iTunes, One Billion Suckers Served? 653
Thomas Hawk writes "Apple is out hyping their one billionth iTunes download today, but is building your music library in a format that could be obsolete in the future really the best strategy? Will the consumer once again have to someday replace their iTunes track just like they had to replace their LP, cassette, and CD only to get their music on their hot new non Apple mp3 phone of the future? "
you can backup all your itunes purchases (Score:2, Insightful)
you can burn all your itunes tracks to AIFF or MP3,
and then backup that as many times as you would
ever want... so what's the problem??
Not very likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely that can only occur if the format can only be read by a non-open source application that is only available in binary format and where the hardware to run that program becomes unavailable. I suppose it could also happen if the media you use for your iTunes storage becomes obsolete and you don't remember to copy your music to another media format.
I think a billion downloads (and counting) will ensure that iTunes music will remain playable for a long time to come and will sound just as good then as it does now.
Worst post ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Pimp my blog (Score:5, Insightful)
Blogger admits he has never used service. Does not address the fact that you CAN covert to another format if you wish.
Is iTunes perfect? No. But I have purchased 20x more music than what I would have otherwise.
And even if iTunes shut down tomorrow, I would lose 0% of my music.
Only thing I wish is that it would serve up a higher bit rate....
Is this article baiting? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this throwaway society of ours I really think that for most people the idea that something they buy might not always be around forever is OK. Hell, I guess we could start talking about other things too, cars, cameras, hot water heaters, etc...
It's a dollar. Or twenty. Or two hundred. So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lame. (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped reading right there. It's kind of hard to criticize a service without actually ever using it.
How is apple's DRM "terrible?" (Score:5, Insightful)
The blog rant that is linked to complains that apple's DRM is "terrible." I simply don't understand the argument. The DRM is as lax as possible while still keeping the music industry from having a fit. Sure there are limits to how many times you can burn a playlist, but if you change the list by only one song you the counter resets. How many times have you burned more than a couple copies of the exact same playlist anyway? Perhaps the sound isn't exactly the same as a CD, but it is good enough that it really doesn't matter on most sound systems. What the blogger really misses is the fact that itunes gives you what you can't get at the CD shop. The ability to buy just one song off of a CD. If an artist makes one good song and the rest crap, you only pay
Since you can burn your ACC files and then rip them to mp3 if you want, there is no danger of not being able to play your music in the future like the blogger claims. Yes you have to pay for the songs, yes there are some restrictions to prevent piracy, but itunes is still a great thing. It should be something that slashdot readers support, it gives us cheap music and DRM that has plenty of flexibility.
"awful DRM" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Got something better[1]? If so, don't just bitch...do it!
[1] Something that meets the needs of both the user/consumer and the creator/owner.
Re:Obsolete? (Score:2, Insightful)
No thanks. That's a non-solution.
-S
Re:Welcome... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you haven't looked at copyright law since the mid-1990s. Prior to the DMCA, US law worked as you remember. But post-DMCA, the mere act of decrypting your own files or any other way to circumvent a content access control is illegal. You have the right to copy, but not to break the DRM to do it.
The analogy I give my students is that when a friend has your CD you have the right to get it back. You do not, however, have the right to break into his house to get it. The analogy is imperfect, since the DMCA bans you from breaking into your own house, so to speak. But you get the point: No bypassing copy protection ever, for any reason, without explicit consent from the content provider. Oh, and it also turns out that simply downloading the tools to break DRM ("trafficking" in the law's terms) is also a felony, even if you never actually crack the DRM.
It's a brave new world, folks.
Not Lame (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw that. Even if a new service pops up, if it has any level of DRM I know all I need to know about it. So no, it's not unreasonable to me that this person commented on Apple's service even if they haven't used it.
-S
Re:How is apple's DRM "terrible?" (Score:4, Insightful)
(A) It's not trivial compared to dealing with music files. Let's see you do this with 100s of songs and see how long it takes.
(B) It sucks. Have you tried it? The quality is horrible. RIAA/DRM tracks (iTMS) are intentionally low enough bit rate to make this an unattractive option.
Re:works half as well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pimp my blog (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How is apple's DRM not "terrible?" (Score:4, Insightful)
And burning a sucky 128 mbps file, ripping it, and recompressing it makes a SUCKIER sounding file.
So no, this isn't viable workaround to rid the file of the DRM.
The SOLUTION is to refuse to buy DRM'd files in the first place. If everyone would friggin' wise up and do just that, Digitally Restricted Media (DRM) would be history. But they've convinced the world that a little DRM is OK and your comments show that you've bought right into that too. It's just a little DRM now. And then a little more and a little more and a little more until 20 years from now, you'll look back on your comment and wonder how on earth transporting media that you purchased to another format or another player was so easy and FREE those 20 years ago.
But 20 years from now you won't be buying music with any expectations at all of being able to move it from one device to another without paying more. You'll be licensing it and maybe it will be inexpensive to play that album in your car, but it'll cost you a few more cents. Play it at work... a few more cents.
But that'll all feel fine and dandy because you never noticed the rights you once had creeping away. And Apple's oh-so-friendly DRM is step one.
-S
Re:you can backup all your itunes purchases (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the mp3 and ogg formats will not become obsolete in our lifetimes. Unlike 8 tracks and tapes, digital formats can store whatever your ears can hear and don't degrade when played or copied. The problem of representing sound is solved.
Re:Doesn't work quite so well (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason to be opposed to DRM isn't that it totally prevents you from doing things. It doesn't totally prevent it, it just gives you a worse selection of choices in terms of cost, ease, and quality. The real reason to be opposed to DRM is that it moves us further and further down the slippery slope to a world in which there is no commons, and it takes control of technology out of the hands of individuals and puts it in the hands of big corporations that buy a politician like I buy a quart of milk.
Re:works half as well... (Score:3, Insightful)
That blog's comments made me cringe (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember (when I had just discovered MP3s in 9th grade) re-encoding them to a higher bitrate. I thought I was clever, I mean, higher bitrate right?
Fark I was stupid & so is every n00btard who says "burn it and re-encode it."
I think part of the problem is that people now have something 'invested' in iTunes or their iPod and because of that, they'll defend it. Even if you give them proof they may have made a bad choice.
Remember folks, denial is the first step.
Then comes anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
I'm not saying iTunes is bad, but the people who have invested money/time/credibility into Apple will have a lot of trouble stepping back and looking at their decision objectively.
Re:That blog's comments made me cringe (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy is looking down on ME for buying iTunes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and about the author's brilliant scheme of buying CDs and returning them the next day - if I wanted to get music while screwing the artist out of any money, I would just download the song for free.
Re:Is this article baiting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple went through hoops to add DRM to the files - it was a requirement from the **AAs - whereas N64 vs Gamecube was just a fact of progressing technology. AAC (MPEG-4) being incompatible with MP3 (MPEG-2, Layer 3) because of technological advancements would be a more apt comparison to N64 vs GC here.
I was going to bring up how, with DRM, we'd need to repurchase the same damn songs on new media, but in fact that's just the way it's always have been, even without DRM. Media, regardless of it being books, music, movies, games, etc, is consumed and will always come out in new forms, just like any other case of consumption. (However, DRM and crummy quality is most likely the labels' way of making sure they can continue to resell you the same stuff tomorrow, despite how they could actually do something that we could conceivably play, no problem, on a computer in 100 years.)
At the end of the day, DRM sucks, and we all know this. However, I'm also confident that Apple's one of the vendors least tied to DRM, because Apple only offers 'buying', and not 'subscribing', which literally hinges on DRM - otherwise you could just keep the music, like with 'buying'! Apple's simultaneously the most and least likely to speak up against DRM: most because they use DRM, hate it and could say "all these sales we racked up for you? we could make them stop coming unless you offer DRM-less music"; but also least, because they know the labels would just make up a new store and Apple would lose profits itself (and it actually does make a slim profit on the store).
Sweet lord, No! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Worst post ever - In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
You mispelt '/cluelesslymissingthepoint'.
HTH.
Re:Not very likely (Score:3, Insightful)
When the wax cylinder went awasy, people had to buy the same music in a new format. When the 8-track went away, we had to buy the same music in a new format. When the LP went away, we had a choice of listening to degraded music on tape or buying the same music in a new format.
With iTunes, this is the first time we can buy music, and, if the hardware does not become encumbered, with relitive ease transfer between many formats as we wish. Once we make a CD of it, we can put the music on player that accepts unencumbered music. We can make a DVD of it. If the furture meadia accept unecumbered music, we can do that as well.
The BS of this article, and I am trying to be objective here, is that apple has done something that is revolutionary. Legal music that is potentially transportable into the future. Even if you do not remove the DRM, As long as Apple makes iTunes for the general platform, or the technology is licensed, there will be no reason to buy other music because any machine can be authorized once an old machine is deauthorized. The labels want more money from the sales at iTunes because they know that is all they will ever get! Of course, Apple can be forced to changes the licensing, and the music might become obsolete, but as I have shown, that is nothing new.