Slashdot Mirror
iPod Owners Not Thieves
An anonymous reader writes "Remember last year when Microsoft head Steve Ballmer said iPod owners were music thieves and their iPods were full of stolen music? It turns out they're actually less likely to download music using filesharing software than owners of other MP3 players. A lot less likely." From the article: "A survey of US and UK music buyers reveals that although 25 per cent of people admit to downloading music from file-sharing services, only seven per cent of iPod owners do so. Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
In my opinion, I think there is some competition to consider before making that bold statement.
My work here is dung.
So Steve Ballmer is an idiot. This is news?
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
...disposable income to spend on legal downloads than owner of lesser^H^H expensive mp3 players.
-- SIGFPE
People who have iPods have demonstrated a willingness to pay for ease of use and simplicity. That they would spend money at the iTunes Music Store to easily download music rather than go through the hassle of downloading it from a p2p network should not be surprising.
The iPod is more mainstream than any other player. It's a shame, but I think this shows that the RIAA's message is the only one that is getting through to most non-techies.
also, this might be a first post...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
For the record, I own an iPod, so you can put me on the "Do Not Sue" list.
Sincerely,
Me
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
> Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
Not really. It's just that it's so much easier to buy from the iTunes store than it is to run some lame P2P app.
As an iPod 20gig 3G owner ever since buying it... in fact, iTMS made me want to buy one more... I've stolen LESS music. As it stands now, I try before I buy. If there's one good song, iTMS it is, if the full cd is pretty good with the exception to one or two songs roughly, I'll buy the CD in a store. Same goes for my PowerBook, I've bought every single app I use on it. I know I can get them elsewhere, see it all the time, but they make my life easier and the type of apps tend to be different than those on the PC, makes me want to buy them.
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
As an ipod owner the two reasons I purchase all my music now are:
1) I'm not longer in university
2) I really like the iTunes music store.
I know a lot of people are nervous about DRM and being locked in to ipod but I'm comfortable buying all my music on ITMS. It's fast, easy, and almost always cheaper. The only time I get CDs is if they're not available online. And since I'm happy with my ipod I have no worries about being locked into it.
I suspect a lot of iPod owners just assume that the only place they get music for it is by ripping from their CDs or buying from itunes.
to the ability that they can get music on their iPods without having to purchase through iTunes
of how to get pirated music online
that pirated music doesn't mean just soundtracks containing the phrases 'a vast ye matey' or 'a-hoy there land lover'
The stat doesn't indicate that Ipod owners steal music less frequently than non-ipod owners. It's possible from those numbers that all owners of MP3 players steal music at the lower 7% rate. The rest of the illegal music downloading could be coming from those of use who don't own any MP3 players. The article doesn't mention any other MP3 players or their stats.
Not saying that it's wrong, I'm just saying that you haven't backed it up with anything.
--
RumorsDaily
Third option - iPod owners are liars
*ducks*
Maybe it's because it's so easy to get music legally with the itunes music store + ipod combo
I had an imaginary sig once, he said I was a loser and ran off.
It's the sticker in the packaging that you see when you open it up: "Please don't steal music". Who'd have thought people would pay attention?
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
How long did it take this person to make this useless statement? What good does this story do anyone?
YEAH. Screw you, Steve! guess Bill won't let you have an ipod and you're upset because of that! BTW I carry a couple of videos of you dancing to Gloria Estefan in my iPod Video. YOU GONNA SUE ME FOR THAT OR WHAT?
LOL!
He mean GNU Linux hippies are theives. He didn't me Apple Mac/iPod hippies. It was an honest mistake because Steve Jobs and Steve Balmer have the same first name. Give Steve a break.
A disproportionate number of iPod owners use Macs, and most filesharing software is for PCs.
Apple just makes it REALLY easy for users to use iTunes to pay for legitimate music. Or, maybe iPod users are typically less computer savvy and don't know where to download music. Or, maybe iPod users are MORE deceptive, and were less likely to admit to a stranger that they break the law. Or, maybe iPod users were under represented in the survey? Or... any number of other reasons.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
All I can say is "yeah right." But there could be a nugget of truth here. I know of a lot of people--of which I, of course, am not included-- that downloaded thousands of songs and THEN bought an iPod.
So yes, they don't download music. Because they don't have to. They already have every fricken song.
They just don't know HOW to use a file-sharing app! I mean, there are big bad config's to set, and what is this "router" thing you keep bugging me about? I want it to JUST WORK!
Yes, this was tongue-in-cheek.
Global warming is a cube.
"Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
Or, that since they have a legal, inexpensive way to obtain the specific music that they want to play, they are more inclined to actually spend $5.00 to get five songs from five different bands instead of $16 for twelve songs from one band, with only one song that they actually want.
Or still, that the people who bought iPods coincidentally are also the same people who already have large CD collections, so they were inclined to rip and encode their music specifically so that they could play it on the iPod, rather than having to resort to scavenging the Internet for music because they were too cheap to pay for it...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The iTunes music store eliminates what used to be a HUGE money hole for myself... hunting down import singles for B-sides. Moreso than other music services, iTunes has the obscure releases by the artists that I want, without having to pay an extra $15 a pop... none of which the artist will ever see. And the audio quality is far better than what I may have the off chance of finding off in the armpit of p2p.
Couple that with being able to download it, throw is on my iPod and go? It's easier than pirating. Other devices do it, but I like how iPod/iTunes works.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
Stever Job once correctly stated that the iTunes store has to compete with P2P services / pirating. They succeded - and it is bloody convinient too.
...
The iTunes store offers so far the best online music store and player combination (software and portable). So far none of the other companies have succeded in offering a better combo. The winner takes it all
After using iTunes, who wants to sift through a bunch of songs of questionable quality, infectiousness, and organization. Really, what a waste of time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm no Apple fanboy, but I give them major kudos to pull off what the RIAA and the major labels are too stupid to understand. This was a technological and economical war from the beginning. Damn them for perverting it into a legal one as well.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
"A survey of US and UK music buyers reveals that although 25 per cent of people admit to downloading music from file-sharing services, only seven per cent of iPod owners do so. Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
Another option is that Ipod owners are scrupulously DIShonest, making their numbers a lot lower. Come on, this is like a survey of inner city people who regularly J-walk. You have three categories, the ones that do and admit it, the ones that don't and are proud of it, and the ones that do but say they don't because they are too self conscious.
The iPod is closely associated with iTunes, which makes getting music legally more convenient than downloading. Also, iPod owners are likely to have more money to spend on music than owners of less expensive mp3 players.
