'Extraordinary' Soundtrack Will Be Apple-Exclusive

wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-07 10:33 · Score: 5, Funny

This is about as exciting as having dibs on the digitally remastered soundtrack to Highlander II.

Re:wow by Lebannen · 2003-07-07 22:35 · Score: 1

I think the news here isn't the quality of the track... it's the advertising for Apple.

So at the end of the film - if anyone's still there - there'll be, on the screen, "Soundtrack available exclusively through the Apple Music Store".

Clever marketing. I'm guessing Apple paid a ton for this, especially to make up for the lost sales...

--
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" whilst looking for a rock
Re:wow by Greedo · 2003-07-08 03:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can't wait to log on to the Apple Music store and download my copy of ...

Oh wait.

I don't live in the States.

I guess I'm SOL.

--
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Re:wow by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

From what I've heard, I think it was actually Fox Music that got the ball rolling on this, not Apple. Fox wanted to do this as an experiment to test the viability of the strategy; that's why it's a niche-appeal album, an orchestral film score, instead of a mass-appeal thing like some pop release - they're not risking "losing" huge sales anyway, so they stand to gain more with the market research it provides.
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.
Re:wow by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 03:57 · Score: 1

If you don't live in the States, you'll be able to buy a physical CD through all the usual channels. The "iTunes Music Store exclusive" is only in the US, and even here there'll still be a physical CD for people unable or unwilling to use the iTMS; the difference is really that it just won't be sold at retail. The only way to get the CD in the US will be to order it directly from the label, Varèse Sarabande, at their site (it's not there yet, though, although the soundtrack's been on the iTMS since July 1).

Yeah, smart move... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-07-07 10:37 · Score: 2, Funny

"There will be no physical CD and it will only be available from the iTunes Music Store."

Brilliant. Give non-Mac users a desire to use P2P to acquire the music.

Re:Yeah, smart move... by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2003-07-07 12:53 · Score: 1

Interesting point. But since there's no KaZaa for the Mac...

And, btw, why the hell isn't there?

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:Yeah, smart move... by usr122122121 · 2003-07-07 13:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Interesting point. But since there's no KaZaa for the Mac...
And, btw, why the hell isn't there?
There is, it's called mlMac.

--

-braxton
Re:Yeah, smart move... by WatertonMan · 2003-07-07 14:16 · Score: 3, Informative

There are a few other clients for KaZaa.
mlMac
Neo
However KaZaa has really gone down hill, mainly because of studio action. Most songs I try and download are "tweaked" with yelling in the middle or beeping or are of the wrong sound. It really isn't a good place to find music.
I personally use Direct Connect. You can find a hub with the style of music you like and are more likely to find obscure music. (i.e. blues, jazz, etc.) Further it has a much better selection of TV shows if you are trying to find a show you missed that week. The Mac client is still so-so, but they fixed the memory leaks of the version from the fall.
Re:Yeah, smart move... by CtrlPhreak · 2003-07-07 15:51 · Score: 1

I remember when I used direct connect....(see sig)...
those were the days.

--
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
Re:Yeah, smart move... by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2003-07-07 16:02 · Score: 1

Thanks. I've tried Neo, with mixed results. Seems like a giant kludgy hack; essentially portscanning a range of IPs for hosts, yeah? Kinda indirect.

I'll give Direct Connect a try, though--I guess that's one that I haven't heard of.

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:Yeah, smart move... by bedouin · 2003-07-07 18:28 · Score: 1

However KaZaa has really gone down hill, mainly because of studio action. Most songs I try and download are "tweaked" with yelling in the middle or beeping or are of the wrong sound. It really isn't a good place to find music.

I'm wondering what kind of music/artists you're downloading? Of all the talk about fake mp3s on Kazaa, I've never actually encountered one in two years or so of using it. Maybe that's because I don't generally download the newest, most popular songs though . . .

About the lack of a Mac client, I fired up mlMac a few times. It's best characteristic in my opinion is its ability to search across more than one p2p network. It's very buggy though. Personally I prefer to just load Kazaa Lite in VPC with a copy of Win98 SE . .
Re:Yeah, smart move... by Jon+Abbott · 2003-07-08 02:27 · Score: 1

Don't forget Acquitision -- it's a real nice P2P app for OS X. It supports swarm downloading, host browsing, has real nice filtering and so on.

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Re: Yeah, smart move... by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, there will indeed be a physical CD, for the benefit of people who can't (or won't) use the iTMS; the CD just won't be distributed at retail in the US.
In the US it'll be available only through the record label's site; outside the US it'll be sold in all the usual ways. Presumably CD stores in the US that carry imports will also get a few copies that way, so it actually should be quite possible for non-iTunes users to get it (and of course, once the Windows version is released, most people will be able to get it that way, too).
As for whether it's a smart move or not, the point is actually to determine just that. This release is an experiment by Fox Music to determine the viability of releasing something this way. Since orchestral film scores have a highly limited audience anyway (I like to think of them as real alternative music ;) ), they're not risking as much in the way of "lost sales" (ahem) as they would if, say, the latest Madonna album or whatever were an iTMS-only release. While naturally Fox would like the money from sales, it's willing to risk the hit to what would surely be modest sales anyway in order to get the information about how it does, which is far more valuable to them in the long run.
I actually wrote about this for our gaming clan's website more than a week ago, a couple days before the soundtrack actually showed up at the iTMS (it was released there a week ago as of this posting). My "informed sources" included a record producer at Fox Music, who indicated to me that people above him at FM had decided on this release strategy as an experiment.
Re: Yeah, smart move... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-07-08 04:55 · Score: 1

"Actually, there will indeed be a physical CD, for the benefit of people who can't (or won't) use the iTMS; the CD just won't be distributed at retail in the US. "

Ouch, glad Slashdot doesn't use the word 'fact' anywhere. ;)

"As for whether it's a smart move or not, the point is actually to determine just that."

