Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Real Cuts Prices for DRM-Restricted Music

Posted by michael on from the gnutella-still-free-for-all dept.

Flint Dragon writes "A story on MSNBC details RealNetworks' next step in converting iPod users from iTunes to their own online music store. Not only can you play music downloaded from their site on your iPod now, you can, for a limited time, purchase music for 50% cheaper (.49/song, 4.99/album)! This is the price that I'm willing to pay for. Too bad it won't last..."

70 of 633 comments (clear)

  1. Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To get me to use Real. They'd have to start paying me, and even then it would take some convincing.

    1. Re:Still not enough by blueZhift · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hear you! With all of the spyware in Real's software and other annoying features, they've lost my trust and that of a lot of other people. As it stands, I only use Real Player when I absolutely have to. And since I'm pretty happy with my iPod and ITMS as it is, I won't be switching anytime soon.

      --
      To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
  2. Yeah by Aliencow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cause we all trust real enough to give them our money even though we don't trust them enough to install their crap.

    1. Re:Yeah by be-fan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should really try Real 10. It's a whole lot nicer than previous versions, and not "in your face" at all. They even have a pretty good Linux client.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Yeah by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 5, Funny

      "You should really try Real 10. It's a whole lot nicer than previous versions, and not "in your face" at all. They even have a pretty good Linux client."

      So I hear, by unsolicited email, about ten times per day...

  3. Step 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hopefully step three is supporting Macs. For me, that's the ???? before step 4: Profit!!

  4. Losing Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought that these companie barely even made a profit at $1 per song. A limited time low, loss-inducing cost might attract customers for a while but the low switching cost between services means that they won't stay when prices going up, especially if your sound quality is not as good.

    1. Re:Losing Money by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's an intentional loss to promote their software. Right now they're losing about 3-4c a share and this is going to widen those losses by about 1c a share.

      I don't think it was a very smart move, to tell the truth, but I suppose I could say it's gutsy.

      D

    2. Re:Losing Money by ProgressiveCynic · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You've bought into the big lie. The cost of producing a great album with modern technology doesn't have to be more than $100,000 - and many great indy records are made for much less. The reason the majors will spend up to a million on production usually has to do with pure waste and greed. (See the Adventures of Mixerman if you'd like an insider's view.)

      Since selling digital music requires no manufacturing and only moderate amounts of hosting and bandwidth, the ongoing costs should be as minimal as the initial production costs.

      Anyone who tells you they can't make money selling you digital music at $0.50 each is lying. Movies cost between 10-100 times as much to make as any album of music, yet the studios all recoup their costs (including manufacturing and distribution) from a measly $20 charge.

      --

      Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!

    3. Re:Losing Money by PantsWearer · · Score: 3, Informative
      Not if they're losing money on each $.49 sale. If they sell a single song at .99 and make less than .50, then any number of sales at .49 are going to be at a loss.

      For a more specific example, let's say they make 30 cents per 99 cent transaction with the 70 cents remaining going into care and feeding their servers, bandwidth costs, RIAA fees, etc. If they sell that same song for 49 cents, they're going to be in the hole 21 cents per transaction.

      Bottom line: Twice as many songs at half the price would make them lose more money than the same number of songs at half the price.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
  5. ipod problems by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some how I don't think their conversion-to-iPod feature is going to last, at least not once the new revision of iPod software comes out.

    1. Re:ipod problems by almostmanda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea is, if enough people download music from Real, Apple CAN'T break the compatibility, or they'll anger/alienate a whole lot of people who paid for worthless songs. People will skip the update just so their songs still work. That's what Real is trying to accomplish with the sale...getting a sizable chunk of ipod users to download their songs so that Apple just has to deal with it. I applaud Real for making efforts to be more compatible instead of in the past, when they made efforts to lock us in.

    2. Re:ipod problems by wo1verin3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple has already stated this as their intention:

      'Stunned' Apple rails against Real's iPod move

      Apple threatened to block access to the iPod using Harmony the next time it updates the software used to run the device. The company last week unveiled the fourth generation of the trend-setting music player.

