I don't believe Genesis is cited as the source of the geocentric theory of the universe. It's never quite written out in black and white to my knowledge, but it'd definitely alluded to several places in the Old Testament:
I'm curious, how often do you read a piece of poetry and assume that the author was making a scientific statement? In the absence of scientific absence, it is understandable that people might read more into a statement than they should, as has happened, but there is no requirement for poetry to be interpreted literally, so while it might be accurate to say that these statements were taken to mean geocentric thinking was correct, it is not accurate to say that they actually endorse such thinking or even have the subject in mind.
So, it's not very good evidence that the Earth was the center of everything, but it was good enough to get the Church to believe it. When Copernicus challenged this belief, he was challenging a VERY VERY old imbedded belief.
Have you ever talking about sunset or sunrise, or the ? I don't imagine that when you do, you're making a scientific statement. Similarly, poetic and narrative descriptions of the location or procession of the sun should not be taken as scientific descriptions. People back then had no great reason to think that heliocentrism was better than geocentrism, but the Bible doesn't come out and endorse any position, or even raise it as a subject.
It freezes a lot, and absolutely sucks at playing audio books that didn't come from audible.com or itunes.
Out of curiosity, what 'sucks' about playing audio books? If it's the iPod not remembering where you last played, you can enable that option in iTunes in the 'Options' tab of the track info box. That works with at least 3G iPods onwards, don't know about earlier ones.
Why hasn't the EU screwed apple already? The itunes-ipod abuse is like 10 times worse than IE-windows, yet nobody seems to be doing anything to stop this abusive non-sense.
That would be because Apple are merely restricting how you use their own product. They're not interfering with anyone else's competing product, dictating to retailers which products they stock or to suppliers which companies they can sell to i.e. they're not preventing competition in the market of 'digital music players and downloadable music' - an entirely different situation to the Windows/IE one. Plus their market share is lower.
Making the difference, a not inconsiderable $750 - the Mac is a third more expensive than a Dell that gives twice the 3dmark performance. (this is what we're discussing remember).
If you're so insistent on discussing that Dell with the Macbook, then the Apple blows it out of the water on a price comparison, since the Dell was 4480 USD (MSRP) and is now about 3349 USD. I guess you didn't bother to read the article and see that it's the special SLI configuration with a pair of Mobile 8800M GTXs. If you're doing a price comparison with the cheaper M1730s then you'll need to find benchmarks for them since they use a different graphics set up e.g. these CNet benchmarks. I have'nt seen link yet for performance of the 17" MacBook Pros; only the new 15.4" ones.
Of course if you're going to make this comparison, then you have to acknowledge that the weight of the Dell (10.6 lbs, twice that of the Mac, along with twice the thickness) renders it unsuitable for mobile use and if you're factoring in sale prices, you need to take a look at Apple's refurb store a well. Compared to the 2099 USD Dell, the Mac has twice the level 2 cache, twice the VRAM and a faster processor. The Dell wireless is also inferior, supporting only g, compared to a/g/n for the Mac and Bluetooth (along with Firewire 800) is missing. Add these in as far as possible, bump the graphics from the single 8700 w/256 MB to the dual SLI version, ignore the sale discount since we could get that in the Apple refurb section and you find that the Dell is 2749 USD - 100 USD cheaper than the Mac, which is a negligible difference (less than 4%). The Dell will have higher framerates in games, but be far less portable (and lacking in Firewire 800) and chew your batteries up twice as fast (based on how long they last playing a DVD). It should also be remembered that the current 17" is quite old and wasn't updated when the other MacBook Pros were.
So, what exactly do you want to discuss? * The very expensive custom Dell with the high benchmarks vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro? * The cheaper dual SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro? * The non-SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro? * A Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro, each with custom configuration to match each other's specs as closely as possible? * A Dell on sale vs. a 17" MacBook Pro from the refurb store (i.e. on sale)?
So far you've picked a cheap Dell, on sale, given the benchmark for the most expensive one and compared it to a full price MacBook with extra stuff added to match the Dell's configuration without getting the Dell to also match the MacBook's. Now, is it just me, or does that seem a little like tilting the playing field ridiculously in favour of one side? We'll forget about you giving the Mac price in Australian dollars and assume that wasn't trolling.
If you compare full price products, specced to match each other, the Dell is slightly cheaper, better for gaming, but worse for high speed I/O and more of a movable desktop than a laptop i.e. gamers are better off with the Dell, but everyone else is probably better off with the Mac.
Surely the ruling does address tying indirectly? If the market is defined as 'computers running any OS', then it is possible to buy a computer without OS X or another OS without buying an Apple Mac ergo Apple is not forcing anyone in the market to buy a component from them because you can buy either component (computer or OS) from someone else. The tying would only be applicable if the market was 'computers running OS X.'
The Wikipedia article on tying seems fairly clear on this in the 'Tying in United States Law' section where it notes that 'The Supreme Court has since held that a plaintiff must establish the sort of market power necessary for other antitrust violations in order to prove sufficient "economic power" necessary to establish a per se tie.' In defining the market, the judge has ruled that Apple do not have the market power necessary.
Really it is amazing how people will come out of the woodwork to support Apple in this. Sorry, I own multiple Apple products but I do not see how in the hell it is justified they can tell me or anyone else how to use their product once I buy it. This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA. How far would have that gone?
Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing. If other companies could produce configurations they could legally back as running OS X it would give some of us the machines we can't get from Apple.
Actually, the problem is that they're installing Mac OS X then reselling it. They're not going after consumers or anyone who's violating the EULa; they're going after a company. Companies don't have the right to do what they want with someone else' software, especially when that involves violating the license. What if Microsoft modified some GPL software then started selling it in violation of the license by not distributing the source? That's similar to what Psystar are doing.
Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create. They might as well be Linspire, in that regard.
Isn't that a bit daft? Are you against anyone profiting off OSS they didn't create? What's the problem with profiting off OSS as long as they keep o the licence?
I forgot to add, that you failed to back up your claim about WinAmp having 10 times the features at 1/4 of the install size. It might by 1.3 of the install size and suport some niche feautre, but any features iTunes has that Winamp doesn't, you simply write off as bloat. How many of these feature does Winamp have and which features (aside from the 2 you've mentioned does iTunes not have? Or do you admit that your claim was absurd? Remember, iTunes offers the genius playlist and iTunes store. It can also rip CDs to MP3, rip to AAC at faster than 8x, burn CDs at faster than 2x for free. Unlike Winamp, it plays ALE. Does Winamp play H.264 video files? I know that it can't play Quicktime files, unlike iTunes. Neither can it burn MP3 or data CDs, unlike iTunes.
You also failed to mention in what way the UI is clunky or unintuitive. A lot of the Winamp skins are cluttered, inconsistent, illegible abominations. what sin do you use and makes the Winamp UI superior by comparison?
but I honestly know very few people who would disagree with my position on iTunes being a downright awful, abomination of a piece of software.
As is often said, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Well clearly, based on the fact that I was modded down, People don't want to have an honest an open discussion on this subject... iTunes being a downright awful, abomination of a piece of software. It's really one of the most embarrassing software products that anyone, anywhere is still actively developing.
And nothing says 'honest and open debate' like hyperbole.
But of course, you want me to write a 10 page thesis on the subject or my claims are invalid? You want a point by point feature analysis and cpu/ram/disk space usage charts and graphs? Honestly? You think that's a necessary burden of proof? Becuase frankly, if you're the one defending iTunes I think you're the one making the "extraordinary claim" in need of extraordinary proof.
I suggest you take a logic class.
1) Comprehensive Codec Conversion. Every other mp3 player sync software out there
You're talking about video codecs, but then you mention 'mp3 sync software,' making it somewhat unclear as to what your comparing iTunes to. Are you talking about software that manages a media library and syncs it with a personal media player such as a Nomad, iPod or Zune?
Itunes can basically convert one resolution of quicktime to another -- slowly. It has limited support for a few other codecs, like mpeg -- but basically support for NONE of the major codecs or containers that media is actually distributed on in the internet.
iTunes' purpose isn't to convert video files from one type to another; its purpose is to play files from the iTS. It's a bonus that it does anything else. And the beauty of it playing any Quicktime file is that it's very easy to add codec support e.g. for Ogg Vorbis or http://www.free-codecs.com/download/3ivx.htm. I'm not sure if you're aware that Quicktime itself isn't a codec, but rather a container that supports a whole bunch of Codecs. iTunes isn't intended to take care of your video conversion needs.
When it comes to watching videos on your iphone/ipod -- you have two options: Buy it from itunes, or buy a third party piece of software to do the conversion for you. Ridiculous? I think so.
Ridiculous because it isn't true. There's plenty of video out there that is in Quicktime or MPEG-4 format, plenty of free conversion utilities and plenty of free codecs to add to Quicktime.
2) Codec Support. Hi, I'm FLAC, why won't you play nice with me?
iTunes already has a perfectly good lossless format in the form of Apple Lossless. And taking a niche format that mass market consumers haven't heard of, let alone ever used as an example of lack of codec support is laughable. If you're on a Mac, it's possible to get iTunes to play FLAC anyway, though I don't know of any method to do so on Windows.
Instead of the very basic features that every other competing piece of software supports and people DEPEND on, iTunes gives you crap you'll never use like Genius playlists and some funky visualizer. Thanks Apple, that's great bloat.
You contend that more people will find FLAC support useful than the Genius playlist or the visualiser? You're living in a bubble. FLAC support is not a basic feature, but a niche one, which few if any people 'DEPEND' on and iTunes has perfectly adequate alternative in the form of ALE. As for video codecs, it supports plenty and isn't intended to be your main video-
I don't have a number, but Amazon seems to be selling a lot of Apple's own fileservers.
But are these resulting in more fileservers or are they being bought in place of other ones that would otherwise have been bought? And what are they being used for?
It's unacceptable to drag music to a folder. Music comes into my collection from all sorts of sources:
Then how do you keep the music together if you never drag it?
iTMS, Amazon MP3 store, and ripping CDs. iTunes has good support for the first source but is pretty awful about the other two.
IIRC there's an app to download tracks from Amazon straight to the iTunes library and iTunes is great at ripping CDs. What's awful about it?
There's a good chance music won't even originate on my home network. Sometimes I'll rip a CD at work or buy something from Amazon, then scp it to my home server.
In that case, it's effectively no longer an Amazon download or a CD rip, but rather an audio file being transferred over a network.
Typical "workflow" in these cases is going around to each Mac and dragging the//fileserver/music folder into the iTunes window and waiting for ages while it re-examines every single song. Why should that be necessary?
Apple's intention is for you to have a Mac serving the music from iTunes. I would be tempted to do this at home except shared libraries are a disaster where you use the Sort Artist and Sort Album Artist fields because it doesn't read those fields until you play a track, so the ordering of the library keeps changing. Brain-dead decision. That and the inability to log in to a shared library as the owner to create playlists, or create local playlists from shared libraries.
The instant you move from a local machine to a network situation, I understand how someone could get frustrated with iTunes. It's where Apple has utterly failed in the last couple of years and actually caused a regression in usability thanks to the Sort fields debacle.
Ok, that's a reasonable question and one which I do not know the answer to. Though if you're running a multiplatform network, you're probably the kind of person that could do something combining a shell-script and folder actions. The Apple solution works well within a homogenous Apple environment, but breaks down outside of it. And I guess folder actions isn't a solution for Windows iTunes either.
And that works on (increasingly common) shared folders, and it knows that more files have been added since the last time it connected? Give me a break.
Safari has zero native controls also, except the menu bar.
Scroll bars, check boxes, tabs, text fields, the drop down with the magnifying glass in the search bar, etc. Compare the preference dialogues for instance and its blindingly obvious that Safari is a native app while Songbird has been ported. Wherever native UI widgets exist, Safari uses them, Songbird rarely (if ever) does.
That iTunes requires extra effort (drag and drop or manual import) to use tunes obtained from these services isn't all that surprising, but it is an example of Apple using its market domination in the MP3-player market to reinforce its music store business, That, in turn, by locking purchases with a DRM scheme that's incompatible with other manufacturers' personal audio players reinforces Apple's MP3-player hardware-market dominance -- it's a classic example of a monopolist or near-monopolist using their market position to give an advantage to their own products and services.
No, it's not and by claiming so you trivialise genuine monopoly abuses. They don't go out of their way to make it easy for over music vendors to get their music into iTunes, but they don't put up barriers either. Claiming that having to drag and drop music into iTunes - which has been its behaviour from before they even had a store! - is abusive behaviour is just absurd.
Why? It's mediocre as a music player. A list with a little display and some controls at the top? Color me impressed! Every music player has this. That's what makes it a music player at all.
And what makes for a more than mediocre player then?
The only advantages it has are its tight integrations with iPods and iTunes Store, which is hardly impressive when you consider that's why Apple bothers with it at all.
What advantage does other software have apart from folder monitoring? If that's your sole criteria for a player rising above mediocrity, then your view is somewhat skewed. And ignorant, seeing as that's a function for a manager, not simply a player.
You're kidding, right? Most of us have some sort of music or mp3 directories
You're kidding, right? Have you done a survey? Who is this 'us' you're talking about? Why would you want such a primitive means of organising tracks?
To claim I should have just dropped it into iTunes itself is disengenuous fanboi rationalization. I don't want my music strewn all over my system, I want it in one place of my choosing.
To suggest iTunes leaves files strewn about all over the system is disengenuous fanboi rationalization. It gives you the choice between keeping it in a central location (of your choosing) or leaving it where it is. If you let iTunes do the organising, you can optionally have it put it a hierarchical folder structure of Artist:Album:Track.
I often wonder about fancy metadata solutions to the problem of organizing lots of files. If people can't organize the files themselves (e.g./Artist/Album/Tracknumber.Songname) I don't see why they would organize the equivalent metadata.
The organising gets done for them. Between CDDB and the way purchased downloads are already tagged, there's very little manual organising to be done.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious, how often do you read a piece of poetry and assume that the author was making a scientific statement? In the absence of scientific absence, it is understandable that people might read more into a statement than they should, as has happened, but there is no requirement for poetry to be interpreted literally, so while it might be accurate to say that these statements were taken to mean geocentric thinking was correct, it is not accurate to say that they actually endorse such thinking or even have the subject in mind.
Have you ever talking about sunset or sunrise, or the ? I don't imagine that when you do, you're making a scientific statement. Similarly, poetic and narrative descriptions of the location or procession of the sun should not be taken as scientific descriptions. People back then had no great reason to think that heliocentrism was better than geocentrism, but the Bible doesn't come out and endorse any position, or even raise it as a subject.
Out of curiosity, what 'sucks' about playing audio books? If it's the iPod not remembering where you last played, you can enable that option in iTunes in the 'Options' tab of the track info box. That works with at least 3G iPods onwards, don't know about earlier ones.
That would be because Apple are merely restricting how you use their own product. They're not interfering with anyone else's competing product, dictating to retailers which products they stock or to suppliers which companies they can sell to i.e. they're not preventing competition in the market of 'digital music players and downloadable music' - an entirely different situation to the Windows/IE one. Plus their market share is lower.
I can't believe you needed to quote that much of my post to making a trolling comment. But you live and you learn I guess.
If you're so insistent on discussing that Dell with the Macbook, then the Apple blows it out of the water on a price comparison, since the Dell was 4480 USD (MSRP) and is now about 3349 USD. I guess you didn't bother to read the article and see that it's the special SLI configuration with a pair of Mobile 8800M GTXs. If you're doing a price comparison with the cheaper M1730s then you'll need to find benchmarks for them since they use a different graphics set up e.g. these CNet benchmarks. I have'nt seen link yet for performance of the 17" MacBook Pros; only the new 15.4" ones.
Of course if you're going to make this comparison, then you have to acknowledge that the weight of the Dell (10.6 lbs, twice that of the Mac, along with twice the thickness) renders it unsuitable for mobile use and if you're factoring in sale prices, you need to take a look at Apple's refurb store a well. Compared to the 2099 USD Dell, the Mac has twice the level 2 cache, twice the VRAM and a faster processor. The Dell wireless is also inferior, supporting only g, compared to a/g/n for the Mac and Bluetooth (along with Firewire 800) is missing. Add these in as far as possible, bump the graphics from the single 8700 w/256 MB to the dual SLI version, ignore the sale discount since we could get that in the Apple refurb section and you find that the Dell is 2749 USD - 100 USD cheaper than the Mac, which is a negligible difference (less than 4%). The Dell will have higher framerates in games, but be far less portable (and lacking in Firewire 800) and chew your batteries up twice as fast (based on how long they last playing a DVD). It should also be remembered that the current 17" is quite old and wasn't updated when the other MacBook Pros were.
So, what exactly do you want to discuss?
* The very expensive custom Dell with the high benchmarks vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* The cheaper dual SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* The non-SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* A Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro, each with custom configuration to match each other's specs as closely as possible?
* A Dell on sale vs. a 17" MacBook Pro from the refurb store (i.e. on sale)?
So far you've picked a cheap Dell, on sale, given the benchmark for the most expensive one and compared it to a full price MacBook with extra stuff added to match the Dell's configuration without getting the Dell to also match the MacBook's. Now, is it just me, or does that seem a little like tilting the playing field ridiculously in favour of one side? We'll forget about you giving the Mac price in Australian dollars and assume that wasn't trolling.
If you compare full price products, specced to match each other, the Dell is slightly cheaper, better for gaming, but worse for high speed I/O and more of a movable desktop than a laptop i.e. gamers are better off with the Dell, but everyone else is probably better off with the Mac.
It isn't. There are physical products you can buy that have licensing terms attached restricted resale e.g. multipack crisps or rental DVDs.
Surely the ruling does address tying indirectly? If the market is defined as 'computers running any OS', then it is possible to buy a computer without OS X or another OS without buying an Apple Mac ergo Apple is not forcing anyone in the market to buy a component from them because you can buy either component (computer or OS) from someone else. The tying would only be applicable if the market was 'computers running OS X.'
The Wikipedia article on tying seems fairly clear on this in the 'Tying in United States Law' section where it notes that 'The Supreme Court has since held that a plaintiff must establish the sort of market power necessary for other antitrust violations in order to prove sufficient "economic power" necessary to establish a per se tie.' In defining the market, the judge has ruled that Apple do not have the market power necessary.
Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing. If other companies could produce configurations they could legally back as running OS X it would give some of us the machines we can't get from Apple.
Actually, the problem is that they're installing Mac OS X then reselling it. They're not going after consumers or anyone who's violating the EULa; they're going after a company. Companies don't have the right to do what they want with someone else' software, especially when that involves violating the license. What if Microsoft modified some GPL software then started selling it in violation of the license by not distributing the source? That's similar to what Psystar are doing.
Isn't that a bit daft? Are you against anyone profiting off OSS they didn't create? What's the problem with profiting off OSS as long as they keep o the licence?
I forgot to add, that you failed to back up your claim about WinAmp having 10 times the features at 1/4 of the install size. It might by 1.3 of the install size and suport some niche feautre, but any features iTunes has that Winamp doesn't, you simply write off as bloat. How many of these feature does Winamp have and which features (aside from the 2 you've mentioned does iTunes not have? Or do you admit that your claim was absurd? Remember, iTunes offers the genius playlist and iTunes store. It can also rip CDs to MP3, rip to AAC at faster than 8x, burn CDs at faster than 2x for free. Unlike Winamp, it plays ALE. Does Winamp play H.264 video files? I know that it can't play Quicktime files, unlike iTunes. Neither can it burn MP3 or data CDs, unlike iTunes.
You also failed to mention in what way the UI is clunky or unintuitive. A lot of the Winamp skins are cluttered, inconsistent, illegible abominations. what sin do you use and makes the Winamp UI superior by comparison?
As is often said, the plural of anecdote is not data.
And nothing says 'honest and open debate' like hyperbole.
I suggest you take a logic class.
You're talking about video codecs, but then you mention 'mp3 sync software,' making it somewhat unclear as to what your comparing iTunes to. Are you talking about software that manages a media library and syncs it with a personal media player such as a Nomad, iPod or Zune?
iTunes' purpose isn't to convert video files from one type to another; its purpose is to play files from the iTS. It's a bonus that it does anything else. And the beauty of it playing any Quicktime file is that it's very easy to add codec support e.g. for Ogg Vorbis or http://www.free-codecs.com/download/3ivx.htm. I'm not sure if you're aware that Quicktime itself isn't a codec, but rather a container that supports a whole bunch of Codecs. iTunes isn't intended to take care of your video conversion needs.
