Slashdot Mirror
Technical Glitches Plague BuyMusic.com
An anonymous reader submits: "Despite its much larger target market, BuyMusic.com does not seem to be the runaway success that Apple's iTunes Music Store was. USA Today is reporting that customers have experienced technical glitches that prevent them from playing their purchases. Another customer reports that the BuyMusic tech support does little more than say 'Sorry, but that's YOUR problem.' Finally, a musician whose music is for sale at BuyMusic questions the legality of BuyMusic's catalog." Scriptygoddess's account of her unhappy experience is mirrored here.
DRM inconveniences ONLY the people who are paying.
I am really torn over this. For one I'm happy that such a service that puts such annoying restrictions on how you can use the music is failing. Yet, the other half of me is sad that now the RIAA is gonna have something to run around screaming "OMG LOOK LOOK ONLINE SERVICE IS THE SUCK" with.
So there goes any chance of me using their service.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
We now see the real problem.
When an artist signs with a distribution point, etc, they may lose their own music. As a musician that would seem horrible, but it happens to many different people (animators, etc).
Maybe the contract with "The Orchard" had certain terms. We really would need to see that to get both sides of the story here...
Maybe they "sold out" and now just don't want to look like "crap" music.
GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
Wow, another attempt to copy an Apple product goes horribly, horribly wrong.
I may not have a Doctorate with a thesis written on pattern recognitions, but even I can figure this one out...
This one line says it all: "The problem: Unlike MP3 music tracks plucked from the Net from pirate sites such as Kazaa, music on BuyMusic is encoded in Microsoft's Windows Media Audio format." I won't ever, pay to download anything in WMA format just like I won't install Real player no matter how many porn sites need it. When will these companies learn from what the "pirate sites" have done right and allow people to download the songs in the most popular and compatible format out there. Or even better, let them pick.
I know it's been said before countless times but you really have to hand it to Apple for writing and backing up an elegant solution to this "dilemma" between the RIAA and consumers. By making it an all-in-one package through iTunes there isn't any questions about supporting Roxio drivers or downloading codecs and licenses for playback of your files.
to quote the linked blog:
After all the songs downloaded, I tried to play them. Second problem. Before each song plays - it has to download and verify your license. You can't mulitple select a bunch and do this. You need to do this before EACH SONG will play. [Edited to add: "Verifing your license" means another window pops up that asks for your buymusic login and password... you enter it... it thinks awhile... it thinks some more... Then it comes back and says click "play" to actually play the song...]
This is just sloppy programming on their part. They are forced to make excuses for other people's software in the first week of release. Apple tossed out iTMS to their entire userbase and said "Now go use it. It works. Perfectly. Always."
The simplicity of simply allowing 3 computers for playback through iTMS is great (albeit for some that have 13 computers and want to listen to music on ALL at the same time) Just authorize one computer and it will always be able to playback your music even if it's away from a 'net connection.
BuyMusic.com was rushed and it's apparent in the first damn week. It doesn't hold a candle to iTMS. I can't wait to see it crumble.
runaway success that Apple's iTunes Music Store was
;) ). They don't half a$$ what they do.
so do we have to drop the 'runaway' now?
Seriously though, Apple knows how to make a good UI ( 10.3 not withstanding
Ease of use and meeting consumer demands wins this match (for once!).
----
In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
Go here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The plugin they say to use on their site. She did everything the site asks, and it sucked.
This is why iTunes is so great. You can buy your music, play it, transfer it to an iPod, burn it, etc without downloading updates/patches/plugins for a bunch of different pieces of software from different companies. (Well you have to update iTunes to iTunes 4, but it's hardly the same)
The other issue getting in the way here is the shitty DRM. Only one computer can do the burning, so since it didn't work for her Windows 2000 box, she tried moving it to Windows XP (thinking it might improve some how). But she couldn't burn from Windows XP. Furthermore, every song had to be "authorized", (she types in username/password), and cannot be done in batches, even in album format.
It's not as elegant as iTunes, and that's the issue.
Emphasis on ease of use, customer experience, technical quality.
Focal issue: adding value to Mac systems to attract switchers and sell iPods.
Result: Pretty decent music service, all things considered.