      "It is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods," the company said in its statement.

  6. I'm sure I'm in the minority... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free. The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything.

    ANY system that interferes with those rights is unacceptable to me.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free. The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything.

      ANY system that interferes with those rights is unacceptable to me.

      You must like the iTunes Music Store, then, since their version of DRM allows all of that to be done. Right?
      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    2. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by farzadb82 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything

      IANAL, but sharing music, regardless of charging anything or not is still a copyright violation. you are, however, permitted to make backups of my music

    3. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may not be in the minority in Slashdot, but in the overall world, I'd say you are.

      I will point out, though, that the DRM conditions of iTunes music are not as ardurous as you think. You can, in fact, burn a CD with your music on it and that CD is then free of restrictions. You can copy the music to any number of iPods. You can also play the music on up to five different computers, so making a backup of your music is not an issue at all.

      I play my music on my home computer, work computer and laptop, and I'm happy as a clam.

      D

    4. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by SirStanley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Could you please explain to me how you can't do this with DRM'ed music?

      1. YOu can back it up as many times as you like. Right now i have 1 bought DRM song on 3 different computers.

      2. YOu can make compilations. iTunes even provides a nifty little playlist generator

      3. iTunes lets you also burn copies of your play lists TO CD!~!!! or you can hook up your stereo out to a tape deck and go old school with mixed tapes!!!! The DRM does not prevent you from doing this.

      It does prevent you from sharing the raw source of the file with your friends. Since there is no digital compilation format you can't exactly send an mp3 digital compilation to people unless it was one giant file. But who wants to do that?

      You're an idiot.

      --
      --------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
    5. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by Mononoke · · Score: 4, Funny
      I refuse to pay for music that has been run through a lossy compression algorithm.
      Then why are you even involved in a discussion of digital music then, Mr Audiophile?

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    6. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free"

      I'll join you in the minority, and say that I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free, not only because I want to copy music (preferably beyond that which is allowed by the home recording act, for those of us with MP3 jukeboxes), but also because I want to be able to play it using Free Software. What's the point of having to have a windows computer to play your music on? Why can't I play the music on the same computer that I'm working at?

      Many people won't have experienced this, but if you do ever get your hands on some good music which you can copy (I mean proper copying, without legal restriction or underhandedness), it's a totally different experience to having a CD that you can only play yourself, in your home, in one place at once, not in public, you can't send it to anyone, can't point your friends to a download of the music you're listening to, can't put it on your website to say "great music isn't it?"...

      You've been told for too long that an artist would never make any money from such music, convincing evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Don't believe it.

    7. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by micromoog · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Digital != lossy compression.

      Grandparent has a point . . . a sound file produced with lossy compression is of lower quality than the same song purchased on CD. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

      In other words, the digital vs. analog argument is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT discussion from the compression vs. no compression argument.

    8. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The digital stuff is a whole different ball game."

      That assertion is the heart of the matter. But, it is only an assertion. WHY is it a whole new ball game? If analog tape tech had progressed to the point that perfect copies were possible, I would give good odds that the assertion would not be made. The courts had decided that tapes were legal, and people were familiar with the right to make a copy.

      The assertion is based soley on the premise that digital copies are perfectly reproducible, and therefore a greater threat than lossy tape. I call that premise specious: few people made so many generational copies of a tape that the loss of quality became onerous. The taped audio was adequate.

      The assertion of a difference between digital and analog copying is an artificial one designed to reopen the debate about copying we had thought dead as canasta twenty years ago. And it has been a successful one, but not on the merits. Twenty years ago, politicians didn't require the vast amounts of cash they must use today to get elected and stay that way, and twenty years ago the lobbyists were nowhere near as professional and formidable as they are now.

      I deny their assertion, so the only argument they have left is this: support us, or we come after you and rip you from office. It's an effective one. L. Ron would be proud.

