Buying Music from Other than iTunes?

Allofmp3 by p0ppe · 2004-01-02 13:29 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.allofmp3.com/ - Run out of Russia, great service (online encoding for example) and great prices ($0.01/mb) but a question about legality when used from the US.

They're fully licenced with the local RIAA equivalent, but there doesn't seem to be any info available on American legislation.

A more in-depth discussion on the site can be found at http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3info.htm

--

"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Re:Allofmp3 by returnoftheyeti · 2004-01-02 14:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Allofmp3 does have its paperwork in order to stay in compliance with Russian laws. The RIAA is completely aware of Allofmp3 but has not been able to take any action so far. We think it is safe to say that Allmp3 is a legal service. If you would like to do a little research yourself. Use the Altavista Toolbar to translate the Russian pages at www.roms.ru Is using Allofmp3 legal? In the User Agreement Allofmp3 states that you may not use the service if it is in conflict with the legislation of your country. Of course Allofmp3 has added this as a kind of disclaimer. Who can tell if using Allofmp3 is against the law in your country? We doubt if anyone can in the current jungle of legal issues on copyright and internet.
From the TOS of AllofMP3
Re:Allofmp3 by MoOsEb0y · 2004-01-02 22:10 · Score: 1

I highly recommend the service the parent posted has presented. I'm using it right now and loving it. It's perfect. Seriously. All my music money is going to Russia if they can provide a good quality service at a good price.
Re:Allofmp3 by Fnkmaster · 2004-01-03 06:10 · Score: 1

I'll throw in my vote for allofmp3.com as well. The selection is different from iTunes Music Store - they have some things I couldn't find on iTunes, and they lack some things that iTunes does have, so YMMV. But in general the online encoding feature is fabulous, and I love being able to do a low-res preview of an entire song, not just the 30 second iTunes previews. Also the much lower cost makes it sensible to just buy entire albums that I never would have otherwise. This has encouraged me to recently explore a lot of music I never would have bothered to before.

I definitely wouldn't have done so much exploring of other genres and lesser known artists with Kazaa or other P2P services - they are all polluted with shitty quality rips and encodes, and of course 80% of the mainstream stuff is polluted with hundreds of fake MP3s these days thanks to the RIAA (though WinMX and other slightly less mainstream P2P services are better, the quality and ability to find non-mainstream stuff is still mixed).

Also - thanks to the other replier for pointing out Magnatunes - some interesting bands there, worth exploring too.

iTunes + Walmart by skinfitz · 2004-01-02 13:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Firstly iTunes runs on Windows, however it only runs on the non-toy versions. (2k + XP). Yes I know it's designed for an iPod but you can burn to CD then re-rip them to a portable format.

Secondly Walmart now sell music downloads for 88c

Re:iTunes + Walmart by Ratso+Baggins · 2004-01-02 15:18 · Score: 1, Informative

To get digital images from my digital camera to computer that dosn't have usb, but does have a scanner, I could also print them on plain paper from the USB computer and take them over to the scanner computer and scan them in. Now consider I took the pix at low-jpeg mode, and used plain paper to print and the glass on the scanner was very dirty, and then saved them in low quality jpeg - the result is similar to ripping itms tracks.
Just buy the CD's you want, online if you must, then rip them as you want. It is all you have available to you. Music services offer limits on everything: selection, quality, use.

--
--
"we live in a post-ideological world..." - Billy Bragg.
Re:iTunes + Walmart by larry+bagina · 2004-01-03 05:31 · Score: 1

I agree with walmart. You use a regular web-browser to buy the music online, so XP or special software aren't needed.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Re:umm... by Arkham · 2004-01-02 13:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Likes Windows 98? Prefers it over more modern operating systems like Windows 2000, Windows XP, OS X, and various variants of Linux? Sounds like you have other, more pressing problems than online music...

If a W98 system is set up carefully and is not abused by installing programs off the internet, it can be usable and reliable. My wife's Celeron 366 runs Win98 just fine. She uses it for Quicken, IE, and Outlook Express, and that's it. I have filters on the email server, a filtering web proxy, and she has no issues at all.

I could put Linux on there, but then she couldn't use Quicken, and Turbotax would not run. The other more modern OS's like Win2k are too resource hungry for such a lowly machine, so Win98 endures.

--
- Vincit qui patitur.

upgrade by d_i_r_t_y · 2004-01-02 13:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

for god's sake, forcibly upgrade her to winXP. it's just like 98, but doesn't crash so often and it only takes about 2 hours of your time.

Re:upgrade by nukem1999 · 2004-01-02 14:57 · Score: 2, Informative

And takes about 4x the resources
Re:upgrade by dan_polt · 2004-01-02 14:58 · Score: 1

But it could well take up much more than 2 hours of your time waiting for it to load/respond with dated hardware. Windows XP is great compared to 9x, but it doesn't half hog system resources.
Re:upgrade by Drakin · 2004-01-02 16:52 · Score: 1

She has 98SE. Which, in my experiance runs well, and grants better compantibility with older programs than 2k or XP.

There isn't anything wrong with 98, or 98SE for your average user on hardware that's of reasonable quality and spec.

Re:umm... by bhtooefr · 2004-01-02 13:49 · Score: 1

GnuCash and TurboTax Online? BTW, how much RAM does that have? My Celery 466 with 256MB RAM was a decent web server and a decent workstation (but not both - if score-1ot seemed slow then, it was because of that and the 512/128 ADSL) when it was up and running, and 2000 Pro ran like a charm. By the way, Opera would be a lot faster than IE (even if it used the same rendering engine, the UI is better, but it uses a MUCH faster rendering engine - the funny thing is, the effects are most noticable on dial-up)

Re:Get a Mini-iPod by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-02 13:51 · Score: 0

His point is that iTunes won't run on Windows 98. It requires at least Win 2000, preferably XP.

This is just stupid by rudy_wayne · 2004-01-02 13:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

"she wants more music, and is willing to pay for it."

Then go to the store and buy some CDs. DUH!!!!

Re:This is just stupid by antdude · 2004-01-02 15:51 · Score: 1

Rudy, maybe she only wants specific songs, not the whole CD!

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:This is just stupid by BrookHarty · 2004-01-02 16:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then go to the store and buy some CDs. DUH!!!!

Ya, drive to the store, browse the limited amount of cds, listen to even smaller amount, purchase the whole cd for 1 song you like, then take it home, rip and convert to your mp3 player. Hope you like hip-hop, country or top40.

No thanks.

Online is the best way to buy music, and there is even free legal music. The choice and cost wins over brick and mortar stores.
Re:This is just stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-10 16:03 · Score: 0

This is the stuff of which Flame Wars and misspelled Slashdot headlines are made.
I'm glad you're helping out by having mispelt words in your .sig.

Re:umm... by curious.corn · 2004-01-02 13:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Older people aren't as accustomed to shelling piles of cash for an impalpable good every 4 years as us. Even trivial consumer goods like a toaster, a handheld phone or a TV set are expected to last longer. When they fail, often people have them repaired because the utility provided is deemed sufficient (thus came featuritis in the hope that it justifies the profit margin for a good that could remain on the market unchanged after many years). How can you reconcile these people with planned obsolescence for something that isn't much more than a serial number in a pretty box (and proverbially broken)?
As long as you don't have a TV set in your skull you tend to think much more like a corporation rather than a feeding lemming...

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan

Well after reading all the replies so far... by kommakazi · 2004-01-02 14:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

it seems the answer to the original question "Is there a legal download service for people that don't have an iPod that just works?" is no .

