iTunes, One Billion Suckers Served?

Thomas Hawk writes "Apple is out hyping their one billionth iTunes download today, but is building your music library in a format that could be obsolete in the future really the best strategy? Will the consumer once again have to someday replace their iTunes track just like they had to replace their LP, cassette, and CD only to get their music on their hot new non Apple mp3 phone of the future? "

Comments

you can backup all your itunes purchases

[johnrpenner]

you can burn all your itunes tracks to AIFF or MP3,
and then backup that as many times as you would
ever want... so what's the problem??

Re:you can backup all your itunes purchases

[cmdrbuzz]

itunes 6 only allows you to burn 5 CDs then burning is locked out forever.

Got any proof of this, because iTunes 6 on my Mac says:

If your playlist includes songs that were purchased from the iTunes Music Store, you can only burn seven copies of the playlist to an audio CD. You may have exceeded the number of times you can burn this playlist.

You can then create a new playlist with your iTunes Music Store songs on and burn again 7 more times....

Maybe your getting confused with the play protected songs on 5 authorized computers at a time?

Re:you can backup all your itunes purchases

[dgatwood]

What the hell are you talking about? iTunes allows you to burn up to 7 copies of the same playlist. You can change the playlist and burn 7 more if you want. There are no limits to the number of times you can burn a song....

The only limit is to the number of times you can burn a single playlist (i.e. burning a copy of a CD for your friends with all the tracks in order). This is spelled out in the Terms of Service.

Re:you can backup all your itunes purchases

[timeOday]

Name a format that will never go obsolete!

Sure, the physical media my data are on will go obsolete. That's the whole point: if DRM locks me down, I can't copy it over. Investing in a music collection only playable on one brand of equipment is a huge mistake. If it were anyone but Apple, it would be obvious to everybody.

No, the mp3 and ogg formats will not become obsolete in our lifetimes. Unlike 8 tracks and tapes, digital formats can store whatever your ears can hear and don't degrade when played or copied. The problem of representing sound is solved.

Re:you can backup all your itunes purchases

[jrockway]

> Maybe your getting confused with the play protected songs on 5 authorized computers at a time?

That's also easy to deal with. Backup your /Users/Shared/SC\ Info/SC\ Info.sidb. Deauthorize your computer. Replace the SC Info.sidb. Now you have authorized 0 of 5 computers but can still play the music.

Not very likely

[Calibax]

I understand how media can be obsoleted when players for that media are no longer available. However, it's much more difficult to make a data format unuseable.

Surely that can only occur if the format can only be read by a non-open source application that is only available in binary format and where the hardware to run that program becomes unavailable. I suppose it could also happen if the media you use for your iTunes storage becomes obsolete and you don't remember to copy your music to another media format.

I think a billion downloads (and counting) will ensure that iTunes music will remain playable for a long time to come and will sound just as good then as it does now.

Re:Not very likely

[HairyCanary]

HYMN does not work on the latest Apple DRM.

And despite the fact that people routinely say "everything gets cracked," there is evidence to contradict that. DRM is going to get "Good Enough" that for all practical purposes it will not be crackable.

Re:Not very likely

[Omaze]

that can only occur if the format can only be read by a non-open source application that is only available in binary format and where the hardware to run that program becomes unavailable

I see a degenerating algorithm here. Paintings or carvings in rock or pottery have been in use for, I'm guessing, on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. Painting or punches on/in paper has been in use for, I'm guessing, on the order of tens of thousands of years. The rolling of paper into scrolls probably wasn't much further behind. I have no idea when the concept of segmented paper (books/sheafs) began. The introduction of a mechanical playback device came somewhere around the 1860 and very few player pianos remain. It's worthy to note that the multiple channel capability of player pianos is a significant phenomena over single channel linear data on scrolls. The spindlized data returned to single channel and was coiled around the orthogonal axis and returned to a hard form (first demonstrated recording capability around 1850 but with no playback capability) around 1877 and lasted to the 1940s with cylinder recordings. Few players of those remain. Around 1881 the cylindrical recording was flattened out and made lateral (78s were first introduced in 1915). Those are still in use though fading. Around 1946 the data reverted its layout structure, returning to linear, but the format changed from a physical phenomenon into a magnetic one with magnetic wire recording (reel-to-reel, endless loop, 4-track/8-track) and can still be found in somewhat common form today as audio cassettes. In 1950 magnetic data took on the helical form with a drum type hard disc drive and, a few short years later, laterized into disc format. Magnetic floppy discs seem to have emerged in the 1960s. Cursory online research indicates that data jumped from a magnetic form to a photonic form as early as 1967 but again reverted to a serial physical layout. I've never seen photonic tape though the histories seem to indicate that's what was initially invented in 1967. Linear photonic media exists, arguably, as barcodes but I can't say that I've ever seen helical photonic media. It's not until 1972 that the photonic format realized that it could bypass the helical form and proceed directly to the lateral disc format.

I tried to summarize all of that into a nice neat little table but the lameness filter sucks ass and HTML sucks double ass and eats gas.

Suffice it to say that communication data has characteristics: Medium, method, encoding (channels), alignment, and lifespan. If you could have seen the table (lameness filter sucks, HTML sucks harder) it looks very similar to a vertical printout of prime numbers or vertical table of Pythagorean triples. There seems to be a pattern to the way data has evolved but it always avoids a clear mathematical definition.

One trend that is clear though, is that new technologies are coming out at increasingly shorter intervals and they're also dying out more rapidly. It's going to be a long time before we replace a linear arrangement of glyphs and that will probably never become extinct technology. Things like a cylindrical drum single channel magnetic hard drive didn't last very long, the multi-channel digital audio tape is a pretty fringe player, I don't know that multichannel floppy lateral disc magnetic media ever existed, multichannel fixed lateral disc magnetic media is only arguable as the number of heads on hard drives have increased and I've never seen single channel fixed or floppy linear photonic media.

I won't buy any more media after photonic compact discs and DVDs for entertainment. I've found a musical genre that I've enjoyed on a day to day basis for eight years. I'm happy with the way that it evolves and I never become attached enough to any one piece to really need to keep my own historical copy. I feel sorry for the people who insist on continuing to try and create their own personalized collection of music which gets older every day because the trend is that it will be playable for increasingly shorter periods of time before the hardware breaks and the media encoding format is made obsolete.

Re:Not very likely

[fermion]

Which is the key point and why the labels do not want music in non-DRM digital format. The problem is the youngsters do not realize the problem.

When the wax cylinder went awasy, people had to buy the same music in a new format. When the 8-track went away, we had to buy the same music in a new format. When the LP went away, we had a choice of listening to degraded music on tape or buying the same music in a new format.

With iTunes, this is the first time we can buy music, and, if the hardware does not become encumbered, with relitive ease transfer between many formats as we wish. Once we make a CD of it, we can put the music on player that accepts unencumbered music. We can make a DVD of it. If the furture meadia accept unecumbered music, we can do that as well.

The BS of this article, and I am trying to be objective here, is that apple has done something that is revolutionary. Legal music that is potentially transportable into the future. Even if you do not remove the DRM, As long as Apple makes iTunes for the general platform, or the technology is licensed, there will be no reason to buy other music because any machine can be authorized once an old machine is deauthorized. The labels want more money from the sales at iTunes because they know that is all they will ever get! Of course, Apple can be forced to changes the licensing, and the music might become obsolete, but as I have shown, that is nothing new.

Not only that

[cosmo7]

But when the sun explodes your music won't play whatever format it's in! And what does Apple do about this? Nothing!.

It's a class action suit waiting to happen.

Worst post ever

[xero314]

This post is just stupid. It's full of lies. How did this get onto the main page?

Re:Worst post ever

[dorkygeek]

Like all other lame articles did. Surprisingly though, Dvorak seems not to be involved this time.

Re:Worst post ever

[bobdotorg]

This post is just stupid. It's full of lies. How did this get onto the main page?

Stop your rant. Save your breath. You'll need to rest up for the dupe.

Durability

[suso]

I think part of people's willingness to upgrade is that they see the obsoleteness of the older format. Its a little bit harder to see that CDs are lower quality and less durable than DVDs or mp3s. mp3s would probably last longer because they would just move from hard drive to hard drive and never lose quality.

Pimp my blog

[MyLongNickName]

... and post something ranting about DRM.

Blogger admits he has never used service. Does not address the fact that you CAN covert to another format if you wish.

Is iTunes perfect? No. But I have purchased 20x more music than what I would have otherwise.

And even if iTunes shut down tomorrow, I would lose 0% of my music.

Only thing I wish is that it would serve up a higher bit rate....

Is this article baiting?

[fak3r]

Look, I have an iBook, but have bought very little from iTunes Store, however I think everyone understands Apple's decision to go with an audio format that would support a DRM; which they see as key to keep the people coming to them for tracks, and not to someone else who just bought them. It *is* annoying that you can only play the tracks on 'authorized' systems, and the other contrastrants, but people know this. By your arguement then people that bought games for Nintendo 64 were 'suckers' because they bought a game that was 'locked in' to a certain platform and wouldn't play on the Gamecube.

In this throwaway society of ours I really think that for most people the idea that something they buy might not always be around forever is OK. Hell, I guess we could start talking about other things too, cars, cameras, hot water heaters, etc...

Re:Is this article baiting?

[arminw]

.....however I think everyone understands Apple's decision to go with an audio format that would support a DRM....

It was the record companies that insisted on Apple providing DRM on the ITMS. It is the integration of ITMS, the iPod and iTunes that made Apple successful. If the RIAA would allow Apple to drop the DRM today, the number of iPods sold would not diminish, but likely increase since then other music services would be accessible to the millions of ipod owners. Apple makes most of its money on ipods, not the ITMS and certainly not iTunes, which it gives away for free. The number of songs sold by the ITMS would also not decrease significantly if DRM were done away with. Most people are honest and will pay for a valuable commodity. Sales may even increase because many DRM haters may then also buy music.

Re:Is this article baiting?

[wootest]

Your argument is fallacious.

Apple went through hoops to add DRM to the files - it was a requirement from the **AAs - whereas N64 vs Gamecube was just a fact of progressing technology. AAC (MPEG-4) being incompatible with MP3 (MPEG-2, Layer 3) because of technological advancements would be a more apt comparison to N64 vs GC here.

I was going to bring up how, with DRM, we'd need to repurchase the same damn songs on new media, but in fact that's just the way it's always have been, even without DRM. Media, regardless of it being books, music, movies, games, etc, is consumed and will always come out in new forms, just like any other case of consumption. (However, DRM and crummy quality is most likely the labels' way of making sure they can continue to resell you the same stuff tomorrow, despite how they could actually do something that we could conceivably play, no problem, on a computer in 100 years.)

At the end of the day, DRM sucks, and we all know this. However, I'm also confident that Apple's one of the vendors least tied to DRM, because Apple only offers 'buying', and not 'subscribing', which literally hinges on DRM - otherwise you could just keep the music, like with 'buying'! Apple's simultaneously the most and least likely to speak up against DRM: most because they use DRM, hate it and could say "all these sales we racked up for you? we could make them stop coming unless you offer DRM-less music"; but also least, because they know the labels would just make up a new store and Apple would lose profits itself (and it actually does make a slim profit on the store).

Doesn't work quite so well

[DreadSpoon]

Converting to any other format is going to cause a loss of quality. Even if you go to WAV or CD Audio, if you ever want to rip it back into some compressed format, you're going to lose quality.

Also, if you rip to WAV or CD, you lose all the meta-data for the track. So if you want to know the Artist, Title, and Album, you're going to have to re-enter that info on your own.

There's also no clean/easy way to export to MP3. Even if you jump through the hoops to do it, though, you're back to loss of quality.

I just went through the hell of exporting all my iTunes-purchased songs into Oggs so that I can play them on my Linux box, which has the nice sound system. That took quite a few burned CDs and I still haven't gotten the Oggs all retagged yet. Plus there's the quality issue, which while I've only noticed anything in a couple songs, that's still more quality issue than I would prefer.

