Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen Gripes About iPod, iTMS
mijkal writes "Hilary Rosen, the former RIAA CEO and chairwoman, has spoken out against Apple's "lock-in" with iPod and the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's." Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
I think my brain just died. Hilary Rosen is complaining about anti-consumer monopolies? This is like bizzaro world. The comments for this story write themselves, much like that Microsoft + Ford article about the car that will never crash.
Jack Valenti made a similar about-face after he retired. Does the *AA install some kind of behavior modification chip in their employees that gets taken out when they leave? (can we get one for a couple of the Slashdot editors?)
Well, she did insert that line about pirate sites being full of viruses (I get viruses form my mp3's al lthe time, god bless her), and soart of backhandedly danced around the fact that DRM and lossy music are the reason we can't transfer, so I guess the party line is stil lsorta there. Oh well.
"The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap"
Completely offtopic, but Hilary is a female name, right? So what gives? My tiny brain does not understand.
Imagine if Jobs said "The new Creative Zen Micro my boyfriend gave me is teh crap"
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
...non-DRM mp3s that you get from any other source. Ahem.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I think Hilary Rosen might have encountered the concept of telling the truth at a party once, but didn't get beyond the cursory introduction.
I went ahead and RTFA to make sure the above statement wasn't being taken out of context by the post. It wasn't, and it might actually kind of be true if one is absolutely insistent on playing only AAC files on the iPod. The actual truth, which Hilary Rosen would likely not be willing to acknowledge without the threat of slow torture death behind it, is that the iPod works with sample MP3s that you might legally download from a band's website or any one of a gazillion legal indie music MP3 sites, and also works with audiobooks downloaded from Audible.com. But Rosen probably considers any music by an unsigned band to be beneath putting on an iPod anyway, and probably isn't too interested in audiobooks, either.
Other ridiculous ideas in the blog entry include: "He [Steve Jobs] is as laconically casually cool as Bono" and the idea that the iPod constitutes a monopoly. First off, Steve Jobs might be a little bit hip, but he's not cool except to the Mac faithful, the only ones who really care who he is (that's my opinion, though. I might be wrong). Second, a monopoly means that no-one can buy or use a product or service type by anyone other than a specific company. Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone service. There wasn't an alternative. There are zillions of alternatives to the iPod. The iPod is just really, really popular. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
The oddest thing to me is that no-one who would actually seek out and read Hilary Rosen's blog would be the least bit fooled by the misstatements in it.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Ok, tell us something we can't guess. So you have a new rag and you've got Hilary Rosen writing thus:
Oh my... Has anyone seen my unawarded Humanitarian of the Millenium trophy around? I've got someone to give it to at last.
Or all your favorite pirated mp3's seems we've been here before.
!Cough! Surely you jest, Hilary! What next will you be pushing? Fair Use? You commie!
Yeah, how cruel. Seems when the big labels were withholding everything from us consumers we were somehow evil to rip and make our own mp3's. Only able to get what the powers that be (RIAA) felt we were worthy of (mostly whatever manufactured band or act they were currently exploiting and wanted us to buy into like so many lemmings. "Puny mortal, you are only worthy of Britney Spears Greatest Dance Songs of Last Week, with CD-ROM destroying anti-copy-protection, now BUY!") Now the stiletto heel is on the other foot?
UltraGasp! This just can't be the same Hilary Rosen! Impostor!!!
I dunno. Maybe you're a consumer now. Or just another cyberslut.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
My bleep downloads seem to play fine on my iPod.
Should I file a bug?
there's more than one way to do me.
Seriously, wtf?!
The article is from the Huffington Post the "blog of various mainstream media celibrities" which launched today. Impressive that they make Slashdot outa the gate - sounds like the lines are blurring even more between the traditional MSM media and the new online media. It will be interesting to see if they are able to maintain the daily grind of interesting articles ...
or if they eventually becomes as exciting as
watching grass
grow ;-)
One interesting side effect of this in the long run (if Apply has say 80%+ of market share) they would be able to not only force the RIAA to bend over but get rid of them altogether
The RIAA asked for DRM. iTunes gave you DRM. Apple sees a way to leverage this technology to their advantage and you cry foul? Grow up.
So what, does Warp Records just not exist? And what about all those people all over the internet distributing mp3s of their own personally recorded music legally? Do they just not exist?
Oh, wait, I forgot-- those people aren't RIAA members. So I guess to Hillary Rosen, they don't exist.
Still, it seems awfully odd that "can play anything but WMA and FLAC" means "can only play personally ripped music and iTMS purchasers".
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's.
Hmm... And whose fault would that be? If the Record companies didn't require DRM we wouldn't have to worry about this. Or does she want Apple to open up their DRM scheme?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
...what the hell?
...I'm stuck with Napster tracks that don't play on the player which has 60% market share.
Oh wait, just kidding, format shifting is peachy.
**blinks** I must be in bizarro world.... Perigee
First she promotes DRM and all that crap, now she talks about lock-ins and fighting for consumer rights? Wow, my worldview just collaspsed!
There have been lots of people complaining about iPod way before she reared her ugly head. tell that bitch to get in line!
You call it irony. I call it "hell-has-frozen-over".
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
She's a human being, that's umpossible!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
... coming from the plaintiff of Diamond vs. RIAA, a lawsuit in which Ms. Rosen and her cronies tried to render the iPod illegal!
How can these people sleep at night?
May 9th 2005? Today? What kind of publication are we being sent to?
Laws are for people with no friends.
Apple is a monopoly, tying it's OS and computers together, tying its iPod's in with its own service. But Apple zealots never seem to question their intentions.
Lack of competition is one of the reasons Mac's are such a rip off. Especially considering the relative low cost of the PowerPC architechure compared to x86.
Now much me down.
Its not Apple's fault that no one sells online music as MP3s. That is more the fault of the RIAA.
[insert standard RIAA rant here]
Will the real Hilary Rosen please stand up?
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
"If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod."
The former head of the RIAA pointing out that the only way to listen to your legally purchased music on an iPod is to break the DRM. That's rich.
And some obscure audio file format. What's it called? Oh, yeah. MP3.
You must think in Russian.
I prefer to buy my music from better legal sites, that are 1/10th the cost of iTunes and use no DRM. Anybody heard of allofmp3.com or mp3search.ru? They both are legal, and have great libraries.
I will admit that I have bought a few songs off of iTunes simply because I wanted a high quality copy before the song was released on CD... but in general, why would I want to pay 10x more for something that I can get legally much cheaper?
You are Black.
In all seriousness, why do you think that all of a sudden she is voicing the opinions of Real and Microsoft?
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
I know Steve Jobs is a god. ... in what universe? last time i checked, most people consider Jobs to be a head-in-the-clouds dreamer, not a god...
Every time I hear about this woman, she seems to try and take away some 'rights' to do with what we purchase. Although this is a turn of events, I am not surprised that she takes an alternate stance now that she is not within the grasp of the RIAA board or whatever group tells her what to say.
Either way, she does have a good point. I do own a mac and do purchase songs using iTunes, but it is easily defeated using jHymn (not that I've used it. )
I am simply surprised with her turn of events, even though it is similar to her old stance. I just bet it is influnced by MS and Real's Music Stores.
When did Microsoft buy the RIAA? I must have missed that story. And the dupe. And the other dupe.
Can't she just make up her fucking mind already?
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Perhaps I'm missing something -- and I most likely am -- but why does Rosen care if people are using iPods?
Rosen also complains about Apple's business practices in the article.
Hilary Rosen was in the position to fix the situation, but instead she helped create a locked-down DRM-prolific online music space. It's funny to see her complain about the exact problem that she put into place.
/ 09/hilary_rosen_laments_apples_drm_strategy.php
Wasn't it easier when we all just had MP3's? Funny how that format works with everything.
Good rebuttal
http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/05
Hey, I hear Maureen O'Gara is going to be looking for a new gig, for more "informative, insightful writing", Some Time Real Soon!
She'd like to see it more widely deployed.
What's so surprising about this, other than the cutesy, obtuse way she makes her case?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
She's so tounge-in-cheek it makes me want to barf. She's a loon. Her opinion doesn't matter... she is now obsoleted. She is also just an AAC with all of the DRM stripped off of it. And it she sounds just plain yucky.
I think whatever she would claim, she actually isn't worried about consumer lock-in. What she's worried about is producer-side lock-in. The RIAA members are locked in to the iTunes Music Store; they have to do business with the iTMS or their competitors will get the purchases there instead. The RIAA probably isn't happy about this. They're used to being able to dictate terms (like "you will carry X, Y and Z but not W because we said so") to retailers, not having the retailers dictate terms to them (like, "customers will be allowed to make as many CD copies as they like").
Now, the music fan is on the cusp of riches in their options - free of the viruses of the pirate sites.
Even now she can't resist a FUD attack on P2P.
I can see a new slogan now: "P2P = STD".
I think what's REALLY scary about Huffington is seeing how some well known people write. Echos of the transition to Talkies when people actually got to hear favorite actors speak for the first time - now we get to see how they really think.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Too bad they don't allow comments on the blogs on that site, not only would we succeed in some much needed "WTF!?!" but they might actually get some valuable input that they seem to have a shortage of at the *AA's.
Be True, Unbeliever
No, she's actually a lesbian.
"Now, the music fan is on the cusp of riches in their options - free of the viruses of the pirate sites."
Someone tell me if I'm missing things -- since when are mp3s or any online media format playable by the ipod capable of carrying viruses? Sounds like good ol' RIAA propaganda to me.
If I were the head of the RIAA, I'd say screw Real, Napster, and others, and endorse iTunes as the official RIAA online service. I'd also lower prices on CDs, allow higher encoded files to be downloaded (like 160 AACs), and offer things like if you buy 5 songs off the album, you can get the whole album for another $5. Something to move my products.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Steve Jobs, Let my Music Go
Fricking cow. Why don't YOU and all the lawsuit happy pricks on your side let OUR music go.
That's some fricking gall to blame Steve Jobs for Apples answer to the RIAAs psycho DRM paranoia.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
She really thought that her class of people was freewared from this all... Stupid Hilary... Silly Hilary... You got what you lobbied for darling...
I'd just like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Huffington on giving a voice to the silently oppressed celebrities and powerbrokers out there, who have for so long struggled to get their valuable messages out to the anxious public.
Truly, it warms my heart to see come to fruition the hopeful idealism of a youth spent dreaming of a world where who a person is matters as much or more than what that person is saying!
Thank you, Ariana.
1. iPods are popular but to put DRM protected music on them you have to give Apple a cut of your Profits.
2. Like most bullies the record industries really hates being bullied! I mean that is their job after all.
3. The record companies can not just set up their own stores and sell to iPod users unless they sell music without DRM or Pay Apple.
Sorry record companies you screwed up. Had you worked with Rio and the other early MP3 player makers to create a standard solution then maybe Apple would not have had the chance to become a defacto standard. The Apple iPod would have had to use the standard file format to compete.
So what happened is there are free formats like MP3 and Ogg and Apples.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I own an iBook, I own an iPod, and I've never had any gripes about not being able to buy music online from anywhere else besides the iTMS. Why? Because Apple makes it easy for me to purchase a song and get it on my iPod with very little hassle.
But hey, I'll take Hilary's advice here and navigate over to walmart.com and see what I'm missing by not being able to buy music from there. But wait, what this? IE 5.5 required to buy music? Well, gee, I guess Walmart is the paragon of a quality music buying service, even though I can't use their service because they only support one browser!
This isn't about Apple's lockin with the iPod and the iTMS, this is about Apple's lockin vs. everybody else's lockin on Windows machines.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to have an approved player right now just to use Napster as well.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
A girlfriend, for those Slashdotters who don't know many, is often a friend who is a girl...and does not neccessarily denote lesbianism. Example: My fiance often goes out shopping with her "girlfriends" who are mostly married and definately not lesbians.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Update Watch - Automatic software update notification
Both General Electric and SCO's Irony Division (SCO-DIV) have pledged to refund irony meters and at least two lost digits, though SCO is threatening to sue anybody that uses the word "refund" which they claim they bought from Meriam-Webster nine years ago.
RIAA is demanding that we retract this story, as it is believed that a Linux hacker copied it and made it available on regionless DVDs. RIAA spokesman Mao Zedong said "Hah, we beat the Soviets, and now we'll beat you. Soon American dollars will be worth as little as your average boy band's pubic hair clipping on EBay. I am already making room to make Laura Bush my sex slave. Mmmmm..."
Steve Jobs is a capitalist!
We now return you to your regular programming...
Apple? Sure does. So we'll just refer to this so-called "lock in" as "integration" from here on in.
Wow, that's news to me. Who knew?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
It's pretty sucky that if you want to buy music that you have to do it from iTunes but, at the end of the day it's DRM which is the big problem. Without getting into the ethics of it, why would anyone buy a crippled mp3 album for £8+ when you can buy an uncrippled cd for about £10? This is using UK pricing (which I understand is more expensive than US?) but nevertheless, considering you have to pay for the packaging and distribution for a cd then these prices are daylight robbery. This is especially true when considering that 95%+ of the music is available (illegally) elsewhere, without the DRM. It's not a hard choice, DRM vs Free non DRM'd music vs non DRM'd CDs - online music stores come in serverely lagging in 3rd place! I really hope something is done before we are given 'generous personal useage rights' on our audio cds. Online music stores could have been a very good move indeed but the implimentation has been totally shocking.
when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?
:)
Any file that is supported by the iPod can be played on the iPod regardless of where the file came from.
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's
You forgot the ones that we "stole" over the net
You also forgot that all of the recording companies that fund the RIAA are welcome to distribute MP3's or other forms of digital music. Being that they are currently almost 10 years behind the digital music medium and are relying on a business model that is about 20 years old, I have no sympathy for them.
Look, I bowed at his feet when the iPod and iTunes was created because HE GOT THE BALL ROLLING.
And the music companies watched the ball roll past them and out of bounds and then argued with the ref wanting the ball back.
But keeping the iTunes system a proprietary technology to prevent anyone from using multiple (read Microsoft) music systems is the most anti-consumer and user unfriendly thing any god can do.
I don't know of any "Microsoft music systems", but the iTunes software runs on Windows and can import any of its known file formats (wav, mp3, aac, aif, etc) and sync them on the iPod.
Why am I complaining about this?
Your ignorant, and I guess now you are without a job.
Wow, what a dumbass.
Insert CDRW into burner, then "Mix, Burn, Rip". That takes a real geek, it's real rocket science.
Yeh, you lose a little bit of quality. But if you cared about the quality you'd be buying uncompressed CDs and ripping them instead of buying online.