That's why I was annoyed. iTunes isn't mature enough for that. Granted, it's been successful, iTunes still isn't available for Windows. So the market's not just internet users, but Mac users? (Maybe I'm, missing a factor here?)

In the mean time, if that CD is hard to get, what happens when people wanting the sound-track go to Kazaa and get it from there for lack of a better way (iTunes) to get it? I'm worried that this situation will create data that'll stall the release of albums like this down the road.

You know, I'd do a complete 180 if Windows users could get to this too. I'd think it was wonderful. I feel very strongly that the net distribution method could really work to everybody's satisfaction. I just don't want them jumping the gun at this crucial time and making drastic conclusions. Know what I mean?

Thanks for the response. ;)
Re: Yeah, smart move... by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 05:30 · Score: 1

Ouch, glad Slashdot doesn't use the word 'fact' anywhere. ;)
Heheh. Well, they (the other news reports and even Apple itself) are calling it an iTMS "exclusive"; I guess not having the CD be sold at retail in the US is considered close enough to the same thing. I'm not sure when it will be released; I've seen some indication it will actually be through a sublabel/sister label of Varèse's sometime in August, at least for the overseas release; I'm not sure if that applies to the website-only CD for the US as well.
That's why I was annoyed. iTunes isn't mature enough for that. Granted, it's been successful, iTunes still isn't available for Windows. So the market's not just internet users, but Mac users? (Maybe I'm, missing a factor here?)
I don't know if there's something else to think about. There is a Windows version of iTunes in the works, of course, to be released sometime later this year, so presumably the worst-case scenario for people who want this is they'll either have to wait for some indeterminate time between a week and six months to get it from the Windows iTMS, or they'll have to order the CD directly from the label at their site (or getting an import might be another possibility; not sure about that one).
In the mean time, if that CD is hard to get, what happens when people wanting the sound-track go to Kazaa and get it from there for lack of a better way (iTunes) to get it? I'm worried that this situation will create data that'll stall the release of albums like this down the road.
Hmm... perhaps that's why the CD's getting released after the iTMS file? I wonder...
You know, I'd do a complete 180 if Windows users could get to this too. I'd think it was wonderful. I feel very strongly that the net distribution method could really work to everybody's satisfaction. I just don't want them jumping the gun at this crucial time and making drastic conclusions. Know what I mean?
Ah. From this, it sounds a bit like you don't know there's a Windows version in the works. Were you aware of this? If not, well...: there's a Windows version in the works. It's supposed to be released sometime "this year."
Thanks for the response. ;)

My pleasure! :)
Re: Yeah, smart move... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-07-08 05:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

"so presumably the worst-case scenario for people who want this is they'll either have to wait for some indeterminate time between a week and six months to get it from the Windows iTMS"

Well, that's what sparked my original comment. They won't wait. They'll acquire it via P2P. And if that happens, I worry that it'll be used to justify DRM and legislation and everything else the RIAA has tried to do. I realize this is FOX and not the RIAA, but still.

"Hmm... perhaps that's why the CD's getting released after the iTMS file? I wonder... "

Well, they've got a customer base that cannot possibly use this album, so I can imagine that's their backdoor. However, the whole 'instant gratification' factor becomes a big part of it. With the RIAA's recent announcements to sue individual P2P users, I'm sure there are a signficant number of people saying "I don't need to buy CDs anymore". They may well sell CDs here, but I'd be cautious about using this as a ruler for future business. (I could be assuming way too much, btw. I'm on the pessimistic side. ;))

"Ah. From this, it sounds a bit like you don't know there's a Windows version in the works. Were you aware of this?"

Yes, I was. But unless it's coming out within a week or two of the release of this album, I'd say that they're begging for a failure. If Fox were to say "We have a few more albums we'll try it with..." I'd settle down a bit. If FOX says "We released this, and we didn't sell many, but plenty made their way around the net anyway so we won't do it anymore" I'd be rather loud-mouthed about it. Maybe FOX is smarter than that? At some point, somebody has to realize that there's a model to be had here.

If it's successful, I hope they publish the results of how much it cost to release the album this way sans CD media. (i.e. what'd the bandwidth cost?)
Re: Yeah, smart move... by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Mm. Well, you're certainly not alone in your concerns; the messageboards over at Film Score Monthly have had considerable debate on the topic. If you're interested in seeing it, here and here are a couple threads with people debating it; I'm in there, myself, on the side of those who think it's a cool idea.
It was in the older thread that I first heard about the iTMS distribution; through one of the other posters, I eventually got in touch with the Fox Music record producer who gave me the info that let me write the article for our site (woohoo, I scooped MacCentral, CNet and the Chicago Sun Times - I'm so obnoxiously pleased with myself... :))
I gather you're interested in getting this soundtrack, as I am; are you into scores?
Re: Yeah, smart move... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-07-09 05:20 · Score: 1

Heheh good job on scooping MacCentral. ;)

"I gather you're interested in getting this soundtrack, as I am; are you into scores?"

Sometimes. The music itself wasn't of that big of concern to me when I posted, but rather some of the motivations behind it. I mean, if the music turned out pretty decent, yeah I'd probably want to get it. However, I didn't post because I was going to be first in line to get this particular album.
Re:Yeah, smart move... by Feral+Bueller · 2003-07-09 05:36 · Score: 1

Since you quoted the prior post, it's assumed that you read it.
The question was "why the hell isn't there Kazaa for the Mac?"
mlMac is a GUI front end to mlDonkey which is eDonkey for the Mac, not Kazaa for the Mac.

--
- learn to swim.
Re:Yeah, smart move... by Feral+Bueller · 2003-07-09 05:41 · Score: 1

See my reply on mlMac.
Neo is not a true Kazaa client (not even close...). From your link to versiontracker"
"Neo is a Cocoa "shadow" client for the Kazaa network, meaning that it does not actually connect to the Kazaa servers. Instead, Neo scans through IP ranges looking for Kazaa hosts, indexes their file lists, and stores them locally on your hard drive."
...and it sucks. Makes LimeWire seem blisteringly quick and reliable by comparison.
I've found the best approach at this point is to use Virtual PC and Kazaa Lite.
Direct Connect? Never heard of it. I'll have to check it out. Link[s] would be appreciated.

