both sides are wrong
Mar 28, 2006 at 8:02 AM Post #2 of 9

Jahn

Headphoneus Supremus Prolificus
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
21,332
Likes
32
Qualified Sound Engineers seem to be the only ones on that site who look like they know what they're talking about. And know how to party.
recording-course.jpg
 
Mar 28, 2006 at 3:38 PM Post #3 of 9

rickcr42

Are YOU talkin' to me?
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
13,874
Likes
14
It has always amazed me how we have company in Apple that makes a device that is a closed system,all theirs,where you buy their player and use their software,they make all the rules and folks line up like it was a bread line (Steve Jobs learned his Misrosoft lessons well and it only took 30 years
very_evil_smiley.gif
).
Imagine if the CD player stayed 100% a Sony project and all CDs went through them ? Would we even know what a CD was ?

Nope.

And why they lost the Betamax vs VHS wars.Open source competition in the VHS format meant many choices in players while with Beta it was sony or nothing.

Yet here we are in thirty years later having learned that people are not smarter,have payed zero attention to history but are dumber and see no further than today
rolleyes.gif


France is a joke.Nothing better to do ? They need to spend time worring if the pissed off populace gets their crack codes for the ipod software ?
THAT is the pressing problem facing France ?

APPLE ?

While the country burns give them music no matter who OWNS the rights ?
(I gotta tell you folks.If I lived in france I would definately be driving a rental car
wink.gif
)

To say nothing of what this says about international property rights.Their attitude seems to be fk the world,we take what we want and if that does not wake some up they are dead from the neck up.China has been outlaw for a while now it looks like the rest of the civilised world wants in to the party
rolleyes.gif


Strange new world I'm living in.No one plays by any set of rules that make sense,no structure or boundries,laws in name only,right is wrong,wrong is right,illegal called "not exactly legal" and everyone sits there buying it and all the while everyone grabbing what they can with their greedy little paws no matter if they actually NEED IT or not and until it is they who get the two by four straight in the keester and it is someone else being ripped off everything just peachy.

Me,me ,me ,me
rolleyes.gif


The problem with swinging at windmills is at some point your arms get tired
tongue.gif
 
Mar 28, 2006 at 5:28 PM Post #4 of 9

00940

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Posts
4,493
Likes
44
Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42
To say nothing of what this says about international property rights.


The French law is most probably in line with international property rights. The aim is not to promote piracy but improve competition. Anyway, those who want to copy and share files bought from Apple i-store can already do it. Apple's argument is just cover to preserve its dominant position.

And actually, the initial french law went further. It created a download "licence". You could have downloaded anything you wanted for free, against a fixed amount paid each month, included in your internet connection fees, and shared among rightholders. That went however against the terms of an EU regulation and was scrapped.
 
Mar 28, 2006 at 6:01 PM Post #5 of 9

rickcr42

Are YOU talkin' to me?
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
13,874
Likes
14
Quote:

The French law is most probably in line with international property rights. The aim is not to promote piracy but improve competition.


no way.

If by competition you mean they look around,see something that belongs to someone else that they want for free then yeah,it DOES improve competition because there is none when you steal what belongs to another and they do not have anyone to go to for protection.This is just the most recent example of taking shortcuts and no more.

If a little bit of self control is shown EVER by this current crop of "I want" the market would come to them as it always has throughout history and why things have worked to the benefit of both sindes of the consumer/services equation.
When you decide to take a shortcut because of greed or because it is easier than actually doing the work yourself you end up breaking the balance and the whole house of cards will come crashing down at some point and with it side ripples that effect everyone before they all subside and the market place recovers.

The iPOD has become a huge niche industry in a very short amount of time and already there are background deals being cut where the inter-industry relationships will mean if one falls thew ripples will radiate out from the center and effect others.

First they went after Microsoft (still actually) because they feel they somehow are owed the right to have what they want just because they want it (though where this comes from is a mystery
confused.gif
) and now they want the iPOD for the very sdame reasons : too friggin lazy to come up with their own alternative and sell it back to their own population.Why work when you can take and eliminate all the steps others went through bringing the product to market ?

