What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
138 Comments
- jpyun, on 10/12/2007, -8/+82Maybe I'd consider buying stuff from ITMS if it weren't for the fact I can get a higher quality audio file (320kbps mp3 or even lossless formats) for FREE on any p2p network. Of course most people probably don't care but I certainly do. Plus, the restrictions they put on you are absolutely ridiculous.
- jals, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51I don't know about you, but I pay for my water in the form of the cryptically named "water bill".
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39Paying for music funds the RIAA.
That is bad.
Buying at allofmp3 funds corrupt russians who profit off other people's work.
That is bad.
Downloading music from bittorrent sites/P2P and going to see the artists you like live doesn't fund evil businessmen in suits and supports the artists directly.
That is good. - verifex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28If you actually buy iTunes music, please remember this site: http://www.hymn-project.org/
Lets you remove all the restrictions and have a regular MP3 file. - fucayama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Yeah, don't leave the house.
It's horrible out there! - LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24If you do actually pay for the music, which you should, don't be an idiot. Get the cd. Rip it however you'd like and keep the discs as backups.
Next thing you know you'll see ads saying: "Now included! Enhanced DRM technology to make your music even better!" - Glenn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I pay for music..most of the time.
I have downloaded 700 tracks off iTunes but I've decided just to purchase CDs now. Then I have a back-up copy, at full quality, and the cases look nice on my shelf ;-) - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18No, because ALL DRM is bad. I bought it I should be able to burn the same playlist 100 times if I want.
- salazr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14verifex: from that site: "It appears that if you make any purchases using iTunes 6.0 (or, even without making any purchases use iTunes 6.0 for other Music Store activity which authorizes against your account, such as authorizing a new computer to play your music), from that point on you must use 6.0 — and then JHymn won't work for you either. JHymn will have to learn how to perform the iTunes 6.0 protocol before this problem is likely to be fixed -- so hang on, it could be a bit of a wait."
Basically, if you're already using iTunes 6.0 and upwards, it doesn't work. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15the only way you can get an mp3 file is by recompressing, which lowers quality. We shouldn't have to pay so much for lower quality files.
- Icecream, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Please note, advertising pays for radio stations, the music is played on those stations so the listener hears it and goes "Hey GEE WIZ! That was a swell tune, I might go purchase that album and or single". The radio is one constant advertisement. That's why its free. Unless its government run which is payed by your taxes.
If I download a Song of the Internet that i pay for i should be able to do with what I wish just like if i purchased the CD. And it should come in a higher quality then what we could get if we brought the CD, I'm pretty damn sure that makes sense.
Music should be free, so we dint have to pay. - melmyfinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Great program until Apple changed the encryption to make JHymn obsolete.
- aaronlidman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9From all the figures I've seen the artists get very very little from online sales. Something like a third of a cent per song sold, for the time being the band that i know are with large labels i buy CDs because i know they get a little more of that. I just want to support the artists, not some buisness man hand in hand with the RIAA trying to screw me and and the people i like listening to, take out the middle man.
- mlkmnz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I wouldnt mind paying for it if it was reaslitically priced. I mean, why the hell should an album cost the same on iTunes as a physical CD - there are so many middlemen cut out of the chain with iTunes. No manufacturing, no shipping, no retailer or distributor margin, etc. Of course the reason for this is CDs are the cash cow for the industry, not the artist who sees such a small percentage of the $15 or whatever its not funny.
Allofmp3 is actually priced how iTunes should be - that is 10cents per song or thereabouts. I have no problem using that service, and am happy to pay. Just as I'd pay for higher definition Youtube and ditch my cable subscription. - shadgenki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Oh boy, an advertisement for iTunes! No thanks. CDs weren't worth $15 when I was a kid, and they're not worth it now either. I pay for concerts that actually provide money to artists, not CDs that go directly to producers and the RIAA so that they can sue little kids and single mothers and old people.
- nocode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8yeah, same here. Using water as an example to compare to the buying music is a bad example. It's about time that CD's should be $10 (or even lower).
Also, the whole part about supporting artists by paying for the music they create, while yes, you are supporting the artist, if you really want to support the artist, go see them in concert. They make waaaaaaaaaaaaay more money there through touring and selling merchandise, not by selling CD's. - powatom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't understand why if I buy a copy of music, I don't own that copy. I'm limited as to what I can do with it. Hell, if we want to take it literally, I can't even play it to my friends. The whole thing just screams insanity at me. I never buy music downloads, I just get CDs and Vinyls and go to gigs. I do own an mp3 player, but I just rip all my CDs on to it rather than download them. I really can't see any advantage of DRM for me. I have to keep buying the music I want to listen to? Well, screw that. I don't download music illegally, but if I buy a CD, I pay for it once. It's a no brainer which one I'm going to choose.
