Seriously? This is EXACTLY how I manage my music. You must not have something turned on, because when I drag a folder of mp3s to the iTunes window, it automatically adds it to the library and organizes it in my "iTunes Songs" directory based on the tags it can read (usually creates an artist folder if not already one in there, then an album folder, then all the mp3s). You need to hit the F1 button and read the help files.
You don't "manually use the file menu to add each folder" either. You "Add files to Library" one time (ctrl + O, i think) and it adds and organizes everything since the last time you "added" files to your library.
5 different computers that run iTunes. So any Linux boxes, XBMC, cell phones, etc, are out of the question.
iPhones are cell phones and have no limitation on the number of devices that are authorized.
Assuming you own an ipod. To those of us who prefer another device, that's worthless.
If you don't own an iPod, you aren't buying music on iTunes.
3. When de-authorize / re-authorize computers as needed.
Just another annoying needless hassle.
Nonsense. It's one button click and an Internet connection that takes less than five seconds to accomplish. This is something you'd be expected to need to do every couple of years at most--hardly "another annoying needless hassle".
You have a very strange definition of loose. Every one of those 4 points by itself would be a deal breaker for me. All together, it's amazing anyone stands for it, let alone defends it.
And the rest of us just look at you like you are a hyper-sensitive ideologue that likes to go on about hypothetical problems that will never effect most of us.
You should look around the file menus a bit more. (Hint: update library has a keyboard shortcut if you can't be bothered with file menus...not home at the moment, but it's something like CTRL+O). How disingenious is your post--needing third party software to add music to a piece of software that is quite possibly the easiest music managment software on the planet?
Well, maybe people get their "painties in a twist" over the degradation in quality that results from the extra round of encoding this method includes
Hasn't this argument been soundly defeated in previous threads? Wasn't there a double-blind test or something? If I remember correctly, some of the "lower" quality tracks were commonly selected as the "higher" quality ones. I know I sure as heck can't hear a difference between an iTunes AAC and a burned and re-ripped version of the same track.
a very average computer user, was quite disappointed to learn that he couldn't listen to his iTunes purchases on his generic MP3 player
Who's fault is that, really? How is this any different than buying incompatible ANTYTHING and trying to play it on something that is clearly, well, not compatible? I ALMOST fell for one of the monthly subscription rate music services a few years back because they made it very difficult to find the fact that their service didn't work on iPods. Had I signed up for it, that would have been my fault for not assuring it would work with my hardware.
A co-worker of mine can't sell his PS3 on the "blu-ray" angle because people tell him they won't buy a product they can't copy and are better off with DVD.
No way. I'd bet that something along the lines of 99% of the public has no idea how to make a copy of their DVDs, and of the 1% who do know how, probably 99% of them don't bother. Seriously, I'd rather watch paint dry than get into the "hobby" of ripping DVDs.
What old(er) accessories no longer work with current video capable iPods? I've been using the same docking station, power adapter, fm tuner, and mini-stereo out cables since the second generation iPod, and they all still work on the latest models.
Yeah, I tried that, but Amazon's selection is crap relative to the iTunes store. It has gotten better, but the second or third time I try to find something on Amazon and it isn't there, I'll just go back to iTunes and save myself the hassle. Right now I'm sort of in a perusal rut, like going to Blockbuster--I check the Blu-ray rentals first (usually not there) then go get the movie in the regular DVD section. I do the same with mp3s--go to Amazon first (sometimes not there) then go buy it in iTunes. The big difference is that the quality difference between Blu-ray and regular DVD is worth the extra-effort. Getting DRM-free mp3s on Amazon over the ease-of-use and integration of iTunes is not worth the extra effort because there is no real (or perceived) quality benefit (since I'm an iPod user...if I used another player, then yeah, Amazon all the way).
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple actually charges extra for the DRM, selling it as service and feature.
That's a typical biased and uninformed slashdot attack. Considering DRM-free tracks cost more than the ones with DRM, your argument is crap. So no, it wouldn't surprise you if they did charge more for DRM, because they, well, don't. Wishing something to be true, but not really being true is not the foundation of a good argument.
Actually, the average Joe will most likely NEVER be pestered by FairPlay--or at least not until the average Joe gets his 6th computer and wants iTunes on it. That, however, won't be for years and years (we are talking average Joe, right), and even then, they'll have to simply look online for help and realize they can deauthorize all the old computers they should have deauthorized when they got rid of them and start with a fresh new 5.
InDesign is lousy for anything beyond a few pages. Use InDesign for cover, flap, insert, back cover layout. Adobe Frame Maker is the answer if you want to go Adobe. It was purchased from another company, and thus, very un-adobe like, but it's what most people I know use for tech manuals. I'm a tech writer and we use Word at work. It's not as bad as you think.
