DVDneXtCOPY iTurns Removes iTunes DRM with Virtual CD Burner [Featured Windo...
It's Windows only, but it shows the basic idea of using a virtual CD burner will work to strip DRM from iTunes purchases. Sent to you by JDP/Frogman via Google Reader: DVDneXtCOPY iTurns Removes iTunes DRM with Virtual CD Burner [Featured Windows Download] via Lifehacker by Kevin Purdy on 10/28/08 Windows only: DVDneXtCOPY iTurns Free provides a clever work-around to stripping audio tracks purchased from the iTunes Music Store—and, theoretically, other protected, purchased tracks—of their DRM. The free application installs a virtual CD burner on your Windows system, so your only job is to create a playlist, hit "Burn Disc," and choose the "TurnsDrive" when prompted. If the app is running in your system tray, it catches the "burning," and works in the background to split the virtual disc back into unprotected MP3s. Album art, tags, and other metadata are all preserved, and while the burning process took unusually long for one batch of protected MP3s, it delivered on the restriction-free goods. You'll have to have authorized access to play and burn the tracks you want to unlock, but since iTunes allows unlimited CD burns (if you change the playlist just a bit), you're pretty much in the clear. DVDneXtCOPY iTurns Free is a free download for Windows systems only; a paid version adds OGG and other formats and a few other options. DVDneXtCOPY iTurns Free [via FreewareGenius.com] Things you can do from here: - Subscribe to Lifehacker using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Yes, DVDneXtCOPY still removes all your music tag info from your DRM music files and forces you to retype all of it, in addition to forcing you to spend several more hours converting all the iTunes DRM music into a non-DRM format (and you have to install the software to find out whether or not there's a batch mode). This is not the same as "no DRM to begin with" and all it does is promote the evil of DRM, like cutting taxes on gasoline instead of funding a replacement non-fossil fuel. DRM promotes making you do a lot more work after you did all that work earning the money to buy the music. I'm still scratching my head over everyone who tries to justify wasting everyone's free time and eventually money by posting all manner of DRM-enabling "solutions" to help support the draining of wallets (into Apple's bank accounts) and free time for music which will eventually be forcibly removed from consumers when Apple alters their DRM system and/or shuts down the central server. Apple's iTunes, I'm being told, are just innocent bystanders who have *no control whatsoever* over what they sell out of their corporate iTunes website, since their metaphorical testicles are in a pair of metaphorical pliers held by the record labels (which apparently can give a not-so-metaphorical squeeze anytime they want). According to MaximumPC, which listen-tested iTunes DRM 128K AAC files against iTunes Plus DRM-Free 256K AAC files when iTunes Plus first came out, there's not a noticable difference between the two types of music files. Add on Apple's insistence on a 33% markup on iTunes Plus tracks over their iTunes DRM counterparts (despite no improvement in quality), and all of the "After You've Worked For The Money To Buy The Music, Here's Lots More Work For YOU" DRM-removal "solutions", and this isn't a laudable effort to support DRM-free music. http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/04/itunes-vs-itunes-plus-an-audible-difference/ Defending Apple isn't the right tack to take. They're making their own bed, don't give them yours to sleep in instead (on top of everything else they're taking away from you). And yes, I am particularly angry that DRM is preventing me from playing "Spore" on Linux. Don't give me your "illegally hacked executable" DRM-enabling "solution" to that one either. --- On Tue, 10/28/08, JDP/Frogman <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote: It's Windows only, but it shows the basic idea of using a virtual CD burner will work to strip DRM from iTunes purchases.
QUOTE "works in the background to split the virtual disc back into unprotected MP3s. Album art, tags, and other metadata are all preserved" QUOTE Apparently you choose to just rant not to actually read. I'm done with you. Jon. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, DVDneXtCOPY still removes all your music tag info from your DRM music files and forces you to retype all of it, in addition to forcing you to spend several more hours converting all the iTunes DRM music into a non-DRM
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
QUOTE "works in the background to split the virtual disc back into unprotected MP3s. Album art, tags, and other metadata are all preserved" QUOTE
Apparently you choose to just rant not to actually read. I'm done with you.
