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.

Comments

What are they trying to prevent?

[seanadams.com]

DRM inconveniences ONLY the people who are paying.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but TRUE.

I just came back from a vacation, and I thought I was smart enough to bring a DVD player along (well, my XBOX, since I could watch movies and play games on that one machine), since I knew the hotel's TV would have at least a composite video jack in.

Plug it in, sit down, and... ...MACROVISION.

Yet another instance where I am attempting to play a legit product, and am stopped by "copy protection." I decided to fark the movie (and possibly return it out of spite) and just play KOTOR instead. :D

The funny thing was, if I had ripped the DVD and burned it to a DVD-R, I could've enjoyed the movie I PAID FOR, as I obviously couldn't with the original.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Izago909]

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.....

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[whereiswaldo]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[User 956]

I just came back from a vacation, and I thought I was smart enough to bring a DVD player along (well, my XBOX, since I could watch movies and play games on that one machine), since I knew the hotel's TV would have at least a composite video jack in. Plug it in, sit down, and... ...MACROVISION. Yet another instance where I am attempting to play a legit product, and am stopped by "copy protection." I decided to fark the movie (and possibly return it out of spite) and just play KOTOR instead. :D

Even better: xbox+modchip = no macrovision, no region protection, and you can even rip games and dvds to the hard drive for faster load times and instant access (no hunting down that disc that's under the pile of clothes in your game room)

And when you upgrade the xbox hd to 120 gigs, you have the perfect media jukebox on the go. (for your situation, at least)

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[lovebyte]

Same for me. I bought a CD. It was copy protected. Can't play on my linux boxes, plays very poorly on my mac, can't put it on my ipod, AND it does not play on my 1 year old hifi. I returned it and copied it from some p2p network. I don't like to do it, but I had no choice if I wanted to listen to it.
copy protection -> p2p

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[e-gold]

I agree. And don't think there's no way for us both to pay musicians motivated enough to ask for a tip (see www.radsfans.net for example).

Imagine if the RIAA had spent half the money they've spent on lawyers by now pushing tipjar-advocacy instead. e-gold has been around since 1996 and musicians like Courtney Love sure TALK a good game about going around the RIAA quintopoly, but so far I've seen little action from her (she's in her binge-phase again?). Still, it's possible to get paid directly, with e-gold and a bunch of others by now, whether or not the RIAA or artists like Courtney actually choose to think about the issue or try a better form of money...
JMR

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Metasquares]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Quarters]

I returned it and copied it from some p2p network. I don't like to do it, but I had no choice if I wanted to listen to it.

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[lovebyte]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Ominous Coward]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[mausmalone]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[mausmalone]

How long before music has EULA's,... your investment's not in Jeopardy, you didn't own it in the first place!

Of course, my question to the whole licensing thing is, if I have a license, why won't you send me a new CD for free as long as I prove my license?

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Quarters]

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.

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?

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Jucius Maximus]

"Plug it in, sit down, and... ...MACROVISION."

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Quarters]

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.

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[lucifuge31337]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Fishstick]

If you sneak into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying, have you committed theft? Piracy? No? (mebbe the theater can call the cops on you for trespassing?)

Clearly you have done something wrong. You have gotten something without paying the asked price. Do they charge too much? Are they ripping off the Actors by controlling distribution of their work? Maybe.

Does that give you the moral/legal right to not pay?

I don't think so. Downloading music instead of buying the CD seems about the same. You aren't stealing. You aren't even a pirate. You are consuming a commercial good/service without paying the asked price. (disclaimer: I have downloaded music without paying)

Occurs to me that this is more like peeking through the fence at the circus. You aren't going in and enjoying the show without paying, you aren't taking anything away from the circus owner since you probably wouldn't have paid anyway. You aren't even trespassing because you are on public property. But you are doing something wrong. You are getting something for free that the circus owner has spent money to put together to make a living from. He has a right to chase you away from the holes in the fence.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[schnell]

(...) 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."

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Planesdragon]

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.

Re:What are they trying to prevent?

[Tackhead]

> What's the problem? When he gets back to the hotel at night, he wants to watch a movie. Big deal.

I'll tell you what the big deal is! The big deal is that watching movies is STEALING!

If the hotel's TV offers a chance to pay $7.95 to see Dirty Harry, and you bring in your own DVD of Dirty Harry, and your own laptop, so that you can watch the movie without paying the hotel, you're STEALING MONEY RIGHT OUT OF THE INNKEEPER'S WALLET!