--
- learn to swim.
Re:Yeah, smart move... by usr122122121 · 2003-07-09 06:12 · Score: 1

mlMac is a GUI front end to mlDonkey which is eDonkey for the Mac, not Kazaa for the Mac.
I don't know the gorey details, but the way I understand it, mlDonkey connects to Fasttrack, which is basically the Kazaa network...
Something like that. Read the mlDonkey page, and you'll see that it connects up to Kazaa's networks... so, no, it's not Kazaa... but yes, it uses their files.

--

-braxton
Re:Yeah, smart move... by Feral+Bueller · 2003-07-10 06:24 · Score: 1

I don't know the gorey details
Great. I do and I've used it and it sucks in comparison.
I'm basing my *opinion* on usage. The only one of these I haven't tried yet is Direct Connect, which looks encouraging. The rest of these are crap.

--
- learn to swim.
Re:Yeah, smart move... by raider_red · 2003-07-13 11:13 · Score: 1

It's a brilliant move. It means they won't get stuck with the 100,000+ cds in inventory which no one will ever buy.

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Re:Yeah, smart move... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-07-13 11:42 · Score: 1

That's hardly a good thing. It's 100k they'll add to their piracy estimate.

I hear dracula's bride by Sevn · 2003-07-07 10:39 · Score: 2, Offtopic

is quite the extraordinary gentleman.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.

Re:I hear dracula's bride by cei · 2003-07-07 11:00 · Score: 1

Heh. Yeah, they've marketed this movie really poorly, IMHO. They should have listed the characters involved from day one of the commercials. And the LXG moniker has to go...

--
This sig intentionally left justified.

What if? by wowbagger · 2003-07-07 10:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

What if I prefer to buy my music in a more lasting form?

What if I prefer my music to be compressed with FLAC?

What if I prefer to compress my music with MY parameters, to meet MY standards of audio fidelity?

While I am all for Apple being able to distribute this electronicly, while I can accept Apple being given sole electronic distribution rights to this music, I don't like that this won't be available as a plain ol' CD.

--
www.eFax.com are spammers

Re:What if? by Uart · 2003-07-07 10:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Bah. Its just a soundtrack. As with all movie soundtracks you will be able to find all of its songs on the next "NOW Thats What I Call Music 37" compilation - which you can encode as you see fit.

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:What if? by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-07-07 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

What if...

Then don't buy it.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:What if? by bpbond · 2003-07-07 10:58 · Score: 1

I guess the obvious answer to all your what-ifs is to go record your own soundtrack and make a professional-quality CD. It's their content, and they have the right to distribute it how they like. (But maybe lots of people share your feelings, and will complain, and not buy through the iTMS, and it will blow up in their faces...)

--
"Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
Re:What if? by switcha · 2003-07-07 11:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Music is art.
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? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
Re:What if? by dhovis · 2003-07-07 11:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:What if? by n.wegner · 2003-07-07 11:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

>Art isn't public domain

To paraphrase the US constitution:

Culture is the public domain. Art is one form of culture, and culture contributes to art. The public has the right to freely enjoy its culture. The US constitution makes it very clear that copyright is only granted, for a limited time, to reward the public for creating and expanding the public domain, and the public's culture. The burden of proof lies with you.

>Just because you are used to one way of
>purchasing/enjoying art, doesn't make other
>methods 'unfair'.

In the general sense, yes. But when Apple only sells music in a worse (more lossely compressed than CD or Flac), or the Louvre only sells copies of the Mona Lisa on postcards, or Pendant publishing won't even print old liturature, then it's both unfair and unethical to deprive the public of enjoying its culture.
Re:What if? by switcha · 2003-07-07 11:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

The public has the right to freely enjoy its culture.
And likewise, freely make their own art/culture contribution if they don't like what's offered. With all due respect, the way you phrased your initial comment could be twisted to include 'code poetry'. Yay, software piracy is for the 'greater good'.
The US constitution makes it very clear that copyright is only granted, for a limited time, to reward the public for creating and expanding the public domain, and the public's culture.
Very clear also, is copyright law that says you can do what you want with your work until the time you aren't protected by that law, and the 'common good' stuff kicks in. As far as I know, the soundtrack was just released and has a ways to go before it's in the class of American Standards.

--
You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-07 11:30 · Score: 5, Funny

What if I prefer to buy my music in a more lasting form?
Tough shit.
What if I prefer my music to be compressed with FLAC?
Tough shit.
What if I prefer to compress my music with MY parameters, to meet MY standards of audio fidelity?
Tough shit.
I don't like that this won't be available as a plain ol' CD.
Tough shit.
Re:What if? by n.wegner · 2003-07-07 11:59 · Score: 1

>include 'code poetry'

I'd say it's closer to engineering or practical architecture, but that's not really my decision.

>Yay, software piracy is for the 'greater good'.

Copyright was made to reward the public, and law provides protection from copyright infringement. Why did you bring up a straw man argument? What you said is similar to saying good will is communism.

>you can do what you want with your work until the time you aren't protected by that law

I said it's unfair to the public to only sell copies of this soundtrack in very lossy AAC instead of CDDA or Flac; I didn't say it's illegal. I don't even think it was worth making the movie in the first place, but the public still deserves to enjoy it if they can.
Re:What if? by switcha · 2003-07-07 12:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Copyright was made to reward the public, and law provides protection from copyright infringement.
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.
... but the public still deserves to enjoy it if they can.
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? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
Re:What if? by n.wegner · 2003-07-07 12:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

>Allowing inventors and creators to profit from their work before it goes to the people?

Which is why they are protected under copyright law, as I said.

>You insisted that copyright law is more for the public's good than protection of creation.

I insist that the protection of creation (as explained in the US constitution) is for the public's good.

>they don't care that much about super high fidelity either. They just want to enjoy it.

When the copyright expires, though, I'd rather have CDDA or Flac copies available to those who want them, instead of only have AAC.
Re:What if? by NanoGator · 2003-07-07 12:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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."
Re:What if? by Llywelyn · 2003-07-07 13:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

>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
Re:What if? by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-07-07 14:23 · Score: 1

For those of us with A.D.D., here is a short version of the parent post:

The movie director decides "this character will die." The customer decides "we want to watch him die on VHS and not Beta."
Re:What if? by TotallyUseless · 2003-07-07 14:50 · Score: 1

what leaked info? i think the content of that talk is pretty public. he offered the indys the exact same deal as big labels, 99 cents a song, and a suggested album price of 9.99. the indys are getting the exact same deal as the big 5. If you have any real info hinting they they are suggesting/planning on lower prices, please provide a link.

--

Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
Re:What if? by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-07-07 15:05 · Score: 1

What about rewarding innovation? Allowing inventors and creators to profit from their work before it goes to the people?

Copyright isn't primarily concerned with either of those things. They're nice to do, all else being equal, but neither is the point. Rewarding the public is the goal; the rest is secondary.

it's somehow our right to have the maximum quality possible

No, but OTOH why should we bother granting a copyright to something that's so shoddy? One of the aspects of rewarding the public is that the work should survive. This means high quality, and it means that it should be widely usable. After all, think of the long term: will it remain usable a hundred years from now, if someone is interested in using it? We have sculpture and paintings and movies and sound recordings and literature that are that old. Some are many thousands of years old. But it's not unusual for such works to only barely survive at times. We know of numerous works that have been lost over the ages. It would be decidedly good to have them. Something that is low quality and difficult to copy around does not have a good chance at seriously long term survival. Better, more easily copiable copies, and even some designed for serious longevity, should be required as part of the copyright bargain; that that's what artists do in order for us to give them protection. This isn't a novel idea, it's just one that needs to be pursued once more.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:What if? by derch · 2003-07-07 15:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:What if? by dhovis · 2003-07-07 15:23 · Score: 1

The meeting was supposed to have been confidential. Someone at CDBaby didn't realize that and posted details. Fortunately, someone at slasdot reposted the text. To wit:

Full albums are recommended to be $9.99 or lower.......Apple strongly recommends going even lower than $9.99. They'd like to see that price drop to make the full-album purchase even more desirable.

I did, however, just make up the $4.99 number

--
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
Re:What if? by krel · 2003-07-07 15:45 · Score: 1

Steve Jobs isn't that narrow minded. It's not like all their sales will be done in a month. What about if I see the movie on DVD a few years later and want to have the sound track. I'll look around and find that i can only get it on iTMS.

--
karma: ouch!
Re:What if? by brettper · 2003-07-07 16:10 · Score: 1

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.

How? It's quite clearly marked as 60 minutes of silence. If it actually made any noise the purchaser might have reason to complain
Re:What if? by Farley+Mullet · 2003-07-07 16:42 · Score: 1

Since when did Slashdot become "Let's all complain about everything-dot?"

You new here by any chance?
Re:What if? by NanoGator · 2003-07-07 17:30 · Score: 1

Eh sorta. The way I think of it, a comic is funny if he does what it takes to make the audience laugh. If he won't do what it takes to make them laugh under the guise of artistic license, then he's a terrible comic.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:What if? by gerardrj · 2003-07-07 17:36 · Score: 1

1. More lasting than what? The AAC files you get can be burned to CD(s), put on multiple hard disks, removable storage, put on a remote file server, printed out on paper, copied out to open-reel tape, etc. How much more "lasting" can you get?
2 & 3. when you purchase a CD you don't get to choose the encoding format. You have no choice. Why should this be any different?

You forgot to add:

What if I prefer to build my own hall suited to my ear, and select and conduct my own musicians to suit my taste in instumentation and style? They've taken that away from me with these CDs.

It really seems you're whining just to whine.

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Re:What if? by Rhinobird · 2003-07-07 22:13 · Score: 1

What if I prefer to buy my music in a more lasting form?

You haven't heard the soundtrack yet, are you ABSOLUTELY sure you want it in a more lasting form?

--
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Re:What if? by hype7 · 2003-07-07 22:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

But when Apple only sells music in a worse (more lossely compressed than CD or Flac), or the Louvre only sells copies of the Mona Lisa on postcards, or Pendant publishing won't even print old liturature, then it's both unfair and unethical to deprive the public of enjoying its culture.

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
Re:What if? by Jon+Abbott · 2003-07-08 02:31 · Score: 1

At that price point, it would be hard to complain too much about the audio quality unless you are really psycho.
You mean, if you are GPSYCHO? :^)

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Re:What if? by Dolly_Llama · 2003-07-08 02:47 · Score: 1

I wouldn't blow off all soundtracks like that. Two off the top of my head that were very good were the Singles Soundtrack and that of The Crow.

--
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Re:What if? by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 04:02 · Score: 1

I've mentioned this in a few other posts now, but... The soundtrack will be available on CD directly from the website of record label Varèse Sarabande for the benefit of those unable or unwilling to get it from the iTMS. The "exclusive" thing actually just means the CD won't be sold at retail stores or at any other online vendors besides Apple and the label.
Re:What if? by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 04:09 · Score: 1

It's not a bunch of pop songs. It's the orchestral score (you know, that stuff a lot of people call "background music").
There may indeed be compilations someday that include at least a bit of this music, but they won't be of the "NOW That's What I Call Music" variety.
Re:What if? by MarkCollette · 2003-07-08 06:20 · Score: 1

Err, the Louvre does only sell copies of the Mona Lisa in predetermined formats (though not only poastcards). I mean that you can't go into the Louvre and ask them to print you an arbitrary sized print.