He's wrong about Apple marking up iTunes+ songs (the non-DRM ones) by 33%, too. They cost the same as the DRM ones, $0.99. -- Chris
--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
QUOTE "works in the background to split the virtual disc back into unprotected MP3s. Album art, tags, and other metadata are all preserved" QUOTE
Apparently you choose to just rant not to actually read. I'm done with you.
I'm sorry, you are correct, DVDneXtCopy, while preserving Apple's right to promote DRM files, does preserve metadata. You were quite correct and I was wrong about the preservation of metadata using the Windows-only tool. I am a little concerned about the legality of the DVDneXtCopy tool as its claim to legality hinges on it only using data in its pseudo-CDBurner *after* the iTunes software removes the DRM itself and delivers the file to the "CD Burning Software". Its use of the metadata in the DRMed music file suggests a certain access of data prior to iTunes removing the DRM. I should point out that the "free" version only allows the patented MP3 format, while paradoxically the "pay" version includes the FOSS Ogg format. Its probably appropriate that the software used to convert iTunes DRM music parallels Apple's business model of iTunes: the "nonfree" music (as in DRM, not cost) costs less than the "free" music (as in DRM, not cost).
If you don't want to use DRM protected music, DON'T BUY IT. No one is forcing you to use it. Not even Apple. You can buy CDs (you can even buy them online!) or buy downloaded music without DRM and use it on your iPod. Or you can buy an MP3 player from someone else and use it, if you hate Apple so much. Hell, the option of burning music to CDs was included by Apple over the objections of some labels, because Apple felt that people deserved to be able to make fair-use copies of their music. The point here is that you have CHOICE. Use the power of choice and stop whining so damn much about stuff. J. P.S. Apple has stated NUMEROUS times that they don't like DRM, and they've actively encouraged labels to issue their music DRM-free (hence iTunes plus). The problem is NOT Apple, the problem are the music labels. Feel free to rant at them, but keep in mind that it's been done to death and I think people here on this list are tired of listening to your impotent crying. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Defending Apple isn't the right tack to take. They're making their own bed, don't give them yours to sleep in instead (on top of everything else they're taking away from you).
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Defending Apple isn't the right tack to take. They're making their own bed, don't give them yours to sleep in instead (on top of everything else they're taking away from you).
Apple has stated NUMEROUS times that they don't like DRM,
Actions speak louder than words. Currently they issue DRM music files which are cheaper than non-DRM music files, and their DRM files are indistinguishable from their non-DRM files. And as Jon has been so quick to point out, there's a FREE TOOL to *legally* remove the DRM from their files. Apple can say what it likes in its press releases. It is what it chooses to sell (and its choice to make you pay more for non-DRM, while claiming better quality and not delivering it) which tells the real story. Incidentally, Microsoft has stated NUMEROUS times that they are a supporter of Open Source. Do you believe their statements, or their actions?
and they've actively encouraged labels to issue their music DRM-free (hence iTunes plus).
iTunes Plus Music is indistinguishable from iTunes. Typically when one pays more for an optimized version of a product, one expects better quality in the more expensive version than in the much cheaper version, yet Apple appears to be discouraging use of iTunes Plus by charging more for music files which aren't any better quality than the DRM music files and, as Jon has pointed out on numerous occasions, the Apple-brand DRM music files can have their DRM removed easily.
The problem is NOT Apple, the problem are the music labels.
The problem is not jewelers who sell diamonds from sources which abuse child slave miners, the problem is the sources which use child slave miners, and the jewelers are *forced* to sell those diamonds and thus deserve no blame? Thats not what the gemstone markets think, and bad publicity from "blood diamonds" has caused all the major jewelers to implement diamond tracking systems which help prevent diamonds mined with forced child slave labor from reaching the markets in developed nations. It takes a real scumbag jeweler to trade in "blood diamonds". Another example is the defense that employers are giving about the hiring of illegal immigrants: "Americans won't work for the wages we can afford to pay, so we have to hire illegal immigrants." Clearly you can't blame the employers for hiring illegal immigrants, since they have to employ who they can employ, and the record labels...err, the illegal immigrants, are the only ones who will provide the kinds of employees that make the employers' businesses profitable. Unless someone is blackmailing or threatening Apple to force them to sell DRM music (which is ethically wrong as it will eventually constitute Apple stealing money from the consumers when the DRM system changes/ends), Apple is to blame for choosing to sell DRM music. If a market does not exist for a product, then the product will not be sold. I was given to understand that this was a basic economic point. If Apple doesn't like DRM then it should refuse to sell DRM music. If Apple sells DRM music then clearly Apple is *part of the problem* because Apple has willingly created a market for DRM music. Or in other words, if Apple chooses to create a market for DRM music, then Apple is encouraging the purchasing of DRM music and as such Apple is a big part of the DRM problem. If they didn't sell the DRM music then they wouldn't be a part of the problem. Frankly I'm getting confused about all this pathetic whining that a company which creates a market for an ethically-wrong product to be sold isn't to blame for sales of that product. Either the labels are holding guns (metaphorical or literal) to the heads of Apple iTunes executives, *forcing* them to sell DRM music, or Apple is choosing to sell DRM music all on their own and thus are a big part of the DRM problem.
