Remove it yourself by converting to aiff (like burning to CD). Your track now is as good as when you bought it - what are you complaining about? If you want to improve the quality of the track (better sound/no DRM) then pay to upgrade). Otherwise remove the DRM yourself. Quit whining.
Exactly. No one has to upgrade. You can still do all now that you could do before, with the music you bought. There is no negative to those who aren't going to upgrade. They shouldn't complain.
To those who are going to upgrade, there's the lack of selectivity angle, but beyond that, really none.
Let's be clear. You have to pay more on songs you've already bought that had DRM to rub off the DRM and increase their quality. All purchases of IT+ music in the past will work on non-Apple machines that can handle the AAC. They killed the original purchase premium on IT+ music long ago dropping $1.29 to $0.99. If you've bought any music recently, chances are at least a couple songs were IT+. You can tell the difference by looking at the "kind" in your iTunes library list. Protected AAC audio files have DRM, Purchased AAC audio files do not. This article pointed to Apple aiming towards a DRM free iTunes by April. All of that music will run on non-Apple machines that can handle AAC; you won't have to pay a dime more for that music.
Then I defer to sound quality tests: Can one hear a difference on a iPod or a computer with this change in bit rates worth 30cents a song- proboably NO? Lossless YES- but I doubt with this change except on a sophisticated stereo. We are really talking about rights management - my right to put and take this music I bought wherever the hell I want- not sound quality.
But it all upgraded, except for a Maroon 5 album that's available in iTunes Plus but won't upgrade for some reason, and also my Thriller album won't upgrade because iTunes doesn't have the exact special edition I purchased anymore.
Email itunes support. Say that you see that the album is available in itunes plus, but that when you try to upgrade it isn't there. I had this problem with 4 or 5 purchases, and I emailed apple. They are going to try to debug my account... but I'm betting that won't do anything because I have the same Maroon 5 problem. Basically, Apple is already trying to QA this, but the more people who write in, the better the chances we have.
Then I defer to sound quality tests: Can one hear a difference on a iPod or a computer with this change in bit rates worth 30cents a song- proboably NO? Lossless YES- but I doubt with this change except on a sophisticated stereo. We are really talking about rights management - my right to put and take this music I bought wherever the hell I want- not sound quality.
Actually yes, I defer to my existing arguments on sound quality in this thread. I don't care as much about the DRM issue as the sound quality in 256 over 128. The difference is there and I'll pay for it.
I don't need lossless, but of course that doesn't preclude your need or anyone else's, I'd like Apple to consider lossless as the next step.
The only reason to upgrade is if you plan on illegally sharing your music with other people, right?
If your music has played fine on your iPod and Mac all this time - it still will.
If you're a true audiophile (nut), then you'd be buying physical media and ripping your own. Those few bits improvement aren't going to make your iPod sound any better in the car or jogging through noisy streets anyways, right?
I have NEVER had an issue with DRM in all the years I've been using iTunes. So what's the fuss all about?
Hello. Thanks for trolling the forums. Sorry, dude, but many of use prefer to avoid the DRM nonsense due to the restrictions forced upon us. Who knows what will happen in the future and if you are stuck with DRM-lacked files when a store goes tits-up then you are screwed.
You are wrong about the it will play fine. If a store goes down permanently and the servers which confirm which machines the files will play on go offline you will be unable to ever play those songs on any new computers...ever.
Explain to my how wanting to own a limited use file = wanting to illegally trade files.
You don't value your time at ALL? Wow, you should see a therapist about your self esteem problems.
Or he is like me and has been buying CDs since 1984. Let me see my wife and I have about 900 CDs. 12 x 900 = 10800 songs. Hmmm, I can rip them, over time, while I am at my computer or I can repurchase all of my music. Seems simple to me.
Some of us are either not rich enough to buy 900+ CDs a second time.
Hello. Thanks for trolling the forums. Sorry, dude, but many of use prefer to avoid the DRM nonsense due to the restrictions forced upon us. Who knows what will happen in the future and if you are stuck with DRM-lacked files when a store goes tits-up then you are screwed.
You are wrong about the it will play fine. If a store goes down permanently and the servers which confirm which machines the files will play on go offline you will be unable to ever play those songs on any new computers...ever.
With iTunes, that would actually only be a problem if you had to authorize your computer after the store went down.
As it is now, once it's authorized, you do not need to connect to the interet/store to play them.
Some of us are either not rich enough to buy 900+ CDs a second time.
Even if you had the money it would be a waste! CD quality is far superior to itunes quality anyways, so you'd be paying to purchase items that already owned in a far superior format.
The neat part is, you can make a copy of a digital file without taking the original, so nothing gets stolen.
If file sharing is stealing, then public libraries are organized crime.