And don't even think about buying a six-pack of Coke at the corner store for $2.99 when you're supposed to be paying $4.50 for a 6-oz bottle out of the minibar! (To say nothing of having the unmitigated gall to chill your six-pack with hotel-supplied ice!)

mmmm, is this good or bad?

[Ty]

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.

Re:mmmm, is this good or bad?

[EinarH]

Yeah, that could happen. But for what I have read the product they (buymusic) are offering are crap.

-IE req.
-DRM-enabled WM9.
-Real number of songs are closer to 100000 than 300000.
-128Kpbs.
-From their Cust. Agreem.:"all downloaded Content is sublicensed to End Users and not sold, notwithstanding use of the terms "sell," "purchase," "order," or "buy" on the Site or this Agreement. "
You don't buy the music you just license them.
-And now; bad customer support.

So basically their offer is very unattractive when you can get a better offer from free. Illegal, but still much better if you look compare benefits and risk.

Even the lowest of the low whitin P2P, Kazaa offers the following:
-Any browser to download Kazaa.
-No DRM, MP3 or some OGG.
-Probably above 1 mill. songs
-160-192Kpbs.
-Copy-right enfringment with low probability of getting caught.
-You can keeep the music as long as you want as long as RIAA don't sue you.
-No support but the service is free.

I doubt BuyMusic.com will succeed.

Re:mmmm, is this good or bad?

[thefinite]

I would agree completely, but for Apple's iTunes Music Store. Quite frankly it rocks. iTMS is an argument for *less* restrictions and *open* formats (i.e. AAC v. WMA). Look how well it has done with just the Mac user base, far better than BuyMusic did with millions more users. (I just bought an album today. Love new music Tuesday!)

Rumor has it they are still pinning down the licensing for the Windows version. I hope that they can point to BuyMusic and say, "See how crappy it is when the licensing is messed up? Our simplicity, consistency, and method of delivery result in *many* more downloads."

Re:mmmm, is this good or bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked out Buymusic as pure amusement- I'm a very avid music listener and pretty much only get music on vinyl LPs, so I'm biased, but this is a highly lousy service.

For starters, I had to poke around before I came across anything that even represented their strongest selling point- 79 cent songs. What I found for that price was smooth jazz christmas music.

I put in the Mc5 it came up with Mc Hammer. $1.00 for U Can't Touch This? u can't even keep that album in print because u don't have an audience that gives anything remotely like a shit, but they seriously want actual MONEY to buy- excuse me, license, the track? is this the onion?

Perhaps it's a side effect to being in bed with the record labels (the RIAA subpeonas seemed rather well-timed to the launch of this site, didn't they?) but because of the pricing scheme alone, it's not even much of a bargain. Downloading the entire 'Experience Hendrix' disc will set you back $20.00- that's at least 25% more than you would expect to pay for an actual cd. Even a monkey walking into a Sam Goody at an airport or whatever could probably swing it for $18.98 or so.

And lastly, does the term 'Digital Rights Management' freak anyone else out?

Re:mmmm, is this good or bad?

[eyeball]

-IE req.
-DRM-enabled WM9.

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.

Re:mmmm, is this good or bad?

[miroth]

>> I doubt BuyMusic.com will succeed.

And that's a real problem. If BuyMusic.com gooes under, the RIAA will have more 'ammunition' to further their claims that music users are evil. They'll say,

"Well, we started a website where users could LEGALLY buy music, and they shot that down. There's nothing else we can do - we had the perfect solution, and it didn't work. Online music is bad."

What they surely won't realize is that their 'solution' was extremely flawed and poorly thought out. Unfortunately, the problem exists with the distribution, not the user base.

Re:mmmm, is this good or bad?

[Jucius Maximus]

"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."

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.

They Don't Support Mozilla

[saden1]

So there goes any chance of me using their service.

Re:They Don't Support Mozilla

[dytin]

Well, don't just tell the slashdot crowd that. 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.

Re:They Don't Support Mozilla

[Jester99]

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.

The real problem comes to view...

[MrEnigma]

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.

Re:The real problem comes to view...

[moral kiosk]

Agreed. Even if the label is selling music in breach of the contract terms, it's a label problem-- not a distributor problem. It would be no different if Virgin Records started selling Fugazi records to Best Buy. You can bitch at Best Buy, but they're just going to (correctly) pass the buck on to the label (and perhaps take the albums off the shelves if it is that obvious that the label is misbehaving). Is buymusic just supposed to take Jody Whitesides' word for it that she indeed wrote and performed the music, and that its sale to buymusic was in breach of contract? Of course not; it's not even clear from her gripe whether it's even in breach to begin with!