Stop. Stop now, before your complete ignorance of what you speak against continues to shine. The DRM free music is a higher bitrate than AAC protected music, so your claim of a loss of quality is ignorant at best, and deliberately ignoring the facts at the worst. The only time a possible loss of quality is the conversion of DRM music when burning an audio CD of protected content, but the AAC music is 128Kbps any way, so it's not much, if any, of a real loss. Before you make another single claim about what does and does not happen with iTunes I highly suggest you go have a look for yourself. Your repeated spouting of false info in the face of direct links to the source for easily found info is astonishing. In the "Quick Links" section of the main iTunes page is an "iTunes Plus" link that takes you to the main page for iTunes Plus where everything shown is DRM free. Apple charges .99 for iTunes Plus songs, just like it does for iTunes DRM songs. I just fired it up and right next to the .99 price is a + icon showing that it is DRM free music. Hard to distinguish my ass. I never said Apple wasn't to blame, but they are not as much to blame as you seem to like. You gain a point in my book by having a belief you stand by, but you lose several by being so blinded by it that you cannot see the wave of truth coming straight for you out of the sea of web links shown to you. Jon. On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. Currently they issue DRM music files which are cheaper than non-DRM music files, and their DRM files are indistinguishable from their non-DRM files. And as Jon has been so quick to point out, there's a FREE TOOL to *legally* remove the DRM from their files.
Apple can say what it likes in its press releases. It is what it chooses to sell (and its choice to make you pay more for non-DRM, while claiming better quality and not delivering it) which tells the real story.
iTunes Plus Music is indistinguishable from iTunes. Typically when one pays more for an optimized version of a product, one expects better quality in the more expensive version than in the much cheaper version, yet Apple appears to be discouraging use of iTunes Plus by charging more for music files which aren't any better quality than the DRM music files and, as Jon has pointed out on numerous occasions, the Apple-brand DRM music files can have their DRM removed easily.
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
The DRM free music is a higher bitrate than AAC protected music, so your claim of a loss of quality is ignorant at best, and deliberately ignoring the facts at the worst.
Hey Jon? Remember that E-mail where you discovered that I "hadn't read" the passage about the DRM metadata? Here's a quote from *that E-mail*, where I quoted the link supporting my comment about the "no difference in quality" between iTunes and iTunes Plus: "According to MaximumPC, which listen-tested iTunes DRM 128K AAC files against iTunes Plus DRM-Free 256K AAC files when iTunes Plus first came out, there's not a noticable difference between the two types of music files." http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/04/itunes-vs-itunes-plus-an-audible-difference/ Apparently you, Jon Pruente, choose to just rant not to actually read.
I never said Apple wasn't to blame, but they are not as much to blame as you seem to like.
