or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Briefly: Mac OS X 10.6.8 build; Spotify near US launch; iTunes video market share
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Briefly: Mac OS X 10.6.8 build; Spotify near US launch; iTunes video market share

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
Apple has issued a new build of Mac OS X 10.6.8, and European music streaming service Spotify is finalizing deals for a U.S. launch. Also, a new study found that iTunes' share of the online video market is 9.8 percent, compared to Netflix's 24.5 percent.

Mac OS X 10.6.8

The beta of Apple's next upgrade to Snow Leopard is marked build 10K540, according to people familiar with the update. No known issues are listed, and the focus areas of Airport, Networking, Graphics Drivers, the Mac App Store, QuickTime and VPN remain the same, as noted by TUAW.

The first build of Mac OS X 10.6.8 arrived in May with no indication of any changes. Release notes accompanying subsequent betas detailed the addition of fixes for the MacDefender malware scam and support for Mac App Store installation of the forthcoming Mac OS X 10.7 Lion.

AppleInsider was first to report Apple's plans to release Mac OS X Lion through the Mac App Store. Apple confirmed last week that Lion will be sold exclusively in the company's digital storefront.

Lion sports more than 250 new features and is due out in July. The upgrade will be an approximately 4GB download and will sell for the low price of $29.99.

Spotify going stateside

Speaking at an ad conference in London, Spotify general manager Jonathan Forster said the last licensing agreements required for a U.S. launch were wrapping up "as I speak," Silicon Valley Watcher reported this week.

Forster said the launch wouldn't come before July 5th and noted that Spotify had agreed to a "faster monetization strategy" than it would have preferred. The streaming music service currently has 10 million users and 1 million subscribers, who pay 10 Euros per month.

According to the report, Spotify's U.S. headquarters will be in New York. Rumors had originally suggested the company would arrive in the States in 2010, but lengthy negotiations with the music labels pushed back the launch.

Last year, it was suggested that Apple executives had told music industry leaders that Spotify's business model was faulty. A separate rumor claimed Apple had been in early negotiations to purchase the company, but Spotify denied the rumor.

Meanwhile, Apple is putting the finishing touches on its iCloud and iTunes Match services. The free iCloud service will store a customer's iTunes music purchases online and make them available to a variety of devices. For $24.99, the iTunes Match service will scan a user's iTunes library and match songs with those store on Apple's own iTunes servers. Though Spotify's service differs from Apple's move into the cloud, it's likely the two companies will find themselves competitors when both Spotify and iCloud launch in the U.S. later this year.

Apple underwent its own negotiations in order to arrive at a streaming music licensing agreement with the major record labels in the U.S. According to one report, the iPhone maker may have had to pay as much as $150 million in "advanced payments" to the music companies.

iTunes video share

Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney conducted a study among web users of preferred websites and applications for watching video online, All Things D reports. Mahaney found that Apple's iTunes leads the online video on demand market, though only 9.8 percent of respondents chose it.

YouTube received the lion's share of votes with 69.2 percent, while Netflix led the subscription based video market with 24.5 percent. Hulu registered 22.5 percent of votes, but the majority of its visits come from free users, not subscribers.



A March study found that Apple was tied for third in the U.S. digital streaming and downloadable video market with just 4 percent of viewings, compared to Netflix's 61 percent share.

2010 sales figures compiled by IHS earlier this year show Apple maintains a significant lead in the internet video on demand category, which doesn't include Netflix or Hulu. According to the figures, iTunes made up 64.5 percent of the online VOD market, Microsoft came in second with 17.9 percent and Sony placed third with 7.2 percent.
post #2 of 41
I've been using Spotify for 5 months now (I live in the Netherlands) and it simply rocks. Since then I've never bought or downloaded music. Everything's there, instantly. Search for any song and within five seconds you can play it. This beats the iTunes cloud. Even on my iPhone together with my Airport Express it works perfectly. I cannot recommend Spotify enough. Try it for a week and you'll get hooked.
post #3 of 41
Re spotify: Apple's model seems obsolete when you get used to spotify. Fail.
Re videos: It's been what, 6 years? Still no real international distribution. Fail.
post #4 of 41
Apple should jut buy Netflix and Spotify and call it a done deal. They have hoards of cash and it will keep Microsoft away. Just my 2 cents.
post #5 of 41
Spotify kicks iTunes ass for music. I absolutely love it.
post #6 of 41
Spotify would fill part of the requirements of my "ideal music service". It's also the reason that Microsoft should have released Zune Pass clients for Android and iOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Here is how I would like it to work...
  • iDevices are sync'd over-the-air
  • Songs purchased via iTunes are "backed up" to the cloud
  • iTunes "Home Sharing" is extended to the Internet (the "private cloud")
  • iPhone/iPod does intelligent sync and song caching
  • If you pay for a "premium" Mobile Me (or "iCloud") subscription you get some extra features
    1. Tracks purchased outside of iTunes are also sync'd to the cloud
    2. You get stream/sync access to every song on iTunes
    3. iTunes DJ/Genius works across all songs on iTunes, not just my purchases
    4. I get to select 10 tracks each month to permanently own
    5. iTunes gets a basic web version
  • Finally, regardless of the location of the song (local, cached, private cloud or public cloud) they should all be presented in the one combined user interface.

EDIT: I'd also love to see an iHub/iCenter/iHome/iCentral/iMesh to facilitate the creation of a private cloud as well... but I'm just dreaming now
post #7 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie View Post

Apple should jut buy Netflix and Spotify and call it a done deal. They have hoards of cash and it will keep Microsoft away. Just my 2 cents.

I'm not sure their contracts with the labels are transferable.
post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by markvdrheijden View Post

I've been using Spotify for 5 months now (I live in the Netherlands) and it simply rocks. Since then I've never bought or downloaded music. Everything's there, instantly. Search for any song and within five seconds you can play it. This beats the iTunes cloud. Even on my iPhone together with my Airport Express it works perfectly. I cannot recommend Spotify enough. Try it for a week and you'll get hooked.

I listen to music on the go so no streaming service is of any use to me.
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

I listen to music on the go so no streaming service is of any use to me.

It's not that you're always streaming. It's just one touch to download a playlist, cd or song to your iPhone. You can do this at home using wifi or while travelling.
So while you're on the go and want to listen to any cd, download it using Spotify. This works great, even on 3G. You will have downloaded a complete cd within minutes. After that you're sure that you won't have any hick ups. Removing a cd or playlist is just as easy.
Seriously, try it and you'll be amazed that Spotify is that good on the iPhone, even on the go.

And no, I don't work for them.
post #10 of 41
I've just opened up Spotify for the first time in months and was greeted by this:

As of today, you´ll be able to listen to 10 hours of music a month and each track a total of 5 times - all for free. For unrestricted access to millions of tracks, upgrade to Unlimited or Premium.

So they've changed their tune! Previously, we here in the UK had free 24/7 unlimited access with advertisements or paid the premium of £10 per month. Now the Free-with-advertising service gives us restricted access, otherwise we pay the premium which is now half of the old price - £5/month. Interesting. I balked at £10, but might bite at £5.
post #11 of 41
Spotify keeps on getting better and better. I love how you can combine your own music collection with Spotify's library - perfect for making party playlists.
post #12 of 41
I totally agree with some of the comment here, I've been using Spotify in England for a year now and I find Apple's recent music match announcement risible.

It's so complex! What's the point?

With Spotify there's a massive shared library in the cloud, and you just type what you want to listen to.

If you're on a mobile device then you can select for the song to be available in offline mode, for if you're going somewhere without a connection (like the tube).

No, purchasing or pushing to devices, or track matching, just "Play me Obsession by Animotion", and it plays. If Apple has secured the rights to a massive library of music then why can't you just listen to songs from it, with total simplicity?
post #13 of 41
Spotify barely has half the music I want to listen to, same as itunes. At least iCloud will allow me to listen to what I want to.
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueLaw View Post

I totally agree with some of the comment here, I've been using Spotify in England for a year now and I find Apple's recent music match announcement risible.

It's so complex! What's the point?

With Spotify there's a massive shared library in the cloud, and you just type what you want to listen to.

If you're on a mobile device then you can select for the song to be available in offline mode, for if you're going somewhere without a connection (like the tube).

No, purchasing or pushing to devices, or track matching, just "Play me Obsession by Animotion", and it plays. If Apple has secured the rights to a massive library of music then why can't you just listen to songs from it, with total simplicity?

There are lots of competing services in the US that do the same thing: Rhapsody, Napster, Rdio, Mog, and Slacker. It'll be interesting to see how Spotify compares to them. I absolutely love these sorts of services (Mog is my current favorite), but it'll be interesting to try out Spotify once it comes to the US to see if it can beat these services.