    9. Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The assertion is based soley on the premise that digital copies are perfectly reproducible, and therefore a greater threat than lossy tape.
      I am getting tired of the "perfect digital copying == The Devil" bogeyman. Some people respond to it by pointing out types of degraded copying, as if it is degraded copying that gives us our rights. I think we ought to tackle it head-on.

      The ability to share ideas and expressions is precisely why they cannot be property. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, property is a social invention to prevent conflict over things that cannot easily be shared (like houses). If you can share by copying, there is no inherent need to create property.

      The nature of property pretty much demands that government enforce it. (No enforcement, no keeping Jones and Smith from shooting at each other over the possession of the best house.) Copyright's different. It's not a deed -- it's just an optional incentive to create stuff that we (eventually) will all be able to share. If the incentive becomes so strong that it wipes out all possibility of that sharing, copyright law has failed.

      Perfect digital copying is not a curse. It's a blessing in line with Jefferson's views about the beneficial nature of the spreading of ideas; in line with the fundamental benefit of the printing press. It doesn't signal the end for publishers -- despite all of the record industry's kicking, and screaming, and alienation of their own customers, they're still raking in the dough.

      DRM is the curse. We have copies of Shakespeare's writings, the KJV Bible, the Constitution, etc. precisely because the authors of those works did NOT lock up all/most of the copies of the works in scrambled formats designed to impair copyability. If the next Duke Ellington's or Alfred Hitchcock's works are left to rot away in some DRM format, will our descendants forgive us?

  7. Re:For a LIMITED TIME only by SlamMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bait and switch? It's called a "sale". A bait and switch ios when they're sell you sometihng more expensive than the advertised item.

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
  8. Apple & Real by daviddennis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could someone tell me why Apple is so upset about Real being able to its music work in the iPod? Apple has said their Music Store is not meant as a profit center, so isn't it better for them (in the sense of selling more iPods) that the store's compatible with Real?

    Of course this is of little interest to me since Real's not supporting Macs and I'm certainly not going to switch to Windows on their behalf.

    I don't think Real stockholders are going to think much of the bleeding, and when prices go back to $ 0.99 each I doubt that most people will stay with Real, given their software's general level of obnoxiousness and hard-sell promotion. Apple, for all its faults, has a very classy and nicely done music store I think most people will prefer by a huge margin.

    D

    1. Re:Apple & Real by savagedome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why Apple is so upset about Real being able to its music work in the iPod?

      Because they have to *support* Real's format. When Real's shit breaks on iPod, the users will view it as Apple's fault.

      --


      Free XBox, PS2
    2. Re:Apple & Real by FatRatBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably because Apple see that in the future the store (more importantly FairPlay) *will* be the profit center. They want to leverage the best selling MP3 player (their iPod) into establishing FairPlay'ed ACC files as a standard. Set the standard, pocket a few cents from every tune sold. This is why Apple just did a deal with Moto. on iTunes and cell phones.

      There's a much better article about this that was published a few weeks ago, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

    3. Re:Apple & Real by clifyt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Apple has said their Music Store is not meant as a profit center"

      No, but it is nice when it is...

      And I believe last quarter, they actually made about a million on their iTMS division. Its chump change compared to everything else, and not much when you consider what they are spending, but its still nothing to sneeze at because it is profitable.

      Past that, if you buy from Real, you can use any music player. If you buy from Apple, you can use the iPod alone unless you are willing to burn to CD first.

      Personally, I don't see the problem with what Apple is doing. Apple gives anyone the right to put music on their machine in a number of different ways. If they want to protect their content, maybe they should build something into the iPod that doesn't require the use of Apple's intellectual properties. After all, its a bit hypocritical to steal someone elses IP to protect your own.

      I've never seen Apple get pissed off at the Linux on iPod project...I know at least one Apple guy that has this running on one of his iPods and thinks its cool. So -- if you want to build your own OS for the device, Apple isn't stopping you...

      But I agree with ya -- Apple's online service is much better than the competitors who all had much longer in the business of content delivery including paid content delivery and most of these companies were the 'big dogs' (how fucking hillbilly is that phrase) before Apple decided they were going to get into the system.