I personally don't have much experience with iTunes, but when I have used it, I didn't enjoy the experience at all. A lot of my friends have iPods and therefore have no choice but to use iTunes, and many of them just gave up after a while, frustrated with the restrictions placed on them by the software and, to a lesser extent, the law. - Milan123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Copyright infringement is not considered "stealing". Laws are not an authority on ethics.
- powatom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Put it this way: I have vinyls from the 60s in my bedroom. I want to keep the music I buy for the rest of my life, as I'm sure many people do. It sounds cheesy, but in 30 years time, you'll want to look back and think about the music you listened to. You'll want to talk about it with your friends, and hey, maybe even play it for your kids if they're interested. I listen to my 'dad's stuff' all the time, a lot of it is much, much better than the crap a lot of my generation listens to. It's fairly likely that in 30 years time, you'll have copied the track more than 5 times. Hardware fails, data corrupts, all that malarky. If I want to keep making hard copies of the music I love, I should be able to. Sure, 5 CDs is 'a lot', but I'm fairly confident I'll be going through more than 5 different machines in my lifetime too.
- dangerboy13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's because people want to "own" their music, not "rent" it and have it stop working when they cancel a music service.
- dangerboy13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There was a statement by Weird Al, I believe, saying that he actually makes less from online sales than from traditional CD sales because the RIAA or whatever record company takes a bigger cut from the money.
- jack334, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I pay like £20 ($40) a month for water...the UK is extortionate.
- samthegecko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5correction:
2. iTunes/Apple/RIAA gets the money that the artists should (yet don't) - jack334, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In all fairness most musicians don't really make much money from actual sales of records, but more from merch, tours and sponsorship...
- mikegioia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3bpapa, when i buy something i have the right to do with it as i please.
- samthegecko, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I would never buy a song off iTunes for three reasons:
1. Like aaronlidman said, the artists hardly get anything
2. The iTunes/Apple gets the money that the artists don't
3. There are too many restrictions - powatom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It depends what angle you look at it from. Your opinion is based on the 'law', as it currently is, and whatever economics courses you have taken. I too have taken economics courses, although my major is in software development. I can understand why you think like you do, but I look at this in my way because it violates my principles. Ok, I'm not a million record selling artist, but as I am now, I would absolutely love it if I made an album, and my friends copied it and passed it around, and other people got to listen to my stuff. If they like it, awesome, if not, oh well. And yes, I feel I should have the right to copy it as many times as I feel like. Who exactly is losing out by me doing so? Nobody. When I buy music, as I've stated above, I do so because I want to keep it. I don't want to 'borrow' it from the record label. I don't want to 'borrow' it from the artist. I want that copy to be mine. There's a very clear distinction between buying a book and borrowing from a library. There's a very clear distinction between buying a car and renting a car. And so, there should be a very clear distinction between buying music and renting music. I'm not against the business model of DRM - I just think people should be allowed to opt-in at their own discretion. Forcing it upon people is totally and utterly wrong. If DRM enabled music was significantly reduced in price from non-DRM enabled, then I wouldn't have a problem. It would be my choice as to which I bought, and I'd be happy (so long as they didn't just increase the price of non-DRM music :/ ). Currently, this is the case: I can buy a CD, or I can download online - it's totally up to me, but with the way things are going, I'm concerned that DRM will become compulsory, in which case I'll just have to stop buying music forever.
- frant1c, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Make it: "Why i get paid by Apple to write articles that seem to be unbiased user reviews but are in fact total propaganda/marketing bull****"
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@timtastic: So every transaction where you spend money is by definition a loss for you? Money itself is the only measure of value, then.
ITunes could be a win win because you get music, and the artist gets money. That's in theory anyway.
Ownership of media is in no way a dying concept. You're right that listening to songs enriches your life while possessing them doesn't, in the same way. But how do you listen to songs without owning them? If you're talking about a subscription service, then you are extremely limited. You can listen to the songs, but only on the devices that the service supports, and only as long as you continue to pay them money. Ownership of media is about control over the use of that media, and the freedom to listen to songs whenever you want and on whatever medium, and that's a concept that will never die unless we let it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would love to pay for legal downloads, but since I use linux there is no such service for mainstream music.