BuyMusic.com:
Emphasis on Being Cheaper than iTMS, locking out non-approved systems, Looking an awful lot like iTMS.
Focal issue: Establish self as competition for iTMS before Apple gets the Windows version out.
Result: left as an exercise for the reader.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
and it didn't work, wouldn't you be a little irked?
If you buy something you usually have at least a bit of understanding that it's going to be useful for something. If I buy a mop and the handle breaks on the first use, back it goes - and stores almost always will take them back. At least the ones that stay in business do...
Which brings us back to BuyMusic, who seemingly does not care if what you bought is functional or not.
I feel a tiny, tiny bit sorry for them because they have to deal with PC's that might have a messed up WMP (like my computer at work that freezes every time you try to use WMP for music or video). Then again, they could have picked some other format that was known to be more compatible and less finicky. I'm sure if they'd tried AskSlashdot they might have had a few suggestions.
Similarly you have to feel a little sorry for them for pirating other people's music, after all they bought it from a third party... but if I bought a few songs from a guy on the corner who said it was "OK to share them" I probably still would not be any less liable for copyright infringement (or would I? Not sure on that one).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After reading about Jody Whitesides' problem at MacSlash, I have to question why there isn't an organization that helps protect the rights of indie and small-time acts... They seem to be more deserving of protection than the big names anyway. Anyhow, from what I understand... it sounds like BuyMusic.com is using music from Orchard Records illegally, after Orchard supposedly "tanked". Apparently the bulk of BuyMusic's selection is from Orchard and artists are recieving little, if any recompense for it. I'm guessing BuyMusic won't last long. Just my two cents.
From reading what she wrote, it looks like BuyMusic specificy a Windows Media Player plugin by Roxio as the only way you can burn CDs from it.
I'm guessing it has to be a WMP plugin so that WMP can validate the license on the music.
I think she had a pretty fair point, they tell you that you are allowed to burn a CD from the music, and they tell you the software that you must use to do it. The software doesn't work, they tell you it's not their problem - I'd be pissed off too.
Advanced users are users too!
So, in short, BuyMusic.com has only one viable business plan: get bought out by Microsoft! They'd fit right in...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
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.
Why are we gloating over the problems of buymusic.com?
Because, as nerds, we want the original and well-designed service (Apple Music Store) to thrive, instead of the half-assed ripoff (BuyMusic).
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Me, I'd roll it out to a targeted set of beta customers to see how well the servers did and how well people liked the service. Then I'd roll it out to everyone else.
Isn't that just what they did? Though it's been the nicest "beta" I've ever been in.
The BuyMusic fiasco proves exactly why you want a limited beta first (and DRM that doesn't kill your customer experience, but that's another issue), so that when 95% of the market really does get access they have a smooth experience from the start. The first few days of iTunes were a little shaky from an availability standpoint, but now they've figured out how to manage the load and are ramping up for the rest of the world.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
from a site which has no prior experience dealing with such technologies... wouldn't you just try to buy one (or two or three at most) songs just to see whether the thing works?
The blogger obviously puts in too much trust on such experimental media (as opposed to established formats such as MP3 and Ogg, which many of us knows at least *works*) with a plethora of restrictions, and (legally) playable on one platform! All I can say to her is "Serves you right, ignorant casual user!".
You need to know your stuff before engaging in things such as DRM-enabled "new" media. Perhaps now more people will see evil behind such implementations and the fallacy behind claims that it will make your life easier, add more purchasing power to your dollar, world peace, bla bla bla...
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
iTunes, on the other hand, gives the user EVERYTHING in a neat little package. The connection to the music store is seamless, and you can play, sort, and burn from a single app, without any of this DRM related business, or privacy concerns. If a company expects users to use their service, they could at LEAST make it easy to use, and from this account, that is probably the last thing that it is.
I have visited their site and would like to say that it feels very hollow, and dosn't have a whole lot of content. iTunes offers clip samples that are full quality and 30 seconds long(guarenteed to work because everything is done in a nice, streamlined client). I couldn't even get BuyMusic to even play the sample because of the problems with all the external player stuff. Two more things that piss me off include the fact that BuyMusic has neglected to even catagorize my favroite genre: Electronica, and the fact that it only works with Windows, and seems that they have no plans for the rest of us, and I had to access it from a public terminal because all I have at home is a mac and some Linux boxes. At least Apple is trying to port iTunes to Windows, so I could probably get it to work with WINE.
