Thread: Apple Ruins My Life (again)

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Thanks. I have used grooveshark before... I think the downside there was a smaller catalog but I'll check it out to see if/how it stacks up against lala.

Grooveshark is a wonderful product of Gainesville, FL, too!

I admit that I still download my music by full album through usenet or bittorrent and don't fiddle with the iTunes Music Store at all. I'm pretty sure you can convert their non-DRM files without burning/ripping.

Another good source is Amazon. I think they've always offered DRM-free music for good prices. Whenever I have a Visa/MC gift card with less than $5 on it, I'll buy a few tunes off Amazon.

There is a program that mimics "burning" but rather than burning to CD via CD-R drive, it uses a virtual drive to "burn" to the hard drive in a format of your choosing.

I converted my entire iTunes library to mp3 using it. I'll be damned if I'm going to let them control what I do with sh!t that I paid for.

I appreciate the suggestions, though, and I'll check them out, but I'm just disappointed that Lala appears to be going the way of the dodo. It really is the best thing going in terms of revolutionizing media. Offering everything available to its users online on the cheap is pretty amazing and legal.

I'm sure Apple will ruin it on multiple levels.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

There is a program that mimics "burning" but rather than burning to CD via CD-R drive, it uses a virtual drive to "burn" to the hard drive in a format of your choosing.

I converted my entire iTunes library to mp3 using it. I'll be damned if I'm going to let them control what I do with sh!t that I paid for.

I appreciate the suggestions, though, and I'll check them out, but I'm just disappointed that Lala appears to be going the way of the dodo. It really is the best thing going in terms of revolutionizing media. Offering everything available to its users online on the cheap is pretty amazing and legal.

I'm sure Apple will ruin it on multiple levels.

The real revolution will be when artists are selling their music directly to their fanbase without having to pay percentages for agents and labels and online stores. It's easy for established artists to do that now, but we'll get to the point where up-and-comers can follow the same model and achieve success.

thats already happening, and happening a lot. the threat to new artists, be they musicians or authors, is obscurity, not "pirates"

This kind of business practice is not uncommon at all. Most large businesses own bits and pieces of their direct competators, indeed some own the whole lot. What is now the VW group for example.

Also, it's not unusual for a company to have complete control of the products it produces. You might find that the companies with the best reputation for quality are more expensive and also more particular about the materials they use and also where the product is made.

I use Spotify (listening to Cat Power while I type this), and love it! It does not have absolutely everything, but more than enough for background listening while at work....and is free, just a few adds now and there, although a lot less than in any commercial radio.

Spotify is good.

Originally Posted by gregs656

This kind of business practice is not uncommon at all. Most large businesses own bits and pieces of their direct competators, indeed some own the whole lot. What is now the VW group for example.

Also, it's not unusual for a company to have complete control of the products it produces. You might find that the companies with the best reputation for quality are more expensive and also more particular about the materials they use and also where the product is made.

gregs, I'm no stranger to big business (I'm a part of it). I know how mergers and acquisitions work.

My point is that in this particular case, they are almost absolutely going to dumb down a superior product because the format does not contribute to their bottom line.

They bought the company to serve as an injunction for them to compete at a higher level with a better product. Now, they will likely cripple the better product.

Usually, big companies gobble up smaller companies for increased market share and new technology. This acquisition just doesn't seem to play out that way.

We'll see. I hope I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by GadgetGeek

thats already happening, and happening a lot. the threat to new artists, be they musicians or authors, is obscurity, not "pirates"

In my line of business, I hear this line almost every week, ever since Cory Doctorow coined the phrase (or was it Tim O'Reilly? I forget.)

I agree it is true: the greater threat is definitely obscurity. But if only it was a case of one or the other. The biggest threat may be obscurity, but in my opinion the second biggest is piracy. The former must be addressed by the creative industries -- it's their responsibility to ensure they represent their artists properly and publicise/promote/list/catalogue their products such that end users can discover/find/buy the products easily.

The latter is much harder to tackle. But I believe you cannot rely on punitive measures alone. Instead, you need a three-legged stool of:
[1] law/punitive measures;
[2] new business models which the creative industries MUST explore and implement, including alternatives to the current model of scarcity and possibly alternatives some of the historical models of copyright;
[3] schools, higher education institutions, and universities teaching the value of intellectual property and the importance of copyright as a way to protect that IP and reward the efforts of the content creator.

It's not just about content either. Take the case of pharma companies and their R&D. Without IP protection or copyright or patents, they would have no incentive to spend millions researching new and better medicines.

I like the idea of Spotify. It's a real sign that music companies are (albeit begrudgingly) engaging with point 2 above. It does not rely on old models and instead works along licensing and subscription as a way to deliver money to artists and publishers. I don't for one minute believe it will replace the old revenue streams and keep them as profitable, but it will keep them alive until such time that they find a more equitable model.

Majurey, I think we do agree in principal on this. My personal opinion though is that things are far and away out of hand.
1. Yes we do need laws and punitive measures to protect the IP, however right now those laws are so insane that they do more to kill creativity than to protect those creating right now. most law makers are so worried about protecting the now, that public domain is being lost, which I think is tragic. Also given that internet access is becoming as much a right as electricity, the current 3 strike rules are kinda scary, especially considering that there is no real judicial process in it. its like being charged for DWI just because someone saw a red car driving funny, and you own a red car.

2. yes we need a new business model. If these companies would treat their customers like customers, and not like criminals, I think their problems would be over quickly. (DRM and such has been the worst thing for media companies imho) Case in point, several non-DRM Ebooks have been released, and sales have matched projected sales estimates of the DRM version.

3. I agree that education is a huge part of this, and if schools could use the public domain easily and show "this is old and free, this is new and paid for, here are the differences, and why" then we would be far ahead, however if universities are stuck with relatively few works to pull from, there is no incentive for them and the students to just go find what they need, regardless of who owns it. Its a case of the miser holding on to everything, using little, and as such getting robbed of it all. Another case of this is the recent move by CBS to not release tapes of the Jack Benny show, even though they are public domain, they have the only copies, so they can just bury it because they feel like it. its not like they have to do any work, and a piece of culture dies. how much more has been lost? This as well as the recent court cases of "sell now, pay later" practices show that its not about copyright at all, its about profit.

As for the pharma companies, shorter patent protection actually forces more innovation, and the current model means that a lot of research dies in the filing cabinet long before production. there is also the problem of ethics, in that these drugs can save lives, and the drug companies withhold them from people who cannot afford first world prices. And instead release drugs of questionable safety simply because there is a large and profitable demand for them.
I don't think that they should be forced to allow poorer countries to produce the drugs, but I do think that they should not be able to keep those countries from producing them. simple fact is that eventually those countries will develop that same compound in isolation, it is bound to happen, so why not just let them have the formula. And its not like these countries want to produce the entire pharmacopoeia, just a few, like say the AIDS drugs, or maybe anti-malaria meds. just the ones that, you know, keep everyone from dieing. something tells me that south africa isn't needing cheap prozac.

Edit: Sorry its kind of rantish, I just don't find many people willing to debate, most are one side or the other. hopefully I can learn something.