If I am wrong plmk. - agentgonzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5cyberdork,
I don't have a problem with not being able to burn a playlist lots and lots of times, and if I used iTunes as the only thing to play music, then yes, I'm sure that the DRM wouldn't bother me. However, I like to listen to my music on the linux media box in the living room, on my PDA at night so I don't have the computer fan in the background when going to sleep, in the car on my car stereo via a burned MP3 CD with about 12 albums on it, and occasionally streaming the audio to work. The problem with DRM is that I can't do ANY of these things with apple's DRM, and I definately can't do all of these things with a single DRM from any supplier. I'd like to use iTunes, or another online music store to get my music, but they don't sell it in a sensible format that actually allows me to listen to it without jumping through lots of hoops. An ogg or mp3 file on the file server is all I want at the end of the day, and online music stores refuse to sell them (or the RIAA refuses to allow it). - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Actually I still would say DRM is bad.
Why, Because a majority of artist make little money of CD or I-Tunes sales. If I were an artist I would want people to share my music. The more that hear my music the more people will want to actually come to my show. Which where most artist make their real money. T-shirt, posters, Cd's and other Merchandise sold at the show.
Why the RIAA is all up in arms about file sharing is because the people that actually make the Cd's not the actual Artist. Sure a few big name artist *cough cough ***** occasionally come out against file sharing, but that is because they have signed some deal where they get a larger percentage of the CD sales. - WDot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Whether he meant to or not, this definitely sounds like an ad and I don't think he's going to get taken very seriously.
Anyway, the problem with the "5 PC's" deal is that it doesn't necessarily mean five separate machines-- It could mean all on the same machine if I forget to "Deauthorize" several times. In fact, my music is on two separate computers in my house right now but if do a reinstall without deauthorizing first I'll only be able to put my music on one. - Aculeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Subscription services work better, here's why:
- $10/m for most if not all the music you want
- Multiple devices supported
- You can listen to the full track for sampling before having to buy it (30 second demos are crap)
- You can set up a "radio station" to hear random music that you would have otherwise not heard because you are unwilling to pay $.99 for something you never heard
- For $.99 you DO NOT OWN it. If iTunes shut down your tracks would fail when the DRM expired. No matter how secure having that DRM file on your harddrive makes you feel, it can stop working at any time. Stop fooling yourself.
- I'm not restricted to iPod (I don't own one, nor do I need one).
- If the subscription sucks or I can find a better one I have lost nothing. I can easily move and reaquire my playlists. I did this, switched from Napster to Yahoo Unlimited and am much happier.
- I'm stuck in DRM hell, at least I know it and I don't try to pretend I'm not because I "own" the song. If the music fails I'm not out thousands (I listen to more than a thousand songs), I'm out $10/m.
- I never have to rebuy music. When 8tracks came out your ditched your records and upgraded. When cassettes came out you ditched your records and upgraded. When CDs came out you ditched your cassettes and upgraded. When iTunes came out you ditched your CDs and upgraded. How many times are you going to buy the same song? What will you do when a better format than iTunes comes out with better quality: re-buy?
- I don't own the song. This is good because I can get the newest formats at no loss to me.
- I save thousands of dollars. I spend $120 a year for all my music. For ten years of music I will have paid $1200. Remember this is for every song since I started plus the 60 years of music history before then. I have access to thousands of songs. Being modest if I liked only 10,000 songs then I would have had to pay $10,000. Not counting all the new songs that came out over the 10 years. Of course I could burn/rip the tracks. Time is worth more money to me than anything. If I'm not working I'm losing money. Burn/rip takes time, therfore money.
Until I can actually buy music and own it for life, plus upgrades when the new format arrives, I'll continue to use subscription services. You guys can continue to live in the delusion that by paying $0.99 and burn/ripping that you own the music. - agentgonzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yep, it was Wierd Al. I'll have a look for the link. Was on Digg a month or so ago.
- piwy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Now going to even bother reading an article by someone that proclaims that ITMS is better than buying the physical cd.
- salazr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8LordSkywalker, the thing is, do you really want to go to the store for a cd? I certainly don't, as Paul says, you can't beat the convenience of a click and a download.
- Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He fears for legal threats primarily. Which is a reason but not a legitimate one that will keep an entire old payment system in line very long.
- spikyface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The guy is a tard
He could buy the same tracks off alloffmp3 for pennies, the artists would see .3 pence less and not give a flying fart
Looks like a fake blog invented by an iTunes employee to me - topcataj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll stick to buying CD's.
No (usually) DRM. I can play it on any CD player device, I can rip it and play it on any of my chosen digital audio players.
