What is Digg?77 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+79Torrents will always be there, but as a single voice I would like to say that if I can get my music online and unprotected in great quality, chances are I WILL buy it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+52I would defiantly be more compelled to buy unprotected mp3 format songs...for a fair price.
Its the sole reason I dont buy music off iTunes...I bought one album off iTunes, and while it was almost too easy; the DRM has bitten me in the ass twice now. Lesson learned. - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32it's about ***** time. they're only a decade or so late....
- ch28kid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Finally..
This is why allofmp3.com is so popular. - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21In other news, the Nine Planes of Hell froze today. Satan was seen ice skating on the river Styx. Film at 11:00...
- bar10dr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Looks like I will start buying my music again.
- pfranz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17DRM is the reason I don't utilize the Apple Store.
Last year I was at a wedding where they DJed themselves. They copied all the songs to a laptop and made up a playlist. Problem was, they didn't 'activate' their computer with that iTunes account. So we were setting up at the wedding, where Internet wasn't available. We had to track down the bride for her password, book it back to the hotel, activate that computer, and make it back to the wedding to set it all up. - danandre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14As GoatBnn says, what happens when you buy a new mp3 player that isn't an iPod? That's right, you can't play the file because its locked to a DRM scheme that's only playable by the iPod. You'd have to buy the music all over again (or DeDRM it with a tool of some sort, which probably is illegal in some countries because their government is lame)
Binding a song to a certain player (i.e iPod) is lame because it restricts use not only to a single medium, but also to a specific brand of that medium. I mean ... what the hell is up?
We need to get some clearer definitions about what we're actually buying here. At least I wont buy music online until I get the right to download music that I can play back on any device that supports the mp3 format. - TheCheeks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I would more likely pay for something i can get at 320kbps MP3 online rather than some other iTunes format or lesser quality.
- blakyce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I concur that the allofmp3.com model might be the ticket for the record labels. In a world where the sales of MP3 players has gone insane it is incomprehensible how the record industry has not figured out a way to make a lot more money. Selling online music in the format that the consumer wants, at a price that invites consumers to buy large quantities, is a much better business model than trying to get $10 for one album online. I can get a month of World of Warcraft for $15 but it costs $10 to download a Stones album that has already been sold to consumers on album, 8 track, cassette and CD is ludicrous.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Great quality" is the key for me. I'd take DRM + lossless over DRM-less and lossy, but even better I'd take DRM-less + lossless.
It's a nice dream, but I'm pessimistic. - ragonamuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hooray! now I don't have to worry about badly encoded music, because its professionally encoded, and soon to be on BT with everything else!
If you want to skip the middle man, just download the music. Donate 5-15 dollars to the artist you downloaded, which is more the artist would be getting in the first place. - Nevrast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I've said this many times to people. If the record industry completely disappeared tomorrow, we would still have music. Humans have made music for our entire existence and we will continue to do so.
I don't write songs because I think I have any hope of getting paid for it. I do it because I enjoy it. - quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9allofmp3.com's selling model involved avoiding copyright laws by selling music from Russia. I'm not sure apple is ready to take the plunge...
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -1/+7For every three people who download music illegally theres always a fourth who downloads an album and then if they like it enough, will buy it.
I'm one of those people. Needless to say, because of music piracy, my compact disc collection has grown more than I care to admit. - DerekDowns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As a writer of music, I believe in supporting artists and yes, even the industry within reason. I DO purchase my music using iTunes, however I do not own an iPod. I don't know if Apple notices, but I'm sure I am not alone in this. Whenever a new version of iTunes gets released, and it's use becomes mandatory, I cease ANY AND ALL purchases until the DRM gets cracked. I use my computer with a bluetooth audio gateway on my stereo, a few USB memory sticks in my car, boat and motorcycle, a PalmOS PDA (with (galldarnit! Sony's MemoryStick) AND a Windows Mobile 5 OS (T-mobile MDA ) PDA/Cellphone. If I cannot enjoy the music I PURCHASED, when and where I wish to, then I simply discontinue to purchase any label-produced music and go back to listening and buying to Creative Commons licensed material. I believe in supporting other musicians and artists, whether they are with a major label or not.