It clearly is their fault for not providing practical means to accomplish reasonable ends.
What a blatant ripoff their TV ads are. They are embarassingly unoriginal. I am surprised that any legitimate business would stand behind such a weak "me too" effort. Their whole service is a copy of iTunes. They deserve to fail.
But, it fits the whole windows environment of weak imitations of software and hardware features. It's not always copied from Apple, but it's not too rare. Remember all the fruit colored computers and components after the first iMac? And all the acrylic and cubish cases after the Mac cube?
Neither my MacOS X cube nor my Linux box can access the service anyway. I'll gladly stick with iTunes. (Now, if only Apply would produce a Linux version of iTunes, I'd be all set.)
In addition, we are unable to credit you back for failed or damaged copies once you have successfully downloaded the music to your primary computer.
I could understand why a local CD store or even Apple wouldn't offer refunds on purchased music, but why do these guys refuse to refund money if they can actually know whether you are still listening to the music or not?
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...
I apologize for posting this is Code, but stupid Slashdot thought the original had "too many junk characters" even though it was almost all text!
/ 1510211&mode=thread">here</a> - which someone else linked to as well.
The full discussion is <a href="http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/29
There was an interesting post related to your question that noted the current Orchard terms:
<b>You grant to us throughout the Territory during the Sales Period the NON-EXCLUSIVE rights to sell, copy, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exploit any and all of your Recordings by any and all means and media (whether now known or existing in the future), including, without
limitation, the non-exclusive rights to sell, distribute and otherwise exploit any and all of your Recordings throughout E-Stores including, but not limited to, those via the Internet, as well as all digital storage, download and transmission rights, whether now known or existing in the
future.</b>
Jody's response:
<i>
That clause that you refer to in their contract was not worded like that in the original agreement. The concept of digital downloads for pay did not not exist. End of story.
As of right now, they have yet to provide a document with my signature on it stating I ever signed such a paper.
So while I agree that any dope who would sign such a contract deserves this, I didn't and I'm mad as hell. </i>
So while we still don't have the exact wording of the original contract, I'd have to say he has good cause to be angry, though really Orchard is at fault.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What part of "IT'S A FUCKING FEATURE" do you not understand? If it is advertised, and it does not work, it's false advertising. They gave her a refund because it did not work as advertised. If it worked, they wouldn't have refunded her.
I'm starting to smell fake grass.
Wow VudooCrush, this is what..already your fifth comment preaching undying support for BuyMusic.com while yelling at everyone else who doesn't like them?
They make this clear before you buy the music. If I tell you before hand not to do something, and you do it anyways, is it my fault or yours?
BuyMusic.com's fault is that they provide horrible service. So people are going to complain, ask for their money back, write nasty messages about them, boycott them, etc. They're much more misleading than most companies people deal with. They knowingly use a relatively unknown and troublesome Microsoft DRM Windows Media format, without making any *active* effort to inform people these aren't MP3's. This makes people mad.
Sure, BuyMusic.com may have their fine print in order, but how many people are going to say "Well, I guess BuyMusic.com is a great company...look at this fine print here, and that fine print there...all together, it means this broken music service is not their fault. Boy, if only I had spent a few hours researching their list of supported programs, legal claims, and tech support pages before I bought my songs."
Anyone taking a close look at Buymusic.com would realize that this was a fiasco in the making. My main concern is that enough newbies have tried it out to permantently sour their view on legally downloading music.
If you are a burned buymusic.com customer, and Apple releases iTunes for Windows - what's the likelihood that you will give that a shot as well?
Apple needs to get iTunes for Windows out ASAP before all these jokers - buymusic, napster 2, etc. ruin the legal music buying experience for everyone.
In the end, people will pay for music - if it's done right.
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
How many other industries compete by actively trying to make their product worth less to the buyer?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
But there is the problem of finding the music, and weeding out the bad stuff without actually having to download and play it all.