      Apple didn't force their way to #1 -- they made the better product both in hardware and software.

  9. how ironic by insomnyuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it exceedingly amusing, and telling, that RealNetworks, after years of pushing proprietary audio and video formats, is now fighting Apple's use of proprietary hardware. They have to market to iPod users because mp3 players using Real format music have been blown out of the water.

    Its too bad their software was always ad-ridden garbage. They will have to do a lot more than a loss-leader sales ploy to get my trust back.

  10. Oh no! by rf600r · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean Apple might sell more iPods? That's terrible news for Apple, because we all know they really make their money selling $0.99 songs.

  11. losing money? by vida · · Score: 4, Interesting

    so these people are *losing* quite a bit of money on this; or maybe the music industry is pitching in? I am sure they are not really happy w/ iTunes getting as big as it is.

    MS conspiracy theorists will have a feast.

    *somebody* has to be pitching in... isn't real a fairly small company?

    -Facun.
  12. Good Move by Hawkeye477 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a great move by Real. I will definatly be a buyer since there are many albums that I have been on the fringe of buying but have now wanted to spend 12-15 bucks on, but would def be wiling to spend 5.

    This move will help increase competition in the market and I think will be beneficial to the consumers in the long run. As much as I like Apple, I like good old competition more cause it means better products at lower prices! Gotta Love Capatalism!

    --
    My Web Site - www.ocean-liners.com
  13. So you buy it because it is cheap... by OS24Ever · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..then a new 'firmware' update comes out for the iPod and your new library quits working...

    Until the dust settles I'd not buy anything from real in hopes of it working with my iPod. Not like they support my platform anyway (Mac)

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  14. Whatever. by wheany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Real, have you looked at your player software?

    And is there an easy way of downloading your free player without you trying to get me to download your non-free player every step of the way?

    1. Re:Whatever. by Keltan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure there is. Go here, http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternati ve.htm Plays all the Real content that I have ever been interested in (which I can admit is very little.) (Additionally there are links to a Quicktime Alternative and Media Player Classic at that site as well.)

  15. Capitalism works! by aelbric · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No matter if you as an individual have issues about either of these companies. This is a good example of the free market working as intended. Too bad all industries don't compete internally like this.

    --
    nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
  16. So what happens when... by tao_of_biology · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Apple "updates" the iPod?

    Real seems to be implying some kind of guarantee that their music will play on the iPod... Apple has already stated that won't be the case for much longer...

    Will users with iPods who buy these cheapo songs be left holding the bag (a bag of useless songs), or will songs they buy and upload to their iPod now work no matter how Apple "updates" their iPod?

    --

    -- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."

  17. gnutella-still-free-for-all dept? by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And still morally wrong and illegal to steal. How do we expect the RIAA, MPAA, etc to embrace technology when the most public geeks make comments like that? Sure music is overpriced and a lot is crap, but it's still stealing. At least iTunes and Real are going about this the right way.

    That said, I'll NEVER install anything from Real on my system. It's as bad as Bonzi Buddy to get rid of.

    Burn karma burn, slashdot inferno...

    --
    You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    1. Re:gnutella-still-free-for-all dept? by gilroy · · Score: 3, Funny
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Sure music is overpriced and a lot is crap, but it's still stealing.

      That's right. And we should resist the efforts of the theives who write those contracts and suck all the value out of music...

      Oh, wait. You meant that copying music was still stealing, not that music itself is stealing (in addition to being overpriced and largely crap). Oopsie. That's a different argument. :)
      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    2. Re:gnutella-still-free-for-all dept? by AEton · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're right - Gnutella is stealing. I'll give back everything I stole right now.