- eelsid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I would only buy either raw or lossless (flac, Apple lossless) compressed music. I would never pay for mp3 or aac on iTunes because it's worse than CD quality (which isn't that great to begin with) for ~ the same price as the CD itself. That being said this is a step in the right direction for both the consumer and the music industry, as there are many people like me who won't buy DRMed music period because of the hassle involved in playing it on more than one device. Before my iPod, when I would use strictly CDs, I had universal portability. Now I can either pray that if I go to a friend's house and want to play music there off my iPod that they have the right audio-in jacks on their cheap boom box or I have to hassle with burning it to CDs and making the already inferior quality of the compressed original even worse by doing a format conversion.
- truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Merge itunes easy of use w/ allofmp3.com selling model and you got a winner
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4An apology would be nice, too...
- techAU, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4Maybe they're finally getting it. It will really take 1 of the majors to take the initiative to do it first, then as they see it working the others will follow.
I believe most people don't want to download illegal music, however the price point for music has to be realistic for the majority of consumers, and not inflated like it has been in the past. This goes for the film industry as well. - AndreGerber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No need to be so mean. People don't need you to tell them not to buy music from iTunes. If they don't like it, they won't do it anyway. There are plenty of other ways to get music, so don't throw your toys out of the cot because people people are voicing their opinions.
Also, people can't just stop using iTunes. iTunes is not the music store, and people still has to use it for their iPod. Although, there are some good alternatives available... - vegascoop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I will believe it when I see it.
- Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I hope Satan has the heater turned up.
- TheXeno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Smart. Those who adopt this, will prosper.
- davdav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3v0 sounds just fine to me.
- cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The record industry are the dumbest ***** on the planet - Watching them the last ten years has been a near laugh riot - I remember when they were sure people making cassette copies would ruin the business - when they tried to stop the the sale of the 1st mp3 players even after saying they are SURE no one would want compressed digital files because of quality. To the record industry - Thanks for all the FREE music you dumb Luddite turds!!!
- Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Doesn't matter if FLAC should be the new MP3. iPods don't play it (hell, iTunes won't even transcode it to Apple Lossless), and you just don't go against 80% of the market. I agree wholeheartedly, and portable devices really have enough storage now where it's not a space issue. The good news is that digitally converting between two lossless formats keeps it lossless, not like converting a WMA to MP3 or M4A. Unless the next version of iTunes is to support FLAC along with iPods getting support for it via a firmware update, don't expect anything. But in honesty, I'd be just as happy to see an unprotected Apple Lossless become the next MP3 (or, I suppose, M4P, since that's what most paid downloads come in).
- Markers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3alltunes.com - allofmp3.com now only accepts Diners Club and FCB. I haven't been able to add funds to my account for months.
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"This is why allofmp3.com is so popular."
For you, maybe. For lots of other people, it's because allofmp3 is a tenth of the price of iTunes. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> I think WAV is the only other major lossless file
That is entirely incorrect. WAV is a container format. The compression used on the inside is completely up to the encoder. Same as .QT and Windows Media files.
What you're thinking of is a PCM encoded .WAV - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3320kbps? Seriously, why choose a "higher quality of a lossless" filetype? FLAC should be the new MP3. I think WAV is the only other major lossless file (I don't know if Apple Lossless is that popular or if needs DRM to be licensed)
- conman16x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've been using eMusic for a while now because it offers what I consider to be a near perfect downloading experience. They offer completely unprotected songs as MP3s all ripped at 192kbps VBR for a third of the price Apple charges and they download at least as fast as iTunes.
The cons? Well, they're a subscription-only service, they don't have any of the big 4 record labels, and the UI kind of blows goats. I think that if that all changed it would be a new renaissance for music lovers and the music industry alike. - TravisS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2CLAPS - I never though I would say this: the music industry is taking the right step for once.
Do they not get I would rather pirate music if I get more rights as to what I can do with it? Or do they think I would really buy restricted digital files - TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wait...When did hell freeze over?
- bananaguyc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3R.E.M. put it best -
"It's the end of world as we know it, and I feel fine."
-too bad they've been whipped by the Major Record Labels for so long. - trimpton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It really doesn't matter what they say; despite their massive egos they have zero power with the internet. It will continue no matter how much money they throw at it until our government changes our extremely outdated copyright laws.
- PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Offer me guaranteed (correct) ID3 tags. (How many tracks have YOU had to fix after torrenting...)"
After torrenting??? E-Music has problems with that too. It's not just the torrents. - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i go to concerts but forget DRM music...
- billege, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Offer me the ability to download, at badass speeds, any track you sell in any format I want.
