The Shrine

I still download from bittorrent.

if anyone wants an article:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html

It's about time... but does this apply retroactively, or will only the songs you purchase from here-on out be DRM free? Will you be able to redownload your old songs DRM free too?

EDIT: Nevermind, looks like they will. Very nice

iTunes offers customers a simple, one-click option to easily upgrade their entire library of previously purchased songs to the higher quality DRM-free iTunes

Tessian wrote:if anyone wants an article:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html

It's about time... but does this apply retroactively, or will only the songs you purchase from here-on out be DRM free? Will you be able to redownload your old songs DRM free too?

EDIT: Nevermind, looks like they will. Very nice

iTunes offers customers a simple, one-click option to easily upgrade their entire library of previously purchased songs to the higher quality DRM-free iTunes

You forgot the price you have to pay also for songs to become DRM free. Only apple is smart enough to make you pay twice for something you purchased and you will still come back for more.


http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/itun ... -drm-free/

Huh... I read that and didn't even notice that $0.30 charge part. It's "supposed" to be higher quality... dunno if that'd be worth it for most or not

It's worth noting that Apple put DRM in place because of the labels, not because they wanted it there. From a 2007 Steve Jobs open letter:

The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.
...
The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Emphasis mine. The policy change was with the labels, not Apple. Well, sorta. Apple has had a longstanding policy of one price on iTunes. It looks like Apple traded three-tiered pricing for no DRM.

Apple is in the iPod selling business, not the music selling business. iTunes is a means to an end; they want the best online music store so you buy their music player.

Overly expensive <strike>DRM</strike> albums with no artwork, lyrics, notes, selection of format, and an even shittier cut to the artists than CD.

No thanks. I'd rather do it using eMusic or something similar. (Despite not liking eMusic's pricing model.) It's a step in the right direction (that Apple profits from, go figure), but it's only step one in a 12-step program.

Imakeholesinu wrote:I still download from bittorrent.

Yeah, pretty much my take on it. Although I have to admit, the $1 a song thing is a good price. If I were into music more I would pay it no prob. But I hardly listen to anything anymore other than in the car or occasionally on the PSP. I could easily do without so I'm not really willing to pay for it aside from the occasional album here and there

Zeus wrote:Yeah, pretty much my take on it. Although I have to admit, the $1 a song thing is a good price.

No, it's not. Again, no artwork, and all the other stuff, on a lossy compression. The average album has 10-12 songs, so that's $10 to $12, the price of a CD. CDs are already too expensive. They should be in the $3-5 range.

Now, with the new price range, it's going to be $1.29 a song, so about $13 to $18 a CD.

I deleted iTunes and everything associated with it yesterday (iPod was stolen a few months ago). Good riddance. I can finally go about making sense of my My Music folder now that it's not torn apart by that awful program.

The new price system has songs at 69 cents, 99 cents, and $1.29.

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:Yeah, pretty much my take on it. Although I have to admit, the $1 a song thing is a good price.

No, it's not. Again, no artwork, and all the other stuff, on a lossy compression. The average album has 10-12 songs, so that's $10 to $12, the price of a CD. CDs are already too expensive. They should be in the $3-5 range.

Now, with the new price range, it's going to be $1.29 a song, so about $13 to $18 a CD.

But most of us only like 1 to 3 songs per CD. We don't want to pay for a whole album when we're only gonna use 20% of it.

Zeus wrote:But most of us only like 1 to 3 songs per CD. We don't want to pay for a whole album when we're only gonna use 20% of it.

It's funny... I seem to counter this statement with the same thing every single time, but here it goes:

If you're only listening to 1-3 songs per CD, you're listening to the wrong fucking artists!

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:But most of us only like 1 to 3 songs per CD. We don't want to pay for a whole album when we're only gonna use 20% of it.

It's funny... I seem to counter this statement with the same thing every single time, but here it goes:

If you're only listening to 1-3 songs per CD, you're listening to the wrong fucking artists!

No, even my favourite songs only have 1 to 3 songs on that respective CD that's any good. Even some of my fav artists over the years (AC DC, GNR, Metallica) rarely go over half of the CD as "good".

That's why I go mostly for compilations or "best of" collections

I'm in the party that thinks one is sorely limiting the variety of music they have available to them by eliminating all bands with albums where you don't like every song.

There's only a handful of bands I listen to where I'll listen to whole albums, but hundreds out there where I'll listen to 1-3 songs off their albums. GNR for example, Use Your Illusion I and II, I'm not going to deprive myself of Don't Cry, Yesterdays, Estranged, Civil War, and November Rain just because I don't give a crap about the other 26 songs on the albums and don't want to download them.

It's one thing to have favorite songs. It's quite another to have songs that aren't even worth your download. If an artist sucks that much, then you should stop listening to them. These are called "one-hit wonders".

You buy the album, always. Then you play that album from beginning to end. This is how you listen to music. Quit using shuffle, and quit breaking up the albums. If a song sucks, skip it, but if you're skipping most of the album, then the album sucks. If multiple albums are like that, then the artist sucks.