      Thanks!
      -convert

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
  18. The most telling part of this story... by overbyj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is the fact that Real has already announced that they will lose more money this quarter because of this stunt. (Here is the link to CBS Marketwatch: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7b 0A42057C-77BB-4F6A-AA44-3BAF401EFEC9%7d&siteid=mkt w&dist=nbs)

    Take a look at their stock price today too and see what investors are thinking about this. (see it on the MSNBC link page). While I like the idea of cheaper music, this really smacks of desperation.

    --
    No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
  19. Offer won't last long... Music might not either by EvanKai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who is going to buy DMR'ed music from a company that is struggling financially with no guarantee that the RM part of the DRM will function in 6 months.

    Their ads should say...
    RENT AN ALBUM FOR $4.99
    ACT NOW, THIS FUNCTIONALITY WON'T LAST

  20. Re:For a LIMITED TIME only by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What the heck is wrong with $0.99 per song? You pay more than that for a bottle of soda, for crying out loud! If you want to be able to LEGALLY download music off the 'net, you need to support valid attempts to bring that to you. As more money flows into these companies from Internet distribution methods, the Internet supporters inside music companies will grow in power (potentially overshadowing those who are trying to stop it).

    Once those supporters are in power, the reign of RIAA terror may finally end. Or at least reach an equilibrium similar to the one that existed prior to MP3s.

    On a different note, best 99 cents, ever!

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  21. Ummm.. maybe idiots would... by Otto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering that in order to use Real's music you must transfer it using Real's Harmony software and any errors you get will be in that software... I think people would generally be more likely to blame Real rather than Apple.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Ummm.. maybe idiots would... by Mikey-San · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've never done end-user support, then.

      I can't count the number of times I've had to say something to the effect of, "No, Such-and-Such is a third-party package that's not supported by Apple," to customers.

      Apple /will/ get tech support calls about Real's stuff from confused users.

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    2. Re:Ummm.. maybe idiots would... by cyber0ne · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ummm.. maybe idiots would...

      That's what he said... "people."

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
  22. this is more on the right track by deviantonline · · Score: 4, Interesting
    paying $.99 to download a song that contains probably less than 10% of what the cd recording contains is something that i will never do. to me, paying for compressed music is a fools game.

    lowering the price to $.49 or less per song seems more reasonable to me. people dont understand that by purchasing music online in mp3 (or equiv) format that they are ok with crap sounding music and if they are ok with that, what is going to keep record companies from spending less money on production when they know the music is headed for a compressed format anyway?

    --

    spend money here

  23. Almost makes sense by zeus_tfc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After reading the headline, I thought, "Wow, for once this makes sense." What I mean is, they are selling an inferior product at a lower cost. This is standard business practice, and as long as they openly admit to the DRM, I've no problem with it.

    Then I RTFA and changed my mind. This isn't giving the people a choice of an inferior product for a lower cost, this is a "sale" to try and win people away from iTunes. It's only supposed to last an undefined "limited amount of time." Probably until they feel they've won enough customers from apple. I guess it still makes sense business-wise, but I don't like it as much.

    --
    "...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
  24. Audio Quality by Philosinfinity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While better audio codecs have been advanced (MP3, ogg, FLAC...) it seems that the real audio format has maintained its position at the end of the pack. While I am not such an audiophile that I feel like researching expert information on audio quality, it seems that I notice a great difference when listening to an .ra file as opposed to an MP3. Getting half the quality for half the price seems like a wash to me. That is, unless they are either distributing music in another format or have advanced their own encoding process. However, even an advance in the Real Audio format seems negligible. While it is nice that the files are currently compatable with the iPod, it still seems Real is taking the "too propritary" road. Now before I get tossed into the flamebait category, I do understand that iTunes, MusicMatch, and the rest of the competition is fairly proprietary in their own right. But iTunes, and to a degree MusicMatch, are quite a bit less intrusive applications than RealPlayer. Further, does anyone remember the user privacy sagas that Real has been through? Does anyone really trust Real to safeguard your information? I don't know about the rest of you, but Real lost my trust a long time ago. They could give out $0.01 songs and $0.10 albums, and that alone would scare me away.

  25. allofmp3.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I still use my ultra-cheap alternative: allofmp3.com. They operate using a Russian broadcast license...

