Site Presented By
Friday, Nov 6, 2009
Amazon should be embarassed--they need to hire someone who knows something about music to go through and category albums correctly. For cripes sake, they have The Blind Boys of Alabama listed under "comedy"--seriously! Find some music student and get this fixed--it's really pathetic and makes it EXTREMELY hard to find anything.
If you have some typical audio software like Audio Hijack (not free) or some other freeware, you just rip as you listen, no disc involved. Then you have a DRM free lossless file that you can do anything you want with it.
I wonder how many people have read Amazon MP3 Music Service: Terms of Use
"Except as set forth in Section 2.1 above, you agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, sub-license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content."
In other words, it is illegal to SHARE or even lend your music to someone else - something that you can even do with physical media. Interestingly enough, the itms makes absolutely no claim about sharing or lending music, either in Fairplay or non-DRM music. http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html
I just wonder how many people will be breaking the legal contract between themselves and Amazon.
Steve Jobs has been barking up the DRM-free tree for years now. The reason Apple doesn't offer it is because the music industry would never have it. The fact that they allow Amazon to sell DRM-free but not Apple suggests that they are playing politics. I will be curious to see what their end goals turn out to be, whether it be to punish Apple for being uncooperative, or create some competition so they have more leverage (The iTunes monopoly is less likely to cave to their demands than an iTunes that has rival Amazon to contend with), or something else I haven't even though of.
How the "value" of media is determined is so loopey that I just can't trust them to give me a fair price on their own -- so outside entity (in this case Apple) needs to be there to force them to be fair to consumers.
In theory, with efficient markets and informed rational consumers, it is the consumers (wielding the proverbial invisible hand) who determine the "fair value" of media. However, just as you don't trust the record companies to be fair to the consumer, I don't think you should trust Apple either.
For what it's worth, at least until this past Supreme Court session there was a blanket prohibition on companies requiring retail price floors for their product meaning it would be brazenly illegal for a record company to dictate retail prices to Apple or Amazon (or Rhapsody which has the same DRM-free mp3 options as Amazon). Apple has no such restrictrions on retail pricing unless they are determined to hold a monopoly.
As far as subscription services go, I think they are fantastic and way better than iTunes! You're not paying $X/month to rent a Fergie song. You're paying $X/month for access to their ENTIRE catalog. There are songs I've downloaded and put on my phone that I would never in a million years pay $0.99 to purchase. If I get tired of a song - I just start playing a different one without having to pay anything extra.
With Rhapsody I also have the option of purchasing the song ($0.89 ea.), some with WMDRM similar to FairPlay (3 computers instead of 5 - but can burn to a CD), some DRM free (as part of the deal that Amazon got in on). I've got 2GB of music on my phone and half of it is in the form of subscription tracks from Rhapsody. Their software is pretty buggy, though.
The reason Apple doesn't offer it is because the music industry would never have it. The fact that they allow Amazon to sell DRM-free but not Apple suggests that they are playing politics.
Either that or Apple wouldn't sell it under terms the music industry wanted. Amazon and Rhapsody are apparently willing to agree to the music industry terms AND sell them for less than iTunes. So is Amazon selling at a loss or Apple selling at an inflated price?
This is business, not politics beling played here.
An inexpensive program ($24) called Sound Taxi lets you convert MP4s to mp3s quickly and easily. There are a host of other programs that convert itunes to mp3 too.
Cemeteryman
Look, I've used the iTunes store to discover new music, and I also subscribe to eMusic, but it's obvious that once you listen to this music through good headphones or a good stereo (even in the car), you hear the difference.
I did a test last night, ripping a CD in AIFF (lossless), Apple lossless, 320 bps AAC, 256 MP3 (w/ variable bit rate) and 128 AAC. Through good headphones, anything less than 320 bps AAC, was detectably flawed--flatter, less spacious, harsher, and ultimately less enjoyable.
I've been ripping my CDs at 320 bps AAC for a couple of years now. It does reduce the number of songs I can store on my iPod, but the music sounds very good.
From eMusic, I typically get 160 bps VBR MP3s. The quality is acceptable, but when listening in shuffle mode, when an eMusic tune follows a 320bps AAC tune, the difference is audible, even in the car. The same is true of 128 bps AAC (the Apple standard). I did seek out a Joss Stone album from EMI on iTunes and downloaded it at 256 bps AAC. It does sound pretty darn good, but maybe because I'm in love with Joss Stone (but that's a whole 'nother matter). ;^)
Having said all this, I do think it's good that Amazon is offering some real competition to iTunes. However, I think all these stores have to start offering higher bit-rate versions of these songs. We are getting sold down the river buying these inferior quality tracks, when the music industry has every opportunity to provide superior quality downloadable tracks. For example, nowadays, most music is recorded at 24-bit 96 kHz sample rates, twice the CD standard. What if the music industry ripped their AAC or MP3 downloads from these high-quality masters? But they don't. They rip them from a commercial CD, an already-compressed version of the master.
The music industry, in my opinion, is not taking the bull by the horns. They are not cherishing their product and making sure that we, the buying public, are able to obtain it in optimal condition. 320 bps AAC should be the very lowest bit rate offered. Heck, even offer it in higher bitrates if people are willing to spend the bandwidth (and some extra cash) to download it.
All of the DRM and low bit rate nonsense continues to assure the decline of the music industry. They have to start thinking differently...with Apple, with Amazon, with whoever will provide a superior product and user experience to their customers.
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity.
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