I understand the first sentence, but the second sentence doesn't fit your scenario: libraries aren't copying books. They buy one copy, only one copy can be used at a time.
The neat part is, you can make a copy of a digital file without taking the original, so nothing gets stolen.
If file sharing is stealing, then public libraries are organized crime.
Your scenarios are totally wrong.
1) Making a copy of the original you ARE still stealing something.
For instance, I'm guessing you have a job. Let's say that you are doing your jobs for years and getting paid for it. Now let's say that your company decides that there is nothing about your job that the world can't see. Even better, there isn't anything anyone in the world that is willing shouldn't be allowed to do.
So they put an ad in Craig's list with detail about your job and a page on the company's website where everything someone needs to do your job is there. And for some reason, because they are geeks about your job and start doing it.
The bosses come back and say. You can keep your job but we have people around the world doing part of your job so we are no longer going to pay you by the hour. We are going to start paying you by item.
Well it doesn't take long for them to tell you that they see no reason to pay you at all because people are doing what you do for free. Suddenly you are out of a job.
That's what people making copies of music and giving it away is like. The people that created that music are no longer getting paid because there is no income coming in.
2) Libraries are like you buying a book and loaning the book out to your friend. In this case it is a physical book so you can only loan it out to one friend at a time. That friend has to bring the book back to you before you can loan it out to someone else.
1) Making a copy of the original you ARE still stealing something.
For instance, I'm guessing you have a job. Let's say that you are doing your jobs for years and getting paid for it. Now let's say that your company decides that there is nothing about your job that the world can't see. Even better, there isn't anything anyone in the world that is willing shouldn't be allowed to do.
So they put an ad in Craig's list with detail about your job and a page on the company's website where everything someone needs to do your job is there. And for some reason, because they are geeks about your job and start doing it.
The bosses come back and say. You can keep your job but we have people around the world doing part of your job so we are no longer going to pay you by the hour. We are going to start paying you by item.
Well it doesn't take long for them to tell you that they see no reason to pay you at all because people are doing what you do for free. Suddenly you are out of a job.
That's what people making copies of music and giving it away is like. The people that created that music are no longer getting paid because there is no income coming in.
Anyone could do a little research and learn how to do just about any job. I already do get paid piece work, it's far more lucrative. Lots of people are doing what I do for free, I get paid because I give my customers what they want instead of telling them what they'll take.
Nothing in your scenario shows anything being stolen.
Quote:
2) Libraries are like you buying a book and loaning the book out to your friend. In this case it is a physical book so you can only loan it out to one friend at a time. That friend has to bring the book back to you before you can loan it out to someone else.
See the difference?
What's the difference? In both cases, only one copy was purchased, then everyone else got to enjoy it for free. It's more efficient than a public library, but so are most things in the digital age.
Anyone could do a little research and learn how to do just about any job. I already do get paid piece work, it's far more lucrative. Lots of people are doing what I do for free, I get paid because I give my customers what they want instead of telling them what they'll take.
Nothing in your scenario shows anything being stolen.
What's the difference? In both cases, only one copy was purchased, then everyone else got to enjoy it for free. It's more efficient than a public library, but so are most things in the digital age.
Seriously? Your IQ isn't high enough to get this? Read the first section again. The part about you not getting paid because everyone else is doing your job for free.
Here's the deal. While people love to make music, only a few can. If you take out the ability to make money making music, I'm talking about the artists here not the record companies, how many songs do you really think will be recorded for you to download for free?
If you still don't get it, find someone with an IQ that is higher than yours.
Seriously? Your IQ isn't high enough to get this? Read the first section again. The part about you not getting paid because everyone else is doing your job for free.
People do my job for free. Lots of them. I still get paid because I produce work that is worth paying for, and I supply it to my customers the way they want it instead of telling them how to take it. And lots of people do all kinds of jobs for free, they are called hobbies.
People don't pay for music because it's most of it is not worth paying for. Some of it's not even worth the time it takes to download it.
Besides, I wasn't even talking about taking music because you can. I was talking about downloading movies, because the file formats are easier to work with. No DRM, ever. Just works, as is, on any computer, in any DVD player. I only watch it once and trash it anyway, so it's still more like the public library.
Comments
...which 9/10 times doesn't reflect whats currently in their library.
I find it absolutely amazing that you have the money to delete purchased music and confusing that another 30 cents would be so important to you?
Remove it yourself by converting to aiff (like burning to CD). Your track now is as good as when you bought it - what are you complaining about? If you want to improve the quality of the track (better sound/no DRM) then pay to upgrade). Otherwise remove the DRM yourself. Quit whining.
Exactly. No one has to upgrade. You can still do all now that you could do before, with the music you bought. There is no negative to those who aren't going to upgrade. They shouldn't complain.
To those who are going to upgrade, there's the lack of selectivity angle, but beyond that, really none.