Re:Doesn't work quite so well

[bob whoops]

Linux can play .m4a files.

Re:Doesn't work quite so well

[bcrowell]

I think what people lose sight of in the discussion of DRM is that even with DRM, you can still have some, but not all, of the following: cheap, easy, high quality. For example, no DRM scheme is going to stop me from pointing my camcorder at the screen of my TV and copying a movie, and if I'm doing it for my own use, I'm not even violating the law; however, it will be a pain, and the quality might only be good enough to keep my kid happy on a long plane ride. Likewise what you've done by converting your itunes stuff to ogg was cheap, and high enough quality to satisfy you, but it sure doesn't sound like it was easy.

The reason to be opposed to DRM isn't that it totally prevents you from doing things. It doesn't totally prevent it, it just gives you a worse selection of choices in terms of cost, ease, and quality. The real reason to be opposed to DRM is that it moves us further and further down the slippery slope to a world in which there is no commons, and it takes control of technology out of the hands of individuals and puts it in the hands of big corporations that buy a politician like I buy a quart of milk.

Re:Doesn't work quite so well

[afidel]

eh, the problem is on the mastering end. When producing 95+% of albums the engineer takes the nice clean studio sound he has recorded and mixed with and then applies a bunch of post production filters and compression techniques to the sound for the final cut to make it "pop" on "average" sound systems. I know I've been guilty of doing it when reviewing an album on normal stereos instead of the $10K monitors or my Sennheisers. For the vast majority of stuff out there today you aren't going to get any better sound out of DVD-A then out of CD's because the stuff has been post produced to hell to sound good on $20 radio shack speakers and car FM radios.

Re:Doesn't work quite so well

[afidel]

Nope, it's not just a high bitrate mp4 file, it uses a different compression technology completely. See the wiki entry. Note that there is a cleanroom open source implementation which means it should always be playable.

Re:Doesn't work quite so well

[Burning1]

"big corporations that buy a politician like I buy a quart of milk."

I like your anology. One thought: when I buy a quart of milk I usually make sure that it isn't already bad.

Re:Doesn't work quite so well

[Alioth]

Did you try jHymn? I'm deliberately staying on iTunes 5 so I can un-DRM the stuff I buy with jHymn. My Linux box plays AAC quite happily so I'm not going to the extra step of converting them to ogg. With jHymn you get to keep all the metadata too.

Hymn?

[WatertonMan]

Why not just run your purchased songs through Hymn to remove the protection?

Re:Hymn?

[anagama]

Good plan ... unless you "upgrade" to iTunes 6+, in which it won't work anymore. Stick w/ iTunes >6.n if you wanna do this.

It's a dollar. Or twenty. Or two hundred. So?

[ScentCone]

I always find it amusing to hear people use the word "sucker" when talking about a person paying $0.99 for a bit of portable entertainment they like from a musician they respect... as they drive in their car - which they'll never fully own, on which they'll pay thousnds in interest - to a friend's house, where they'll talk about how smart they are ("Ogg Vorbis, dude!") while they drink $2.00 imported beers that will only be in their collection for about an hour.

Lame.

[d3kk]

"Personally I've never bought an iTune and I don't own an iPod."

I stopped reading right there. It's kind of hard to criticize a service without actually ever using it.

Re:Lame.

[pintomp3]

you can critize the drm without buying into it.

Re:works half as well...

[johnrpenner]

> Converting to any other format is going to cause a loss of quality.
> Even if you go to WAV or CD Audio, if you ever want to rip it back
> into some compressed format, you're going to lose quality.

the quality you get from converting from aac > aiff will BE what you hear,
because the aac file has to decompress for you to hear it!! -- so it is not
less quality doing your aac backup to AIFF (and then you could convert
back to apple-lossless encoding if you want to save some space).

your second point, however, is correct -- you will lose quality
if you convert back from aiff TO some other lossless format,
due to dithering and artifacts.

in short:
i) lossy (aac) -> lossless (aiff) = no quality loss
ii) lossy (aac) -> lossless (aiff) -> lossy (mp3/ogg/whatever) = quality loss

How is apple's DRM "terrible?"

