Paragraph 1 - sorry, your explanation still doesn't address my question, or I don't quite understand your explanation. Sorry to hear about the mental disorder though.
Paragraph 2 - so what you're saying is it's OK for records to be able to be played on some players, but not all - but that same tolerance is not extended to digital music files?
That's what I thought I was saying.
You got me on the rotary phone though - I meant that other one that you had to say "hello operator" into. Thanks for the clarification, it's been duly noted.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not at all saying that I love the fact that my music has DRM attached to it at all. What my point is - I know that it's the case when I purchase it, and I therefore use it accordingly - in this case, on my iPod. This has not really impacted my life in any way shape or form.
Whilst my example (of which there were more than one, by the way) may be more extreme to highlight my point, it still stands true. You are not paying for a song - you are paying for a file and the "license" to listen to it. Even when you listen to a song on the radio, someone has paid for the right for you to hear it, in that case, the radio station) that's how the artists, and the company that made it possible for the music to be produced, earn their money. The file you pay for is designed to be read by a specific machine - in this case, an iPod. So, my point remains valid. Using your logic, if I pay for a copy of The Sims on Mac, I then have a "right" to expect that I can play that game on PC, XBOX, PS2 or "Whatever equipment I have that will play it" - truth be told the Mac *is* the only equipment you have that will play it. So - please explain to me why downloading a file that is designed to only be played on an iPod is different? Is it just because digital music is exempt against the expectations we set for other types of digital media? A format is a format - in this case AAC is the format. A player is a player - in this case it is an iPod.
Now as for your Wal-mart example - you have it all the wrong way around. The iPod came out well before iTMS. The iPod can play music other than AAC, it can play MP3, for example - so therefore your Wal-Mart player in the car locking me in to Wal-Mart only CD's is not a valid point. You buy the player before you buy the music - if you buy music from the iTMS without owning an iPod, the player isn't the problem - it's the lack of grey matter in your head that's holding you back.
I still can't see why people have such a big problem with the situation. Buying an iPod does not lock you in to buying music from iTMS - buying music from iTMS locks you in to listening to it on an iPod. Again, if you don't like being locked in to listening to music on an iPod - then don't buy music from iTMS - isn't it just that simple? It sounds as though the fight against DRM could be mistaken for communist propaganda, don't you think???? "DRM FREE MUSIC FOR THE PEOPLE NOW!!!!";-)
If Apple discontinue the iPod, the product that re-invented them as a company and almost single handedly turned them around financially, I will eat my iPod and buy a Zune, destroy my existing music library and seek a life of purity as a shao-lin monk, and I'll post the photos of me doing it at www.ridiculousthingsyouknowwillneverhappen.com. Comparing the Newton to the iPod is probably the third silliest thing I have heard in my life - although I may be mistaken, I don't recall the Newton selling over 88,701,000 units - but please correct me if I'm wrong. As for the Apple II, eMac & Classic compatible Mac - why don't you add rotary dial telephone, T-Model Ford and wind up gramophone to that list of "timeless" inventions?
If my iPod dies, or the battery explodes, or it gets stolen, or I drop it, or it's abducted by aliens - I'll buy another one - we live in a disposable society, no skin off my nose. I've had 5 iPods since 2001 - and have been (lucky?) completely happy with each one.
I actually don't see the relevance between the line you've quoted from my original post and your farcical "iPod will disappear" line of questioning? If you don't have an iPod - don't buy music from iTMS - my point still stands.....
I think that this could go on for ever - I can see your point, but maybe we should agree to disagree.....
I bought a lot of music on Vinyl. The Vinyl then didn't fit into my walkman, so I taped some of my music and started buying tapes. Then CD's came out, and that meant I couldn't use my tapes anymore. I also had a Betamax VCR. I owned a few movies on Beta, but then VHS took over - so then I bought quite a few movies on VHS. Now I have almost 200 DVD's. I have owned an Intellivision, Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Amiga, Sega Saturn, N64, PC, Mac, PS, PS2, Xbox Xbox360 too - and with each innovation came the requirement of re-purchasing some stuff, or just playing in it in it's own required player. I think you can get my drift - I'm talking about three end uses - one is listening to music, one is watching movies and the other is playing games. Those 3 past-times required 18 different devices - not including an MP3 player or Blu-Ray or HD DVD or whatever now. End result - I didn't moan about it, I embraced the new technology, despite the fact that my Vinyl records were too big to fit in my DVD drive to burn the music. Times change, with new technology comes new opportunities.
