Slashdot Mirror
'Extraordinary' Soundtrack Will Be Apple-Exclusive
Isbiten writes "Apple has just gotten the rights to the soundtrack of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. There will be no physical CD and it will only be available from the iTunes Music Store. Cnet has the story."
This is a test from the labels on how safe their music is in the iTunes store. They will know that the only way this music will make it to the various P2P apps will be from some Apple user who buys the album, burns a CD, then rips it to MP3 to distribute.
:-)
They can then use this to show that the protection in the iTunes store is not enough, and try to force Apple to change it before iTunes comes out for Windows.
All IMHO...
What, me worry?
What if...
Then don't buy it.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Just because you are used to one way of purchasing/enjoying art, doesn't make other methods 'unfair'.
What if I prefer to buy my music in a more lasting form?
So should sidewalk chalk artists not be allowed to make drawings?
What if I prefer my music to be compressed with FLAC?
So, should publishers not be allowed to print a book in whatever size they want, then distribute it on tape/cd/ebook/etc if they want?
What if I prefer to compress my music with MY parameters, to meet MY standards of audio fidelity?
So should a painter have to check with the buyer before he decides oil versus pastels, canvas versus illustration board, small versus mural, etc.?
Sure you can hang it/display it/listen to it wherever you want once you get it home, but as to where you can buy art, it's not 'unfair' that you have to go to a gallery contracted to sell the piece. Art isn't public domain (despite p2p advocates). It's a product, and if you choose to enjoy it, you are stuck with how the artist/rep choose to let you partake in it.
You know what?
The way you talk, you'd think CDs were perfect reconstructions of the original music.
What if I prefer to get the original master tapes?
What if I prefer to create my own mixes of every song?
What if I prefer surround sound?
Every audio format out there has limitations, even CDs. For the price, you can't complain too much. Personally, I'd like to see Apple keep the singles price at 99 cents and drop the typical album price to $4.99. Given the info that leaked about Apple's meeting with the indie music labels, I think that is what Apple would like too. At that price point, it would be hard to complain too much about the audio quality unless you are really psycho.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
You have to figure that a soundtrack is a pretty profitable item in terms of the cost to create. There is no real new work that needs to be done other than compiling existing music into a nice package.
It is probably a fair generalization to say that soundtracks rarely sell in the same volumes as albums from pop artists. The loss of profit by reducing to such a niche market will probably be mostly offset by the higher profit margin associated with not actually having to create or mfg'r any media or packaging materials.
If they (being the publisher) lose a little money on this, it won't be much and can probably be chalked up as the cost to test this particular market.
Where am I going with this? Nowhere really...just some observations.
My guess would be about $10 worth. The premise of online music distro is that not everyone is an audiophile, and some people just want to rock out at OK quality for a nice price.
As someone already pointed out, you can have the master tapes of you are that 133t. It just might cost you a few million bucks.
You know what?
What about rewarding innovation? Allowing inventors and creators to profit from their work before it goes to the people?
Why did you bring up a straw man argument? What you said is similar to saying good will is communism.
You hammered in the stake and brought the bale of hay. You insisted that copyright law is more for the public's good than protection of creation. I was trying to point out that software protection is mainly the protection of innovation.
What bothers me most about naysayers to Apple's deal is the assumption that it's somehow our right to have the maximum quality possible. I understand you don't think it's illegal, simply unfair. But the public still can enjoy it. If this were actually good music, I could play it and hear it and enjoy it. Considering the equipment the bulk of America listens to their music on, they don't care that much about super high fidelity either. They just want to enjoy it.
You know what?
"Music is art."
Yeah, that could be said. (though the formula for it makes people question the artistic nature of it...)
However, art is not just about self expression, it's about entertainment. Read on.
"So should sidewalk chalk artists not be allowed to make drawings?"
If their goal is to entertain, then sidewalk chalk artists wouldn't have much of a living. You have to admit, though, you have reached a ridiculous extreme here.
"So, should publishers not be allowed to print a book in whatever size they want, then distribute it on tape/cd/ebook/etc if they want?"
In any case where art is mass produced for consumption, then a reasonable attempt has to be made to satisfy the target audience. An artist would be a fucking moron if he published a book as at 8' by 8'. If he just made a few of these books for individual sale, that'd be one thing. If Barnes and Noble carried it, a lot of people would be saying 'WTF? If I mass-produced an album called "60 minutes of Silence", and it really contained 60 minutes of silence, I'd be making 'art' but I wouldn't be entertaining. As a matter of fact, I'd probably be up on charges of fraud.
"So should a painter have to check with the buyer before he decides oil versus pastels, canvas versus illustration board, small versus mural, etc.? "
If an artist was mass-producing art that was intended to be pasted on the side of a house, he'd be in serious trouble if it couldn't withstand sunlight or rain. I'm not sure what the legality of that would be, on the other hand he's failing to entertain, thus his mission would fail.
"Sure you can hang it/display it/listen to it wherever you want once you get it home, but as to where you can buy art, it's not 'unfair' that you have to go to a gallery contracted to sell the piece."
I really tried to understand your side of it here, but there's still the little matter of supply and demand. When one can easily produce something to your satisfaction, it's hard to fathom that they'd try to force you into buying an expensive product you had no intention of ever purchasing. Again, this isn't art as expression here, it's art as entertainment. You'd like to be entertained, but they have to meet you half way. I'm curious if you'd be posting this if movie theaters required climbing a gym rope to buy a ticket.
" Art isn't public domain (despite p2p advocates)/"
I don't recall any P2p advocates claiming art is public domain. BTW, I'm an artist who hopes to one day have content to release on the net. I'm a P2P advocate. If I sell something that people want, but can't stand the format, then I need to fill that demand. Competition is good, even in the art arena. P2P is competition, not a war.
" It's a product, and if you choose to enjoy it, you are stuck with how the artist/rep choose to let you partake in it. "
You're right. It is a product. And as such, there are expectations that have to be met. The recent court case against copy restricted CDs comes to mind. CDs were created that don't work in some CD players all in the name of fighting piracy. As a result, some people couldn't access the content. A lawsuit was issued, and the consumers won. The point here is that as a product, they can't just dictate every little detail about it. If it's intended to work a certain way, then it must work a certain way. Sure, they can release the soundtrack to LXG only on iTunes. However, their goal of entertain is being thoughtlessly restricted to a very narrow audience. They're choking themselves for money and potentially (assuming the soundtrack is any good) creating demand they refuse to fill. Illegal? No. Unethical? Grey Area. Stupid? Yes.
An artist whose goal is to entertain should never EVER ignore the comments of his customers involving delivery of the product. If they say "we want higher quality", he shouldn't say "I'm the artist and I say it's this way."
"Derp de derp."
>What if I prefer to buy my music in a more lasting form?
Then purchase it from the iTMS, insert a blank CDR, and burn a copy from the playlist.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
A soundtrack/score could do well this way. I may not be willing to buy an entire CD, but if I may for one or two tracks.
While the iTunes store is pretty limited, the label can find out if this is a more profitable way to handle this kind of recording. Many record companies have large libraries of tracks that are out of print - putting those tracks online could give them a new stream of revenue.
I prefer that the government would give me a boat and pay me a million dollars to fish.
We're both SOL.
Can't you see the announcement is only for the free advertising? A month after they release the movie, Apple and Fox will quietly release the soundtrack on CD. Neither will sacrafice the chance to make extra money.
So, the "slashdot Community" justified their piracy on the grounds that the music Industry doesn't sell the music in the form they want it in.
So someone has done exactly that....and now you want it on CD, encoded differently, whatever.
Your getting what you asked for. Will you all now admit you just dont like paying for music regardless of format or delivery mechanism?
Gaz.
Which is no different to selling on CDs. It's not the quality of the original. It's compressed to facilitate distribution.
To insist on getting original quality for every piece of artwork is totally infeasible - it either requires everyone to be at the source, or a massive reproduction and distribution network to be set up.
-- james
I'm sure Apple would dearly love to be able to exclusively offer an entire album by a major mainstream artist who sells in the millions, but the labels aren't ready for that yet.
Well, the public is quite happy with AM or FM quality, and NCD quality is more than they want.
Now I know all you music freaks with more money than brains can "tell the difference" between CDA and DVDA, but the rest of the world doesn't care, and doesn't have the equipment to care.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed