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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what's "+1 Funny" about that post. The RIAA and its business partners are seriously fscked if they think that offering their product in a crippled format will keep them ahead.
Look, the RIAA/MPAA would be long gone, had they not finally realized that audio and video casettes would be the greatest boon to their industry since the gramophone. It may take them some time, but unless they accept p2p as their biggest promoters, they are toast.
I still remember listening to copied Michael Jackson tracks when I was 6 yrs old or so. And playing copied apple ][ games since I got my first system. Since then I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on software and music, and I'm sure I'd barely have spent a dime if I hadn't got a little "free taste".
For Christ's sake, I'm sure this has been going on since the first time some cave man decided to copy his neighbor's clay pot design.
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
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?
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.
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."
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.
How many other industries compete by actively trying to make their product worth less to the buyer?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Madonna's music isn't on there because she doesn't want it to be. Not much Apple can do about that. It will be available to Windows by years end, and the selection will improve once the indies get onboard. And yes it still is DRM, but it is the most fair and useable DRM scheme ever designed.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
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
This thread is right on. My solution is not to buy any music that's DRM'd. So far, that's all of it. Give me MP3s, that's all I care to have. Anything else puts *my* investment in jeopardy. That is not acceptable to me.
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
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.
- 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.You know it just occurred to me... Maybe this is obvious to everyone, but once you buy something tied to Microsoft's DRM, they now lock you into a cycle of upgrading your OS, and if you don't, you risk losing all "your" purchased music.
_______
2B1ASK1
You had a number of choices. 1) You could've kept it, downloaded the songs, and listened to them. At least then you would've paid for music, which is the legal thing to do. 2) You could've returned it, explained why you were returning it, written a letter to the music company explain what you did, and then chosen to not buy any more copy protected CDs. If you had kept the CD and then been found out the idea of Fair Use would've been arguable. As it is you're now just a common thief, and highlighting the exact reason the RIAA is doing all of this crap.
1) You could've kept it, downloaded the songs, and listened to them. At least then you would've paid for music, which is the legal thing to do.
Sorry, but that is wrong. It has been said multiple times by RIAA members that downloading music is illegal EVEN if you own the CD.
2) You could've returned it
Done
explained why you were returning it
Done
written a letter to the music company explain what you did
Funny but I tried their website and you need MSIE to view it. So I was not going to buy MSWindows.
and then chosen to not buy any more copy protected CDs.
Done.
I have concert tickets for this group's next show. It cost much more than the CD. My conscience is clear.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
He's not a thief, as he stole nothing. It may be a violation of another law, but it's not shoplifting or burglary. Seriously, piracy != thievery.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
He now owns something that a person (or group of people) produced and expected payment for.
He sure as hell does NOT own it. He has a digital copy of it, which costs the producers NOTHING. It's not a physical thing. Breaching a license/copyright is NOT traditional theft or stealing.
It's exactly this "old economy" logic that makes our current law ineffective, unfair, and completely unsuited to modern issues such as this.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Yes, that's the whole idea. It's also why they killed off IE for the mac. They want to tie you to services that require IE for Windows Longhorn. They proved that they can get away with antics like this when they 'won' the anti-trust case against the DOJ.
Let BuyMusic know that you can't use their service from your browser of choice. If they don't see any business lost from not supporting Moz, then they will see no reason to support Moz.
Why should we?
I get paid a lot for my technical opinions. I haven't seen a dime from BuyMusic.com. Apple's working hard to get a polished interface out for PCs. One that'll have their quality level that we're all used to seeing from them. I can wait til then.
I don't owe BuyMusic.com anything, much less suggestions to keep it's crappy DRM-locked music business afloat. It's their MBAs that came up with this stuff. It didn't roll off of my desktop.
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.
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.