[LupusUF]

Maybe this will cause me to get nailed by mods, but I feel that it needs to be said.

The blog rant that is linked to complains that apple's DRM is "terrible." I simply don't understand the argument. The DRM is as lax as possible while still keeping the music industry from having a fit. Sure there are limits to how many times you can burn a playlist, but if you change the list by only one song you the counter resets. How many times have you burned more than a couple copies of the exact same playlist anyway? Perhaps the sound isn't exactly the same as a CD, but it is good enough that it really doesn't matter on most sound systems. What the blogger really misses is the fact that itunes gives you what you can't get at the CD shop. The ability to buy just one song off of a CD. If an artist makes one good song and the rest crap, you only pay .99 and get that one song.

Since you can burn your ACC files and then rip them to mp3 if you want, there is no danger of not being able to play your music in the future like the blogger claims. Yes you have to pay for the songs, yes there are some restrictions to prevent piracy, but itunes is still a great thing. It should be something that slashdot readers support, it gives us cheap music and DRM that has plenty of flexibility.

Re:How is apple's DRM "terrible?"

[NutscrapeSucks]

It's terrible because the iPod is only the tip of the iceburg. You now own one (1) device that plays digital music files. In five years, every last single piece of consumer electronics (phone, stereo, car stereo, television, game console, etc etc) will play digital music. Unless, of course, you bought that music in the "wrong" place -- in which case people find that they have been screwed out of something they paid for.

So one of either two things happens. Either Apple licenses their stuff to a lot of people at a very cheap Microsoft-style price, OR the proprietary DRM backlash is going to hit back hard.

The DRM is as lax as possible while still keeping the music industry from having a fit.

The DRM is exactly what the Music Industry specified. Please don't pretend otherwise, there's absolutely no evidence.

Re:How is apple's DRM "terrible?"

[NutscrapeSucks]

Burning a CD from iTunes and then ripping it back to MP3 is trivial.

(A) It's not trivial compared to dealing with music files. Let's see you do this with 100s of songs and see how long it takes.

(B) It sucks. Have you tried it? The quality is horrible. RIAA/DRM tracks (iTMS) are intentionally low enough bit rate to make this an unattractive option.

Re:How is apple's DRM "terrible?"

[NutscrapeSucks]

One more thing:

because the Music Industry wants that to be possible. Riiiight.

Everything about iTunes Music Store is completely 100% approved by the RIAA.

If you don't understand that, there's something that's seriously not working correctly in your brain. Sorry. It shows just the lack of very basic, fundemental conceptions of society's legal frameworks.

"awful DRM" ?

[YrWrstNtmr]

I think Apple's DRM is awful and represents a major step back for us all.

Got something better[1]? If so, don't just bitch...do it!

[1] Something that meets the needs of both the user/consumer and the creator/owner.

Re:Welcome...

[abbamouse]

I seem to recall that copyright law allows you to convert any digital media you purchase from one format to another

Then you haven't looked at copyright law since the mid-1990s. Prior to the DMCA, US law worked as you remember. But post-DMCA, the mere act of decrypting your own files or any other way to circumvent a content access control is illegal. You have the right to copy, but not to break the DRM to do it.

The analogy I give my students is that when a friend has your CD you have the right to get it back. You do not, however, have the right to break into his house to get it. The analogy is imperfect, since the DMCA bans you from breaking into your own house, so to speak. But you get the point: No bypassing copy protection ever, for any reason, without explicit consent from the content provider. Oh, and it also turns out that simply downloading the tools to break DRM ("trafficking" in the law's terms) is also a felony, even if you never actually crack the DRM.

It's a brave new world, folks.

Not Lame

[sdo1]

DRM is DRM. Apple's may be one of the more palatable ones to the masses, but it is still RESTRICTED. The fact that they are DRM'd is all some people (myself included) need to know. I've purchased $1.98 worth of music from iTunes. Then I realized that I can't stream them to my Roku Soundbridge in another room. I'm certainly not going to build a music collection only to have some company or computer service dictate what I can can can't do with it.