However, the customer service anecdote raises more serious issues with buymusic. Fortunately, most (perhaps all, I don't know the payment setup) customers will use credit cards to purchase music, and Americans enjoy credit card rights that protect us from faulty or undelivered products. (It's too bad that customer mentioned both calling her credit card company and publicizing the mishap in a weblog; it would have been interesting to have seen which of those two threats made buymusic buckle.) Moreover, the nature of the service is such that most customers will 'try it out' first buying just a song or two, or maybe a whole album, so the risk is reduced further.

Re:The real problem comes to view...

[teamhasnoi]

Is buymusic just supposed to take Jody Whitesides' word for it that she indeed wrote and performed the music, and that its sale to buymusic was in breach of contract? Of course not; it's not even clear from her gripe whether it's even in breach to begin with!

Sadly, an RIAA email to an ISP, eBay, or college is all it takes to have them remove 'infringing' material, and give up all your user info.

"Assuming" copyright is an RIAA specialty. Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way 'round.

History repeats itself.... yet again....

[minion2]

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...

Re:History repeats itself.... yet again....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me, but you don't know what you're talking about wrt Apple's DRM. Apple's DRM is much, much less restrictive than what BM is offering. For personal use, you'd probably never even know that DRM was present on the tracks you buy. It's only when you try to start widely distributing the music that Apple's DRM comes into play. Which is as it should be.

Furthermore, Apple's DRM is consistent for all tracks. From what I've been reading about BM, they have different restrictions for different songs.

And you can easily burn any AAC file purchased from Apple to multiple CD's for listening on whatever OS you want. The only restriction there is that you can burn the same playlist over and over. You're limited to 10 burns of the same playlist.

Re:History repeats itself.... yet again....

[byolinux]

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.

The Real Problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

MP3 is for pirates

[obsid1an]

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.

Re:MP3 is for pirates

[Michael Hunt]

Could KaZaA/Sharman Networks/whoever have a potential Libel/Slander suit on their hands for buymusic.com referring to their service as a 'pirate site'?

This has never been proven in court, and has the substantial potential to damage their reputation. The only way that bm.com would be able to get away with allegations such as these, as far as I know (albeit IANAL) would be for a judge to decree that the ONLY use for KaZaA is 'piracy'.

Although, given the fact that probably 60-70% of the activity which takes place on KaZaA is 'piracy' by nature, they'd probably have a hard time making any libel/slander allegations stick.

Re:MP3 is for pirates

[TheNetAvenger]

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.

The sad thing, is the actual compression technology in Windows Media 8 and 9 is quite impressive, both audio and video.

I just don't understand why Microsoft has gotten off the path that actually made them a respected company at one time.

They were really strong about providing clients for their technologies for other platforms in the early 90s, and then it stopped.

Whoever the donkey at Microsoft that decided it was bad business to provide a media player client for *nix and other OSes should be knocked up side the head.

If WMA is ever going to really show its abilities, Microsoft MUST provide clients and encoders for other OSes than Windows.

I can almost understand them stopping the IE client development for other OSes. But not having clients for WMA/WMV on every platform is just shooting themselves in the head.

On my laptop where space is a premium, I like the fact I can use WMA for my audio, and have the files almost half the size at the same quality as a MP3.

I just want to see Microsoft start doing the right thing again, and get client players for these technologies on all OSes if they truly believe in them.

If not, give up the goat. Go back to the standards body and release the codecs into the public domain and give up the idea of being their 'own' standard. Which is a concept that has killed so many companies and products over the years.

Heh

[arvindn]

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.

Definite Technical Glitches

[dprice]

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.

Apple, etc.

[mrpuffypants]

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.

Re:Apple, etc.

[geek]

I love iTMS don't get me wrong here. My problems with it tho are that the images hardly ever load making navigation a royal pain. And often times their system just takes a massive dump and wont let anyone purchase anything. Don't even get me started on all the "partial album" downloads they have and they are still skimping on the selection.

The main difference between Apples bugs and everyone elses bugs is that Apple WILL NOT acknowledge the problem EVER. It took them 8 months to finally come out and say "Yeah the .Mac Backup program doesn't work for 80% of our users because the update we did screws up on firewalls". Then a week later they pulled that message off their forums along with half the user complaints. Apple is as deceitful on these things as the government is. They can do it because they fully control it.

The only reason Apples system is a success is the lack of "in your face" DRM. It will do well simply because of that. Apples services and products are good until something goes wrong. Once something goes wrong it's lie, cheat and steal time and Jobs, et. al. are laughing all the way to the bank.

I love my mac, I love OSX but I REALLY FUCKING HATE Apple. The day someone comes out with a better mouse trap I will jump ship. My iPod is wonderful but by the time someone comes out with a better mouse trap it will probably be the low end of the spectrum.

Re:Apple, etc.

[Blondie-Wan]

I've seen Apple acknowledge glitches many times, even on occasions when they haven't become known by others yet. Have you contacted Apple yet with your image loading problem? If so, is there any indication they're working on it?

Yes, the iTMS has many partial albums; if it bothers you, just think of them as songs, not albums. At any rate, when you see partials there, it's not Apple's doing, but the licensors (the labels). For whatever reason, they haven't authorized certain songs for release on the iTMS. From what I've seen of the iTMS and BuyMusic, there are a number of albums that are missing the same songs at both outlets, which seems to indicate the labels just don't want to sell certain tracks this way. Neither Apple nor Buy can force the labels to give them specific tracks. Also, FWIW, I've seen albums at the iTMS that had stuff added piecemeal - so that the debut week, for example, there were only three tracks from a particular album available, but a few weeks later, the complete album tracklist was there. I don't know why an album might be added a few tracks at a time, but it's happened; perhaps the later tracks weren't initially planned for availability, but were added in response to user requests, or something...

Re:Apple, etc.

[mrpuffypants]

Absolutely, which is why the rollout of iTunes for Windows will be difficult.

First, they have to get people to download it....big hurdle there.
Second, they have to get people to actually buy music. Even bigger hurdle, but it slopes down rapidly once people actually use iTMS and like it.
Finally, they have to get people to move their music over from winamp, windows media player, real, etc. so that iTunes has value outside of download it, move it somewhere else, play it.

That means they need to have import utilities for all the other library management tools ready to go on day one. People have to say "iTunes is the best program under the sun" and ditch everything else for it to become totally successful.

it's not anymore?

[johnny0101]

runaway success that Apple's iTunes Music Store was

so do we have to drop the 'runaway' now?

Seriously though, Apple knows how to make a good UI ( 10.3 not withstanding ;) ). They don't half a$$ what they do.
Ease of use and meeting consumer demands wins this match (for once!).

MacSlash's article BuyMusic's catalog legality...

[antdude]

Go here.

Re:RTFM

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Surprise, surprise.

[American AC in Paris]

iTunes Music Store:
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.

Re:Surprise, surprise.

[BensonLeung]

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.

Re:Surprise, surprise.

[BWJones]

iTunes Music Store:
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.

I can't believe how easy iTMS is to access and set up, and allowing you to actually own the music you purchase is the selling point. I can play it on three computers including my workstation at the lab, my home workstation and the iTunes music server we have set up at the house. Apple has made a number of purchases of iPods and Macs simply from people coming over to parties at our house and seeing how cool the iTunes music server is. We have our entire music collection on that thing in a searchable, organizable database, and I never have to mess with another jewelcase again. The iTMS has made it possible for me never to have to drive down to the hateful mall music store again.

BuyMusic.com:
Emphasis on Being Cheaper than iTMS, locking out non-approved systems, Looking an awful lot like iTMS.

It looks like iTMS even down to the commercials, but like most things in the computer industry that copy Apple, they copy Apple badly. Also, look at the wording of the sales bit. Songs from.79 cents. I have priced a number of albums, and if they are available, which often times they are not despite being listed, the albums end up being more expensive than iTMS. Also, as mentioned in the linked blog, DRM is a total pain in the ass with BuyMusics version.

Focal issue: Establish self as competition for iTMS before Apple gets the Windows version out.

I tried using BuyMusic.com on a Windows system here and it is a total farce. Songs listed are not actually available, things are expensive, I cannot figure out how to deauthorize the computer I used to attempt to purchase songs, etc...etc...etc... Apple is gonna waste these jokers if they can get iTMS available for Windows in a timely manner.

Result: left as an exercise for the reader.

I know what my experience has been, and I will be happily using iTMS on OS X, thankyou.

Re:Surprise, surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Result: left as an exercise for the reader.

Oooh! I know! Call on me! Call on me... BuyMusic wins because the first company to introduce a superior product (Apple) always finishes last in a marketplace where success is driven by saturation advertising, truth is defined by how often something is repeated, and cheap bad products triumph over carefully crafted and groundbreaking solutions!

So Apple is toast.

Do I get a little gold star to put on my name tag?

Re:Surprise, surprise.

[Blondie-Wan]

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 ;).

If you bought a car

[SuperKendall]

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).

Re:If you bought a car

[BensonLeung]

The roxio plugin IS BuyMusic's problem, because the FAQ website TOLD HER to use that plugin with Windows Media Player.

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.

In the Items on Device pane, click one of the following:

Audio CD (available only on Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional)

Data CD (available only on Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional)

HighMAT CD (available only on Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional)

Roxio CD Burning (available only on Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition (Me), and Windows 2000)

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" ... this thing is so cobbled together and impossible to have REAL resolution when you have problems.

Re:If you bought a car

[Raven15]

It seems to me that if you sell me a product whose functioning is contingent on something else, then you've pretty clearly involved yourself in that piece's working. I'm not saying that BuyMusic should be rewriting Roxio's code, but it certainly looks like they've got an obligation to their customers of Roxio's plugin is the only access method.

Rediculous

[MST3K]

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.

Re:Plugin?

[mabinogi]

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.

Sheeple swallow the hardware dependence line

[bzipitidoo]

Quote from one of the links:

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!

The Next Step for BuyMusic.com

[Nova Express]

Let's review, shall we? BuyMusic.com's problems are:

• They offer a shoddy, blatent ripoff of a manifestly superior Apple product.
  
• Their system is buggy and crashes frequently.
  
• They're hamstrung by a user-hostile DRM scheme.
  
• Their technical support's response to complaints about the company's incompetence is to blame the user.

So, in short, BuyMusic.com has only one viable business plan: get bought out by Microsoft! They'd fit right in...

Re:The Next Step for BuyMusic.com

[gsfprez]

you forgot one..

they are offering illegally obtained music for sale.
they are worse than Kazza users because those users are not profiting from the sale of IP theft from the copyright holder.

see www.jodywhitesides.com for the details.

here is the email i sent to the RIAA.
__________________
Subj: Information on copyright theft

i wanted to let the RIAA know about a music pirate i have found out information on.

their IP address is 209.67.181.11. They have on their website illegally obtained music from an artist named Jody Whitesides (http://jodywhitesides.com/). This website is owned by a music stealing group known as buy.com, and not only are they distributing this copyrighted music without consent of the copyright holder, but they are also SELLING the music online.

I am all for the stamping out of IP theft.... and i know that the RIAA is as well. I hope you can contact me on this matter to let me know the status of your investigation.

Thanks in advance.
_______________________

i'm curious, but doubtful i'll get any kind of response.

Ease of use.

[Ianworld]

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.

Re:Apple screwed the pooch.

[shiffman]

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.

Re:Why

[rjung2k]

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).

That's why you don't run a company.

[SuperKendall]

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.

When Purchasing "digital media"...

[MoThugz]

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...

Sure it is their fault.. never a prob with iTunes

[gotr00t]

The thing is, if they want to make DRM for their music, they should at LEAST make a good client for it. According to the link, this person obviously had to click through MANY buttons and had to reenter the username/password MANY times in order to even get the song to play, due to the fact that BuyMusic dosn't even give a client.

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.

Re:Why

[AntiOrganic]

DRM. Duh.

If I can't listen to the thing in my car, on my stereo and in my portable CD player, what good is the damn thing?

You don't buy DVDs and license them for one DVD player in your house, that you can't lend to a friend or watch in your bedroom, do you?

Me too.. Me too..

[-tji]

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.)

Re:Me too.. Me too..

[geek]

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.

Re:Me too.. Me too..

[MalleusEBHC]

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.

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 .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.

Re:Me too.. Me too..

[nitehorse]

Oh. So, it's not like Apple has ever advanced the state of the art in autoconfiguration or given back to the community that gave them the code for their shiny new web browser.

No, not at all.

Just keep in mind, if you ever use Konqueror in KDE 3.2 (which will be the first release of KHTML with Safari's changes included), or if you ever notice that a few of those Linux programs start to get Rendezvous-enabled, you're using Apple's code. They've given back, and they're still doing so.

Re:Me too.. Me too..

[dasmegabyte]

Whoa. You're a company with limited development resources. How would you maximize your time:

1 -- Rewrite your application for an operating system used by 96% of users, with a single API for burning, playing music, and displaying graphics.

2 -- Rewrite your application for an operating system used by 3% of users, with several different APIs for burning, several different APIs for playing audio, and a half dozen graphics systems and toolkits, the majority of which are fundamentally at odds with your own tight look and feel.

Apple has proven they're not against open source. So if iTunes -- Windows takes off, EXPECT a linux version. But they're not fucking stupid.

No Refunds?

[eMartin]

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?

Re:No Refunds?

