iTunes on Windows good?

[flap]

quote:No, this has nothing to do with DRM. iTunes allows an unlimited number of copies, but the playlist has to be changed after each 10 burns (just switcing a few songs around is enough).

But you're still restricted on the number of machines on which you can play the track? So Apple still controls what you do with it, even after you've paid for it?

 

quote:By what definition?

Well how about Microsoft's?

 

quote:DRM is a system that encrypts digital media content and limits access to only those people who have acquired a proper license to play the content.

So it limits the people to whom a purchaser of DRM-resitrcted content can grant/share access. If I have a song and I'm being restricted from sharing it with others then one of the rights I see as being fundamental is being violated.

 

quote:Not all the artistes on iTunes are under the behest of record companies.

But Apple still takes the Lion's share?

 

quote:And what does this have to do with DRM being inherently good or bad?

Nothing. It has to do with the original question "So is iTunes on Windows good?"

[Laukev7]

quote: But you're still restricted on the number of machines on which you can play the track? So Apple still controls what you do with it, even after you've paid for it?

Nothing keeps users from burning the music to a CD and rip it back to mp3. Besides, most users don't possess more than three computers, and even if they did, iTunes allows playlists to be shared across the local network, so they wouldn't even need to register any other computers, save for computers at work and laptops when outside of the network.

 

quote: Well how about Microsoft's?

I wouldn't have thought that Microsoft would consider DRM unacceptable.

 

quote: But Apple still takes the Lion's share?

Unfortunately, quite the opposite.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8407

And when dealing with Indies, 35% is NOT the Lion's share.

 

quote: If I have a song and I'm being restricted from sharing it with others then one of the rights I see as being fundamental is being violated.

Even more so for artistes who are being ripped off both by the uploaders and the labels.

[flap]

quote:I wouldn't have thought that Microsoft would consider DRM unacceptable.

They don't. I was quoting their definition of DRM, which specifies how users' rights are restricted. i didn't say Microsoft thought this was a bad thing.

 

quote:Unfortunately, quite the opposite.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8407

And when dealing with Indies, 35% is NOT the Lion's share.

Oh I know that's usually the case, but I assumed that when you said "Not all the artistes on iTunes are under the behest of record companies" you meant that the revenues from some songs are split only between Apple and the artist. I don't know enough about the service to know whether or not that's true. But whatever you meant, the point is that either way the arist doesn't receive the largest share.

[Laukev7]

quote: But whatever you meant, the point is that either way the arist doesn't receive the largest share.

I think we misunderstand each other. How did you do your math? I see two situations here:

1) The revenues are split between a major label and Apple, where Apple gets 35% (which is about $0.10 of profit minus distribution costs, according to Time) and the label gets the rest, and the label gives the artist his share (which would be 11 cents according to your sources). This is obviously unfair to the artist, but the one who's ripping off the artist is the label, not Apple.

2) The revenues are split between Apple and an artist (or a fair/independant label, depending on the situation). Apple gets 35% (and takes the burden of the costs), while the artist/label gets 65% (where the assumption is made that the label would give most of the profits to the artists). In this case, the artist does get the Lion's share.

[hm_murdock]

quote:Why can't they port it to Linux? Jeeze, thanks for the support, Apple. And many Mac-users bitch about market-share and how they're not supported (no, I don't mean to point fingers here or anything, so don't go gettin' all warmed up for a flame war just yet, boys).

Because Apple has 0 interest in Linux. There may be iTunes for Linux in the future, but don't expect it any time soon. They just built iTunes for Windows.

I can imagine one reason... building iTunes for Linux would be hit-or-miss. Not everybody would be able to run it, because not all distros are the same, not all libs are supported everywhere, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There's also a huge mindset thing. Nearly all Linux guys are blindly "anti DRM" and many are blindly "anti closed source" which is what it would be. A binary-only distribution.