Screw that. Even if a new service pops up, if it has any level of DRM I know all I need to know about it. So no, it's not unreasonable to me that this person commented on Apple's service even if they haven't used it.

-S

Re:works half as well...

[Jerf]

Actually, some lossless encoders tend to *enhance* artifacts that wern't previously there. So sometimes, they do sound worse.

If the putatively "lossless" encoder produces output that decodes to anything other than what the original input decodes to, then by definition it was not lossless.

(If the way I phrased that sounds odd, I wrote it to handle the MP3 -> FLAC "direct" encoding case. "Encodes to anything other than its input" isn't quite right in that case. I'm sure you can FLAC an MP3 file with the right command line argument but you won't get much out of it.)

Thus, if a lossless encoder adds artefacts, it is, ipso facto, not lossless.

Given the relative ease of testing a lossless encoder/decoder combo and the testing any one you've ever heard of has gone through, I find it far more likely that either A: An encoder you think is lossless is in fact lossy, B: You've got a serious flaw in your encoding software (rice up our Gentoo install too much, maybe?) or C: You're full of shit.

In general, different.

[Cybert14]

Remember, it's AIFF -> AAC -> AIFF -> AAC. The first AIFF is the original, and the second AIFF has lost some of the information. Keep doing it and you probably end up with a concert A sine wave :) .

Re:In general, different.

[eMartin]

I think his point was that AAC tends to throw away certain types of information during the compression process, and once that information is removed the first time, further attempts at recompressing may not cause as much damage.

And while that's true to an extent, after removing information, certain artifacts will appear in the compressed version. Those artifacts are what will cause degradation in the next compression step.

For example, consider an lossy image format that compresses by clipping any colors below 10% brightness under the assumption that people don't really see them anyway. If that is all it does, then yes, any further attempts at recompressing would have no effect. But if that format also introduced JPEG-style artifacts during the process to fake information in the clipped areas, then every generation would be a little worse than the previous one (yet not as much as after the first compression).

No format is immune.

[mnemonic_]

AAC is as vulnerable to obsolesence as any other technology. CD's are still around, and with the relative ease of maintaining software compatibility (rather than hardware which requires material support) I'd guess that AAC will be around for a while longer. The article provided no convincing evidence that AAC is more likely to die out before any other technology. Red Book audio has been around for 20+ years, why not AAC? With CD sales dropping and iTunes constantly gaining new customers, who's to say that CD or plain mp3 support won't disappear first?

Re:works half as well...

[geodescent]

Try saving a JPEG at 85% quality. Then open the saved copy. Then save it again. Repeat about 10 times over and get back to me.

Re:How is apple's DRM not "terrible?"

[sdo1]

Every digital music device on the market today (with a smattering of minor exceptions) will play MP3. Burning a CD from iTunes and then ripping it back to MP3 is trivial. If you can't afford the media, get a CDRW. The whole rant is "you'll be locked into Apple's proprietary format!!!" and that's bullshit. Even if Apple *doesn't* provide a way to migrate forward, the aforementioned "work around" is very likely to be sufficient.

And burning a sucky 128 mbps file, ripping it, and recompressing it makes a SUCKIER sounding file.

So no, this isn't viable workaround to rid the file of the DRM.

The SOLUTION is to refuse to buy DRM'd files in the first place. If everyone would friggin' wise up and do just that, Digitally Restricted Media (DRM) would be history. But they've convinced the world that a little DRM is OK and your comments show that you've bought right into that too. It's just a little DRM now. And then a little more and a little more and a little more until 20 years from now, you'll look back on your comment and wonder how on earth transporting media that you purchased to another format or another player was so easy and FREE those 20 years ago.

But 20 years from now you won't be buying music with any expectations at all of being able to move it from one device to another without paying more. You'll be licensing it and maybe it will be inexpensive to play that album in your car, but it'll cost you a few more cents. Play it at work... a few more cents.