Re:Well after reading all the replies so far... by magnum3065 · 2004-01-02 15:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, that depends on what you mean by "just works." This guy has a pretty strict set of requirements beyond not being for the iPod. Most of the services out there work quite well for quite a lot of people, but when you're looking for a service that supports a discontinued player on a discontinued operating system that gets a little tougher.
Re:Well after reading all the replies so far... by dbirchall · 2004-01-02 18:30 · Score: 1

I'm still trying to parse it.
Is it:
Is there a legal download service (for people that don't have an iPod) that just works?
Or:
Is there a legal download service for people that don't have (an iPod that just works)?
Simply, is it the service, or the player, that has to "just work?" Why not both?
The fact that many of the other players don't "just work" (the second intepretation) in the same sense that an iPod does (insert remarks about AAPL actually grokking the ideas of "design" and "integration") might actually contribute to the more likely interpretation (the first one) being harder to attain. Hmm.
I agree with other posters that this is certainly not the week to be making purchasing decisions in the digital music space (or the computer space). One of the biggest players in the space has an expo with likely new product announcements (or at the very least improvements or price drops or something). Wait until next Wednesday, after the "Stevenote."

Just buy CD's by eak_the_freak · 2004-01-02 14:09 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Tell your mom to go to amazon -or the like- and order cd's. Then teach her to rip the cd's. You'll always have the original in superior quality, not just crappy mp3, aac, wma or even ogg. You also get a nice case for your cd and arty little booklets. Also consider that most of the music people want is available on low cost compilations.

Even better, why don't you take your mom shopping in a local record store? Chat to some nice people with real stores instead of staying inside.

And when you come home with your cd, why don't you try that wonderful stereo system your mom surely has instead of listening to lossy recordings through tiny computer speakers or the earbuds of an mp3 player.

And if you want real luxury, buy your mom a decent record player and listen to the unsurpassed warm analog sound of all those vintage records you can buy second hand at one tenth of the price of a cd .

Buy records? by AtariAmarok · 2004-01-02 14:28 · Score: 3, Funny

And if you want real luxury, buy your mom a decent record player and listen to the unsurpassed warm analog sound of all those vintage records you can buy second hand at one tenth of the price of a cd .

"In a Godda SNAP Davida SIZZLE baby POP POP. Don't ya POP SNAP SIZZLE you. In a TSSS CRACK David POP baby SNAP SNAP be POP"

Warm sound, yeah. Makes you think of bacon on a hot griddle.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Buy records? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-02 14:38 · Score: 0

I love new technology as much as anybody else reading /. but dont be so fast to push older technology aside just because you have a cheap turntable and some badly maintained records.

On the other hand, nice song choice, Iron Butterfly rules!
Re:Buy records? by eak_the_freak · 2004-01-02 14:50 · Score: 1

Maybe you can explain why high-end audio fanatics often prefer records to cd's. Analog recordings are simply more faithful, warmer and brighter than digital ones. A record that is kept in good shape and played on a decent turntable will probably not wear out in the time it takes a cd to completely disintegrate.

You can prove me wrong if a cd you buy now still plays in 2084. Those 78's from the 20's sure do so now and will probably still play then.

As for compressed audio files, anyone who has tried to listen to an mp3 through a decent hi-fi system, soon notices the deficiencies in the lossy encoding process, especially if the original contains a wide spectrum of sound.
Mp3 and other lossy encodings are just based on assumptions about the human perceptual system. They try to throw away as much imperceptible information as possible, but in that process some perceptible sounds are inevitably lost as well.
Re:Buy records? by larry+bagina · 2004-01-02 15:37 · Score: 1

the same reason high-end linux fanatics prefer gentoo.
PS - Most high-end audio fanatics I know prefer SACDs and audio DVDs.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Buy records? by nelsonal · 2004-01-02 15:39 · Score: 1

I've found that part of the problem is that none of the audio formats (AAC is better in some regards) focus on really good sound, they are all trying to optimize for halfway decent sound at 64 or 128kbps, while that is a noble goal, it would be nice to have a format that focused on getting 99% or 95% of CD sound at 256kbps or 384kbps. That doesn't seem like it should be out of the balpark. Ogg vorbis was particularly bad with sub 50 hz sounds. I'm living with AAC at 256kbps (average it's vbr) that sounds acceptable for the tradoffs in organization even for my classical and jazz.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Buy records? by gmhowell · 2004-01-02 15:44 · Score: 1

Those 78's sound like shit. My mother has tons of them and two refurbed players. 33's and 45's are a much better comparison. (and they aren't as brittle as the damned 78's)

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Buy records? by Babbster · 2004-01-02 15:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe you can explain why high-end audio fanatics often prefer records to cd's.
I've found that most high-end audio fanatics enjoy listening to music wherever they want rather than being chained to a turntable and a tube amplifier in order to get that "faithful, warmer and brighter" sound.
Oh yeah. I've also found that most "fanatics" are insane enough that I don't need to be taking advice from them...the voices in my OWN head are loud enough that I don't need to hear from THEIR imaginary friends.
Re:Buy records? by lewp · 2004-01-02 17:04 · Score: 1

You do have to be rather high to like Gentoo.

--
Game... blouses.
Re:Buy records? by toast0 · 2004-01-02 17:30 · Score: 1

Records require more care to maintain in good condition. If my parents did to their records what I've done to my cds, there's no way they'd be still playable. Also, playing a record involves the needle physically touching the record, which can't be good for longevity. (Yes, if you spend an absurd amount on your record player, you can get a contactless one)

Anyhow, I'm not a high-end audio fanatic, and I'm not particularly interested in high-end audio anyhow, so I don't care what they think.

Middle end audio, and lots of it is just fine for me. I curse philips for defining the cd audio standard without the ability to have mono cds, cause I'd rather habe 148 minutes of mono music than 74 minutes of stereo.

--
Need a Catering Connection
Re:Buy records? by NateTech · 2004-01-03 21:30 · Score: 1

The 78's sound as good as the day they were recorded. It's just that the recording itself (the source) was pretty crappy-sounding back then.

But at least you get to hear the artist and not some computer-re-tuned voice from someone who sings off-key and has to be fixed digitally, like today...

Jazz off of old records is sublime stuff, complete with background crowd noises and real history in the making. Today's "light jazz" blows chunks and Kenny G. should be hung in a public location.

Digital remastering of the original recordings is great as long as the modern sound engineer doesn't decide to screw around with the original and "enhance" it. (Typical engineer, "enhance it 'till it's broke!")

--
+++OK ATH
Re:Buy records? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 07:38 · Score: 0

You can prove me wrong if a cd you buy now still plays in 2084. Those 78's from the 20's sure do so now and will probably still play then.

I have etched all the bits of my music (from CD-quality recording) into titanium and have burried these etchings 100 ft below the surface encased in stone. I am hoping it'll still play in 4112 when I am reborn.

The battery? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-02 14:33 · Score: 0

with prices of $99 to $149 being floated around for a 2GB model and $149 to $199 for a 4GB model.

Wow. This makes the replacement cost of the iPod battery higher than just getting a new iPod.

Gonna be a lot of these puppies in the landfill, you betcha.

Cloth-eared nincompoop by AtariAmarok · 2004-01-02 14:48 · Score: 1

I maybe a cloth-eared nincompoop, but CD's have always sounded MUCH better than records to me.

My copy of Iron Butterfly does happen to be a very scratchy one, too :)

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Get a Mini-iPod -- more links by Hollinger · 2004-01-02 15:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Slighty Off Topic, but here are some more links to iPod Jr. stories. It's interesting to note that about 1/3 of the stories here don't even mention that this is speculation, and that none of this has been confirmed.

--
Michael C. Hollinger

Re:Get a Mini-iPod by Babbster · 2004-01-02 15:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

RTFQ. His mom already has an MP3 player that she likes (noting the small size - FYI, the Rush is about 50 gm while the iPod is about 150 gm). Besides, why would someone base a decision like this on possible future products instead of products that are available today?

I recommend reposting your response when someone asks what the rumors are about the mini iPod and NOT when someone asks about services to use with an existing MP3 player.

Re:umm... by /dev/trash · 2004-01-02 16:11 · Score: 1

Windows 2000 won't play my games.
Windows XP has that Product Activation.
OS X runs on Macs.

