Originally Posted by Brewmaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif And sure, they are charging more per song, but at least I don't have to buy a whole album that only has 3 good songs on it.
Personally, if said artist can only get 3 good songs on an album, then I would rather spend my money on another artist that can actually put a whole album together.
Originally Posted by gorman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I still do not understand why we are supposed to put up with this stuff. CDs have been sold for decades, making billions of dollars for the music industry.
Yet, here they are, trying to sell us less for more with more hassles. And people defend them. Talk about giving up one's rights, really.
What rights do we give up? We gain more rights than DRMed tracks. Now one can sync the AAC track to any AAC supporting devices instead of iPods only, copy and back them up to any PC, whatever. Same thing when you rip your own CD. Those things were the excuses people were using when they were complaining about DRM, NOT the name/email tag.
It is less of a hassle since one can simply click and download the song instead of going to a store trying to find the CD or waiting for online stores to ship the CDs.
I already pointed out worst things out there that are more risky for identity theft, yet I don't see people bitching against them (credit cards, driver license, social security, etc). Yet we are supposed to fight Apple just because they put our name and email as a tag on our own purchased tracks, something they have done for years already? Talk about priority.
If you don't like it, then don't use iTMS. If you don't use iTMS, then why are you complaining?
I don't see much of a problem with the concept of embeding some kind of fingerprint in the file, however it would have been better if they put some kind of serial number that only meant something to apple instead of your name and e-mail in clear, as this would ensure that in case the songs are distributed without you consent you personal information is not exposed.
As for users being sued if songs are distributed without their consent, I think it's unlikely in case of a one-off (lost or stolen laptop or DAP) but could maybe happen if this happens constantly over a long period of time (but then it means you are actually distributing the music).
Even if I am strongly against DRM I have to admit that distributing music that is commercially availlable to thousand of peoples for free isn't very fair to artists and labels. Having a personal identifier probably reduce the risk of this happening without restricting the rights of the paying customers (unlike with DRMed songs).
This can also be seen as a matter of trust: If you would trust someone enough to share your personal information with him, then the artist will trust you and that person enough to allow you and that person to share the purchased music and not mass distribute it.
First of all, who cares if it has your name embedded in the song? Only those who are going to share it via p2p will be, and they shouldnt me. And secondly, they give us drm-free, and the first thing people do is bitch about it. Thirdly, its incredbly easy to get rid of.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
