do whatever you want in it, specifically because you are driving on a publicly owned road.

To bring this example back to Apple, they are also drivers on this road, sort of like an ice cream truck. The product (ice cream or sound file) is assembled at their house, and they drive it around ringing their bell in every neighborhood asking people to purchase the ice cream. But these customers should not need an Apple branded spoon to eat the ice cream. Apple might be able to require this if they made all customers come to Apple’s house to eat ice cream, but then many people who live too far away would not hear the bell, that is, Apple would no longer have a viable distribution system. The fact is that Apple needs the public road, and on that road many of its customers don't have Apple branded spoons.

"privatizing parts of the internet in no way destroys its usefulness, it just gives people alternatives should they want to pay for it."

So we're back to econ 101. Privatizing the Internet is a lot like privatizing the USPS. Sounds great at first, right? One would think that it would make the service more efficient, faster, and more reliable, sort of like UPS or FedEx. But the problem with a privatized system is that at some point decisions are made by the shareholders to funnel funds, technology, and innovation more to those areas that are most profitable while the areas that are not profitable are dropped. With the USPS, that would mean that those houses that don't send or receive much mail, or that are in remote places where the expense outweighs the conveninence, would get dropped (maybe even your house). Privatizing the Internet would work the same way. Corporations with deep pockets would grab the lions share of the bandwidth, access points, and content while smaller organizations, charitable groups, public services, educational sites, even sites like AR, and eventually even individual websites, would all be dropped. It would become one big Walmart with average quality products, non-competitive pricing and no other choices, the exact opposite of the "choice" you were talking about.

Swick,

Reading your post didn't "make me head" hurt, but it did make me realize that people who shout while waving tiny sticks still need to be reminded to think through what they are saying. As you said, "Please in your response to this one, try to read and comprehend."

noddin0ff

04-03-2006, 02:23 PM

Well Apple could licence it's codec to other manufacturers so they could build AAC support into their players. That's what every player that uses WMA does. They pay for the license. Do you have a beef against wma? or .rm? or ...

swicken

04-04-2006, 08:20 AM

Night, the problem I have with your posts is they are constantly talking about a level of the internet that has nothing to do with distribution, but rather with its functionality.
I know what IETF/ICANN are, and I still don't know what they have to do with what I said. They're both organizations that contribute to the physical functionality of the internet, not the functionality of the content hosted on it. That's another level altogether.

"Correction: companies do not pay for bandwidth. They pay for access to the Internet, that's all."

That's what I meant by bandwidth, good sir.

"but once it's out on the Internet they are not responsible for the bandwidth that is being consumed. That responsibility falls on governments who maintain their section of the Internet."

They're not responsible for routing no, but how could they be? Once it leaves their subnet and travels through about a million different hops it travels through areas operated by various different companies. Like, I buy bandwidth from time warner myself, and I operate from off of their backbone, which is a direct throw onto the overall web, which yes is controlled by the government. But I don't know why this has anything to do with the format apple is providing their music in, I was just saying that paying for bandwidth to throw stuff onto this universal network should be afforded the right to put whatever they like up there, while abiding by their own local laws of course.

" the format is playable on other devices like an MP3 file, then that's great, but if it only plays on Apple players, then that's exclusive, and thus does not abide by the international agreements that make up the Internet's protocols.By the way, your example about porn sites does not apply because there is enough competition between these sites that customers can choose which sites provide the content they prefer in the format they need. A site that only offers wmv files, is only loosing customers. And unlike music files, it's perfectly legal to download a wmv file and convert it to a mpg file or any other format. So Swick, if you really want to view that porn file, I'm sure there is a freeware program out there that can convert it to another format for you. And you won't be a criminal for doing so."

My point does apply, because it is possible to convert an AAC file without breaking the law. You're allowed to convert these files, so long as you don't circumvent the copyright protection embedded into the AAC file (in other words, modify the code of the original file)
You can however, stream it into another recording device on your computer, slower but still works. You CAN legally make these files into MP3, you just can't legally modify their format.

