wildyams

I just bypass the whole goddamn thing and swallow my cds. Hurts like a mother taking a shit though, but the upside is that you can see yourself in the toilet.

Hurray! I'm gross!

Good points, Yams. But I'm sure you understand that the only way the iTunes Music Store can exist, with the cooperation of the labels, is by using Fairplay to have some kind of (very fair, imho) limit on, say, the number of CDs you can burn of something you purchase. The real question is why does Microsoft keep pushing a "rival" DRM and why don't all the hardware manufacturers just agree to use Fairplay? Why? Because ultimately Microsoft wants to destroy Apple's music endeavors and get that revenue themselves. So, every time I buy a track from the iTunes Music Store (which is often, and when I burn it to a CD it can be transferred to ANY future music device that might spring up), I'm giving a gigantic middle finger to Microsoft's cult of mediocrity and supporting a better technology. That's just my $.02.

Supporting non-Microsoft technology: :thumbsup
Drew Barrymore: :thumbsup
Houston's: :thumbsup
Using the HOV lane: :thumbsup
President being told by God to invade Iraq: :nono

I'm surprised to see Drew Barrymore get the thumbs up there, Milkshake :lol

The point is that the iTunes music store shouldn't exist if they have to use Fairplay, nor should Napster.com exist with its own DRM. I've never purchased a song from either of those, or any other service, in which the song contains DRM, and instead just buy the CDs so I can do whatever I want with the music I have purchased (including burning more than the number of CDs that Apple thinks is "fair"). After all, if I've bought the music, I should be able to do what I want with it as long as I'm not replicating it for resale. I would definitely recommend you read the article, because this is most definitely one time where you don't want to support Apple. Don't support Microsoft in this endeavor either, of course, and if you can, don't support the RIAA (all the CDs I buy are used so they don't get an additional cut from me). Keep in mind that Apple can arbitrarily change what they consider to be "fair" use of the music they sell you, and a number of iTunes "upgrades" have in fact just removed features or placed additional restrictions on what you could do with DRM-coded music, so Apple is definitely not looking out for its consumers in this venture. I know you want Apple to succeed (as do I), but selling their soul, and yours, to the music industry is not the right way for them to do it.

But... if I buy an album from the iTunes music store and burn it onto a CD, that CD is just a CD, right? It now behaves like any other CD you purchased back in 1993. I can take this CD and, in the future if I want to switch to something else, rip it into whatever mediocre Microsoft iTunes knock-off becomes the monopoly standard music software. Right? Once it's burnt onto CD, there is no DRM on that CD. Am I wrong on that?

You're correct, however there is a caveat. From Wikipedia:

Apple FairPlay technology, however, is not unbreakable. A user can, for example, convert protected files to unprotected MP3 format by burning them to an audio CD, then ripping them back to iTunes. This method, however, reduces the sound quality of the recording.

Also from Wikipedia, in answer to your question about why Microsoft and other companies don't use FairPlay and instead are pushing their own DRM, the reason is because Apple won't license it to anyone else. The reason for that is because the iPod is the only device that allows people to play songs purchased with iTunes music store, and by not licensing FairPlay, Apple ensures that the only way to play songs bought through iTunes music store is to use an iPod:

Competitors accuse Apple of using iPod, the iTunes Music Store, and " FairPlay" (Apple's DRM-protected implementation of the AAC open standard) to establish a vertical monopoly to lock iPod users into using the iTunes Music Store exclusively (and vice versa). This "lock" has two aspects:
* Apple has maintained tight control of its FairPlay encryption, electing not to license it to other companies. As a result, other online music stores cannot sell music files encoded with FairPlay, and competing devices from companies such as Creative Labs and iRiver cannot play such files. Consumers who want to download songs from the extensive iTunes music catalog to their digital audio players have no choice but to purchase an iPod (or, as mentioned above, convert the downloaded files to an open format).

* The iPod does not support Microsoft's DRM-protected WMA format or RealNetwork's Helix-DRM protected files, so iPod users who wish to purchase DRM protected music online must do so through iTunes or circumvent the DRM of the files downloaded from the other store (which may be illegal). Music purchased from other online stores with these copy protection formats will not play on an iPod.