I get what you're saying about the Apple music store. AAC is nearly as good as PCM (CDROM's format), but not as good, so it is a bit of an annoyance to have one's options limited. I would prefer to be able to pay $1.25 to get the PCM version for music that's exclusive to the store.

On the other hand, AAC is gaining support for more than two channels, so in the near future AAC might be superior to PCM. Then we won't really have anything to bitch about, I guess.
Re:What if? by Solkar · 2003-07-08 11:07 · Score: 1

It's a format choice. I didn't buy stuff that Sony released on MiniDisc either. If they want to choose this format, that's their (lost) business. (I'm a 15-year Mac user, BTW, but I'm mystified about why someone would go exclusively ITMS.)
Re:What if? by tmy47 · 2003-07-08 13:24 · Score: 1

Sombody is buying it because it's the 2nd most downloaded album on iTMS today.
Re:What if? by stanmann · 2003-07-10 00:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

This is a test from the labels... by gozar · 2003-07-07 10:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:This is a test from the labels... by mallie_mcg · 2003-07-07 10:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

I think you forget Europe, Australasia etal, where there is no iTunes store available, the media moguls would have only given iTunes the rights to US distribution, besides, most of the sound track will probably be available today for download of the p2p networks as well as purchase from Music stores. (you would probably have to buy several albums to get it all though).

--

Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
--I'm not actually after an answer!
Re:This is a test from the labels... by Suppafly · 2003-07-07 12:38 · Score: 1

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.

Unless it is all new music, it will most likely be singles that you can buy individually or get off albums from the artists.
Re:This is a test from the labels... by dema · 2003-07-07 14:24 · Score: 1

That's an interesting way to look at it.

But they (the labels) I'm sure very well know that there is no way to make an entirely safe work-around for p2p file sharing. There will always be someone to find a way to infiltrate whatever the labels throw at them.

The whole point of the iTunes Music Store is accessibility. People will find it much easier to just purchase and download the album immediately. THAT is exactly what is intended of it. It isn't something that is supposed to bring a complete and total halt to the p2p music sharing industry. But it sure is an innovative advance in the fight against p2p and a great way to try to work with the consumer instead of against them.
Re:This is a test from the labels... by chrisbw · 2003-07-07 15:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Well we already know how to get around it...

Burn it to a CD then re-rip it, capture it digitally and re-rip it, hell you can even make a tape of it if you want. I think think this is a good test of "is it still possible to P2P the stuff," because well, obviously it is. Look at how much material comes out pre-release when it gets leaked from the companies themselves.

There will ALWAYS be a way to pirate things, it's just a tradeoff of quality, time, and cost. At $.99 for the original high-quality (AAC 128k arguments aside), I think I'd rather just buy music I'm interested in than mess around with the P2P alternatives.

YMMV, of course.

--
Chris -- http://www.bitter.net/
Re:This is a test from the labels... by analog_line · 2003-07-07 15:53 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some kind of watermarking in the audio files that hasn't been announced, specifically so they can track this kind of thing. Least that's what I would do if I were doing this.
Re:This is a test from the labels... by mbbac · 2003-07-08 03:15 · Score: 1

Ha!

Not only could a ripped version of the soundtrack originate from other countries, but it could also originate from inside the music industry.

That would explain how I downloaded Smashing Pumpkin's Machina about a week before it was released and I bought it.

--
mbbac
Re:This is a test from the labels... by mbbac · 2003-07-08 03:18 · Score: 1

most of the sound track will probably be available today for download of the p2p networks as well as purchase from Music stores
No, it's actually 13 orchestral songs and two world music songs. So, no it isn't available by creating your own from other albums. And it's pretty good, I'm listening to it on my iPod while I type this comment.

--
mbbac
Re:This is a test from the labels... by DoctorRad · 2003-07-08 09:53 · Score: 1

I think you forget Europe, Australasia etal, where there is no iTunes store available, the media moguls would have only given iTunes the rights to US distribution, besides, most of the sound track will probably be available today for download of the p2p networks as well as purchase from Music stores. (you would probably have to buy several albums to get it all though).
At least in theory, it would be possible to distinguish MP3s ripped from 'normal' CDs and 'download' CDs. The latter will have a set of known processing artefacts in its AAC-download-sourced data which are likely to remain detectable through a futher layer of MP3 encoding.
If those involved have any sense, there'll be some sort of watermarking on the download tracks anyway, although I'm not aware if there are watermarking systems out there designed to survive psychoacoustic compression.
Matt...

--

Save the Bottom Line

watch and see by $exyNerdie · 2003-07-07 10:57 · Score: 1

I bet 2 cents that this will be on P2P within a week of release !!

PS: I don't use Mac or P2P
(I make my own music using Prodikeys).

Testing the waters. by piznut · 2003-07-07 11:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Encode quality? by switcha · 2003-07-07 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I hand over the ten bucks for the album, how good of an encode do I get?

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? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!

Re:What about the Apple Records suit? by Go+Aptran · 2003-07-07 11:12 · Score: 1

The iTunes store had exclusive tracks available from day one so it's not too much of a stretch to put out an entire exclusive cd.

Not exactly the most exciting release, but I suppose you have to start somewhere...

--

"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me."

Re:What about the Apple Records suit? by coolmacdude · 2003-07-07 11:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Enough with Apple records already. I don't think they care anymore. Do they even still exist? Even if they did, they would never survive against the beast that is Apple Legal.

--

-You may license this sig for only $6.99.

Apple's got something up their sleeves. by sonicsft · 2003-07-07 11:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you look at surrounding evidence that's popped up recently:
-Job posting for Windows iTunes developer
-Numerous bands are being scheduled to play Friday in apple stores, etc....
-This album announcement

I'd say Apple is about to release iTunes for windows. But I'm never very accurate on this guesses by it makes sense to me...

-sonic

Re:Apple's got something up their sleeves. by superflippy · 2003-07-08 03:04 · Score: 1

Numerous bands are being scheduled to play Friday in apple stores

Where did you get this info? When I go to the Apple retail page, all I see is that some DJ is scheduled to play at a store in Chicago. I want a link to the dirt! ;)

--
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.