"One doesn't need a Valve Steam computer (i.e. the hardware) to play the game. It can be played on a Mac, PC, Linux computer etc. Apple, on the other hand, is creating technology that restricts non-iPods from enjoying the music. The EU is simply asking for Apple to share this technology with other manufacturers, that is, to make the technology an interoperability standard."

Nope, one doesn't need valve hardware to play the game, just software (and its only an windows platform) Nor does one need apple hardware to play AAC files. I have AAC files playing on my palm pilot. One just needs the software. Same concept.

As far as the privitization thing, large corporations do own a bulk of the bandwidth available on backbones. Especially in the states. But it makes more sense for them to sell it off and remain competative then to sink the ship they already own.

Anyway, I have to go, someone needs to make a quote.

Have a nice day.

nightflier

04-04-2006, 10:43 AM

Nod,

I don't have a problem with any format, as long as it is open to be used by other manufacturers. Microsoft's wmf has had legal issues in the past, but it seems to be something that anyone can license for the most part. So there's no issues of monopolies there. If the wmf format were not licensable on anything but a Windows PC, then we would have a problem.

One irritating example that always sticks in my mind is when a guy in the EU wanted to watch a DVD on his Linux computer and couldn't because there was no player that would do this. So as any good open-source programmer would do, he wrote his own and got shafted for it because it broke that (in)famous DVD copy protection. Some people wanted him deported to the US to stand trial for a possible life sentence! I'm not joking. Apparently when you mess with American shareholder's profits, no punishment is cruel enough.

Swick,

The very fact that a file travels over the Internet, makes it subject to the laws that apply to that section of the Internet. That is why this is important to this discussion. It's a lot like the road metaphor, you might be able to turn right on red in California, but that does not apply in all states. So following that example, if the EU believes that ACC files are not playable on other players, they have a right to bar ACC files on their section of the Internet or request that they are made playable on non-Apple players. If that is possible, then maybe they are addressing issues related to conversion, file quality, or speed. These are all issues that can be addressed through technology and it's obvious someone is dragging their feet. My guess is that the RIAA and MPAA does not agree with the EU's more liberal copyright laws since they have not been as successful in changing them to their benefit there as they have here. Unfortunately, since the traffic is traveling over the EU's section of the Internet (actually Apple will even be using EU-located servers), there's not much that they can do about it.

As for privatization of the Internet, you are right that this has already happened to a large extent. The result is a reduction of choice. For example that whole fiasco last year when a page that could not be found on a search engine would bounce you right to a commercial service, coutesy of ICANN and a pay-off here & there. Search engines are the single most annoying example of privatization. If I want to research a piece of electronic gear, the major search engines always bounce me around the same core sites. With an industry-targetted search enigine, on the other hand, I get far more sites, most of which don't even show up on the regular search engines. This is bad for those of us who want a choice. After it was made public, the Internet was developped for the purpose of sharing information with people all over the world, not to keep it from them.

noddin0ff

04-04-2006, 11:23 AM

I don't have a problem with any format, as long as it is open to be used by other manufacturers. Microsoft's wmf has had legal issues in the past, but it seems to be something that anyone can license for the most part. So there's no issues of monopolies there. If the wmf format were not licensable on anything but a Windows PC, then we would have a problem.

I guess we have a different view of what constitutes a monopoly. Microsoft (wmf) and Apple (aac) have the same control over a respective proprietary format. Microsoft chooses to maximize profits by charging licensing fees (extorting fees) from other companies so other companies can include wmf support. Those other companies wouldn't have to pass the cost on to the consumer if Microsoft gave away its proprietary format. Apple chooses to maximize profit by not licensing its format. They both have a monopoly with respect to their format in that no one else has rights to use it unless they purchase those rights. If any one makes a unique product they can sell it however they want.

Apple for a short while licensed their operating system allowing other manufactures to make Mac clones. The potential advantage was better market penetration, the downfall would be lost profits from computer sales. The now no longer license. No one demands they let other manufactures license their OS software. Same with the iPod...

nightflier

04-04-2006, 05:52 PM

Nod,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone should be able to convert a wmf file using any open source converter. That is, if I want to view a wmf file on a Linux box, I should be able to view it in my viewer or download it and convert it to whatever format I need.

