Slashdot Mirror
Technical Glitches Plague BuyMusic.com
An anonymous reader submits: "Despite its much larger target market, BuyMusic.com does not seem to be the runaway success that Apple's iTunes Music Store was. USA Today is reporting that customers have experienced technical glitches that prevent them from playing their purchases. Another customer reports that the BuyMusic tech support does little more than say 'Sorry, but that's YOUR problem.' Finally, a musician whose music is for sale at BuyMusic questions the legality of BuyMusic's catalog." Scriptygoddess's account of her unhappy experience is mirrored here.
DRM inconveniences ONLY the people who are paying.
I am really torn over this. For one I'm happy that such a service that puts such annoying restrictions on how you can use the music is failing. Yet, the other half of me is sad that now the RIAA is gonna have something to run around screaming "OMG LOOK LOOK ONLINE SERVICE IS THE SUCK" with.
So there goes any chance of me using their service.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Why are we gloating over the problems of buymusic.com? It wasnt too long ago, I thought I remember people on this message screaming for the ability to download songs for 99cents. In fact Im pretty sure some justified file sharing by saying there was no way to buy individual songs.
We now see the real problem.
When an artist signs with a distribution point, etc, they may lose their own music. As a musician that would seem horrible, but it happens to many different people (animators, etc).
Maybe the contract with "The Orchard" had certain terms. We really would need to see that to get both sides of the story here...
Maybe they "sold out" and now just don't want to look like "crap" music.
GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
Wow, another attempt to copy an Apple product goes horribly, horribly wrong.
I may not have a Doctorate with a thesis written on pattern recognitions, but even I can figure this one out...
Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
This one line says it all: "The problem: Unlike MP3 music tracks plucked from the Net from pirate sites such as Kazaa, music on BuyMusic is encoded in Microsoft's Windows Media Audio format." I won't ever, pay to download anything in WMA format just like I won't install Real player no matter how many porn sites need it. When will these companies learn from what the "pirate sites" have done right and allow people to download the songs in the most popular and compatible format out there. Or even better, let them pick.
Um, she mentions Roxio and Nero as plugins? Does she mean applications? Does she mean as actual plug-in files for WMP or something?
I hope she was a little more specific when talking to tech support or I'd probably tell her to fix it herself, and my dinner while she was at it.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Maybe if more shit like this happens, then more companies will start realizing that DRM is an unworkable mess, and people would prefer to buy non-DRM things, and we might be able to delay 1984 by a few more years.
The day buymusic.com started, I tried to check it out. I was running Windows 2000 with IE5 and the latest Windows Media Player, and I could not get any of the music clips or videos to play. In a way, I'm glad the samples had problems because I would have been pissed if I had spent money there. I haven't been back since then, and I probably won't go back.
They licensed the songs from record companies in good faith. If those record companies are violating the law, defrauding BuyMusic and/or the artists, then they're the ones to go after.
I know it's been said before countless times but you really have to hand it to Apple for writing and backing up an elegant solution to this "dilemma" between the RIAA and consumers. By making it an all-in-one package through iTunes there isn't any questions about supporting Roxio drivers or downloading codecs and licenses for playback of your files.
to quote the linked blog:
After all the songs downloaded, I tried to play them. Second problem. Before each song plays - it has to download and verify your license. You can't mulitple select a bunch and do this. You need to do this before EACH SONG will play. [Edited to add: "Verifing your license" means another window pops up that asks for your buymusic login and password... you enter it... it thinks awhile... it thinks some more... Then it comes back and says click "play" to actually play the song...]
This is just sloppy programming on their part. They are forced to make excuses for other people's software in the first week of release. Apple tossed out iTMS to their entire userbase and said "Now go use it. It works. Perfectly. Always."
The simplicity of simply allowing 3 computers for playback through iTMS is great (albeit for some that have 13 computers and want to listen to music on ALL at the same time) Just authorize one computer and it will always be able to playback your music even if it's away from a 'net connection.
BuyMusic.com was rushed and it's apparent in the first damn week. It doesn't hold a candle to iTMS. I can't wait to see it crumble.
As seen in this MacSlash article from a few days ago, BuyMusic.com eliminated the option to purchase songs if you're not using Internet Explorer and Windows.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
runaway success that Apple's iTunes Music Store was
;) ). They don't half a$$ what they do.
so do we have to drop the 'runaway' now?
Seriously though, Apple knows how to make a good UI ( 10.3 not withstanding
Ease of use and meeting consumer demands wins this match (for once!).
----
In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
they put it in a crippled non standard format. If it was an open standard I would agree with you however there is no excuse for shoddy technical support bad user interface and unstable products. Now, if they could just hurry up and go out of buisness...
Stashdot , thanks for the warrning will not buy anything from them ever.
> even with Java diabled in IE prefs you can't use the Buymusic.com site
I always knew Java was Satan's handchild!
Go here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The plugin they say to use on their site. She did everything the site asks, and it sucked.
This is why iTunes is so great. You can buy your music, play it, transfer it to an iPod, burn it, etc without downloading updates/patches/plugins for a bunch of different pieces of software from different companies. (Well you have to update iTunes to iTunes 4, but it's hardly the same)
The other issue getting in the way here is the shitty DRM. Only one computer can do the burning, so since it didn't work for her Windows 2000 box, she tried moving it to Windows XP (thinking it might improve some how). But she couldn't burn from Windows XP. Furthermore, every song had to be "authorized", (she types in username/password), and cannot be done in batches, even in album format.
It's not as elegant as iTunes, and that's the issue.
Emphasis on ease of use, customer experience, technical quality.
Focal issue: adding value to Mac systems to attract switchers and sell iPods.
Result: Pretty decent music service, all things considered.
BuyMusic.com:
Emphasis on Being Cheaper than iTMS, locking out non-approved systems, Looking an awful lot like iTMS.
Focal issue: Establish self as competition for iTMS before Apple gets the Windows version out.
Result: left as an exercise for the reader.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
and it didn't work, wouldn't you be a little irked?
If you buy something you usually have at least a bit of understanding that it's going to be useful for something. If I buy a mop and the handle breaks on the first use, back it goes - and stores almost always will take them back. At least the ones that stay in business do...
Which brings us back to BuyMusic, who seemingly does not care if what you bought is functional or not.
I feel a tiny, tiny bit sorry for them because they have to deal with PC's that might have a messed up WMP (like my computer at work that freezes every time you try to use WMP for music or video). Then again, they could have picked some other format that was known to be more compatible and less finicky. I'm sure if they'd tried AskSlashdot they might have had a few suggestions.
Similarly you have to feel a little sorry for them for pirating other people's music, after all they bought it from a third party... but if I bought a few songs from a guy on the corner who said it was "OK to share them" I probably still would not be any less liable for copyright infringement (or would I? Not sure on that one).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After reading about Jody Whitesides' problem at MacSlash, I have to question why there isn't an organization that helps protect the rights of indie and small-time acts... They seem to be more deserving of protection than the big names anyway. Anyhow, from what I understand... it sounds like BuyMusic.com is using music from Orchard Records illegally, after Orchard supposedly "tanked". Apparently the bulk of BuyMusic's selection is from Orchard and artists are recieving little, if any recompense for it. I'm guessing BuyMusic won't last long. Just my two cents.
Looks like Apple set a bar for music download services. BuyMusic.com rushed into things, and this is very embarrassing news for them. Considering that they are selling MP3 players also, it is very bad that they didn't encounter this during testing.
They really should have stayed with the popular MP3 format. Perhaps it would have avoided problems like this one.
I'm not denying that iTunes is great. But her big complaint is that a third party ( not created by buymusic.com ) plugin was crashing on her computer. Sorry, but that's not BuyMusic.com's fault.
Yes it is. BuyMusic advertises that you can burn songs to CD, but _only_ if you use WMP and _only_ if you use the Roxio plugin. If it doesn't work you have absolutely no other options, and that means that you just got screwed out of your money, with no CDs and no option to return the music or get a refund. If they are going to force you to use this particular software it is their responsiblity to make sure it works.
Wow, a site running slashcode dedicated to the Mac... just when you thought geeks couldnt retreat any further from reality..
Wasn't there a song called "Money For Nothing" - I think I'll buy it from iTunes once it's released for the PC.
Argh! First the music industry convinces people that info = real, tangible property and copying = theft, and now they've got people unconsciously thinking that like software, data file formats are computer and OS dependent!
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
So, in short, BuyMusic.com has only one viable business plan: get bought out by Microsoft! They'd fit right in...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
It is their responsiblity to live up to their promises. If they promise that you can burn songs to CD, and if their software doesn't work (which is the only software that you can use -- there are no other options), then it is also their responsiblity to fix it. To do otherwise would be somewhere between false advertising and bait and switch.
ObLink Go to the codecs page.
The problem is ease of use. It is so easy to go on kazaa and listen to music. Just type what you want and there you can listen to it. If i could do the same thing and have the song automatically charged i would be happy to use that. But the way it is now why go out of my way to pay.
I don't think it's stupid at all. Apple's not ignoring the larger Windows market; a Windows version of iMS has been in the plans from the moment it was announced. But which would be more foolish: debugging a high volume system with a smaller market before opening it up to the entire world? Or the BM approach: try to tackle the big market all at once and fail in a spectacular way?
I don't think BM will affect Apple's chances with iMS for Windows. I believe that market is Apple's to lose, at least as long as the only competition is as arrogant and incompetent as Mr. Blum and his minions.
AC comments get piped to
No, it's your responsibility to make sure that software works on your computer before you buy something.. If I purchased non-synthetic oil for my Viper and thats all that I'm supposed to be using for it and poured it in and my car broke.. sorry, your problem.. not the oil maker.
Yes it is, because of the DRM that's the only way she is allowed to burn a CD to play in her car, an advertised feature that she paid for (and the failure of that is the reason she got a refund).
It's not THEIR software you fucktard.
Yeah, no kidding; kinda proves how useless a ./ subscription is....
Why don't they just tell us what the limits for each track/album are, that way we can decide for ourselves whether to download them or avoid them since different labels have different rules of usage.
Me, I'd roll it out to a targeted set of beta customers to see how well the servers did and how well people liked the service. Then I'd roll it out to everyone else.
Isn't that just what they did? Though it's been the nicest "beta" I've ever been in.
The BuyMusic fiasco proves exactly why you want a limited beta first (and DRM that doesn't kill your customer experience, but that's another issue), so that when 95% of the market really does get access they have a smooth experience from the start. The first few days of iTunes were a little shaky from an availability standpoint, but now they've figured out how to manage the load and are ramping up for the rest of the world.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
from a site which has no prior experience dealing with such technologies... wouldn't you just try to buy one (or two or three at most) songs just to see whether the thing works?
The blogger obviously puts in too much trust on such experimental media (as opposed to established formats such as MP3 and Ogg, which many of us knows at least *works*) with a plethora of restrictions, and (legally) playable on one platform! All I can say to her is "Serves you right, ignorant casual user!".
You need to know your stuff before engaging in things such as DRM-enabled "new" media. Perhaps now more people will see evil behind such implementations and the fallacy behind claims that it will make your life easier, add more purchasing power to your dollar, world peace, bla bla bla...
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
AC comments get piped to
What OS/application are they trying to run this not so functional/compatible website with?
Actually, I submitted this before 6pm EDT on July 29. Not my fault that it took so long for them to post it.
They encoded the music. Also they control access to it as they are the authorization server. Therefore they have a hand in it playing or not or other means of using the files - it could very well be in the authorization step for burning the CD that it dies!
Because they chose that format, they have some responsibility to ensure it can be used as intended. If it were MP3 or OGG I would agree with you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go to the website, click on their How to Videos.. They make this clear before you buy the music. If I tell you before hand not to do something, and you do it anyways, is it my fault or yours?
iTunes, on the other hand, gives the user EVERYTHING in a neat little package. The connection to the music store is seamless, and you can play, sort, and burn from a single app, without any of this DRM related business, or privacy concerns. If a company expects users to use their service, they could at LEAST make it easy to use, and from this account, that is probably the last thing that it is.
I have visited their site and would like to say that it feels very hollow, and dosn't have a whole lot of content. iTunes offers clip samples that are full quality and 30 seconds long(guarenteed to work because everything is done in a nice, streamlined client). I couldn't even get BuyMusic to even play the sample because of the problems with all the external player stuff. Two more things that piss me off include the fact that BuyMusic has neglected to even catagorize my favroite genre: Electronica, and the fact that it only works with Windows, and seems that they have no plans for the rest of us, and I had to access it from a public terminal because all I have at home is a mac and some Linux boxes. At least Apple is trying to port iTunes to Windows, so I could probably get it to work with WINE.
It clearly is their fault for not providing practical means to accomplish reasonable ends.
What a blatant ripoff their TV ads are. They are embarassingly unoriginal. I am surprised that any legitimate business would stand behind such a weak "me too" effort. Their whole service is a copy of iTunes. They deserve to fail.
But, it fits the whole windows environment of weak imitations of software and hardware features. It's not always copied from Apple, but it's not too rare. Remember all the fruit colored computers and components after the first iMac? And all the acrylic and cubish cases after the Mac cube?
Neither my MacOS X cube nor my Linux box can access the service anyway. I'll gladly stick with iTunes. (Now, if only Apply would produce a Linux version of iTunes, I'd be all set.)
In addition, we are unable to credit you back for failed or damaged copies once you have successfully downloaded the music to your primary computer.
I could understand why a local CD store or even Apple wouldn't offer refunds on purchased music, but why do these guys refuse to refund money if they can actually know whether you are still listening to the music or not?
... and get to make those "first post"s
My record is on there It is also on CD NOW but that was during the contract and all cool with us. I don't have the contract (another member of the band has it) and I don't remember what it says. I haven't spoken to the other guys yet, but I'm pretty sure that contract ran out awhile ago.
Every song you buy off of buymusic.com is not paying the artists, that's for sure. And I don't know how Orchard could even have copies to sell, we sent it to them to distribute; they aren't manufacturers.
We payed for that record out of pocket, and still have a zillion. :(
If you like the samples here, let me know and I'll get you a CD. We still have boxes of the album, since the band went down right after releasing it. Ah, the sad stories of Minneapolis...
The site buymusic.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000. Windows 2000 users include Interland Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Rackshack
-Tom
The race is on! Apple will get to see how bad some of the new PC music distribution solutions/services are. IMO, Apple has a leg up with their distribution and DRM model. Look for a Windows iPod/iTunesX86 bundle at Thanksgiving time.
Of course, the artist seemed to favor Mac sites, but I'm sure he posted this to slashdot himself too (as well as CNN and other 'big' sites I'm sure).
AC comments get piped to
This is a lot like that, except without the suing, and a lot more laughing at such a half-assed attempt to clone Apple's success in this field.
It may not have been their software, but they are responsible for it.
...then why bother with this DRM crap at all? It would be a breeze to convert your tracks into normal mp3s (although double-compressed) using your favorite ripper.
I would HAPPILY fork over my money to anyone who would be willing to sell me digital music that has the same versatility and sound quality that I can get from a normal, boring, store-bought CD. No problems transferring THOSE to personal players!
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
I've stopped buying music because of how the RIAA treats the general public. I don't trade music either. I attend more live performances and buy original DRM-free CDs direct from the musicians. And I listen to free radio a lot more, too.
Did they really say that? I think that the owner of MP3, which I think is Thompson Multimedia, should sue for such a deframatory statement implying their product has no legit use.
I apologize for posting this is Code, but stupid Slashdot thought the original had "too many junk characters" even though it was almost all text!
/ 1510211&mode=thread">here</a> - which someone else linked to as well.
The full discussion is <a href="http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/29
There was an interesting post related to your question that noted the current Orchard terms:
<b>You grant to us throughout the Territory during the Sales Period the NON-EXCLUSIVE rights to sell, copy, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exploit any and all of your Recordings by any and all means and media (whether now known or existing in the future), including, without
limitation, the non-exclusive rights to sell, distribute and otherwise exploit any and all of your Recordings throughout E-Stores including, but not limited to, those via the Internet, as well as all digital storage, download and transmission rights, whether now known or existing in the
future.</b>
Jody's response:
<i>
That clause that you refer to in their contract was not worded like that in the original agreement. The concept of digital downloads for pay did not not exist. End of story.
As of right now, they have yet to provide a document with my signature on it stating I ever signed such a paper.
So while I agree that any dope who would sign such a contract deserves this, I didn't and I'm mad as hell. </i>
So while we still don't have the exact wording of the original contract, I'd have to say he has good cause to be angry, though really Orchard is at fault.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
that's why I use OS-X and itunes. Apple hardware and software "just works". And it's twice as tasty now that I can build linux software on OSX.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
I have spent quite a bit of money on iTunes Music store. It is easy to use, downloads are extremely quick, and I do not feel terribly restricted at all. I can back up my music, burn as many copies of the song as I like, and continue to listen to the music I buy indefinitely by authorizing up to three computers to play it. Computers can be de-authorized and re-authorized as I upgrade equipment too.
The thing about iTunes Music Store that makes me use it is it is reliable, and SIMPLE. Songs need only be authorized once and entire albums are authorized simultaneously. In fact I have yet to have to authorize anything because when I download they are automatically authorized into the computer I am currently using.
Downloads are really fast too, they must have major bandwidth. It just seems like Apple negotiated FAR better terms for their users than the other music download services, which all seem to have onerous restrictions. If Apple opens their service up to Windows users, they will own the online music business. Apple gets it.
Now what on earth would I do with more coasters? AOL provides me with plenty already.
Alas ... another .com company that's doomed to fail.
Good thing this person hasn't resorted to calling their customer service. Be warned! You'll be surprised... Buy.com wants to charge you $9 up front before you can speak to a real person.
Hell, I guess that explains the moronic replies from the email tech support - they want to charge you $$$$ for real customer support ( or customer service specialist "with brain" )
I guess I won't be missing this company too much.
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
Hmm well I guess I'm not ever using their service.
I use Mozilla
If the service does not support MicroSoft alternatives then I wont be using them ever. I'm trying to get away from using a MS based OS not get trapped into it more and more.
Any company that's forcing their users to rely on a operating system and certian products of that operating system are just asking for trouble.
I'm sure if MS released it's code to these buymusic people then that poor girl would not of had that nightmare of the plugin crashing.
What part of "IT'S A FUCKING FEATURE" do you not understand? If it is advertised, and it does not work, it's false advertising. They gave her a refund because it did not work as advertised. If it worked, they wouldn't have refunded her.
I'm starting to smell fake grass.
And that is illogical! How strange and unfortunate.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
It's sad when the BEST online music site out there only serves 3% of the computing population, STILL has proprietary DRM (even the Macheads don't seem to care) and worst of all the selection sucks! Don't believe me? Try to download "Ray of Light" by Madonna from iTunes. What the hell good is a music service that only carries a few select choons by artists that I may or may not give a damn about? I want to be able to get ANY music this way. If I can't... well... I know how I *can*!
my personal experience with BuyMusic
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
to head on down to
Registrant:
Buy.com (BUYMUSIC3-DOM)
85 Enterprise
Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
US
one day and sit on the front stoop there as the folk go in the building with my Powerbook g4 12" and iPod and play with iTunesMusic and just smile.. just to gloat.
i'm in a gloating mood.. i should go do it.
it could be fun. I could take pictures. It could be hysterical.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
So what keeps them from dending you a 6 meg file of random binary and swearing that it is music, and it's your fault you can play it? Is that what they are doing?
Maybe if they gave you the possibility to burn a test-CD with the plugin before you buy music, this wouldn't be an issue anymore.
She tried to open the files in Winamp. If you do this it prompts you for license info. If you open it in WMP 9 it just plays and is transparent.
Huh? If you follow the instructions of the manufacturer and it ends up not working it is definitely the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it. That's what the OP did. She did exactly as instructed and still didn't get the expected results.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
Wow VudooCrush, this is what..already your fifth comment preaching undying support for BuyMusic.com while yelling at everyone else who doesn't like them?
They make this clear before you buy the music. If I tell you before hand not to do something, and you do it anyways, is it my fault or yours?
BuyMusic.com's fault is that they provide horrible service. So people are going to complain, ask for their money back, write nasty messages about them, boycott them, etc. They're much more misleading than most companies people deal with. They knowingly use a relatively unknown and troublesome Microsoft DRM Windows Media format, without making any *active* effort to inform people these aren't MP3's. This makes people mad.
Sure, BuyMusic.com may have their fine print in order, but how many people are going to say "Well, I guess BuyMusic.com is a great company...look at this fine print here, and that fine print there...all together, it means this broken music service is not their fault. Boy, if only I had spent a few hours researching their list of supported programs, legal claims, and tech support pages before I bought my songs."
Seems ALOT of high tech companies take this stance once they have your money in thier pockets. If the product they make isn't working as it "should" and you ask for help it seems more often then not that you get the attitude that YOU are some how the problem.
The rush to market leaves out quality and the greedy minds don't see anything wrong with stealing your money and go out of thier way to make laws to protect them from the customers.
Lovely direction we are heading.
Stocking thousands of cds in a so called music store is something that can go! There is no reason why a mixed cd or multi artist, or songs on demand business model that could replace the recording industry as we know it couldn't work. This could also make artists more money in the long run because distro problems are the main reason why titles go out of print! Let the public swap all the MP3s they want then the real musicians and great artists will be all that is left.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I think the issue there is that the software authorizes the first time you try to play, then remembers the authorization - so they don't get contacted for every play. So, they have no way to know if you're still listening or not (unless WMP sends that back to MS still?) and thus can't refund your money. They would know when you switch computers... right there is what I have a problem with, as you have no way to be sure that in ten years that authentication server will still be around. The computer you have now could be your last if you like the music and can't burn some of it to CD.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... stop screwing with windoze & buy a Mac. You'll be a happier person.
After looking at your listing on BMcom it reminds me of another idiotic error in their site: why the hell does EVERY song need a preview of the cover art? Have you ever seen an album with different cover art for every track? No? Thought so.
Good luck on getting your royalties....hope things go well for you and the old band.
One of the large reasons, I'm sure, that the Apple service works so much better is that it only runs on Apple computers. As anyone knows, there isn't nearly as much variation possible between any two Apple computers as there is between any two PC's. So, Apple had an easier time of testing their service and making sure it would work. Which isn't to say that Buymusic did or is doing as well as they should at customer service or testing or really anything. Far from it. But their position doesn't really surprise me.
Also, it's probably pretty obvious that there are more people who like to "abuse the system" among the PC community than there are among Mac users. There are more hackers on PC's who are going to try to bypass the DRM, and they'll probably find some ways of doing it. And, as Macs are more expensive and more specialized, the Mac user base is generally more affluent and more constituted of the professional community. They probably don't mind paying, quite as much as we vulgar x86 serfs. I'm guessing that's one of the reasons why Buymusic has more restrictive DRM. They have more to worry about from crazy oddball PC users who could be anybody at all, than does Apple from its fairly consistent base of the same people who have always bought Macintoshes. So let's wait and see how the Itunes Music Store for Windows turns out. Maybe they'll have more restrictive DRM for Windows than they do for Macs, and maybe they'll have as many or more problems dealing with variations in people's systems as Buymusic has had. One thing I know they won't have, though, is as poor customer support as Buymusic seems to have.
Buymusic had to get their service out before it got to be too close to the time for the tried-and-true Itunes to launch for Windows, which is supposed to happen sometime in the next few months. They probably decided that they're better off launching a little early, building up a pretty steady following, and getting their kinks worked out before Itunes has a chance to come in and steal any potential customers. That plan may be backfiring, now that there have been so many problems and a lot of the press is advising that people wait a few more months. Again, though, we have to wait and see if Itunes for Windows is anywhere near as good as Itunes for Mac.
Except that no-one seems capable of copying the service correctly. It is astounding to me as well, but you can tell MS has no idea what the real appeal of the service is and they are the only plausible threat.
Apple has too much of a "moat" if you will for competitors to easily overtake them, in that they have the dedicated software (iTunes) that would have to be copied AND a critical mass of label contracts and general buzz.
If Microsoft doesn't even have a FUD campaign already talking about their own music store, then you know Apple has some time. The end of the year is a fine timeframe.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i can't help but flame you:
" they force you to use a windows media plugin made by Roxio "
If you can't figure out what she's talking about, then you shouldn't be working in tech support. Maybe you should learn to cook.
Apple uses BETTER than CD audio studio tapes for some of their products.
its true.
they use MPEG-4 files encapsulating an AAC file and the frequencies they use and the dynamic range they start with are from official STUDIO tapes and not mere CD-RIPs.
Therefore, in theory, Apples iTunes downloads are better than an AUDIO CD.
This is because an Audio CD has only 16 bit samples and 22.5Khz freq cuttoff, but all studio tapes are usually 48Khz (96000 samples per second!) and are 24 bit (sometimes 20) in amplitude.
This was done to allow mac people to accept AAC as the "new' mp3.
Anyone taking a close look at Buymusic.com would realize that this was a fiasco in the making. My main concern is that enough newbies have tried it out to permantently sour their view on legally downloading music.
If you are a burned buymusic.com customer, and Apple releases iTunes for Windows - what's the likelihood that you will give that a shot as well?
Apple needs to get iTunes for Windows out ASAP before all these jokers - buymusic, napster 2, etc. ruin the legal music buying experience for everyone.
In the end, people will pay for music - if it's done right.
I'll take one. How much?
(Anybody inclinded to ridicule needs to take a listen. They're actually pretty good.)
What did you do on the album, just out of curiosity?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
They advertise as low as 79 cents, but after after skimming through about a dozen prices, the lowest I fount was 99 cents, and many of the songs were $1.14.
Example
Forgot to mention that I think Buymusic has only been in development since the obvious successes of Itunes back in April. If it was in development before that, it was probably much slower development. So, they shouldn't have launched with something this half-baked.
How many other industries compete by actively trying to make their product worth less to the buyer?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Inclinded. I made up a new word. w00t.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
But there is the problem of finding the music, and weeding out the bad stuff without actually having to download and play it all.
This problem is solved with iRATE radio's collaborative filtering:
iRATE radio's server has 46,000 tracks registered in its database - so if you use iRATE, you don't need to go hunting for music anymore. All of these are legal downloads from websites like mine. (I compose for the piano.)The way iRATE works is that it downloads a few tracks at random at first. It downloads them directly from the artists' Web sites after finding them in its database. (The author of iRATE is careful to register only legal downloads.) After you listen to and rate the tracks, your ratings are sent back to the server where it uses statistical analysis to correllate your ratings with the ratings given by other users. If you like the same kind of music I do, then iRATE will send you all the same music I like. Conversely, if you hate my music, iRATE won't send you the music I like.
iRATE is a java program, known to work on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. The client and server are both Free Software, licensed with the GPL.
Here's some screen shots.
While iRATE works on Mac OS X, it could stand some improvement. Apple provides a package which can give java programs a native Mac OS look and feel. The project is actively seeking Mac OS X java programmers
Request your free CD of my piano music.
So how much laughter do you think is running around the hallways over at Apple right now?
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
Read all the restrictions. (It goes on for a few pages!!!)
How is this different from Micro$oft?
They sell broken OS's
Are slow to fix faults
Have rediculous licencing agreements
...and I mean "funny" in the "does this milk taste funny?" sense. And maybe the other way, too.
I noticed on a random search of favorite artists on their site that they had a complete version of The Beach Boys "Hawthorne, CA" 2 CD set. I looked up the listing, and the complete album download is $39.29. That struck me as kind of steep for some reason, so I double checked, and the CD set (with all the liner notes, packaging, etc.) lists for $26.98. That's a bit of a jump in price, considering you're getting LESS for your money from BuyMusic.
FWIW, the individual tracks ARE available for 99c each, which can be a good thing, except when the price is also applied to link tracks that run as short as 15 seconds. Really thoughtful on their part.
--DocL
---
If it wasn't for half of the people in this country, the other half would be all of them -- Col. Stoopnagle
Perhaps it was some communications phase back to BuyMusic that caused the plugin to crash when trying to authenticate access to a CD burner?
Welcome to the world of DRM where ANY step may involve some communication to an external authorization server - that may or may not get the communication right. Who's to say it wasn't server load or some other odd issue that caused the plugin crash? In some cases it could well be BuyMusic's problem EVEN when using a third party plugin.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"we may disclose, sell, trade, or rent your Personally Identifiable Information to others without your consent"
Privacy? What Privacy?
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
My Email:
Their Response:Apple, on the other hand, has a form on their support page that specifically deals with cases where a computer goes down for the count, or where the user sells or formats the computer forgetting to deauthorize it.
http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/musicsto re.html?topic=computer_authorization
I'm really really surprised that BuyMusic put absolutely NO thought into what would happen if a user loses his computer, or decides its time to retire it. This is not some obscure issue that will never come up for most people. Upgrading one's computer is the one constant of using a PC, really! Its making very little sense to use this at all compared to going to a store and picking up the CD.
i just sent an email to Jody Whitesides explaining that there is this wonderful, benevolent group of kindhearted people called the RIAA, and that they are "in it for the struggling artist".... they are always there to crush a 12 year old for downloading a Britany Spears single, or some guy that wanted to listen to a Metallica song on his work computer that he has on CD back at home...
i suggested that he contact them have have them shut down BuyMusic.com by sending them a subpoena (like they do for other music pirates) because buymusic.com has been accused of illegally distributing copyrighted music without consent of the copyright holder (jody whitesides).
No seriously - it is one thing to share files with friends for nothing... but these assmongers at SublicenseMusicThatWeDon'tOwn.com are making a LIVING off the backs of small musicians. I'm the first guy to tell someone "yeah, i limewire for songs i can't buy in iTMS".. and i also almost beat the crap out of kid when he told me he was gonna make CDs and sell them at school.
AsshatMusic.com is nothing more than a shady character that hangs out at the top of the subway with a carboard box full of self-ripped DVDs and CDs and $5 Laker jerseys. These pluggers at
85 Enterprise
Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
are not music stealers a la Kaaza users.. they are making a living off of the work of others that they have no rights to.
They are no better, albiet smaller, than Enron or GlobalCrossing.... they steal from others work to enrich their own lives.
I can't think of many good things about the DMCA, but this, by gawd, is one.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
apple support
File a DMCA takedown notice. Might as well use the big boys' own weapon against them!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Well, as somebody either here or on one of the links pointed out, the site is called "BuyMusic.com", not "PlayMusic.com".
She was able to buy it, just not play it the way she wanted.
And, yes, for you sarcasm-impaired, that's sarcasm.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I think I agree with their tech support.. if they give you a music file their obligation has been fullfilled. if you can't play it how is it their problem?
Simple. You won't come back.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
nothing's quite as elegant as raw PCM. but a WAV header can trade some of that elegance for a lot of convenience.
Okay, let's be frank here; Apple isn't known for their good Windows ports. The Quicktime player for instance behaves completely nonstandard and causes different windows (esp those which are transparent) on my desktop to flicker badly. It's gotten better lately, but it hardly feels like a native app.
I can only hope you are correct and that they're taking their time to get it right.
Episode 3 of Napster's comeback just went up. One of the better advertising campaigns to come along in a while.
Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.
;-)
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
Oh well, I guess I can't even get into the site
...of these hair-brained, screwed up DRM, half bandwidth music services, do yourself a favor and invest $12 in Total Recorder from the High Criteria web site. The only connection I have with them is that I am a very happy customer. It will capture ANYTHING that goes to your speakers and let you save it in a WAV, MP3, or Ogg Vorbis file. Unfortunately, it will NOT restore any of the fidelity you lose from the original 128kbps file, but at least then it will be free to do as you please with it! And in my humble opinion, this is covered under Fair Use - your home is your castle, your data your own.
I think the availability might even be one of the reasons why the Windows store rollout was delayed, so they have a really good stock of stuff by then. For instance, Moby stuff was just recently added. Now there are some bargain CD's, $9.99 for 18 tracks!! I wouldn't be surprised to see Ray Of Light before too long.
I read your journal entry on BuyMusic. Some of the issues are similar in iTunes (like The Wall being about the same price). But stuff like that comes from the record companies dictating the price. It would be really, really interesting to see how many albums priced about $9.99 actually sell, as that's really the limit I'm willing to pay for electronic-only content.
Also, AAC is not quite as proprietary as it would seem, there are other players that can use it (with the current DRM? Not sure). It will be really interesting to see what kind of software they end up releasing for Windows...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's a good idea - but WMP would have to support it, and I wonder if MS thought of that possiiblity either!! After all, who would want to "deauthorize" music - or so the thinking would go...
You're right abou the lack of attention to detail in the business plan.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ok everyone I'm going to warn you ahead of time this is going to be a bit messy. I also want to pre-apologize for the sporadic bile spewing.
What we have going on here (which I don't see anyone discussing this in depth) are the 2 heavily conflicting spiels coming out of the 2-mouthed double talkers of the media companies.
OK when you go buy a DVD or a CD, or an electronic song, you are getting essentially 2 things, Media and a license.
Now from all the claptrap that is going a reasonable person would think that the license if the big deal. Pay for the license and all is well. If this were the case then the media would be inconsequential. The format or type of the media would be irrelevant. Fair use could be exercised and all would be well. If this were true then you should able to reasonably get replacement media with reasonable verification of license and a modest replacement fee. (This is what Nintendo basically told me when i asked about if my gamecube games are damaged, I still have the email). Alas this is *FALSE*. There may be a few anecdotes on people who have managed to strong arm someone into doing it, usually right after the sale, but to the best my knowledge there is no such thing.
What problem is this a different metaphor for? DVD regioning. Again if the license was the real issue, and you paid said license, then if you were to move to a new region you should reasonably be able to turn in your old media a reasonable service charge (80-100% is not reasonable, if it were then the license would be only 0-20% of the cost) and get media that will play in your new region.
Now lets walk over to the other side of the fence. Let us say that instead of licensing you *bought* and actually *owned* that copy of the music. Well then you could do all the things you normally do with any other object you own. Use it until if falls apart, sell it, rent it, loan it, try it out in the store maybe? Once you own something its your responsibility to take care of it. If its a manufacturing defect its covered under warranty.
The current state of affairs is neither. You pay for a license with all sorts of restrictions of use, you have media that won't be replaced. With DVDs its illegal to make legit backup copies to prevent damage. The media guys want to have it all their way. This kind of behavior of treating your 'customers' like the scum of the earth is unsustainable.
Thank you for your indulgence.
I played elec and acoustic guitar and toy piano :) as well as some vocals. On the previous (unrealeased) record I played drums.
What can I say, I'm a renaissance man. With ADHD. :)
"Because, as nerds, we want the original and well-designed service (Apple Music Store) to thrive, instead of the half-assed ripoff (BuyMusic)."
And yet people still buy PC's over Macs.
Then again, if your CD breaks, you're also out of luck.
What do they mean with license still has downloads available?
"Try buying Black Eyed Peas's 'Where is the Love.'"
It's a gas cloud away.
yay! even their commercials are lame apple rip-offs. Do they think people don't know how lame they are? Typical windows weenies...
I think a pay service is worth it, and I'd be interested to hear which people like the best. The Macintosh one is an obvious candidate, though paying per track (or album) could get expensive if I go overboard. I had an emusic.com account and thought it was worth paying for the convenience and quality. I only quit after exhausting their selection. So who else has a good selection of music at a fair price without ridiculous restrictions?
As I said in the subject line, you get what you pay for. If you don't mind the headaches and "close enough" engineering in order to save the cash, that's your choice.
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree, I get a bit tired of my Mac brethren complaining about how the store, as launched, is Windows Only when iTunes Music Store, as launched, is Mac Only. As for AAC, however, it's part of QuickTime--which is available for Windows. So download and install QuickTime on your Windows machine and listen to all the AAC-encoded audio you want.
Also, I believe AAC is part of the new MPEG standard. There may be some issue with supporting it--I know there was some royalty issue for encoding or playing back MPEG material. But assuming I'm wrong, it's a standard which anyone can implement.
I get this because I refuse to use IE for anything other than windows update, so neither Firebird nor Opera 7 will work. I just hate browser prejudice...
In other word, in order to buy from them you must agree to purchase a defective, unreliable product, and once you've received it, it is your problem that it does not work... sounds just like buying a copy of the (any) new windows OS... does M$ own any buymusic.com stock... >:P
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Now tell us what it means.
The technical gliteches plague the users of bymusic.
I went to their site and it told me to download IE, which won't work as I run Linux. I sent them an Email. Which bounced, I think.
I'm confused about why it's even an issue that BuyMusic is selling your (and other's) records? Assuming BM got your music from The Orchard, and you sold your songs to The Orchard, doesn't that mean everything's nice and legal? You sold property to one entity, who then sold it to another. What's the problem?
If you could take a moment and explain why this is so bad, I would be very grateful.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I don't see what you guys' problem is. Just take a lesson from the RIAA and sue for infringement! Let's see... at >$750 per infringement, which I'm taking to be per d/l, you'll be able to retire in no time! I'd be sure to file suit early, though, just in case they go belly-up.
A quick perusal of the legal fine print turns up a part about "forfeiture and destruction" which seems to say that with a large enough infringement the government can seize all equipment used to infringe. Not to mention some pretty hefty fines. IANAL, but doesn't that mean you can gut their business with one action?
I'm not holding out too much hope, but it'd be awesome if the copyright laws turn out to work for the little guy too!
Interestingly, BuyMusic.com has ripped off every aspect of iTMS EXCEPT for it's usability and success. They copied the advertising, claimed to be the first to market with digital downloads (something that has been available long before even Apple stepped into the ring) and distributed misleading propaganda regarding cost of purchases. When Mac users became irate, they blocked any system but Windows from accessing their website. Dan
Standing on the shoulders of giants.
... lazy and ignorant.
First off:
Let examine his Mac Zealot nature...
1] he's ok with iTunes distributing the music based on the same contract with Orchard.
2] He's not ok with a non-macintosh friendly service distributing the music.
So, basically, he's only pissed at buymusic.com because it competes with a Steve Jobs / Apple pet project.
And what part of:
by any and all means and media (whether now known or existing in the future)
doesn't he understand when he says:
The concept of digital downloads for pay did not not exist. End of story.
Seems pretty open and shut to me... He sold his soul for $5 [obligitory Simpsons reference] and now he wants it back. Looks like he's getting exactly what he deserves:
I started going to the Orchard's site, found that they still seem to be conducting business, unfortunately I can no longer get into my account cause the information there is so old that I don't have it anymore.
Apparently the telephone's pretty heavy when you realize that you've signed away all your rights, isn't it Joey?
So while I agree that any dope who would sign such a contract deserves this, I didn't and I'm mad as hell.
He said it for me...
------------------------------
Ray Raspberry
raspberry@b3l33t.org
This is really satisfying to hear about 20 minutes after watching one of their commercials. It was pretty shameless, almost up there with that Gateway one trashing the iMac. It's basically like Honda making a commercial where some guy comes in on a white background and takes a baseball bat to a Toyota. Except in the BM commercial, it's a guy trashing the iTMS ad's electric guitar.
Good to know their services sucks as much as their ads do.
- Sherman
don't usually take this kind of bs laying down.
Companies should wise up and stop trying to blow people off. All it takes is one angry customer to write something in their blog, get linked from Slashdot, and its all over. Bad first impressions are the hardest to get over.
Usually you have to get the more savvy early adopter type onboard before you start screwing people over. It is the masses who are rather blase when their personal information will be sold and are ripped off.
"leadership in technology innovation" ?
Hello, BM employee.
The same as inclined, presumably...
BuyMusic attempts to block Mac Users:
http://www.macnn.com/news/20350
Reason I say that is because it's the exact same problem that LiquidAudio has. WMP9 does the exact lookup of licenses for Liquid WMA tracks. Also both Liquid and Buy have you download songs individually, maybe, again, something to do with WMP9? Only good difference between LA and Buy is with Liquid you can use the builtin WMP9 burning. Just a thought
- DRM can only further complicate the issue of media transfer; it can never simplify it
- DRM takes the right-of-storage away from the user; people are not getting what they pay for
- DRM, if it takes a hold, will make long term archival of media next to impossible (think long term: this is a significant problem)
- DRM puts questionable authorities in control of media on your computer. In many cases your computer ceases to function as an independant entity.
- DRM is erroneously pushed as a "security enhancement" for user. The reason for the lies is that DRM actually has no benefit for the user.
The key point: DRM offers no benefit for the user.http://woof.lu/board/index.php3
The customer has only himself to blame. If he offers his butt for misuse, he can't complain if he feels a little sore afterwards. Customers have to exercise their own common sense in sizing up a site like Buymusic.com and software such as Windows Media Player. This is not the "compromise" he says he is looking for. Compromise would be iTunes, but this is simply total capitulation. Wise up next time.
Oh, fuck you.
You are full of shit and you know it.
Asshole.
it ain't no new word. He is a larpo.
Now if I recall properly around Media Player 7 there was a huge conflict with an Adaptec CD Burning Plug in. In other words you had a choice. Uninstall the plug in or Update your EZ CD Creator. Updating your EZ CD Creator usually didn't resolve the instability issues, but uninstalling the plug in did. (Side Note: Adaptec sold EZ CD Creator and Direct CD to Roxio) Seems to me that instability issue never really got resolved, and now we're seeing another side affect of it
'Pleasure is the Disease, Pain is the Cure' - Lilith
What I got from reading is that Orchard is a distributor of CDs (and tapes?). It doesn't neccessarily give them the (legal) right to stream/rip digital copies from the CDs in their warehouse, does that make sense?
What the fuck do you think you're doing? ^_^ Seriously, she is shooting herself in her pretty little stiletto-heeled foot. Too bad. The cluetrain seems to have left before she got to the station.
Well, y'see, they're called BuyMusic.com, and they're in the business of selling stuff to consumers. One of the best ways to ensure repeat business is to treat customers with grace and generosity: that's where the old maxim "the customer is always right" comes from. Even if that is impractical in the digital age, it seems that it's in BuyMusic's best interests to treat early adopters well, so that the buzz surrounding their service stays positive. It seems to me that they're not doing a very good job of it so far. And they bear an extra burden, not only having to establish themselves as a viable service, but having to establish that the service they provide is economically viable and technically possible: they seem to be falling down on the latter count, and alienating people who actually decided to drop money on an untested service doesn't bode well for their success on the former.
So maybe you're right, that technically, as soon as the .wmv file hits the user's hard drive, the BuyMusic folks have discharged their obligations, but in a larger sense, if they leave users adrift, they're failing in their obligation to themselves: it's precisely their problem when users don't come back to spend more money there, and dissuade their friends from using the service as well.
Granted, such problems are to be expected when you do a product launch for a new business model; but I for one am thrilled that the service is wrought with technical and, from the sounds of the it, service problems.
;)
What we need is more real world DRM failures like this where legitimate transactions are made riskier than illegal file-sharing.
If more and more DRM implementations fail during real world consumption and not during lab testing, eventually the cost of developing improved DRM methodologies will become so staggering, the entire business model will collapse.
The RIAA would not pull the strings on this model because of the profit potential. It's like a bating a mouse with cheese - any amount will do. There would be no alternative but to ease up on DRM all together or sell MP3s at a price that is comparable to ordinary purchases of CD singles in retail stores. Eventually, the price of CDs would drop, making my dollar go further
If I remember correctly, you can use the DMCA to shut down their entire website. Well, according to the law that is; I suspect only big companies are listened to.
kazaa isnt the lowest of the low if you want selection/speed, its just that its adware, kazaalite (kazaalite.tk) is kazaa without the spy/ad/malware. try kazaalite.
Why do you think Microsoft will allow nonDRM WMAs to flourish if they can make money off DRM WMAs?
:D
Or are you suggesting an illicit black market of coders, programs, and distributors who hijack WMA much like DivX hijacked MS-MPEG4?
Except of course the DivX folk are now trying to gain legitimacy
GPL Deconstructed
May I also recommend EMusic
$10-$15 a month. "Unlimited" (mostly) HQ MP3 downloads.
I signed up a few months ago, and I've been quite happy with them.
They even have a download manager for Linux, although it required a bit of tweaking...
I suggest you check out their catalogue. If you find something interesting, they have a 50 track free trial.
The downside? Customer service is slooooow. But the forums are OK, and you can find help there.
Some details on new Napster (2.0) here.
.wma offers better sound quality than CD.
By the time BuyM$sic.com manages to weed out all glitches, Napster comes back to the market and probably kick BuyMu$.lock-in.com's ass hard enough to make the new comer rethink about its business plans.
I will probably never use this site regardless since I need to
1) install proprietary operating system that is known to be insecure;
and
2) surf the web with a browser that is not standard compliant;
to
3) download sound files in a proprietary, non-standard format;
which requires buyers (me) to only use
4) a bloated proprietary multimedia player that is/will be tightly integrated with the 1) OS;
to playback.
Why should I bother? I rather buy and own CDs, even if
CEO of Roxio in this news.com article says "[Napster]will be very reflective of the key characteristics of the original Napster...independence, innovation and freedom of choice." (emphasis mine)
- I sure hope it will be.
I was listening to an interview with someone from BuyMusic.com on CNet Radio Direct (Friday 25th July if anyone is interested) and Brian Cooley (or one of his minions) commented that there seemed to be only 100,000 songs on their database, and the guy basicaly said there are 300,000 songs and that the users must just be stupid! Quality customer service there obviously.
-- Vagnerr - (www.vagnerr.com) Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
If you're into indie stuff, then emusic looks like quite a bargain. Something around $15 a month for unlimited MP3 downloads. This sounds like a win-win situation, at least for me. I'm planning on subscribing this week.
Don't like indie? Get a Mac or just pay tower records the $18 they want for the new Britney.
At least there are *some* choices today that weren't here just a year ago.
I posted these exact complaints with the buymusic service a week ago. BuyMusic doesn't sell you the music, they screw you in the TOS, et cetera.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
BuyMusic.com Music Store Songs Disabled Outside Us
- 'Buy' music at BuyMusic.com in the US.
- Go to Canada.
- Crash hard drive.
- Reinstall and reauthorize music : DENIED.
- Make a article and bash BuyMusic.com (as they did for iTunes).
Old skool Jungle webcast futureassassin.com
Listen Here
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
i've just tried to purchase a song from buymusic.com and it stills says that my ISP it's outside the US... wtf..? i'm in CA ffs... anyway.. i'll try they tech support... wish me luck
Rentals, not "purchases".
Oh, and nice attitude. Once you've bought - sorry, rented - the music, you get one chance to download, and if they give you the wrong file, or a corrupt file, or it gets eaten by /dev/null, you can get screwed.
Fuck them. Fuck them with every big stick you can think of. Fuck them with the Better Busines Beuro, fuck them with their local Attorney General, fuck them by telling your credit card issuer to issue a chargeback because you didn't receive the goods you paid for. Fuck them right in their stupid, DRM crippled, incompetent, evil, idiotic ear.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Thanks for the heads up.
Maybe iTunes will be better. I don't know as I'm using windows/linux and not mac.
Their Image server can be accessed by all browsers :P http://ak.buy.com.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
That's also true when you buy a CD or a tape or acquire music on any other medium. You don't own the music, you just get a license to play the copy of the music you received, and then only in private. You can't copy it (fair use just says copyright holders can't sue in certain circumstances), you can't broadast it, etc.
You only ever own the music you write and perform yourself...
Apparently they're ripping off artists too.
They somehow acquired music from a now almost defunct music distributor and neglected to inform the artist who were signed there that their music is now for sale on BuyMusic.
These artists are now grouping together to formulate a strategy on how to proceed legally. They are discussing each buying a copy of at least one of their own songs to see if BuyMusic is going to pay the artist their due before going ahead with legal threats.
I don't recall reading a four page legal document when I last purchased a CD. What are you, a BuyMusic.com employee? Instead of whining on Slashdot, why don't you get back to fixing your broken-ass plugin?
How am I going to test the Roxio plugin without a DRM audio file to burn to CD via. the Roxio plugin in the first place? If I sell you an umbrella but it leaks the first time you put it up in the rain, you wouldn't mind if I claimed it was your fault for not trying it out in the rain before you bought it?
Get over it, your code was shit. Now go fix it.
Most artist contracts stipulate the media the label can sell the work in (CD, cassette tape, etc.). If the label had not negotiated digital purchases of the artists work, then the label is in violation of the contract.
As for selling out, what does that mean? Please provide a clear definition.
You should download all your music with Bittorrent :)
NOTE TO RIAA: Only uncopyrighted material of course!
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Wait; if they sell me the actual audio file, then they're right that they do not need to provide a new copy if I loose the original. At the same time, if I bought the audio file, why is it encrypted and why can't I resell it? Oh, because I've only bought a licence to listen to that audio file? Then why can't I download a replacement copy of the audio file if I loose the original? I still have the original licence I purchased, right? Oh, I don't?
Then what the fuck am I paying them for?
I wish to God someone would take the whole bunch of jackasses to court over this.
Apple can easily covert their system to Linux than writing for Windows from the ground up. The only reason it has not happened yet is becuase Windows is the more lucrative platform to do next. I'm sure a Linux version is planned and will be along shortly after they work out the Windows issues.
I'd be interested to hear which people like the best. The Macintosh one is an obvious candidate...
No way to find out. Not only won't BuyMusic.com work with Macintosh or other platforms, it's locked into a browser headed for non-support.By going with a standards-based service, not only would the service be easier to maintain, but they increase their market share by serving Mac users and every one else. A sale is a sale, the customer's choice of platform should be irrelevant.
Furthermore, there are still numbers of WinNT and Win98 users out there. Developing for MSIE ony is going to leave them out in the cold when MS drops the standalone version of MSIE.
So it'd be interesting to know if the service is letting the bottom line or their ideology decide? It can't be good for sales to turn away an arbitrary percentage of potential customers.
---
pump and dump
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Could a possible solution be to
buy, burn, re-rip?
Would that be a workaround for the DRM and licensing? Or is there something I don't know (usually the case)...
As for the review: It isn't like she purchased an entire music library -- just a small selection which was enough to thoroughly test the problems of Buymusic (i.e. no album-level permissions, WMP plug-in problems, useless CS). Then after the company failed to provide adequate support or redress, she let people know in her widely-read blog. What would people have said if her complaint was about one song? "Too small a sample to count," would be my guess. I think that review did more for the tech community than a dozen
ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
And my friend still asks me why I switched to Mac.
Scriptygoddess's description of the BuyMusic.com "experience" is exactly why; it sounds typical of most software and / or services on the Wintel platform. One manufacturer blames another for problems, nothing works, et cetera.
I know there are *a few* good applications and user experiences out there on the Windows platform. I used a Windows PC (with Linux installed on a second partition) for years.... but yeah... it just doesn't compare to the simplicity, consistency, and dependability of using a Mac running OS X.
After programming a computer all day long at work, I really like coming home to one that doesn't piss me off. =)
This seems to be a big slap in the face for Apple's most loyal customers... er, should I say Apple's paying beta testers...
However, to be serious, they claim to require IE since they use an ActiveX control as part of the DRM mechanism (it downloads the license files you need to decrypt the music). While you can view the site in other browsers (the HTML doesn't seem to be IE dependent) you can't actually buy anything off of it.
'I don't understand this, and I can't possibly be wrong/ignorant, therefore they must be stupid!' is an attitude that is so common on /., and it really pisses me off.
Frankly, I'd like to see both around. I mean, competition's a great thing, right? At least that's what everybody always complains about with Microsoft....
Quite right - you've got to nip this sort of thing in the bud. Listening to Britney Spears, that is, not the copying.
Don't buy from a spammer, it's bound to hurt you...
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
From the USA Today article:
Apple has sold 6.5 million songs since April; BuyMusic won't release figures, but "it's not millions," Blum says.
Didn't Apple sell 1 million songs in week one to the 2.5-5% (depending on who you believe) Apple market?
Doesn't that mean BM should sell at a rate 20 to 40 times faster given a market 20 to 40 times larger? Oops!
It's a win-win for the RIAA. If it works, it proves that DRM is the key. If it doesn't, they claim it's a faulty implementation, and that a good implementation wouldn't have had those problems. (Actually, it's almost in their best interest to not have online sites work, since they still haven't figured out how that business model works)
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
welcome to capitalism. the point of buymusic is not to enable people to buy music, etc, but to make money for the guy (/gal) who owns it . the small print seems to cover the owner's ass, so the whole setup is probably legal (enough..); so the only reason for the owner to bother doing the thing properly would be to make more than the $100K or so he probably got in the first week before word got out that the service sucks. sounds like a reasonable business plan to me.
Copy protection or "DRM" is nothing new. The software industry tried it in the 80s with different floppy based tricks. The whole idea died when:
* The pundits started trashing the concepte because it really, really sucked when you couldn't re-install Lotus 1-2-3 which cost $295 (that's about 595 in today's $). Now were talkin a $20 CD.
* Central Point Software made a killing on a product called Coppy II PC which would basically autohack copy protected stuff ranging from dBase to Lotus 1-2-3 to Apache and Broderbund's games.
* Companies like Borland would steal market share from the big players by highlighting their stuff wasn't copy protected and had a "paperback" license where you could install on as many machines as you want, but only user one installation.
* Software publishers did a cost-benefit analysis and realized that they would loose 3-5% in sales and pick up 5-10% in profit margin by not licensing copy protection.
Consumers want stuff they can use.
-- $G
The Itunes site is tolerable.
Buymusic sucks so hard that it blows.
Never seen such a crappy service. I suspect it will be the favorite of 16 year olds with too much money and too little brains.
If someone sells me a product and tells me that procedure X is the one and only way to use the product, and I follow procedure X to the letter, and it doesn't work, then the product is defective. plain and simple.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
"BuyMusic is new to this market, is a good company, and will continue to succeed"
iTunes sold a million songs to 5% of the computer population in 1 week. Rave reviews, no problems with glitches, or anything like that.
BuyMusic sells less than 1/2 that number of songs to 20 times the number of users, has bad reviews, infringing artists copyrights, removing fair use restrictions for consumers, and YOU CALL THAT A SUCCESS?
I call it an astounding failure that will be a big black eye to Buy.com, Microsoft (for their horrible DRM), and mostly to the RIAA which is too busy suing their customers to make sure they have a product worth selling.
I hope people like you curl up into a ball, go into a basement and stop bothering honest decent people.
"No, it's your responsibility to make sure that software works on your computer before you buy something.."
How do you propose to do that?
I'll bet your mother wishes she would've had a wire hanger before you were born...
Actually, as per the user agreement, she LICENSED it, the name of the site notwithstanding (yes, it explicitly mentions that). So, since it's a license, not a sale, she probably has recourse under contract law. (If it were a sale, she'd have all the consumer protection crap on her side).
KaZaA Lite is the best to get MP3s, porn and popular software quickly.
eMule (eDonkey network) is the best to get movies, games and software reliably, as well as full albums, ebooks and porn.
What Gnutella is good for, I don't know.
Direct Connect ++ is best to get stuff if you have a very fast connection.
BitTorrent is best to get fresh movie, anime and other releases and some legit stuff like game demos.
FreeNet is not really usefull as of today.
IRC is good to get fresh movie and software releases quickly.
Usenet is good to get fresh stuff quickly if your ISP has a good newsserver or you are willing to subscribe to a paid one, but it's bad for hunting down specific stuff.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
My questions is - BuyMusic.com shouldn't have any reason to want DRM in their music, that pressure would seem to come from the RIAA. Apparently the iTunes store gets away without having any DRM. Did Apple make some special deal with the music companies that others just aren't able to make?
Luckily, you can rather easily back up your songs on CD. Remember that Apple not only lets you make unencumbered CD-Audio copies, but anyone with a recent Mac has at least a CD-RW built in. So, there's really no excuse if someone loses their songs without having a backup...
iTunes didn't use to have any, but they recently added the album with the Amish rap song on it. Which I will be buying once I get a spare moment at home.
What truer test of iTunes worth to society (and buymusic's worthlessness) can there possibly be?
RTFA. She was trying to burn from WMP when it kept crashing.
"Stealing the music and listening to it anyway" sure did solve EVERYTHING for that poster, he got to LISTEN TO THE MUSIC. That is why he bought the CD in the first place.
We're all praying to Jesus...it just a matter of time
the only reason for the owner to bother doing the thing properly would be to make more than the $100K or so he probably got in the first week before word got out that the service sucks. sounds like a reasonable business plan to me.
Do you HONESTLY think that even if they pulled in $100K in sales the first week, that this would put them in the black? Perhaps if they have slaves working for them, they didn't license ANY of the music they are selling, they didn't pay for any bandwidth, and they are located in Blum's basement.
They're trying to make it hard, because they figure most people have the attention span of a gnat, and so every 3-4 years when they buy a computer, they lose their access to "Christina Aguillara", and you figure, who gives a shit.
Meanwhile, if you had bought the CD, you'd have your backup in your hand, no DRM, and better sound.
You people pushing this crap are crazy or stupid.
A least a lot of people can't. That's the point of the article.
Or are you a Buymusic apologist?
I think you mean epitome.
I'm not a grammer nazi, but why use a word if you have no friggin idea how to spell it? Use a different word or learn to use the dictionary.
we may disclose, sell, trade, or rent your Personally Identifiable Information to others without your consent".
There's no way to ensure the software will work without purchasing at least one song from them FIRST. The problem with the plugin (that they FORCE YOU TO USE) is that it crashes when it starts "verifying my license". I went to Roxio's site to see if they had an update, or even an EMAIL ADDRESS I could use to ask them about it - but they don't even mention this plugin on their site, nor do they have a "service plan" for this plugin that has an email associated with it because it's not a "full product". So if I want support from them, I'd probably have to buy the full version of Roxio... all the while, more money gone - we're still not positive this is ever going to burn a CD. In all honesty - I had been really psyched about buymusic.com because of the price and their selection. I would have gladly spent some more time trying to get it to work - IF they had offered to "reset" the license. I got my money back, but I think I'm the lucky one. There's no guarantee that next time I'll get my money back if the other plugins that are compatible with WinXP don't work either. And with that much hassle - why should I bother? I'll buy my CD's in the store for now, until someone (Apple?) gets it right on windows!
Yes, but (pressed) CDs tend to be a lot more reliable than computer components. I believe "license still has downloads available" means that you still have credit in your account. Basically, they are saying, pay us again.
I suppose the good thing is it's actually written somewhere that they're going to do it. Personally I'd rather see it called the Disclosure Policy rather than Privacy Policy. I don't care if it's some site's policy to fully disclose my information (I won't USE said site, though...) as long as their "privacy" policy reflects that.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
"BTW: "info" is "real, tangible property" when that "info" consists of a unique creative work someone took their time to create. Such a person deserves to be compensated for that work just as much as do you for working your job."
Info is not real property except in people's imagination. Information can be copied at no cost, and it doesn't exist except in terms of what people perceive it to be.
And to be clear, no one deserves compension at all for anything. They may want it, they may get it, but they don't *deserve* it.
"because of the price and their selection"
Their pricing is bad, and their selection isn't equal to a mom-and-pop record store.
$1.00 for music encoded at 128kb? This is probably 1/3 CD quality, and you paid 9/10's of CD price (CD's cost $12-13, a CD has 11 songs).
Oh, but you got to pick that one lucky song (rolling eyes). I think consumers like you deserve to be ripped off.
From another post concerning iTunes: Result: Pretty decent music service, all things considered.
I think this statement is hugely understated. It's far better than "pretty decent", and "all things considered", they (Apple) have produced a licensing scheme that seems to be out of reach of others, and should be applauded on a grand scale.
I'm sorry about this, it's just that the iTMS is literally unbelievably easy, well thought out, etc... you can actually feel the unintrusiveness and ease. I just bought another song... one click and I'm listening to it on my HD. ONE CLICK buys, downloads, and inserts into iTunes and updates your iPod (if you have one connected). It's literally unbelievable. I can't wait til PC users can see this...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
What a blatant ripoff their TV ads are. They are embarassingly unoriginal. I am surprised that any legitimate business would stand behind such a weak "me too" effort.
iTMS isn't working for anyone not owning a Mac. When 90%+ of the market is exlcuded, is there any wonder they go "Doing what iTMS does for the mass market!"? It's not like they'd be directly competing against the iTMS (yet). If they had done a proper job about it, they could have dwarfed iTMS due to the size of the market alone and had a serious position when iTMS tries to enter the market. Guess they didn't though, and I'm not surprised...
But I would say it makes good business sense. If you see Coke Lemon being a hit in country X, would you be surprised if Pepsi Lemon suddenly appeared in country Y trying to cease the market first? I wouldn't...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I think them introducing their own client would introduce a whole host of other problems. You think Media Player has issues? Try RealONE. It's been my experience that proprietary media players often suck, hard core. They usually suffer from lackluster performance, not to mention a lack of options and a confusing interface. At least with media player, there's a somewhat familiar interface for users.
I think the problem with DRM is that you need a proprietary format that has its own proprietary methods. I say we need something that doesn't contact a server, and that allows you to use your music anywhere. How about a new media format that is an RSA-encrypted mp3? Then, you would have to enter a username & key to your player, and all your music would be good to go. As far as sharing, you would be able to share with whomever you feel comfortable sharing your RSA key. (keep in mind, the username and key would be used to log in and buy music, also, so you'd be leary about giving it out)
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
I was really hoping buymusic would expand the pool of legit music but based on the responses here, the fact that they've locked out my browser, and (it sounds like) their files are drm'd. With eMusic the selection is not extensive but they have real mp3's with no limits on how many times you can play or download. Ten bucks a month, no threat of prosecution, all the mp3's you can eat. I'm not an employee or a stock holder just a happy customer.
> Cross platform capable? Talent? Professionals? Let me think for a millisecond...
...)
Oh, that's just PHB-speak. Let me translate:
Term: Cross platform capable
Translation: Supports Windows ME, 2K and XP, provided that you have a recent IE Version installed and haven't screwed up the IE settings too much (cookies, ActiveX,
Term: Talent
Translation: They somehow managed to install IIS
Term: Professionals
Translation: We pay them. Not enough to make a decent living, but we pay them, so they're professionals.
Sentence: BuyServices' goal is to become the premier outsource e-commerce provider
Comment: And my goal is to have sex with five different supermodels seven days a week. Unfortunately for BuyServices, they're as likely to reach their goal as I am to reaching mine.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
Okay, BuyMusic.com doesn't work with Galeon so I can't check if they have actually working payment options for filthy foreigners like me (credit cards and international bank transfers are right out!) and Apple's offering isn't much better ("We would, but international music licensing rights yadda yadda yadda"), but I'd like to share something.
First there was Sonera Plaza MP3 Store. Yeah, they sell MP3s. I think it was 160kb/s, one even had a samplerate of 48kHz. The problem was, they have like 3 artists with them, two locally widely known ones (Apulanta and Tehosekotin), none of which I liked. I downloaded the two songs which I liked. Payment was the cool part - I could pay with an SMS message and it was billed in the cellphone bill.
Sonera Plaza doesn't seem to have that service anymore. Or, at least I couldn't find it from their site with a cursory glance. Maybe it's buried somewhere. I don't know. It wasn't particularly easy to find back in the day and they sure aren't making it any easier to find.
But one thing is sure: If I only find the right CD-R from my shelf, I can still play the MP3 files all right. And I did burn them on audio CD too =)
Next, a far bigger service sprang up, done by the local record companies. It was called Emma.fm. They had a VERY wide selection of Finnish music. Likewise, good payment options (SMS was among them, too, and also credit accounts for more hardcore users...).
And all of that crap was in WMA format!
Okay, so I paid for the single song I was interested in getting at that time, and got this mysterious wma file that I couldn't play on Linux and not particularly easily in Windows either. I didn't seem to be able to download the "license key". (IIRC the purchase entitled me to get 5 license keys... which would sound like a generous offer if only ogg/mp3 wouldn't need any keys to operate, ever.)
So I went to AudioGalaxy and downloaded the MP3 from a fellow user. (Hey, I paid for it. They got the money. I got the song. Just not what they planned, but... well, everyone was happy.)
Nowadays, Emma.fm is closed down due to "lack of interest"! Wonder what I should do with this unlicensed .wma file now... at least they could refund the unused credits and licenses, but what about the future licenses???
The lesson learned: The need for license keys in case either side (the user's system or the digital music provider) is the thing that kills all interest in any WMA providers. I won't use any of this rubbish ever.
Let's just get Apple's store here, allow me to use it on Linux (or at least Windows) and let me pay with SMS. Then we'll take a look at where I concentrate my legit music purchases...
So I go to the search feature part of the site, and start typing in some bands I like.
Eyes Of Ligeia... no dice. No problem, I wasn't expecting them to have such an obscure artist. Probably no one does except the actual label that I ordered it directly from.
Megiddo... nope. Again, I didnt think they would have this either.
Graveland... no. Good thing to, their political views are "controversial".
Axis of Advance... nope. Still an obscure band, but their last release was on a less obscure label (I thought), though still not RIAA affiliated.
Burzum... no. See Graveland.
Ok Ok, I'm typing in relatively recent bands... what if I start typing in older bands whose newer stuff is much more mainstream.
Immortal... nothing
Mayhem... nothing
Bathory... nothing. Damn I would have thought at least this band... their releases in the 80s are considered classics of the metal genre.
they must have Slayer, right? Even my grandma has heard of Slayer. And... they do!!! But only their latest release, but that album sucks, and I'm being nice there. DOH!
How about Metallica, I've hated everything they've put out in the last 15 years but what the hey! And we get back some album I've never heard of. whatever
So an online store that sells mostly mainstream crap. Thank you, but I'll continue to BUY my music in CD form, straight from the labels that release them, and encode them to whatever friggin format I like. The RIAA can go blow themselves... they havent released any popular music I would consider buying anymore. I wish more people could say this, it would mean the end of them.
You're arguing with people who think FM radio sounds "just fine".
They couldn't tell the difference between 128kb and CD if stabbed them with a fork, fucked their daughter, and burned down their house.
I assume you're referring to WM9 being a necessity when you say this. Just a note, though, you don't have to upgrade the OS to run WM9. I'm running WM9 (I'm really not all that pleased with WinAmp) on Windows 98, and I haven't had any problems. Now, that doesn't mean that WM10 won't require you to run XP or Longhorn, and the moment WM10 comes out, that you won't be forced to upgrade it to keep playing your music, but for now, you're not locked in.
They're called buymusic, not playmusic...
This was fetched using mozilla with javascript turned off.
License Restrictions Music File Licenses
When you purchase and download music from BuyMusic.com, your music files are accompanied by a license with certain restrictions. The music files are encrypted with DRM license technology to be sure that they are used according to your license restrictions. (See Minimum System Requirements.)
IMPORTANT: Make sure you mean to buy your music from your primary computer (for example: your home computer) so that it contains your primary license. The licenses are non-transferable. Example: You cannot buy your music on your home machine and then transfer your primary license to your second home computer. The computer you buy from becomes the primary computer with the primary license for that song. You can only copy music from your primary machine via your primary license. See below for details.
Downloading, Transferring, and Burning
Each record label has control over these license restrictions including the number of times you may:
* transfer your songs to another computer(s)
* transfer your songs to an approved portable device.
* burn your songs to CD
BuyMusic.com complies with each record label and adjusts the license permissions for each of your music downloads accordingly.
Two Types of Licenses: Primary and Secondary
There are two types of licenses: Primary and Secondary. The primary license is downloaded to the machine you used to buy your music (for example your home computer). Your primary license enables you to copy your music from your primary computer to your approved portable device and to burn it to your CDs as many times as the record label allows.
If you download a secondary license, you do so onto a secondary computer (for example your second home computer). Your secondary license enables you ONLY to listen to your music on your secondary computer. A secondary license does NOT allow you to transfer your music from your secondary computer to your approved portable devices or to burn it to your CDs.
Make sure you mean to buy your music from your primary computer so that it contains your primary license. The licenses are non-transferable. You cannot buy your music on one machine and then transfer your primary license to another computer. The computer you buy from becomes the primary computer with the primary license for that song.
Before You Buy: Icons Show Number of Copies Allowed
When you download songs, your licenses are downloaded too. When you lookup a song, notice that each song displays icons showing the number of times it may be transferred or copied via the primary license.
The Compact Disk icon shows the number of times the song can be copied or "burned" to compact disks.
The Headphone icon shows the number of times you can transfer the song to approved portable devices.
The Computer icon shows the number of computers you can transfer your music to in total.
The icons apply only to your primary license on your primary computer. The icons do not apply to the secondary license on your secondary computer. You cannot use the secondary license to transfer or copy music at all.
After You Buy: Your Receipt Shows Number of Copies Allowed
After you've purchased your music, you can go back to see how many downloads you have left and find out if there are any restrictions on the number of compact disks or media player downloads you can make. Log in, go to your Account page, and open the receipt page to view the music you have previously purchased. Your receipt shows the same information as the icons on the song description page.
Example: Computers: 2 - Approved Portable Devices: Unlimited - CDs: 3. In this example, you could download your music to one primary computer and transfer to one secondary computer (to store the music for playing on two computers total) AND you could transfer your music to your approved portable device as many times as you like (unlimited) AN
Remember, it doesn't have to be as good as iTunes, it just has to be good enough for the masses of Windows users to accept it.
Good point.
Even so, Apple will probably execute the Windows version of iTMS with style and grace. When the iTMS for Windows debuts, it very likely will surpass the level of usability that Windows users have grown accustomed to. Given Apple's industry-envied history of producing quality software and hardware, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's Windows version of iTunes outperforms all current players in the category.
One can only hope that more users will experience firsthand the difference between Apple(-based) and Microsoft(-based) companies. Both types of company aim to make money, but they have different approaches to that goal. Apple (idealisitic) wants to make the best widget out there, bar none. Microsoft (monopolistic) wants to be the only widget out there, barring all others.
Few Windows-based companies "get it right." Instead, they get it "good enough", which is basically Clock_Nova's point.
Now, I'm not claiming Apple is a perfect company. They've shafted plenty of users, including me. But I am saying that because Apple has an idealistic approach to the market, they often pioneer and advance the state of information technology. Because Microsoft takes a monopolistic approach, they largely clone information technologies, often producing a usable but dramatically inferior product. Occasionally, the monopolistic approach demands that pioneering technology be destroyed, but now I'm getting a little off-topic . . . My main point is that Apple's Windows iTMS will probably be better than "good enough." I'm betting it will rock.
(To be fair, Windows-based companies, Microsoft to name one, occasionally produces high-quality product. For example, the Microsoft Office suite for Mac OS X comes to mind.)
blog
Bwuhahahaha. Is it evil to revel in BuyMusic.com's horrible, slow demise?
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Feel free to mod me down for being off topic, but I have to defend myself here.
:) The Ramapo College Sci-Fi Club is around 50 members strong, making it the largest club on campus. We hold 5 meetings per week (anime viewing, tv viewing, movie viewing, and 2 role-playing sessions) as well as at least 3 events per month and 1 community service event each month. This past year we won an award for outstanding community service achievments. Our members typically have (a) larger circles of friends due to the club, and (b) higher GPA's due to the support of those friends than other Ramapo College students.
:)
I'm not just a member, I'm the president.
So, uh... yeah... we're real winners, thanks for noticing.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
Songs by rapper '50 Cent' actually costed 99 cents. It's an outrage!
I tried buymusic.com for the first time last week and that was it. The download and burn procews of the files was a breeze, and I don't mind the DRM restrictions, as I only wanted one CD copy of the album I bought anyway. The real problem cam edown the the QUALITY OF THE FILES! They suck! Not only is Windows Media a horrible audio codec, their files are encoded at only 128kbits! It sounded ghastly on my car stereo... even on my laptop speakers! I refuse to pay for music at anything less than 192kbits in ACC, MP3 or OGG format. ::makes whirbiling noises:: That's all it is!
All I know is this:
1. iTunes Music Service worked the first time and every time after this. Through an OS reinstallation, across three computers, and countless CD burns, it has *always* worked and never restricted me.
2. BuyMusic.com failed the very first time I used it. I still can't play my song (who knows why?) After several suggested reinstalls of WMP9 and subsequent "re-authorizations" of the tune, it now says my maximum auth count was reached. Fortunately it was only $.79. But I'm never going back. What a piss-poor POS that thing is.
Just because it says "mod chip" in it?
that's bullshit. It shouldn't have to BE that way. Macrovision sucks, plain & simple.
People shouldn't have to hack their own hardware to play movies that they have purchased legally.
Does the phrase "broken as designed" mean anything? If BM was designed badly, and these people invested lots of money to make it bad, I think that speaks a lot worse of the designers and marketroids who built it and sold it than the guy who spends $0.99 to try to download music legally and gets hosed.
When the only excuse of the makers/proponents of a system is "It sucks, but you should have sifted through the Flyspeck 3 to understand that fully, and we don't care anyway", you know that it is a system that deserves to die a lingering painful death.
Yeh, if anything BuyMusic is helping Apple by buying them a bit of time and setting the scene for a happy mass migration once their Windows version is up and running.
I'm not just a member, I'm the president. :) The Ramapo College Sci-Fi Club is around 50 members strong
The parent post was accidently redacted. We aployize for the error.
I've restored the deleted content:
"We hold 5 meetings per week (anime viewing, tv viewing, movie viewing, and 2 role-playing sessions) so we hardly have time to realize that the closest we've gotten to having girlfriends is fantasizing about being the tentacle monster in the anime movies."
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
It's not just the focus of the website, it's the whole platform and it's bad attitude. It's Hosted on M$. You can't even look at their catalog if you are not using IE. They require you to have all sorts of M$ DRM turned on so they can grab all the information from you "primary" computer that they can. You can only download one song at a time, even though you bought the whole album. You must "verify" each song individually before you can play it, despite the fact that you bought them in a single purchase. When you have finally done all that, they require you to use a specific plugin for a specific CD burning software that does not work. When you ask them what you can do to fix the problem, they tell you it's your fault for using the wrong sofware and are ignorant of their own instructions. Total Microsoft, from start to blame shift!
I can't wait for Paladium, so that nothing else works. When that happens, music sales will really go to zero. Yes, it's going to get much worse. Legacy hardware and free software rock.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What's ironic here is that Buy.com has classically had really good service, decent prices, a nice search engine and, overall, less of a soul crushing "sell them everything" attitude than some of the other big retailers (*cough*amazon*cough).
Suddenly, they get into the business of music -- a "happy" thing, we can all agree -- and they feel the need to whack everybody on the hand with the DRM ruler and give the shittiest service ever. Not to mention the "cost cutting" method of buying other people's plug ins rather than supporting them themselves (good thing it's cheaper, because selling hacks instead of solutions isn't the way to gain trust). And, if I remember correctly, Apple got its store up by making deals with LABELS, not distributors. Meaning that there's fewer middlemen, so artists probably get a bigger take.
So much heartache in the world of music today. So many people trying to wrap their fist around a talented musician's balls. This is why I bought a new guitar and a copy of the Mel Bay Method to Blues. Can't sue me for the shit that spews out of my own brain...especially if I never record it.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Every song you buy off of buymusic.com is not paying the artists, that's for sure. And I don't know how Orchard could even have copies to sell, we sent it to them to distribute; they aren't manufacturers.
First step, register the CD with the US Copyright office, then sue the hell out of them.
Remember, as they are engaged in actual piracy (that is, charging money for copyrighted material they do not have the rights to), and not simple copyright infringement, they are up shit creek... you will get lawyers's fees, pecuniary losses, and treble damages.
Give them a taste of their own medicine, and see how they like it!
Yes, sneaking into a theater to avoid paying is theft, at least in some jurisdictions. The legal term for what you're doing when you sneak into a theater to avoid paying is Theft of Services , at least in New York. If I got an RIAA subpoena, I'd be a lot more worried about the legal definiton of theft than the slashdot definition of theft.
(see also here for other examples of theft of services, including telephone and other telecom servcies).
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
After reading the blurb about the artist who believes some of her(?) works are being infringed by BuyMusic.com, I had a question.
Shouldn't she (or any of the other artists) be able to send a cease and desist letter of their own to buymusic or their ISP? Aren't they then required, by law, to remove the material in question or close the site until they prove the works are non-infringing?
To hear the polititions and "industry" people talk about it, protecting the artist's rights is what the whold bill was about, wasn't it?
It is likely not a lack of thought that led to BM's decision not to allow for loss of computer or retirement. DRM is designed to make you pay for every and any potential use of someone else's content (or disallow it entirely); after all, DRM is present for the benefit and protection of content providers not content users. BM probably couldn't have gotten the music any other way. Apple has more muscle and may have had more leverage in dealing with content providers. I see no reason to pay for a crippled copy of music. Given a choice between having crippled music forced down my throat (via DRM) or having no new music, I'll take the latter, thank you.
Have you ever seen an album with different cover art for every track? No? Thought so. Actually, yeah...the new Less Than Jake Album has a different piece of art for each track, each one done by an underground artist. It's actually very cool, I would like to see that sort of thing happen more often. (Thinks about the days of LPs, when artists had ~a sq. ft. to work with)
rm -rf
for the big 5, these couple of months between a mac and windows versions is an experiment period. They let Apple be as liberal as possible with DRM to see if it takes off and if there are any major hurdles...
...unless a change was made to the length of the original track (perhaps by just a few seconds) that would tell the RIAA definitively wether or not specific tracks came from the iTMS. In which case, your statement has a much more profound meaning.
What you said got me to thinking... could it be possible that the experiment you casually mentioned is to see how many of these files find their way on to P2P networks? Granted, with re-encoding to a non-DRM file, it would become almost impossible to trace the source of the file
Not really proposing anything insightful, just tossing out an idea that occurred to me.
How in the hell do you RENT someone database info?
I can see it now...
"Uhh... you didn't pay your rent on our contact database. Give it back!"
"Okay, here is the 'original' *mmpppffhhh* disk that you gave us, and we certainly *mmppffhhhghh* didn't make any copies or *mmpfffhhfmf* import it into any of our databases before turning on the Super Spam-O-Matic 9000(TM)"
"ok then."
"SUCKERS BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!"
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
"Do you bitch about your car not having a big enough drink holder, and having to modify it?"
Actually, he's bitching about the threat of arrest if he modifies the drink holder.
Something, you'll notice, the automobile companies don't do. They try to sell their customers what they want.
It's not that the developers of iRATE wouldn't like to support ogg, but developing such a player would be a significant effort. Really someone else is going to have to take up the task.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
The standard is about to be shoved down our throat by the RIAA so don't blame the coders at MS, the management at MS is smart enough not to fight city hall on this one. With the INTEL/Fritz chips the effect will be the stopping of music mp3, software, word .doc, e-mail etc, etc... piracy all together. MS knows this so they are setting up their software to be the only ball game around. That is why they consider Linux the number two threat to the company after the economy. If Linux will work with the fritz by just by passing the MS key locked security functions, as Intel hopes, then the home market for MS will dry up and the business market will be all MS will have! Strange prediction but it could happen! It will become hard for MS to sell software that can be castrated over the internet to the public. Apple and Linux will start to jump in both the server and the home market.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I wonder what might happen in the future (or the present for that matter) for any artist when users are required to use DRM to play the music produced by that artist. How about if the artist has a unresolved disagreement with the label, and the label, as a way to make the artist conform, summarily disables the ability of any user to play that artist's DRM'ed music? What about old DRM'ed music that the label might consider no longer popular and marketable? Might they allow the "keys" to such music to become no longer available, so that users can no longer play those tunes? The labels are in the business of selling, so they would want music lovers to keep on buying new music rather than listening to old tunes they might have. This also means that a lot of very good, but old, music might become lost because of expiring DRM keys. If DRM had been used in the 1920's, I wonder how much of the great Jazz and Big Band music of that era, and later years, would be perserved today?
Apple Itunes is:
- just one more way to help artist spread their music to the masses while receiving money or a royalty
- cool (like that guy from that film, Captain what's-his-face)
- a great idea and innovative
- the nicest music jukebox software to be found on any system today (nice music jukebox software gets you laid!)
- succesvol gebleken (my sentiments exactly!)
- daar een voorteken van vind ik (i think that means good, if not then pretend it belongs in the BuyMusic section)
- a beautiful thing (like that girl you laid because of your nice music jukebox software)
- by far the best music player that i know of
- simply stunning (again, like the girl)
While on the OTHER hand, buymusic.com is:
...and the kicker!
- no competition
- not good enough
- rubbish (pure, utter, and complete!)
- not good enough i agreet totally (it's always nice to have a second opinion)
- now redirecting mac users to a page that indicates users must be running windows and internet explorer to access the site
- pure suckass (need I say more?)
- more complex (your Grandma can't use it!)
- horrible with a capital horrible (I don't think "horrible" is something you can capitalize, but still, emphasis duly noted)
- giving the impression that they are cheaper (FYI: they aren't)
- saddled with more restrictions than that offered by apple
- not obligated to replace your music after it has been downloaded
- a massive step backwards
- futile and waste of precious time
- a resounding failure
- best described as soviet (no joke necessary)
- a blatant rip off (of course we already knew that)
- probably being a poor sport because of all the bad reviews circulating around the internet when their service is compared to the itms
- very microsoft
I think this computationally intensive analysis PROVES that Apple's service is cool, while BuyMusic is, and I quote, "pure suckass." Please consider using a more detailed analysis such as this when you post in the future. Thank you.
VudooCrush is doing what they call 'guerrilla marketing'.
He is a marketeer.
Apple is making iTunes for windows, and they say it should be out by the end of the year. Macrumors.com has an article about iTunes for windows.
When you "rent" data, you don't take possession.
Typically, the database owner agrees to sort per an agreed upon spec, then print mailing labels and/or send emails.
If they allow you to burn it to a cd how do they keep you from just ripping the CD your burnt to mp3. Once the format has changed how does the DRM even work?
It's all Windows based, so what would you expect? One out of 10 peices of (not freely available) software might be stable and if you're lucky, maybe even user friendly. Although when microsoft redefines what 'user friendly' means, they almost always get it completely wrong. Like advanced server 2k3: Try to shut down the machine, windows prompts you for a reason why you are shutting down the machine: reason: F**k you! I dont need to give a reason! Should the machine shut down 'improperly', Windows prompts you to enter a reason for why it crashed after it reboots! Like I have a clue why it crashed! And you can't shut down or log in until a reason is entered! I guess this stuff is logged somewhere, but shit, make it freaking optional.
TallGreen CMS hosting
BuyMusic.com is getting bad reviews from multiple sources. So it's pretty obvious it might well fail from its appalling user interface and its smothering restrictions.
Yet, you can bet that next year, all this will be summarized in a nice, Powerpoint presentation to RIAA execs:
"See", an RIAA exec will pontificate, "we pamper 'em ungrateful Internet pirates and they don't want to use legal downloads. Let's just go back to serving them lawsuit papers."
At which point Powerpoint will BSOD promptly, and the discussion will drift on to Britney's navel jewelry and its marketing tie-ins.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
-Have you ever seen an album with different cover art for every track?-
Yes, actually. Don't listen to much Peter Gabriel, do you? He's been doing that for a while. And he's just one of the more popular ones out there.
I do agree with you on the point that it's probably a bad practice for a music download site, though.
If they had taken time to put thought in their product, Apple would have beaten them to market.
I saw their stupid ad (the sound was down on the TV because I was on the phone). What a joke! Sure, the Mac may have 3% of the whole computer market, but what percentage of computer users will actually buy digital music from a service like this?
When ITMS comes has been for Window for a while, I'll bet that 20% of its customers will still be Mac users. People who are more into technology for personal use are more likely to buy a Mac. The reason so many PCs get sold is that some pencil neck accountant makes the decision on buying computers that he won't have to use.
Same reason that rental car agencies never have Saabs.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
And I don't know how Orchard could even have copies to sell, we sent it to them to distribute; they aren't manufacturers.
The answer may be that Loudeye created a digital distribution of the music for The Orchard. Please see... "The Orchard Selects Loudeye For Global Digital Music Fulfillment and Distribution"
You may wish to contact Loudeye. Loudeye may not be aware of The Orchards improper dealings with artists.
to work in a soul-crushing corperate environment where your computer won't even let you listen to music?
Though I have some friends out of work for a while that would prefer that over nothing, which I have to agree with. I'm grateful to have a job at the moment no matter what my computer is like...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"New Mop! Cleans floors! Can Burn to CD!!" The shiny ads on the box read.
I took the mop home, and the handle broke, and it wouldn't burn to CD like advertised - back to store.
End of story.
The plugin is a thirdparty plugin to WMP - so she was using the plugin within WMP to try and burn.
Because there is no other option for her to be able to burn, they are responsible for the whole chain of delivery from server to CD. If you follow the instructions and it doesn't work there is no other choice then to ask them for help or a refund because you have no other way to make it work, you have literally no otehr options. They have some responsibility in making sure the third party plugin will work on systems that they sell music for.
Why anyone would want music trapped in a system as delicate as that living in a grey netherworld between two vendors, I don't know.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is THAT what Macrovision is? Damn, I thought something was wrong with my TV!
Are you telling me that I get that crappy picture thing on DVDs that I legally own because of something those wieners did on PURPOSE?
Oh, that REALLY makes me angry!
I don't give a rip about the RIAA at all. I could see their point before but now that I know they have been selling sub-standard product on purpose for years...they should not ever expect my support!
Nope, still doesn't make sense. If Orchard bought the CDs and tapes, then turns around and sells the content on those CDs to someone else, who turns around and sells that content to a third person, what's the big deal? I guess the crux of it is, is BuyMusic.com selling more copies of various songs than they have physical copies of, and are they destroying the CDs after the songs have been sold?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
i had the same prob. When i tried to log on it would not work and said i need to download explorer. they should fix that asap
"It's exactly this "old economy" logic that makes our current law ineffective, unfair, and completely unsuited to modern issues such as this."
Gee! And here I thought it was because both sides are populated by greedy bastards, with innocents caught in the middle.
Ya, but your music would sound fairly horrible since it had been compressed twice.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I don't think Apple's primary focus here is just on a casual "I want to try buying digital music" Windows user. The best seller for iTunes (and, by extension, iTMS) for Windows is that little white box... by all accounts the iPod is becoming the "must-have" digital music player (feel free to argue) and if iTunes for Windows provides a truly seamless "Apple" experience for Windoids then there is the point. Apple isn't necessarily just doing this to create Switchers - they do well out of the iPod too, and getting iTunes/iTMS/QuickTime for Windows out gives them their famous "control over the whole widget" in a way. Plus it puts Apple (as a design, a company, a philosophy, whatever you make of it) even more "in your face" as far as Joe Public is concerned. Is that a dumb thing for them to want to get right? I don't think so. Of course, this is all just my perspective... argue away!
but the point of Macrovision wasn't to prevent playback.. it was to prevent recording.
You should be able to play a macrovision signal on a TV just fine. If you try to record it on a VCR, however, it'll come out all messed up.
with "whores". I think you should seek more professional help than Slashdot posts.
I don't think Amazon would get far with your argument (We had the CDs, ripped them, then destroyed the originals.) Still there is this from the orchard.com site: "The Orchard supplies its entire catalog to all of the major, emerging legitimate digital music services such as pressplay/Napster, Music Net, OD2, etc... These new services initially only offered music from the Major Labels until The Orchard opened up a gateway for artists and labels to supply their music side by side with Major Label releases. As a result, The Orchard has emerged as the largest supplier of non Major Label music in the world to these services. " But then there is also this shadiness: "What if I decide to no longer use The Orchard for distribution? Leaving The Orchard distribution system means modifying the original Orchard Agreement. [ very reasonable deletion process snipped here, however read on] During the deletion process your account will be frozen for at least 180 days or until there is a full quarter without returns. At the end of the deletion process, all product remaining in inventory will be returned and a final accounting of the product will be rendered." So they can sell your music for 6 months after you have terminated the deal with them. I think what CDBaby did is far more equitable ($40 to get on iTMS, plus 9% of each sale). The difference is the musician chooses them to upload their music. -Chris
from your number one fan
well, maybe not. if not, they deserve all they get for not being aware of the low quality of their service. in any case, this stupidity on their part only equates to that of the punter who fails themselves to spot the low service quality, by reading the small print. point being - never expect any service (or indeed anything else - except perhaps GPL, where profit=intellectual kudos) to behave in a manner other than to glean most profit for itself. whether or not the service actually manages to do so is their problem and beside the point.
So I am not that young anymore. I didn't have time to deal with 100 LPs in the 80s, and have even less to organize, reorganize my digital tunes. iTunes can be the best JukeB in the world, if it didn't have the iPod, CDDB, the auto sync, I wouldn't have bothered. The subtle genius behind iTMS is that I can click to buy while brushing my teeth, and pick up the iPod to take to work before the toothbrush is down. And it is all seemless, well organized, easy to back up, pre-sorted, categorized, auto-play-listed. Less hassle, more listening. Subscriptions? Thanks but no thanks. I am not connected when I would like to listen (client firewall nazis). I don't like that the subscription might revoke my right once expired. If it doesn't revoke the right, then it will not be long of this world, in my opinion. Some have already indicated that they downloaded more than they could listen to from emusic.com (Enjoy your free time while you have it). Several have unsubscribed once they "got their fill". That's a really viable model for emusic.com!!!
I see what you're asking:
:)
1) RIAA doesn't want DRM, but DRM is the solution that technology companies have sold them to address their problem. Their problem is distribution control.
2) Apple has sold a *different* solution to the RIAA, but includes DRM to appease the fact that they were 'conned' by other technology companies. To not include DRM would mean the RIAA got ripped off.
3) Because other companies are selling technology, not a solution. DRM is the technology, not the solution. Apple sells a solution: Akamai as the distribution network, iTunes as the storefront, the Mac faithful as the solid, reliable, high income market, iPod as the playback device, Macs as the storage medium. I don't think Apple is touting this to the RIAA as DRM music files; Apple is selling it as a supplemental system to their existing music infrastructure!
So I bet sales of iPods is only reconfirming Apple's initial sales pitch: People *want* to buy music, and people want to listen to them on iPods, not on their computers. People don't care about sharing music as long as they can *get* music, and people will pay for convenience at a reasonable cost, and we are the *masters* of convenience.
So why can't other people do that? Because it *isn't* a technical problem. Everyone else can solve technical problems. Apple is one of the few who recognizes it as a *social* problem. Any successful solution has to recognize a problem as social; piracy, privacy, word of mouth, ease of use... all of that is social, not technological
GPL Deconstructed
Why he should get a Mac? Well, he said his XBOX wouldn't let him watch DVDs just on any TV in some Hotel, whereas my Mac will. At least there's no Macrovision preventing me to playback DVDs on the s-video out on my PowerBook.
Was that so difficult?
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Hey, dude! Long time, no see.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.