One key requirement for me is a large music library. 3 of these 5 (Mog, Rhapsody, and Napster) have really large 11+ million track libraries, and the other 2 are notable less. If Spotify can match the selection of those larger services then it will be a real contender. If not then it'll need some compelling features before I'll give up on song selection.
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

I listen to music on the go so no streaming service is of any use to me.

Flat rate..
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

Spotify barely has half the music I want to listen to, same as itunes. At least iCloud will allow me to listen to what I want to.

You can add any additional local files you have as a local library. When you have a mobile spotify client on the same wifi network the files are synced over automatically. Works like a charm.
post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmamule View Post

There are lots of competing services in the US that do the same thing: Rhapsody, Napster, Rdio, Mog, and Slacker. It'll be interesting to see how Spotify compares to them. I absolutely love these sorts of services (Mog is my current favorite), but it'll be interesting to try out Spotify once it comes to the US to see if it can beat these services.

One key requirement for me is a large music library. 3 of these 5 (Mog, Rhapsody, and Napster) have really large 11+ million track libraries, and the other 2 are notable less. If Spotify can match the selection of those larger services then it will be a real contender. If not then it'll need some compelling features before I'll give up on song selection.

I think the track-library is around 13 million, and about 10k are added each day.

For me, the killer feature in Spotify is the speed: the median time for starting playback of a song is around 260ms. With that kind of low-latency you quickly forget that it is an internet-based service.
post #18 of 41
and when I get tired of paying the monthly membership... ? I don't own anything?
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #19 of 41
Does any other company put out builds like Apple?
To have their upgrades get tested to the max?
post #20 of 41
I do not have anything against Spotify. I just prefer to own my music. Further, I have an arsenal of about a thousand songs I like to listen over and over again. I only add a few songs to it a month. Sometimes, I get these from places like Starbucks and iTunes free selections. I also have a great local library. I check out the CDs and copy what I want (perfectly legal under USC 1008 of the Copyright Act). Friends occasionally make copy CDs and give them to me (also legal). Occasionally, at work I will use Pandora.
post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

RE: Streaming (Movies or Music) and when I get tired of paying the monthly membership... ? I don't own anything?

Depends on the service. Someone should put together a comparison table of all these streaming services.
post #22 of 41
I think the current iCloud setup is just the start to work out any bugs. Once that period is over Apple will let you move your video to iCloud and add a music streaming service. My prediction anyway.
post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

Does any other company put out builds like Apple?
To have their upgrades get tested to the max?

I think so. Windows 8 releases turned up a couple of months ago (18 months or more before retail) and dont forget Gmail's 5 year beta!
post #24 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueLaw View Post

With Spotify there's a massive shared library in the cloud, and you just type what you want to listen to.

Of course the music is stored on Spoify's servers, but when you play a song it's using peer-to-peer it seems:

The contents of each client's cache is summarized in an index which is sent to the Spotify stream hub upon connecting to the service. This index is then used to inform other clients about additional peers they can connect to for fetching streamed data for individual tracks being played. This is accommodated by each client, upon startup, acting as a server listening for incoming connections from other Spotify users, as well as intuitively connecting to other users to exchange cached data as appropriate. There are currently no official details from the developers about how many connections and how much of a user's upstream bandwidth the Spotify client will use when streaming to other users; the Spotify client offers no way for the user to configure this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify
post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzl View Post

I think the track-library is around 13 million, and about 10k are added each day.

For me, the killer feature in Spotify is the speed: the median time for starting playback of a song is around 260ms. With that kind of low-latency you quickly forget that it is an internet-based service.

I'm a little worried that it won't launch with the same selection of songs because they're renegotiating with the labels. If the selection is indeed better than the other services then that is a major plus for me, much more so than the speed. Most of those services start playback in a second or two at most, which while not as fast is more than acceptable, at least for me. I'll definitely be more motivated by song selection.

Either way I'll be looking forward to trying it out, if nothing else just to see if it lives up even in part to the hype!
post #26 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by markvdrheijden View Post

I've been using Spotify for 5 months now (I live in the Netherlands) and it simply rocks. Since then I've never bought or downloaded music. Everything's there, instantly. Search for any song and within five seconds you can play it. This beats the iTunes cloud. Even on my iPhone together with my Airport Express it works perfectly. I cannot recommend Spotify enough. Try it for a week and you'll get hooked.

Doesn't it require a network/cell connection to work. Not all of us have that you know.
post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

I listen to music on the go so no streaming service is of any use to me.

You can listen music offline, on the computer and on the iPhone. You could even put 30 gigs of offline music if you wanted. After that you have 10 days, if I remember correctly, to sync back to your computer.
post #28 of 41
I can only "pray" that 10.6.8 will allow support for iCloud.

I have the original Intel iMac Core Duo, which is officially NOT supported under Lion.

I can almost appreciate that, with the whole 32-bit/64-bit thing, but if Apple could see building in support for the upcoming iCloud service into 10.6.8, this would be HUGE for our family.
post #29 of 41
This is just a silly survey. If someone asked me what my preferred place to watch online video would be I wouldn't even think of iTunes, because I think of iTunes as offline video that has been downloaded. YouTube is undoubtedly king of the online video hill but it's streaming isn't as good as some of its rivals like Vimeo. It also kills audio quality if you choose anything below 480p which can only save tiny amounts of data. I have to tell my subscribers to watch the higher quality streams to get the sound as intended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

I'm not sure their contracts with the labels are transferable.

They aren't. This is why Spotify hasn't been bought despite it being so good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post

I've just opened up Spotify for the first time in months and was greeted by this:

As of today, you´ll be able to listen to 10 hours of music a month and each track a total of 5 times - all for free. For unrestricted access to millions of tracks, upgrade to Unlimited or Premium.

So they've changed their tune! Previously, we here in the UK had free 24/7 unlimited access with advertisements or paid the premium of £10 per month. Now the Free-with-advertising service gives us restricted access, otherwise we pay the premium which is now half of the old price - £5/month. Interesting. I balked at £10, but might bite at £5.

It wasn't free 24/7. It was 20 hours of streaming a month free. I'm sad to see they've halved it but I'm not surprised. 20 hours was a lot to give away and the were having difficulty making money out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

and when I get tired of paying the monthly membership... ? I don't own anything?

Completely agree. Spotify is superb. It's hard to knock it at all, but that is a downside. That said, you can purchase tracks in Spotify too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I do not have anything against Spotify. I just prefer to own my music. Further, I have an arsenal of about a thousand songs I like to listen over and over again. I only add a few songs to it a month. Sometimes, I get these from places like Starbucks and iTunes free selections. I also have a great local library. I check out the CDs and copy what I want (perfectly legal under USC 1008 of the Copyright Act). Friends occasionally make copy CDs and give them to me (also legal). Occasionally, at work I will use Pandora.

I'm the same. I tend to listen to the same 1000 songs. It's actually probably far fewer than that. I'm just not one of these people who can listen to endless tunes I've never heard before. I like what I like. Spotify gets used when I want something specific that I don't own, not to listen to hours and hours of music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

Does any other company put out builds like Apple?
To have their upgrades get tested to the max?

Yes. Beta testing is a fundamental part of software development. Microsoft release betas and then release candidates.
post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

Why would anybody subscribe to a new, unproven service when Apple is offering everything they do with iClod, and more?

I mean, everybody knows that Apple never releases anything until it is 100% ready for prime time, while Spotify is a complete unknown, a one trick mule?

This is a giant fail for them. Apple beat them to the punch, and nobody cares about Spotify.

You are mistaken. Spotify is used all over Europe and is far from unproven. It is one of the best applications of its kind I've ever seen.

As much as we all love Apple, let's not pretend they don't release things until it's 100%. I am a professional photographer who uses Aperture and I can assure you, Aperture 3 was a complete debacle at launch. MobileMe was so bad they gave me three months of my money back without me even asking for it. The iPhone 4, somewhat unfairly, got a lot of criticism at launch and Apple admitted the signal bars weren't displaying accurately etc. and released a software fix. The 27" iMac was plagued with screen flicker problems for months. Let's be fans, not fanboys.

Spotify isn't at all unknown and does its one trick extremely well. Apple haven't beaten them to the punch at all. Not only has Spotify been around for a good while now but it still offers a streaming service that is different to Apple's iCloud. Some will prefer it, others won't, but it will be popular I'm sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffyzDead View Post

I can only "pray" that 10.6.8 will allow support for iCloud.

I have the original Intel iMac Core Duo, which is officially NOT supported under Lion.