So I ask you, someone who has railed against Microsoft for years for using basically the same strategy with Windows: isn't it just as bad when Apple does it? The bottom line is that music that uses any DRM is bad from the consumer standpoint because these formats are all incompatible with each other. DRM exists under the guise of preserving copyrights, but in practice they are being mis-used by these tech companies to instead push their products on people. What if you're a die-hard Apple fan, but your favorite band exclusively releases an album through Napster.com? You won't be able to play it with iTunes or your iPod. There's no way that makes any sense.

No technological solution is going to please everybody. I guess that's what it comes down to, ultimately. Apple's had the same philosophy forever, the seamless integration of hardware and software. What makes that possible is (a) how good they are at design, and (b) that they maintain control over both (as much as necessary to preserve the user experience).

Apple world domination :thumbsup
Paul Walker's acting :thumbsdown

I may have to give this one to the Yamster.

But Steven, you realize that Apple could remove the DRM and then it would be an open standard and there wouldn't be any of these issues, right? People would then be able to download stuff from Napster.com and put it on their iPod (purchased from Apple), and people could download stuff from iTunes and do what they wanted with it without having to either run a (possibly illegal) program to remove the DRM or by burning it to a CD and then re-ripping it (at a poorer sound quality). Really, in regards to that "solution", does anyone want to do that with their entire music collection? If I had bought all my music through iTunes instead of the CDs I bought, I'd have hundreds of albums to have to sit there and burn and then re-rip. I'd be wasting hundreds of blank CDs and probably hundreds of hours just to have a slightly worse sounding version of my music that I could then put on an mp3 player that isn't sold by Apple.

And since you bring up "seamless" integration of hardware and software, how do resolve that with a guy like this who has a $20,000 stereo in his home but he can't use it to play songs he buys from iTunes? Why not? Because Apple doesn't make stereo equipment. Sure, he can buy an iPod (Apple's monopoly in action, in this instance) and plug it into his stereo, but what if he wants to skip a song from across the room? I mean, even the cheapest POS CD players from 20 years ago had a remote control, right?

iTunes music store is great if you've got an iPod and like to listen to your music on the go, but it's not so great if you like to listen to it on your kick-ass stereo. I mean, if there was no DRM, Apple should still be happy because you bought the music from them, right? Why do you need a "secret decoder ring" (aka an iPod) to then be able to play the music on something that Apple doesn't make - like a stereo, for instance (not that anyone would want to play music they purchased on a stereo, but just hypothetically). So how about this for thumbs up:

Supporting Apple when it comes to making quality products: :thumbsup

Supporting Apple when it comes to supporting the RIAA: :thumbsdown

Supporting Apple when they are limiting the freedom of their consumers: :thumbsdown

Apple absolutely cannot just remove all DRM without closing their music store entirely. The record labels demand some kind of copy protection to make their stuff digitally available.

As for the dude with the $20,000 stereo system, well, he can either buy an iPod or I think he can use Airport Express to wirelessly transmit all his music directly to his stereo through his computer and iTunes. I'm not an expert on Airport Express, but I think that's specifically what it's for. Also, remember that Apple is still relatively new to the music world and many people expect some new products from Cupertino that will add more functionality and interoperability between iTunes and home theater equipment.

As for the iPod option, I was in Circuit City just last weekend looking at LCD HD-TVs and took a look around the receiver aisle. Onkyo makes an iPod dock compatible with all their new receivers that comes with a remote, so it's pretty easy to integrate an iPod to your system.

ALSO..... most people don't buy all their music from the iTunes music store. We've all collected piles of CDs over the years and you can rip these freely into iTunes in whatever format you want to use. I still buy used CDs from Half.com for most old albums I want to listen to in iTunes, because they're (for the most part) way cheaper.

Plus, if you keep saying all these negative things about Apple, the stock will go down, which is not a good thing. The power of the Yams blog, remember.

Abused power of WildYams :thumbsdown
Microsoft bankruptcy :thumbsup
Jessica Biel sexiest woman alive? :nono

Or the guy can not buy music from iTunes and then save himself the money required to buy an iPod to decode it. You say he can get an Airport Express, well what if he has a PC and is using iTunes on that? Also, how does an Airport Express help him if he bought stuff off of Napster.com and iTunes? Why should he have to buy an iPod, and Onkyo stereo and then an Onkyo-to-iPod adapter just to listen to music he bought? If I buy a CD, I can just put it into my CD player. It doesn't matter who made the CD player, just so long as I happen to own one.

Your argument about the record companies requiring the DRM to be there is flawed. That may have been the case initially, but right now there is a lot more in it for Apple to have that there than for the record companies to. As this article points out, the record companies are in the position of having to do things Apple's way, not the other way around. The article talks about how the record companies recently wanted to raise prices on downloads and Steve Jobs said no. Warner Music's CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr went public with his complaint:

"There's no content in the world that has doesn't have some price flexibility. Not all songs are created equal. Not all albums are created equal."

Here are some exceprts also from that article that really show who is controlling things in this relationship between Apple and the record companies:

Record labels such as Bronfman's hope to gain some leverage in their negotiations with Apple when their current licensing deals expire in early 2006. Bronfman has previously pressed the case of turning the mobile phone into a potential iPod rival in hope of eroding some of Apple's grip on the music business.

Apple inoculated itself against that possibility by collaborating with Motorola on the ROKR phone, which lets users put some songs from their iTunes playlists on a phone. As the labels press the idea of transforming the wireless phone into an iPod rival, Apple will be in a position to say, "Been there, done that," and dismiss further phone-related products...

The more iPods sold, the more people will be patronizing the iTunes Music store. "The iPod drives people to iTunes, not the other way around," observes analyst Michael Gartenberg of Jupiter Research. A strong quarter of iPod sales will only solidify iTunes' position as the Microsoft of the digital-music industry, leaving RealNetworks, Napster, and others to bring up the very distant rear.

That makes the path for record companies clear: Jobs will get what Jobs wants. In the end, that means download prices will stay right where they are.

When asked earlier in the week at a press conference in Paris about the possibility of the music company raising prices, Jobs said: "If they want to raise the prices, it means that they are getting greedy." Greedy? Maybe. But right now, Steve Jobs is holding all the cards and can afford to talk tough. He knows this war of words is all but won.

Why Apple wants the DRM in there is evident because it ensures you have to have an iPod to play music you buy from iTunes. If Apple was just cowtowing to the record labels, then why wouldn't they agree to license FairPlay to other companies?

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to badmouth Apple, I am badmouthing DRM. I know that if Apple had never thought of this, then it would probably Microsoft with a monopoly on this too; but right now Apple is the leader, so they're the most well known and the biggest target. I don't like what Apple is doing with DRM anymore than I like what Microsoft is or Napster or whomever. That's why I said, just buy CDs, and buy them used if you can (so the RIAA doesn't get its cut, and since they started this mess, they deserve to go down for it). As you've seen, I have every intent on buying an iPod, I just want to use it to play music I bought in whatever manner I please. Just because I buy something from a company doesn't mean I have to use it in the way they wanted me to.

Jessica Biel is hot. :thumbsup
Jessica Alba is hot. :thumbsup
Jessica Simpson is hot. :thumbsup

Jessica Hahn is not hot anymore. :thumbsdown

Airport Express is for both Mac and PC (http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/), so if the guy's stuck using Windows in his home (oops, I mean, if he's lucky enough to use such a fine operating system in his own private living space), he'll be happily rocking to his latest Jessica Simpson album. And maybe soon, he'll be staring at her music video through that same set-up, and he can appreciate her overwhelming hotness (according to Koga).

I like how the WB exec pleads for raising prices by acting powerless and trying to foster some kind of half-assed logic that only allows for upward pricing. Notice how he doesn't want flexibility to lower prices of older or less popular WB product. Oh no. They (the labels) get a taste of an emerging stream of income and they feel pressured to increase that instead of helping it to grow more widespread (like, by lowering prices). Screw 'em, the greedy bastards. Steve Jobs always tells the truth, man. And yes, I drank the Kool Aid long ago.

Long live the cult of the six colors :thumbsup
None of the Jessicas is as hot as Maura Tierney :thumbsup
Terrorism :thumbsdown
Fiona Apple :thumbsup
Disneyland closing the submarine ride :thumbsdown
Diamante :thumbsup

Jessica Simpson :thumbsup
Ashlee Simpson :thumbsdown

Fiona Apple :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup