-
This just ain't Apples week.
First, that battery thing comes to light. Now this...
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...&cvqh=itn_ipod
Actually, This was the main reason I went with a Sandisk player. I don't like being "coerced" into using only one supplier.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
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.
-
The more I find out about iPods the more I'm glad I got a Sansa too!
-
I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_pci
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Perhaps I misread the atticle, or it misstated the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_pci
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.
I realize now that you can load anything into an ipod. From what my second cousin says, the itunes interface "sweeps" your 'puter for all music, brings it into it's own file and then loads it into your ipod. This does lend itself to tha fact that music from any source can be input to an ipod.
My next questions would be:
1) Can anyone download music from Itunes onto their own computer without an Itunes interface?
2) Can it be done in WMA format?
3) Can it then loaded into a device other than an Ipod?
-
Ipod
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 :)
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_pci
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by anamorphic96
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. :(
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Anderson
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_pci
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.
-
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.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_pci
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by emorphien
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by topspeed
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."
Quote:
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.
-
I think it's just absurd to sell a $300 piece of equipment with a battery that can't be replaced.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by teledynepost
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_Pa...wer%20Adapters
-
What? Do you have to dis-assemble it? I thought it was built in.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by anamorphic96
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Music
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_pci
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
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.
-
Well new stuff is still released on vinyl so I don't think CD's are going to disappear entirely...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
|