    Instead of 99 cents a song, you pay a penny per megabyte. Often you can pay as little as 5 cents for a 128 bit MP3. Other formats and bitrates are available.

    Best part? Since it's a Russian "broadcast", the RIAA doesn't get any of it. Tasty!

  26. It's MPEG 4 AAC by Otto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Real sells 192kbit MPEG 4 AAC encoded music now. The new encoder/player/thingy defaults to that format. Looks like they're dumping the crappy ra format, finally.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  27. Re:For a LIMITED TIME only by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like they say, you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay $.99 a song and get to keep it rather than paying $.50 for a crippled song that comes from a company with a dodgy past. Somehow I doubt this will cut into Apple's sales that much.

  28. Questions.. by TheCeltic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, I'm sure this is all covered somewhere at the two sites but...

    1. Can we copy the file we bought to different devices (i.e. PC/ipod/mp3 player)?
    2. Will it allow us to modify the format to/from mp3/wma/ogg/etc?
    3. What is the quality compared with "normal" downloads (from gnutella/limewire/etc)?
    4. Can we "re-download" a song if our copy get destroyed/lost/mangled?
    5. What other advantages/dis-advantages are there?

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  29. Re:Not without jumping through hoops it doesn't. by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you jump through a whole lot of hoops, yes, it'll do those things. The point is to be able to easily do them. DRM, in any form, doesn't make it easy.
    Really? Quoting the original poster:
    to make backups of my music,
    They are simply data files. How hard is that?
    to make compilations of my music,
    That's one of iTune's basic functions.
    and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like
    Burn 'em to CDs and pass them around to your heart's content.

    What was so hard about that?

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  30. Cue the "it's not STEALING" posts by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You all can use whatever moral thermometer you want to justify downloading music you haven't paid for, but it all still comes down to the fact that you take posession of a song/album that RIAA companies sell for $x.xx, but they don't collect the $x.xx from the sale of that song/album.

    And don't give me that typical crap line of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I'm not depriving them of a sale." If you don't really want it, or can't afford it, that doesn't justify copyright infringement. And I fully support the RIAA's actions against you, because by your own admission, you are not their customer.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  31. Good for consumers? by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I have no intention of buying anything from Real (they don't support Mac OS X with this scheme), and I've never bought anything from iTMS (as I live in Canada), as an iPod owner I'm still somewhat excited -- this may be good for me as an iPod owner inn an indirect way.

    Apple has in the last few weeks released two iPod firmware updaters (one of which was released in the past week) -- but both have contained updates only for the 4G iPods. I bought my iPod two months too soon, and thus own the 3G iPod, for which Apple appears to have no interest in providing any software updates for.

    However, if things go as many here predict, Real may force Apples hand in pushing out firmware updates for the older iPods to ensure they don't work with Real's system. And to ensure users actually apply these updates, they'll have to offer some form of incentive in the form of new features or other improvements beyond breaking compatible with Real's Harmony.

    So if Apple does do something about this, iPod owners (particularily hose of us who don't have the new 4G iPod) may end up winning anyhow :).

    Yaz.

  32. Re:Hypocrites by scorpioX · · Score: 3, Informative
    No. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Real's Rhapsody Music Service (which is what this article is about) does not support OS X or Linux. Hence Real's hypocrisy in thier "Freedom of Choice" campaign against Apple.

    Quoted from Rhapsody:
    "MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
    Windows PC, 350 MHz, 350 MB HD Space"

  33. Re:Not without jumping through hoops it doesn't. by ThePiMan2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or just copy the CD...

  34. Re:Here's FULL TIME by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or you could just punch your favorite artist in the gut and tell him to get a day job because you're not willing to pay for his music.

    It would be faster and kinder to do it directly, rather than going through Russia to do it.