[sebmol]

lack of business sense. the same sense that made them decide that only IE users could access their web site and that only WMP was supported

My record is on Buymusic.com :(

[teamhasnoi]

I just happened to see a post earlier on /. mentioning this. I happened to look up my old band, The Lovejoys (from Mpls,MN - all others on the net are newer fakes :P )

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...

Don't Even Own The Music

[TomHandy]

As someone else pointed out, the fine print of the user agreement for buymusic.com makes it clear that the term "buy" is misleading at best. It seems that what you are doing is sublicensing the right to listen to the music from buymusic.com, and they seem to say that any use of the terms "buy", "purchase", etc. in regards to owning music on the site are essentially irrelevant.

-Tom

If you can burn unprotected audio CDs...

[Amizell]

...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!

Who's paying?

[fleener]

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.

See MacSlash post on just this question

[SuperKendall]

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!

The full discussion is <a href="http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/29/ 1510211&mode=thread">here</a> - which someone else linked to as well.

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.

iTunes Music Store just works. Thats all I ask.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.

[Bruha]

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.

Re:Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.

[AvantLegion]

E-mail them and complain. I did just that. Make as much noise to any Windows/IE-only web services that you can. Be calm and reasonable in tone, but get your point across. It is necessary for everyone using software like Mozilla or Safari to do this, if we want anything to change.

Re:RTFM

[>:^D]

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.

Re:RTFM

[helix400]

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."

It is your problem not ours...

[CRB2500]

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.

Re:It is your problem not ours...

[majorflaw]

Then again, there's the Apple Music Store model:
1. Design something whch works well;
2. Make a fair deal (with usually unfair people) and honor your agreement;
4. Treat those who use your service as valued customers and not like necessary evils;
5. Profit ?

Frankly if I were making decisions for Apple, I would seriously cosider *not* making a Windoze version of the Music Store. How long could it possibly take for M$ and the RIAA to agree to somethng obvious.

Re:It is your problem not ours...

[ichimunki]

It helps that most of the people Apple has been targeting with their service have at least one of the following qualities: rabid devotion to Apple no matter (so they'll buy it just to make Apple look good), rabid devotion to being as "hip" as possible (so they'll buy it just to make themselves look good).

Frankly, if I were Apple I would make a version of iTunes and the Music Store that are compatible with Microsoft Windows as soon as possible-- BEFORE Microsoft and someone else come along. Online music buying is a subscription type of service and the sooner you get your suckers hooked the better. And for Apple every MS customer using their application and their service is one more MS customer who will probably consider other Apple products more seriously in the future.

Re:It is your problem not ours...

[TylerL82]

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.

Re:It is your problem not ours...

[majorflaw]

"It helps that most of the people Apple has been targeting with their service have at least one of the following qualities: rabid devotion to Apple no matter (so they'll buy it just to make Apple look good), rabid devotion to being as "hip" as possible (so they'll buy it just to make themselves look good)."

I would like to know how you arrived at this incisive, all inclusive, Apple customer demographic. I only buy what I need and can afford (no iPod yet), and I gave up on being hip 25 years ago. I have no interest in making Apple look good, they seem to be quite good at it themselves.

"Frankly, if I were Apple I would make a version of iTunes and the Music Store that are compatible with Microsoft Windows as soon as possible-- BEFORE Microsoft and someone else come along."

I would love to be a fly on the wall during the M$--RIAA negotiations:

M$: How much will it cost for us to buy you?
RIAA: We're not for sale, however we will sell you a limited license to use our product.
M$: Wait a minute, that's our line.
RIAA: And you'd better act fast; we have solid information that college kids are using your o/s to illegally pirate music, and we are just about to sue them.

Realistically, do you expect that a Wintel version of the iTunes store will work as easily and reliably as Apple's. I would reverse your market plan and use iTunes to sell Macs rather than let the bitter taste left by an M$/RIAA hybrid do the job for me.
You really think that M$ would allow iTunes Music Store to work well with their o/s. It's possible, but where's the precedent?

Re:It is your problem not ours...

[lrucker]

If you want a cd's worth of music, buy a cd. If you want one song, $1 is a lot better than $16.

Re:It is your problem not ours...

[MoneyT]

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

Re:My record is on Buymusic.com :(

[mrpuffypants]

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.

Not Good for Apple

[clarencek]

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.

Re:Not Good for Apple

[Clock Nova]

They really need to get it out ASAP before one of these jokers actually gets it RIGHT. 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.

the price

[dtfinch]

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

Re:the price

[teamhasnoi]

It looks like many of the "Orchard victims" are 79 cents; mine is, and that's because BuyMusic isn't paying us (and/or it was released in 2000).

These 80's compilations must have made their dough, because they are 79 cents.

