At 99¢ per, the price for downloads on Apple's new iTfW - iTunes for Windows - is still well beyond the pale and it's unlikely this will open music downloads as a major gap-filler for the music industry, which is reeling from the painful (for its bottom line) effects of bad product, bad marketing and bad PR.

But, says Britain's New Scientist, there's another reason for concern for Apple and, hence, the Big Five, who are supplying the material. And the problem centres on (dare we say it) the Micro$oft O/S.

iTunes' 'light' copy protection will be an irresistable draw.

"The threat comes from the combination of the relatively light copy protection iTunes uses and the big increase of potential hackers that comes with opening up to the world's most common operating system," says the New Scientist here, going on:

"The paid-for download service was the first to lure music fans away from free file-sharing music networks. Since launching in April 2003, Apple says more than 13 million songs have been downloaded.

"Observers believe this is partly due to price - songs can be downloaded for 99 cents without paying a subscription fee. But a crucial factor is that iTunes imposes fewer technical restrictions on what listeners can do with the music files than other paid-for offerings. The files can be copied to compact disc or the iPod music player, and they are encoded in a format that allows them to be played on three registered computers."

And this, spells 'light' copy protection, Joshua Duhl, director of rich media with analyst firm IDC, is quoted as saying in the article. "Somebody's going to try to hack it."

However, Apple may be betting iTunes is sufficiently cheap and usable to make the incentives to would-be infringers small, says Duhl. "They've had so much success already that, if the business model holds, in most cases people won't want to hack it," he told New Scientist.

iTunes Lite, I++ HeHe HeHe, Yeah those are on the way soon, though who would ever want to use iTunes. I don't trust apple, and neither should anyone else (I don't trust Micro$oft either). I'd hack away at it, but then again, no P.O.S. spying Apple software would ever make it's way onto my HardDrive.

they dont have to worry about me . i wont waste my time with compressed files with restrictions for 99 cents anyway

Again the nth time Apple get a clue!!!

We don't care if you put itunes & ipods in everybody's xmas stocking they both still reek of Apple and a unpopular file compression system!

We don't want another bad business practice. We already have enough of them for pcs. That's why the sites are collecting dust instead of cash.
UNDERSTAND???

Artist deserve more than 11cents per tune and you have not paid any artist todate!!!

ditto.

No new microsoft goes on my computer. No "critical updates..." nothing. I currently use Windows98, first edition. I have access to a cheeeap ($60) copy of WinXP Professional with my student discount.

No dice. You'll have to pay me.
Unfortunately I have Quicktime. The primary media players are almost impossible to avoid.

Apple - no
Microsoft - no
RIAA - never

-not related-
If anyone can tell me a .ra player that isn't real audio, I'd be grateful.

i was ditto-ing mtekk.

what's really funny is the apple.com front page, it boasts that: "Hell froze over, iTunes for Windows is here.... It's the best Windows app. ever" ROFLAMO @ Apple, This is really interesting....

I have Quick Time only because of some resurch software that requires it, RealOne 'expired' on me, spo i deleated it except for the crutial codec...

I have Micro$oft XP pro on my box, but as you said, no "critical updates" except for the blaster virus patch thingy.

Hey Poserchild, Apple has a clue, How can you call ACC an unpopular file system? It is part of the MPEG4 standard, not some stupid proprietary WMA copy protected MS stuff.

If you had done your research, you would know that the DRM is in the iTunes program itself, not the actual ACC files. That means if someone were to add the ACC decoder to an MP3 player, it could read the ACC files purchased on the ITMS.

Also, its not Apple's, Dell's, Music Match's, NapsterV.2's faults what the artist is getting paid. That is determined by the contract between the artist and the label. Is it fair to the artist? NO, but don't blame the online music services for the artists contracts. That is the same propaganda, lies, and misinformation that is worthy of the RIAA.

Functionality of iTunes on Windows? mixed bag. On systems here, some are trainwreck disasters, other run great.

How can you be so anti Apple when thousands of artists (indies and not) use the equipment to write, record, and produce music and video, and to run shows on tour without going into the RIAA and label studios paying $1000 per hour for the use of those facilities?

If you don't personally use or like Apple, that's fine. Don't spread misinformation about the products or artists who use them.

Posterchild, my apologies, you never said anything about the artists who use them. My bad.

Just wanted to let you know that Apple equipment is letting big label artists get out from under the thumb of the RIAA by not paying huge amounts to the big label studios, and giving smaller acts and indies equipment and technology the removes or lowers a barrier to entry.

Didn't mean to seem so hostile or personally attacking you.

Get Ultraplayer from download.com it will recognize .rm .ram & .ra files plus it will let you save streaming audio to your harddrive as an mp3. It also supports a host of other audio and video formats.

The only caveat is that it will need to use the realaudio codecs so keep your copy of realplayer but you will never have to use it again...

To darknite9 Apple is not revolutionary! It is just applying the same old ripoff business practices on a new medium.

As far as aac goes until the hardware manufacturers ever decide to support it other than apple then at that time it may make sense. Until then it is just another betamax...

Hardware history is litered with superior failures in the public's eye.

But don't just take my word for it. And I know it's been linked before but obviously some still haven't seen it...

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

spread the word...

darknite9 wrote: "Didn't mean to seem so hostile or personally attacking you"

No offense taken...

FYI, posterchild, AAC is *not* an "unpopular" compression scheme. I use it myself and im very satisfied with it. At 160 kbps i get a quality comparable to that of a 192 kbps MP3 or better. So it saves a lot of HD space and provides awsome sound.

BTW, have you ever tried it yourself, or are you just Yet ANother Apple Bashing Troll ?

Oh, and mtekk, would you mind documenting your claim that APple produces spyware ?

I have used Apple products for over a decade, and I have yet to see a single instance of where APple spies on your, or returns personal info WITHOUT VISIBLE AUTHORISATION!

Geez, some people...

TheSherminator - www.kazaalite.tk has a "Real Alternative" as well as a "QuickTime Alternative" they are supposed to be pretty good.

Back on subject, as long as ANYONE says something can't be broken, hackers will break it. There is nothing that will stop that, hackers like a challenge, and for the beginner hacker "light" copy protections would probably be a challenge. obviously we can just burn the files onto a CD a rip them back off, or burn them to an image file and rip them out of the image (avoiding wasting a CD with RIAA endorsed $hit music).

Hey Posterchild, I never said Apple was revolutionary. Nothing really is anymore with all the regulation in place to kill or retard those danged "disruptive (read revolutionary) technologies"

But I would differ with Apple's inability to play popular formats. The iPod (disclaimer, I have nothing to do with Apple and own none of their stock) can store and play .WAV, AIFF, MP3, and ACC

The songs that iTunes rips from CDs into the ACC format are not copy protected in any way.

The fact that iPod doesn't play WMA files is a really good thing since its copy protection is much more restrictive than what iTunes imposes on files downloaded from the music store.

A couple of questions on WMP/WMA. If I had Windows Media Player, and ripped songs from my CDs into WMA files, would they have copy protection like the WMA files available for payed download on other services? Or is the WMA strictly for download services?

Thanks

DJSupreme, I think he either MEANT adware, or confused adware and spyware, I don't think anyone would argue that QuickTime for Windows is chock full of adware; I doubt they have spyware though.. unless you count anonymous usage statistics, which they may (most players do) encompass.

Posters right, superior formats often fail for economic reasons, bad timeing or just bad luck. Betamax quality was better than VHS, it failed because the maximum capacity was slightly too low to hold an entire film. When it was designed it was assumed no studio would release films on tape because it would cut into ticket sales. VCD and SVCD were superior to VHS for prerecorded films, but never became popular in the US or Europe because the studios refused to use anything digital without paranoid levels of encryption. Vorbis is better than MP3, but is only spreading very slowly because MP3 has become a buzzword and Microsoft has teams dedicated to convinceing portable manufacturers they must include WMA support. AAC is a technicly very good format, but not widely used because its propritary and not easily licensed.

From a technical point iTunes doesn't offer the same level of hardware support as the WMDRM-based systems, but it does work on the most famous portable player, the iPod. Apple also has a good history of easy-to-use software, efficiency, bug-free systems and reliability. Microsoft, OTOH, is Microsoft.