It's not by accident Apple's personal computer market share went from 80%+ to under 5% today (for people that remembers Apple II's.) When Apple won't play balls with the rest of the planet, the rest of the planet went and got their own ball (read: IBM PC compatible) while apple stood still holding their (proprietary) ball. I am just waiting for Apple to do it to itself again with iPod.
... is that she apparently can't read the help or look at the menus, since "File>Import" does fine.
Less hilarious is that I posted a pointer to the same article some hours earlier, but was rejected.
*snif*
What? No place for comments on the entry? What kind of blog is this if you won't open it up for a little positive reinforcement / criticism? Surely everyone would agree with her as the last sentence suggests.
...it's DRM thats the root of your problem you stupid b*tch.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=781 Slyck.com great place to check out p2p news.
Apart from the lol-tacular "mp3s are full of viruses oh no get me an intarnet condom" bit, I don't see anything particularly inaccurate about her commentary.
The sites she mentions in TFA are, in fact, extremely popular mainstream music sources that do not work with iTunes. From a purely non-technical, consumer standpoint (i.e. not slashdot) this is really annoying.
She misses the larger point that myriad incompatible and proprietary DRMs are not, in fact, Apple's fault but an inherent problem of an emerging industry.
Then again, this is the former head of the RIAA talking, not someone who's supposed to know anything about this stuff.
There is only lock in if you believe you must use iTunes and only use CD's and iTunes. The iPod is a device, and people can find ingenious methods to make it work with many other music system. Why didn't she talk about the other mp3/digital music players. I jsut think that article was just badly written by a person with small and short vision. I would say the iPod sucks becasue there is no native Linux support for it. But I am not happy with that answer... Or what about all the other online stores that don't have support for iTunes on my AIX workstation I will be pissed. She's arguing for the sake of argument. That's no good... -A
that iPods are mind-control devices that will someday be activated *through* iTunes in order to amass Steve Jobs' private army of hipsters.
Well played, Ms. Rosen... well played...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Perhaps this isn't totally on topic, but it does seem to be a fairly well documented fact that Hillary Rosen is, in fact, gay.
Fortunately for Hilary Rosen, there's a simple solution to this problem. All she has to do is go download a copy of Hymn, which will peel off all the license restrictions from the ITunes file. Then she can play her music anywhere.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Don't get too excited. I suspect what that they really want is to kill Apple's Fairplay so that the only alternative becomes the "official" RIAA approved DRM that controls... er, works across all players.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
it's totally legit to rip the CDs you own there and pop them onto your iPod.
Maybe she should travel more. She might meet some Tigers and get into a discussion of copyright infringement with them, over lunch.
Naturally, the tigers will have her for lunch.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yes this rant is insane.
Don't confuse this with defending her, but perhaps her opionion was that the the RIAA shouldn't be doing all the crap they are, but RIAA wouldn't change and for it's on sake has to take the position. My employer doesn't agree with all of my thoughts, maybe this is her opionion and not the RIAA's.
...is if Hilary Rosen died immediately.
For crying out loud! You give people what they want and they want more. If you don't want an iPod don't buy one!. If you want the ability to buy music from a wide variety of music stores, then go with the cheaper models with smaller drives.
Sure, you're limited to the One Million + songs that ITMS offers but, as Rosen so thoughtfully points out, you can always rip your own CDs. Between ITMS and physical CDs, the iPod has 100% coverage (with two different delivery methods). That should be sufficient for most people, but not for the Immediate Gratification Crowd that wants everything cheap and fast.
Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
Personally i don't believe or trust anyone who speaks after he/she steps down from Power.
The lame logic like "You-do-as-you-are-asked-to" does not hold any good. What good is power if they cannot use when it is needed most?
I hope she gets sued by RIAA now ! Talk about irony!
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
First, Hilary, there are plenty of iTunes-like places to get mp3s that will play on your iPod. How about emusic.com, magnatune.com, mp3tunes.com, just to name three, all of which are uncontroversially legal, and offer fantastic artists and DRM-free mp3s.
But the big lie being told here is that only RIAA-sanctioned can provide audio for your listening pleasure. There are literally thousands of artists offering their music for free online, and there are countless other ways to capture audio, including recording live shows and radio broadcasts, podcasts, and whatever else pleases the little hairs in your ears that turn sound waves into brain waves.
VHS-Beta? Maybe there is an analogy here. The media is physically incompatible, but essentially recorded in the same manner. This analogy seems to work for me.
Sony makes a Beta tape with certain dimensions.
Apple encodes files with their DRM.
Everyone else makes VHS tapes, with different physical dimensions.
Everyone else encodes files with MS/RIAA-preferred DRM.
In the Beta-VHS case there is a physical restriction to playing one format in a different- format player.
In the iTunes-Non-iTunes case there is a digital restriction to playing one format in different-format player.
So this is really no different, to me. Let the manufacturers duke it out in the market and may the best format win (oh, wait - VHS won). Keep the content producers out of the format decisions. Apple focuses on delivery and does it pretty well. RIAA focuses on format-litigation-marketing-payola^H^H^H^H^H^H-big parties-and sometimes music. Hmm, I wonder why their product sucks lately?
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Her own organization, the RIAA, hires people to create and distribute those viruses to deliberately infect P2P sites. I wonder if Hillary Rosen ever met the truth.
It's not about whether copyright is good or bad, it's simply this:
Makes me/our company/our friends lots of cash, probably at your expense: good
Gives you freedoms/etc at our expense: bad
Jobs was unique in finding a way to make the harsh restrictions placed on downloaded music by the recording industry palatable to a wide audience and profitable to boot.
Seeing as Apple took the risk and won, I think it's unreasonable to ask them to give up the fruits of their labors. As an Apple shareholder I'd hold Jobs culpable if he ever did such a thing. I say to Jobs: "Milk it for all it's worth." Especially since there are plenty of competitors out there to keep him honest. The iPod doesn't have a monopoly because Apple locked everyone else out of the market, ala Microsoft, it has one because it's better.
If you don't like the fact that you can't play your Windows Media songs on the iPod, buy a different player ... or do what I do and buy the physical CD and convert it into whatever format you prefer. I get my CDs primarily from Amazon.com, but never from Apple.
And Hillary, if you don't like the myriad proprietary forms of DRM on downloaded music, consider the fact that it's your fault it's there in the first place.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
Making Slashdot by having Hilary Rosen post some of her particular brand of ill-informed nonsense is like shooting fish in a barrel though.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
"The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap," said Rosen.
Girlfriend??
______________________________________________
"... when oh when will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?" "
When the market dictates that this is a good business move. Right now, Apple can combat the RIAA on prices (read as lower prices for you and me) with such large marketshare.
Also Ms. Rosen is free to walk in to the thousands of retail locations that sell CDs and rip them to her iPod at any time she wishes.
"There are little players to make your favorite music even more portable than ever starting at as little as 29 bucks."
Then go buy them! Apple isn't telling you to only buy iPods. By controlling the player and the store, Apple is able to sustain a successful business model - NO OTHER COMPETITOR IS MAKING MONEY!!!
"Most every player device works at every one of these "stores" and it is pretty easy to keep all the songs, no matter where you got them, in a single folder or "jukebox" on your computer."
But not as easy as the iPod
Also, tell me how many custom cases & accessories I can find for the Creative Muvo again?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Oh wait, she wants the Top-40 garbage... Whatever.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
for making APIs that lock people into Windows, Windows Media for not working on PalmOS, Torvalds for not making the Linux Kernel applications run on Mac OS, etc.
Are we now advocating that all content must be available for all platforms? That's just silly.
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's. But those other music sites have lots of music that you can't get at the iTunes store. So, if you have an iPod, you are out of luck. If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod. But then you have also degraded the sound quality. How cruel.
Y'know what? None of my MP3 collection has "degraded sound quality."
If any of the stores wanted to, they could easily sell me MP3's, which would go onto my iPod no problem. But they won't, because the RIAA still haven't wised up that consumers don't want their DRM crap.
No, now we get Hilary Rosen, mouthpiece of the RIAA for so long, whining about how "Apple" stops their songs from going onto the iPod rather than whining about how none of the stores are willing to sell a song in a format the iPod will take.
Give me a fucking break.
Hilary Rosen can kiss my hairy white pimple covered A$$!
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/25/web-finke.php torn to pieces.
12:50 - press return.
emusic.com has the best deal on REAL mp3s, and you can play them on an ipod or any other "MP3 player".
What planet are people like this from? I prescribe 40 whacks with a giant cluestick.
She is talking like the iPod is the only player out there!
If you dont like it dont buy or use it.... there are pleanty of other choices out there.
Why do all of these people talk like you have to use the iPod??
Don't be so naiive. Rosen is a professional shill. She's probably getting paid by Microsoft (since she namechecks them in her post) or whomever has the lack of wisdom to hire her to spin the iPod in a bad light in favor of "open" systems.
I guess she wasn't aware of the fact that there is an option in the iTunes menu which says "Convert selection to mp3," instantly making your AAC files into cross-platform mp3s. And she probably didn't realize her statement that "even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars" is invalidated by going to the Apple website and seeing that the base iPod shuffle costs $99.
Not that surprising, when you figure that the majority of Slashdot editors fall on the Democratic side of the fence...
Ms. Huffington went to great lengths to insist that she's commissioned a multitude of Democratic party aligned writers to contribute articles to her site.. There are 14 authors on the front page today, and we've got: Tips from Cronkite on how to fix the Democratic party, Sen Corzine blasting Bush on not supporing one of his bills, Huffington making fun of Tom Delay, Rep Markly criticizing the Bush administration over N.K. nukes, another critiquing Bush's foreign policy, a critique of the wildlife commission, a critique of the Republican religious base...
Not bad! Way to change minds and win friends!
Hillary using an iPod
haha. what a lameass.
I think my brain just died.
Then you're perfectly qualified to work for the RIAA.
It's Mr. Pot on line 2 and wishes to speak with you.
anti-monopoly, bitch?
you who rips off both artists and consumers and distort the law for your profit?
you need a gangbang by one of those mtv gangsta rap bands. bitch.
All of the other stores that she seems to be arguing for require Windows.
That's a monopoly. That's lock-in. Exactly what she's arguing against.
As a Mac owner, I won't be shopping at the alternatives any time soon.
C'mon Steve, listen to her, open up DRM...
If the music industry had been innovative, they would have started selling MP3s long before Napster arrived. I am talking about MP3s without DRM, but including cover art, PDF booklet and lyrics. For $0.50 a song.
Everyone would have bought it, Napster wouldn't have been an issue.
But it looks like the music industry prefers to learn it the hard way. I don't care, unflexible companies or whole industries disappear all the time, music doesn't need them. And just for the record, I do not consider ten Britney Spears clones being choice.
I do not, and will never, buy music with Digital Restrictions Management or in proprietary formats.
Audio CD is OK if it's uncrippled, MP3s are OK, iTMS is not, WMA is bullshit anyway. And until open digital music happens, I am not going to buy music at all, because I do not like being called a thief at every occasion by stupid anti-piracy ads.
For the moment, I am happy with my music collection and the self-burned samplers my friends give me as a present occasionally.
As an interesting sidenote, at present it is not possible to buy music on the Internet if you're a Mac user and live in Switzerland. To me, that demonstrates clearly that the music industry is just whining and the pressure is far from being high enough.
I see she's now spouting all the things that people are saying are bad about Apple and iTunes, usually at Microsoft's behest.
I fail to see what on Earth competing music stores are going to do since the prices are fixed by the music industry and the RIAA anyway. That's not even Apple's fault! How much do you save on most music if you buy from elsewhere? Zero, that's how much.
These comments are made purely because good old Hilary has finally seen what a number here have noticed: Apple's potential to cut the RIAA members "out of the loop".
iPod's a market leader, as is iTunes. They RIAA have finally noticed that Apple own both the hardware and the portal to their customers - so what exactly do they need the RIAA for? "Content" - RIAA are just brokers for the market - marketing? Apple own the portal, they can push whatever they want to push....
Long term Apple can kill the RIAA, and that's her motivation.
Years later I would remember sweet Hilary, and think back on that night when we let desire, anti-depressants and Barry Manilow meld into lust unimaginable.
I have a friend who works as an epidemiologist.
CDC type, HIV spread tracker and prevention
coordinator, etc.
MSM is frequently used as an acronym for
"men who have sex with men".
MSM media, indeed...
Where the hell did she get this BS? Since when does stripping the DRM out of a digital file destroy the sound quality?
Is this really the understanding of the "scene" that she had as head of the RIAA? That is on the scary side I think.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
People should be able to chose sjitty music stores if they want.
It is NOT natural for a new technology to make the best player market leader.
I mean what whould have become of us if we all had betamax instead of VHS all these years ??????
Awww. the humanity.
retep.
Boy would I love to do a live question and answer session with Hilary to prove that she's never actually tried ANY of the technologies she's mentioned and this is all just sound bytes the PR fed to her.
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
Wow... she just lost my vote in 2008.
You really must be blind not to see the idea behind this one.. She's pushing Microsoft WMA10 format. Simple as that.
WMA 10 has some nifty little features with it:
- Specifically designed such that *only* Microsoft approved devices can receive the music. They don't make the device themselves of course, they just sell licensing schemes.
- What do you think that whole "Plays For Sure" certification is all about? It's about the most restrictive DRM ever developed. A "Plays For Sure" device is certified to be capable of ERASING your music, by itself, if you don't reenable it every so often by connecting it to your computer. How do you think the new Napster-To-Go actually works?
She states it pretty clearly here, in fact:
If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod.
Exactly. You have to remove that violently horrible DRM in order for Microsoft's products to work on your iPod. Let's not forget that Microsoft WMA10 came out into a market where the iPod was king. They're not interested in compatibility, they're interested in owning the market by owning the format and controlling the devices and stores themselves that way.
I admit that Apple has been a bit stupid with regards to compatibility. Specifically breaking Real's Harmony software should have been beneath them.
However, if walmart.com wanted to sell AAC files, those AAC files would play on the iPod just fine. It plays un DRM-encumbered music like nobody's business.
- 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.
She ends her missive with, "Why am I complaining about this? Why isn't everyone?"
Is it because perhaps she knows not of what she speaks? Me thinks she complains too much.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ 2005/05/former-record-exec-howie-_1.html
Interesting that one former exec says the other former exec is wrong
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
I read through your post history... the way you insert links to your own site in nearly every post you make is hilarious. In fact, it's downright trolling. But it's so funny I just had to compliment you!
The latest fad in american business and politics is to spread FUD like it's going out of style. In post 9/11 america, it works way too well, especially for a people who lost the ability to reason a long time ago, if they ever had it.