But that'll all feel fine and dandy because you never noticed the rights you once had creeping away. And Apple's oh-so-friendly DRM is step one.

-S

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize, if your wife changes the playlist by just one song, she can then burn the songs again.

Re:works half as well...

[StevieZ]

jeezus, man, whatever happened to just putting on a godam record.

Re:works half as well...

[X0563511]

A true lossless encoder would produce the same bits in output as it recieved in input. If your "lossless" format is introducing artifacts, better make sure it compiled properly.

That blog's comments made me cringe

[TubeSteak]

Literally, I cringed at how many commentors thought they were soooooo clever for burning to a CD then re-ripping to MP3.

I remember (when I had just discovered MP3s in 9th grade) re-encoding them to a higher bitrate. I thought I was clever, I mean, higher bitrate right?

Fark I was stupid & so is every n00btard who says "burn it and re-encode it."

I think part of the problem is that people now have something 'invested' in iTunes or their iPod and because of that, they'll defend it. Even if you give them proof they may have made a bad choice.

Remember folks, denial is the first step.
Then comes anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

I'm not saying iTunes is bad, but the people who have invested money/time/credibility into Apple will have a lot of trouble stepping back and looking at their decision objectively.

Re:That blog's comments made me cringe

[protohiro1]

Why have I made a bad choice? I am not trying to create some sort of enduring music collection. I just want songs, its super easy to find them on itunes, the price is right and i have an ipod. If I cared that much about having a collection of music I could listen to ten years from now I can still buy cds. I think people know what they are getting into with itunes, really. I think it is an instant gratification thing, not an objective "what is the best format for me" thing. The songs are lossy encoded already.

This guy is looking down on ME for buying iTunes?

[balloot]

I think it's stupid to pay $15 for most new CDs. I think it's stupid to pay for an entire CD when you want only one song. I think it's stupid to have to clear out a lot of physical space in order to hold your CD collection. I think it's stupid to force yourself to either a) go to a store to buy a CD or b) wait days in order to receive your purchase when the whole process can happen instantly. So I buy songs online. The DRM isn't really an issue to those of us that have actually used iTunes and know that it is very possible to get mp3's out of your m4p files.

Oh, and about the author's brilliant scheme of buying CDs and returning them the next day - if I wanted to get music while screwing the artist out of any money, I would just download the song for free.

Re:works half as well...

[klez23]

You read my mind. I was honestly just thinking exactly that. I've lately been enjoying listening to LPs largely for the simplicity of it. Not only is it a simple process, but I also (mostly) understand what's going on with the whole set of devices I'm using.

Also, many audio equipment manufacturers used to consider their craft an art, in that their goal was to provide a beautiful sound, rather than a necessarily "perfectly accurate" sound. Using equipment designed with that intention adds to my enjoyment of listening as well.

Re:Worst post ever - In other news

[Jack9]

In other news, investing in harddrive manufacturers is obviously a sucker's move. In 20 years nobody will be able to read them! Amazing insight. /sarcasm

Weakest link already been broken

[arevos]

And despite the fact that people routinely say "everything gets cracked," there is evidence to contradict that. DRM is going to get "Good Enough" that for all practical purposes it will not be crackable.

Whilst it's not wise to take anything for granted, it should be noted that the DRM that has not been cracked offers no new content over formats that have less protection (e.g. CDs, DVDs). With the weakest link in the chain broken, there's less incentive for people to try and crack the stronger links. Once (if?) the chain is whole again, I suspect we'll see an upsurge of people hunting for the next weak link.

Sweet lord, No!

[Marc2k]

When Vorbis first came out, a large portion of files available online were conversions from 160kbs or [usually] less MP3s, and thusly, everthing sounded like crap. Seriously, the last thing we need is the impending threat of obsoletion to goad everyone into converting their lossy-compression files into a different lossy-compression format with different properties, and brings out the worst in both formats. Don't do it!

Re:Worst post ever - In other news

[Tim Browse]

/sarcasm

You mispelt '/cluelesslymissingthepoint'.

HTH.