It does? When I used the "download" option on Google, it just downloaded a link to the video, which would only play in Google's own video player. Useless.
By your logic, the new MS Zune's DRM is fine because Zune-Zunestore-ZuneDRM is a closed system.
That's right. the Zune DRM is fine. Well, it's not "fine" as such - I don't like it. But Microsoft has every legal right to do that, and it shouldn't be banned, whether I like it or not.
MS isn't leveraging anyone with Zune DRM--hey, MS may even lose playsforsure licenses over it. Zunes will succeed or fail on their own merits (or lack thereof).
I'm not saying that what Norway is doing to Apple is fair. I do think Norway is out to get Apple. I'm saying that this might not be the best line for protest.
Why? Is there a reason that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to release the Zune with its own DRM?
Apple is the reason a song bought on Itunes wont work anywhere else, that is entirely Apples doing. Apple purposely shuts competitors from their Ipod
But Apple makes the iPod. What gives other companies the right to be on Apple's product? They never marketed it as an open platform, quite the contrary. It would be a problem if Apple did decide to run an "open" platform that involved other companies. But they didn't, so it's irrelevant.
Music, unlike playstation games or panasonic parts, is a commodity.
Huh? Why aren't music or Panasonic parts a commodity? I think that perhaps you don't understand what the word "commodity" is. If you define iTunes songs as a commodity, then how can Playstation games not also be a commodity, especially as they sell more than iTunes?
Imagine if you bought a car from a hypothetical shell car company(Which controls over 70% of the market, giving it huge monopsony power), and it only ran on shell gasoline. Worse, imagine your car used an elaborate and inefficient sensor to confirm that you bought your gas from shell. Worse, if you wanted to buy another car, it would not have a steering wheel or a gear stick, because Shell had patents on those.
Then I wouldn't buy a car from Shell. It would be their own problem if their business plan failed, or the consumer's if it succeeded. Why should the government outlaw it? It might be a problem if they were abusing public resources or exploiting other companies - but if it was limited to just Shell's own products, then what's the problem?
So what? Only one company licenses playsforsure. And it's not free to use. Essentially all the different hardware manufacturers are just feeding one master. So there's no essential difference between tying to one platform or another. It's like saying Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can run it on different brands of PCs.
Re:One choice better than no choice?
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One choice? There are plenty of choices - buy a CD, buy from a Playsforsure online store. Buy from eMusic. Buy a guitar. How is Apple stopping anyone from making these choices? They can hardly be considered a monopoly, because they don't have any power over other companies to stop them from competing.
This is different to the situation with Microsoft, where if computer manufacturers did not ship all their machines with Windows, they would be punished, and Microsoft held the keys to these companies' business plan.
On the contrary, if Apple were to license Fairplay to others, then it faces a much greater risk of becoming a monopoly, because other companies would be dependent on their products. Apple might be sued if they updated Fairplay in a way that was not compatible with the processor or firmware of some two-bit MP3 player. It would restrict the ability to compete and innovate.
Re:Not so much that you need an iPod to listen
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 1
It's not so much that you need an iPod to enjoy your itunes purchases, but that you are locked into future hardware purchases from Apple
Why? You can listen to iTunes music on a Dell or HP computer - that doesn't involve any hardware purchase from Apple, and the iTunes software is free.
You think there are some nice offerings from creative or sandisk but, trouble is, you can't listen to any of your existing purchases. Your locked to Apple.
Except that's not true, because you can burn them to CD and transfer them to your creative or sandisk player.
It's well boyond time that other players were allowed to license Fairplay, and that other music providers be allowed to sell Fairplay encoded tracks.
Why should Apple be forced to license their IP and change their business model? Because other companies feel like they are missing out on the gravy train?
It's not preferential. Other companies can make products that interoperate with PlaysForSure
Only if you pay a licensing fee to Microsoft. It appears that Norway want to encourage actual monopolies, and want to extort hardware manufacturers into paying a "Microsoft tax."
Apple makes both the hardware and the software. It's a closed system, so this shouldn't be an issue. Apple succeeds or fails on its own merits, without involving others. However, Microsoft leverages hardware makers to deliver its solution - leading to a position much more ripe for abuse.
It is? Who are these citizens that demanded iTunes be outlawed? I can't imagine it would even be a significant minority of Norwegians who would want that, let alone a majority.
If I buy a song from Sony or Microsoft, it wont work on the ipod. That is textbook anti-competitive behavior.
On whose behalf, Sony's and Microsofts? After all a song bought on iTunes won't play on a player by someone else. An MP3 player that doesn't support playsforsure and other DRMed tracks will not play ANY of the DRMed formats from any of the stores. Whose fault is that, the store for selling a DRMed song, or the hardware manufacturer for not supporting the DRM format?
A Playstation game will only play on a Playstation machine. Is that classic anti-competitive behavior? A part for a Panasonic projector will only fit into a Panasonic brand projector. Is that anticompetitive?
how is the quality of the recording anything to do with emusic?