Slashdot readers are 25% more likely to read about Apple than any other news source according to Slashdot's own garcia.
garcia was quoted as saying, "there were four Apple stories out of 16 on the front page so far today! I mean, woot, Apple *must* be important because 25% of the stories were about Apple."
"Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid"
This simply proves the iPod has hit the mainstream. Many iPod users have one because they are "trendy", and don't have the computer knowledge required to find, download, and use pirated music.
Once you bring the price down to a certain point, the average person will pay for a legal copy.
It's like asking a large group of people if they're actively stealing cars. If they're stealing them, do you think they're going to identify themselves?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
If you have an iPod, it's safer to get songs legally. If you play songs on a PC, it's safer to download questionable content from known criminals than it is to insert a legal Sony CD.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Parent is right.
Ipods can't even do vorbis or FM radio.
There are much better alternatives.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Although I do like to take my iPod with USB cord and walk into a computer store, plug into the display Macs, and get some free programs.
Hmmm...everyone I know with an ipod has pretty much just burned their cd collections. So, does my anecdotal evidence outweigh yours or is it the other way around. I forgot how it works.
I'm an ipod/itms user and don't have any illegal music.
... fake files, wrong tags, crappy quality - even sometimes system sounds heard during playback).
when I was younger I had lots of stuff I'd downloaded just because I could, but didn't even listen to most of it. so I got rid of all but my favourite downloaded songs. there weren't that many and from then on it just seemed easier to go to itms than the hassle of p2p (minimum share 5GB! banned for 1 hour! minimum 3 share slots! banned for 1 hour!
then the situation was either have illegal content for the sake of a handful of songs, or just replace them with legitimate versions for the sake of a couple of pints.
itunes just makes being "honest" easier than not. appealing to laziness is far more successful than appealing to respect for disgusting organisations (RIAA) or appalling laws (DMCA).
Why all the percentages????? They say nothing when that is all you have to go by! I own an Ipod, but was I questioned? NO!
Perhaps iPod owners are more likely to lack the minimal technical aptitude to run p2p software.
http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/
iPod Owners Not Thieves
Well then, maybe someone would like to explain to me why my iPod is engraved with the following:
To my dearest Helen, I'm sorry I gave you the clap, Gerald
...because Steve Ballmer obviously understands the meaning of "truthiness".
Not to mention that ipod has no wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
Researchers spoke to 1,000 people towards the end of last year. More details available from XTN Data here. XTN on their home page claims all research comes from web buyers. These people must know that their name is inevitably attached at some point to their data. 'Truthieness' is going to be at stake. We are unable to know if they are offered an incentive to give data or their propensity at openly lying as they know what the proper or inproper action might be.
I know hundreds of people with iPods and I am quite confident nearly every last one of them has at least one "stolen" song on their iPod. It would be my highly educated assumption that a survey of my sample group would show that 95% or more iPod users are in illegal possession of digital media.
http://brandonbloom.name
people who pay for ipods have paid more more quality and simplicity. P2p programs offer neither of those. I dont see someone with a $300 mp2 player mucking around with edonkey2000 when he can just click buy and get the same thing for 99 cents in a second.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Funny how they conclude that iPod owner are less likely to download illegal music.
:)
An equally correct conclusion based on the data at hand would be that iPod owners are 4 times more likely to lie about downloading illegal music.
Or put another way my music tastes isn't so much out there as more "You listen to that crap?". Japanese idol music. Really old country western, old dutch music. None of wich iTunes sells.
Napster was a dream come true, finally you could find the oddest pieces of music and if you found it just get the users complete listing for odder crap that might be fun. The more kitch and socially unacceptable the better. Not out of any eltist motives. I just got crap tastes.
Ages ago a dutch artist did a sorta off musical fantasy story called Zilverdael. I had an LP of it as a kid and since then it has been impossible to buy. The moment that album becomes available via an online music store is the moment I start paying for music again. Until then, steal them blind.
If musicians are starving because of me. Good. Get a fucking real job you hippy! Artist are supposed to suffer, it attracts the muses or something. Or fleas possibly.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
PS: I own an iPod
PPS: I don't care who knows, flame me for not buying music.
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Only a tard or a mac fan boy would buy such a drm laden piece of crap. Other mp3 players are much better for the sophisticated pirate. My archos plays divx, was cheaper, has nicer battery life, and also works as an external hard drive... pwn3d
If it's dead, you killed it.
Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players.
Or, more obviously, people who prefer iPod alternatives also prefer iTunes alternatives, the primary of which is p2p file sharing.
Duh?
Honesty isn't about what you do when people are watching, but when they aren't.
How quaint. I get all my new music from the iTunes folders of departed users before I repurpose their old workstation.
Granted, I've got 80 gigs of pure-a crap on my machine to go through some day.
In other news, Steve Ballmer has ordered 50 iPods and 50 heavy wooden chairs.
Maybe it's because they have more disposable income to spend on the iTunes music store?
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Finding quality music through filesharing networks is a pain. You get inconsistent quality, bad naming, incorrect files, viruses, etc. If you're a saavy user and determined, you can get around this, but I don't think that's your average person.
When you use iTunes + iPod, there's a product combo that has a great user interface, is reliable, and is simple. The iTunes store is at a price point customers accept. You get quality and simplicity for a price, and people are willing to pay for it.
It seems like a strange conclusion to draw...
-Jonathan
Funny you should mention that. I've got some music in my iTunes downloaded from the store, some ripped from CDs I own, and some that I downloaded from eTree in FLAC or SHN lossless-compression formats (legal jam-band concert downloads.) The tools for converting lossless formats into MP3 or AAC seem to have real problems keeping track of information about the music - they know it's "gdead 1995-06-27 - track 4", but don't seem to have a way to import the song names that's better than doing cut&paste. It's quite annoying.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If I'm using P2P it's to find stuff that's not on iTunes. I'm downloading more music now (legally) than I have in months/years.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
With so much high quality music available from friends, most people don't bother scouring file-sharing networks for tracks.
Not sure why they didn't account for this in the survey I don't know.
Considering that the IPOD holds the lion's share of consumers in it's sleek and sexy grasp. I would assume that the RIAA FUD hit home to a lot of the average "they are watching me" joes out there and pushing them into a state of fear when downloading their music so as to make it as legit and a major corporation can tell them it is. Some of them in the survey might also not have known what makes a download legitimate, ie: they paid money to buy the pro version of limeware/kazzaa etc and assume that they then have free reign to all that can be found without any penalty for CR infringement. But that's just my 2 cents, which according to The Office (US) is worth one MP3 in Russia.
Paranoid? How about "three times more likely to lie to a potential RIAA lawyer that they download music?" Or "three times less stupid?" Perhaps, less inflammatorily, we could say "iPod owners are three times more informed about the rapacious RIAA barrators."
I don't think it counts as paranoia when they're publicly taking down 8-year-old girls and 72-year-old grandmas. It's self preservation.
John
Exactly. Damn statistics, and biased ways of interpreting it. ...but I guess /. likes ipods, so can't say anything biased against them.
I've used iTunes to burn my entire cd collection which roughly cost around $50k. So, while I occassionally get called a "thief", I am actually now a "copyright violator" since I gave away/sold/threw away said CDs. One of these days I will purchase music from ITMS, but for now I would rather by unhindered (or malware free) CDs and subsequently burn them. Ballmer was just posturing, and we know that both Windows and OS X will become more DRM "friendly" in the future. The sad part is that I will simply not purchase such products.
Sad for the artists anyway!
myTunes.
While filesharing services don't charge an outright fee, you pay for your downloads with bandwidth utilization and personal risk.
:)
Indeed, there are 3 parts to the risk - 1. I'm running a program written by people who I percieve to have flexible morals (wasn't one of the major P2P clients a bunch of adware and spyware?) 2. I'm downloading files from people I don't know. This can lead to everything from lost time (wrong/poor quality/malicious prank file) to remote exploitation of your machine. 3. Legal liability, ala RIAA & MPAA.
In my personal experience the people who are most interested in P2P are either young or poor. They either don't understand the risks or feel they cost/benefit makes sense. (They don't have much to lose.)
The classic iPod demographic might be young (it has a young image, but I don't know if this is who they sell the most too), but it's not poor. (The shuffle might skew the demographic towards lower incomes.)
Posting anonymously because I think I just called P2P users stupid kids without any money.
Sounds like flamebait to me. Calling every other music player "lesser." Yeah, no other music player holds up to an iPod.
Instead of jumping all over the place, how about considering iPod users are more likely to have money hanging out of their pockets than other MP3 player users? Having more disposable income is highly likely to influence the choice between buying and finding less spendy ways to accumulate music.
Maybe because I don't have a pile of cash to throw at Sam Goody I'll rip my collection of CDs, I've been accumulating since they first came out, and make my own music (since I'm scrupulously honest) and if I can't get actually buy it I may resort to downloading.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Owners of other DAPs are usually more geeky, and know about the DRM in subscription services. Some iPod owners think the iTunes music store is the only way to get music on it...
While I'm not totally innocent of ... um ... finding music online from time to time, it's just easier to simply buy the odd track from the iTunes Music Store or just borrow the CD from a friend. Whatever happened to swapping music collections?
Seriously, this is a totally uneducated statement. I'm going to go out on a limb and make an educated guess. Some Apple users are just like some Windows users. Those users being typical people who either don't have time or the desire to learn about their computer and just want to use it. Those who don't know much about security, spyware, etc.
Then there are those who use Apple who are educated and know it is a better OS than Windows due to the fact they have used Windows in the past and have had to become technicians out of necessity. Then there are those of us who are technicians and still using Windows until they crack OSX for x86.
No, I didn't forget about the *nix users. I just hate BS comments calling everyone who uses a particular OS stupid. Even Windows users (you may flame me for that, but not all educated users and technicians have the money or time to switch to away from Windows).
If you can afford an ipod, you can afford to be extorted by the recording industry.
Or maybe it's just that itunes is simple enough.
Of COURSE they are less likely to download music sharing software, most of them lack the know-how, the ipod demo is not techies. If you don't believe me look at the vast number of them who have trouble using iTunes, a mind-numbingly simple program. Don't misunderstand me, however, that does not at all mean their iPods are not chocked full of stolen mp3s, they are, they just didn't download them or load them themselves - their kid did it for them, their brother or sister, their tech savy co-worker, their friend from Poly-Sci or 3rd period History.
On the other hand, other mp3 players offer things like Ogg Vorbis support. Do you think that most iPod users would have any clue what Ogg Vorbis even is (and yes i know most of the ones reading this will, but this is slashdot, do you think most iPod users even know what slashdot is) ? Similarly audiophiles avoid them, they notice things like apples continued refusal to put up SNR and THD specs. Let's face it, the general public doesn't really know what mp3 is, they just know it means "latest R. Kelly hit!"
They are stealing music left, right, center. They just don't know enough to know how to do it themselves.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
"There's no owner among thieves"...
Maybe most Mac users are just not computer literate enough to know how to get mp3 files they want from filesharing networks? just a thought...
everyone I know with an ipod has pretty much just burned their cd collections
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Although I bought 20 tracks from iTunes, most of the 5,400 tracks on my iPod contain my 400 CDs, plus whatever I'm currently reading on Audible.com
Unless you're a teenager (or unemployed) and your time has no value, I fail to see how cruising the Internet for hours, looking for music, is cheaper than a $15 CD. My time is worth money, and I'll be darned if I will micturate it away downloading files which will be volatilized the next time my hard drive crashes. The plastic CD is my best backup.
Plus, the quality of many on-line MP3s is poor. (My wife spends a lot of time cruising & downloading. I had to switch her from Windows to Linspire to protect us from malware).
Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.
The same moron who screamed "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!!!" and then wanted Google's founder dead?
Man, the IT industry sure has a lot of sheep.
I think that's the right conclusion ;-)
... the iPod is a fashion accessory to many these days and the type of people who buy gadgets because they are fashionable are the kind who just stick the iTunes CD into their PC and let it do it all for them. The idea that they could install eMule and seek out music for free won't have entered their heads. They'll be too busy deciding what fashionable accessory to get next (probably a PSP).
...you can afford to buy music.
Also, people who buy Apple assume they are getting the easiest possible thing, whatever it may be. These are the same people that don't want to learn something new which includes how to use a P2P program to get music... they already have a convenient way to buy stuff anyway.
Perhaps iPod owners actually download music from p2p networks *more*, and just lie about it when asked? No, I don't think it's likely either, but please, if you consider this survey proof of anything your standards are way too low.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Or, since they are Mac users they have no idea that you can get music for free let alone how to auctually download a filesharing program to get to it.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Or that iPod users are dishonest and will lie about where they got their MP3s.
Or that iPod users are lazy and tend towards the convenience of iTunes.
Or that iPod users are technically incompetent and can't figure out P2P.
Or that the statistical sampling and analysis was flawed.
There are so many possible reasons. Why did the submitter need to state a false dichotomy?
Oh, now I see why.