I can almost appreciate that, with the whole 32-bit/64-bit thing, but if Apple could see building in support for the upcoming iCloud service into 10.6.8, this would be HUGE for our family.

I hope you get your wish. I think it's fair enough that Apple drop support for older hardware as they move on and Snow Leopard is excellent and will continue to be for as long as you need it but it is hard to watch others enjoying the iCloud services while you miss out. I'm afraid I don't think you will get your wish though.
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

Spotify barely has half the music I want to listen to, same as itunes. At least iCloud will allow me to listen to what I want to.

I totally agree. No Spotify here - not interested.
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I do not have anything against Spotify. I just prefer to own my music. Further, I have an arsenal of about a thousand songs I like to listen over and over again. I only add a few songs to it a month. Sometimes, I get these from places like Starbucks and iTunes free selections. I also have a great local library. I check out the CDs and copy what I want (perfectly legal under USC 1008 of the Copyright Act). Friends occasionally make copy CDs and give them to me (also legal). Occasionally, at work I will use Pandora.

Sorry, but you're fooling yourself. Copy CDs from friends is not actually legal (though you'll never get caught). Copy CDs are legal for your own use, but not to distribute to others. I like how you brag about never paying for music - if everyone did that, musicians would be in trouble. Of course, if you only listen to a thousand songs and free Starbucks selections then you're probably listening to mainstream popular stuff, which who cares about anyway.
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I do not have anything against Spotify. I just prefer to own my music. Further, I have an arsenal of about a thousand songs I like to listen over and over again. I only add a few songs to it a month. Sometimes, I get these from places like Starbucks and iTunes free selections. I also have a great local library. I check out the CDs and copy what I want (perfectly legal under USC 1008 of the Copyright Act). Friends occasionally make copy CDs and give them to me (also legal). Occasionally, at work I will use Pandora.

That's how I play my music. With iTunes it's free off-line and that's fine with me as I'm not interested in renting music. I pick few new tracks now and again so it's not worth the rental fee.

But I can see that Spotify could be useful to discover new music because access to their on-line library appears to be free, so I don't need to pay until I buy a song.

I don't want another application to manage my music, but if I can hear a bunch of on-line tracks and buy them in bulk it could be tempting. At present Spotify offers a tiered discount for bulk buying, which is a nice feature. For me the only thing itunes doesn't do well is the visualizer, especially when compared to the old WinApp.
post #34 of 41
Netflix streaming use to be nice.
That is until I watched the 1% of their catalog that was actually interesting.

I have no need for the 100 titles beginning with 'megashark'.

iTunes has quality. Netflix has quality.
post #35 of 41
Apple just got served. No subscription? Not even streaming? They just want to protect iTunes music sales so much (much like Microsoft tried to protect Windows & Offices) they kind of got left behind. The best part is Spotify will likely launch before iTunes Match. I hope this competition will stir Apple to be more forward thinking.
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Netflix streaming use to be nice.
That is until I watched the 1% of their catalog that was actually interesting.

I have no need for the 100 titles beginning with 'megashark'.

iTunes has quality. Netflix has quality.

I agree with you (although I'm sure you meant iTunes has quality, Netflix has quantity ). I have to admit, the only use I have for Netflix is for TV shows now. I really have gotten into a lot of tv shows I never would have watched otherwise, so that alone has made it worth it to me.
post #37 of 41
I think I will rely on the Statute, the history of the Statute, and the words of my esteemed copyright professor at the University Michigan of Law School who goes around to schools teaching children these very things UNLESS you have something better.

The plain face of the Statute says as much: "§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

As far as musicians not getting paid, I am not bragging (although I am proud to actually know the law as opposed to what the copyright shills would have you think). Further, I hate to tell you, but most musicians don't get paid from the CD. They are advanced money to record the album. That money has to be recouped from the sale of the CD before the musicians gets a dime. Most musicians never pay off the advance (generally because of purposely faulty accounting by the labels). The money is made from performance rights (music played on the INternet or live performances).

Finally, you also are operating under a faulty assumption when it comes to money not being made when I burn a copy of a CD and give it to a friend. The labels do get paid as there is a special tax on the blank music CD that gets paid to the labels. Follow the included link and go down to the US section. It provides a nice summary.