The comparative strength of their DRM isn't important because both are about as hard to break as a wet tissue. Just burn to CD(RW) and then rip that. Oh, qualities not ideal, but its not much of a loss. The quality the user is supposed to pay for is still inferior to a purchased CD. Or use a recording sound card, or an analog loopback cable. Wet tissue.

Djsupreme23: I never said they contained spyware. It was a figure of speech that basically means I personally don't trust Apple. It doesn't mean you can't trust apple, I just don't trust them, that's all.

I'm with mtekk.

To me 'spyware' and 'spying on people' are interchangeable. The physical spyware software isn't present.. no. I don't think apple distributes spyware. But they are quite nosey and I don't consider them trustable at all.

firstnut - thank you for the link.

mtekk "but then again, no P.O.S. spying Apple software would ever make it's way onto my HardDrive."

Everyone in this entire sight says they are tired of the lies and half truths and misinformation that the RIAA spouts.

Then we turn around and use opposing views made up of lies, misinformation, half truths, and personal opinions and expect to gain any credibilty?

For any effort against the **AA twins to succeed, it must use truth. Documented, and acceptable in a court. The burden of proof is on us. Only the **AA twins can get away with breaking the laws since they own so many government officials

DJSupreme23 wrote:
"I use it myself and im very satisfied with it."
Congratulations! You my friend are in the vast minority!

Well DJSupreme23 unless you can play them in a car stero disk changer or on a cd/dvd player home stereo then I might stand corrected! Otherwise mp3s work just fine everywhere...

"BTW, have you ever tried it yourself, or are you just Yet ANother Apple Bashing Troll ?"
I don't use apple hardware period but that is another issue altogether and for another web page. My point is that itunes in not the be all, end all, that the press is making it out to be. I don't know how to put it in any simpler terms than that.

darknite9 wrote: "If I had Windows Media Player, and ripped songs from my CDs into WMA files, would they have copy protection like the WMA files available for payed download on other services?"

You can turn off what they call 'Personal Rights Management' under options / cd audio when making recordings of your own cds...

Its easy to get around the copy protection of apple. download the file, burn it to a CD, then rip it back to your hard drive in whatever format you want - .aif, .wav, .mp3, .mov, whatever. You then have unlimited use.

I've said all along that I'd rather pay $.99 to download a song that I know is full and sounds good then spend 2 hours trying to find it and download 10 versions of it until I find one that's complete with no chirps or the last 3 seconds is cut off, etc. I value my time more than that. In that respect, I think Apple has done a great thing with iTunes.

As far as functionality I haven't tried it on my PC and I don't have OS 10.2 for my mac. So I can't respond there.

That is sort of the POINT. Apple's approach is to TRUST the customer, while RIAA and Microsoft's is to DISTRUST the customer. Mac OS X has no copy protection whatsoever, no reg keys, no nothing -- only trust in the customer to do The Right Thing. Now, that is unusual today. I think that's something to value, not to discourage. I like being /trusted/ by companies for a change.

As for RIAAposterchild, I don't get what you have against Apple... It's no form of spyware in any part of their products. "But they are quite nosey and I don't consider them trustable at all." -- quite nosey? How?

goldenpi -- Betamax being a superior format being "killed" to sell the inferior but better marketed VHS is mostly just an urban myth, of what I've heard... (a quick googling gave me this: http://www.urbanlegends.com/products/beta_vs_vhs.html )

About there being no innovation anymore -- I /would/ call the newest iMac innovative. I'd call Mac OS X innovative (have you tried it?). I'd call the Bluetooth-controlled radio car by SonyEricsson innovative. The world is only a dark and gloomy world without a future if you let it be so.

Cheers

Ain't it a bitch Cary-Sue...Another hole in the dike.

This is so stupid. Copy protection doesn't matter when you can either buy the cd and rip it, or burn and rip.

Paranoid ****s.

devNevyn if you search this thread again you will find it was not I that you quoted above...

"As for RIAAposterchild, I don't get what you have against Apple... "
I think the road to hell is paved with good intentions but itunes is a counterproductive business model that still screws the artists! Remember them they make the music we listen to!
So I will still boycott apple both on mac & pc until a more equitable artist compensation plan is devised...

And I can't say this enough no artist has ever seen a penny from itunes.

plug into mic in from line out... record.. wala

devNevyn
I think goldenpi nailed it on all counts when he said length of recording time and just bad luck. And after reading the article you linked it would appear they agree as well.

Overall beta offered and brought more features to the market sooner than vhs but as goldenpi said timing is everything. So when you have a hifi stereo beta deck vs a mono vhs deck that can record an entire movie guess which format sold the majority of decks.

This hardware market share drove the video rental stores which further fueled the eroding beta bottom line.

The article you linked seemed to miss that one important fact. After awhile beta video rentals went the way of the dinosaurs ..

radioaid, I said that a while ago but wasn't sure if it would work... thanks for proving that RI=Idiots once again

I dont own or use iPod or the ACC format.

What is the ratio of people using acc to mp3? The ratio of people using iPod to just any mp3 player?

9 out of 10 people knows what mp3s are opposed to acc. Therefore that is probably why poster mentioned the unpopular format of acc.

You can consider me one of those people who think acc is not that popular. *shrug*

{begin rant}
stupid proprietary formats... and here I thought apple's itunes used mp3. I hate them just as much as everybody else in the "legit" digital music selling business. They're just as greedy as Micro$oft and all the others

{end rant}

Seriously, OMG. Who gives a flying freak about AAC? iTunes hands down is the best MP3 player ever made for the PC. End of story. Plus I have a Creative Nomad and I transfer MP3's to it no prob through iTunes. People who are bitching about it must not be using it at all. Because if theres a better music playing app for PC I sure as hell havn't found one. So stop bitching about iTunes and AAC crap, nopbody here pays for music anyways. Its not like you guys are gonna use Napster either.

Bullshit. Foobar2000 ( http://www.foobar2000.org ) is one of the best players for the PC. Plays all formats, very conserative. XMMS, ogg123, mpg123, etc, are good for PCs if you don't use Windows. Winamp is good if you've been brainwashed into thinking there are no alternatives. Saying iTunes is the _best_ is just.. ignorance. It supports nothing but MP3 and AAC.

For those willing to listen to the facts about iTunes 4.x (for Mac & Windows), the reality is that you can encode your music in four (4) different formats:

AAC Encoder
AIFF Encoder
MP3 Encoder
WAV Encoder

I use Apple hardware, and quite frankly, until now, there was no comparable Windows program that could even come close to iTunes on the Mac. But iTunes for Windows has potential, and in my estimation, it will become the killer music app for Windows as well. Also, iTunes for Windows (i.e., no hardware control) will make for an interesting experiment for Apple.

The misunderstanding appears to be the fact that too many folks are equating iTunes 4.x with the iTunes Music Store and the AAC format (MPEG-4).

I have been using iTunes on the Mac for several years now, and I have approx. 100GB of legal "ripped" music in MP3 format. That's right - all MP3 encoded, by iTunes. The confusion that iTunes "forces" you to use AAC encoding is a myth that a little research will dispel. iTunes 1.x through 3.x was entirely an MP3 based encoding application.

Only the music that you buy and download from the iTunes Music Store is in AAC format by default. But you can simply chose to burn an Audio quality CD from the AAC files, and then rip the Audio CD into MP3's, if you so choose.

As for the iTunes Music Store - I have never used it - nor do I plan on using it in the near future. I personally like to own the music I listen to on CD, and 100% of what I buy is independent music on underground labels. No RIAA cartel label support here!

And for all the anti-Apple trolls out there - what have you got to loose? iTunes for Windows is a free download. Try it, and then trash it, if does nothing for you. In my opinion, it is the perfect solution for organizing and accessing large music collections. I have found nothing else in the Wintel world that even comes close, until now.

OK lest we forget this is apple we are talking about. Apple run by Steve Jobs, the same nefarious scum that pioneered what is Micro$oft alongside Big Bill. If we can't trust M$ why should we trust apple? I'm all for paying the musicians, this being their livelyhood, in all but, if we can get itunes cracked and ripped on pc, (which is inevitable) maybe the RIAA will take a hard look at the worlds "largest online music library" and pull their heads out of those arses and figure out its time to change the way the industry works...

(btw i MAY think of getting itunes for my xp compy on the condition that the '3 devices' bit for the audio is broken wide open. if i want my music on 80 cds, 3 mp3 players, and all 4 of my computers, thats my choice)

Heh. Them anit-apple zealots seem to be worse than us apple zealots... "Apple run by Steve Jobs, the same nefarious scum that pioneered what is Micro$oft alongside Big Bill."
Y'know, Apple and MS cooperated when MS was just some small two-guy company and Apple was the biggest PC brand in the world. They cooperated just long enough for Billie himself to get his hands on enough Apple software and hardware to build himself a competing product (Windows) for use with IBM's.

(manoc - in iTunes, if you check the checkbox "Share music", your music will be shared to all the computers on the network using zeroconf/Rendezvous. Very nice).

I think karotechia has a good point -- to you anti-apple zealots who /refuse/ to use any apple product because they're "inherently evil" or something -- just try it out. It's free, it runs on that Windows thingie, and if you don't like it, just throw it out. (and try not to find every fault and error possible, but to be a bit less biased and give it a chance)

To tasadar24 and RIAAposterchild -- darknite9 had a really good point -- It's not Apple's fault that the artists get so little, it's the record companies and the RIAA. I thought this site was "boycott-riaa", not "boycott-corporate-everything/apple"?

karotechia:
"But you can simply chose to burn an Audio quality CD from the AAC files, and then rip the Audio CD into MP3's, if you so choose."

You don't even have to do that. In iTunes change the preferences of the encoder to use then do a right click on the song to convert and chose the appropriate "Convert Selection to..." (the encoder you chose)

So converting an AAC to MP3, AIFF or WAV is simple.

BTW anyone : Has anybody succeded cracking a protected WMA file or hacked WMP to play "unauthorised" songs? Haven't heard any success about it? So if iTunes DRM is "strongly" implemented (on iTunes itself) it may be has hard to crack.

devNevyn I boycott anything that is riaa related!

I don't buy their cds. I don't download their music. I don't support their online music stores...

So just by putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it smell any better!

itunes & napster are the new pigs on the block.

Posterchild, are you instead buying music in any form that would benefit the artists more than buying their CD's?
If not, how do you then get your music?

I sure hope not by downloading pirated music via p2p - then you'd be the biggest hypocrite I've run into for years!

I find pirating a little music to try it out, and then buying the music if you like it, that's just fair. But replacing music purchases with p2p, that's the ultimate crime against artists!

devNevyn I would have thought the title of this board might have given you a hint?

I only support indie artists. Yes you can buy them in stores if you know where to look and online but I don't buy any type of compressed audio tracks. They would have to be cds only!

So sorry to disappoint you...

You need to take time and read what we offer here as alternatives to the riaa. So then you wouldn't have to ask all these questions. Now off you go and educate yourself...

Suppress riaa Music ... Support Indie Music

iTunes can do whatever they want, right now I have downloaded, and am freely sharing, several folders of music that was pulled off of iTunes by someone else.

The "artists" and especially the labels, have a problem if they think they have a god-given right to be PAID for their sounds. Their business model is wrong, and it is next to impossible to commit any sort of "crime" against them, because they never had a valid business to begin with.
Nobody owns sounds.

and apple sucks.

I can't add much, that hasn't been said already but to say, that I've been using iTunes for a while, and truly enjoy it for keeping track of all my sound files. Haven't found any other program that is better.

I was glad that it is now available for the PC. I would send screen shots to my PC friends that were curious about it and they were impressed. Try it, you might like it.

The PC vs Mac argument is old news. Just use a machine that suits one best for what you want to do.

The i Tunes Music Store..I won't be using it because of the price and the mainstream RIAA music. My gig is obscure 60's psych music. Rather have the CD that I found on half.com or the ilk.

Just 2 cents.

Spica - ha ha , that's funny. I hope you're kidding!

"The "artists" and especially the labels, have a problem if they think they have a god-given right to be PAID for their sounds."

People dedicate their lives to creating art. Some people wash dishes, some people fly airplanes, some people create art. Why shouldn't they be paid for it? That just doesn't make sense.

Because we have computers now. That makes it extremially difficult to enforce copyright law.

just wanted to add a couple of things:

first, itunes music store offers music by INDEPENDENT LABELS, also. they always are adding new music too.

second, aac files downloaded from itms cannot be directly converted in itunes - you get a pop up saying just that.

that's all!

First, Let me state my preference for a PC. They run anything. Apples Itunes...as far as im concerned sucks.
I never use it.
And the Mac is a fine machine, I simply dont like them, anothers different choice is just as valid.
99 cents for a restricted use song from a too small library is more than im gonna pay. itunes is bad idea. catch me in a year, and see what you think when its in the business annals with the 'new coke.'

~time flies~

One more thing to spica -

I think it would be funny if you came in on Friday to get your paycheck and your boss said "you know, you don't really OWN time, so to think you have a god given right to be paid for your time, which you don't own, is ridiculous. Therefore I've decided not to pay you".

I've spent thousands on private lessons and college to get a Bachelors degree in music and I've invested thousands of dollars in my recording studio and spent hundreds of hours writing and recording songs. What makes you think you have a right to have the outcome of my labor for free?

Now, I'm all for p2p, I'm all for iTunes, and I'm all for the boycott against the RIAA, but I think you haven't explored the issue from all angles yet.

Phew, been waiting to talk for a long time. I'll try to keep this one short and to the point, since this is getting outdated anyway. One quick note beforehand - I am actively interested in paying for quality files that can be downloaded quickly without waiting in a queue. People who rant that no CD should cost more than $5 sound as unreasonable and extreme as the RIAA. Indie albums @ concerts sell for $10, and I can understand a REASONABLE price difference for the majors (increased distribution, production, big sellers recouping the losses of weaker sellers, etc.). $16+ is far too much, and most of the major releases suck sweaty donkey balls. Okay, with that out of the way...

I used iTunes over the weekend, and just wanted to make some quick notes:

Summary - For $.99 a song, with quick, clean, great sound audio, ITMS is great if you just want a copy of the song you just heard on the radio or you want to put together a party compilation. If you're a completionist like me, it's viable (certainly convenient), but you're still better off going to a used music store to get the complete "package". While I think that iTunes will succeed, it does seem contradictory. For people who just want the hottest new singles, most p2ps will be flooded with them for free. Currently however, the selection on iTunes isn't extensive enough for people who would be willing to pay for complete albums that are either obscure or out of print. Plus (and I may be the last generation where this matters), the loss of a jewel case and a CD booklet is palpable.

Look/Ease of use - Excellent. Searches come up accurately or not at all. I used 1-click first, then switched to the shopping cart. Quick downloads, without being stuck in 100 member queues to download from some guy with a dial-up who decides to sign off halfway through.

Price - This is the big argument that people are making. For the record - it's $.99. $.99, people. You spend more for the watered-down crap that passes for coffee. Obviously, this isn't ever going to replace free p2p, but the added convenience, quality control, and "security" will make it user-friendly enough to last. I got two albums for $9.99:

Big Star - #1 Record/Radio City (24 tracks)
Belle and Sebastian - The Boy With the Arab (12 tracks)

I also picked up a 4 song EP for $3.49. Both full length albums were available for $3 (average) cheaper than what I found on half.com and much cheaper than list price. Obviously, I could've probably found either for about $6 at a used CD store, but I'd been meaning to do that for months. Again, convenience was "somewhat" worth the price.

Quality - IMHO, people need to get over themselves a little bit on this issue. My computer is connected to an AIWA bookshelf system that cost $300 3 years ago. I use an Archos Jukebox with the included (crappy) headphones. I'm not a 320k freak, but I usually insist on 192k. At the same time, I have converted my original 128k mp3s to 96k WMA, then back to MP3(192) without ruining my listening experience. My tastes vary within indie rock, from baroque stuff (B&S, Sigur Ros) all the way to noisecore (Black Eyes, etc). The original AAC file sounds VERY good through my computer on my soundsystem. If it is 128k, then AAC is leaps and bounds beyond what MP3 offers in terms of sound at the same bitrate. In original form, all the songs sounded CD quality through my speakers, without the digital "hiccups" that sometimes accompany mp3 files found on p2p.

I burned the albums to CD, then reripped to 192k MP3 using MusicMatch. I only listened to EP on my stereo, and definitely noticed that the "s"'s sounded harsher. On my computer, the Big Star album sounded fine (lots of jangly guitars, bright production). The B&S sounded fine on my computer, but does sound muddy on my Archos (but that may be the horrible headphones). So while more orchestral songs may suffer, most mp3s converted from AAC will sound fine if you're paying attention to the music and not the wav analyses. I definitely admit that I do have issues with having to go through all that hassle just to be able to play my songs in mp3 though. Attempts to directly record from the soundcard (using Total Recorder) resulted in mp3s that degrade to noise after 1:05 of recording.

Selection - Getting better. With the signing on of the biggest indies (Matador, spinART, Kill Rock Stars), the selection is getting wider. Obviously, none of these options are ever going to replace your local, independent record store, but they should definitely match up with what any national chain/Amazon is offering by the end of the year. More frustrating is the number of "partial albums" that are being passed off. A lot of labels, afraid to actually commit to anything, are posting albums missing one track. You can't buy the whole album in one shot, and what's there is incomplete. Bullshit.

If they want to be truly viable, though, iTMS and its competitors need to get the rights to distribute out of print albums and imports (without the import price). That would be sweet...

Issues - One major issue that's pretty unforgivable: I downloaded one B&S song off the album, then bought the entire album. Rather than noting that I already had one song from the album, iTunes redownloaded the song and charged me the full price. That's definitely gotta get dealt with. Besides that, most of my issues came from an (understandable) desire to continue using my tried and true default player instead of iTunes. You end up stuck with two incompatible audio formats sitting on your computer. I guess it's not much different than having .mov and .mpg files on your computer, but with music it's much more of a hassle. Also, in the end, I definitely still want liner notes, lyrics sheets, and artwork. iTunes provides the cover art, but it's not the same thing.

Summary - For $.99 a song, with quick, clean, great sound audio, ITMS is great if you just want a copy of the song you just heard on the radio or you want to put together a party compilation. If you're a completionist like me, it's viable (certainly convenient), but you're still better off going to a used music store to get the complete "package". While I think that iTunes will succeed, it does seem contradictory. For people who just want the hottest new singles, most p2ps will be flooded with them for free. Currently however, the selection on iTunes isn't extensive enough for people who would be willing to pay for complete albums that are either obscure or out of print. Plus (and I may be the last generation where this matters), the loss of a jewel case and a CD booklet is palpable.

Failed miserably at keeping it short. Sorry to anyone who reads it.

Halfwit, excellent post!!!

$.99
35% to Apple
65% to the label
$.08 to the artist (which goes right back to the label

Too bad it doesn't pay artists:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Summary: Don't use itunes.

Have a great day!

Paul

paulruss - its not Apple's fault the artist gets crappy royalties. They should have asked for more before signing their contract. But, lets look at the alternatives:

p2p = $0.00
$0.00 to the label
$0.00 to the artist

Music store = $15.99
I only want one song so I refuse to spend $15.99 to get the whole thing.
$0.00 to the label
$0.00 to the artist

I go back to the p2p network and download it for free. And it all starts over again.

For instance = I just dloaded mOBSCENE from Marilyn Manson from the iTunes music store. First of all it downloaded ridiculously fast. I'm talking 60k+/sec. I previewed the rest of the album and there was maybe one or two other songs I wanted. I certainly didn't want the whole thing. So for $.99 I got what I wanted, and MM got paid SOMETHING instead of NOTHING since I wouldn't have spent the money for the whole CD. If I waited and found it used somewhere he STILL wouldn't have gotten paid.

The downhill battle site makes some good points, and I still felt bad paying the $.99 since its then supporting the RIAA by buying their song, but I also wanted to support the iTunes model. Anyway, that's all I got to say on the issue.