The point is if you have an iPod and you purchase music from the iTunes Music store - play it on your iPod. If you buy music from somewehere else - much of it can be played on your iPod too. If you don't have an iPod or don't want to be restricted, then don't buy music from the iTunes Music store. But there's no reason to get shirty about the existence of, or workings of the iTunes music store - that's a really flawed argument. If you own a PC, you shouldn't buy Mac software it's pretty simple really. If you can't decide what device you want to use, I understand that it's a frustrating decision, and the pros and cons can be heavy to weigh up - but making a decision does not mean you are tattooed for life. You can change at any time. If carrying a big iPod and a phone is so problematic, with the discretionary income to spend $200 a month on music - surely you could afford an iPod shuffle to play the music you can only buy on the music store if it came to that? Why get crappy with Apple because they only sell music that can only be played on an Apple iPod - do you start blogs about the way that Gillette only sell blades that fit on their razors too?
I know that music can be pirated now, but just because someone can upload a burned CD to Limewire or whatever doesn't mean that Artists, Labels or Retailers should throw their hands up and say "Let's just make it a free for all - use our music however you want, we don't care" - that's pretty naive, I think.
So my thoughts are, DRM does not remove freedom from anyone - it ensures that the product sold is fit for the purpose it was intended for. It doesn't make it more difficult for paying customers. I have bought 848 items from the iTunes music store as of this post. In fact, I'd argue that it makes it too easy to buy! There has not been one moment that I have not been able to listen to what I want, when I want or where I want. I think in your case, it's the customer that is complicating the issue - not Apple. And to say that Pirates are not affected by DRM is just ridiculous. Sure, they are still free to get around the systems in place - but burgulars can still get around home security systems - doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's not hard - just means they have to really WANT to break the law.
Now I'm off to complain to to Toyota - I hear that they *force* you to use their engines when you buy a Prius from them.......
Hi there,
I don't really see where you're coming from mate - you say that you're "Locked Out" because you CHOOSE not to buy Music with DRM, so you're not "Locked In". If you make an active choice to not participate in something, you're not locked out - you just choose to stay outside. I'm not "locked out" of wearing womens underwear - I just choose not to. I certainly don't hold it against the makers of the wonderbra just because I don't want to buy them - good luck to them I say.
As for the lost "profit" you say they are missing out on, I think they'll live without your $200 a month to forgo the gushing artery of losses they'd encounter by making their music easier to pirate. I mean really - tell me you'd spend $200 a month if you could get the stuff for free - you're having yourself on a bit aren't you?
I can't see why people are so uptight about the whole DRM issue anyway - if I want to but an iPod and never make a purchase from the Music store - or not even buy a Mac, I can. If I'm happy to buy an iPod, a Mac - destroy all my old CD's and download every song on the store while wearing an "I love Jobsie" T-Shirt, I can do that too. No-one but music pirates and the anti-mac squad should have any problem with that scenario, should they?
Slashdot Mirror
Paragraph 1 - sorry, your explanation still doesn't address my question, or I don't quite understand your explanation. Sorry to hear about the mental disorder though. Paragraph 2 - so what you're saying is it's OK for records to be able to be played on some players, but not all - but that same tolerance is not extended to digital music files? That's what I thought I was saying. You got me on the rotary phone though - I meant that other one that you had to say "hello operator" into. Thanks for the clarification, it's been duly noted.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not at all saying that I love the fact that my music has DRM attached to it at all. What my point is - I know that it's the case when I purchase it, and I therefore use it accordingly - in this case, on my iPod. This has not really impacted my life in any way shape or form. Whilst my example (of which there were more than one, by the way) may be more extreme to highlight my point, it still stands true. You are not paying for a song - you are paying for a file and the "license" to listen to it. Even when you listen to a song on the radio, someone has paid for the right for you to hear it, in that case, the radio station) that's how the artists, and the company that made it possible for the music to be produced, earn their money. The file you pay for is designed to be read by a specific machine - in this case, an iPod. So, my point remains valid. Using your logic, if I pay for a copy of The Sims on Mac, I then have a "right" to expect that I can play that game on PC, XBOX, PS2 or "Whatever equipment I have that will play it" - truth be told the Mac *is* the only equipment you have that will play it. So - please explain to me why downloading a file that is designed to only be played on an iPod is different? Is it just because digital music is exempt against the expectations we set for other types of digital media? A format is a format - in this case AAC is the format. A player is a player - in this case it is an iPod. Now as for your Wal-mart example - you have it all the wrong way around. The iPod came out well before iTMS. The iPod can play music other than AAC, it can play MP3, for example - so therefore your Wal-Mart player in the car locking me in to Wal-Mart only CD's is not a valid point. You buy the player before you buy the music - if you buy music from the iTMS without owning an iPod, the player isn't the problem - it's the lack of grey matter in your head that's holding you back. I still can't see why people have such a big problem with the situation. Buying an iPod does not lock you in to buying music from iTMS - buying music from iTMS locks you in to listening to it on an iPod. Again, if you don't like being locked in to listening to music on an iPod - then don't buy music from iTMS - isn't it just that simple? It sounds as though the fight against DRM could be mistaken for communist propaganda, don't you think???? "DRM FREE MUSIC FOR THE PEOPLE NOW!!!!" ;-)
If Apple discontinue the iPod, the product that re-invented them as a company and almost single handedly turned them around financially, I will eat my iPod and buy a Zune, destroy my existing music library and seek a life of purity as a shao-lin monk, and I'll post the photos of me doing it at www.ridiculousthingsyouknowwillneverhappen.com. Comparing the Newton to the iPod is probably the third silliest thing I have heard in my life - although I may be mistaken, I don't recall the Newton selling over 88,701,000 units - but please correct me if I'm wrong. As for the Apple II, eMac & Classic compatible Mac - why don't you add rotary dial telephone, T-Model Ford and wind up gramophone to that list of "timeless" inventions? If my iPod dies, or the battery explodes, or it gets stolen, or I drop it, or it's abducted by aliens - I'll buy another one - we live in a disposable society, no skin off my nose. I've had 5 iPods since 2001 - and have been (lucky?) completely happy with each one. I actually don't see the relevance between the line you've quoted from my original post and your farcical "iPod will disappear" line of questioning? If you don't have an iPod - don't buy music from iTMS - my point still stands.....
I think that this could go on for ever - I can see your point, but maybe we should agree to disagree.....
I bought a lot of music on Vinyl. The Vinyl then didn't fit into my walkman, so I taped some of my music and started buying tapes. Then CD's came out, and that meant I couldn't use my tapes anymore. I also had a Betamax VCR. I owned a few movies on Beta, but then VHS took over - so then I bought quite a few movies on VHS. Now I have almost 200 DVD's. I have owned an Intellivision, Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Amiga, Sega Saturn, N64, PC, Mac, PS, PS2, Xbox Xbox360 too - and with each innovation came the requirement of re-purchasing some stuff, or just playing in it in it's own required player. I think you can get my drift - I'm talking about three end uses - one is listening to music, one is watching movies and the other is playing games. Those 3 past-times required 18 different devices - not including an MP3 player or Blu-Ray or HD DVD or whatever now. End result - I didn't moan about it, I embraced the new technology, despite the fact that my Vinyl records were too big to fit in my DVD drive to burn the music. Times change, with new technology comes new opportunities.
The point is if you have an iPod and you purchase music from the iTunes Music store - play it on your iPod. If you buy music from somewehere else - much of it can be played on your iPod too. If you don't have an iPod or don't want to be restricted, then don't buy music from the iTunes Music store. But there's no reason to get shirty about the existence of, or workings of the iTunes music store - that's a really flawed argument. If you own a PC, you shouldn't buy Mac software it's pretty simple really. If you can't decide what device you want to use, I understand that it's a frustrating decision, and the pros and cons can be heavy to weigh up - but making a decision does not mean you are tattooed for life. You can change at any time. If carrying a big iPod and a phone is so problematic, with the discretionary income to spend $200 a month on music - surely you could afford an iPod shuffle to play the music you can only buy on the music store if it came to that? Why get crappy with Apple because they only sell music that can only be played on an Apple iPod - do you start blogs about the way that Gillette only sell blades that fit on their razors too?
I know that music can be pirated now, but just because someone can upload a burned CD to Limewire or whatever doesn't mean that Artists, Labels or Retailers should throw their hands up and say "Let's just make it a free for all - use our music however you want, we don't care" - that's pretty naive, I think.
So my thoughts are, DRM does not remove freedom from anyone - it ensures that the product sold is fit for the purpose it was intended for. It doesn't make it more difficult for paying customers. I have bought 848 items from the iTunes music store as of this post. In fact, I'd argue that it makes it too easy to buy! There has not been one moment that I have not been able to listen to what I want, when I want or where I want. I think in your case, it's the customer that is complicating the issue - not Apple. And to say that Pirates are not affected by DRM is just ridiculous. Sure, they are still free to get around the systems in place - but burgulars can still get around home security systems - doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's not hard - just means they have to really WANT to break the law.
Now I'm off to complain to to Toyota - I hear that they *force* you to use their engines when you buy a Prius from them.......
Hi there, I don't really see where you're coming from mate - you say that you're "Locked Out" because you CHOOSE not to buy Music with DRM, so you're not "Locked In". If you make an active choice to not participate in something, you're not locked out - you just choose to stay outside. I'm not "locked out" of wearing womens underwear - I just choose not to. I certainly don't hold it against the makers of the wonderbra just because I don't want to buy them - good luck to them I say. As for the lost "profit" you say they are missing out on, I think they'll live without your $200 a month to forgo the gushing artery of losses they'd encounter by making their music easier to pirate. I mean really - tell me you'd spend $200 a month if you could get the stuff for free - you're having yourself on a bit aren't you? I can't see why people are so uptight about the whole DRM issue anyway - if I want to but an iPod and never make a purchase from the Music store - or not even buy a Mac, I can. If I'm happy to buy an iPod, a Mac - destroy all my old CD's and download every song on the store while wearing an "I love Jobsie" T-Shirt, I can do that too. No-one but music pirates and the anti-mac squad should have any problem with that scenario, should they?