Re:umm... by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-01-02 16:20 · Score: 2, Informative

There are plenty of people who use computers who are quite happy using the same old software they've been using for many years. Furthermore, there are many people who don't understand this simple fact. You appear to be one of them.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.

Bigger ummm by fm6 · 2004-01-02 16:22 · Score: 1

All good points. And lets not forget the major hassle of upgrading from Windows 98 to an NT-based system. Even assuming the hardware's up to it, it's a major project. But in most cases, the hardware's not up to it, and you have to look at adding more RAM -- which might mean throwing RAM away to free the slots -- and even replacing a CPU, such as the AMD K2, that won't run XP.

People who stick with older computers don't do so because they're afraid of new technology. They do so because they have a tool that does the job, and replacing it means betting a lot of time and money on a new tools that might actually be less functional. That's a perfectly sane and rational attitude. Which is more than I can say about Lshmael's newness bigotry.

Re:Bigger ummm by Lshmael · 2004-01-02 16:45 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I have nothing against using older computers, and I am certainly not a "newness bigot" (at least, I hope I am not). In the original post, part of the problem that flyingember's mother had was that because she was running Windows 98, she was unable to run Napster. Based on flyingember's analysis of the other online music stores (which are based on quality, not inaccessibility like iTunes and Napster), it is perfectly reasonable to assume that she would use otherwise. If you cannot run the applications you want because of operating system limitations, I would argue that you do not have the "tool that does the job."

Secondly, take a look at the reasons why she did not want to upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP:

She runs Windows 98SE, because she likes it and work hasn't upgraded to XP, yet.

Hardware limitations do not seem to come into play. Windows 2000 has pretty reasonable system requirements, even for older machines. Also, I think it would be fair to assume that "work" will decide to upgrade before Longhorn comes out in 2006; learning how to use a more modern operating system beforehand would be perfectly "sane and rational."
Re:Bigger ummm by fm6 · 2004-01-03 07:57 · Score: 1

I am certainly not a "newness bigot" (at least, I hope I am not). In the original post, part of the problem that flyingember's mother had was that because she was running Windows 98, she was unable to run Napster.
The implication being that she has (to use your words) "more pressing problems" because she resists upgrading a system she's comfortable with. Sounds like bigotry to me. She's not refusing absolutely to upgrade -- she's looking at alternatives first.
I do some SOHO consulting, and that's precisely the strategy I would recommend. Abandoning a satisfactory setup that's less than 5 years old just because it won't run a particular application is stupid. First you need to see if there are alternative applications (which is the whole point of this Ask Slashdot). If there aren't, then you need to decide whether having the application is actually worth the expense and hassle of an upgrade. For a computer geek, it probably is -- the necessary fiddling is part of your vocation. But for anyone else, it's an open question.
Windows 2000 has pretty reasonable system requirements, even for older machines.
Not to put to fine a point on it: those "requirements" are crap. I happen to own an old laptop with precisely those specs. It just barely runs Windows 98, and bogs down horribly if you run any heavy-duty applications.
The bare minimum I would consider for an NT based system is about twice the specs Microsoft "requires": 300 Mhz CPU and 128 MBs RAM. And, as I mentioned before, many whitebox systems have non-Intel CPUs that just won't run NT, and would have to be replaced. Possibly a bigger hard disk will be required as well. Add in the cost of the new OS (these old people are so sticky about legalities!) and the time and hassle necessary to upgrade hardware and software, and there's a better than even chance that it's more economical just to trash the old system and buy a new one with 2000 or XP pre-installed. Which flyingember's mom might well end up doing -- after she's exhausted the alternatives.
But wait, there's more! I just noticed that the lady in question has a Philips Rush MP3 player. I used to own one (stolen). Not that good a player, but it has a few good features (like automatic bookmarking) that are hard to find. So you wouldn't want to replace it even if you had the money to spare.
And Philips does not support the Rush on NT-based OSs! The driver does work on Windows 2000 and XP, but it's tricky to install, and song downloads have a slight tendency to fail, lock up, or produce an unplayable file.
Does Mrs. Flyingember sound a little smarter yet?

