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.
So there goes any chance of me using their service.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
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.
From reading what she wrote, it looks like BuyMusic specificy a Windows Media Player plugin by Roxio as the only way you can burn CDs from it.
I'm guessing it has to be a WMP plugin so that WMP can validate the license on the music.
I think she had a pretty fair point, they tell you that you are allowed to burn a CD from the music, and they tell you the software that you must use to do it. The software doesn't work, they tell you it's not their problem - I'd be pissed off too.
Advanced users are users too!
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.
Why are we gloating over the problems of buymusic.com?
Because, as nerds, we want the original and well-designed service (Apple Music Store) to thrive, instead of the half-assed ripoff (BuyMusic).
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
follow this link... you'll have to use IE 5.0 on a windows machine, or turn off javascript in your browser to view it. http://www.buymusic.com/support/help.aspx#Howto_Bu rn
I quote.
She SAID that she was using Windows 2000 as her "primary" licensed machine. According to the FAQ, she had but ONE choice, Roxio CD Burning, and BuyMusic tech support was oblivious to this. The problem with the BuyMusic solution is that once again, there's so many companies providing a piece of the service, and they don't communicate with each other, that when you have problems, the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing... BuyMusic says, "this isn't our problem, blame Roxio" and when mp3 players don't work, they go "this isn't our problem, blame Creative" or "blame Microsoft"Sounds sort of like a productivity paradox. The technological changes which are supposed to simplify your life actually make things more complex.
Give a shovel to a man digging a hole with no tools, and you help him out. Now give him two. Is he able to work any faster? Now give him a computer.....
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
Emphasis on being cheaper than iTMS, from a marketing standpoint, yes. Practically speaking, no. Most songs are still 99 cents, some greater at 1.29, and with vastly shadier DRM rules than Apple.
Read all the restrictions. (It goes on for a few pages!!!)
...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 $26.98. That's a bit of a jump in price, considering you're getting LESS for your money from BuyMusic.
FWIW, the individual tracks ARE available for 99c each, which can be a good thing, except when the price is also applied to link tracks that run as short as 15 seconds. Really thoughtful on their part.
--DocL
---
If it wasn't for half of the people in this country, the other half would be all of them -- Col. Stoopnagle
"we may disclose, sell, trade, or rent your Personally Identifiable Information to others without your consent"
Privacy? What Privacy?
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.
;-)
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
Oh well, I guess I can't even get into the site
I get this because I refuse to use IE for anything other than windows update, so neither Firebird nor Opera 7 will work. I just hate browser prejudice...
In other word, in order to buy from them you must agree to purchase a defective, unreliable product, and once you've received it, it is your problem that it does not work... sounds just like buying a copy of the (any) new windows OS... does M$ 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
These 80's compilations must have made their dough, because they are 79 cents.
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
If only they would release a linux version of ANYTHING. I'm sick of the hypocrisy from them. They want everyone to code to their OS with it's skimpy little marketshare but they wont do the same in kind for other OS's with skimpy little marketshares. Instead they port stuff half assed over to windows. If Apple would just form an alliance with other OS makers and form a strategy they could gang up on MS and make some headway, but noooooooooooo. Steve wants to have his cake and eat it too.
.doc from Word. Face it, Apple will only port stuff to a non-Apple OS when it makes business sense. Quicktime did, and now iTMS does. Once they have iTMS for Windows and Mac, that will cover pretty much anyone who would buy music online. I've met very few people that don't dual boot Linux, either on the x86 or the ppc side. I guess Apple just figures that such a small market isn't worth the dev time. Get over it.
What hypocrisy? I never read a state from Apple claiming to be the champion of every small-marketshare OS out there. They are in the business of making money, most of which is made by them from selling Macs, not software. Of course they want people to code for OS X. Running OS X is a major selling point of Mac hardware. Compare the number of Linux Macs that Terrasoft sells to the total number of Macs sold. I'm sure the figures are statistically insignificant to Apple's bottom line.
As for "half assed" Windows ports, what are you referring to? The only app I know ported to Windows is Quicktime. I have no idea how well it works on Windows, but I'm sure the reason Apple did it was to make sure that the Windows Media format didn't become a de facto standard like
Some are even more expensive than that - I've seen individual tracks listed there for anything from 79 cents to $1.99; not only are the overwhelming majority 99 cents, the same as at the iTMS, but there appear to be a lot more for over that price than under it (though admittedly, I haven't combed the entire BM catalog to verify this ;).
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.
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.
Er... just so you're aware...
An entry level eMac is $1,199 CND and a Titanium PowerBook is $2849 CND...
http://www.apple.com/canadastore/ is your friend.
Join the Free Software Foundation
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. =)
There's actually a bill that, if passed, will mandate special labelling of copy protected CDs. There also seems to be a DMCA modification stuck in at the end permitting circumventation of copy protection for fair use and scientific research.
I can get Moby's two CDs, both with 18 pretty large tracks, for $9.99 each. And it comes with cover art.
Apple prices full CDs at $9.99. You don't have to buy a-la-carte if you don't want to.
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.
I know what you mean.... in my school's sci-fi club, we get to watch movies on some of the projectors that the school owns. Unfortunately, the high-quality professional-grade amplifiers the school gets don't understand macrovision (since they're not for home entertainment but specifically for rack-mounted systems), so any time we watch a DVD the picture fades in and out and the audio goes haywire.
And before you go and say that a public re-broadcast is exactly what they're trying to prevent, it's closed to members only, making it a private showing (like if you watched with a bunch of your friends). The only difference is that we get to borrow some of the school's swank viewing equipment.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
I hear you.
Firstly, for those who don't know (and yes there are many who don't know even on slashdot,) macrovision is a (very poorly implemented and easily bypassed with the right gear) anti-copying technology the causes the picture to get darker and brighter all the time. On analogue media they play around with the luminance signal and on DVD it's just a macrovision bit that they turn on. You can get macrovision filters to clean this sort of thing up.
The last time I tried to use my iBook as a DVD player using the composite jack on an external TV, the same thing happenned. The Apple DVD player sent a macrovision signal out with the composite signal. Fortunately I happenned to have VLC which allowed me to properly play the DVD that I had bought within my own rights.
Alas, stories like this are considered by the industry to be collateral damage.
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
He now owns something that a person (or group of people) produced and expected payment for. He didn't pay for it. Therefore has prevented the creators from receiving the money they are due. He has stolen directly from them.
Your tired argument, which pirates have been using since C-64 games were copied with dual-tape deck stereos, doesn't work. Try to convince a jury downloading something that people are expected to purchase isn't theft. You'll never do it.
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.
(...) and expected payment for.
> Actually they already got paid by the RIAA to make that work. Payment is taken care of as far as the creator (or group of creators) are concerned.
NO NO NO NO. Where do people keep getting this idea?
Bands get an advance from their recording label on their album. Their recording, production and marketing costs are charged to them. If their album sells enough copies to cover the label's advance and their production costs, THEN they start getting royalties. If they don't make back those costs, they can theoretically end up owing their label money!
Some people involved in creating the album, like producers, engineers, etc., are often paid a flat fee, and in that sense, some of the people are paid already regardless of how many copies the album sells. But the band members/songwriters are paid on a per-copy royalty basis. So PLEASE don't spread the incorrect idea that the musicians aren't missing out on actual money if you don't buy the music.
We have an uphill battle to fight to get copyright laws made sensible ... it doesn't help our cause when people go around supporting their arguments with bogus "facts."
"95% of all Slashdot
If you're willing to believe everything the RIAA says, then the battle has already been lost. Has this claim by the RIAA ever been upheld in court?
YES!
The MP3.com case, which went to court, established clear case law for this. It doesn't matter if I already own The Lord of the Rings in ten languages and five printings--downloading a pirated ebook is still copyright infringement, even if I could scan the book myself.
Sorry for being clueless, but what's Macrovision?
*sigh* Macrovision FAQ It's kinda old, but...
Remember, Google is your friend.
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
Of course, if you actualy paid attention to anything, you would know that Appe has a windows version slated for rollout at the end of the year, and said so the same day they rolled out iTMS
Slashdot really need a -1 moron moderation
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984