Oh, and their programmers don't want to be arsed with rebuilding iTunes from the ground up yet again.

edit: I typed this post last night but couldn't post it thanks to the fucked up flood control

flap, you're proving just what I said. blind hatred of "DRM" without really knowing jack fucking shit about it. if you want music to be sold at all in the future, then get over it. I'm sick of all you whiny bitches crying all the time about everything that isn't 100% your way and a 100% free ride.

"oh, this Linux distro is complete shit because they have one or two apps that are... CLOSED SOURCE!"

"the bane of existance is PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE! YOU'RE GETTING LOCKED IN RIGHT NOW! LOOK! SEE?"

you act as though you're on some kind of moral high ground by simply saying that these things are bad. tell me something... what of the economy, of commerce, and the livelihood of programmers who make these things, or the musicians who make the music, or hell, even the cute secretary at the record company who's also having to work nights at Dollar General to make ends meet?

What happens to them when the company downsizes because people started thinking that "closed is the devil"?

By saying things like that, you're no better than Bill Gates, whom you blindly hate so much.

I run "proprietary software", but I've never had any problems. I've never felt "locked in"... locked into what, by the way? none of these things you've ever said has ever meant anything. sorry, but you've got two things going for ya. Jack, and shit, and Jack just left town.

[ February 20, 2004: Message edited by: jimmyjames.sytes.net ]

[flap]

quote:blind hatred of "DRM" without really knowing jack fucking shit about it.

What is it I don't know about DRM that I should? All I need to know about DRM is that its purpose is to allow content providers to restrict what users can and can't do with content they download. I don't think that's a ethically acceptable thing to try and do, so I reject the whole concept of DRM.

 

quote:I'm sick of all you whiny bitches crying all the time about everything that isn't 100% your way and a 100% free ride.

It's not about cost.

 

quote:you act as though you're on some kind of moral high ground by simply saying that these things are bad. tell me something... what of the economy, of commerce, and the livelihood of programmers who make these things, or the musicians who make the music, or hell, even the cute secretary at the record company who's also having to work nights at Dollar General to make ends meet?

By that specious argument we shouldn't ban landmines or chemical weapons because it would put people out of work. If all software was Free Software and all art was freely distributable, perhaps lots of people wouldn't be making the fortunes they are, and others might even be out of a job, but even if that's true, it isn't a great enough cost to society to justify not freeing the distribution of information.

 

quote:I run "proprietary software", but I've never had any problems.

Good for you.

 

quote:I've never felt "locked in"... locked into what, by the way?

I've never used the expression "locked in", so I have no idea what the answer to that question is.

[hm_murdock]

Precisely.

I win again.

[restin256]

Alright, Gene Ray, you're right again because you're right.

[enjoijeff]

quote: USE ITUNES MUSIC STORE IF YOU WANT PERFECT DIGITAL ENCODED MUSIC - USE KAZAA IF YOU WANT CRAP QUALITY ENCODED SONGS THAT WILL DESTROY ANY INTEREST YOU HAVE IN MUSIC.  

There are plenty of other things on the Windows that have lots of good music. Just look around. Almost every Linux p2p client has a Windows version.

Check out SoulSeek. That allows you to download whole albums at a time. Everyone has organized music. And if it's organized it's not going to be fake. I mean who's going to organize fake music?

KaZaA I have found a lot of songs are static... like complete static. I have no ideal why KaZaA users don't get rid of them... Well, wait yeah I do. It's cos they are lazy. I remember the days when I had KaZaA and I would just click click click click. Had 4,000 songs and most of them static or repeats. With SoulSeek it gives you the option to put it in a certain folder before you even get to it. I'd check it out it's a good Windows client. I used Nicotine and it worked good so I think SoulSeek for Windows would do the same job.

[hm_murdock]

You go then, Dubya

[restin256]

quote:Originally posted by enjoijeff:
Check out SoulSeek. That allows you to download whole albums at a time. Everyone has organized music. And if it's organized it's not going to be fake. I mean who's going to organize fake music?

I used to use SoulSeek, and still do to talk to my non-DC inclined friends. I prefer DC++ over it though, because I'm an elitist bastard with a 120GB hard drive.