So true

[Chuck Chunder]

How many other industries compete by actively trying to make their product worth less to the buyer?

Download free, legal music with iRATE radio

[MichaelCrawford]

You can enjoy free music downloads without getting in trouble by listening to the music that many artists make available on their own websites in hopes of attracting fans. You also won't be bothered by any of that pesky digital rights management.

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 is a collaborative filtering client/server mp3 player/downloader. The iRATE server has a large database of music. You rate the tracks and it uses your ratings and other peoples to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from Web sites which allow free downloads of their music.

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

Wow, the record industry did something half assed

[KU_Fletch]

So how much laughter do you think is running around the hallways over at Apple right now?

Funniest Thing I've seen on BuyMusic...

[DrLazer]

...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
---

I love this little gem from their Privacy Policy

[Xeo2]

"we may disclose, sell, trade, or rent your Personally Identifiable Information to others without your consent"

Privacy? What Privacy?

My back and forth with BuyMusic technical support

[BensonLeung]

I wrote BuyMusic with my concerns with their service... specifically with the issue of upgrading my computer, and system failures. I figured they'd be willing to help in either case. Here was the back and forth.

My Email:

I am extremely hesitant to spend any money on your web site because of your policy on "primary" and "secondary" licenses. You state on your help page that the licenses that I associate with a computer CANNOT be transferred. Now we cannot kid ourselves that computers do not go outdated or break. I find myself getting a completely new machine every 2 or 3 years. What if I download some music onto my current machine, and, through no fault of mine, its hard drive is wiped... catastrophic data loss. The same goes for if I choose to replace my old computer. Can you assure me that I will still be able to use the music that I bought (and more importantly the license) on another computer? I back up all my data regularly, but what about my "primary" license? If you can assure me that I will not lose music in something as routine as buying a new computer, I will feel comfortable enough to spend money on your service.

Their Response:

Thank you for writing to us. We apologize for any confusion. Due to license restrictions, we are unable to allow for extra downloads in the event of a system upgrade or computer crash. We are also unable to assist if songs have been mistakenly deleted or files become corrupted. In addition, the encryption technology that we use is not intended to be compatible with system backup software. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.

Please note, however, that in all of the aforementioned cases you are free to download your music again if your license still has downloads available. To see if you still have downloads available, log into your BuyMusic.com 'My Account' and click on 'View My Downloads'.

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.

Re:iTunes sucks ass too...

[coolmacdude]

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.

Re:For a good laugh...

[CyberSlugGump]

Funny, I just got one page :-D

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.

Re:technical glitches

[red floyd]

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.

Re:technical glitches

[Wansu]

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.

Visiting with Mozilla ...

[hal0802]

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 ;-)

Re:probable causes

[Clock Nova]

Your post is fairly accurate, but your opening statement is incorrect. The success of Apple's service has little to do with the hardware uniformity of the Mac platform. The AMS works so well because the whole thing functions within one single piece of software: iTunes. No web browsers, no audio players, no CD burning software, no awkward plugins. The whole widget is contained within iTunes. That's why it works. Once iTunes 4 is released for Windows, the same should still be true, despite hardware diversity (excepting for some odd CD burners, which is sometimes a problem on Macs, as well.)

Getting better...

[SuperKendall]

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...

Different methaphor same problems.

[MrLint]

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.

Re:Different methaphor same problems.

[cosyne]

Exactly. If you remember the RIAA goonimean lawyer debating Lessig a while ago, he tried to avoid that question with some hand waving, but it basically amounted to this:
Q: When I buy music, am I buying a physical object which stores music, or am I buying a license to enjoy the music on that object?
A: No.
Which is why I try to avoid buying things from the entertainment industry- you don't really get anything (except maybe sued).

Re:For a good laugh...

[Clock Nova]

Of course, if you turn off Javascript, you can browse the site no problem. I wonder if you can actually purchase and play their songs, too. Isn't there a version of WMP for Mac?

Of course, why in hell would you want to?

From the BuyServices site.

[Melibeus]

About Buy Services Founded in January of 2002, BuyServices is privately held and funded by Buy.com founder Scott Blum. The company develops and operates a cross platform capable, fully hosted e-commerce solution for media, retail and e-tail companies. With the combined talent of experienced e-commerce professionals, BuyServices? goal is to become the premier outsource e-commerce provider

Cross platform capable? Talent? Professionals? Let me think for a millisecond...

Nothing to buy, or say... except...

[Sfing_ter]

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.

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

Satisfying.

[General Sherman]

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.

Early Adopters...

[chickenwing]

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.