Apple benefits hugely from DRM. Wal-Mart (another DRM music retailer) is its only serious competitor. Apple's "FairPlay" DRM system gives it a lock-in on the best selling music player, the iPod (kinda like Palladium would have done for Microsoft and the PC). Apple would never have reached where it is today in the online music business without DRM, and it doesn't retain market lock-in on the most popular music player without its DRM. The irony about claiming that "the labels are to blame for DRM on iTunes" is that Amazon was permitted to sell DRM-free MP3s by *the same labels* which only sell DRM music to Apple. http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/amazon-launches.html The reason? Apple refused to budge on its "99 cents a track" pricing, so the labels allow Amazon to sell DRM-free to try and make Apple change its "99 cents a track" price to variable pricing. All Steve Jobs has to do is allow variable pricing per track, and he can have *his entire six million track catalog* (as opposed to his limited 2-3 million track iTunes Plus catalog) FREE OF DRM. It's not even a "small price to pay", more like a "small increase in his profits" to gain what he has said, NUMEROUS times, he wants more than anything. Steve Jobs would even rather deny *all access* to iTunes Plus DRM-free music rather than change his "99 cents per track" rate, hardly the statement of a committed DRM opponent. http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/10/thursdays-copyr.html Well, Steve Jobs is an anti-*music* DRM guy anyway: Steve Jobs is *fine* with video DRM: http://tinyurl.com/stevejobs-drm-double-standard, and http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/140443.shtml. And the fact is that Apple clearly doesn't have a problem with variable pricing, as it started off "iTunes Plus" at 30 cents a track more than iTunes, and currently allows HBO shows to be sold through iTunes with variable pricing. http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/05/hbo-comes-to-it.html So lets get this straight: if Apple was really anti-DRM, all they would have to do is allow variable pricing on their music. They don't. Clearly they benefit more from music DRM, which makes them part of the problem. The labels will give Apple DRM-free music if Apple changes the "99 cents per-track" rate on iTunes to variable pricing. The labels apparently *aren't* a part of the problem, because Apple knows all it has to do to get completely DRM-free music is do what Amazon did...and they don't do what Amazon did. The labels want Apple to have DRM-free music, and Apple is refusing to allow the labels to give Apple DRM-free music. Exactly how is Apple's refusal to allow all DRM-free music the fault of anyone other than Apple? And since the labels are allowing DRM-free music, how are they a part of the DRM problem when they are willing to drop DRM, but Apple is not a part of the DRM problem despite refusing to drop DRM themselves?
Give it up Leo, you're wrong, follow the links to the original article: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit?page=0%2C0 QUOTE So we decided to test a random sample of our colleagues to see if they could detect any audible difference between a song ripped from a CD and encoded in Apple's lossy AAC format at 128K/s, and the same song ripped and encoded in lossy AAC at 256Kb/s. QUOTE They were testing the same track ripped from the same CD using iTunes AAC encoding, NOT USING iTunes PURCHASED TRACKS. They were testing iTunes encoding capabilities, not the quality of iTunes purchases. Just give it up before you get called out more and more. Jon. On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey Jon? Remember that E-mail where you discovered that I "hadn't read" the passage about the DRM metadata? Here's a quote from *that E-mail*, where I quoted the link supporting my comment about the "no difference in quality" between iTunes and iTunes Plus:
"According to MaximumPC, which listen-tested iTunes DRM 128K AAC files against iTunes Plus DRM-Free 256K AAC files when iTunes Plus first came out, there's not a noticable difference between the two types of music files."
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/04/itunes-vs-itunes-plus-an-audible-difference/
Apparently you, Jon Pruente, choose to just rant not to actually read.
<soapbox> Oh My God! Please tell me that this is not the way the meetings are conducted as well! Since joining the list this is all I have seen - bickering about a simple point. I like a good argument with purpose, but this is getting to crazy for me. Is this the way that most well-versed Linux users are? I was thinking of converting over thanks to Ubuntu and your booth at ITEC, but wow, this seems like fighting just for the sake of getting the last word in. </soapbox> Michael Haworth -----Original Message----- --snipped--
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Haworth, Michael A. <Michael_Haworth@pas-technologies.com> wrote:
<soapbox> Oh My God! Please tell me that this is not the way the meetings are conducted as well! Since joining the list this is all I have seen - bickering about a simple point. I like a good argument with purpose, but this is getting to crazy for me. Is this the way that most well-versed Linux users are? I was thinking of converting over thanks to Ubuntu and your booth at ITEC, but wow, this seems like fighting just for the sake of getting the last word in. </soapbox>
Michael, I agree that some of what goes on the list is less than mature. But I'm guessing that you already know that the noise generated by a few is not necessarily indicative of "the way that most well-versed Linux users are". Every culture struggles to learn how to deal with its children, and if some of those children aren't fully socialized by the time they become young adults, that struggle continues. I would encourage you not to judge an entire culture by the least mature members, even if those members are among the loudest. Adrian
Mike, Please accept my appologies. Leo does not represent any of us. He ran the ITEC booth because the rest of us are employed. Our meetings aren't 'structured' and that's a shame IMHO, but they're not remotely as bad as Leo, and he doesn't usually come to the meetings. -Billy On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:38, Haworth, Michael A. <Michael_Haworth@pas-technologies.com> wrote:
<soapbox> Oh My God! Please tell me that this is not the way the meetings are conducted as well! Since joining the list this is all I have seen - bickering about a simple point. I like a good argument with purpose, but this is getting to crazy for me. Is this the way that most well-versed Linux users are? I was thinking of converting over thanks to Ubuntu and your booth at ITEC, but wow, this seems like fighting just for the sake of getting the last word in. </soapbox>
Michael Haworth
-----Original Message----- --snipped--
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Hey Leo, pull your head out. DRM and non-DRM files cost the same. The non-DRM files have a higher bitrate. See how concisely I can rebut your flood of BS? You need to stop furiously typing and instead READ THE FSCKING MANUAL. After you RTFM, go to the bathroom, and look into a mirror. You'll see a troll. Jeffrey On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. Currently they issue DRM music files which are cheaper than non-DRM music files, and their DRM files are indistinguishable from their non-DRM files. And as Jon has been so quick to point out, there's a FREE TOOL to *legally* remove the DRM from their files.
Apple can say what it likes in its press releases. It is what it chooses to sell (and its choice to make you pay more for non-DRM, while claiming better quality and not delivering it) which tells the real story.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Leo, pull your head out. The non-DRM files have a higher bitrate. See how concisely I can rebut your flood of BS?
You need to stop furiously typing and instead READ THE FSCKING MANUAL.
Wow, take your own advice. I posted a link in the original E-mail pointing out that *despite the difference in bitrate*, there was not a noticeable difference in quality of sound. --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to MaximumPC, which listen-tested iTunes DRM 128K AAC files against iTunes Plus DRM-Free 256K AAC files when iTunes Plus first came out, there's not a noticable difference between the two types of music files.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/04/itunes-vs-itunes-plus-an-audible-difference/ See how I show your attempt at brevity to be foolish, without any more foul language than the word "foolish"?
Leo, a "listening" test doesn't mean very much. The higher bitrate songs are often preferred by audiophiles, who actually have higher end equipment that can make better use of the better quality. Just because you can't hear a difference on an iPod with tiny headphones with no bass doesn't mean they're not better. And as Jon said, they were testing a rip from a CD, which is already lossy. The files sold by Apple via iTunes are from the digital master, not a CD. Your quote: "Apple would never have reached where it is today in the online music business without DRM" is also ridiculous - there WASN'T a online music business before they invented it. They got where they are today because they built that business, and they were able to convince the major labels to release music online... and those labels mandated DRM. But we digress. You hate DRM. Don't buy from Apple then. Get off it already. Move on to some other crazy position. Jeffrey. On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wow, take your own advice. I posted a link in the original E-mail pointing out that *despite the difference in bitrate*, there was not a noticeable difference in quality of sound.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
Your quote: "Apple would never have reached where it is today in the online music business without DRM" is also ridiculous - there WASN'T a online music business before they invented it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_music_store disagrees. Apple didn't invent online music retailing. They were just the first group able to negotiate with the big label cartels. Several others had tried and had to go without. Napster famously ignored the labels and money all together until it was too late (ironically, the pressplay Music Store created afterwards was eventually used to relaunch Napster). There is a reason to fight DRM even as you refuse to buy it -- it's an end run around libraries, fair use and copyright expiration. But I feel too many people focus on attacking companies rather than going out and building the world they want to live in. How many people on either side of this debate have released an album, DRM'd or not? There's a growing number of good artists using the internet and copyleft to share their work. Off the top of my head: * Denied by Reign * Brad Sucks * Johnathan Coulton I'm sure if you tried you could name a few others. Justin Dugger
Well, I guess my point was that while there were some small label artists or lame "industry approved" and overexpensive storefronts (possibly only there to provide a counterargument for RIAA's persecution of music sharers), Apple's iTunes was the first "real" music store featuring artists from the Big 3: Sony, BMG, WEA and featuring a real product. Before iTunes, there wasn't a viable industry. It's not like Apple came late to the party and through their evil use of DRM and monopoly somehow wrested control of the market from others - before them there wasn't a market. Jeffrey. On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Justin Dugger <jldugger@gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_music_store disagrees. Apple didn't invent online music retailing. They were just the first group able to negotiate with the big label cartels. Several others had tried and had to go without. Napster famously ignored the labels and money all together until it was too late (ironically, the pressplay Music Store created afterwards was eventually used to relaunch Napster).