20 minutes later he had already spent over $100, and was asking me what my favorite bands were. The lesson is, people are lazy. Yeah there are some cheapskates who will jump through hurdles to save a buck, but if you make an integrated system which works well, such as iTunes Music Store --> iTunes --> iPod --> iPod based stereo with remote, people will take the path of least resistance.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
are more enticed to use the bundled iTunes legal purchasing software that works well with their computer, their iPod, and the fact that they really don't understand computers? Isn't this software Darwinism? Build good software and they will come, right?
My brother got a nano and he got my dad to buy some music from iTMS, even though he had previously gotten them for free off of peer networks. He could have gotten those songs for free, but since his iPod came with iTunes, he used the included software to get some music. Songs at a reasonable price, found using software he can use. It all makes sense to me.
Get Firefox!
There are generally more liars amoungst iPod owners as compared to said "lesser device" owners? It certainly would be Funny.
Thats because people who buy Ipods are generally people who (a) have more money than sense so pay lots of money for low quality DRM-crippled files (b) are sheep- who buy an Ipod because its fashionable, put their britney album on it for the one time a year they go to the gym. (c) do not understand that the record companies do not have the right to demand that we not use what we have payed good money for in any fashion we deem necessary!
kin242.net
That the average purchaser of an IPod has more disposable income than your average CheapAss player?
Seriously, I don't download/steal music, but I've got disposable income... I used to pirate my ass off in my younger years when $20 was a big deal.
Zanthor
I have boatloads of "downloaded music" from "shared sites"
and you know what, it's ALL LEGAL.
screw ballmer, the riaa and any other bozo that claims "downloaded" music is "illegal music"
ballmer should stick to windows, perhaps think about making it suck alot less.
If you have $300.00 to drop on an iPod, chances are, you don't mind spending 99c on music.
Even though many are cheaper now, I bet a substantial number of iPods sold have been at price points near $300.00.
I agree 100% with the parent.
It all comes down to pain. How much pain is inflicted by $1? How much pain is inflicted by finding a decent P2P app, avoiding viruses, then getting a quality download. Most of the users I encounter will pay the dollar.
Nice post. I was going to say that I was in that fourth category to "up my street cred", but you said it much better.
Everyone knows one of the most marketed attributes of Apple products is their ease of use. Many of the people who buy Ipods purchased them because all their friends had them, and even if they weren't that skilled with technology, they could work an Ipod. These people don't bother learning about things like bittorrent, and probably havn't even heard of the more popular file sharing networks. Instead, they have the consumer friendly itunes store sitting in front of them. Honestly, if a middle aged woman wants a cool mp3 player, she's probably going to get an Ipod, and theres little to no chance that she'll know how to get music anywhere other than from itunes. They buy because of their ignorance.
Can't possibly have anything to do with iTunes. Nope, not a chance. Having a legal music store built into the transfer software of course gives incentive to steal the music instead. It's definately the warning label. :)
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
They are class enemies who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes!
If you poll drug dealers about how they make a living, you're also likely to "prove" that a majority of them don't sell drugs. Similarly, you might poll politicians on taking bribes from lobbyists and discover that corruption is defunct in Washington--nope, nada, never see any of it. Funny how that works, isn't it?
There's an ingenuousness in the top poster's desire to believe that the silly poll data proves something. It's as banal as Balmer's assertion that iPods are piracy pods.
A survey of US and UK music buyers reveals that although 25 per cent of people admit to downloading music from file-sharing services, only seven per cent of iPod owners do so.
This proves only one thing. Not only IPod owners are thieves, but they are also liars.
Clearly, Google is the next Microsoft.
..that the title of this /. article is misleading. Of course, Ballmer is wrong to make such a blanket assertion. But the study found a correlation between MP3 player owners (iPod included) and the use of "filesharing software." Then the study published the results of a comparison between their findings. They are "less likely" than other MP3 player owners, but it still happens. The title should read "Not ALL iPod owners are thieves"
My God, polite suggestions work!
Please mod comment funny.
is not whether ipod owners are thieves.
It is, rather, is there anyone or anything that Steve Ballemr and Bill Gates will not libel, slander, cheat or destroy in order to make Microsoft a success?
The answer, as circumstances have shown time and again, is NO!
If by "lesser" you mean plays OGG vorbis and other formats the iPod doesn't, has more features, more battery life, more disk capacity, a user replacable battery, and a lower price, then I guess you are correct.
You seem to be forgetting that there's the possibility that iPod owners are going over to their friends and saying "load me up with your MP3 collection"
I have to fight my friends off with pointy sticks because they keep asking me to drag my mid-tower over to their house so they can have at my MP3s.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Isn't this because iTunes makes it so difficult to import songs NOT bought on it's software? And also, nobody wants to have to convert MP3s (which is not a lossless compression alg) to another format (AAC, which is also not lossless). Two conversions could theoretically result in audbible degradation. Thus said, if Apple makes you convert your files to AAC via iTunes before transferring them to the iPod, I would not do it- I consider myself too much of an audiofile (all my songs in OGG anyway). Waiting for the iAudio 30gb version to come down in price then I will buy that (supports OGG).
BMW owners found less likely to siphon gas than Ford owners.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Cheap bastards will save a few bucks by not buying an iPod. The same cheap bastards will save money by downloading songs illegally for free.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Or maybe this just proves what we have been saying all along, that the reason people steal music is simply because the current methods of music distribution do not satisfy the needs of the consumer.
You don't happen to have a newsletter do you?
Maybe their self riteous attitude carries so far they're embarressed to answer honestly in the survey. Gosh, people sure love statistics don't they?
Since iTunes 6 came out and broke the Hymn Project I have stopped buying music from the iTunes Music Store and have instead taken to browsing torrentz.com and other similar sites (but never downloading from them, of course, as I have heard that doing so is illegal.)
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I want to do whatever I want with music I purchase. If I can't do that with iTunes then I simply won't spend money there.
Anyone that trusts a survey where people disclose any illegal activity is a good candidate for buying swamp land. Surveys are dodgy at best and when they ask about questionable activities I'd say they are most likely worthless.
People on Slashdot are starting to become idiots!
The other possibility is that iPod users are less technically savy.
Take two users of equal economic status (cash strapped; lets say college students).
One is technically savy, so they see that they can manage with a much cheaper MP3 player or simply use the desktop available to them at most locations (if you're a nerd and always in front of the computer, why would you need a portable?).
The other is a business or art student that wants something light cheap, cool (read status-symbol-esk). THey probably also own a powerbook for the same reason.
-Michael
I think I was invited to take part in it... at least I was invited to take part in a similar survey. I ran into a problem. On the very question of where my music comes from.