They're experimenting by jlower · 2003-07-07 11:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just wait, when they debut the Windows version of iTMS, there will be another exclusive, probably much bigger than this one, to go with the launch.

They're just experimenting now -- testing the waters.

Re:They're experimenting by burns210 · 2003-07-07 16:20 · Score: 1

"They're just experimenting now -- testing the waters."

Yes, that is an idea... Or maybe they know NOONE will buy this cd, but if they make it 'EXCLUSIVE' to ITMS, then someone will be wooed by it, and buy it... they are using the same trick the movie industries does when they re-release a 6-month old dvd with 'Added Bonus Footage'... people will fall for it, the industry knows it.

But.. by n-baxley · 2003-07-07 11:20 · Score: 4, Funny

What if one of those 5 people who want it doesn't have a mac?

--

THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Re:But.. by questamor · 2003-07-07 13:14 · Score: 4, Funny

They'll just have to find one of the 5 mac users that're still left, of course.

(yeah, it's a troll, and I'm a mac user too :P)

Re:What about the Apple Records suit? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-07 11:37 · Score: 1, Funny

What an intriguing thought from someone who obviously has kept up with the Apple music situation.

Additional News Story by Capital_Z · 2003-07-07 12:21 · Score: 1

I am sooooo uncool! I had to do a search to find out what movie this was. Here's a bit more about the movie and the soundtrack composer:

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' soundtrack found only online

July 5, 2003

You won't find the soundtrack to the upcoming film ''The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'' in any U.S. store.

The music will be an online-only release, available exclusively at Apple's iTunes Music Store. It will not be issued on any physical medium or associated with any label.

The soundtrack will include portions of the score, composed by Trevor Jones ("The Last of the Mohicans'') and performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. Also featured on the soundtrack will be two new, previously unreleased tracks by African vocal combo Ladysmith Black Mambazo.

''The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'' stars Sean Connery and Richard Roxburgh in a tale of a group of superheroes joining forces to fight an evil industrial baron who has developed world-threatening weapons.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst -ftr-league05.html

Re:Additional News Story by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-07-08 00:43 · Score: 1

The soundtrack will include portions of the score, composed by Trevor Jones ("The Last of the Mohicans'') and performed by the London Symphony Orchestra.

Of course, members of the London Symphony Orchestra will not be allowed to buy the soundtrack. They are not American residents, so iTunes Music Store is off limits for them. At least they can hear the 15 seconds demo!
Re:Additional News Story by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 05:49 · Score: 1

Since the soundtrack is getting a normal retail CD release outside the US, the LSO members won't have a problem getting their own performance.
BTW, the track samples at the iTMS run 30 seconds, not 15 (except for tracks shorter than 30 seconds, of course ;)).

It's an original score...not a compilation. by caleugene · 2003-07-07 12:26 · Score: 3, Informative

The majority of the tracks are original compositions by Trevor R. Jones performed by the London Symphony. Two tracks are more ethnic African tunes from Lady Blacksmith Mumbazo...this was all mentioned in the C|NET article.

Re:It's an original score...not a compilation. by kalidasa · 2003-07-07 12:31 · Score: 1

But it's still existing music in that it was recorded on the movie studio's dime, not the record company's.
Re:It's an original score...not a compilation. by Llywelyn · 2003-07-07 13:21 · Score: 1

>this was all mentioned in the C|NET article.

You mean you want us to actually *read* the articles that are being linked to?

--
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Re:It's an original score...not a compilation. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-07 14:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's not true at all. The music for the film is recorded in a completely different set of recording sessions than the music for the soundtrack album. The acoustics of the studio are different, and the placement of microphones is changed to record for a two-channel mix versus a six-channel mix.

Score albums are entirely different recordings from the scores themselves.
Re:It's an original score...not a compilation. by Graff · 2003-07-07 16:33 · Score: 1

The music for the film is recorded in a completely different set of recording sessions than the music for the soundtrack album. The acoustics of the studio are different, and the placement of microphones is changed to record for a two-channel mix versus a six-channel mix.

Actually that raises an interesting issue. Since AAC can handle 5.1 channel surround sound (and more, take a look at this discussion on the 3ivx forums), it might be nice to have the soundtrack in the full 5.1 channel surround sound which was recorded for the movie. Then you could just hook your computer up to your stereo and get the full music experience.

In fact this could really add to a musicians "art", being able to provide people with not only the usual 2 channel versions but also 5.1 surround sound. Combine this with the fact that the latest PowerMac comes with built-in optical sound ports and you have a killer addition to any audiophile's collection.

--
Sapere aude!
Re:It's an original score...not a compilation. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-07 16:37 · Score: 1, Informative

it might be nice to have the soundtrack in the full 5.1 channel surround sound which was recorded for the movie

Actually, it wouldn't. Movie sound mixes generally push the score to the rear channels, except for things like swelling crescendos and whatnot. This is not an optimal mix for listening to the music alone. You wouldn't care for it at all.

In fact this could really add to a musicians "art", being able to provide people with not only the usual 2 channel versions but also 5.1 surround sound.

It sucked when it was call "quadrophonic" and it sucks now. ;-)
Re:It's an original score...not a compilation. by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-08 04:24 · Score: 1

There's a whole body of regulation involving what are known as "re-use" fees, where royalty fees covering "re-use" of the music (the original use being in the film for which it was recorded) apply to most soundtracks covered by union orchestras. These fees, along with complicated legal things I don't have time to go into (I'd need to make a huge post), effectively prevent a lot of soundtrack albums from getting released altogether, and prevent a lot of others from being longer than they are (there are quite a few soundtrack albums from films for which the entire score would fit on a 70-minute CD, say, but because of regulations involving fees paid to the musicians, the soundtracks sometimes include only 30 or 40 minutes of music).
The situation has been improving in recent years with new rules for re-use being adopted by the unions and industry, but things are still a long way from a point where they can easily just release any music that was recorded for a movie, unfortunately.
With regards to this particular soundtrack, though, the London Symphony Orchestra happens to be a nonunion one (as are most outside of the US, apparently), and the re-use issues that bedevil many US-recorded scores apparently aren't a problem. Of course, there's always something else...