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Justin Dugger <jldugger@gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_music_store disagrees. Apple didn't invent online music retailing. They were just the first group able to negotiate with the big label cartels.
Not to pick nits but while you are correct about Apple not inventing online music retailing, they were not only not the first "real" online music business, but they were also not the first "real" online music business to successfully negotiate deals with the big record label cartels (see below).
Several others had tried and had to go without. Napster famously ignored the labels and money all together until it was too late (ironically, the pressplay Music Store created afterwards was eventually used to relaunch Napster).
Well, I guess my point was that while there were some small label artists or lame "industry approved" and overexpensive storefronts (possibly only there to provide a counterargument for RIAA's persecution of music sharers), Apple's iTunes was the first "real" music store featuring artists from the Big 3: Sony, BMG, WEA and featuring a real product. Before iTunes, there wasn't a viable industry.
It's not like Apple came late to the party and through their evil use of DRM and monopoly somehow wrested control of the market from others - before them there wasn't a market.
But Apple did come late to the party, and through their evil use of DRM and monopoly power wrested control of the market from *Rhapsody*. Rhapsody is an online music store which is still in business, and started up two years *before* Apple created iTunes. Rhapsody had deals with all five major record labels, adding their music catalogs to Rhapsody's online offerings, almost one year before Apple's iTunes achieved the same thing, making them a part of the "real" online music business (even by Jeffrey Watts' extremely conservative standards): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsody_(online_music_service) "Rhapsody is an online music service run by RealNetworks. Launched in December 2001 [at the time controlled by "Listen.com"], Rhapsody was the first music service to offer streaming on-demand access to nearly its entire library of digital music." "In July 2002, Rhapsody became the first on-demand music service to offer the complete digital catalogs of all five major record labels of the time (Sony, EMI, BMG, Universal and Warner)." Here's a news story from 2002, announcing Rhapsody's signing of all the big record labels' music catalogs to its "real" online music business: BusinessWeek Online JULY 1, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/businessweek-Jul2002 "Rhapsody's Five-Part Harmony" "CEO Sean Ryan explains what it means now that online-music service's deal with Universal lets it offer all the big labels' catalogs" "One year to the day after online file-sharing service Napster shut down, another digital-music service is hitting the big time. On July 1, Listen.com announced that its Rhapsody music-subscription service had secured a much-sought-after licensing deal with Universal Music. The agreement anoints Rhapsody as the first online service to offer songs from the five major music labels: Universal, Warner Bros., Sony, BMG, and EMI. Together, that group controls more than 85% of the $13 billion U.S. music market. ... Rhapsody, which many reviewers regard as the best online-music service to date" iTunes didn't manage to do the same set of deals until its launch date of April 2003, making Apple the *second* group able to negotiate with the big label cartels for online music distribution. Apple's DRM music on iTunes and its monopoly power over the iPod and the iPhone have given it its current market share: http://mp3.about.com/od/history/p/iTunes_History.htm "[Apple's] greatest achievement to date is not the quantity of media that has flowed from its stores (although hugely impressive), but the clever way in which it has controlled what portable hardware is compatible with its iTunes Store." Apple controlled its own AAC player hardware (and, through restrictive licensing, any other player which can play iTunes music) and also controlled the music that went into the iPod. Their DRM on the music and monopoly control of the iPod (and iTunes music playback technology) is how they got to where they are today: refusing to follow the big record labels' lead in ending DRM music completely. As for Apple crushing its competition, namely the first "real" online music store, Rhapsody: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsody_(online_music_service) "Rhapsody customers using the Jukebox client may use the Harmony plug-in by RealNetworks to convert tracks purchased from the Rhapsody service into FairPlay AAC files for use on Apple's iPod line of digital audio players. Apple has countered this feature by modifying the firmware on certain iPods to prevent playback of these converted files without affecting tracks purchased via Apple's iTunes Music Store. Real initially responded by continually modifying the Harmony plug-in to restore compatibility. ... Apple accused RealNetworks of adopting "the tactics and ethics of a hacker" and said that it would examine the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which some speculated would lead to litigation. RealNetworks no longer updates the Harmony plug-in, as SEC filings reveal that a lawsuit against them would be potentially costly." As you can see, Apple's monopoly power over the iPod and the iTunes music store has been used to quash potential competition in the "real" online music business *that was already there before iTunes* by the name of Rhapsody/Listen.com. I think it really says a lot about Apple's ability to crush the competition that everyone here thought Apple really did "create" the "real" online music business. You haven't heard about Rhapsody and how Rhapsody *created* the "real" online music business, because Apple dominated the market with iTunes DRM and its monopoly control over iTunes-capable players...after coming almost a year late to the party.
"But Apple did come late to the party, and through their evil use of DRM and monopoly power wrested control of the market from *Rhapsody*." Oh come on, could you be any more ridiculous? The online music market was tiny until Apple built the industry. Just because some small companies had streaming music services beforehand doesn't mean that there was a multi-billion dollar industry there. Hell, I'd be suprised if it were multi-million. Apple built the online music market. Period. Regardless, your characterizations border on the absurd. Apple invented a truly breakthrough product in the iPod. They then built a music service that worked seamlessly with it. People bought music in droves. That's called "innovation". There's no "evil". There's no "monopoly power" at play. There's no wrestling, either. Apple built superior products and won fair and square. The complaints about "monopoly" came AFTER they were successful, and they're still absurd. DRM wasn't an issue. The only folks complaining about DRM are folks like Rhapsody (which has their own DRM that they wouldn't release the specs for either), Microsoft (do I REALLY have to explain why this is silly?), and folks like you, Leo. Leo, this is exactly the kind of statement that gets my fingers itching to point out your flaws. It's unreasonable, unfair, shows an ignorance of history, and is just plain obnoxious. If you want _anyone_ on this list or in the real world out there to take you seriously you've got to stop spewing out hyperbolic crap like this. If you don't like Apple, don't buy their products, but please stop ranting on the list about it. Taking my own advice, I'm going to exit this particular thread as well. Jeffrey. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
But Apple did come late to the party, and through their evil use of DRM and monopoly power wrested control of the market from *Rhapsody*.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
--- On Sun, 11/2/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
But Apple did come late to the party,
Oh come on, could you be any more ridiculous?
I could say the same about you. You sat there claiming that in order to qualify as a "real" online music business, a business had to sign on all the major record labels, and now that I've pointed out that Rhapsody signed on all the major record labels 9 months before iTunes did, you're *moving the goalposts* and pretending that they were in their new positions the whole time.
The online music market was tiny until Apple built the industry.
Correction: until Rhapsody created an online music industry with the music catalogs of all five of the biggest record labels. Apple merely added its own online business to the existing online music industry created by Rhapsody. As for "tiny", Apple's iTunes service launch in April 2003 had 200,000 tracks from all five major record labels, but prior to iTunes Rhapsody had 175,000 tracks and 14,000 albums from the same five major record labels. There was no "giant increase" in the online music market (an increase from 175,000 to 200,000 is only 12.5%), as Apple merely offered the *same* music catalogs that Rhapsody had already offered for nine months.
Just because some small companies
Correction: a big company. Signing on all five major record companies made Rhapsody a big company.
had streaming music services beforehand
Rhapsody let you download and burn CDs of some of its content as well, just like Apple *eventually* did with iTunes in April 2003. It wasn't just streaming music.
doesn't mean that there was a multi-billion dollar industry there. Hell, I'd be suprised if it were multi-million.