I had the choices, if I recall correctly, of "downloading from a file sharing service", "purchasing from an online music service", "ripping my own CDs", or "copying from my friends". There might have been a couple more, but you could see the idea they had. But there wasn't any option for "downloaded from artist's own website" or "purchased directly from artist". And since a good 20-30% of my music falls into those categories, I stopped there and sent mail asking for clarification.
No response. Survey form timed out. End of story.
Ah, the unbridled arrogance of the iPod fanatic. And the uninformed "mee toohs" following up to your stupidity just confirm that Slashdot is nothing but a hive of Apple yes-men. Oh yes man, we're the elite man, we have the higher ground because of our shiny white iPods. Join the conga-line or else you're a baby-killer, you silly Neanderthal.
Inferior? I bought a Neuros several years ago. Cost as much as a bloody iPod does now. Oh but it's not SEXY and doesn't have dancing damned silhouettes and the Slashdot imprimateur. So it sucks. Nevermind. It's worked without a hitch while iPods were klunking out after only two months of use. It's worked without a hitch for YEARS. Yeah, does Vorbis too!
Oh what's that? The latest iPods are getting FM capabilities? Yawn. Neuros had it years ago. Oh and it can identify the song being played? Double yawn. Been there, Neuros done that.
BUT that's right. It doesn't have a shiny Apple logo on it SO IT SUCKS. And us "lesser" player owners are all THIEVES before the might of the Apple elite, aren't we? I guess Neuros couldn't afford those dancing silhouettes and endless crap "accessories" like iPod "socks." So my Neuros must be FULL of stolen music...iPod owners would NEVER condescend to slurp up gigabytes of music of Bittorrent or eMule, of course. They're FAR too elite for that.
Between Digg and Slashdot, the unending worship of all things Apple is getting beyond tiresome. Digg and Slashdot are racing to the bottom to see who can lick Steve Job's feet first.
But hey, what's a little DRM between friends? If Apple does it, it's A-OK! It's a hideously closed architecture, something Slashbots would normally shriek about---but it's APPLE, so it's GREAT! How dare you question Apple!
Keep up the great work--maybe you can hand Apple 100% of the MP3 market before the end of the year.
both greater thieves and greater liars.
It's simple economics. If purchasing music is easier than stealing music, then people will purchase music rather than stealing it. That is to say that if the value represented by the combination of time, effort, and money needed to legally aquire music is less than the value represented by the time and effort needed to steal music, then purchasing is the obvious choice. All irrelevant claims of "bestness" aside, the iPod, iTunes, and the iTMS makes aquiring much easier than any other method (easier is of course not better). But the point being that iPod + iTunes + iTMS is, for most people (not /. readers), "cheaper" than file sharing.
Being artists, content creators, and visionary dilettantes themselves, Apple customers are more inclined to respect the copyright privileges of other such individuals.
I have had an iPod since they first came out, which pre-dates the iTunes Music Store opening. The main reason there is less ill-gotten music on my iPod now than when I first got it is because of the iTMS. Since I can buy single tracks there, I've been replacing my ill-gotten music with actual purchases as I can afford it. I know that most of that $0.99 goes to the record companies, but hopefully some of it will finally get back to the artist.
I've got the original 10gb iPod (the Caddie of the original iPods ;-). I have not pirated/tsk-tskdownloaded/tsk-tskcopied any music since getting it. I either (oh my!) buy actual CDs now, or I buy tracks/CDs on ITMS. Quite honestly, I think it comes down to pride. Pyschologically speaking, an iPod is a lot nicer than a normal cd player or even a normal mp3 player. As such, I don't want to sully things (by pirating, etc). Sounds goofy, but that's definitely my view.
It's like having a new car and enforcing the 'no eating' rule inside. It's all pride based on your acquisition.
iPod users are just too stupid to find and pirate the free music out there....
Steve Ballmer is also bald. Film at 11.
People that buy an iPod obviously have a decent pocket size (better than mine:() as the player alone costs a few hundred dollars (with the exception of the Shuffle at I think $100 or so) versus the $50 of a regular 512meg player. If they have the money to buy the iPod, I would assume they have the money to afford the convenience of the iTunes Music Store - and from the looks of the article, they do...
I know. I once visited wal mart's online music store
it's encoded in WMA
it's copy protected and "may not work on all digital music players"
most of the albums cannot be found unedited
I will continue to buy original cd's from ebay for as much as a third of the price of downloading it
(as long as I stay away from newer sony discs)
happy friday the thirteenth
I'm not saying that iPod users are necessarily less intelligent than others (I have one... which tells you nothing). I'm also not saying that other players are necessarily not well designed.
It's just that with the iPod's well designed interface and iTunes being just so convenient and easy to use, the iPod is more accessible to many more less technical people. It does require some more work to understand P2P software and download MP3s and then load them onto your player. I'm sure most iPod users wouldn't mind getting free music. They just aren't inclined to do so, because Apple's made it just so EASY to do it legit.
My impression, having come to know a fair number of tech-savvy users, is that they know where to find things and tend to have fewer problems with exploring the bounds of law. My personal feeling is that what I do online is nodbody's fscking business, and I'm guessing that many other technical users feel this way, too. I am often asked "isn't that illegal?" by non-technical folks (like my girlfriend's family) even though I understand those activities to be completely legal (ssh sessions, for instance, because it "looks like hacking"). So I think that non-technical users probably shy away from activities that "seem illegal".
I bought a Shuffle last January to fulfill my traveling needs and avoid the expense of a normal iPod (as I was waiting for the video one even back then). Since the Shuffle is pretty limited, I ignored the Music Store and focused on importing my CDs and local band music. However, after getting a Video iPod for Christmas, I've started using the Music Store religiously. I get the free single(s) every week, scour the videos section for free ones (a Monk episode and the SNL Lazy Sunday skit so far), and even buy a few songs off of an artist's EP. I admit, I actually buy more songs in the Music Store these days than I get through regular CDs or other methods. And why not? They're cheap, come with album art already set up, and are downloaded in no time at all, saving one a trip to the store or struggles in trying to get enough sources or finding a healthy torrent. My question is, wasn't this the whole point of the music store and selling songs for $0.99? Apple was hoping to defer would-be music pirates to a process that was legal but also cheaper than conventional means.
"It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
That's quite the assumptive leap. Maybe iPod owners (Apple one-buttoners) are just less tech/computer savvy?
Or really push the assumptions. Maybe they are controlled by aliens or canadian politicians?