Here we put you in jail for such actions,there it is something to aspire to and no wonder cars burn in the streets when the message from the top is "if you want something just go take it no matter who owns it"

Can't say I am comfortable with a single player (apple) having 100% control over such a large chunk of retail audio/pre-recorded downloadable music industry but hey,you folks made them the 500lb gorilla by buying in and making the product huge and they are not wrong for reaping the profits.when and if sales lag the free trade market will,and should,set the rules and the price and even if the product will continue on or pass into oblivion

As it has always been.You socialise free trade and you end up with NO trade because if there is no incentive for profit then there is no incentive to innovate and why France must take instead of go it themselves


probably lose this thread and my post count will take ANOTHER hit
very_evil_smiley.gif
 
Mar 28, 2006 at 6:09 PM Post #6 of 9

00940

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Posts
4,493
Likes
44
Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42
Can't say I am comfortable with a single player (apple) having 100% control over such a large chunk of retail audio/pre-recorded downloadable music industry but hey,you folks made them the 500lb gorilla by buying in and making the product huge and they are not wrong for reaping the profits.


It is wrong in a free market economy. That's why we have antitrust laws.

It is not here a situation of pirats wanting something for free. It is a law supported by many in the recording industry and in distributions channels to break a de facto monopoly harming the consummer. It doesn't give anything "for free". It is just creating a market opening real possibilities for other players to jump in.
 
Mar 28, 2006 at 6:28 PM Post #7 of 9

archosman

Songs From The Crystal Cave
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Posts
3,633
Likes
10
Jebus christmas... who the hell wrote that article?

Apple are on the warpath -

Apple don't work as a record company, they license tracks from the established record companies.

Clearly Apple are using their dominant position to control the market.

Holy shiat that was poorly written. How about using is and doesn't every once in a while...
 
Mar 28, 2006 at 6:42 PM Post #8 of 9

marvin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Posts
2,580
Likes
17
Extremely high marketshare is not wrong in a free market. Anything goes in a free market, including collusion, monopolies, etc. And Apple's iTunes isn't wrong in our regulated free market either, even if it did have 100% marketshare. It's only wrong if a monopoly uses it's marketshare to do things like dumping product to put its competitors out of business, forces the record companies to not licence their songs to other services, colludes with the record companies to artifically inflate prices, etc. And, as far as anyone can tell, Apple has not done these things.

And really, I don't think Apple's learned crap from Microsoft. Microsoft is mega-successful because it's divorced itself from relying on hardware sales to make money. IBM reinvented itself by learning that from MS. Apple, on the other hand, is still doing the rinky dink BS that it started decades ago and using great software to move overpriced hardware.
 
Mar 28, 2006 at 6:55 PM Post #9 of 9

JaGWiRE

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Posts
3,386
Likes
10
I still don't get it :|. It's really not like an iTunes is giving away a bargain, and if you only want one song of the whole album, well I guess it can be okay. Your getting below cd quality as stated before, no flacc, and your not getting the privalleges you would had have if you had bought a regular cd. Until they offer FLACC, and remove their protection (I can't even play the one album I bought from iTunes in foobar2000.) Is it right for me to have to pour away my system resources to pay for an album I bought from apple, not being allowed to play it in another player? I think that is unfair, I have no idea about you guys. Just thinking about it, 1 billion songs have been downloaded/bought so far, so that means they have gone through quite a lot of bandwith. Now, multiply each song by 4-5 times to get the size of the equivalent song in FLACC, just imagine the bandwith they'de be going through then. But, I supose if they offered both and put 128 kbps to default, it wouldn't cost them too much.

I'm happy with my music, I can buy cd's from my friends for 3-4 dollars (with all the album art and original packaging), and I can buy cd's from guys at head-fi for a few bucks as well which contain all the album art and the original stuff.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top