Re:Encode quality? by kalidasa · 2003-07-07 12:26 · Score: 1

128 bit rate AAC, which quality-wise is better than the same bitrate under MPEG, but not THAT much better. But who cares? If I want an album, I buy the CD; if I just want one song to listen to on the iPod, I use ITMS. And I do not want League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - I'm not planning on paying to see the movie, I'm sure as hell not going to buy the soundtrack.

simple by SHEENmaster · 2003-07-07 12:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Start up MoL on any PowerPC, dump sound to a WAV while playing the proprietary files, compress and distribute.

An easier way would be to burn it to disc and rip that disc. It won't sound as good, but figuring out the compression part of the iTunes format and overlaying that onto another format could fix such problems. Then again, we can always distribute a ~50mb WAV for each song if we're desperate enough.

As soon as someone cares enough to make the tools, high quality rips of iTunes music will be available on filesharing networks.

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:simple by damiam · 2003-07-07 13:45 · Score: 1

Start up MoL on any PowerPC
The question was how to do this if you don't own a Mac. How many people do you know with non-Apple PowerPCs? Real people, not corporations with a Power4 server in a back room somewhere.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:simple by RackinFrackin · 2003-07-07 14:52 · Score: 1

How many people do you know with non-Apple PowerPCs

Actually, quite a few people do if you count all the TiVos out there. I'm not familiar with the program that the original poster mentioned, but if it would run on any PPC running linux, it should run on a Tivo. Of course as the OP mentioned, this is not the easiest solution.
Re:simple by damiam · 2003-07-07 15:20 · Score: 1

I don't know of anyone who has managed to get MoL running on a Tivo. It would be a pretty nice hack, even though it'd be so slow as to be unusable.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:simple by Farley+Mullet · 2003-07-07 16:51 · Score: 1

From the MoL site, that you graciously linked to:
MOL is not an emulator but runs runs the OS directly without any CPU emulation. Moreover, NO ROM IMAGE is required.
Basically, that means that you have to have OS X installed on the PPC box you're using before you use MoL. So it doesn't work on any PPC, it only works on macs running linux.
Re:simple by reiggin · 2003-07-07 17:00 · Score: 1

Forget all the other replies to this post. It's the Subject that is really wrong. Simple? My ass.

You're my wife now... by rohanl · 2003-07-07 12:40 · Score: 1

Damn, I read it at first as League of Gentlemen

Now, that would be an exclusive. Although I don't really remember that much about the soundtrack.

What's That? by Dr+Reducto · 2003-07-07 12:57 · Score: 1, Redundant

I think I hear Apple computers being sued for a lot of money by the Apple record company, which is owned by members of the Beatles.

Re:What's That? by damiam · 2003-07-07 13:48 · Score: 1

That was settled a long time ago, and Apple Computer can do whatever they want now.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:What's That? by berniecase · 2003-07-07 13:51 · Score: 1

(Score:-1, Redundant)

Dude, Apple Computer already got sued by Apple Records. They settled. This was years ago. 1989 to be more exact. And no, I couldn't find a link with more info in the short time it took to type this.

(Karma to burn.)
Re:What's That? by Drakino · 2003-07-07 14:13 · Score: 1

True, the Apple Record issue was settled long ago, with one rather interesting provision. Apple Computer was not allowed to enter the music industry.

Seems being the only distributor might break this...
Re:What's That? by Dr+Reducto · 2003-07-07 14:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's exactly what I meant. Now that Apple is publishing CD's itself (exclusive distribution), Apple records has a strong standing if it wants to file an injunction against Apple computers.
Re:What's That? by CordMeyer · 2003-07-07 18:06 · Score: 1

Apple is not publishing CDs, and Apple Record no longer exists.

--
Man and Goat
Re:What's That? by gamgee5273 · 2003-07-09 02:10 · Score: 1

I think you're hearing things.

It's a singles thing by borkus · 2003-07-07 13:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:I predict 4% on the Tomatometer! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-07 13:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Just for that, this Joe Midwest is going to buy the damn album. See, I've already got a Mac, an iPod, an iTunes account, 'lectricity AND indoor plumbing. Let me guess, you're on a coast aren't you?

Re:I predict 3% on the Tomatometer! by WatertonMan · 2003-07-07 14:22 · Score: 1

Actually initial reviews are surprisingly good. I don't trust reviews by "fanboys" myself. (Hell, far too many said that T3, Daredevil, and Blade II were good). Still I think I'm more excited for this than I am for any movie since Matrix II.

Reviews at AICN

Actually I'm more excited for the new Pirates of the Carribean movie. That looks like it may live up to what all the other movies this year have been trying to do and failing miserably. (Actually I liked Matrix: Reloaded - but it still wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped for)

Re:This just in ... by geekwagon · 2003-07-07 14:24 · Score: 1

That's gotta be some fast DSL to keep up with the ~3MB/sec that a Pixlet stream would require.. ;P

Oh well, can't buy it. boohoo. by Muggins+the+Mad · 2003-07-07 14:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

And for those of us where iTunes Store isn't supported.... (ie. the rest of the civilised world)

It's only a bit of music, I'm not going to lose any sleep over not being able to buy this one, but exclusive deals in any form just suck.

I tend to shy away from services that are full of "exclusive this, exclusive that" as they're just damaging my freedom of choice.

- Colin

Re:What about the Apple Records suit? by NaDrew · 2003-07-07 16:11 · Score: 1

Offtopic?

The topic is a soundtrack which Apple Computer has exclusive rights to distribute. I asked what effect that exclusivity would have on a settlement between Apple Computer and Apple Records. How is that offtopic?