This may seem like an incredibly stupid thing to say, but in reality you just have to follow the money. The RIAA doesn't like the iTunes model because Apple has this segment of the market locked up real nice because their system works so well for 90% of the American public. With power comes control of the cash. If the RIAA tries to leverage itself against iTunes, the egomaniacal Jobs will push back, because he likes using his power.
Market power translates directly to money, for all those who don't understand why companies like Microsoft have $40 billion in the bank. Apple has a lot of say over what gets sold and for how much. Too much for the comfort of the RIAA.
Bottom line, The RIAA wants to chip away at iTunes' power and get more of it themselves. The more power they get, the more money they get. And Joe consumer will buy it because only those educated in the supply chain of music understand the details.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Why isn't she complaining about Microsoft's monoply? Why isn't everyone ?
You can. They're called CDs. Those things your organization used to rip off the American public for years before a theoretically more powerful content distribution system was found and you started bitching about it because you no longer had a monopoly over distribution.
Seems the RIAA may be the only organization that actually doesn't like it when other kids play by their rules, which seem to be "Make sure we're the only ones that can make money off of this so we get it all."
If Apple controls the distribution of music then who does the RIAA represent? Apple becomes the music publisher. As Apple is not a member of the RIAA obviously this would be a problem. They want DRM management with fragmentation between services and without the inclusion of indy music. This creates "competition" and lets the Music Publishers pretend they still have a purpose.
REPENT! QUIT YOUR JOB! -- The WOLRD ends TOMORROW and YOU may DIE!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
...come in kettle...you're black
You sound gay -- not that there's anything wrong with that!
I spent 17 years in the music business the last several of which were all about pushing and prodding the painful development of legitimate on-line music.
Wasn't that mostly by trying to kill off any type of online music that you hadn't personally blessed yet?
If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod. But then you have also degraded the sound quality. How cruel.
And severely broken the law by your own definition. Or are you just pissed that they can do it and you can't yet?
Come on Steve - open it up
Ha ha ha ha ha! How quickly you change your iTune when it's your own ox being gored. Welcome to the world the rest of us live in, Hilary!
Why am I complaining about this? Why isn't everyone?
Could it be they don't want to be sued by your successor?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
who believes that she has a friend
...and the RIAA does not know who to sue!
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Sure beats taking them to court.
Apple is a monopoly, tying it's OS and computers together, tying its iPod's in with its own service.
Can't resist feeding the troll here. The only sense in which Apple OS and computer business can be considered a monopoly is if you define the market as computers and operating systems sold by Apple; in which case you are are begin meaninglessly tautological. Most people define Apple's market a little bigger - the personal computer market, in which they have between 2 and 5 percent of the market, depending on whose numbers you want to believe. Hardly monopoly numbers.
As for the iPod, where they have between 60 and 90% of the market (again, depending on who you read), you might have an argument. Except that so many facts just get in the way. First, there's the fact that if you don't want an iPod, there are tons of other players out there. And there are lots of online stores out there, besides the iTunes music store. And if you want to want to play your iTunes songs on a player other than the iPod, you can (although it is not particularly easy). And, if the store meets certain requirements (i.e. in unprotected MP3 format), you can play them on your iPod.
Hillary is just using talking points here. We shouldn't be angry at her; she's been absolved of independent thought for most of her career; the habit simply hasn't died. However, what's the AC's excuse?
I'm not sure how the "mod chip" (heh heh ) works, but I know for sure it takes **AA batteries.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
To clarify, if you have an iPod (which plays mp3, wav, aac, and Apple's DRM aac version Fairplay.), you cannot download music from other websites like Wal-mart which uses the proprietary DRMed Windows format wma. So you want Apple to adopt somebody else's DRM?
Remember this simple fact: The standard default file format for 99% of all portable media players is mp3 not wma not Fairplay. Apple supports that default format. They will not support somebody else's format that is not the standard.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I have a theory. Hillary Rosen at one time was the evil record executive we all love to hate. However, after being debated and berated by copyfighters she saw the light. However, she was still on the RIAA payroll and couldn't openly express her true opinions. I'm making an optimisted educated guess when I say she quit because she didn't agree with the position her employment forced her to take. Remember when she almost walked out the wrong door at that debate?
It seems rather likely considering that everything she said while she was in charge was evil and everything she has said since her resignation is singificantly more sane.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
How about keeping your Apple Macintosh systems from running Windows software? Now that's really mean.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Just out of curiosity, what viruses do you get from your MP3 collection? WMA files I would believe, but MP3?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
girlfriend ? so is she coming out as a dyke?
i commend this awesome FP.... :) well put together.
...Hilary Rosen manages to piss everyone off with her remarkable cluelessness. What's her next act? OS X doesn't crash as much as Windoze, so God[0] Steve Jobs should put something in Macs so they crash as often as Windoze out of fairness for the consumer?
(sigh) No wonder I naturally assume most lawyers are full of shit.
[0] Her words, not mine.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
my parent post is interesting and people should read it...
Ahh. Bless MS and their iPod bashing! Let us not forget gems such as, 'Let a professional make your next playlist.' and '...some come with extra accessories like high-quality headphones, a belt clip, or an armband. Because most of these features are included at no additional cost, make sure the device you choose is filled with these fun extras.'
i ces/flash.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/dev
I felt so much more educated after reading that! I wish my iPod had fun extras and I wish a professional would make my playlist for me because I miss adverts before, after and during my music!
Ms. Huffington makes no attempt to hide her political beliefs... ever see her interviewed?
I believe the intention of her site is to be a counter to the Drudge Report... Drudge leans right, she leans left. No problem there...
The thing that I do like about her new site is that it is more of a group-blog. While I would have absolutely zero motivation to seek out and read the views and opinions expressed by the majority of these guest writers, it helps that they are all together and easily accessible in one place. I don't know... it's just kind of interesting to read a post by Larry David, followed by one from a Senator. Just my humble opinion...
She has got it all turned around! The problem is that music services lock you into a format other then the genrally excepted mp3. If she wants to fight for consumers maybe she should look at her old employer!
Talk about your left handed compliments even in such context as 'cool as Stern' or 'cool as Stout' or 'cool as Rebus Kniebus'.
Today, class we are going to learn how to say hypocrisy! It has several pronunciations! HIP-OC-RISS-E R-I-A-A M-P-A-A
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
If they would've let the stores sell MP3s from the start, we wouldn't be in this situation.
LordBodak's journal.
I honestly think we should bring back public stonings for people as stupid as this woman.
Fricking cow.
Brilliantly said.
My eyes are bleeding! My eyes are bleeding! My eyes are bleeding! My eyes are bleeding! My eyes are bleeding! My eyes are bleeding!
Really, my eyes are bleeding.
I wonder why they don't allow comments on that post?
"I spent 17 years in the music business the last several of which were all about pushing and prodding the painful development of legitimate on-line music."
Interesting way of putting it...
But not the iPod. even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars."
No, it costs $99, not a few hundred... bitch
"The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's."
Or that are in mp3 format... not too many mp3's out there... Oh, heaven forbid some artist release their music for free, or on their own...
"But keeping the iTunes system a proprietary technology to prevent anyone from using multiple (read Microsoft) music systems is the most anti-consumer and user unfriendly thing any god can do."
Is bill paying her for this.. sounds like the recent texas representative that wanted to force apple to allow microsoft protected music to work on the iPod... what a bitch.
"Why am I complaining about this? Why isn't everyone?"
Believe me, there will be plenty of complaints, all for you.
Since MP3 has no DRM to strip, I believe what she is refering to is converting a music file from one lossy DRM-encumbered format to a second, lossy, non-DRM-encumbered format.
And yes, that does degrade the music.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Expect to see a lot more of this.
Jack and Hilary both had positions where they were expected to push the party line. A very unpopular party line. They were both mouthpieces who parroted an often highly hypocritical line. And as part of their job, they got to be the focus of a lot of flak and hate. And occasionally good arguments, which at times they no doubt thought "hey, that makes sense" but couldn't say as their job revolved around changing what people thought, rather than actually paying any attention to what they are saying.
Once they are out of such organisations, they are in a position where they are highly unpopular and quite hated by the general public. No matter how much of a weasel a person is, do you really think they want to be universally loathed when they are no longer being paid good money to do so?
Not a chance. Once they've been out for a bit, you're going to see them pop up from time to time to say what they really think. And occasionally, they'll just say what is popular at the time. They're in damage control. They're fixing things so that their family and few remaining friends no longer feel uncomfortable around them. They're rebuilding the many, many bridges they're burned. They've probably had more than enough of the hate and just want to move on.
I'm not advocating sympathy for them; in fact, far from it. It takes a special kind of moral bankruptcy to be the figurehead of organisations that regularly cheat both their customers and employees to make massive amounts of money whilst simultaneously crying poverty and having the audacity to hypocritically call others criminals. They knew what they were getting into, and they could have looked for other work and snapped it up when the chance was there. Be that as it may, they have an image problem on departing such organisations, and they will be looking to fix it.
Maybe this is Steve Jobs' retaliation for RIAA CDs that don't work on the Mac because of copy protection? :->
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Apple actually aknowledges than when a person buys a song/album, they should be able to listen to it in their car, on the MP3 player (iPod of course), their computer, etc. No, they don't think you should be able to stand on a street corner and hand out copies to complete strangers. Apple's solution is actually that happy medium where music companies get money for online music downloads and consumers get music in a form that is convenient and easy to move around their different listening devices. So yes, the OP had a legitimate gripe and Hillary Rosen is just being moronic and trying to twist reality into something it isn't.
Space for rent, inquire within
I don't care how many DRM formats the iPod supports? One is more than I need. The key point to me is that I can rip MP3's from my CDs, which I can put on whichever computers I want to and use on every player known to man. Usually, I can find albums used on CD cheaper than I can buy them from iTMS, and with better music quality to boot.
Mod this parent Insightful +1 at least. :^)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Period.
She is no longer at RIAA, whatever she thinks is irrelevent. No one gives a shit Hilary about your opinion now.
You may mod me down now with extreme prejudice. Karma is no fun if you can't burn some occasionally.
I was a bit incredulous so I looked it up. Parent is not a troll. No, really. Rosen is in fact lesbian...
http://gayinfo.tripod.com/A-Z-R2.html
That doesn't work for protected AACs...just AIFs and WAVs and other nonprotected files...
Now I'm not arguing that the RIAA is good or anything, and yes, it's just about money.
But arguing that Apples DRM in any way means "Gives you freedoms/etc at our expense" for RIAA, is the epitome of hypocrisy. It gives you exactly what freedom? The "freedom" to have exactly one choice of online music?
Apple _is_ using two products in a way that each keeps you pretty much locked into the other. Same as, you know, Microsoft loves to use its own products to enforce a monopoly.
In fact, _that_ is MS's monopoly. It's not just "waah, they're evil because they have money", it's that each product reinforces the other, as to (A) make it painful to break out of that vicious circle if you're already hooked, and (B) make it a painfully high entry barrier: if you want to compete with Windows you have to pretty much compete with all of them at the same time.
So why is it good and "freedom" when Apple does it?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I remember reading about a possible vulnerability in winamp and windows media player with mp3s. (I believe it was something to do with a malformed header). This was fixed ages ago... I can't remember all the details about it, but it was the first time I'd ever led credibility to the fact that media could cause a buffer overflow/exploit.
I think however, that what they mean by the threat of viruses from downloading mp3s is that the websites you can go to could be malicious, and perhaps get in through browser vulnerabilities?
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
shot down on the same site. uh.. yay.
"Why am I complaining about this? Why isn't everyone?"
Um we're not because you sued us. We're being compliant you idiot. Either that or we're being smart and ripping our CD's to our ipods in mp3.
And if you don't like your ipod, sell the thing on ebay and go buy a creative zen micro. They have lots of powder blue leather pouches for those out there. Lots of 'em. And? As an added bonus, you'll be able to buy all your music from all those stores and be happy with it.
When you go out buying a name brand car next time, ask for one that runs on fusion, or on compost, because "you don't want to feel locked in to one fuel source" as is the common rant of the anti-ITMS user. See how far that gets you.
In Future News today, the RIAA headquarters in sunny Washington, DC was completely destroyed when a large mass of irony accidentally fell off an aircraft and crashed into the building.
Rescue workers were quick to arrive at the scene, but surprisingly found no casualties.
"Apparently, the building was only staffed by vampires - bloodthirsty creatures who feed on the blood, sweat, and tears of the living - and they proved immune to the effects of such irony" said a broke-musician turned fireman that was among the first to arrive at the scene.
The irony broke free shortly after a Boeing-767 carrying lawyers to file papers against an entire sixth-grade class stopped at Ronald Reagan National Airport to take RIAA head Mitch Bainwol to a charity dinner for the school of the same children.
According to witnesses, the irony could be seen by bloody everyone; however, apparently it was not visible from within the RIAA headquarters itself. Washington DC mayor Anthony Williams has discussed potential legislation to force all employees of businesses within city limits to remove their blinders during working hours.
I'm you from the future! We have to finish our time machine before the Angels of Destruction find the portal!
Of course the only reason for Hilary's gripe is that she is starting a new online business selling music but she can't get it onto her new i-Pod.
The (Like Microsoft) was the clue for me.
The Reg covers it off.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/09/rosen_joke _jobs/
Cry me a river.
I found it funny back-in-the-day when she was interviewed by MaximumPC and she complained about the inferiority of "compressed digital music" (as in MP3s) when she herself was the leader of a trade organization who steamrolled the audio CD onto the music buying public when the digital information on an audio CD is by its nature, compressed.
*clapping slowly* Bravo Lois; the last horse finally crosses the finish line.
Notice how Rosen's blog has no comments section.
No place to provide a clue
Does the *AA install some kind of behavior modification chip in their employees that gets taken out when they leave?
Yes. Ironically these chips have a large picture of Andrew Jackson right on the front, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of them are required.
Isn't this just an excuse to decouple iTunes from iPod so that the RIAA can charge more money? I read somewhere (here?) that Apple signed a fixed price deal with the RIAA back in the days before the iPod went Windows. This seems like a ploy to me to try to get out of that deal so that the music industry can charge more for music through other vendors...a practice made harder when Apple either prevents non-iTunes sold AAC files from working (through "upgrades") or charge a cost-prohibitive license fee.
Who is she kidding? She doesn't want our music to be free, she just wants it to be managed by someone who can charge more.
It's good for Apple, and not good for the RIAA and friends... thus they are bitching. Equally, you will hear slashdotters bitch about iTunes's formats not being as open as they'd like.