Haven't bought a thing on the ITMS, have maybe 4 or 5 downloaded tracks the RIAA wouldn't like in a collection of thousands of songs. I don't do P2P swapping.
Not so hard to stay legal.
Not so hard to understand either: The stuff I've bought and kept on CD (and the 200+ LPs I haven't yet converted) is the stuff I like - why is it hard to imagine that I'd put that stuff on the iPod first, vs. stealing a bunch of unknown stuff of unknown quality from P2P sites?
I work in the electronics department at a retail store (college bills :( ), and what I've noticed is that a good amount of people that buy Ipods have no clue how it functions (some asking if other MP3 players are "Ipods" as well). In fact, many of them come equipped with the belief that they have to pay for a music service (I imagine iTunes provides a no-hassle way to immediate gratification).
Additionally, it makes perfect sense that the most popular product will attract many people who have no clue of their options for loading it up. And why should it matter to them, it's an Ipod! Everybody has one!
Actually, iPods do support vorbis it is just not enabled. If you were a real /. geek you would be able to hack it and enable it. So quit complaining and start hacking - if you can.
Not only do they steal music, but they LIE about it too. . . . .
They surveyed people who bought music online, not a random sample of mp3 player owners. This doesn't take into account people who only copy music illegally.
Vote for Pedro
When you have a little money, you spend it on an affordable mp3 player and get the music for free.
When you have more money, you save up and get an ipod (or receive one as a gift), and then get the music for free.
When your time is worth a lot of money, you probably have a good amount of disposable income and not a lot of time to spend wondering which mp3 player is the best VALUE and what filesharing network you can find your favourite music on. This results in the purchase of "the best" player (as per other people's opinions) and the purchasing of songs (minimal time spent searching).
People with more money spend more money.
Furthermore, $0.99/track is a lot to people with lower incomes, and a little to people with higher incomes. Do the math.
geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool
"Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
Or just that is is easier to buy for the ipod than for other players perhaps. I wouldn't know. I am holding out on spending for a nice player until I find one that I like that can play ogg vorbis and flac files.
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Who would admit to downloading music illegally? I think the statistical figures would be much higher taking that into account. Additionally, compared to MP3 players, the study only suggest that ipoid is less prevalent than other MP3 papers. Lastly, 1/4 is still a pretty big figure, though not as big as microsoft would like to claim.
~Shan
It seems more and more useless to keep insisting that everybody remember that rights are not property and infringement is not theft. You can't steal what nobody owns. Calling copyright infringement stealing is like calling driving in the carpool lane by yourself stealing. It may be illegal and it might even cause a financial loss for someone, but it's a more complex thing than simply stealing somebody's property.
But the success of the recording industry's campaign to convert copyright to property is apparent even on Slashdot. The complex issues of infringement have been reduced to, "You stole my property," putting rights-holders (who usually aren't creators) in the unassailable postion of a little old lady chasing a purse snatcher. Like medieval peasants who truly believed that the forest belonged to the King by Divine Right, and to hunt rabbits there was a Sin, we seem to have abandoned culture for the sake of business.
The thing is, regardless of what any law says, it's wrong to hand over our culture to owners, because they simply don't take care of it unless they can make money off it. More than half of all the movies that were ever made have crumbled to dust because they were stuck away in vaults and forgotten. People who would have loved to make copies couldn't because they weren't allowed to, and the people who had the right to didn't bother because there was no profit in it. So nobody gets to see those movies anymore, ever.
I like to collect Old Time Radio programs. Almost 100% of my collection is illegal, because in 1998 Congress declared that all sound recordings made before 1972 were copyrighted until the year 2067. This includes even Edison's wax cylinders made in the 1890s. Most surviving copies exist only because people like radio station engineers took home discarded transcription disks and such. Eventually the originals made their way to collectors who made more durable copies. I would buy these shows from the copyright holders if they cared to sell them, but mostly they don't. With very few exceptions they've done nothing with this material since it was created. But legally that's fine, because it's theirs to abandon. It's their "property." So I trade these shows through the Internet and the mail, and in doing so I'm a criminal.
No matter how the recording industry wants us to change our natural way of thinking so they can stay in business, no matter what they bribe Congress to write into law, entrusting our culture to people who have a history of neglecting it is just plain wrong.
Could it just be that P2P users are more likely to buy non-iPod players? People who use P2P to get their music (and do it well!) tend to be a little saavier with computers to begin with. From what I've seen, most people use GNUtella/Limewire ("I hear Bearshare is better...") or Kazaa (still!); you don't get whole albums from either of these, so people who use these networks exclusively probably won't be filling up their MP3 players with P2P downloads.
;-P ).
In order to get enough songs to make up a significant MP3 collection, you need BitTorrent or Soulseek or (fill in the blank, please, I'm always open to suggestions). But it takes a little more computer saavy to (1) know about these programs in the first place, and (2) be able to use them effectively (note that the article mentions 41% of those surveyed found commercial download services "difficult to use"). I would think that these are the same people who are also more likely to (1) know about alternative MP3 players, and (2) be able to understand what about a Zen Micro makes it better than an iPod Nano (aside from the relaxingly slow boot time and that cool, retro monochrome screen
So, i guess I'm just saying that it's not surprising that most iPod users don't use P2P because most people (iPod or no) don't use P2P. It also bugs me to say that "iPod users aren't likely to use P2P" when it should be that "P2P users aren't as likely to buy an iPod".
----
an iPod and SLSK user.
its simple.... I'd bet that 25% of windows users know how to download music while 9% of ipod owners do. Apple has always made its products moron proof, so its not suprizing a bit if you think about the people who are using the products.
"A survey of US and UK music buyers..."
;)
:)
You had to have bought something (online) to get on the survey. If you stole ALL the music you didnt count hehe
Or they have more disposable income to have bought CDs and tunes to fill it.
Probably some of all of the above and the article summary
Bigger thieves or Bigger suckers take your pick....
hehe, statistics are what you make them
...except the guy that stole mine.
www.arkhambrewingcompany.com For all your Lovecraftian T-Shirt needs
You know, I'm really curious:
What is it about Apple branded earbuds that justify a cost of $30-40 a pair?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Fucken DUH.....
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Well, clearly you stole your iPod, so you don't qualify as an iPod owner. Merely an iPod possessor.
iPods are also quite expensive compared to lower-end MP3 players. Thus, those who can afford an iPod are probably more likely to use iTunes to download their music than somebody looking to save every penny.
If you read the report, it states that the survey was done on 1000 music buyers. Unless I'm mistaken, this seems to be a skewed report or, at the very least, a report exaggerated by the media. I'm pretty sure that if the survey was done on 1000 mp3 player buyers the numbers would be much different.