SSDD by arcadum · 2004-01-02 17:27 · Score: 1

agreed

I just steal the music! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-02 18:45 · Score: 0

Fuck paying for it. I pay enough for an ISP.
Message to RIAA: Fuck you.

apparently size doesn't matter... by kinema · 2004-01-02 19:15 · Score: 1

"as she prefers small for her devices"

What does that say about your father?

library by anthony_philipp · 2004-01-02 19:24 · Score: 1

i just check cds out of the library. if you have a library system that allows libraries to share resources you can find almost anything you want, and its free. from there you can rip anything you want.

Re:library by op00to · 2004-01-03 05:14 · Score: 1

How is that any different than downloading the songs off Kazaa? Just as "wrong".

he got at least one size audition. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-02 19:36 · Score: 0

heh. trollin' is fun.

woop.woop.end.

Re:umm... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-02 19:41 · Score: 0

Did someone just call Windows a "modern OS"? Hahahahhaa... oh you made my day.

Good music companies by Thornae · 2004-01-03 00:25 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.allofmp3.com/ ... question about legality when used from the US
What about Australia? Anyone? Oh well, I guess I'll download and see if I get arrested...

On topic, I can't believe no-one's mentioned Magnatune yet, a site I found from a mention right here on /.
You can download or stream all their artists in low or high quality mp3, then buy the music and download it in a variety of formats. And their motto is "We are not evil". What more do you want?

--
|>
Here be Dragons

Re:Allofmp3 - Cheap and Legal! by Interruach · 2004-01-03 02:07 · Score: 1

http://active.wplus.net/copyright-monitoring/en/pr oblems.html According to this link, Russia has signed the berne and geneva conventions on copyright. This means that they are a 'treaty partner' with almost every other country in the world, such as the USA, the EU member states. As this is the case, and the site *is* registered with the russian copyright agency (they include the message below on their site) All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3-03-79 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

Re:umm... by hodet · 2004-01-03 05:02 · Score: 1

Win98, Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird, a decent virus scanner, ad-aware, a packet filter of some kind and a little common sense and you are no longer a Microsoft marketing droids wet dream. Get it?

Singles? by tepples · 2004-01-03 06:01 · Score: 1

Just buy the CD's you want

What about buying for teenagers who choose to listen to overplayed radio bands that produce good singles but bad albums, where the bands have not been around long enough to have published a "best of" album? Buying CDs destroys the big advantage of music download stores: $13.99 for two good songs and ten nearly worthless filler is not a good price.

Re:Singles? by Ratso+Baggins · 2004-01-03 13:17 · Score: 1

I think the "problem" you outline is more of a lack of guidance as to what matters in life. eg rather than bying the teen everything it asks for, make it earn its spending money and the "need" for the radio bands will diminish to their spending power.
Secondly the tracks you refer to are usually released as CD singles, albeit for more than 88/99 cents.
In some (most) countries, recording from the radio for personal use is fair use, ie you get an inferior copy (just like yr ITMS single) except the price suits teenagers.

--
--
"we live in a post-ideological world..." - Billy Bragg.

Batteries by tepples · 2004-01-03 06:05 · Score: 1

many of the other players don't "just work" (the second intepretation) in the same sense that an iPod does

I beg to differ. Owning an iPod player comes with a $50 per year maintenance cost of replacing the lithium polymer battery, while the other players take a slight form-factor hit in exchange for the convenience of replacing rechargeable AA-size or AAA-size NiMH cells. In addition, the threat of planned obsolescence should Apple discontinue the iTunes Music Store's compatibility with older iPod hardware.

Re:Batteries by dbirchall · 2004-01-03 07:11 · Score: 1

Owning an iPod player comes with a $50 per year maintenance cost of replacing the lithium polymer battery,
AppleCare for iPod costs $59 for 2 years of coverage, or (rounding up) $30 a year, which covers the battery and just about everything else. Beyond that, Apple will replace the battery for $99, but you can get replacements for $49 elsewhere (if following self-installation instructions doesn't scare you... and this is Slashdot...) and aside from certain highly-publicized gripers, most folks I'm aware of think the batteries last at least a couple years.
while the other players take a slight form-factor hit in exchange for the convenience of replacing rechargeable AA-size or AAA-size NiMH cells.
...and a slight convenience hit, due to choosing battery technology that doesn't hold a charge very well when left for a while, has lower power density, isn't really that great a choice for portable music players that tend to be on a lot of the time, and probably has to be replaced more often than lithium-ion ones...
Oh, and the Dell digital jukebox and Samsung/Napster player (the two that are most clearly aimed at competing with the iPod) use... Lithium-Ion Polymer batteries.
Oh, and of course Belkin offers a little external pack that sticks onto an iPod and holds 4 AA batteries... but that's a form-factor hit.
In addition, the threat of planned obsolescence should Apple discontinue the iTunes Music Store's compatibility with older iPod hardware.
Buh? Forgetting that iPods play MP3's just fine, and always have? Not sure what your point is here.
Re:Batteries by tepples · 2004-01-03 14:27 · Score: 1

Point taken with respect to batteries. But:

Forgetting that iPods play MP3's just fine, and always have?

Which MP3 music store carries singles by bands on major labels that haven't yet released a best-of album? And what if Fraunhofer and RCA step up enforcement of the MP3 patents?
Re:Batteries by dbirchall · 2004-01-03 22:52 · Score: 1

Which MP3 music store carries singles by bands on major labels that haven't yet released a best-of album? And what if Fraunhofer and RCA step up enforcement of the MP3 patents?
What-if this, what-if that. What if the world is smacked by a comet?
Apple has very little, if any, motivation to break compatibility between the older iPods and the iTunes Music Store. Anything that supports AAC and says iPod on it *should* work just fine, yes? Regardless of how old it is? The only way they can really break the functionality is to somehow make iTunes stop talking to older iPods. There's not much point in them doing that, and even if they did, folks with older iPods could just not upgrade to the new broken version of iTunes.
As far as Fraunhofer and RCA go... have you looked at the "About iTunes" window lately? What do you think this sentence means:
MPEG Layer-3 audio coding technology licensed from Fraunhofer IIS and THOMSON multimedia.
Hmmm. Looks to me like if Fraunhofer and RCA (or VoiceAge, or Dolby, or Gracenote, or Audible, or Amazon, or Whitecap) decide to step up enforcement of their patents, iTunes will be one of the products that isn't affected, since of course Apple licenses patented technologies from their owners correctly, all the time. Any iTunes user out there can rip all the MP3's they choose, et cetera.
Or maybe you were talking about downloading MP3's that were made using software that isn't properly licensed from Fraunhofer and RCA? Now we're getting into the question about what "stores" offer MP3's, and... well, they're not "stores," are they? They're P2P networks and band websites and... so on and so forth. Not sure I have an answer for you there. Not sure I need an answer for you there. Not sure what this has to do with batteries. :)

Warmth and brightness by tepples · 2004-01-03 06:10 · Score: 1

Analog recordings are simply more faithful, warmer and brighter than digital ones.

What can "more faithful" mean other than a reduced noise floor and increased dynamic range, both attributes which CDs preserve better than vinyl over repeated plays? And what are "warm" and "bright" other than terms for the subjective effect of a bass boost and a treble boost?

anyone who has tried to listen to an mp3 through a decent hi-fi system, soon notices the deficiencies in the lossy encoding process

Do you mean "MP3" or "128 kbps MP3 you found on KaZaA"? Can you hear artifacts in MP3 even if the recording was compressed at a variable data rate with a 256 kbps target?

Mp3 and other lossy encodings are just based on assumptions about the human perceptual system.

These assumptions seem to have the support of subjective experience; they approximate correctness rather well in the newer encoders.