Now Apple's ACC file should work the same way. I don't know because everything I have ever worked with was MP3.

noddin0ff

04-05-2006, 06:44 AM

As I understand wma is a licensed format. I'm not familiar with wmf, I assume its the same, and since I'm on a mac most the time I don't interact with these formats often. I think the way a free wma converter works is that it accesses codecs that you essentially have already purchased, that reside on your computer. So if you have Windows Media Player (which you would if you run a Microsoft OS) converters can work with the players codecs to exchange file formats. I believe a portable player would have to pay to install such translation/playback capability. So while you can down load the converters for free, they are really not stand alone programs.

On a Mac, you can play wma with a cruddy (free) version of Windows Media Player and recently a 3rd party, Flip4Mac™, (with Microsofts blessing) now offers a free component that will allow the much nicer interfaced QuickTime player to play wma. iTunes still does not support wma on a Mac.

A few years ago HP was going to start making iPod clones (I think they do still?) and there was some suggestion that this HP alliance would bring wma capability to the iPod via agreements HP has with Microsoft.

Anyway I'm sure if you dig you can find ways to do anything for free because programmers are clever. For instance, I just found this link describing how to convert Apples protected formats to whatever you want on a PC
http://www.bpurcell.org/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=1036
Its two years old, maybe it doesn't work anymore.

The open source movement is terrific, but I'm not sure that just because it's under the 'open source' umbrella that all there offerings are completely legitimate. Too many grey areas.

I still propose the best way to make sure you can get your music into any format you want as many times as you want for any player you want is to buy the CD.

nightflier

04-07-2006, 12:45 PM

Well I'm sure the new Wintel macs should have no problems with wma files.

swicken

04-10-2006, 12:02 PM

Well I'm sure the new Wintel macs should have no problems with wma files.

I still don't understand why anyone would ever go down that route anyway. Wintel Macs don't perform as well as windows PCs.
I thought the point of a mac was... well... MacOS really. They don't have anything else going for them (save for a higher price tag for lesser hardware).

noddin0ff

04-10-2006, 01:24 PM

The last virus I ever had was around 1997. The last time I had to reboot my computer due to a system error was pre-OS X. I don't think I've ever had to install a driver for anything to be compatible since OS X...and my PowerBook looks better. Plug and play and Style, baby!

nightflier

04-10-2006, 01:45 PM

swicken

04-10-2006, 02:01 PM

No arguments from me. My wife's powerbook is a godsend compared to our PC (and I used to be a computer tech). But I'm now running Ubuntu Linux and frankly playing music on this box is not so simple (nor is editing images and video, btw). The point is that I should have the same ease-of-use running itunes and converting my files then on the powerbook, but I don't. I also understand that the EU is much more Linux friendly and so there's probably something more going on with that lawsuit.

If itunes won't work for me on my Linux box I should also be able to write my own program that does this better on Linux, if not for downloading, at least for playing my ACC files and converting them to MP3's, but that is also verboten. And I think this is what the lawsuit is about. I haven't seen anything in the news about the lawsuit lately, so maybe someone can enlighten me.

I've used Ubuntu Linux for a good year now, and I haven't had any problems/confusion running anything from any operating system. Emulation works wonders. It's just harder to use.

Linux would be the OS of choice if people were a little more into computers. It's not 'hard' to use, its just a lot more complicated then windows, and a ton more complicated then MacOS.

In my humble opinion, Macs only offer a simple solution to what linux does a lot better. Which is easy to do when you don't have a ton of hardware variation and a high paid team dedicated to making everything work for you.

If you want to know how to get iTunes running in linux I can show you.
I still stand by the opinion that no one should be required to make anything platform independant. For one thing that should be the job of the people writing the OS, youi know, run time environments for other platforms. The whole .NET thing from microsoft is kinda setting that tone, theres projects to make a .net runtime environment for linux (microsoft made it possible to do so) so anything that is made in .net should be portable to linux without actually changing anything. Mind you those projects are far from being a good solution at the moment. Just running an emulator is the easiest way to do things. I dual boot myself for games, just because my ATI card has a poor selection for linux drivers.

Macs are highway robbery, I may get one if they ever drop 40% in price.