That's why I never bought music from itunes (or other).
They resolved issue A. Now they need to resolve B, and I mean lossless.
Until then I will never buy music from online stores.
iTunes EXTREME!
Let's be clear. You have to pay more on songs you've already bought that had DRM to rub off the DRM and increase their quality. All purchases of IT+ music in the past will work on non-Apple machines that can handle the AAC. They killed the original purchase premium on IT+ music long ago dropping $1.29 to $0.99. If you've bought any music recently, chances are at least a couple songs were IT+. You can tell the difference by looking at the "kind" in your iTunes library list. Protected AAC audio files have DRM, Purchased AAC audio files do not. This article pointed to Apple aiming towards a DRM free iTunes by April. All of that music will run on non-Apple machines that can handle AAC; you won't have to pay a dime more for that music.
Then I defer to sound quality tests: Can one hear a difference on a iPod or a computer with this change in bit rates worth 30cents a song- proboably NO? Lossless YES- but I doubt with this change except on a sophisticated stereo. We are really talking about rights management - my right to put and take this music I bought wherever the hell I want- not sound quality.
Not necessarily, if I wanted to listen to the music on my Zune or some other non-iPod player.
Listen to your music on a WHAT? :P
But it all upgraded, except for a Maroon 5 album that's available in iTunes Plus but won't upgrade for some reason, and also my Thriller album won't upgrade because iTunes doesn't have the exact special edition I purchased anymore.
Email itunes support. Say that you see that the album is available in itunes plus, but that when you try to upgrade it isn't there. I had this problem with 4 or 5 purchases, and I emailed apple. They are going to try to debug my account... but I'm betting that won't do anything because I have the same Maroon 5 problem. Basically, Apple is already trying to QA this, but the more people who write in, the better the chances we have.
Another band i have issues with: Tiger Army.
Then I defer to sound quality tests: Can one hear a difference on a iPod or a computer with this change in bit rates worth 30cents a song- proboably NO? Lossless YES- but I doubt with this change except on a sophisticated stereo. We are really talking about rights management - my right to put and take this music I bought wherever the hell I want- not sound quality.
Actually yes, I defer to my existing arguments on sound quality in this thread. I don't care as much about the DRM issue as the sound quality in 256 over 128. The difference is there and I'll pay for it.
I don't need lossless, but of course that doesn't preclude your need or anyone else's, I'd like Apple to consider lossless as the next step.
Not sure what all the fuss is about.
The only reason to upgrade is if you plan on illegally sharing your music with other people, right?
If your music has played fine on your iPod and Mac all this time - it still will.
If you're a true audiophile (nut), then you'd be buying physical media and ripping your own. Those few bits improvement aren't going to make your iPod sound any better in the car or jogging through noisy streets anyways, right?
I have NEVER had an issue with DRM in all the years I've been using iTunes. So what's the fuss all about?
Hello. Thanks for trolling the forums. Sorry, dude, but many of use prefer to avoid the DRM nonsense due to the restrictions forced upon us. Who knows what will happen in the future and if you are stuck with DRM-lacked files when a store goes tits-up then you are screwed.
You are wrong about the it will play fine. If a store goes down permanently and the servers which confirm which machines the files will play on go offline you will be unable to ever play those songs on any new computers...ever.
Explain to my how wanting to own a limited use file = wanting to illegally trade files.
Go away and troll somewhere else.
You don't value your time at ALL? Wow, you should see a therapist about your self esteem problems.
Or he is like me and has been buying CDs since 1984. Let me see my wife and I have about 900 CDs. 12 x 900 = 10800 songs. Hmmm, I can rip them, over time, while I am at my computer or I can repurchase all of my music. Seems simple to me.
Some of us are either not rich enough to buy 900+ CDs a second time.
/sigh
Hello. Thanks for trolling the forums. Sorry, dude, but many of use prefer to avoid the DRM nonsense due to the restrictions forced upon us. Who knows what will happen in the future and if you are stuck with DRM-lacked files when a store goes tits-up then you are screwed.
You are wrong about the it will play fine. If a store goes down permanently and the servers which confirm which machines the files will play on go offline you will be unable to ever play those songs on any new computers...ever.
With iTunes, that would actually only be a problem if you had to authorize your computer after the store went down.
As it is now, once it's authorized, you do not need to connect to the interet/store to play them.
With iTunes, that would actually only be a problem if you had to authorize your computer after the store went down.
As it is now, once it's authorized, you do not need to connect to the interet/store to play them.
He's aware. that's why he mentioned NEW computers, not old ones.
Some of us are either not rich enough to buy 900+ CDs a second time.
Even if you had the money it would be a waste! CD quality is far superior to itunes quality anyways, so you'd be paying to purchase items that already owned in a far superior format.
He's aware. that's why he mentioned NEW computers, not old ones.