It's not emusic's fault, but it has everything to do with the quality of emusic as a service. If emusic tends to have recordings with poor production values, then that reflects badly on emusic, whether it is their "fault" or not.
If the quality sucks, the quality sucks, and the reason for it does not matter to the consumer. Emusic saying "it's not our fault" does not make the recordings any better, does it?
Actually, they often are. Usually price is an indication of value. Just because price is not the only measure of value, doesn't mean it isn't relevant as an example. You could say the same about any measure of value - not everybody values the same things.
The crap; which you wouldn't see if he discarded it. The Internet doesn't change that.
But it might not be crap from our perspective. Shakespeare might have thought it crap, but other might disagree. And just because he discarded it, doesn't mean we won't see it. Discarded things are often found.
Just think of the bigger picture. The music of slaves and the early pre-blues artists in the US South were thought to be crap bythe white plantation owners, and not worthy of preserving. Today we wish we had more of this early music around, as it grew from those roots into an amazing musical phenomenon, and has very significant cultural and social history contained within.
I can't judge the sound quality of your samples, but they offer 192 bit MP3 download. ITMS offers 128 bit AAC with DRM. Maybe AAC is better than MP3, but I don't think ITMS offers better quality. Then emusic offers MP3, no DRM!
But audio quality is not just the technical details of the file. It is more dependent on the quality of the recording and audio engineering, and also how it was compressed. The quality of recordings on emusic is variable, and often quite poor. This would be a problem even if they were offering uncompressed files.
Their publishing options are limited to three subscription models. What do you want to say here? That this is a bad thing?
Lots of people don't like subscriptions. Having to pay a monthly fee for a service you might not use every month isn't a very good deal.
The samples aren't making them any money, and as such, it's best to keep the bitrate low to both decrease the download time for the potential costumer and to conserve bandwidth and thus save costs for eMusic.
Your argument doesn't make any sense.
The idea of a sample is to show how good your product is.
This was a sample included on a CD with a magazine. Bandwidth issues do not apply here.
It is perfectly feasible to make a great-sounding, crystal-clear recording at low bitrates if the audio engineer knows what s/he is doing.
Have you actually eaten Hormel(r) SPAM(tm)? It's full of 100% hammy goodness, and can be eaten for breakfast, lunch or dessert. Look for the great recipes on the pack. Try the range of delicious flavors, from SPAM(tm) Classic to SPAM(tm) Turkey. Perfect for taking on a picnic.
Now imagine that it was utter crap. Do not confuse the collectable value with the innate value.
I'm not. I'm just using that as an example. The point is not the money - that was just a way of demonstrating value.
I think one of Shakespeare's "crap" sonnets would have innate value, even without the manuscript. Firstly, because we always want to know more about Shakespeare, and it would be especially interesting to see what he discarded. Secondly, Shakespeare's crap probably beats the living shit out of 99.9% of other writing on the planet, quality-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course we should ... but why the WSJ article?
It does? When I used the "download" option on Google, it just downloaded a link to the video, which would only play in Google's own video player. Useless.
That's right. the Zune DRM is fine. Well, it's not "fine" as such - I don't like it. But Microsoft has every legal right to do that, and it shouldn't be banned, whether I like it or not.
MS isn't leveraging anyone with Zune DRM--hey, MS may even lose playsforsure licenses over it. Zunes will succeed or fail on their own merits (or lack thereof). I'm not saying that what Norway is doing to Apple is fair. I do think Norway is out to get Apple. I'm saying that this might not be the best line for protest.Why? Is there a reason that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to release the Zune with its own DRM?
But Apple makes the iPod. What gives other companies the right to be on Apple's product? They never marketed it as an open platform, quite the contrary. It would be a problem if Apple did decide to run an "open" platform that involved other companies. But they didn't, so it's irrelevant.
Music, unlike playstation games or panasonic parts, is a commodity.Huh? Why aren't music or Panasonic parts a commodity? I think that perhaps you don't understand what the word "commodity" is. If you define iTunes songs as a commodity, then how can Playstation games not also be a commodity, especially as they sell more than iTunes?
Imagine if you bought a car from a hypothetical shell car company(Which controls over 70% of the market, giving it huge monopsony power), and it only ran on shell gasoline. Worse, imagine your car used an elaborate and inefficient sensor to confirm that you bought your gas from shell. Worse, if you wanted to buy another car, it would not have a steering wheel or a gear stick, because Shell had patents on those.Then I wouldn't buy a car from Shell. It would be their own problem if their business plan failed, or the consumer's if it succeeded. Why should the government outlaw it? It might be a problem if they were abusing public resources or exploiting other companies - but if it was limited to just Shell's own products, then what's the problem?
So what? Only one company licenses playsforsure. And it's not free to use. Essentially all the different hardware manufacturers are just feeding one master. So there's no essential difference between tying to one platform or another. It's like saying Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can run it on different brands of PCs.