That's not how it works. You pay $50, bring it home, copy it, and take it back to the store for a $50 refund. You then buy the next game and repeat ad naseum. I worked in retail security in the 80s. This is exactly how it happened.
So you think somebody who is playing a pirated copy of a game is going to show it to his friends, but insist they all go out and buy it instead of just giving them a copy?
2. Even the ones that could afford the software on their computer would never ever buy the vast majority of the programs they have.
Dude, how old are you? Do you have a job? If so, did you happen to notice that every computer in your office has legal copies of very expensive software (times something like 500 at a small-medium sized company)? I suppose it you make $12 an hour you might consider $1200 to be a lot of money (Adobe Suite, for example), but I sure as hell don't, considering how absolutely necessary that software is to my livelihood.
Pirates obviously do value the product even if it's not free, which they show by taking the time and effort to get it.
Actually, based on all the definitions offered up in this thread, the pirates are the ones illegally copying and redistributing the games, not those who download it and play it. So "getting" a pirated copy does not a pirate make.
Please do go on. I'd like to hear the rest of you argument, because I hear it a lot on slashdot, but it is never explained. How does NOT buying a copy of Half Life 2 cause more sales of Half Life 2?
Or look at iTunes. Don't tell me that the stuff there isn't available via bittorent elsewher. People still end up buying from iTunes, despite the "free altrnatives".
Because it is easier to push the "Buy Now" button than it is to rig your computer up with a bunch of dubious torrent software, find a torrent, download it in either 2 seconds or 2 days (depending on the torrent) only to end up with dubious quality.
I agree - most of the pirated software would not be bought; so saying we loss xx billions/year to piracy is simply wrong. All their seeing is there is a large demand at a free price point - demand that goes away as price rises.
That is the first cogent argument defending the pirating of software I've heard in the 30 years I've been paying attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? This is EXACTLY how I manage my music. You must not have something turned on, because when I drag a folder of mp3s to the iTunes window, it automatically adds it to the library and organizes it in my "iTunes Songs" directory based on the tags it can read (usually creates an artist folder if not already one in there, then an album folder, then all the mp3s). You need to hit the F1 button and read the help files.
You don't "manually use the file menu to add each folder" either. You "Add files to Library" one time (ctrl + O, i think) and it adds and organizes everything since the last time you "added" files to your library.
Indeed they have lowered the price...shows you how much I really pay attention to these blasted DRM schemes after all!
People that buy Apple products don't care about logic or reason in any case.
And the cries of millions of lawyers and professors where heard world-wide!
5 different computers that run iTunes. So any Linux boxes, XBMC, cell phones, etc, are out of the question.
iPhones are cell phones and have no limitation on the number of devices that are authorized.
Assuming you own an ipod. To those of us who prefer another device, that's worthless.
If you don't own an iPod, you aren't buying music on iTunes.
3. When de-authorize / re-authorize computers as needed. Just another annoying needless hassle.
Nonsense. It's one button click and an Internet connection that takes less than five seconds to accomplish. This is something you'd be expected to need to do every couple of years at most--hardly "another annoying needless hassle".
You have a very strange definition of loose. Every one of those 4 points by itself would be a deal breaker for me. All together, it's amazing anyone stands for it, let alone defends it.
And the rest of us just look at you like you are a hyper-sensitive ideologue that likes to go on about hypothetical problems that will never effect most of us.
You should look around the file menus a bit more. (Hint: update library has a keyboard shortcut if you can't be bothered with file menus...not home at the moment, but it's something like CTRL+O). How disingenious is your post--needing third party software to add music to a piece of software that is quite possibly the easiest music managment software on the planet?
Well, maybe people get their "painties in a twist" over the degradation in quality that results from the extra round of encoding this method includes
Hasn't this argument been soundly defeated in previous threads? Wasn't there a double-blind test or something? If I remember correctly, some of the "lower" quality tracks were commonly selected as the "higher" quality ones. I know I sure as heck can't hear a difference between an iTunes AAC and a burned and re-ripped version of the same track.
Everybody has varied tastes.
Is that nerd-speak for "most people have bad taste"? Britney Spears? #1? For several weeks now? Seriously? "Varied" indeed!
a very average computer user, was quite disappointed to learn that he couldn't listen to his iTunes purchases on his generic MP3 player
Who's fault is that, really? How is this any different than buying incompatible ANTYTHING and trying to play it on something that is clearly, well, not compatible? I ALMOST fell for one of the monthly subscription rate music services a few years back because they made it very difficult to find the fact that their service didn't work on iPods. Had I signed up for it, that would have been my fault for not assuring it would work with my hardware.
