Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Mistshadow on 19 February 2004, 01:40
-
My husband wants iTunes on the Windows box; and 99 cents a song does sound like a pretty good deal, I must say. However, it's been the work of my life for the past few months to keep our Windows as far away from an internet connection as possible.
So is iTunes on Windows good?
Does it always try to connect to the intenet when it's used, like all of the other media players on WIndows? If so, why? (The other media players do it so they can get the chance to spam you, although they deny that.)
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).
-
on the mac version theres an option to let it get online, so its probably on the windows one
but if you want an even better deal try kazaa ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Stiller:
on the mac version theres an option to let it get online, so its probably on the windows one
but if you want an even better deal try kazaa ;)
Actually - If you go into preferences in itunes you can turn this option off and IT ISNT ON BY DEFAULT.
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.
THE CHOICE IS YOURS... IF YOU LOVE MUSIC USE THE ITUNES MUSCI STORE!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by solarflare:
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.
Or be like me. I use kazaa but don't download anything less than 192 kbps. THen I fix up and edit the songs the way I want them to be, apply appropriate noise reduction, and re-encode them to my preferred way (tossing out all DRM if any too).
I think I'm gonna give itunes a try soon but I'm gonna probably use that crack to get it for free :D
I support the idea of pay-per-download music stores 100% but refuse to use them as long as their downloads have DRM. I refuse to pay for anything that limits how many times I can burn the song, or on how many machines I can play it, etc..
-
The only time I've seen it connect to the internet (on my Mac anyway) is when it connects to the iTunes Music Store or I listen to the radio. When it connects, you see a small progress bar as it downloads whatever information it needs for viewing whatever area you're at. And of course, the radio is streaming.
-
quote:
I refuse to pay for anything that limits how many times I can burn the song
It doesn't. The only limit is three computers, and authorisation can be transfered from one computer to any another as many times as you like, so practically it's more of a speed bump designed to discourage uploading than a real limit.
-
mistshadow, you can put your windows box on the net and prevent remond from knowing your even there, just use zone alarm pro, everything asks for internet permissions including windows generic host processes so yes you can also prevent itunes from doing it too.... oh and winamp is a dishonnest peace of shit even if you check the usage stats box saying you dont want them to know about your habits i still get winamp trying to the net, interesting isnt it? and no there isnt any inbedded webpages that they can use as an excuse either..... rant over ahhhhh
-
quote:
Originally posted by solarflare:
Actually - If you go into preferences in itunes you can turn this option off and IT ISNT ON BY DEFAULT.
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.
THE CHOICE IS YOURS... IF YOU LOVE MUSIC USE THE ITUNES MUSCI STORE!!
its not that huge a difference if you dont play it so loud you go deaf
and kazaa is great for audiobooks since you dont need a high bitrate
and AAC is far from perfect audio, dont the songs go at 128 kb/s?
[ February 19, 2004: Message edited by: The Stiller ]
-
xeen pm me about how you do that cos i do alot of music production ie record my mixes from my decks and i wouldnt mind knowing how....
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xp Convert:
xeen pm me about how you do that cos i do alot of music production ie record my mixes from my decks and i wouldnt mind knowing how....
How I do what ?
-
deencode change kps then reencode
-
the DRM is ONLY for the purchased songs from iTMS, NOT your own music.
what makes iTMS unique is that you OWN the songs you buy, not Apple.
you can only burn the same playlist of purchased music 10 times (and you can re-rip it flawlessly with no DRM after that)
and it can go to 3 different computers on the same subnet. but can be re-authorized to a different pc and the DRM resets.
like I said, you OWN iTMS music, not apple, you can do what you want with it once you buy it. nothing is stopping you from cracking you own music.
DRM if used wrong is bad, but it has a use and used correctly can be good for both parties.
-
quote:
like I said, you OWN iTMS music, not apple
quote:
you can only burn the same playlist of purchased music 10 times
Which of these statements is true? Can apple restrict what you do with your legally downloaded music, or are you free to do what you want with it?
quote:
DRM if used wrong is bad, but it has a use and used correctly can be good for both parties.
DRM is by definition an unacceptable restriction of users' rights. How can it possibly be good for the consumer? Why line the pockets of Apple/record company executives when you can just download for nothing? Then you can send the artist some money if you wish.
quote:
"With iTunes I don't feel guilty when I download music - Apple and the record labels handle the screw job for me"
...from http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html (http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xp Convert:
deencode change kps then reencode
Umm..rather simple.
1. Download MP3 from kazaa (at least 192 kbps in quality)
2. Open it in Cool Edit Pro or any other audio editor.
3. Edit it how you want.
4. Apply an filters you may want.
5. Then encode to MP3 again using the settings you want.
Yes, you loose some quality from the re-encoding but I never hear the difference because of the original quality being kinda high and because I never re-encode to anything below 192 or 256 kbps.
-
quote:
Can apple restrict what you do with your legally downloaded music, or are you free to do what you want with it?
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).
quote:
DRM is by definition an unacceptable restriction of users' rights.
By what definition?
quote:
Why line the pockets of Apple/record company executives when you can just download for nothing?
Not all the artistes on iTunes are under the behest of record companies. And what does this have to do with DRM being inherently good or bad?
[ February 20, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
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?"
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (http://www.time.com/time/2003/inventions/invmusic.html)) 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.
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
Precisely.
I win again.
-
Alright, Gene Ray, you're right again because you're right.
-
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.
-
You go then, Dubya
-
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.