This is different to the situation with Microsoft, where if computer manufacturers did not ship all their machines with Windows, they would be punished, and Microsoft held the keys to these companies' business plan.
On the contrary, if Apple were to license Fairplay to others, then it faces a much greater risk of becoming a monopoly, because other companies would be dependent on their products. Apple might be sued if they updated Fairplay in a way that was not compatible with the processor or firmware of some two-bit MP3 player. It would restrict the ability to compete and innovate.
Why? You can listen to iTunes music on a Dell or HP computer - that doesn't involve any hardware purchase from Apple, and the iTunes software is free.
You think there are some nice offerings from creative or sandisk but, trouble is, you can't listen to any of your existing purchases. Your locked to Apple.Except that's not true, because you can burn them to CD and transfer them to your creative or sandisk player.
It's well boyond time that other players were allowed to license Fairplay, and that other music providers be allowed to sell Fairplay encoded tracks.Why should Apple be forced to license their IP and change their business model? Because other companies feel like they are missing out on the gravy train?
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the music market, so what's the difference?
Only if you pay a licensing fee to Microsoft. It appears that Norway want to encourage actual monopolies, and want to extort hardware manufacturers into paying a "Microsoft tax."
Apple makes both the hardware and the software. It's a closed system, so this shouldn't be an issue. Apple succeeds or fails on its own merits, without involving others. However, Microsoft leverages hardware makers to deliver its solution - leading to a position much more ripe for abuse.
It is? Who are these citizens that demanded iTunes be outlawed? I can't imagine it would even be a significant minority of Norwegians who would want that, let alone a majority.
On whose behalf, Sony's and Microsofts? After all a song bought on iTunes won't play on a player by someone else. An MP3 player that doesn't support playsforsure and other DRMed tracks will not play ANY of the DRMed formats from any of the stores. Whose fault is that, the store for selling a DRMed song, or the hardware manufacturer for not supporting the DRM format?
A Playstation game will only play on a Playstation machine. Is that classic anti-competitive behavior? A part for a Panasonic projector will only fit into a Panasonic brand projector. Is that anticompetitive?
not true at all. Playsforsure is only compatible with one kind of hardware - playforsure compatible hardware.
It's not emusic's fault, but it has everything to do with the quality of emusic as a service. If emusic tends to have recordings with poor production values, then that reflects badly on emusic, whether it is their "fault" or not.
If the quality sucks, the quality sucks, and the reason for it does not matter to the consumer. Emusic saying "it's not our fault" does not make the recordings any better, does it?
Already done. It comes with Lotus Notes and a machine-gun.
Shows how much Microsoft's monopoly is silently accepted when it's news that someone sells computers without Windows.
Ever heard of a battery? Or reducing your power consumption at night? Other methods of power generation like windmills?
Actually, they often are. Usually price is an indication of value. Just because price is not the only measure of value, doesn't mean it isn't relevant as an example. You could say the same about any measure of value - not everybody values the same things.
The crap; which you wouldn't see if he discarded it. The Internet doesn't change that.But it might not be crap from our perspective. Shakespeare might have thought it crap, but other might disagree. And just because he discarded it, doesn't mean we won't see it. Discarded things are often found.
Just think of the bigger picture. The music of slaves and the early pre-blues artists in the US South were thought to be crap bythe white plantation owners, and not worthy of preserving. Today we wish we had more of this early music around, as it grew from those roots into an amazing musical phenomenon, and has very significant cultural and social history contained within.
But audio quality is not just the technical details of the file. It is more dependent on the quality of the recording and audio engineering, and also how it was compressed. The quality of recordings on emusic is variable, and often quite poor. This would be a problem even if they were offering uncompressed files.
Their publishing options are limited to three subscription models. What do you want to say here? That this is a bad thing?Lots of people don't like subscriptions. Having to pay a monthly fee for a service you might not use every month isn't a very good deal.
Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Have you actually eaten Hormel(r) SPAM(tm)? It's full of 100% hammy goodness, and can be eaten for breakfast, lunch or dessert. Look for the great recipes on the pack. Try the range of delicious flavors, from SPAM(tm) Classic to SPAM(tm) Turkey. Perfect for taking on a picnic.
But why would we care if everyone was already generating their own electricity?
The hypothetical scenario was if everybody had solar panels installed. Now, if everybody had them, where would these countie without solar panels be?
WTF? Those blackouts were due to Enron's scam to rip people off by pumping up the price of electricity. Illegal acts - not due to any law.
I'm not. I'm just using that as an example. The point is not the money - that was just a way of demonstrating value.
I think one of Shakespeare's "crap" sonnets would have innate value, even without the manuscript. Firstly, because we always want to know more about Shakespeare, and it would be especially interesting to see what he discarded. Secondly, Shakespeare's crap probably beats the living shit out of 99.9% of other writing on the planet, quality-wise.
No, but often items that are profitable are valuable in other ways. I was just demonstrating a point, not saying it had to be about monetary value.