How about concentrating on modding up, not down, just like the nice FAQ says.

--
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE

Re:What about the Apple Records suit? by Farley+Mullet · 2003-07-07 16:45 · Score: 5, Funny

I think that offtopic was being used as a proxy for the non-existant clueless moderation.

Uh, apple's already announced it... by SuperBanana · 2003-07-07 19:33 · Score: 1

I'd say Apple is about to release iTunes for windows. But I'm never very accurate on this guesses by it makes sense to me...

How very intuitive, considering Apple has publicly stated that they'll be releasing a Windows version. They've even given a timeframe, though I don't recall what it was.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:Uh, apple's already announced it... by nether · 2003-07-07 19:52 · Score: 1

What I read from the post is that this "Friday, the 11th", Apple will be releasing something ... and he's conjecturing that it will be iTunes for Windows since there will be "bands" playing.

I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but you're off the mark on the post itself.

Never happy..... by kilauea · 2003-07-07 21:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Never happy..... by TheRaven64 · 2003-07-08 03:02 · Score: 1

Will you all now admit you just dont like paying for music?
This is Slashdot. We don't like paying for anything.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Right now, bad idea by LordBodak · 2003-07-08 01:19 · Score: 2

At this point, I have to think this is a bad idea. Macs just aren't common enough for albums to be exclusive to iTunes. Once the Windows version is out, it is feasible.

The worry I have is that since there aren't very many Macs, it's going to sell relatively few copies (compared to your average new movie soundtrack CD), and the labels are going to turn around and say "hey, we tried it, and it didn't sell!" as an argument against the iTunes model.

--
LordBodak's journal.

Re:What about the Apple Records suit? by Jon+Abbott · 2003-07-08 02:37 · Score: 1

Do they [Apple Records] even still exist?

I thought they weren't still around, until I looked at the Beatles "One" album. It has an Apple Records logo and trademark on it...

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware

I actually bought it... by mbbac · 2003-07-08 03:08 · Score: 4, Informative

I bought the album last night from iTunes Music Store. It's a pretty good soundtrack. If the movie is anywhere near as good as its soundtrack, it'll be exceedingly better than my expectations.

Anyway, $9.99 for 13 tracks of nicely composed orchestral work and two excellent world music songs is pretty good. I'm listening to it on my iPod as I type this.

--

mbbac

Re:I actually bought it... by White+Roses · 2003-07-09 05:48 · Score: 1

Three words: Peta Wilson's Breasts. And in a corset no less. I'll be seeing them, er, I mean, the movie, of course.
To drop the macho facade for a moment, I've enjoyed Ms. Wilson's style since USA Network's La Femme Nikita. Besides, she's got "It".

--
Do not touch -Willie
Re:I actually bought it... by FredFnord · 2003-07-10 08:31 · Score: 1

> Besides, she's got "It".
>
>The best way to avoid MSTDs, like STDs, is abstinence.

Does anyone else find this juxtaposition humerous?

-fred

--
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.

Re:What about the Apple Records suit? by Dylan+Zimmerman · 2003-07-08 07:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple Computers was originally banned from doing anything music related by their agreement with Apple Records. They were allowed to make system beeps, but nothing more. As you can imagine, that created problems when they wanted to add a software synth to their computers in the form of QuickTime. So, before they actually published anything with MIDI capabilities, they paid Apple Records a fairly large amount of money to rescind the agreement and never sue them again. This is also why the iPod is legal, iTunes is legal, and that system sound is named sosumi (pronounced so-sue-me).

This all happened quite some time before they ever released QuickTime. It's almost as ignorant as asking a Mormon how many wives he plans to have.

Re:This just in ... by Jahf · 2003-07-08 13:01 · Score: 1

Hah :) To the moderator ... if this was offtopic to you you're not getting the post.

To spoonfeed ... err ... translate the sarcasm from the parent post ...

Just because we want digital media does not mean we DON'T want traditional media, especially if the digital media you are forcing on us is not in multiple formats or worse is DRM filled. At best you are isolating your target markets.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.

AAC beats CD format becasue of.... by ihatewinXP · 2003-07-08 16:10 · Score: 2, Informative

While AAC is lossy it supports 5.1 Channel Sound. Lets see your CD and/or FLAC do that.

Sometimes you get what you pay for (which is why im glad i bought a mac).

--
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.

Re: What if? Then here you go. by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-09 02:27 · Score: 2, Informative

You can now get the CD version directly from Varèse Sarabande at their site. The "iTMS-exclusive" means it won't be sold at retail in the US, or through online resellers like Amazon, CDNow or whatever, but those unable or unwilling to use the iTMS can still get a conventional CD directly from the label. It's more expensive, of course, but if the difference is worth it to you to specifically seek this version over the other, presumably it's worth paying more as well.

Re: UPDATE by Blondie-Wan · 2003-07-09 02:32 · Score: 1

"Actually, there will indeed be a physical CD, for the benefit of people who can't (or won't) use the iTMS; the CD just won't be distributed at retail in the US. "
Ouch, glad Slashdot doesn't use the word 'fact' anywhere. ;)

The CD is now available at Varèse's site.

Why, so you are! by FredFnord · 2003-07-10 08:27 · Score: 1

Wow! Anonymous Coward broke the story of the Music Store last December, and YOU'RE ANONYMOUS COWARD!

It MUST be you!

Sheesh.

-fred

--
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.

Re:I predict 3% on the Tomatometer! by Nathan+Ramella · 2003-07-11 08:09 · Score: 1

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLeagueofExtraor dinaryGentlemen-1123784/ The rotten tomato cannot be denied!

--
http://www.remix.net/

Direct Connect by Logsama · 2003-07-12 14:47 · Score: 1

here's the link to Direct Connect
Happy Hunting..

Slashdot Mirror

'Extraordinary' Soundtrack Will Be Apple-Exclusive

131 of 161 comments (clear)