especially if it helps the university avoid hassles from the RIAA?
Exactly. Even if this doesn't stop piracy at all, it gives the perception that PSU is giving in to legal music services, and encouraging people to move away from the illegal ones.
And if there's one truth in all the media world it's this: groups like the RIAA work on perception, not reality.
If this is PSU's way of tossing a can of shark-repellant at the RIAA's lawyers, I don't blame them one bit.
Ask a professional recording engineer, or any audiophile with gear that costs more than $500 which is better, and they'll all tell you the same thing.
A CD is closer to the original than the AAC file, period. End of story. It might sound OK to you, but it is not technically or mathematically better.
I can't believe that people buy this line of crap. Most of the "originals" that Apple is encoding from are 44khz, 16 bit. Newer sources are going to be 96/24, but not everything.
You said it yourself "ends up being pretty close"... Pretty close meaning NOT AS GOOD. I'm glad it sounds OK to you, but don't try to tell people that it's as good as a CD when all evidence points to the opposite.
Paying to renew it is much different than transfering ownership, or changing the name servers for it. It would have been a lot harder for the person to re-register it for themselves.
Plus they would have been torn apart later in court. remember, you can only legally steal domain names if you're a bunch of Tree huggin' hippies
The iTunes music store does that, which is a very small part of iTunes.
When you choose to download a song from the iTMS, you understand what rights you have to it. It is not yours to copy. There is no sense of Apple "taking control" of the files, since you bought it with the knowledge of how you can use it. The software is user hostile because that's te balance between the content owners and the vendors (Apple) that had to be reached.
Does your DVD player "take control" of your TV when you play a DVD? I don't see how this is any different. DVD players have restrictions about what you can do with the content. But based on your attitude toward even the most simple restrictions, I suspect you don't buy DVDs. That would be supporting "them" and the "control" they have over our rights.
But, back to my original point, iTunes != the iTMS, which I think is a BIG distinction you failed to make. iTunes has no control over anything except for content from Apple's store.
Your arguement is interesting, and I agree for the most part, but completely unrelated to iTunes in any way.Your comment that iTunes is somehow the same thing as Palladium is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I fail to see any "control" that Apple has over my machine, in any way, with iTunes. Care to address that point?
iTunes does not use DRM for anything except for the iTunes music store. Don't buy a song from Apple and you'll never see anything related to DRM whatsoever. There is no DRM in encoding files to either codec (AAC or MP3) and there's no DRM anywhere else. But I guess it's much more exciting to scream and bitch about DRM taking away your rights.
Shhhh. drink the kool-aid and don't question it. Apple > anything else out there.
And how dare you want to see the artist name first! Those are all really valid points, no one ever seems to think that users might not like all the same software, even if 90% of people think it's "better". That's really interesting about the song name, I never noticed that you couldn't move that first column in iTunes. Now it's going to bug me.
Drooling Apple Apologist Fanboy Twits vs. Conspiracy Theorists
I think the conspiracy theorists are problably right though, Apple had to know known this was going to happen, and had no qualms about disabling MM. Apple is playing God of The iPod for the PC, what they can giveth, they can taketh away. MS and Real aren't the only people that are good at playing this game on the PC.
Well, yes, that would be excellent, but the current set of online music services don't do anything to help bands bypass the RIAA. In fact, they do the exact opposite. The iTMS, Napster2, BuyMusic, Etc. are another channel for existing recording interests.
I fundamentally disagree that lower costs in music will lead to dramatically lower sales. People will simply be able to buy more music.
If you take the junk-pop-music buying teenagers, do you think they'll spend $1, when they're used to spending $15? No, they might buy $10 worth, and get two disposable pop songs from 5 different artists.
And if you look at the people that buy whole albums of bands they like (which is still the vast majority of music buyers.) They're going to continue to pay $10/album online, and buy more albums because they can afford it. I will buy the entire Talking Heads catalog for $50 instead of going to the store and paying $95. I would not have spent that $95 in the store because it would have been a pain to find all the discs, and the cost was too high, but if I can *clickclickclickclick* buy them all online, I will. (And did.)
I think that the average person's music purchases could go from $15 to $10, that's reasonable. But that 33% difference will be made up by the fact that distribution costs for the labels are approaching 0, which it comes to the physical item. I'm sure the music is at least 33% more efficient to distribute online.
From personal experience, it is easier to spend $ on music online, frighteningly so! I don't think that the lower cost of the music will lead to lower sales per user, if anything, it will be higher.
I don't see how the RIAA's "business model" has been cracked. They get the same % of the retail of music, regardless of where it's divided between. You're essentially arguing that overall music spending will plummet because people can buy singles instead of albums, which I don't see happening.
If the music industry as a whole drops from $10M to $5M, sure, they will make half as much as they did before, but they're still taking the same cut. As people are freed to spend more $ on the particular songs they want, they will still probably spend the same dollar ammount on music (or close to it). They can just buy 10 different artists' singles, instead of 2 albums. But at the end of the day, Joe Blow spending $15 still gives his chunk to the RIAA, regardless of what that $15 is buying.
I totally agree. I just think the whole "of course it's more popular! look how easy the Internet is!" is short sighted. Down the road it will surely catch up with CDs, for a lot of markets, but right now, it's not. Not even close.
No, they haven't surpassed them. This is CD singles.
And as far as availability, I think that CDs are much more accessible for the average person than online downloads. Remember geeks != the populace. I know more people ( by a few orders of magnitude) that are able to buy a CD at target than are able to buy one online.
Haha, What are you rubbing in the RIAA's face? They get paid regardless of where the music is bought! Apple (by way of the labels they they help sell) cuts them a fat check every month, trust me. The idea that buying it online is somehow "sticking it to the RIAA" is ludicrous.
Thank you for pointing this out. I'm tired of this story being posted without the "CD Singles" verbage. Downloads aren't even CLOSE to touching album sales people. Last time I did the math, if Apple meets their 100M song goal for the year, that will be something like 1% of all record sales in the US. Quite a lot, but no where near "more than physical CDs"
I don't think it's wrong to pre-emptively say "you know, when subjects like this come up, Mac users typically say *this* or *that*" I'm just making an observation about the typical conversations that I expect to see.
Or to put it another way... I was simply making a broad generalization and gross stereotype about Mac users... nothing wrong with that, right?:)
If MS did this, the/. crowd would scream bloody murder (hell, they have... and y'all have.) But you know Apple apologists are going to have some reason why this is OK for them to do, and try to make it out like Apple is still the good guy, no matter what.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, they're all I use, but Apple fanboys make me ill.
what rock do I live under? I don't think that getting bloom country comics emails (as cool as that is) compares to having a *complete* tome of everything he did, plus goodies and other stuff. I have all the books by themselves, of course, but I'd love to see a whole collection with lots of extra junk.
That is very cool though, I might have to pay for it.
This would be a really really awesome Xmas gift, I need to make sure my SO knows about it. This is the equivalent of a boxed set of every Woody Allen, Monty Python, and Kids in the Hall. The Far Side is truly the best single-pane comic ever made, Larson is a genius of understatement and subtlety.
All we need now is a complete Bloom County with extra goodies.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not that people want DRM. The point is that people want to buy music online, and DRM lets them do this.
Like it or not, that's the current state of online music sales. If you want to buy it, you buy it with DRM. Therefor, people need/want DRM technology.
The fact that this is mod'd +1 Funny is really sort of telling.
Screaming "Ogg! Ogg!" is almost seen as a joke now. I know I'm laughing at you.
especially if it helps the university avoid hassles from the RIAA?
Exactly. Even if this doesn't stop piracy at all, it gives the perception that PSU is giving in to legal music services, and encouraging people to move away from the illegal ones.
And if there's one truth in all the media world it's this: groups like the RIAA work on perception, not reality.
If this is PSU's way of tossing a can of shark-repellant at the RIAA's lawyers, I don't blame them one bit.
This is absolute rubbish.
Ask a professional recording engineer, or any audiophile with gear that costs more than $500 which is better, and they'll all tell you the same thing.
A CD is closer to the original than the AAC file, period. End of story. It might sound OK to you, but it is not technically or mathematically better.
I can't believe that people buy this line of crap. Most of the "originals" that Apple is encoding from are 44khz, 16 bit. Newer sources are going to be 96/24, but not everything.
You said it yourself "ends up being pretty close"... Pretty close meaning NOT AS GOOD. I'm glad it sounds OK to you, but don't try to tell people that it's as good as a CD when all evidence points to the opposite.
Paying to renew it is much different than transfering ownership, or changing the name servers for it. It would have been a lot harder for the person to re-register it for themselves.
Plus they would have been torn apart later in court. remember, you can only legally steal domain names if you're a bunch of Tree huggin' hippies
Woa dude calm down, I think he was talking about the Rx/Tx here on Earth, not the ones on V'ger.
if it does find anything, how long before it's out of earshot for us? Are we able to hear from it up until that last bit of fuel is spent?
The iTunes music store does that, which is a very small part of iTunes.
When you choose to download a song from the iTMS, you understand what rights you have to it. It is not yours to copy. There is no sense of Apple "taking control" of the files, since you bought it with the knowledge of how you can use it. The software is user hostile because that's te balance between the content owners and the vendors (Apple) that had to be reached.
Does your DVD player "take control" of your TV when you play a DVD? I don't see how this is any different. DVD players have restrictions about what you can do with the content. But based on your attitude toward even the most simple restrictions, I suspect you don't buy DVDs. That would be supporting "them" and the "control" they have over our rights.
But, back to my original point, iTunes != the iTMS, which I think is a BIG distinction you failed to make. iTunes has no control over anything except for content from Apple's store.
Your arguement is interesting, and I agree for the most part, but completely unrelated to iTunes in any way.Your comment that iTunes is somehow the same thing as Palladium is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I fail to see any "control" that Apple has over my machine, in any way, with iTunes. Care to address that point?
blah blah blah.
iTunes does not use DRM for anything except for the iTunes music store. Don't buy a song from Apple and you'll never see anything related to DRM whatsoever. There is no DRM in encoding files to either codec (AAC or MP3) and there's no DRM anywhere else. But I guess it's much more exciting to scream and bitch about DRM taking away your rights.
Shhhh. drink the kool-aid and don't question it. Apple > anything else out there.
And how dare you want to see the artist name first! Those are all really valid points, no one ever seems to think that users might not like all the same software, even if 90% of people think it's "better". That's really interesting about the song name, I never noticed that you couldn't move that first column in iTunes. Now it's going to bug me.
Drooling Apple Apologist Fanboy Twits vs. Conspiracy Theorists
I think the conspiracy theorists are problably right though, Apple had to know known this was going to happen, and had no qualms about disabling MM. Apple is playing God of The iPod for the PC, what they can giveth, they can taketh away. MS and Real aren't the only people that are good at playing this game on the PC.
Well, yes, that would be excellent, but the current set of online music services don't do anything to help bands bypass the RIAA. In fact, they do the exact opposite. The iTMS, Napster2, BuyMusic, Etc. are another channel for existing recording interests.
I fundamentally disagree that lower costs in music will lead to dramatically lower sales. People will simply be able to buy more music.
If you take the junk-pop-music buying teenagers, do you think they'll spend $1, when they're used to spending $15? No, they might buy $10 worth, and get two disposable pop songs from 5 different artists.
And if you look at the people that buy whole albums of bands they like (which is still the vast majority of music buyers.) They're going to continue to pay $10/album online, and buy more albums because they can afford it. I will buy the entire Talking Heads catalog for $50 instead of going to the store and paying $95. I would not have spent that $95 in the store because it would have been a pain to find all the discs, and the cost was too high, but if I can *clickclickclickclick* buy them all online, I will. (And did.)
I think that the average person's music purchases could go from $15 to $10, that's reasonable. But that 33% difference will be made up by the fact that distribution costs for the labels are approaching 0, which it comes to the physical item. I'm sure the music is at least 33% more efficient to distribute online.
From personal experience, it is easier to spend $ on music online, frighteningly so! I don't think that the lower cost of the music will lead to lower sales per user, if anything, it will be higher.
I don't see how the RIAA's "business model" has been cracked. They get the same % of the retail of music, regardless of where it's divided between. You're essentially arguing that overall music spending will plummet because people can buy singles instead of albums, which I don't see happening.
If the music industry as a whole drops from $10M to $5M, sure, they will make half as much as they did before, but they're still taking the same cut. As people are freed to spend more $ on the particular songs they want, they will still probably spend the same dollar ammount on music (or close to it). They can just buy 10 different artists' singles, instead of 2 albums. But at the end of the day, Joe Blow spending $15 still gives his chunk to the RIAA, regardless of what that $15 is buying.
I totally agree. I just think the whole "of course it's more popular! look how easy the Internet is!" is short sighted. Down the road it will surely catch up with CDs, for a lot of markets, but right now, it's not. Not even close.
Oh they got the note... and they're still collecting money for every song that Apple sells.
We can laugh at them for not jumping on the bandwagon sooner, but they're getting the last laugh, and still getting paid.
No, they haven't surpassed them. This is CD singles.
And as far as availability, I think that CDs are much more accessible for the average person than online downloads. Remember geeks != the populace. I know more people ( by a few orders of magnitude) that are able to buy a CD at target than are able to buy one online.
Haha, What are you rubbing in the RIAA's face? They get paid regardless of where the music is bought! Apple (by way of the labels they they help sell) cuts them a fat check every month, trust me. The idea that buying it online is somehow "sticking it to the RIAA" is ludicrous.
Thank you for pointing this out. I'm tired of this story being posted without the "CD Singles" verbage. Downloads aren't even CLOSE to touching album sales people. Last time I did the math, if Apple meets their 100M song goal for the year, that will be something like 1% of all record sales in the US. Quite a lot, but no where near "more than physical CDs"
"This tates like grandma!" Love that episode.
I don't think it's wrong to pre-emptively say "you know, when subjects like this come up, Mac users typically say *this* or *that*" I'm just making an observation about the typical conversations that I expect to see.
:)
Or to put it another way... I was simply making a broad generalization and gross stereotype about Mac users... nothing wrong with that, right?
If MS did this, the /. crowd would scream bloody murder (hell, they have... and y'all have.) But you know Apple apologists are going to have some reason why this is OK for them to do, and try to make it out like Apple is still the good guy, no matter what.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, they're all I use, but Apple fanboys make me ill.
what rock do I live under? I don't think that getting bloom country comics emails (as cool as that is) compares to having a *complete* tome of everything he did, plus goodies and other stuff. I have all the books by themselves, of course, but I'd love to see a whole collection with lots of extra junk.
That is very cool though, I might have to pay for it.
This would be a really really awesome Xmas gift, I need to make sure my SO knows about it. This is the equivalent of a boxed set of every Woody Allen, Monty Python, and Kids in the Hall. The Far Side is truly the best single-pane comic ever made, Larson is a genius of understatement and subtlety.
All we need now is a complete Bloom County with extra goodies.
Too bad it looks like ass. The anti-aliasing on the "G5" part is awful.