This is Microsoft's fault more than Buymusic.com

[Rascel]

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

Why Digital Rights Management will fail

[bigberk]

• 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.

Re:technical glitches

[Farley Mullet]

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?

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.

Yes!

[Angry Pixie]

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 ;)

EMusic!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:RTFM

[Blondie-Wan]

The fact that dozens of people are actually happy and satisfied with the service is proof

"Dozens"? Ah, now there's a ringing endorsement. :)

emusic.com DRM free

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Re:emusic.com DRM free

[Hatta]

This sounds awesome. They even use lame --alt-preset standard. This is great for listeners, but I wonder if they've paid Frauenhofer their pounnd of flesh. MP3s aren't Free, even if the encoder is. As much as I'd like to cry "If it's not Ogg I won't buy it!", I'm sure one of their biggest selling points is that their files are interoperable everywhere. If this takes off the way CDBaby has, maybe they'll have the leverage to push Ogg eventually.

Before I sign up, does anyone have any comments about the service? Are the downloads really unlimited? Can I saturate my cable modem 24/7? I'm gonna check this out as soon as I free up some space.

Re:emusic.com DRM free

[raygundan]

I saturated my cable modem pretty heavily during my 3-month emusic.com binge. I pulled about 35GB through, and ended up keeping about 10. Go for bulk. Filter later. :)

Re:For a good laugh...

[NickFitz]

you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher

Hmm... I used Safari's Debug menu to make out I was using IE6 for Windoze, and the site loaded fine. (Couldn't download, being outside the States, but I've RTFA, so I wouldn't want to ;-)

So they should change it to "This site doesn't actually require either Windoze or IE, but we're too stupid to realise that."

Correction

[Rogerborg]

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.

Typical of the PC Universe

[Gryphon]

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. =)

Go back a few years...

[salesgeek]

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.

Re:Who's the best P2P

[danila]

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.

A true test of iTunes vs. BuyMusic

[imadork]

Buy Music has no Weird Al (at least when I looked on my work PC this morning).

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?

Re:How does Mac do it?

[The Infamous Grimace]

...Well that's what I mean. The record companies aren't fools - they obviously know it's easy to get around. Why don't the other online stores just do the same thing?...

They don't have a Steve Jobs doing the negotiating. Remember, this man is also head of Pixar, he knows his way around the entertainment industry, he's known to be a control freak, and if something goes wrong with the iTMS (broken DRM, for example), it only affects a miniscule amount of people. Look how quickly the kabosh was put on iTunes 4.0s' ability to share playlists via Rendevous. Of course, there's a workaround for it, but again, it seems as though the RIAA might be using Apple's small market share as a test bed for DRM'd online music sales.

Just my $0.02 on the matter.

(tig)
"We do not inherit the land from our ancestors"
"We borrow it from our children"

Translation...

[frozenray]

> 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.

Re:Why

[mausmalone]

Speaking as a Nerd, I don't want Apple Music Store to survive either. Even though it's attempts at DRM are half-hearted, I would rather see a world without it.

Does anyone know if Fourier (or the person who invented DCT) is alive today? I wonder if these mathemetitians ever thought that their algorithms would someday lead to college students getting sued en masse by large corporations for listening to music. If any of them are still alive, I'd love to hear their opinions.

only buying please

[rimsky]

They're called buymusic, not playmusic...

All I Know...

[All Names Have Been]

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.

why is this "Interesting?"

[EvilStein]

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.

Actually, legally it is theft (of services)

[rhombic]

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).

DRM impact on artists

[wmperkins]

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?

And music studio execs will conclude that...

[SysKoll]

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:

• BuyMusic.com opened July 2003
• Huge choice: 300,000+ songs generously offered
• Supported Windows (90% of PCs)
• Service folded in [insert date not too far in future]
• Accumulated losses of $[insert scary amount]
• Conclusion: The Market Does Not Want Music Download.

"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.

-- SysKoll

Why would you want

[SuperKendall]

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...

Re:How does Mac do it?

[spruce]

I'm quite famaliar with the Mac platform, I use it every day on my roomates computer. And I'm not talking about Kazaa vs. iTunes.

Here is what I mean.

1. RIAA wants DRM on all music files

2. Apple makes it very easy to remove DRM, therefore making it very easy to share files with friends, without paying.

3. What Apple did is not a hard thing to do for any big company. Why do other companies make their DRM so much of a pain in the ass?

I mean, since apple can run a high quality low DRM music web site, why aren't there others? It certainly isn't a technical problem.

Re:Why

[dave1212]

"most "nerds" don't own a Mac either."

True, but they wish they did. :)