    (AllofMP3 is a mafia organization that doesn't have the artists' permission to represent them. It's supposed to be okay because they mail a small percentage of the pennies they charge back to artists...but they're not required to do so and artists have no recourse if they don't. By supporting it, you're supporting "legal" rights infringement via a gray market loophole. And that's FAR worse than supporting the RIAA -- at least RIAA member artists get SOME of their royalties, damnit)

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  35. except no fullscreen in linux by Sark666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not having fullscreen today in a video player is just unacceptable. But on the plus side the player does seem nicer/less bloated. I just checked and I'm still on 8 (whats currently avail in deb sid). So maybe the fullscreen option is finally there in 10. Btw, mplayer will play my realvid files but if you skim through the video it loses sync which doesn't happen in real. Any fix for that?

  36. Although flooded by Mac fans by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Funny
    The original "signatures" are entertaining:

    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? r4apple

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  37. This is a ploy to get their DRM into the public. by Warlock7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This whole thing is about DRM ubiquity. Real is scared to death of the Windows DRM so they go after Apple. Makes sense in a twisted sort of a way.

    Real and Virgin are going after Apple for "not licensing Fairplay to them". The more likely scenario is that Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to them unless they used it exclusively and both Real and Virgin have their own DRM schemes and that wouldn't help them to get their DRMs into the market. Apple licensed Fairplay to Motorola. I'm sure that it is an exclusive contract that means that more users will be using Fairplay.

    Real wants people to use their DRM and so does Virgin. So, they both complain that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them, when the more likely scenario is that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them without them agreeing to the contract, like Motorola did.

    So, Real releases Harmony, which will allow their DRM'd files to be played on the number one media player, the iPod, by faking out the Fairplay DRM software to think that the Real DRM is the same as the Fairplay DRM. Whether this is legal or not stands to be proven. Then Real undercuts the standard prices by half and sets about creating FUD about how Apple is evil and won't let them play together and starts a "freedom of music" site designed to attack Apple only. Seems far fetched.

    Virgin meanwhile attacks from their end, in France, and says that they've been shut out by Apple, the obvious monopoly (hardly) that they are.

    This is a DRM war. The one that has more media that supports their DRM out in the market is going to win in the long run.

    A couple of points that the Real site is misleading about:
    1. The price to burn a track to CD is $0.79 not $0.49.
    2. The price per album is 1/2 of what it cost before, as low as $4.99, so not all albums are $4.99.

    Seems that they are trying to open the iPod to their proprietary DRM format, which isn't really open at all either.

    Also bear in mind that Apple is guaranteed to release an update to the iPod software that will disable the Harmony software from helpiong to keep the DRM working on the iPod too.

    iTunes also has over 1 million songs in their library while Real has almost 7 hundred thousand.

    Who will win? Only time will tell. Seems to me that Real is playing dirty to try and make a minor inroad that won't pay off in the long run. How long can they support losing money in order to try to bring people over?

  38. Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple? by fiftyvolts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple has done nothing to stop you from playing songs from other sources. I have tons of MP3's on my iPod that didn't come from Apple.

    If all I could play on my iPod with FairPlay DRM'ed tunes, then I would be upset. However as it stands I'm free to not use iTMS as much or as little as I please and still have a wonderful iPod experience.

    Remember Real can make their own music store anytime they want w/o violating an Apple held copyright, and by the same token it isn't Apple's responsibility to make sure they succeed.

    It's one thing to complain about companies who lock out competition and make their own products worthless. I would say Apple is not one of them.

    --
    100% Crunchier
  39. Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Free link is now the first one on real.com

    Not too hard to find, unless you're blind.

    (for all the blind people out there, I apologize)

  40. Hogwash by yoshi_mon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Current standard film still records at 24 frames per second. If you watch closely during any sequence that has any action in it you will see how poor and antiquated that frame rate value truly is. And yet because we have become accustom to it nobody seems to question it. (Except for that crazy Lucas guy who wants everyone to convert to digital video.)