This problem is solved with iRATE radio's collaborative filtering:
iRATE radio's server has 46,000 tracks registered in its database - so if you use iRATE, you don't need to go hunting for music anymore. All of these are legal downloads from websites like mine. (I compose for the piano.)The way iRATE works is that it downloads a few tracks at random at first. It downloads them directly from the artists' Web sites after finding them in its database. (The author of iRATE is careful to register only legal downloads.) After you listen to and rate the tracks, your ratings are sent back to the server where it uses statistical analysis to correllate your ratings with the ratings given by other users. If you like the same kind of music I do, then iRATE will send you all the same music I like. Conversely, if you hate my music, iRATE won't send you the music I like.
iRATE is a java program, known to work on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. The client and server are both Free Software, licensed with the GPL.
Here's some screen shots.
While iRATE works on Mac OS X, it could stand some improvement. Apple provides a package which can give java programs a native Mac OS look and feel. The project is actively seeking Mac OS X java programmers
Request your free CD of my piano music.
So how much laughter do you think is running around the hallways over at Apple right now?
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
...and I mean "funny" in the "does this milk taste funny?" sense. And maybe the other way, too.
I noticed on a random search of favorite artists on their site that they had a complete version of The Beach Boys "Hawthorne, CA" 2 CD set. I looked up the listing, and the complete album download is $39.29. That struck me as kind of steep for some reason, so I double checked, and the CD set (with all the liner notes, packaging, etc.) lists for $26.98. That's a bit of a jump in price, considering you're getting LESS for your money from BuyMusic.
FWIW, the individual tracks ARE available for 99c each, which can be a good thing, except when the price is also applied to link tracks that run as short as 15 seconds. Really thoughtful on their part.
--DocL
---
If it wasn't for half of the people in this country, the other half would be all of them -- Col. Stoopnagle
"we may disclose, sell, trade, or rent your Personally Identifiable Information to others without your consent"
Privacy? What Privacy?
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
My Email:
Their Response:Apple, on the other hand, has a form on their support page that specifically deals with cases where a computer goes down for the count, or where the user sells or formats the computer forgetting to deauthorize it.
http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/musicsto re.html?topic=computer_authorization
I'm really really surprised that BuyMusic put absolutely NO thought into what would happen if a user loses his computer, or decides its time to retire it. This is not some obscure issue that will never come up for most people. Upgrading one's computer is the one constant of using a PC, really! Its making very little sense to use this at all compared to going to a store and picking up the CD.
Madonna's music isn't on there because she doesn't want it to be. Not much Apple can do about that. It will be available to Windows by years end, and the selection will improve once the indies get onboard. And yes it still is DRM, but it is the most fair and useable DRM scheme ever designed.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Funny, I just got one page :-D
Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
I think I agree with their tech support.. if they give you a music file their obligation has been fullfilled. if you can't play it how is it their problem?
Simple. You won't come back.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Then again, there's the Apple Music Store model:
1. Design something whch works well;
2. Make a fair deal (with usually unfair people) and honor your agreement;
4. Treat those who use your service as valued customers and not like necessary evils;
5. Profit ?
Frankly if I were making decisions for Apple, I would seriously cosider *not* making a Windoze version of the Music Store. How long could it possibly take for M$ and the RIAA to agree to somethng obvious.
I think the availability might even be one of the reasons why the Windows store rollout was delayed, so they have a really good stock of stuff by then. For instance, Moby stuff was just recently added. Now there are some bargain CD's, $9.99 for 18 tracks!! I wouldn't be surprised to see Ray Of Light before too long.
I read your journal entry on BuyMusic. Some of the issues are similar in iTunes (like The Wall being about the same price). But stuff like that comes from the record companies dictating the price. It would be really, really interesting to see how many albums priced about $9.99 actually sell, as that's really the limit I'm willing to pay for electronic-only content.
Also, AAC is not quite as proprietary as it would seem, there are other players that can use it (with the current DRM? Not sure). It will be really interesting to see what kind of software they end up releasing for Windows...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
don't usually take this kind of bs laying down.
Companies should wise up and stop trying to blow people off. All it takes is one angry customer to write something in their blog, get linked from Slashdot, and its all over. Bad first impressions are the hardest to get over.
Usually you have to get the more savvy early adopter type onboard before you start screwing people over. It is the masses who are rather blase when their personal information will be sold and are ripped off.