Did someone break Hillary's DRM and we are now hearing her without the audio fingerprinting?
Copyright abuse (which is rampare now) is bad. Unlimited copyright extensions are bad. The GPL and Creative Commons are forms of copyright. Mickey Mouse forever isn't good, but a broad statement that copyright is evil isn't correct either. Realistically, copyright should be based around shelf-life as well... of which many IT inventions don't do so well.
Hillary, I suggest you ditch that iPod for some some other accessory that begins with i. I think you'll find that more to your liking.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It should be more a question of when will the other music stores not use a decripit and woefully inadequate audio format like WMA (most of the songs I have listened to sound like a dying cat is in the background when in WMA format).
These stores (walmart.com, etc.) could easily make a DRM schema that takes the DRM off once transfered to the iPod (or other device) using there own software. But they would rather bitch and complain, and be lazy using somebody else's software and DRM schema than innovate.
Hers is the party line.
Think.
This consumer has chosen and thinks his iPod Shuffle is a fine device.
Ms Rosen may now crawl back under a rock and criticize something she has a clue about.
Start Running Better Polls
Everything in that article is a load of crap, "viruses of the pirate sites" what? iPod plays mp3's and thats pretty much the single most popular (lossy compressed) digital audio format on earth right now (not including audio CD's, DAT, MiniDisc and the like). If the most popular format on earth is not good enough for this woman then what the hell is? The absolute fact of the matter is a) ripping from CD is not hard and b) if you own the CD you are entitled to fire up a decent P2P client and type in the song/album name and see as it easily and speedily downloads, without a single virus in sight, and probably at a higher bit rate than iTunes etc.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The Register has an article stating that "What was billed as a mecca of famous, liberal commentators has turned out to be a satire site in the tradition of The Onion. Yep, Arianna has done it again and fooled us all.Kudos." http://www.theregister.com/2005/05/09/rosen_joke_j obs/
That's my take on it as well. The subtle message is that Microsoft used to be closed but is now open, while Apple is still closed.
Let's not forget that Microsoft WMA10 came out into a market where the iPod was king. They're not interested in compatibility, they're interested in owning the market by owning the format and controlling the devices and stores themselves that way.
Exactly. Hillary's assessment is particularly absurd given that you can save non-DRMed WMP files as AAC files. This is really all about which DRM format is going to win. Apple came to market with AAC/FairPlay and people liked it. They recognized that it was a compromise, but it was a reasonable one.
My feeling is that Apple should be doing everything it can to bring more players into the AAC/FairPlay camp, rather than just letting Microsoft draw everyone into the WMA 10 fold. But Microsoft doesn't give a gnat's ass about making things easier on consumers.
They're all for the "music as a subscription" model, because it's a perfect extension of their goal of divesting control from hardware manufacturers. Plus, if you never own the music you listen to, it's easy to keep charging you for it over, and over, and over. Any guess why a music industry flak likes the Microsoft approach better than the Apple approach?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
She's a consumer too, she's only unreasonable when it involves profit
"when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?"
Umm.. Since October 23, 2001?
Most of the music on my iPod came from CD's bought at dozens of different stores.
This is why nobody took her seriously when she ran the RIAA; these convenient omissions that are tantamount to lies.
Are we sure that the post is legit? The register is reporting that the post, and indeed the whole site is hoked up. I mean, from TFA: "I know Steve Jobs is a god. Look, I bowed at his feet when the iPod and iTunes was created because HE GOT THE BALL ROLLING. He is as laconically casually cool as Bono and makes really good cartoon movies too." It seems that the post might well be in jest and not written by Rosen.
Huffington is one of those people that worry me. While I'm not one for conspiracy theories, I am very leery of people who are tied to power, politics and money, especially when they start something new.
Or perhaps you think the Drudge Report is a failure, because it doesn't convince Democrats that it's right? (Well, except that I would hold Ms. Huffington's page to a higher standard, because Matt Drudge is a total whacko who prints (his own) speculation as rumor, prints rumor as fact, and very rarely prints fact at all.)
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Worse than Microsoft or Apple, some RIAA invention, which I fully expected years ago while the RIAA treated MP3's as a cancer. Now they've conceded it's an unstoppable tide and even Sony has been forced to acknowledge that accepting MP3 is the only way to stay in the game.
Apple is successful, but only because their entire product package works for enough people. If iPod didn't accept MP3's I rather doubt it would be doing as well. There's still plenty of room for competition and nobody is bending arms to make anybody else buy the iPod.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You know why she's bitchin. As long as the DRM market is based on two different file formats the defacto mp3 standard still lives. I believe they figure that when 90% of the online music market is compatible as far as DRM music goes it will make the whole mp3 format more outlawish. Maybe sue digital music player companies because that still support mp3, ogg and any other non-DRM format.
Visit Savagenumber.com
but no sense of irony?
From TFA:
Hardly, when iTMS has between 70% and 80% (depending on whose estimates you believe - Apple's is the lower end) of legal, DRMed downloads, 90% of HDD-based players and just shy of 60% of Flash players. If there's a betamax here, it's anything requiring Windows Media Player.
And while much Microsoft software may be strong in the marketplace generally (and we can all suggest reasons why), I don't see much evidence of people cheering him on...
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
her problem seems to be with DRM -- so she should really take her complaint up with that other organization, the one that keeps forcing people to use DRM -- or they get sued. whats the organization called... umm... oh yeah the RIAA -- maybe this rosen person should take her complaints up with them.
i agree with the other guy, this is bizarro world.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
Um, it's not actually Rosen you vidiots. It's a satire site. Get it? Anyone? Anyone?
It's time like these, when I really miss Frank Zappa! Hilary Rosen persona would make a whole album for him.
Under Rosens watch the RIAA lobbied for the creation of DMCA and now she seeing the end result first hand. Namely DRM lockin with no legal way to switch to switch to different portable players or use different services without degrading the sound quality and burning a CD. Of course Rosen could use software like JHymn, but then she'd be a hypocrite given her lobbying for DMCA.
It's a humor site. Try reading some of the stories on the front page. The Register didn't fall for it. heh http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/09/rosen_joke _jobs/
But Britney Spears music a) is distributed virally, via TRL and b) eats your brain.
And who the hell is this Slashdot reader who reads the Huffington Post?
"DELIVERING NEWS AND OPINION SINCE MAY 9, 2005"
WOW!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
it's not your music. you did not participate in the creation of it in any way. if you bought it, you did not purchase the right to distribute it. what are you even talking about?
OMG!!!!! Can this be the fat-assed SKILLET calling the BIG, WELL HUNG KETTLE, black???!!!
I see the Darth Vader effect here!
She has been wearing the mask that overstuffed RIAA and DRM fanatics gave her to wear, for way too long. Any concept, any idea of the real fact that Apple is doing what they should have done,is making her angry?!?
You look at people like her and it makes you afraid you will forget who you really are once you make any money or gain any presence in modern, western, music-loving, educated, society!
The only thing you can't play on itunes or your ipod is music you bought from another music store. Itunes is the most popular, so what are you missing? You can play *looks in ripping menu* WMA, AAC, MP3, AIFF, and WAV.
Damn. Someone beat me to it. Well, at least I've done my part to keep the entropy levels up.
True, I had forgotten about that because I never buy from the iTunes Music Store (I believe it rips off the actual artists just as much as the RIAA). I do agree that those files should not be protected by unlockable DRM, and have said from the beginning that Apple is complicit in anti-consumer behavior regarding its Music Store. But hey, it's not like anyone is forced to use the iTunes Music Store in order to use your iPod. Apple doesn't limit you from loading on your own mp3s onto your iPod.
The biggest takeaway from her "blog" is that there is no takeaway. This is a PR piece pure and simple, and slashdot and other "news" outlets have played right into her hand (and whomever is paying her) by covering it as a real story.
Ms. Rosen:
1) It's your fault that there is DRM.
2) Apple took _your_ consumer unfriendly policy of DRM and made a damn good product.
3) The alternatives are WAY more restrictive than Apple.
In conclusion: Stop bitching.
Prediction: This article by Rosen is the beginning of a very wide FUD campaign against Apple.
Perhaps we need to train the youth of America in something that dates back to the sixties and seventies. Question Authority! Heck, perhaps we should train the so-called adults of America to do the same thing.
For ten thousand years culture has been the property of its society. People shared music to build their culture, in the same way that they shared stories and pictures. Till the last few hundred years or so when profit became more important than culture. In current Western society we do the same thing. Ever since the creation of blank tapes, and maybe before, teenagers copied music to share with their friends, to create their own cultural identity. When the majority of the people are engaged in this, but small but wealthy groups like the RIAA can control and alter our rights to do so, we no longer have the right to call ourselves a free democratic society. The whole DRM thing means now that we are often restricted from copying a CD we own to another format (MP3 or whatever) for our own personal use. That's 'our' music.
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
"Get a professional to make your next playlist...."
I laughed so hard then I read that the first time. After all it was their reasoning for making sure you had an FM radio in the player.
Reading between the lines I could never work out where they saying:-
a) your taste in music sucks.... so you need the radio.
b) we want to up sell you a mp3 player that your only going to use for the radio.
Of course with either of these does it matter if your locked into one DRMed online music store. Let's face anything you would buy sucks and your going to just listen to the radio anyway.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
Nothing Ironic about it. She's a whore. She says whatever someone pays her to say. Now, she's being paid by somoene who wants a piece of Apple's action.
She is not complaining about DRM, she is complaining that Apple doesn't support Microsoft DRM. Why would they? They have the number one player and the number one service. Now if there was an Open DRM they might support that. But they are certainly not going to pay microsoft a licence fee for each IPOD.
Does anyone really think she is interested in using all these other music services. Or is she just acting as a paid mouth piece?
I wonder who is paying for her opinions these days.
[i]The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap. Yeah, it is great looking and I really love the baby blue leather case but when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?[/i]
That's the last time I buy a gift for you, you ungrateful bitch!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/09/rosen_joke _jobs/
It's a hoax!
My iPod also works perfectly fine with tracks I ripped from other people's CDs.
Cue RIAA lawyers in 5...4...Since the iPod uses mp3, mp3 can easily be licensed and used by everyone. Same as AAC. AAC is an open standard, can be licensed by anyone in the world. It sounds decent, WinAmp can rip to AAC. Wow. TWO options to sell music for the iPod without the blessing of Apple.
If you're saying "We can't use the unique Fairplay DRM restrictions", then the answer is obvious. Don't use DRM. You can't have it both ways.
Stupid friggin' cow.
blah, blah, blah. apple has every right. they are a business. they are in it to make money. etc. the point is that everyone is quick to jump on MSFT, but apple can do whatever. yes, it's possible to use non-itms music stores with your ipod. yes, it's possible to put itms music onto a different player. also, it was always possible to use non-IE browsers onto a windows box. the platform (ipod-itms) is structured so that it's unattractive to do that. if you have an ipod, you're going to use itms. if you use itms, you'll sure enough own an ipod. and because both of those are virtual monopolies, your choices are limited by this.
if you do not think ipod is a monopoly ... consider that ipod has 87% of the market. the next closest is 3.6%. itms has a 70% market share. my guess is that both of these #s has gone up since the release of the proliferation of the shuffle.
how hypocritical is it to talk of open standards and platforms, and then talk up apple for closing ipod and itms off to outside players?
Can you give a source for that assertion? I was under the impression that Apple doesn't exactly mind that people are being locked into buying iPods forever...
Firstly, as has been mentioned many times, the ipod is able to play mp3s, so if other sites were prepared to sell them, there would be no problem. This is a no-brainer.
The second angle is IMO more important. Apple should licence the DRMd AAC spec, to allow other manufacturers to play music from ITMS. I know Apple doesn't *have* to do this, but I think we'd all be better off if they did. Also, it would quash some of the comments about their 'monopoly'...
One way to success, is to commoditize your complement.
If the RIAA senses that more of their future income might come from online sales than from the record stores, it only makes sense to make the online stores a commodity.
The RIAA should open its own music store...and.... this is a biggie.... no charge for this advice.
CHARGE LESS FOR THE MUSIC.
Charge $.50 a song. Apple will fall right into line.
Oh wait... you just said you want to raise prices. Too bad. At this point, you can get market share or high prices. Not both. It doesn't work that way.
You can convert any song to MP3 in iTunes except protected ones. iTunes Music Store sells only protected songs that are also 128kbps CBR AAC. When I try to convert a protected (read: encrypted) song "Dinner for Two" in iTunes, I get the message: "Dinner for Two" could not be converted because protected files cannot be converted to other formats.
iPods cannot play WMAs so it's possible that Microsoft is playing the same game as Apple. In fact, WMV encoded AVI videos cannot play on Macs either. Windows Media only has lukewarm support on Linux, WMV has virtually no support on non-x86 Linux systems.
Similarly in other industries, ink cartridges aren't universally compatible with all printers, razor blades aren't compatible with all razor handles (shape doesn't fit), etc. etc.
AAC is an open standard. WinAMP supports it out of the box. AAC rips to *.m4a
In fact, at this point, most digital music tools support m4a.
Its the Fairplay DRM that is proprietary. That's *.m4p format. I guess "p" stands for "protected". Dunno.
Generally, the name "Hillary" on a girl gives a 79% chance the girl is a homo. Its like "Bruce" for a boy.
Think of it...Bruce Wayne. No girlfriend, lives with the boy wonder. You ever wonder how he got the name "boy wonder"?
assuming you're a fellow, how about i come over to your house and "share" your wife / partner?
Seriously I don't know how people can use this emotive and inappropriate analogy. It's used for the GPL too.
For fuck's sake: There is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between sharing copyrighted works and sharing someone's wife. One is copyright infringement, the other is adultery.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
not everyone who is against the RIAA supports music piracy. some of us are grown adults who just want things liek ot be able to get the music we want to buy and play it on any music player we own (much liek apprently hillary wants). we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes which restricts our fair use rights, costs us money, and in the end do next to nothing to stop the REAL pirates.
you wanna share my wife? that's a different story. let's talk about something that really is property? change that to a car. want to borrow my car? not likely. want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free.
as for the "laws" the RIAA is enforcing... in case you didnt' know.. they bought those laws, to serve their own interest. they took the original copyright laws, which were intended to give the artist a LIMITED time to recoupe some money from their work, then be contributed to the public domain and changed them so that the middle men, who have nothign to do with the creation or performign of the music make most of the the money. artists went broke long before P2P.. it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has.
i also contend that there would be no music if there were no copyright laws.. history proves otherwise. people who want to make music will make music. especially in this day and age, it's very easy for a small time artist to make music and get it distributed, even if he/she doesn't want to make any profit from it.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Since when is hipocrisy the same thing as irony? Please tell me -- or stop using the word "ironic" every single time somebody is just being a double standard ass.