    Audiophiles similarly have become accustom to all sorts of crazy arguments about what you can and can't hear. CD's arn't as "warm" as LP's, tubes are better than transistors, high quality MP3's don't sound like the CDs. However I'm quite sure that if you were to sit down two people who had not heard any given track that was played on a CD and then on a very high quality compressed format they would be hard pressed to pick which was which. (Given that it's a 50/50 chance a more controlled method of testing would have to be done but I think you get my point.)

    Now I still personally will never pay for any stripped down, DRM crippled, poorly encoded music but I don't think that using a compressed format, done right, is a bad thing at all.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  41. Stop arguing - here's how it works by jerimiah797 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Enough guesses. Here's a quick summary of how this Harmony stuff works so we can all be on the same page. - Real does not change any software or firmware on the iPod. - Real's store tracks get re-wrapped in FairPlay, then transferred to the iPod. There's no way for the iPod to tell the difference between an iTMS-originated track and a RealMS-originated track. They are functioally equivalent. - Just like iTunes, you can burn CDs from the tracks you download from the RealMS. -The download quality from Real is actually BETTER than iTMS - 192Kbps vs. 128Kbps. This means that when you burn the tracks to audio CD to 'clean'/(backup/share with your friends/whatever) you will end up with a better sounding audio CD because you have a more detailed (higher bitrate) source file. Nuff said. If you don't get it now, you never will.

  42. Re:Yeah but it's the smart minority by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.

    It doesn't sound like it. You said it involves, "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work."

    Now using iTunes is easy. I don't see how that point can even be debated, the interface is awesome, the songs are what they say they are, the downloads are fast, you can sample 30 seconds of a song before buying (more than most CD stores allow), etc.

    Yet you try to marginalize it by pretending all the music in itunes is "Very Popular Radio Hitz." I'm sorry, but that is just plain old horseshit.

    Then you say that iTunes is "useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief."

    It obviously is not useless. For one thing, it saves me from having to do "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work." It lets me buy music in a setting where the legality is not in doubt. It makes it easy to do all of this. Useless?

    iTunes doesn't have a "premise that [you are] a thief." iTunes is there to make it easy to organize, buy, and use your digital music.

    It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money?

    In your case, what with all your detective work, digging, etc for music, I would say you're only spending your money smarter if your time is worthless.

    Mine isn't, so I use iTunes.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  43. No Mac support for MUSIC STORE. by danielsfca2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I go to real.com using Safari 1.2, I get a page about RealPlayer 10, which makes no mention of, and has no links to, RealPlayer music store or Harmony. When I visit the same URL, spoofing as "Windows MSIE 6.0" (aka "TEH INTARWEB BROWZOR") I get a big promo about Harmony and the .49/song sale.

    Pretty sure there's no Mac OS X version of this whole Harmony thing.

    Does anybody know how this Harmony thing works? Does it import the songs into iTunes so you can play them in iTunes/sync them to iPod as normal? Or does it make you do a separate sync to put the Real songs on the iPod, restricting you to playing them only on the iPod and RealPlayer?

  44. Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple? by Excelsior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your assertion that mp3s offer you choice to the ITMS is very flawed. This isn't an alternative for legal music on an IPOD. There are only two ways to get mp3s on your IPOD.
    1) Steal Music
    2) Go to the store, buy an album, rip an album in mp3, move mp3s to IPOD.

    Option 2 is the only legal option, and it is hardly an option to ITMS. It is like considering driving to the store and buying blocks of ice as an alternative to paying for electricity to cool your refridgerator.

  45. AllOfMP3.com by thecampbeln · · Score: 3, Informative
    Take a look at AllOfMP3.com The bullet points are:
    • Music by the meg
    • You buy in blocks of 500 megs for $5 USD (yes, that right, it's a penny a meg!)
    • Choice of encoding type, including MP3, OGG, PCM-WAV and FLAC
    • Despite it's price, it's a 100% legal site run out of Russia

    I just found out about this place yesterday. I haven't bought anything from them yet, but music by the pound in nearly any damned format I want sounds good to me!

    Check out the Sydney Morning Hearld article for more info. I really can't believe we here at /. missed this in April!?

    --
    "1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!