A co-worker of mine can't sell his PS3 on the "blu-ray" angle because people tell him they won't buy a product they can't copy and are better off with DVD.
No way. I'd bet that something along the lines of 99% of the public has no idea how to make a copy of their DVDs, and of the 1% who do know how, probably 99% of them don't bother. Seriously, I'd rather watch paint dry than get into the "hobby" of ripping DVDs.
What old(er) accessories no longer work with current video capable iPods? I've been using the same docking station, power adapter, fm tuner, and mini-stereo out cables since the second generation iPod, and they all still work on the latest models.
Yeah, I tried that, but Amazon's selection is crap relative to the iTunes store. It has gotten better, but the second or third time I try to find something on Amazon and it isn't there, I'll just go back to iTunes and save myself the hassle. Right now I'm sort of in a perusal rut, like going to Blockbuster--I check the Blu-ray rentals first (usually not there) then go get the movie in the regular DVD section. I do the same with mp3s--go to Amazon first (sometimes not there) then go buy it in iTunes. The big difference is that the quality difference between Blu-ray and regular DVD is worth the extra-effort. Getting DRM-free mp3s on Amazon over the ease-of-use and integration of iTunes is not worth the extra effort because there is no real (or perceived) quality benefit (since I'm an iPod user...if I used another player, then yeah, Amazon all the way).
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple actually charges extra for the DRM, selling it as service and feature.
That's a typical biased and uninformed slashdot attack. Considering DRM-free tracks cost more than the ones with DRM, your argument is crap. So no, it wouldn't surprise you if they did charge more for DRM, because they, well, don't. Wishing something to be true, but not really being true is not the foundation of a good argument.
Actually, the average Joe will most likely NEVER be pestered by FairPlay--or at least not until the average Joe gets his 6th computer and wants iTunes on it. That, however, won't be for years and years (we are talking average Joe, right), and even then, they'll have to simply look online for help and realize they can deauthorize all the old computers they should have deauthorized when they got rid of them and start with a fresh new 5.
InDesign is lousy for anything beyond a few pages. Use InDesign for cover, flap, insert, back cover layout. Adobe Frame Maker is the answer if you want to go Adobe. It was purchased from another company, and thus, very un-adobe like, but it's what most people I know use for tech manuals. I'm a tech writer and we use Word at work. It's not as bad as you think.
As an adult, I have income and thus no need to pirate software.
That's not how it works. You pay $50, bring it home, copy it, and take it back to the store for a $50 refund. You then buy the next game and repeat ad naseum. I worked in retail security in the 80s. This is exactly how it happened.
I'm not accusing him of anything...he said it himself--"I've been pirating games since 1987"
So you think somebody who is playing a pirated copy of a game is going to show it to his friends, but insist they all go out and buy it instead of just giving them a copy?
2. Even the ones that could afford the software on their computer would never ever buy the vast majority of the programs they have.
Dude, how old are you? Do you have a job? If so, did you happen to notice that every computer in your office has legal copies of very expensive software (times something like 500 at a small-medium sized company)? I suppose it you make $12 an hour you might consider $1200 to be a lot of money (Adobe Suite, for example), but I sure as hell don't, considering how absolutely necessary that software is to my livelihood.
Pirates obviously do value the product even if it's not free, which they show by taking the time and effort to get it.
Actually, based on all the definitions offered up in this thread, the pirates are the ones illegally copying and redistributing the games, not those who download it and play it. So "getting" a pirated copy does not a pirate make.
Ironically, the reason you can't return software is because people like you bring it home, copy it and then return it.
Please do go on. I'd like to hear the rest of you argument, because I hear it a lot on slashdot, but it is never explained. How does NOT buying a copy of Half Life 2 cause more sales of Half Life 2?
Or look at iTunes. Don't tell me that the stuff there isn't available via bittorent elsewher. People still end up buying from iTunes, despite the "free altrnatives".
Because it is easier to push the "Buy Now" button than it is to rig your computer up with a bunch of dubious torrent software, find a torrent, download it in either 2 seconds or 2 days (depending on the torrent) only to end up with dubious quality.
I agree - most of the pirated software would not be bought; so saying we loss xx billions/year to piracy is simply wrong. All their seeing is there is a large demand at a free price point - demand that goes away as price rises.
That is the first cogent argument defending the pirating of software I've heard in the 30 years I've been paying attention.
The cool will not run out as long as that Ives (?) guy is still doing the industrial design.