DOH!
(missed that)
DOH!
(missed that)
Happens to the best of us.
This attitude is the main reason the labels/movie houses want DRM and a big reason why we all suffer for it, especially those who don't steal.
"If i can't get it how I want, I'll torrent/limewire it".
There's no justification for theft.
The neat part is, you can make a copy of a digital file without taking the original, so nothing gets stolen.
If file sharing is stealing, then public libraries are organized crime.
The neat part is, you can make a copy of a digital file without taking the original, so nothing gets stolen.
If file sharing is stealing, then public libraries are organized crime.
I understand the first sentence, but the second sentence doesn't fit your scenario: libraries aren't copying books. They buy one copy, only one copy can be used at a time.
The neat part is, you can make a copy of a digital file without taking the original, so nothing gets stolen.
If file sharing is stealing, then public libraries are organized crime.
Your scenarios are totally wrong.
1) Making a copy of the original you ARE still stealing something.
For instance, I'm guessing you have a job. Let's say that you are doing your jobs for years and getting paid for it. Now let's say that your company decides that there is nothing about your job that the world can't see. Even better, there isn't anything anyone in the world that is willing shouldn't be allowed to do.
So they put an ad in Craig's list with detail about your job and a page on the company's website where everything someone needs to do your job is there. And for some reason, because they are geeks about your job and start doing it.
The bosses come back and say. You can keep your job but we have people around the world doing part of your job so we are no longer going to pay you by the hour. We are going to start paying you by item.
Well it doesn't take long for them to tell you that they see no reason to pay you at all because people are doing what you do for free. Suddenly you are out of a job.
That's what people making copies of music and giving it away is like. The people that created that music are no longer getting paid because there is no income coming in.
2) Libraries are like you buying a book and loaning the book out to your friend. In this case it is a physical book so you can only loan it out to one friend at a time. That friend has to bring the book back to you before you can loan it out to someone else.
See the difference?
Your scenarios are totally wrong.
1) Making a copy of the original you ARE still stealing something.
For instance, I'm guessing you have a job. Let's say that you are doing your jobs for years and getting paid for it. Now let's say that your company decides that there is nothing about your job that the world can't see. Even better, there isn't anything anyone in the world that is willing shouldn't be allowed to do.
So they put an ad in Craig's list with detail about your job and a page on the company's website where everything someone needs to do your job is there. And for some reason, because they are geeks about your job and start doing it.
The bosses come back and say. You can keep your job but we have people around the world doing part of your job so we are no longer going to pay you by the hour. We are going to start paying you by item.
Well it doesn't take long for them to tell you that they see no reason to pay you at all because people are doing what you do for free. Suddenly you are out of a job.
That's what people making copies of music and giving it away is like. The people that created that music are no longer getting paid because there is no income coming in.
Anyone could do a little research and learn how to do just about any job. I already do get paid piece work, it's far more lucrative. Lots of people are doing what I do for free, I get paid because I give my customers what they want instead of telling them what they'll take.
Nothing in your scenario shows anything being stolen.
2) Libraries are like you buying a book and loaning the book out to your friend. In this case it is a physical book so you can only loan it out to one friend at a time. That friend has to bring the book back to you before you can loan it out to someone else.
See the difference?
What's the difference? In both cases, only one copy was purchased, then everyone else got to enjoy it for free. It's more efficient than a public library, but so are most things in the digital age.
Anyone could do a little research and learn how to do just about any job. I already do get paid piece work, it's far more lucrative. Lots of people are doing what I do for free, I get paid because I give my customers what they want instead of telling them what they'll take.
Nothing in your scenario shows anything being stolen.
What's the difference? In both cases, only one copy was purchased, then everyone else got to enjoy it for free. It's more efficient than a public library, but so are most things in the digital age.
Seriously? Your IQ isn't high enough to get this? Read the first section again. The part about you not getting paid because everyone else is doing your job for free.
Here's the deal. While people love to make music, only a few can. If you take out the ability to make money making music, I'm talking about the artists here not the record companies, how many songs do you really think will be recorded for you to download for free?
If you still don't get it, find someone with an IQ that is higher than yours.
Seriously? Your IQ isn't high enough to get this? Read the first section again. The part about you not getting paid because everyone else is doing your job for free.
People do my job for free. Lots of them. I still get paid because I produce work that is worth paying for, and I supply it to my customers the way they want it instead of telling them how to take it. And lots of people do all kinds of jobs for free, they are called hobbies.
People don't pay for music because it's most of it is not worth paying for. Some of it's not even worth the time it takes to download it.
Besides, I wasn't even talking about taking music because you can. I was talking about downloading movies, because the file formats are easier to work with. No DRM, ever. Just works, as is, on any computer, in any DVD player. I only watch it once and trash it anyway, so it's still more like the public library.