- DRM can only further complicate the issue of media transfer; it can never simplify it
- DRM takes the right-of-storage away from the user; people are not getting what they pay for
- DRM, if it takes a hold, will make long term archival of media next to impossible (think long term: this is a significant problem)
- DRM puts questionable authorities in control of media on your computer. In many cases your computer ceases to function as an independant entity.
- DRM is erroneously pushed as a "security enhancement" for user. The reason for the lies is that DRM actually has no benefit for the user.
The key point: DRM offers no benefit for the user.If you're into indie stuff, then emusic looks like quite a bargain. Something around $15 a month for unlimited MP3 downloads. This sounds like a win-win situation, at least for me. I'm planning on subscribing this week.
Don't like indie? Get a Mac or just pay tower records the $18 they want for the new Britney.
At least there are *some* choices today that weren't here just a year ago.
I can get Moby's two CDs, both with 18 pretty large tracks, for $9.99 each. And it comes with cover art.
Apple prices full CDs at $9.99. You don't have to buy a-la-carte if you don't want to.
KaZaA Lite is the best to get MP3s, porn and popular software quickly.
eMule (eDonkey network) is the best to get movies, games and software reliably, as well as full albums, ebooks and porn.
What Gnutella is good for, I don't know.
Direct Connect ++ is best to get stuff if you have a very fast connection.
BitTorrent is best to get fresh movie, anime and other releases and some legit stuff like game demos.
FreeNet is not really usefull as of today.
IRC is good to get fresh movie and software releases quickly.
Usenet is good to get fresh stuff quickly if your ISP has a good newsserver or you are willing to subscribe to a paid one, but it's bad for hunting down specific stuff.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
iTunes didn't use to have any, but they recently added the album with the Amish rap song on it. Which I will be buying once I get a spare moment at home.
What truer test of iTunes worth to society (and buymusic's worthlessness) can there possibly be?
"It helps that most of the people Apple has been targeting with their service have at least one of the following qualities: rabid devotion to Apple no matter (so they'll buy it just to make Apple look good), rabid devotion to being as "hip" as possible (so they'll buy it just to make themselves look good)."
I would like to know how you arrived at this incisive, all inclusive, Apple customer demographic. I only buy what I need and can afford (no iPod yet), and I gave up on being hip 25 years ago. I have no interest in making Apple look good, they seem to be quite good at it themselves.
"Frankly, if I were Apple I would make a version of iTunes and the Music Store that are compatible with Microsoft Windows as soon as possible-- BEFORE Microsoft and someone else come along."
I would love to be a fly on the wall during the M$--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?
They're called buymusic, not playmusic...
All I know is this:
1. iTunes Music Service worked the first time and every time after this. Through an OS reinstallation, across three computers, and countless CD burns, it has *always* worked and never restricted me.
2. BuyMusic.com failed the very first time I used it. I still can't play my song (who knows why?) After several suggested reinstalls of WMP9 and subsequent "re-authorizations" of the tune, it now says my maximum auth count was reached. Fortunately it was only $.79. But I'm never going back. What a piss-poor POS that thing is.
Just because it says "mod chip" in it?
that's bullshit. It shouldn't have to BE that way. Macrovision sucks, plain & simple.
People shouldn't have to hack their own hardware to play movies that they have purchased legally.
Yes, sneaking into a theater to avoid paying is theft, at least in some jurisdictions. The legal term for what you're doing when you sneak into a theater to avoid paying is Theft of Services , at least in New York. If I got an RIAA subpoena, I'd be a lot more worried about the legal definiton of theft than the slashdot definition of theft.
(see also here for other examples of theft of services, including telephone and other telecom servcies).
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
BuyMusic.com is getting bad reviews from multiple sources. So it's pretty obvious it might well fail from its appalling user interface and its smothering restrictions.
Yet, you can bet that next year, all this will be summarized in a nice, Powerpoint presentation to RIAA execs:
"See", an RIAA exec will pontificate, "we pamper 'em ungrateful Internet pirates and they don't want to use legal downloads. Let's just go back to serving them lawsuit papers."
At which point Powerpoint will BSOD promptly, and the discussion will drift on to Britney's navel jewelry and its marketing tie-ins.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/