Re:Warmth and brightness by eak_the_freak · 2004-01-03 06:50 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong, records do deteriorate, and the sampling rate of CD's is adequate for most high-fidelity reproduction. Sampling rates above 40000 Hz fulfill the Shannon/Nyquist sampling criterion (based on the assumption that human hearing is limited to 20000 Hz sound). However, it is useful to know that (reference) :

since all frequencies interact acoustically and work together to create a waveform, it seems believable and practical that capturing a broader frequency range and a more accurate resolution is justifiable. We don't yet realize the impact and result of high-frequency content above 20kHz on the emotional and physical perception of sound.[...]
The concern regarding sample rate isn't simply frequency-related. Since no one, not even the newest born baby, can hear above 25 or 26kHz anyway, the implied ideal sample rate might be 50 to 55kHz. However, there's more involved in our hearing and perception than frequency. Much of our perception comes from our stereo perception of localization and positioning on a three-dimensional plane. The messages that our brain responds to are based on a triangulation process involving both ears and the sound source. The brain calculates the time delay difference between the arrival of a sound at either ear. The time and EQ variations, as a sound moves around the head, are translated into left-right and front-back positioning cues. As the high frequencies are affected by the physical part of the outer ear, called the pinna, changes of equalization cue the brain about front-to-back positioning. Perception of left-right positioning is a product of the brain's interpretation of timing differences between the arrival time of a sound at each ear. To complete the system, combined with level changes, the human hearing and localization systems are amazingly complex and efficient.

And this is exactly what one perceives when comparing records to cd's on high-quality equipment. It's no coincidence (barring commercial purposes) that some new audio standards encode at rates higher than 90000 hZ

I have encountered mp3's made from cd audio at very high bit rates, using excellent encoders, and still presenting clear artefacts. One particular example I remember well was a Portishead cd that was awful at any encoding rate. I'd be very glad if someone could point me to an encoding process where I can't hear the difference on that one, even on everyday equipment.
Re:Warmth and brightness by 42forty-two42 · 2004-01-05 01:34 · Score: 1

I'd be very glad if someone could point me to an encoding process where I can't hear the difference on that one, even on everyday equipment.

No problem.

Re:umm... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-03 09:44 · Score: 0

Windows 2000 won't play my games.

I've yet to find a game that runs on XP that won't run on Windows 2000 - and I play a lot. Please do tell what games don't work on 2000? FYI, as far as I'm aware most Windows software development takes place on Windows 2000 because of the general opinion that XP is completely worthless.

Windows 2000 & Microsoft Visual C++ 6 = the sweet spot...

Whats wrong with 98? by Cyno01 · 2004-01-03 10:33 · Score: 1

IIRC 98SE is the most polular operating system on the planet. I have 2 boxes and a laptop at home, all networked, the older box and the laptop (PIs) both run 98SE fine, and i have my P4/XP box when i need to do more than surf and IM.

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."

It's legal. by k98sven · 2004-01-04 22:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes you can tell.

If it's legal for them, it's not illegal for you.

Copyright law makes the actions of copying and redistributing copyrighted works without authorization illegal.
NOT the purchase of said copies, no matter what the RIAA/MPAA would like to have you think.

This doesn't depend on which country you live in, it's how copyright works.

It's up to them (as the distributors) to have their stuff in order.
But even if they don't, there is no way you are liable.

By analogy, if the NY Times were to publish a plagiarized article (as they have, on occasion), they can be held liable for copyright infringment and damages. But by no extension of the law are the NYT subscribers liable.

Music Store that works. by eyedropp3r · 2004-01-05 03:42 · Score: 1

They all work - however you have to be running Win2k or WinXP to run the "Corona" version of the windows media player - which is the only one that supports the latest rights management stuff. you'll have no luck with anything other than .Mp3s or Wmas ripped from a cd on the Win98SE. So you can buy the songs for her on iTunes - burn to CD and re-rip....or just let her buy real cds and rip those. Since she's doing this at work (it sounds) they prolly are in no hurry to update to XP - if they haven't yet.

Slashdot Mirror

Buying Music from Other than iTunes?

70 comments