Irony is an instrument best used by those who know how to subtly mock others.
But my post history is nothing compared to yours - Mr. AC is quite the prolific poster and I can only aspire to be as clever as you.
to help you out, the analogy was "societal normalities of the past that don't make sense today." really, if the line of reasoning here is "hey it used to be normal, therefore i can do it today", there are a lot really interesting conclusions to be drawn from following that to the logical end ... specious reasoning, at best.
So the RIAA is a law enforcement agency now?
F*cking h*ll I can't believe the ire on herre and it's just a spoof!
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
I hate it when people gang up on Siberia... Wtf is wrong with Siberia? I was born there. Beautiful region, industrial, mucho resources, and much is powered by hydroelectricity. I don't know for sure, but at the age of 7, there didn't seem to be anything negative about it to me.
I pwn this comment. "The Fine Print" says so.
no such thing as a 'happy medium' with drm. its thier scheme, not mine, no negotiation.
They were just taking a dig at HR by saying the post was fake...
iPods cannot play WMAs so it's possible that Microsoft is playing the same game as Apple. In fact, WMV encoded AVI videos cannot play on Macs either. Windows Media only has lukewarm support on Linux, WMV has virtually no support on non-x86 Linux systems.
r oducts.aspx?pid=windowsmedia
.
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherp
Perhaps I am missing something . .
But on my mac I can play WMV just fine. Unfortunately this only supports up to WMV v.9 and not v.10 yet, but I haven't run into any site where that is a problem yet.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
She says Steve Jobs railed for years about Microsoft's monopoly. Does anyone here remember a single railing?
Maybe I can try making things up to get what I want. ``Gee, John, remember when you were railing about Joe not giving you his BMW and now you won't give me your Porsche? Yer an asshole, pal...''
Sorry what? When in the last 3000 years have women been *common* property? I'll agree there's been a woeful discrepancy in men's vs women's rights and position in society since the dawn of time, even so far as being the property of their fathers and husbands at various times. But common property?
I wasn't the one who called her a cow, I agreed with you that that was out of line.
I play a guitar, write my own music and release it under a Creative Commons license. It's crap, and nobody listens to it, but if it was suddenly picked up and made successful in some way, I'd continue to have it freely available alongside CD sales.
The RIAA isn't simply enforcing the laws, they are lobbying with dollars to change the laws to suit themselves and the recording companies
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
agreed.
want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free
old property rights analogies cannot be applied to such new mediums as this. the reason is that your copying of music takes money away from the people that actually did something to produce it. if i make a copy of your car, i am not reducing your income ... unless i am devaluing your car because there is now 100k of them.
it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has
so let's see. because the artists are getting a poor deal, you want to give them no deal at all? or was it since they are being screwed it's okay to screw them worse?
people who want to make music will make music
agreed, but they won't make money from it. artists, as members of homo sapiens, will always try to maximize their profit. my only point was that if you asked an artist, they would NOT be in favor of giving all of their music away for free. so if the artists wouldn't support it, and the artists agents don't support it, why exactly would you think that you own the music?
What the hell does the RIAA care about monopolies? Apple's system limits piracy!
If you have music sources from other companies simply convert them to MP3s and you can playthem on an iPod.
I swear, it's like people want someone else to wipe their own ass.
"the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's"
i beg to differ. my iPod works just fine with songs that i rip from other people's CDs.
OK I see the point there. But throwing out everything of the past, because half of it was broken is not necessarily the best approach either
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
...we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes...
The RIAA as representatives of the multi-rich music companies DEMANDED that if Apple wanted to sell their music they would have to implement some sort of DRM. So Apple implemented some DRM and now that same person who demanded it complains about it. Before the iTunes store existed I remember the "rip, mix-burn" ads from Apple. Even now the constituents of the RIAA are implementing CDs with all sorts of (mostly useless) anti-copying (sharpiepen) technology! What a hypocrite!
All theory is gray
that is your choice. why do you think you can make that decision for every other artist? if i am an artist, and there exists a system that allows me to maximize the profit from my art, and i choose to participate in that system, am i free to do that?
it doesn't follow that society collectively owns all art produced because the RIAA is a profiteering body. that is my point anyway.
assuming you're a fellow, how about i come over to your house and "share" your wife / partner? for thousands of years women have been the common property of men in western society.
The difference is that music, stories, art, etc. can be copied. A man's wife cannot. The analogy breaks down with physical objects, which is not really the point here anyway -- we are talking about music, art, and other intangibles and their effects on society.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Hillary, puleeease!
Oh you've got to be kidding me. I guess it's only a monopoly when your own monopoly gets competition. I hope Steve Jobs responds by getting a coalition of other MP3 makers/ music distributors together to fight these folks in Washington.
You realize of course that if Apple, Napster, and others don't defend themselves by going on the offensive, they're toast. After all the music and movie industry OWNS Congress. It is clear from Rosen's statement that they want 'all Apple's base' to belong to the RIAA first and no doubt everyone else's too...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
old property rights analogies cannot be applied to such new mediums as this.
... unless i am devaluing your car because there is now 100k of them.
that is kind of my point by saying that. i hate car analogies for ip... i guess i didn't come of sarcastic enough, sorry.
the reason is that your copying of music takes money away from the people that actually did something to produce it. if i make a copy of your car, i am not reducing your income
that too is faulty, because if you copy a CD i bought, *I* am not losing any money over it. you are not reducing my incme any. on the other hand, Mitsubishi, might be pissed that you've made an exact copy of my car, rather than buying it from them.
so let's see. because the artists are getting a poor deal, you want to give them no deal at all? or was it since they are being screwed it's okay to screw them worse?
you mis interpret me or pursposely twist my meaning to suit yoru needs. i honestly think that artists woudl do better for themselves if they didn't sign their souls away to record companies that might leave them in debt after selling a million albums.
they would do better if they signed with an indie label that offered them more and allowed them to retain ownership of their work. they could also just be completly independant. even many of the biggest performers make their money on performances, rather than album sales.
i don't think artist would be scrwed at all if they got rid of the RIAA road blocks on music distribution.
agreed, but they won't make money from it. artists, as members of homo sapiens, will always try to maximize their profit. my only point was that if you asked an artist, they would NOT be in favor of giving all of their music away for free. so if the artists wouldn't support it, and the artists agents don't support it, why exactly would you think that you own the music?
right now, they are giving away their music.. to the record industry. the industry exists only to perpetuate itself and paart of this existence is based on tactics that maximize what they can draw from the real artists and minimize what they give back. combine that with a near strangehold on music distribution and you have a very anti-artist industry.
i don't think i own "the music," but i do feel that i should own "the copy" that i bought. i should be able to play it any way i like.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
yes exactly
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
I had modpoints, but this is the best comment ever on slashdot. EVER.
I just have to amplify here. I have a bunch of music that I bought from mp3.com back when they actually SOLD music. It's mine, bought and paid for, and it plays just fine in iTunes. It would play just fine on my iPod if I could afford one. Meanwhile the RIAA is responsible for the fact that you can't BUY songs in a standard, un-encrypted format anywhere any more, so I don't feel she has any right to whine. If she really feels so badly about her iPod she can send it to me. I'm sure that the RIAA payed her thousands (millions?) of dollars that ought to have gone to musicians, so surely she can spare an iPod..... Or perhaps make a reality check, and stop whining since she was spokesperson for the whole problem when it starded.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
- The Constitution:
The foundations of the coutry already had it set in that arts and sciences were meant to enhance and enrich our culture, but creators had a limited time to recoupe their loses. the current system locks modern art from being able to be added to our public domain and enriching our culture.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Well, after taking a look at her bio, I found that Hillary works for CNBC and MSNBC(make your own opinions on that). What trips me out the most is the fact that her 'blog' doesn't have comments. So she is essentially trying to get her readers 'locked in' to her own point of view. Maybe since her blog is only one day old she hasn't figured out how to add a comment feature (just like she can't figure out how to load regular non-iTunes AAC, AIFF or MP3 onto her iPod).
Well, we can all express our opinions on the main Huffington Post page and let Arianna know that Hillary is mis-infomed. Or that she should do some more research before she expresses her oppinions.
At least they posted a this reply by Howie Klein who seems to know what he's talking about. Not only that, but his reply allows comments.
YOu are missing the fact that it does not have support for any music stores or DRM for either WMV or WMA formats.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I had someone try to tell me they can hear the difference between a 256 kbps mp3 and CD quality. So we did a "trick" on my friend, by playing a track of his choice, encoded w/ 192kbps VBR as an mp3 and a supposedly "lossless" copy from a CD.
... of course the critics immediately approached him after finishing his set, saying "oh that sounded so much better this time" ......
... especially ones that are full of shit.
Immediately he exclaims "oh yeah, I can easily tell the difference. The CD is sooooo much better..."
Too bad the CD we used was the same mp3 converted to CD-audio.
We then proceeded to conduct the same experiment on a 1kW sound system at a psychedelic trance party. My friend DJ's using a laptop and mp3s normally, but after getting sick of the critics giving him shit for using "lossy" mp3s (320 kbps CBR), we decided to burn a bunch of audio CD versions and played it on CDJ's
I fucking hate audio quality snobs
if you want to be a rebel, buy independent music, or buy a guitar and write your own music. those are your options. if there were no copyright laws, those would be your only options anyway. go live your life the way you want, nobody is going to stop you.
Are you saying that people will cease to create without copyright laws?
In other news, cavemen paintings have been found in ancient caves! So what copyright laws did they have dude?
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
"Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
/. think the govt should step in.
When has any music distributer had a monopoly on music? Having a particular song that someone cannot copy and sell is not a monopoly, except in the most specific sense, such as Toyota has a monopoly on Prius. Apple, however, has a near monopoly on both selling music online and selling music players. By not licensing fairplay to other companies, and by not supporting any other DRM standard, Apple is leveraging their monopolies to support each other. I have no problem with this, but when MS does this sort of thing, most people on
Vote for Pedro
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
right now, they are giving away their music
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING. it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING. yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case.
i do feel that i should own "the copy" that i bought
geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
look, i responded to a post that proclaimed that society owned all music, without restrictions. i agree, copyrights should be restricted and they are being abused, but i wouldn't completely remove an artist's legal (constitutional) right to make money from their art.
Could it be possible that she is really lobbying for WMA support on iPods?
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
dude.
"I guess she wasn't aware of the fact that there is an option in the iTunes menu which says "Convert selection to mp3," instantly making your AAC files into cross-platform mp3s. And she probably didn't realize her statement that "even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars" is invalidated by going to the Apple website and seeing that the base iPod shuffle costs $99."
From the article:
"The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap. Yeah, it is great looking and I really love the baby blue leather case but when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?"
Who's the shill? She just wants to buy music online from somewhere else other than Apple and use it on her iPod. The sad thing is you're not even being paid to toe Apple's line.
Vote for Pedro
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
well, that might be what you intended, but what you said sounded different.
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING. in some cases they are getting debt... lots of it, cause they end up owing more money for the millions of records they sold than they made.
it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING.
why do they automatically get nothing? musicians existed before and managed to make a living, at least the good ones did. even if you go back only 200+ years to the founging of this coutnry, they also believed that arts and science were meant to be part of the public domain, but the creator woudl still get a limited copyright to make money off his work, before it got absored into thepublic domain.
yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case i never said throw out the entire copyright system. i said get rid of the new laws that abuse the consumer and the artist alike. get rid of the industry that makes it's money by leechign off both ends of the music spectrum. so yes.. i DO rally for artists' rights and indipendant labels.
geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
there are already laws in place, that don't get enforced.. why do i want to get MY use harmed by new laws that will do little to stop the pirates? the new laws and anti-cpying technology has proven to be able to stop no one, but has several cases of abuse... especially the DMCA.
let me sum up my stance again so you don't continue to argue against me on points that are not mine: 1) i am in favour of limited copyrights as per the original rules. a way to allow the creator of a work to recoupe for their for, for a limtied time, before beign part of the public domain 2) i am against new laws that do more consumer harm than protect the artists (eg. DMCA) 3) i am against an industry that abuses the very creators of the work they live off of, then claim to be protecting them. 4) i am against using government money to persecute criminals who's activity has never been proven to be harmful. i think that's a good summary for now.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
sorry, i don't recall what post that said society owned all music, without restriction.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
YOu are missing the fact that it does not have support for any music stores or DRM for either WMV or WMA formats.
That wasn't mentioned in the parent poster, although I see the point now.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Yes you are. The WMV files that you play are not AVI files. WMV is the codec, AVI is the container. The -.wmv files you get have WMV as the codec, ASF as the container. Windows Media Player for OS X has MP3, MPEG, and AVI support removed.
In fact Microsoft adertises how MS VCM is so great because you can create AVI files that use WMV codec. They advocate one format, then they drop the ball on Mac support by delivering WMP 9 for OS X.
I have been downloading music from various free sites for months, and understand the concepts of finding files in folders and putting those files into places where my iPod looks. Ignorant cusomer chick....
Hilary Rosen complaining about the inconvenient side effects of DRM schemes is like Ted Kennedy complaining that his taxes are too high or John Ashcroft complaining that the government is poking into his private business.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I had no idea she was a lesbian. And here I thought she was all bad....
n the RIAA's perfect world, you and I would pay every time we listen to a song, on every device that could possibly play the song.
And ASCAP would charge you and your landlord everytime you decided to sing while taking a crap.
-- $G
I know of a workaround for the exclusiveness, but it'll take a few CDRWs...
What you do is you burn the songs to the cd using the iTunes of course, and then you use some other program to rip them off again in whatever format you like. (ogg, mp3, whatever) Then, if you used a CDRW for the above process, delete all the files on the cd and burn it again.
I've done this a few times with converting some of my iTunes files into oggs so they will play on my linuxbox. Good luck!
Arianna Huffington has been putting this website together for some time now. Today is its first day of operation. I seriously doubt that a new venture like this would put up such an aggressive spoof--complete with accurate bio--on its first day of publication. It would be in serious trouble in its first twenty-four hours.
I know that Apple is far from perfect, but I have never seen the kind of vehemence against a particular product--the iPod--in my life. Every other article is "Is this the next iPod Killer?" and "When will the iPod lose its cool?" It would be different if the criticisms were grounded in reality, but sitres like C|Net whip Apple and the iPod like second-hand mules.
Reminds me of those scenes in The Godfather and The Sopranos where one mobster latches onto a sweet deal and the others are clamoring to let the fortunate one "wet their beaks" on the proceeds of that good fortune.