Offer me the ability to choose between downloading FLAC, OGG, or several different quality MP3s.
Offer me guaranteed (correct) ID3 tags. (How many tracks have YOU had to fix after torrenting...)
Offer me all the lyrics and album art I can handle.
Offer me discounts on artist concert tickets with my purchases, and other merchandise opportunities too.
Offer me finished albums NOW, don't make me wait 3 months "while the buzz builds" before you release the CD.
Offer me accompanying MUSIC VIDEO downloads in the size and quality of my choice.
Offer me DRM-free media on every one of these things.
It's absolutely none of your business what I do with the media after I buy it.
I'll be playing it on my home PC, on my MP3 portable player, in my car on a burnt CD (my wife's car will have a copy too), and I won't have paid to listen per location/copy because that's insane.
Sell me these offers based on $10/month for 100 tracks. Or $20/month for 300.
Get crazy and offer those prices for MP3s of "low" to "medium" quality, and $5 more for high quality MP3 or lossless.
Blow your own minds and find some way to COMPETE, and you might find people will line up if you have a better product. It's not hard to understand.
I mean, even at $20/month for 300 tracks, it's highly unlikely I'll grab 300 every month, if ever. The first month I'll concentrate on getting all the music I know I like, but don't have. For the vast majority of people, that MIGHT be four dozen albums. After that, I've got 98% of all the music "I grew up with." From then on, I'll only be grabbing music that's new to me. I mean, how much music can any one person listen to in a month? I can't listen to 30 new artists a month. I can handle 2 or 3 albums a month. You know you'd love me to pay $25 a month for that.
Now stop being idiots and get with the program. - stonedgeek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I will pay online for unprotected music. Not 99c a song though. I'll probably buy some and pirate some so the ratio is more like 10c per song.
- Lars0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah right....
- mattybb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1exactly!
but, pondering this all more, i realize this:
bands and musicians (in my scene at least) make much more money from other merch (shirts, stickers, buttons, frisbees, whatever) and ticket sales than cds.
AND any signed band has their hands tied.
record labels, upon signing a group, give them several loans for different things (personal, equipment, recording, production, marketing, etc.) and the bands have to pay those back. so it's all the labels making their money back, not the bands, not the artist. - onidraky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Exactly. I bought maybe 2 or 3 CDs before I discovered BitTorrent, since then I've steadyily been buying CDs. Just the last one I got someone at school was confused then I told them I downloaded the CD I just got several months ago and the entire album was already on my computer.
- manageMyRights, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3DRM101: Burning to a CD is no different than connecting your speaker out to your microphone in jack and recording as it plays. It's the analog hole. Apple doesn't "allow" this. They simply can't stop it. After all, the ear is an analog device.
- manageMyRights, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just don't understand why anyone would buy something they already have for free.
There is no 'right' to be paid for something you make. We offer incentives to get artists to create, but artists would create anyways. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yea Vista is going to be a huge pain in the ass. You have to get a license to use certain drivers thus making updates on drivers, and even on the hardware becomes an even bigger pain in the ass.
Apple or Microsoft. They're both big pains in the ass in terms of limiting a PC user's freedom.
Apple actually advertised that they don't need hardware updates. I mean WTF? THis is something you want to do if you're a PC gamer. The way PC games get pushed to the limits ***** I have to get that new graphics card. Oh wait if I had a MAc I couldn't do it. ANyway who the ***** macs video games for the mac. I'm serious...
This is why I hate Apple they just advertise to complete computer illiterates. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use itunes to upload music that is on my PC onto my Ipod.. I have never bought anything from itunes music stores.... so I don't know were you are going with this rant ijjjji
- apolloandi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4its going to be pretty hard to ween me off of getting everything i want for free...
- Markers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good luck with that one... oh, and hold your breath while you wait.
- aphexbr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"the Anti-RIAA/Pro-FileSharing crowd will always have an argument against paying. First it was the industry didn't take advantage of the digital age, now they did. Then it was DRM, when that is officially gone, it will be the quality of the tracks being too low. Then it will be the pricing of each track."
No, I think you've covered it.... You just listed everything that the *consumer* actually wants. I don't think that people would have so much of a problem with the RIAA lawsuits and so on if there was a reasonably priced, high quality, unrestricted alternative. The problem is that through DRM and other "initiatives", the labels have been trying to pass off an overpriced, poor quality service that offers less than the existing alternatives, legal or not. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is