"Looks ugly and has usless* features/gimmics that no one wants. It isn't a Apple branded iProduct. Lame."
*Usless meaning until Apple does it, then it is a must have feature. For examples, see flashbased storage, photos and video playback.
"and the fact that they really don't understand computers"
I disagree with that statement. iPod users aren't more computer-illiterate than people who have, say, a Creative player. Sure, the iPod is easie.r to use and less problematic but it is does not really change who buys these things
In fact, if I take a look at people I know, those who know the less about computers bought anything but an iPod and many of those who were knowledgeable with computers got an iPod.
Of course, iPod users can't all be crackers spending their time in the basement trying to hack the latest DRM schemes and using l33tsp3@k in all their conversations.
I wasn't saying that iPod users are dumber than Zen users or whatever. You can't deny that with eighty-something percent of the market share and fourteen some-odd million units sold, you're going to have a significant amount of computer-illiterate people with iPods buying music.
Get Firefox!
What do the iTunes fan boys get on exchange for they hard earned cash?
A series of magnetics marks in a hard disk that can be interpreted as music.
In reality they get nothing. Once they "buy" this music they can't trade it, share it ( and here I mean share it in the sense you share a vinyl or CD: to your hearts content if so you wish), give it as a gift.
So they have been convinced that they have to pay money for thin air. Whoa, what an accomplishment.
May it be that people using othe players realize the big con that selling music in electronic form is?
Music is a communal human experience, it is not a comodity that you can pack and sell.
While the music industry provided some service ( a CD, and object you own) there was a point about buying music, but now that anything they have to offer is nothing and the promise to sue you if you copy that nothingness most peopl (except Apple fanboys and girls) realize that this is a scam.
If anything, such a poll shows how gullible Apple fans are (hey, they paid through the nose all these years for machines marginally better than most people's IBM compat PCs, so no surprise there).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I know what you mean, and this is why my comment was not completely a reply to yours. You were talking about simplicity and I see that there are other people using that as an argument against the iPod. So I took the opportunity to add my opinion about that.
On the other hand, I got my computer illiterate father an iPod plus a $25 gift card to the iTunes music store. He never used the card! By some strange miracle figured out how to fish through binary groups on usenet for music. From computer-illiterate to usenet trowler in 1.5 days - just goes to show that man is a problem solving animal.
Heh. "Proving that iPod users are either scrupulously honest or more paranoid they'll get sued by RIAA than owners of lesser music players."
I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. Presumably iPod users own bigger CD collections and/or are satisfied with the selection and pricing of the Apple Music Store. It's been claimed by some that a reasonable commercial alternative to p2p "piracy" would reduce it -- well here's what it looks like, apparently.
I have held an MP3 player in my hand and I have almost literally stolen music. Microsoft is a multi-billion company and I m sure they (and stupid steve)would kill every apple iPod employee just to make a few dollars for theselves, how could such a weirdo like Steve be so stupid, its like accusing a little toddler of robbing a bank. There are thiteen year olds like myself who save up for months & years to buy an MP3 Player just to be told by stupid steve that we have committed a bloody crime, who the hell does he think he is, he must think that he owns the industry and that pisses me off, it wasnt his place to involve himself by saying stupid things. I have no doubt that his connection with Microsoft led him to say that just so that wanker Gates would give a pat on the back, just caus they are a couple of billion richer than we are to have to pay out music,... whilst I talk about that subject I point out that my music is legal and not downloaded, I have a friend who works in a music store and I get cheap music, I had Limewire and noticed viruses, I think LimeWire and Kazaa piss off Microsoft a lot... also It isnt just stupid steve that says things like that.
Well most talk radio is on AM radio, so FM typically doesn't help.
r l/ref=br_ss_hs/002-2596788-4560056?platform=gurupa &url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=portable+fm+ra dio&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
Anyways. I have two MP3 players, a iRiver thingy and a Nano.
I barely use the iRiver, even though it has FM radio and all those other shinies. Why? Because I never used them anyways.
On the other hand its possible to get a seperate FM/AM radio for pretty cheap:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-u
The fact that a far less percentage admit to it only proves that a larger percentage are liars as well as thieves.
People who have iPods have demonstrated a willingness to pay for ease of use and simplicity. That they would spend money at the iTunes Music Store to easily download music rather than go through the hassle of downloading it from a p2p network should not be surprising.
A pretty backhanded complement - iPod users are too stupid to downlod music! It is so hard!
Come on, few things are as easy as P2P. You enter in any song name and there it is.
I myself have used many P2P services over the years, but when ITMS came out I started using it not because it was easier but because I simply wanted the artist to get some money for a song i enjoyed. Yes the RIAA gets some but they squander it anyway and I think are kind of doomed no matter how much they get. But at least artists I like are getting money.
Jobs said music downloading was a social problem (as we all have), and Apple has simply been good at getting people to realize it's better for the artist to buy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah Nomads are cool, but other than that most mp3 players are iPod wannabes.
Let me preface this by saying I'm a mac user who loves itunes and the itunes music store. Still one thing I don't get. I always read posts on slashdot stating that finding songs via p2p is difficult and time consuming and that is why itms has become so popular. I mean I see these posts anytime the itms is mentioned. Now I dont' pretend to be that bright, but I can't be alone in thinking this doesn't jive with any p2p experience I've tried lately. Example, I just fired up cabos a gnutella based client (loaded in 1.5 sec on my g5). I typed in James Taylor Fire and Rain. six seconds later I had 76 songs listed (missippi count style). I clicked the first one at the top of the list it began downloading instantly at 150 kilo bytes a second and was finished downloading in less than 20 seconds. I fired up the song in itunes and listened to it (nice quality). Total time to get a song less than 30 seconds? Can someone explain to me how this was hard? In fact it takes about that long to get a song from itms? Anyway I call bs on p2p is hard to get songs compared to itms
Is it really so hard to believe that those that have an easy path to buy music would do so? Does a submitter being biased automatically make them wrong, or simply a bit of a jerk for rubbing people's noses in the truth?
You can spin it however you like but Occam's Razor points to the answer. And it's not one you listed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know people who own iPods, but don't even own computers, and have other people load them up or do it at work. I doubt there are any Creative owners out there who do not also own and use a computer.
... and then they built the supercollider.
...too
its easy as heck to take a poll and make it look anyway you want. for every study that says one thing theres three others that say teh exact opposite. the other way..
"A survey of US and UK music buyers reveals"
Game over, any survey which asks people whether or not they do someting illegal is never going to get acurate results.
because I only know one ipod owner without pirated music (yours truly).