OK one more thing. Even if I were "stealing, " like Robin Hood I wouldn't' feel bad about it. Copyright started as a 14 year term. It now is over a hundred years. Nothing is truly original anymore. It all is inspired by something else. It is absurd works don't fall into the public domain until well after the creator has died. The whole purpose of copyright is to provide a benefit to the public by giving the creators a "limited" monopoly. Look at the Fashion Industry where copyright protection does not apply. Designers are free to copy off one another, yet the industry is booming.

We can differ on my last point, but not on the law which is clear. It is legal for me to copy CDs from the library and give the copy to a friend (the emphasis on give).

Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Sorry, but you're fooling yourself. Copy CDs from friends is not actually legal (though you'll never get caught). Copy CDs are legal for your own use, but not to distribute to others. I like how you brag about never paying for music - if everyone did that, musicians would be in trouble. Of course, if you only listen to a thousand songs and free Starbucks selections then you're probably listening to mainstream popular stuff, which who cares about anyway.
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I also have a great local library. I check out the CDs and copy what I want (perfectly legal under USC 1008 of the Copyright Act). Friends occasionally make copy CDs and give them to me (also legal).


i sure hope you aren't an IP lawyer cause you are wrong on both accounts.

Said law allows you to make a copy of something you have bought for your own use. Period. You can't make copies for friends, copy from the library etc. And if you sell or give away the original CD, you are legally supposed to destroy your digital copies.

Not that this stops anyone but it is by law not okay .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

i wish iOS would be set up to reject anything that was copied illegally. Unless you own the CD, there should be some way to prevent iTunes from ripping it. Maybe you should need to register your rip with the RIAA? And only be allowed to listen to songs that you have registered?

That kind of stuff is a logistics nightmare. Not to mention a PR one.

But Apple is making something of an effort by charging for the whole iTunes Match. That money is going back to the labels etc. While it isn't likely to ever be the total amount of money lost at least it is something.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #39 of 41
OK, you got me there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

Steve comes up with original stuff year in and year out. Haven't you noticed?
post #40 of 41
LOL. I show you the law, which is clear on its face. Namely, you can make copies provided they are not for commercial use. I tell you a tax covers your copying. I provide you multiple sources where you can start to do the research. In return, you make statements without anything to back your views up.

Generally I charge hourly, however, I'll do you a kindness and make another attempt to point you in the correct direction because I hate the RIAA (even though you arguably don't deserve to learn because you are willing to insult somebody without clear knowledge on the topic you are writing about).

First, check out this link talking about Jessica Litman. Then let us check out this link providing information on the University of Michigan Law School.

From these two links you should be able to discern 1) Jessica Litman is an expert in copyright law and knows more on the topic then either you or I, and 2) the University of Michigan Law School is one of the top fifteen law Schools in the Country and probably doesn't hire people who are dishonest with it's students. Take a second to ponder, do you have your own wikipedia entry claiming you are a copyright expert that has testified to Congress on the topic and was present in Washington when the applicable legislation was drafted and thereby understands the intent? Probably not. How many books have you drafted on topic? I am guessing none.

When you are done reflecting on these matters, take a walk over to this link.

If your brain can handle all this new found knowledge, check out the portions of the article where footnote 115 through 117 are inserted. It states, "Consumers already have a privilege to make non-commercial digital copies of musical recordings,[115] and the right to distribute those copies to members of the public.[116] Consumers, moreover, already pay a levy intended to compensate composers, musicians and record companies for the sales lost through private consumer copying.[117]."

In short, I am not spouting uneducated nonsense like you, but I am reciting the view of one of the most highly regarded copyright experts in the Country (many hold the view, but I am not going to spend all night doing the work for you). Further, the legislative history supports this view and the statute is clear on its face (maybe you got that the first time).

So in kind, I hope you are not an IP lawyer. You certainly wouldn't be mine.


Cheers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

i sure hope you aren't an IP lawyer cause you are wrong on both accounts.

Said law allows you to make a copy of something you have bought for your own use. Period. You can't make copies for friends, copy from the library etc. And if you sell or give away the original CD, you are legally supposed to destroy your digital copies.

Not that this stops anyone but it is by law not okay .




That kind of stuff is a logistics nightmare. Not to mention a PR one.

But Apple is making something of an effort by charging for the whole iTunes Match. That money is going back to the labels etc. While it isn't likely to ever be the total amount of money lost at least it is something.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Briefly: Mac OS X 10.6.8 build; Spotify near US launch; iTunes video market share