I'm not tied into using iTunes, or an iPod (quite happy with my iRiver thanks) and not tied into Apple's proprietry format, I'll stick to Ogg Vorbis for that open source goodness.
I really don't like iTunes after the few attempts I've had with it. - Negyxo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WOW, real interesting article "Umm, i don't wanna pay fines.. I'm scared of the RIAA etc.... itunes is pretty useful the DRM kinda sucks but whatever.. oh also, I'm supporting the artists, man. " Thanks Paul. Insightful.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, you can tell the difference between a song downloaded from iTunes and a decently produced CD. The pisser of it is that if they simply increased the bitrate just a smidgeon, that wouldn't be the case for 99% of people. Of course, most people don't care, so there's not much impetus for them to change it.
- Darc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Nicolasd
The restrictions to 5 PCs really can be a problem for some folks. I have 2 computers at my house that I have iTunes installed on and listen to my music with regularly. In addition, I also listen at work. That's 3 of my allowed PCs. Lo and behold, my laptop hard drive died, and I had to format a new one / reinstall windows. To my great displeasure, even though the computer name was identical and I even used a ghost image of the previous windows installation (minus iTunes and other applications). After I reinstalled iTunes, listening to my music took my 4th PC spot, and now if I format again or another box (which I actually usually do every other month or so), I'm done.
DRM restrictions really are a pain in the butt. I really do hate them with a passion. And they really have caused me to stop using the iTunes Music Store. It's a waste of my time, and a pain in my rear. Why pay for hassle? I'm not. LOL. It's as simple as that. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I used my net savvy a few years ago to setup a WASTE network between me and my friends. Now we only share music (or whatever) between each other. It's all encrypted (end to end), everybody knows everybody else on the network, no chance of getting "caught", and frankly it's probably not even illegal if we did, since they cannot possibly claim mass copyright infringement out of it.
As for "Supporting the Artist", I have a better solution than buying music legally:
1. Copy the music from whatever source you like.
2. If you like the artist enough to support them, get online and find their fan club or something to that effect.
3. Look for a mailing address, or some other way to get a note to the band. I've always been able to find some way to do it.
4. Write a note saying that you downloaded their music but don't like the labels and middle men getting all their well deserved profits.
5. Wrap it around a $10 bill, stick it in an envelope, mail it to the band.
That $10 is about quadruple what even the most well paid band in the world would get from the sale of a single album. Might want to mention that in your letter to the band as well.
In the future, perhaps artists will be able to sell to the customer directly and avoid the middle men. Then we won't have to pay outrageous prices like $18 for a CD or $1 for a lossy, somewhat crappy sounding rendition of their work, while also only having about 5% of the money actually going to the artists.
The iTunes Music Store supports the labels and the existing system, therefore I do not purchase from it. - CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Please, tell me, oh master of thinking he knows what everyone else does, have you ever scratched a disk? Have you ever, oh, I don't know, lost one? Ever switched computers? I break/scratch disks all the time. I lose them. And if I had the ability, it would almost definitely be more than five times per CD, because I'm a klutz and a forgetful person.
So, please, shut the hell up. Just because someone recopies ***** all the time doesn't automatically mean that it's illegal. - NospmisRemoh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'll be honest here. I would never by a song off iTunes because it is too expensive. Seriously, I know of people who PAY for Usenet services to get free music, movies, etc. The key word is PAY. There is a price people are willing to pay for this stuff and $1 per song is simply too much. Seriously, once they have made back the recording and editing costs the only cost is the infrastructure used to deliver the music. This is high school math people; lower the price and people buy more, to a point. It is called a maximum of a curve. I guess the strategy of "Raise the price enough to create a black market and then sue the hell out of everyone." is college level business.
- MrTea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hymm doesn't work with music purchased with Itunes 6.0 or later
- Darc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Music Giants said only IE is supported. That's retarded.
- adamlindsay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks wonderful on paper, buying music. Until you actually get it, and have to listen to it. When most CD's these days are poorly mastered and suffer from lack of dynamic range, adding in a massive amount of compression isn't helping. Don't you people care about the music you listen to? Don't you demand that it should should good?
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're totally right that there are a lot of other people involved in the process of making CDs and promoting concerts. The problem isn't that labels exist at all, the problem is that the balance of power has shifted completely out of whack.
Labels serve a purpose, and continue to do so, like you mentioned. The scale on which they do recording, engineering, promotion, etc could theoretically make it much cheaper to create and sell music. In a perfect world, the artists would be able to take advantage of this, cut the label in on the profits, and retain control over their work. -
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is