For example, Radiohead. The first album sucked. Creep was the only decent song on there, and it's way overplayed. If I lost my music collection, I wouldn't download the album again. However, every album after that one is really fucking good. It's worth downloading ALL the songs, and it's worth listening to ALL the songs.

If I played OK Computer, I might skip songs like Exit Music or Fitter Happier (which isn't even a song), and my favorites would be songs like Paranoid Android, Electioneering, and The Tourist. However, the rest of the songs are still worth listening to.

Another example, Tori Amos. I generally don't like Tori Amos. However, From the Choirgirl Hotel and To Venus and Back were good albums. The rest of her stuff is shitty piano music.

SineSwiper wrote:It's one thing to have favorite songs. It's quite another to have songs that aren't even worth your download. If an artist sucks that much, then you should stop listening to them. These are called "one-hit wonders".

You buy the album, always. Then you play that album from beginning to end. This is how you listen to music. Quit using shuffle, and quit breaking up the albums. If a song sucks, skip it, but if you're skipping most of the album, then the album sucks. If multiple albums are like that, then the artist sucks.

For example, Radiohead. The first album sucked. Creep was the only decent song on there, and it's way overplayed. If I lost my music collection, I wouldn't download the album again. However, every album after that one is really fucking good. It's worth downloading ALL the songs, and it's worth listening to ALL the songs.

If I played OK Computer, I might skip songs like Exit Music or Fitter Happier (which isn't even a song), and my favorites would be songs like Paranoid Android, Electioneering, and The Tourist. However, the rest of the songs are still worth listening to.

Another example, Tori Amos. I generally don't like Tori Amos. However, From the Choirgirl Hotel and To Venus and Back were good albums. The rest of her stuff is shitty piano music.

99% of music comes from one-hit wonders.

In order for me to even consider buying an album, I have to head a good 3 to 4 songs from the artist to determine if their album is even worth it. Then it gets a download to see if the rest of it doesn't suck enormous donkey cock. Then if I like it enough, I'll buy it.

Listening to the entire album is something a group/artist earns. It's not something I do automatically

Then again, you're not listening to the right artists. There are musicians that cater to all manners of taste, even yours. And there are plenty that make consistently good music. You should go on Last.fm or Pandora and find out exactly which artists you like.

There are MILLIONS of artists out there. The music industry is entirely over saturated. You have no excuse to not have any artists that you truly like.

I've really gone local in the past couple years. There are about a zillion bands around the world that will never have a music video, never get on the radio, but are great. Check out your local music scene! Even in a little city like Regina, Saskatchewan, you will find some great talent.

I enjoy the big hitters like Bloc Party, TV on the Radio, Talking Heads, The Cribs, Fleet Foxes, Wolf Parade, Interpol, Lupe Fiasco, etc., but local bands like Despistado, Library Voices, Rah Rah, and Silvie are all great sources to diversify your music collection with. I don't know how your places of residence are, but usually the bands are free, you just buy their shit to feel good about seeing them without charge.

Heh, I've done the opposite: I've gone global. With Last.fm, I'm finding good bands that I would have never heard of from different countries. For example, Apparat is now one of my favorite bands, and the guy is from Germany.

SineSwiper wrote:Then again, you're not listening to the right artists. There are musicians that cater to all manners of taste, even yours. And there are plenty that make consistently good music. You should go on Last.fm or Pandora and find out exactly which artists you like.

There are MILLIONS of artists out there. The music industry is entirely over saturated. You have no excuse to not have any artists that you truly like.

I'm listening to the best ones I've come across. And I have friends who basically think that the less popular a band is or the less airtime they've gotten on any radio station anyone's heard of, the better they are. So it's not like I've only been exposed to popular stuff.

It's just that I don't listen to too much music. I don't invest too much time into it so I don't want to sit there and listen to a whole album unless I have a reason to

I use Last.fm and I still rarely find any bands that I really like. I've found that finding new stuff that I love is luck. Nowadays 80% of what I end up listening to a lot is from what I hear people playing on their iPods when I'm at work (the bartenders hook their MP3 players into the stereo systems). The best part about that is that they play the entire album so the stuff I buy I end up loving the entire album.

One of the first steps to becoming an emo asshole is to listen to become a fan of Indy label music; and criticize pop music and its fans =p

Next you become a philosophy major, buy the Cafe Del Mar Aria and Buddha Bar collections, and grow big hair or hair with bangs; maybe get a pair of Drew Carey glasses.

Legend of The Seeker wrote:One of the first steps to becoming an emo asshole is to listen to become a fan of Indy label music; and criticize pop music and its fans =p

For the most part, pop music blows. Manufactured bullshit and boy bands who don't even know how to compose a song. The concept has been around for decades, with bands like the Monkees trying to be just like the Beatles.

Not saying that all pop music is bad, nor that I'm some emo guy that only listens to indy music, but people really need to branch out to the less-popular bands and figure out what they like. The Internet exists now, so people no longer have an excuse.