The iPod came out of left field, has kept coming, and parts of three or four industries are screaming "no fair!" Bitching is easier than innovating.
If you're going to come up with an example, try not to come up with one that's obviously not true. It is true that wives have essentially been property in Western society for thousands of years. The notion that they've been generally considered community property among men for thousands of years is bunk. Maybe in Inuit society (no offense intended to Inuits if this is apocryphal), but not in western society. The overall trend in western society seems rather to guard wives jealously and to harshly punish adultery (at least if women commit it, even if at the command of their husbands).
Ah the wonders of a sliding ethics scale. Be against something one day, and for it the next. Claim Jobs system is the perfect tool, and then lambast the guy for not giving you music YOUR way Hillary? Isn't that exactly what Napster users were telling you? Did you listen then? Why the fuck should anyone listen to your complaints now? It's your mess, you friggin live with it like the rest of us. Had you listened then, you would have accepted Napster's solution for a monthly subscription system. Apple would never have made the best product with a proprietary file system, and I would still be able to find long unpublished and unowned performances that were the bread and butter of real Napster fans. Where is all the non-catalog music now? You think perhaps I miss that as much as you miss not being able to download published tunes in any format?
I hope someone shoves your blue leather bound iPod up your hypocritical ass you bitch.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
"Then you're perfectly qualified to work for the RIAA."
No they still have their brains, but their souls are gone....vampires I think they call them.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Well, she did insert that line about pirate sites being full of viruses (I get viruses form my mp3's al lthe time, god bless her), and soart of backhandedly danced around the fact that DRM and lossy music are the reason we can't transfer, so I guess the party line is stil lsorta there.
It's perfectly consistent. The Apple DRM was a necessity to stop pirating. But it has an inherent limitation: $1 per song. At the time, it was nice because it was a dollar they wouldn't have gotten anyway, but now they can get a permanent (and, probably, increasing) monthly fee plus a dollar on some files. The RIAA wants the most money they can get (not flamebait, but a statement of fact regarding a business); therefore, for the long term, the success of the iPod in the absence of an iPod subscription service is not desirable. Anti-iPod sentiments are therefore expected.
And if we didn't pay these fees every time, we would end up in Siberia and never be heard from again.
But Comrade! If we had supported the revolution to begin with it would be those very same persons who want this who would be in Siberia.
One of course must realize that money is of abject fiction... And that this peice of paper only means respect for a system which may or may not have respect for you!
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The part of the the article I didn't like was when she kept going on about the kettle being black.
.\.\att Clare
How is this a lock in when iTunes allows you to burn the music you purchase onto CD and with that CD you can import into any format you want/prefer and onto any other mp3 player you would like to.
HD Trailers
It would be beneficial for the RIAA and online sales of DRMed songs if all players could support all DRM formats. This is not the case currently. Currently it sucks that the DRMed songs you pay for today for one player may not work for another player you may buy in the future. An audio format that cannot be played by third party hardware is probably historically unprecedented. She puts the blame on Steve Jobs for not adding DRMed WMA support to iPods. She attempts to describe this as if it would be something great for consumers, but I think this is an exaggeration, since in the end it is the RIAA that has Intellectual Property rights and control to the songs.
She doesn't explain whether or not the problem goes both ways. I.e. non-Apple players (save the HP iPod clone) can't play DRMed AAC, just like Apple players can't play DRMed WMA. How much of the current situation is the result of companies' can'ts and how much of it is the result of companies' won'ts? Also, which format -- AAC vs WMA -- is more open?
Notice that when profit became important is when we had the Industrial Revolution and major technological breakthroughs. Coincidence?
... and all extremists should be shot!
In Soviet Russia, RIAA comode shit you!
That is what happens everytime I "allow" my wife to leave the house unescourted, whether it is to go to work, go shopping, or go to the bank. I am sharing her with the world.
A wife is not property, and any man who thinks so is living in a dream world. As for the sex part, the fact that she does not have sex with others (to the best of my knowledge) is her choice - not mine. And short of doing the "Peter Peter, Pumpkin Eater" thing, I will just have to trust her.
I take it you were never a political prisoner there.
I'm sure Oswiecim (Germanized form: Auschwitz) is a wonderful place as well, but the name isn't usually referred to with positive connotations.
It's there in black and white. "multiple (read Microsoft)"
She's actually complaining that some bastard has the audacity to come up with a file format which isn't open for Microsoft to copy.
The implication is that if iTunes dished out WMA, then she'd be happy, because MSFT are already bum-buddies with the RIAA. The rest is just whitewash.
It's been a long time since I last heard anyone complain that a system is too closed, because Microsoft don't have the license to use it.
I'm no fan of iTunes - it's still DRM'd music. I'd rather own a CD and the rights to the music on that CD - to play it in my car, at home, on my laptop, wherever I wish. Apple and Microsoft are apparently intent on denying these rights; from a PC speaker, MP3 will do okay for me. In the car, at home, I'll copy the CD, thank you.
I don't download music which I don't already own (unless the publisher allows it - eg www.slidepheromone.com) and I certainly don't pay to download music, as the only options are limited-rights downloads.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Who, then, is Hiliary Rosen? And *why* should I care?
[ shrug ]
"I'm not ashamed I can't function in society like I'm supposed to." - Paul Westerberg
Actually, the term for sharing your spouse is called Swinging, not Adultery. See, if it's consentual, and you're in an open relationship, there's no betrayal of trust that the term Adultery implies.
Of course, it's a whole other ball of wax, but, still. GPLed IRL relationships = Swinging. Yeah baby, Shagadellic. BD
but when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?
They do. They're called CDs. You still sell music on those, right?
After all, there's a reason she's the *former* RIAA CEO.
Calling something ironic when it isn't...is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
You know, I've always been quick to jump on the Apple sucks bandwagon ever since they deep-sixed my first love, the Apple II, but in this case, I couldn't care less.
Who but iPod users could possibly give a shit about anything related to iPods? Don't like the way Apple runs it? Well, there are plenty of perfectly workable competitors. They largely lack the fashionability of the iPod, but they work just fine and many of them are cheaper. Go get one and quit griping. There are also plenty of legal ways to get digital music online other than iTunes, and some of them have large collections and competitive prices. Go use them.
Despite Apple's early lead, which will likely erode over time, this is one field where there is plenty of competition and consumer choice. What Rosen is bitching about, presumably on Microsoft's tab, is that everyone hasn't chosen Microsoft's lackluster offerings in this department.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
What is an iPod anyway ?
Can it play wax cylinders ?
She long ago established herself as someone who would spout any line she was paid to.
Her long and vehement presidency of the RIAA poisoned the well - she has nothing to say that is worth listening to...
Who's the shill? She just wants to buy music online from somewhere else other than Apple and use it on her iPod. The sad thing is you're not even being paid to toe Apple's line.
The only reason she wouldn't be able to play songs from another music store on her iPod is that they too are protected with DRM. As I said before, you can throw mp3s onto your iPod all day long, but if you have problems because your music store of choice is inhibiting your fair use rights with DRM encryption, well maybe you should find an alternate storefront from which to purchase your music. Her argument is hollow because she's arguing in defense of (DRM-protected WMA files) the very type of thing she's accusing Apple of. And the very type of thing she lobbied for when she was head of the RIAA.
So yes. She is a shill for Microsoft or whatever other outfit happens to be paying her bills at the time.
This has nothing to do with whether her assessment of Apple's DRM practices are good for customers or not. Because they aren't. But neither are Microsoft's. So let's be realistic here -- both Apple and Microsoft's bread and butter are closed systems. DRM will continue on both sides until customers rebel against it en masse, and I don't see that happening as long as there are readily available ways around it. But if you're buying from a DRM-protected online music store, you're only encouraging their behavior.
Playing devil's advocate for a second, paying every time you play a song isn't necessarily a bad idea. IF (and this is a big if) the payment scheme is reasonable and easy to use. If there was a micropayment system where it cost you 1c every time you played a track would you mind? I wouldn't. I know I've paid $20 for a CD with 10 tracks that I've listened to maybe 4 or 5 times in the past ten years.
Of course the whole idea breaks down at the payment stage. How do you collect the payments and push them to the people who deserve (ahem) them? And how does a 5 year old listening to the Wiggles manage to pay without a credit card and a net connection?
F'n Retards.
Anyone else noticed that the signal to noise ratio
is beginning to become painfully out of whack?
Wake up or shut up, folks!
I completely agree... and because simply laughing at it did not seem to do it proper justice, I actually went to the fridge and got a glass of milk, just to have something to snarf when I read it.
Thank you Rei.
I don't know why this comment was moderated a troll, because it is very concise and accurate. If I had points at the moment I would mod it up.
REMEMBER! I was drunk when I posted this...
I heard a while back that the Beatles and Apple Computers came to an 'agreement' that essentially said that Apple Computers could use apple.com AS LONG AS they DO NOT start up/become a record label like -- you guessed it -- Apple Records.
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
I wonder was she responsible for suing those bloggers...
I doubt the RIAA would be happy with 1c per play. More like $1 per play. I'm serious! They will NEVER accept a reasonable payment structure. They have been and always will be bent on gouging the artists and music lovers for all they can without Congress starting hearings. I think everyone on this board would be very happy if all the money they made (or at least 90% or so) went directly into the artists' pockets. But they don't, they go almost completely into the music companies who are less than model corporate citizens. Anyway, I'm happier with iTunes and Apple's DRM compared to what other music stores us, and I'm just tired of the RIAA saying such a scheme is bad (because deep down they hate seeing the consumer finally get some freedom and flexibility).
Space for rent, inquire within
Of course they do. But if not for the RIAA's actions, the consumers would have never stood for it in a second. The RIAA created the very market conditions that made it logical for Apple to create iTMS. Apple's only taking advantage of what was handed to it on a silver platter, and giggling all the way to the bank.
She needs to return the iPod and go get something else. I'm sure Sony, Creative, or some other company will be happy to put a portable music player in her hands that will give her more options for buying music.
Clearly the iPod isn't for her.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
However, for someone to publish something, they release it to the public. They put it out there to consume by a general or specific audience. They create copies and say "hear, enjoy this thing I made."
Copyright limits the person who can make the copies to the original individual for a time, so that person can be appropriately rewarded. However, as they are benefiting from the public by adding to the general public culture, so the public is rewarded by their own right to copy public works.
It's exceedingly similar to the "no penalties for humming something you hear or repeating someone else's comments or popular sayings" and other random stuff. Once it's part of the public sphere, the public has free reign with it. If you don't want it to be public, then don't put it out in the public -- it's easy to do, most of us keep things private quite naturally. For those that do put things out in public, though, there's copyright, so you can control who is doing the copying for a [supposedly short] period of time.
You know what I want, jackass? I want to be able to put a fricking CD in my computer and play it without having to color in the damn "Anti Computer Stripe" around the outside. I don't want to have to worry that when I copy a CD to my hard drive, and then lose the orginal, the RIAA is going to sue the crap out of me because I can't prove I paid for it.
And most of all, I want the absurdly large amount of money that I pay for CDs every year to go to the people who make the media, who make the album art and the case, move the CD, and, most importantly, SING THE DAMN SONG, not some money grubbing ass bandit who does nothing for a living but push recycled crap and screw naive artists out of their copyrights.
If you like taking it in the ass from the RIAA, more power to you, but I am seriously sick of their crap and anything that makes any of them unhappy is sweet to me.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Actually, it's not just about apple.com. The name dispute has been going on for decades, way before .com was publically known. In fact, it's still going on and if you read the recent news, Apple vs The Beatles case will be heard next year.
Anyway, if Apple (read: Jobs) seriously considers this, they can just easily set up an independent company through which artists sign contracts and name the new company anything but Apple. The problem, I think, is resources. Small/relatively unknown artists could benefit greatly from the exposure, but established big names would not. iTMS market is still a tiny fraction of the whole music market and they would need to sell CDs and that means extra resources to press CD, print advertisements, distributing the CDs, etc. Basically, the company needs to be a traditional record label as well.
But given that the projected sales for music download, it makes sense that RIAA is afraid of losing control. Already Apple dictates that they won't increase the song prices.
the analogy was "societal normalities of the past that don't make sense today."
Yes yes yes. That doesn't make the analogy any more appropriate: it's an analogy designed to provoke an emotional reaction that's outside the scope of the subject.
It's like using "kidnapping someone's child" as an analogy for stealing someone's car. They're just not similar activities AT ALL.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
let me try to bring you up to speed about this thread since your post is out in left field. nobody on this thread ever said that artists get a fair shake or was defending the RIAA. the question is whether all music should be "uncopyrightable" and in the public domain, such that no money can be made from recorded music, by anyone including the artist.
that being said, when is the last time you heard of someone getting sued or harassed or anything else for making a copy of a music CD that that they purchased for use only in their home? doesn't happen.
yours is a BS argument used by people to justify to themselves that their circumvention of laws is all in a good cause. yes, you're a rebel, fighting against the system alright. in reality, you are converned about saving $15.99. how nobel.
the way you get money to go to the artist is buy purchasing from independent labels. that avenue is open to you, and has been long before mp3s came along. if you hate them SO much, why are you buying their CDs?
Wives are people. Your mp3s of Pearl Jam etc., are tarts (non-sentient at that), and are happy to be shared by anybody!
Not Free SF Reader
Hillary, bitch, this is where YOU wanted the music "industry" to go. That sick smelly panty Valenty has been worse tham Steve Ballmer ("Piracy Piracy Piracy" and "Steal Steal Steal " and "Law Law Law " and "Rights Rights Rights ").
What a steaming pile of pure, unadulterated, fresh-off-the-stocks bullshit.
You turds wanted this so that YOU profit. BTW, welcone to the real world. Yoo're not the only one who profits. Apple is making money off your handiwork. Why are you pissed off about them? And you're telling me that Microsoft should bitchslap them? What a mindwhore you are.
Gotta go and disinfect my eyes and ears.
And before I leave, a big fat FREE DRM'd "FUCK YOU REALLY HARD UP YOUR ASS WITH A PINEAPPLE" awaits you in your iPod.
Scumbag.
If you read between the lines, what she's really complaining about is that Apple isn't bending over for the RIAA, so they're trying to discredit them and find someone who will (i.e., Microsoft). She's complaining that Apple won't use the RIAA's extra-restrictive DRM, which they want to be the standard instead of Apple's less restrictive (and already cracked) DRM.
Remember, just like the oracle in the Matrix, she doesn't speak the "truth," just what she wants you to hear. In this case, that's "abandon Apple." She's just using the false promise of freedom to twist people to her will.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
She's lobbying for market acceptance of DRM the RIAA can control -- apparently they're upset that Apple isn't dopping its pants and bending over for them enough.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Quite easily explained.
Rosen no longer works for the RIAA, therefore no longer gets all the free "demo" CD's.
Where then is Ms. Rosen to get her free music from?
P2P is the answer! But now she is upset that she can't play all of her "free" wma music on her iPod.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Well, it has this reputation for being cold... Oh, forget it. I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. They could just as easily ship people here if they wanted them to be cold.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
It gets better - they are apparently against sharing wives but its ok to sell them...
Hilary Rosen speaking out for consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics is like Jerry Falwell coming out in support of tolerance, understanding, and gay rights. She has to have been misquoted. There is no other possible explanation.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I just want to make a couple of notes/ask a couple of questions.
1) All the songs you buy from other sites, can they be converted into MP3, right?
2) Musicmatch WMA's are 160kpbs... 160! Not even CD quality. >.
I don't own an iPod, but they're decent players. Apple really doesn't force anyone to buy from their iTunes store nor do they force you to use AAC. I don't know what she's complaining about. Apple is making a monopoly the right way, by customer satisfaction. Is that still legal? O.O
P.S. The songs they rip from CD's... doesn't that mean they have to buy them first? Like, buy them from... you? What's she complaining about again? I'm so glad I don't listen to American songs.
Bollocks
For a start, humans are very much like apes. Really we are a variety of ape. Some humans have a superior attitude to other apes but genetically there's fuck-all separating us from them. Just because humans have their own latin name doesn't mean shit. It's a kind of bigotry, in my book, a variety of racism. In fact chimpanzees are much more closely related to humans than to other apes, let alone to monkeys (which are not the same as apes).
What distinguishes us from other apes is our language skills and manual dexterity, not capitalism. Humans and others apes have been much the same genetically for many many thousands of years, but capitalism is a very recent phenomenon. For almost all of human history we were all communists. Indeed, many humans are still communists, though some Americans apparently don't realise this.
Embrace your inner ape!
Apes don't let other apes do DRM!
Doesn't that make them more advanced than us?
I'm from the Netherlands. All music that is available from EMI in my country, and a few other major record companies as well, is "protected" by copy control since 2003. These 'copy controlled discs' are not real CD's. Even cdparanoia and old car radio cd-players choke on it, but most people don't notice. Of course you can make an analogue copy, but the git of it is that you COULD be sued for breaking a protection.
And now Hilary Rosen tells me she doesn't like it to 'rip a CD' to get the music on her iPod? Well, at least she is allowed to! Dear Hilary, you are my 'god' here, how hard would it be for you to convince EMI to release real CD's instead of 'copy controlled' trash in Europe?
Since I found out about copy control, I haven't ever bought a single 'copy controlled' disc. Otherwise I'd have spent hundreds of euros on EMI CD's. Well, their loss. Gosh, how strange that CD sales are lower every year!
can some one just kill the bitch already... she complains about everything and anything.... why dont the other sites just use apples codec or a compatible one... she is still just pissed off about the pepsi ad and how the lawsuit they won ended up getting the little girl more money from doing a commercial
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
I just got a voucher for 5 free songs from my ISP, but II can download them because I don't have Windows. So where is the difference?
"want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free. "
The point is that if it was possible to do that, it _would_ hamper you in more than one way. There's no free meal: someone has to pay. For each pirated copy, someone else paid extra. _That_ is my beef with pirates. They steal not from some corporation, they steal from people like _me_.
But let's talk about cloning cars.
Do you have any idea how much R&D goes into a car? I'm not even only talking about the chasis and engine. You'd be surprised how much work goes into every single detail. E.g., if your car has bucket seats, months of testing were involved in making sure they won't deform when you put your leg over the edge as you get in and out.
So let's say everyone and their grandma copied cars.
So now all those R&D costs would have to be recoupped from selling a quarter as many cars as before. Well, I hope you'd enjoy a world where, if you're a honest consumer, you'd pay twice as much for a car. Because _that_ is what you're advocating.
Or let's talk economy.
Since noone can copy cars, not everyone drives a Ferrari. There is a whole range of cars for all budgets. Someone might be able to afford a Ford Siesta or VW Lupo instead. And if a citizen of Russia can't afford either, they can afford a locally produced Lada.
That all translates into jobs and taxes that help the local economy. E.g., Russia gets to have some local jobs and get some taxes out of producing those Lada. If everyone copied cars, that would be as viable as their local software market, where piracy runs rampant: i.e., dead as a door nail.
Or let's talk monopolies.
Look at software for example: there used to be a market for all niches. E.g., you didn't have just MS Word as a doc format, you also had WordStar, WordPerfect, AmiPro, StarOffice and a bunch of others as valid options. They might not have had 100% of the MS Word features, but they were also cheaper. Except in the face of the "or pirate MS Office for free" choice, they all failed. StarOffice is only "surviving" because Sun is bleeding money to artifficially keep its carcass alive, and even that's not going that well.
Congrats, it helped create a monopoly which sucks tens of billions out of the economy per year.
Want to see the same thing happen to cars? Well, then hope someone discovers how to duplicate one for free.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It depends. If you're cute I wouldn't really mind at all, you're welcome to come over and share him. It wouldn't be the first time.
The funny thing about the internet is you can never assume what kind of people you're talking to.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
monkeys (which are not the same as apes).
Oook!
This post is awesome.
some of us are grown adults who just want things liek ot be able to get the music we want to buy and play it on any music player we own
Which is why I settled on the most common format. I use MP3's. I rip to MP3's. My Winamp plays MP3's. My DVD player in the living room plays MP3's. My car CD player plays MP3's. My portable CD player plays MP3's. There is not any other format supported by all my hardware. Any format other than MP3 reduces the playability of the music and reduces it's value to me. Low value at a high price = no sale.
I-tunes at free (the Pepsi promotion) even gets ignored by me. The time and trouble to download a program, set up an account, and download one or two songs playable only in their program on just the PC isn't worth it. Having a couple songs that play only on the absolute worst sound system I own does not get me to go out and buy a bunch of songs.
The problem is not many stores sell MP3's. Too bad.
I agree with Hilary. I don't want to support multiple playlists on multiple devices to support multiple formats. Sell me music in a format all my hardware and software can play. Is that too much to ask?
The truth shall set you free!
"Wah.. wah.. wah.. it's not fair. People are getting locked into THEIR technology when they should be getting locked into OUR technology".
Me ? I'm not buying into ANYONES lock in technology. You can shove your DRMd Apples iTunes right up Hilary Rosens arse.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
RTFA. She has a gf who gave her iPod. Does anybody else find that interesting?
Maybe what separates us from the animals is a sense of irony!
If there's such a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE can you explain what it is, please? You're just defining them to be different (one is "copyright infringement", one is "adultery"). Let's call adultery "copyright infringement" so the have the same name. Now, what's the difference? Assuming I'm not raping your wife but I am in fact copying your music without your permission, which is worse? Do you own your wife? Do I *not* have the right to say you have to pay to play a song I wrote? Come on, what's the difference?
it's an analogy designed to provoke an emotional reaction
And it's working, because that's all we're getting from you on the subject.
In fact, you're the one being unreasonably emotive. You're introducing this new concept of how an analogy is "designed" in order to avoid facing the analogy objectively head-on.
[ off topic ]
/on topic ]
Don't think there is a thing wrong with Siberia. In fact, later this week my wife and I are taking our honeymoon to Moscow and St. Petersburg. ok, so neither are exactly Siberia, but closer than say Mexico or the Bahama's.
Little scared, neither of us have a clue of to the language and if we get seperated from our private tour guide we can only hope that someone will be able to understand our gestures, pointing in the phrase book or speak a little english, german or even french.
Not all couples plan their honeymoon for 8 months, not all couples go to Russia but then again, not all couples get married a month to the day of when they first met either.
[/ off topic ]
[ on topic ]
Do believe that I read that this posting was a total farse and should be read as strictly humor. could be wrong, but that's the the register presented it.
[
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
"I know Steve Jobs is a god." ???
rt
>It's like using "kidnapping someone's child" as
>an analogy for stealing someone's car.
Come on, with respect to what the act entails and the consequences thereof, they _are_ similar. The kidnapping is many times more serious, but they both involve removing your "access" to something/someone you value. The kidnapping is more serious because: 1. It involves causing harm to another being, namely the child 2. The parents and everyone who loves the child will be dead worrried, thus causing further harm to other beings.
But fundamentally both actions are wrong, and so is your argument.
Wrong answer. I started this thread with a little ad hominem against the fricking RIAA. So, really this whole subthread is about nothing as much as how much I hate the RIAA.
And lo, look how relevant my sig is. Why don't you read what I actually said, before you start telling me what I think?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Irony - just like Goldy and Bronzy, but made of Iron! (sorry Baldrick)
Advanced users are users too!
I don't need it in a format that all my hardware understands; I just need it in a good lossless format that I can then legally convert to whatever other format I choose.
The implication is that if iTunes dished out WMA, then she'd be happy, because MSFT are already bum-buddies with the RIAA.
You also have to consider the fact that WMA is harder to break because it runs only on Windows and Microsoft has embedded Windows Media Player's DRM component (as of version 9) deeply in the kernel where it's much much harder to patch than iTunes, which is just an application.
This isn't really a problem, because it doesn't really matter whether DRM is breakable or not, because building a DRM that's really unbreakable is a fantasy. DRM can never be more than a token effort on any system that isn't embedded in epoxy from the data to the cortex, with a self-destruct charge wired into the data that'll go off if it thinks you're trying to break into it. Anything less can at the very least be intercepted between the metal and the meat.
And with the internet, once one person, anywhere in the world, has beaten the DRM... it's beaten everywhere. All DRM can do is slow things down. So stopping piracy isn't the real point to DRM. Now the people who push DRM may honestly believe it is, but it's not... it can't stop piracy. But... it DOES have an effect.
What DRM does is increase the control the people peddling the DRM have over the people using the end product. And control can ALWAYS be parleyed into money. DRM doesn't actually have to work to make this control possible, people just have to go along with the DRM. So, it just has to be strong enough that people go along with it, without being restrictive enough that people are forced to try and break it anyway. And iTunes seems to be doing a pretty good job of that, actually.
Anyway, the big problem for a lot of us who oppose DRM is not that it makes music cost a little more or be a little less convenient, it's that DRM depends on keeping a part of the system you sell to a user secret from the user you sell it to. To build a really strong DRM mechanism you really do need a tightly controlled proprietary system... an "open source" DRM is a contradiction in terms. In fact, even having a DRM plugin or component in an open-source application is impossible. Hell, even having openly documented hooks for the DRM module would render it irrelevant. Any place you let the user control what his own hardware and software are doing you provide a place to strip out the DRM. And putting that control in the hands of the user... not the vendor... is what Open Source and Open Systems are really all about.
Now, a little bit of openness isn't really a problem for the DRM advocates. After all, they started out by complaining about the impact of 'piracy' on a system that had no DRM at all. But over the years they have convinced themselves that it is.
And Microsoft's DRM is "better" than Apple's.
And that's why I don't want Apple using WMA, anywhere. I don't want the DRM pressure groups to push Apple to reduce their commitment to Open Source and Open Systems.
It's not "what you WANT to hear", its "exactly what you NEED to hear". Thats is a big difference.
okay, well then i guess you are right. thanks for telling me what i am talking about and what i think. you might also try telling your lamp at home it thinks.
Hilary Rosen stepped down as head of the RIAA awhile back. Her personal views on digital music are significantly different from the views her job required her to support.
I don't grudge Apple their success. They are playing the game by the rules and doing very well. I have a problem with the rules in general though. Those rules were established by the RIAA and the politicians they bought. They are introducing technological restrictions on music, backed with legal restrictions on removing those restrictions all because they can't quite manage the votes to implement legal restrictions directly and because people would be pissed off about it. They're also spinning the whole thing as "stopping pirates" when it is really about selling the same thing to the same person several times.
Imagine if in 50 years all the major car manufacturers struck a deal with Walmart that made their cars go into autopilot mode and drive to Walmart whenever a person tried to go into a K-mart etc. parking lot. (Yes, I know the example is ridiculous.) Then they passed a law that said removing or modifying the autopilot was illegal since it is needed to stop criminals from escaping from the police. That is how I see the current DRM situation. Laws and technology are being used to take more money for the same old thing and disguised as stopping crime. I should not risk jail time for playing a song I bought in Linux and I should not risk jail time for driving my car to K-mart. Apple is not a monopoly, but the RIAA sure as hell is an illegal cartel.
She says : "There are lots of places you can go for great music at good deals and with a deep catalog of songs from over the last 20 or 30 years. MSN.com, Rhapsody.com, aolmusic.com, even walmart.com." Yea, and all of them "offer" music in Microsoft's proprietary, uneditable, unconvertable format.
(can you say entrapment?)
Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
iPod = iTunes (locked in because Apple doesn't share the DRM)
all other MP3 players = all other wma formats (pay licensing fee to M$ for DRM - still locked in)
iPod play MP3's without DRM = yes
all other MP3's without DRM = yes/no (more to the no these days with the yes getting smaller & smaller - not 100% sure on that last remark)
What's the diff. Everyone but Apple missed the bandwagon and now they cry foul?!? What is so wrong with iTunes Music Store anyways. Doesn't it have a good selection? Or is it that they are the marketplace and everyone else is going "D'oh!"
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Nobody's locked into buying an iPod. iPod buyers are locked into using iTMS. (or allofmp3, or god forbid leaving the house to go to a store and buying a CD :)
"And she probably didn't realize her statement that "even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars" is invalidated by going to the Apple website and seeing that the base iPod shuffle costs $99."
Don't get me wrong - I'm anti-RIAA, anti-DRM, and pro-IPOD.
But the ipod shuffle is not really an ipod. The Shuffle is "Apple tries to cash in, but can't live up to itself".
Sell me music in a format all my hardware and software can play. Is that too much to ask?
... as long as we consumers can choose non-DRM systems entirely. Those what want their material covered by DRM can release it under DRM format for DRM systems, and anyone else wishing to try their luck (and there are a lot of those guys) can release their material under something else ... possibly under your "all-hardware" format.
Yes, it is too much to ask, since that format is too loose and leads to some loss of copyright.
I love the idea of a DRM system
The market will then choose, variously.
(But this is where the staunch capitalists in the music industry turn tail and show us their true colors of dyed-in-the-wool socialists. The music industry wants to make all product pipelines DRM enabled.)
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Google hasn't been helpful here, what I'm looking for is what Microsoft's license for the WMA DRM software is to third part software develipers and hardware integrators. That is, if I were to build a media player that played Microsoft's WMA files, what would they require me to do in the player's hardware and operating system to protect the integrity of their DRM? We know what they themselves do on Windows... they embed a portion of the media player's software in the kernel to make sure it can't be trapdoored. If Apple were to license Microsoft's DRM, precisely what control would that give Microsoft over the design of OS/X?
Not to self: Not only should you Preview, but if you DO make changes, hit Preview AGAIN before Submit. "develipers" indeed. *sigh*
Some ppl just have no shame!
> iPod buyers are locked into using iTMS.
I have an iPod mini and have never used iTMS...
What I'm pissed about is being forced to use the iTunes software to transfer files. Why the hell can't I just drag the files into the drive? It's USB and makes the drive letter, you just can't do anything with it, AFAIK.
> It's not "what you WANT to hear", its "exactly what you NEED to hear".
No, I don't NEED to be a brainless zombie consumer that buys whatever shit they spew. Nor do I want to be one.
> paying every time you play a song isn't necessarily a bad idea
Yes, it necessarily is. Devil's advocate or not, it's a horrible idea, unless I can listen to an album for a few years and never accumulate more than $16-20 in fees for it. And I can copy it anywhere I damn well please. Only then will it come close to resembling anything fair.
dyslexic? Sorry, I should say "dyslxeic?"
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
She's just mad because its not her monopoly.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, given that the article is about a criticism of iTunes. Is it the fault of M$ or Apple or both for not fully supporting M$ formats on iTunes or WMP 9, and what difference does it make for an iPod user anyways?
Let's not allow articles written by women on /.
She can have music other than that from iTunes on her iPod. Its just that removing the DRM from those other legit music files obtained at other legal music distribution sites would be illegal.
Steve Jobs has little to do with what DRM systems other companies implement. No, the DMCA is more to blame here for causing this mess. The very act that she helped pass.
It is because (indirectly albeit) of her own actions that using music legitimately bought any way seen fit (ie. using it on more than just one brand specific MP3 player) is illegal.
I don't NEED to be a brainless zombie consumer that buys whatever shit they spew.
Citizen, please report to re-education camp 91101 immediately for an update of your healthy behaviour reinforcement regimen. Have a legally pleasant day.
its thier scheme, not mine, no negotiation.
You negotiate with your wallet. If you don't want it, you don't buy it. We're not yet anywhere near a world where we're forced to buy DRMed music or no music at all, even if that's the world the RIAA wants.
By contrast, I haven't been *able* to rip my own CDs using iTunes (:-) I think it's either a problem with my CD drive or the drivers or some XP setting I'm not aware of. And iTunes on XP is the first piece of Apple software I've used that didn't Just Work - I've got XP Home, with separate user IDs for root, me (as non-administrator), and my wife, and I had to become root to install iTunes, so it insists on keeping root's music separate from mine in various annoying ways. And there's some flakiness about accessing the iPod as a USB drive - sometimes it's there and sometimes it disappears.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If midrange listening equipment isn't enough to let you compare MP3s vs. raw WAVs, then MP3s are good enough for you. And if you need to have a well-insulated listening environment with no ambient noise, then MP3s are good enough for your car stereo or the portable player you use on the subway or the background music at a party. Perceptual coding's designed so that it still sounds pretty good even if you're losing big chunks of the waveform. It ain't perfect, but most of us aren't in environments where it matters, and most of us don't have your finely-tuned listening skills.
Also, the really big advantage of MP3 isn't just how much you can fit on a big storage device like a CD - it's what you can fit on a flash-based player, and how long it takes to download things (more important for dialup, as you point out, but also for broadband - it often takes me 10-20 hours to download CD-sized files on BitTorrent, depending on how popular they are, and the music I've downloaded has mostly been in lossless formats (FLAC or SHN) which are a bit smaller than life-sized but still a lot bigger than MP3 or AAC.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Yup. I've had no problems playing MP3s that I downloaded from the net, including from musicians' own websites and from CD-selling websites that have sample tracks. I've got no desire to have music in multiple DRM formats, though I've put up with Apple's format to use iTunes on my Shuffle.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap.
Isn't everything a girlfriend gives you a trap in some way or another?
MSN.com, Rhapsody.com, aolmusic.com, even walmart.com. There are little players to make your favorite music even more portable than ever starting at as little as 29 bucks.
And I suppose you use one of these little $29 players and buy your music from Walmart.com, Hilary?
Most agree it is the best quality player on the market even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars
Why, yes they do.
I know Steve Jobs is a god.
I've got an altar in my bedroom, at which I sacrifice virgins daily. If Jobs is a God (hey, it nearly rhymes!) then it seems somewhat blasphemous to crticicize His music store on small technical details. Shouldn't the papers be screaming headlines that an actual, honest-to-Jobs deity is currently gracing this great green-and-gray Earth?
The iPod: Designed by God. Priced for mere mortals. Dare you resist?
Look, I bowed at his feet when the iPod and iTunes was created because HE GOT THE BALL ROLLING. He is as laconically casually cool as Bono and makes really good cartoon movies too
Of course! How could I be so stupid? I thought Jobs was a founder/CEO of a computer/software/electronics company, and recently the CEO of an animation studio. But I've been so blind! What really matter is that Jobs = Bono in the coolness stakes. Although to be fair, Jobs is also Keanu Reeves. After all, if he can be CEO of two wildly successful companies, then why can't he be two iconoclastic alternate-reality pop-media personae simultaneously? Of course he can, because Jobs is omnipotent.
But keeping the iTunes system a proprietary technology to prevent anyone from using multiple (read Microsoft) music systems is the most anti-consumer and user unfriendly thing any god can do.
Yes, Hilary read Microsoft. I know you do. Get paid, too.
Is this the same Jobs that railed for years about the Microsoft monopoly? Is taking a page out of their playbook the only way to have a successful business? If he isn't careful Bill Gates might just Betamax him while the crowds cheer him on.
Is being Betamaxed something like getting an Atomic Wedgie? That sounds painful, especially if done by someone named Bill.
Come on Steve - open it up.
As soon as you open your legs, sweetie.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Siberia is a fairly large region. Where I lived it was a pretty temperate climate, as in, hot summers, cold winters (snow helped though).
I pwn this comment. "The Fine Print" says so.
The whole logic behind pay as you play is that you can use it anywhere - just as long as any time you play it you pay the fee. As long as they're getting a slice they wouldn't care if you're doing that on your PC/car/home stereo/walkman/whatever.
Now just think, if the micropayment is 1c like I mentioned. How many plays does it take to hit $20? Two thousand of course. Now I suppose we should divide that up since the average CD has say 10 tracks on it. So that gives you 200 plays of each track before you hit the $20 that the CD would cost normally.
Now unless you have nothing else in your music collection it's unlikely that you'll hit 200 plays even over 10 years. Also, bear in mind that we're talking about an economic decision that will balance out over your entire music collection. So even if you do absolutely love one song and play it ten times a day, every day the net effect is that it will work out cheaper because those other CDs that you bought on a $20 CD that you listen to maybe once a month suddenly become much cheaper.
The only people who would be disadvantaged would be people who only have an extremely limited playlist. Anyone with more than a few dozen tracks is going to be better off.
eg: Buy a 10 track CD for $20 (therefore $2/song). You play 5 of those songs once a year, 3 of them once a month and 2 of them once a day. That would result in $7.71 costs for the year. Bear in mind of course that your play frequency is likely to drop of drastically as you get new tracks. Personally I can't think of any song I own that wouldn't eventually give me the sh*ts hearing it every single day.
A positive effect this has is the company (and the artist) gets rewarded for the tracks that are actually being listened to. And NOT the ones that are filler on a CD, or for that matter the crap CDs that good bands put out every now and then to meet contractual obligations. To some extent iTunes (and similar) accomplish this by allowing you to buy a single track. However, there is still no indicator of how often a track is played.
And even if that wasn't a persuasive enough argument there is still no reason they can't come up with two forms of licensing - buy outright and pay to play. The concept is no different to buying a DVD or renting it from blockbuster.
The market will then choose, variously.
... possibly under your "all-hardware" format.
Very true. My DVD player in my living room and my car CD player won't play I-tunes without an extra investment of time and material to burn a CD (at reduced quality and again to get MP3). Same for anything MS format. The fact I can't play it is why I don't buy it.
and anyone else wishing to try their luck (and there are a lot of those guys) can release their material under something else
It's about the only thing other than ripping CD's I use. The indi stuff needs better billboard ratings. You have to weed through a bunch of avarage stuff to find the gems. The gems are all things that never gets air-time, so it's harder to discover. All in all, I don't buy much music anymore. The new stuff arrives intentionaly broken and very expensive. The indi stuff takes forever to find and is also expensive.
Public domain stuff is a rich source of good programming. I've been collecting old radio programs. Most of it is already in MP3 format. Most of what I have found in MP3 format is in better condition than some of the old radio programs I got on cassette tape or reel to reel. Too bad they extended the copyrights. I wanted to get the Radio Mystery series, but sadly I'll be dead before it becomes public domain. It's also not offered for sale at any price.
The problem with copyright is works that are not sold are simply locked in a vault, maybe never to be seen. Examples include Walt Disney's "Littlest Horse Thieves", "Third man on the Mountain" and the CBS "Radio Mystery" series. All of which I'm interested in.
As a result, I buy other things besides music and simply replay my library.
The truth shall set you free!
For fuck's sake:
Exactly!
I've got 828 songs on my iBook. 28 of them have never been listened to the whole way through (since iTunes only counts complete play through of songs as a play) since I bought my iBook in March 2004.
I've got 3 songs at over 250 play throughs. I've got 4 more over 200 plays but under 250. 8 at over 150 but under 200. 36 at 100 or over but under 150. 70 at over 50 and under 100. 609 at between 10-50 plays. And 74 at under 10 full play throughs (but at least 1).
And I haven't even ripped all my CDs to this thing yet.
For people like me, who like to have background music, and sometimes fall asleep listening to their music, your proposed micro-payment system would bankrupt us in just a few years.
Half the time, I'm not even truly listening to the music, but I like the background noise. The other half, I'm choosing songs I want to hear at the time, and they are usually grouped together (hence the large amount of 100+ plays). The only reason my library hasn't been played through more is some of the tracks are over an hour long, so they take a while to go through... otherwise, I don't think I'd have many songs at under 50 play throughs at all.
Under your proposal, my 609, if we say they all got played just 10 times for a nice even number, is $60.90. We can add $0.74 for the 74 at least one play through (saying they only got played once) for $61.64. Another $35.00 for the ones played at least 50 times, for $91.64. $36 for the ones played at least 100 times, for $127.64. $12 for the 8 at 150, for $139.64. $8 for the 200 plays, for $147.64. And $7.50 for the 250 play throughs, for a grand total of $155.14.
$155.14 is more money than I've spent on CDs/iTMS in the past 2-3 years combined. And my music is playing in the background right now, so those little $0.01 charges would still be adding up in your proposal. I can easily suspect by next March, I will have racked up another $150+ in charges under your proposed system, not including any other music I buy.
For music fans, a pay per listen scheme is not a viable option. And, as a music fan, my music is basically playing almost 24 hours a day.
I wonder if Hillary Rosen ever met the truth.
I don't know if met is the right word. In order for it to register with her the Truth would probably have to walk up to her, spank her, and slap her in the face a couple of times. And still maybe not.
Come on, what's the difference?
:)
It's a different physical activity with very different ramifications. Hypothetically, If I did something that infringed on your copyright you'd be justifiably upset. If I slept with your wife without permission you'd more likely be psychologically traumatised.
My argument is thus: In general the "sleeping with wife" analogy elicits an emotional response greater than the subject of copyright infringement thus raises the apparent seriousness of "copyright infringement".
Of course what I say above is not necessarily always the case: peoples reactions to the situation will be different. Some may love their copyrighted music more than their wife, who knows?
Anyway I'm sounding a lot more emotional than my convictions on the subject and I'm being pedantic. It's something that irk's me, that's all. I didn't expect such attention, stupid me
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Open up iTunes and connect yer pod, then click on the iPod properties icon (somewhere in the bottom right corner). I'm not sure what tab it's under, but there is a choice to use your iPod as an external harddrive.
When I got my pod I intentonally got the 60GB over the 30GB because I knew I'd kick myself later if I didn't. Currently, I've only got around 2k songs, but I've got so many files (a lot of ISOs, mostly) that there is only 15GB left on the drive.
But ya, I also wish I could just drag and drop MP3 files to add them.
--Demonspawn
Friend of mine is living out in St. Petersburg currently and actully spent a fair amount of time up in Siberia [teaching english], he loved it. Pretty much as long as you have american money, that will speak for you. But just hold on to your posessions tightly, odds are you won't disapear but your camera sure might.
Idiots! :)e _jobs/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/09/rosen_jok
Sure - which one do you want to borrow?
That's where fine tuning comes into it. Like I suggested there is no reason that you can't have a buy outright option as well as a pay per play option.
Regarding partial plays... well that raises an interesting question. Do they get billed or not? Again that's something that could be fine tuned (pardon the pun). They could potentially be billed on a time played basis. For that matter it'd probably be better to pay based on time played rather than songs played. Otherwise punk tracks that are 2 minutes long are poor value compared to 18 minute prog rock epics.
On the amount played note... I'm curious where your stats come from and what the duration is? Because that comes out about 100 days of continous music, non-stop. that's making a couple assumptions about track length and number of plays of course. I'll take a look at my audioscrobbler stats later tonight to see what sort of usage I have (simply as a point of comparison).
The gems are all things that never gets air-time, so it's harder to discover.
Despite my scorn for the monied music industry, this is exactly the service that they DO offer -- presentation.
The new stuff arrives intentionaly broken and very expensive. The indi stuff takes forever to find and is also expensive.
Perhaps this suggests that music is innately valuable. We're going to be hit by a money expense (for pipelined stuff) or time expense (for indie stuff).
Too bad they extended the copyrights.
Too bad for them we outnumber them. The US Congress can ignore the US Constitution only so long. All this music piracy is the public's reaction to the undercurrent of extreme corporate ownership.
The problem with copyright is works that are not sold are simply locked in a vault, maybe never to be seen.
Why is that a problem? Isn't a original work up to the creator to decide what to do with it?
Are you implying copyright should be like patents, in that a formally copyrighted work must be revealed? Or are you implying that a publically-chartered corporation like Disney owes the public exposure of its works?
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Got back this weekend. Had a wonderful time, so beautiful up there. Didn't lose a single thing to a thief, everyone was really polite and nice, even when we got somewhat lost on the moscow subway.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.