As of October 14, 2002 (six months before the creation of iTunes), the online music industry *was* a multi-million dollar industry: http://tinyurl.com/businessweek2002 "Commentary: Digital Media: Don't Clamp Down Too Hard" OCTOBER 14, 2002 "Online music, for example, could pull the industry out of its slump, growing from $15 million to $540 million, or 5% of sales, by 2005, estimates Forrester Research Inc." $15 million *is* multi-million. Apple may have helped make it a multi-*billion* dollar industry, but Apple arrived late to a thriving multi-*million* dollar online music industry.
Apple built the online music market. Period.
Rhapsody created the "real" online music market, and brought it up to a multi-million dollar music business by October of 2002. Period. Apple just added their own version onto an *existing* multi-million dollar online music industry, and eventually turned it into a multi-billion dollar online music industry. But they didn't create the online music industry, they merely built onto an existing multi-million dollar online music industry *foundation*, put there for Apple by Rhapsody. Personally I'm a little confused here about your behavior in the face of my behavior. My own example of occasionally failing to accurately verify what I'm saying before I type it (specifically my own unverified and eventually proven untrue claim about the listening comparison of different iTunes AAC files) should have given you a good reason to verify your own claims about the history of the online music industry before typing them. Yet you plunged in and furiously typed without engaging in a good, sensible RTFM about the history of the online music industry. Let this be a lesson to both of us: it is better to *verify* one's claims that one's opponent is uninformed rather than to blaze away and be revealed to be the true uninformed one ourselves. In that wisdom lies the true road to "being taken seriously."
"Big" versus "small" in the business world is measured in dollars and cents, not in number of labels. Subscription services have always been a small part of the music business. Before iTunes, the online market was a tiny fraction of what it it is now. iTunes is now the largest music retailer. Most online music retail outlets until very recently only offered DRMed tracks. MP3 players from different vendors were everywhere when iTunes was launched, and were selling well. In other words, it's silly to say that Apple's DRM and iPod somehow squeezed out the competition because of _monopoly power_. When both started they weren't the dominant force they are today. They are dominant _today_ because Apple made a superior product and offered a superior service. If you can't see that there's no hope for you, Leo. Jeffrey. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
I could say the same about you. You sat there claiming that in order to qualify as a "real" online music business, a business had to sign on all the major record labels, and now that I've pointed out that Rhapsody signed on all the major record labels 9 months before iTunes did, you're *moving the goalposts* and pretending that they were in their new positions the whole time.
The online music market was tiny until Apple built the industry.
Correction: until Rhapsody created an online music industry with the music catalogs of all five of the biggest record labels. Apple merely added its own online business to the existing online music industry created by Rhapsody.
As for "tiny", Apple's iTunes service launch in April 2003 had 200,000 tracks from all five major record labels, but prior to iTunes Rhapsody had 175,000 tracks and 14,000 albums from the same five major record labels. There was no "giant increase" in the online music market (an increase from 175,000 to 200,000 is only 12.5%), as Apple merely offered the *same* music catalogs that Rhapsody had already offered for nine months.
Just because some small companies
Correction: a big company. Signing on all five major record companies made Rhapsody a big company.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
there WASN'T a online music business before they invented it.
napster - and their business model was fantastically successful, just not financially successful. Their Business, according to Shawn: Vengeance. <snip> "Many people have speculated on how we intended to make money. While some details will likely remain hidden forever, today I'd like to clarify what we were up to, and it's very simple: Vengeance. "Yes, vengeance. Although I wrote the code as an exercise in Windows programming, Napster as a corporation was financed and promoted by a group of established musical artists who felt that that had been treated unfairly by the recording industry, but had still managed to tour, record, and sell records successfully despite the impediments and outright theft by the major record labels. Having achieved some degree of independent financial security, they now sought to extract revenge on the very executives that had stole royalties, inflated tour expenses, and yes, even questioned the need for three-dimensional pop outs in their album covers. ... To paraphrase Joe Walsh, one of our silent partners, 'Account for THIS royalty, MCA!' <snip> http://www.ink19.com/issues/april2002/features/napsterBusinessModel.html Thanks, Ron Geoffrion 913.488.7664
participants (10)
-
Adrian Griffis -
Billy Crook -
Christofer C. Bell -
Geoffrion, Ron P [IT] -
Haworth, Michael A. -
JDP/Frogman -
Jeffrey Watts -
Jon Pruente
-
Justin Dugger -
Leo Mauler