Ridiculous because it isn't true. There's plenty of video out there that is in Quicktime or MPEG-4 format, plenty of free conversion utilities and plenty of free codecs to add to Quicktime.
iTunes already has a perfectly good lossless format in the form of Apple Lossless. And taking a niche format that mass market consumers haven't heard of, let alone ever used as an example of lack of codec support is laughable. If you're on a Mac, it's possible to get iTunes to play FLAC anyway, though I don't know of any method to do so on Windows.
You contend that more people will find FLAC support useful than the Genius playlist or the visualiser? You're living in a bubble. FLAC support is not a basic feature, but a niche one, which few if any people 'DEPEND' on and iTunes has perfectly adequate alternative in the form of ALE. As for video codecs, it supports plenty and isn't intended to be your main video-
But are these resulting in more fileservers or are they being bought in place of other ones that would otherwise have been bought? And what are they being used for?
Then how do you keep the music together if you never drag it?
IIRC there's an app to download tracks from Amazon straight to the iTunes library and iTunes is great at ripping CDs. What's awful about it?
In that case, it's effectively no longer an Amazon download or a CD rip, but rather an audio file being transferred over a network.
Apple's intention is for you to have a Mac serving the music from iTunes. I would be tempted to do this at home except shared libraries are a disaster where you use the Sort Artist and Sort Album Artist fields because it doesn't read those fields until you play a track, so the ordering of the library keeps changing. Brain-dead decision. That and the inability to log in to a shared library as the owner to create playlists, or create local playlists from shared libraries.
The instant you move from a local machine to a network situation, I understand how someone could get frustrated with iTunes. It's where Apple has utterly failed in the last couple of years and actually caused a regression in usability thanks to the Sort fields debacle.
That is annoying. I guess it could be to prevent conflicts from multiple processes editing the library database at the same time. Or lazy programming.
Ok, that's a reasonable question and one which I do not know the answer to. Though if you're running a multiplatform network, you're probably the kind of person that could do something combining a shell-script and folder actions. The Apple solution works well within a homogenous Apple environment, but breaks down outside of it. And I guess folder actions isn't a solution for Windows iTunes either.
Really? What are the statistics? Are we talking in absolute or proportional terms?
Why is it desirable to be able to drag music to a folder, but totally unacceptable to drag it to the iTunes library window?
Really? What are the statistics? Are we talking in absolute or proportional terms?
Why is it desirable to be able to drag music to a folder, but totally unacceptable to drag it to the iTunes library window?/p>
Oh ye of little faith. Here's an example courtesy of Google.
Scroll bars, check boxes, tabs, text fields, the drop down with the magnifying glass in the search bar, etc. Compare the preference dialogues for instance and its blindingly obvious that Safari is a native app while Songbird has been ported. Wherever native UI widgets exist, Safari uses them, Songbird rarely (if ever) does.
No, it's not and by claiming so you trivialise genuine monopoly abuses. They don't go out of their way to make it easy for over music vendors to get their music into iTunes, but they don't put up barriers either. Claiming that having to drag and drop music into iTunes - which has been its behaviour from before they even had a store! - is abusive behaviour is just absurd.
And Apple are nowhere near to being a monopolist.
That's quite a claim. Would you care to list the features, disk space usage and RAM usage to back that up?
What's clunky and non-intuitive about it?
And what makes for a more than mediocre player then?
What advantage does other software have apart from folder monitoring? If that's your sole criteria for a player rising above mediocrity, then your view is somewhat skewed. And ignorant, seeing as that's a function for a manager, not simply a player.
You're kidding, right? Have you done a survey? Who is this 'us' you're talking about? Why would you want such a primitive means of organising tracks?
To suggest iTunes leaves files strewn about all over the system is disengenuous fanboi rationalization. It gives you the choice between keeping it in a central location (of your choosing) or leaving it where it is. If you let iTunes do the organising, you can optionally have it put it a hierarchical folder structure of Artist:Album:Track.
The organising gets done for them. Between CDDB and the way purchased downloads are already tagged, there's very little manual organising to be done.
This would be the behaviour of which there is evidence? Sounds like plenty of questions to me.
Why? What exactly are they doing that is remotely close to being against the law?
Why?
Going by the Apple Store, there's a fairly consistent 3:2 USD:GBP conversion rate, so 1000 GBP should get the equivalent of a 1500 USD computer.