Asking people "Hey, are you breaking the law?" and calling the result meaningful is rather specious, don't you think? It reminds me of a survey I saw in CNN the other day. Seventy-five percent of people claim that they do not find fat people unattractive. Yeah, right.
Insert Religion1 ... Sin1 ... Religion2 and adjust percentages to reflect lying.
--
93% of teenage boys admit to masturbation and the other seven percent are liars.
The homosexual community is generally pretty honest.
Install COX in your backend today!
I have an ipod with less than legal content on it. Should i downgrade to a "lesser" mp3 player or something? fill me in /.!
"Well most talk radio is on AM radio, so FM typically doesn't help." 92.3 FreeFM FTW!
:3 rawr.
I don't know how they came up with those numbers but from what I've seen iPod users are just as likely to download illegal files as anyone else. Not that I have an ax to grind against Apple, I don't, but I wonder who funded the survey.
This is true; For a while I tried to teach my parents how to download music, but after a week or so I gave up and just showed them how to use the iTMS and how to import CDs. They don't really need anythign else.
I'd guess large portion of iPod owners don't have the savvy required to find and download songs.
Or inclination. In my line of work (media production and post-production) I have the freedom to use whatever I wish as my desktop OS, and daily exposure to Windows, Apple and Linux. Windows is still what sits on my desktop.
or could it be that a lot of ipod owners just not as tech savvy? yes, you can rebutt here with how you own an ipod and know how to get all the music you want off emule/bitorrent/usenet/irc/etc. but you are not the average ipod owner. many people aren't even aware that there are other mp3 players out there. the ipod has become synonymous with mp3 player. i can't count how many times i've been asked "do i need a computer to use an ipod?". these are people who will rip their cds and buy from itms. and the whole "ipod is a premium device" thing is really stupid, ipods cost pretty much the same as any other decent player, often less. it's what people read/hear about on ads and tv. when your marketshare reaches such a large size, you obviously are not limited to the tech savvy. anyone claiming "ipod owners have more money so don't need to steal" or "ipod owners have more ethics" are just looking to congratulat themselves for buying one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Am I the only person that uses Usenet?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is pure flame bait, ignorant flame bait at that. Anyone who tries to make a connection between a tool and the users understanding of that tool as being ignorant of a completely different tool (in this case, COMPUTERS?!) all because they don like the former tool, to quote H. Simpson, "Sir, I give give you your Moron"
Imagine filling up a 60G iPod with $1 iTunes tracks. Suppose each track is 10 MB (to be on the safe side), you'll end up with $6000 worth of music on the thing. No wonder real thieves and robbers are attracked to these tell tale white earplugs... ;)
X.
no its about convenience. they make it convenient to legally purchase music so people buy into it. fuck apple.
fact: microsoft > linux
not theives, fags!
Also, the full size iPod has gone up in DAC quality with each generation. The iPod video series has audio quality equal to that of the shuffle (but irritatingly not shielded against mains hum on the USB ground line)
i-pods are the quality mp3 product I've used. When compared to the Dell DJ and the nomad, the ipod is stikingly easy to operate and out performs any other mp3 player that I've used by a longshot. The accessories for the ipod take everything even farther. I've loved using mine.
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
Knowing that of the people who bought music online iPod owners were less likely to use illegal file-sharing is still useful information.
Also: Remember that close to 100% of the people who bought iPods are likely to have used the iTunes Music Store at least once... because you get 10 downloads bundled with the iPod.
I have an iPod with 6,000 songs from "questionable" sources. Of course, "iPod Owners Not Theives" doesn't say "unless illegally downloaded" so I am no a thief. QED SYRIAA EOF
13. Any legal action is absolutly excluded. (Pi World Ranking List rules)
I'll agree that at one point it was true, after the iPod and before iTunes existed. I knew more than enough people with iPods full of songs only "found" on the Internet. But that was back in college when most people didn't have much money, or at least not enough for a $15-$20 CD once a month. But now with the iTunes store and the 99c song, most people who paid a few hundred for their iPod and accessories are willing to buy a song over something to eat from the 99c or dollar menu.
I hope he wasn't confusing "stealing" with "not buying new CDs and giving the RIAA money" as it also states "29 per cent of them also regularly buy CDs on eBay" since most CDs found on eBay are used.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
because we iPod owners aren't paying the microsoft tax. As politely as I can put it, Mr. Ballmer, you can go f*ck yourself.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Using myself as an example, not a good sample size and maybe, or not, representative, but... Before file sharing I had gotten tired of the music bus, I hated buying a whole CD when there were only one or two songs I wanted. I can remember singles seeming overpriced though I can't remember the actual prices back then. So I was buying less and less music, usually only when I liked the entire album and not just a few songs. Radio got boring and repetitive (thanks ClearChannel!) so I listened mostly to just news/talk and audiobooks on CD, and didn't pay much attention anymore to what new and good music was available. Then along came file sharing and suddenly I had access to music again, could hear new and good songs I might not hear on the radio, and I actually started buying CDs again, b/c for music I wanted to add to my library, I wanted the original, uncompressed recording. Still would stick with just the ones where I liked the entire album, and for singles I would just download them. Always knew that getting music that way wasn't kosher, but did it anyway b/c no choice. Then iTunes comes to the PC, and now I download singles from iTunes, sample music I wouldn't otherwise hear on the radio (both 30 secs, and by buying one or two songs from an album). I still buy CD's when I want the original recording or a long-term copy/backup. The only time I download music from file-sharing services now is if I want a single I can't find on iTunes, which is almost never. I always remember one of Steve Jobs' keynotes about iTunes, when he reviewed a list of reasons to use iTunes instead of file-sharing to get music, and one was that it's just "bad karma" to get music through free file sharing. I agreed with him then, and agree with him now. I also think it's bad karma that record companies force artists into contracts that grant the record companies ownership of the artists' music an ip and the lion's share of their profits, and that the record companies resort to suing people who fileshare music instead of innovating new and better distribution methods, but those are all separate problems still in want of solutions. I'm not out to revenge against the record companies by filesharing music.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Yes, as a matter of fact, I *am* attached to my MacPortable! Put it into the "cold, dead, fingers" category.
And, yes, I *have* used it for internet acces, though I was mumbling something about Model-T's and the Information Superhighway . . .
They're actually kind of hard to buy, as it's rare to find an owner that will give his up.
hawk, off to find a soldering gun to replace the fuse and fire it up
Or just buy the new FM tuner remote if you have a nano or 5G iPod iPod Radio Remote
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.