Comments on: The music industry abuses us and we're to blame

Apple has sold 5 billions songs on iTunes, but Don Reisinger isn't celebrating. Unlike most others, he's saddened by the news.

[DoughboyNJ]

Amen! Agree 100%
Please, MP3 shoppers, consider DRM-free music from Amazon, Bleep.com OtherMusic or elsewhere before buying from iTunes.
Do it for the future of music.

[Lerianis]

Well, people will now that they are available on those websites (or at least I will).
Though.... even with those DRM-free things, the bitrate is a little too little for my taste.... bump them up to 320Kbps MP3 or the equivalent in another format, THEN we can talk.

[Renegade Knight]

I got about 20 songs for free on iTunes on a promotion. Those 20 songs have used up the bulk of my lifetime permissions to use them on computers (I reformat regularly and use multiple computers to boot). They have been a PITA and at "free" were not worth the price.

Even if I were sold on iTunes, iPod and all things Apple and only had one computer I'd still use up my authorizations before I was done enjoying the music. I'm not a fan of paying for things twice.

[leepoe1]

Perchance, Sir Knight, your visor obscured your eyes, fortell thou mightest seen the simple "deauthorize" one of thy five devices and thou wouldst have the full benefit of the music.

[mdmac]

@Renegade Knight- you clearly don't understand iTunes. Just de-authorize those machines you're not using. Simple!

[devindra_hardawar]

I sort of see your point Don, but at the same time you could also argue that the iTunes Store has done more to help promote new methods of music distribution than *anything* else. Sure, many tracks are laden with DRM, the sound quality isn't CD quality, and AAC files can only be used on iPods. I've personally never used the iTunes Store in my life, but I still recognize the radical way it changed how consumers bought music.

The music industry is an aged behemoth, making change is a slow and terrifying thing for them. The restrictions of the iTunes store made them comfortable with the idea of selling music online. Now that it has been proven successful, they are taking a serious look at the next step of digital distribution--no DRM, high quality MP3s. Just look at the success Amazon and eMusic are having, and Apple's move towards unrestricted MP3s.

I'm not defending the RIAA by any means, but it's clear to me that Apple's efforts have helped digital distribution more than they've hurt it.

[KayoFrisco]

I agree devindra, DRM, and compressed digital audio just doesn't sound very good on a quality audio system. Yeah, I'll probably breakdown and download iTunes when I buy an iPhone and feel I am compromising my aesthetic values when I play back on my home system. MP3s are the margarine of audio. Go back to the sweet taste of home churned vinyl! You won't regret it.

[cannabisindica]

I agree - I like Macs and switched over to them. But, I never buy my music from iTunes.

[JranZu]

I will never use iTunes or any iPod device just because it locks me in. I also believe that people should pay for songs if they have them on the MP3 Players or Computers. I still by CDs from the store, rip them to my computer, and then I can move them around however & wherever I want. I have from time to time had a hard time getting a song, or didn't want to pay full price for a CD just to get one track and I download those from wherever is cheapest. Then find another copy of it in MP3 format and just use that (public library, friend?s personal library, etc.). I figure once I paid for it I should be able to get from whatever source I can find. Personally I think if the record industry would release songs at 30 cents and DRM free right from their own websites (cut out all the middle men) then nobody would bother to pirate them and they would sell 4 times the amount making even more money. Hell at 30 cents I would repay for a song that I couldn't find or accidently deleted without much thought.

[forkintoaster]

this is so silly, just burn the track to a CD and then play it anywhere you want. What is the issue? if you put it on you ipod then you can put it in your car or home stereo with a connector cable. This entire article is silly. Of course you can take it with you where ever you want.

[yetanotherdrummer]

Exactly. Thats what I do with all of the music that I get from them.

[spiniton13]

I agree with Forkintoaster completely. The guy who wrote this article probably doens't even know how to burn a cd.

[abirdman]

You're obviously on your first ipod. Wait until that fateful day you drop it into toilet with $5,000+ of songs on it, and it turns out you can't get Apple to honor the licenses on it. Buying a DRM licensed track means you own it "as long as the contraption you loaded it onto" works. I've got vinyl LP's that were bought in the 70's, and a lot of CD's from the 90's and since. They work everywhere. In the same time I've gone through at least 3 generations of computers and storage devices. I don't buy music from Apple because I don't want to depend on the computer or MP3 player working forever. And copying it to CD's isn't an option when the conversion from DRM to MP3 loses so much quality. I recommend you keep that battery charged.

[jcweatherby]

Boy, you said it! Don, what are you, 12??? The music you enjoy on your ipod is the result of artists and engineers working VERY VERY HARD to create stuff, as well as labels and promoters working to bring it to you. You think music should be free? Think again! Artists deserve to make a living and not have their work stolen, copied and given away. At .99 cents, an itune is a hell of a lot cheaper than a gallon of gas! What a bargain!

[bugm3n0t]

You really don't understand, do you? Not only is burning a CD for every album you buy tedious, but you are not getting CD quality sound. If you then take that CD and rip it back to mp3, your music is now twice compressed, so it's going to have noticeable quality issues. Also, what happens a few years from now when you decide to buy a new music player or cell phone? You either are forced to buy Apple for the rest of your life, or you will have to settle for re-ripped mp3s of low quality.

Also, doesn't it just bother you on some level that these companies are telling you what you can and can't do with items that you have purchased? Would you buy a couch that would dump you on the floor if you weren't wearing clothing from Old Navy?

[Composer_1777]

U guys are idiots. Who wants to use CDs anymore... no one. Who wants to burn 100's of CDs just to rip them back on to your computer, which btw will run down your cd drive, no one. Maybe you guys are still living in the 90's and perhaps you need to upgrade to DRM free. Stop living in the past. DRM is worse than the Patriot act.

[make_or_break]

(sigh) The same BS fanboy response EVERY frickin' time. You work from a compressed, degraded starting point when you burn to CD. You can't legally resell or even freely transfer the use rights of the actual iTMS download file. Plus your tirade still ignores the rest of the arguments posed in the original article.

.

That said, there are SOME instances where iTMS does serve a purpose. I've found more than a few OOP CD albums available ONLY on the iTunes Music Store. I grimace at the thought of paying for such locked down, compressed media since these are often only presentable through a DAP and earphones, but even more galling is finding the SAME songs on a used copy of the original CD on eBay or Amazon going for 4 or 5 times the price.

[Lerianis]

Not all people want to burn a CD or DVD just to play something on another device. It should just be that you can use your music on ANY device, as long as you or a family member living in the same home owns it.

[forkintoaster]

this is so silly, just burn the track to a CD and then play it anywhere you want. What is the issue? if you put it on you ipod then you can put it in your car or home stereo with a connector cable. This entire article is silly. Of course you can take it with you where ever you want.

[rkortez]

I agree 100% -- this article doesn't make any sense.

[Lerianis]

The issue is that CD's are going the way of the dodo, and you should not have to do that in the first place. Read some of the above postings replies, and you will see the reason why people do NOT want to do that.
I swear, people like YOU are either iTunes fanboys, or simply too stupid to know when they are getting ripped off.

[sirshagg]

I switched to amazon.com since they don't use DRM and are usually cheaper.

[coop777]

Don - a little known non advertised way around this issue within itunes - purchased songs can be added to a playlist, which can then be burned to cd in WAV format which removes the DRM. Once burned to disc, you can do what you want with it. Apple has obviously recognized this issue and quietly given users a way around it.

I do agree with the context of your article - just thought you should know.

[abirdman]

Check closer... the workaround reduces the quality of the recording significantly-- enough to notice even with my tin ear.

[make_or_break]

abirdman's right...every time I've tried taking an AAC file (DRMed or otherwise) and burn it to CD in any form, the results are less-than-satisfying. And rerips to any other format are just as discouraging, if not more so.

[bpgveg14]

Way to express all the negative, and NO solution!

How about along with your rant, Don, you list the GOOD ways we could deal with the situation? Not doing so just makes you sound like a whiner.

[ryandsmith]

I couldn't agree more. So many people want to be able to do what they want with their music. It turns out that most of those people like to share (give) it to a friend. How do you prevent that?

[make_or_break]

Gee...I thought he DID offer up a solution, even if for many people it's likely not workable.

[Godwhacker]

You make a lot of good points, but iTunes, Amazon, and others now sell plenty of music without annoying DRM. Annoying is all it really ever was. Sure, you are limited. You can't convert file formats easily. But you can burn them to a CD, then rip as an unprotected MP3.

But we can all help to end that announce once and for all by pledging to only purchasing DRM free music. Where we lead, the market will follow. The consumer really has all the power.

[biltz987]

I don't mean to quibble, but it seems that this was written a year ago. Much of your argument is a bit outdated. And, even worse, this argument has been written about ad nauseum. Heck, I've thought about a million times. Hardly an original thought.

Anyhow, many of iTunes offerings are DRM-free AAC (which can be used on iPod, Zune, SONY, Creative, etc., MP# players). Napster has a comaprable catalog and more DRM-free MP3 (NOT WMA) songs than iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, etc., and because they are MP3s they can be played on any MP3 player. Rhaposody also offers DRM-free downloads. Then there is eMusic, Amie Street, HD Trax, 7 Digital (not all are DRM-free, but the awesome new Pogues box set is!) and a host of others. Yes, DRM on purchased songs is evil, but the options for freedom from the dark side are growing all the time. Ideally, we should get it all DRM-free now, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as you are making it out to be.

[biltz987]

Burning to CD and then importing is hardly "little known." Most iTunes buyers with half a brain know this. That is NOT the POINT!

[darwilliam]

Don's letter is laughable, the music business abuses you? Want to try the pharmaceutical business with HUNDREDS of thousands deaths a year due to defective products (Vioxx anyone? Hormone replacement anyone?). Or the "Health care" business which won't help you when you really need it. Or our own government spending your money to bail out the fat cats on Wall Street? Abuses you? Make your own music, it's a free world, or go to a communistic country and let the government pay for the music - see what you get. It takes a steel stomach to run a music company - a record company - where every penny you spend is a bet, and if you don't bet right you lose your business. Look: every iPod in the US, on average, has over 90% of the music stolen, that is "shared", the musician doesn't get paid, the label that was the "vc" and risked it's money to record the music doesn't get paid, the songwriter doesn't get paid. And that's the abuse you should be crying about. When was the last time you gave any money to a musician without hearing the final product? That's what the labels are forced to do over and over, high risk and most of their product stolen. So for you to plea for them get have a "new business model" would be sincere if you weren't on BitTorrent or Kazza tonight. (And if you're not (!) and don't "share" that is take music from the web for free, my apology, but everybody else in the world does, and you freetards are the reason the ISPs will seen be filtered, which is pathetic, but that's what France and England are starting to do in order for creative people to get paid.)

iTunes is an example of a fair system that pays everybody, (it should probably variable pricing that would be the fairest American style model) but but since only 10% of the music that's heard on you iPod is paid for, for you to complain you're being "abused" by the music business is... you know what it is. Man, get a life.

[BlackbeardBiteme]

Two words: BITE ME!
You say "for you to plea for them get have a "new business model" would be sincere if you weren't on BitTorrent or Kazza tonight"?
BITE ME!
I'm not "pleading" for them to get a new business model-- I'M TELLING them, to GET WITH IT OR PERISH!
The industry HAS been abusing us! And your STUPID argument of "the music business abuses you? Want to try the pharmaceutical business" blah blah blah is like saying we shouldn't speak ill of Hitler since Stalin was no great guy either. MORON!
SO WHAT if other corporations have been corrupt monopolies since Rockefeller? Since WHEN do two wrongs make a right-- MORON?
The difference is, YOU CAN'T DOWNLOAD A PRESCRIPTION, so it's up to the RECORD industry to adapt, or GO THE WAY OF BARNEY THE DINOSAUR!
Likewise, the drug-industry never harassed any business for playing a radio!
You want me to stop downloading music? You have two choices: either give me something better, or... BITE ME!
Your gramma probably told you something: "Spit in one hand, and whine in the other-- see which one fills up first!"
Well, tell me-- is your hand filled up yet? If not, you might want to stop whining, and start telling the RECORD INDUSTRY to start selling us some high-quality music downloads, for FAIR prices!
If not, then they can just EXPECT us to get medium-quality downloads for NOTHING-- and you know why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls-- because WE CAN!
And the music industry has NO ONE to blame but themselves, for giving us Britney Spears, Paula Abdul, Mariah Carey, Shania Twain, BOY BANDS, and all the OTHER no-talent LOSERS who we DON'T WANNA HEAR, while keeping the GOOD artists down since they CAN'T BE BOUGHT AND SOLD LIKE SLIM-JIMS! The ruthless corporate-greed has done it to the industry-- and blaming us poor pirates, is like blaming the wind for knocking your house of cards down. Again, blame in one hand, spit in the other-- which is full first?
Gotta go, I got torrents running! :D

[bkieller]

iTunes also provides a large - and different - distribution mechanism for Indie acts. It allows bands/artist to consider being able to succeed without the need of being 'signed' to a Label. Isn't that the real answer to minimizing the power of the record companies? I think you completely missed the point <?>.

[darwilliam]

Don's letter is laughable, the music business abuses you? Want to try the pharmaceutical business with HUNDREDS of thousands deaths a year due to defective products (Vioxx anyone? Hormone replacement anyone?). Or the "Health care" business which won't help you when you really need it. Or our own government spending your money to bail out the fat cats on Wall Street? Abuses you? Make your own music, it's a free world, or go to a communistic country and let the government pay for the music - see what you get. It takes a steel stomach to run a music company - a record company - where every penny you spend is a bet, and if you don't bet right you lose your business. Look: every iPod in the US, on average, has over 90% of the music stolen, that is "shared", the musician doesn't get paid, the label that was the "vc" and risked it's money to record the music doesn't get paid, the songwriter doesn't get paid. And that's the abuse you should be crying about. When was the last time you gave any money to a musician without hearing the final product? That's what the labels are forced to do over and over, high risk and most of their product stolen. So for you to plea for them get have a "new business model" would be sincere if you weren't on BitTorrent or Kazza tonight. (And if you're not (!) and don't "share" that is take music from the web for free, my apology, but everybody else in the world does, and you freetards are the reason the ISPs will seen be filtered, which is pathetic, but that's what France and England are starting to do in order for creative people to get paid.)

iTunes is an example of a fair system that pays everybody, (it should probably variable pricing that would be the fairest American style model) but but since only 10% of the music that's heard on you iPod is paid for, for you to complain you're being "abused" by the music business is... you know what it is. Man, get a life.

[darwilliam]

Don's letter is laughable, the music business abuses you? Want to try the pharmaceutical business with HUNDREDS of thousands deaths a year due to defective products (Vioxx anyone? Hormone replacement anyone?). Or the "Health care" business which won't help you when you really need it. Or our own government spending your money to bail out the fat cats on Wall Street? Abuses you? Make your own music, it's a free world, or go to a communistic country and let the government pay for the music - see what you get. It takes a steel stomach to run a music company - a record company - where every penny you spend is a bet, and if you don't bet right you lose your business. Look: every iPod in the US, on average, has over 90% of the music stolen, that is "shared", the musician doesn't get paid, the label that was the "vc" and risked it's money to record the music doesn't get paid, the songwriter doesn't get paid. And that's the abuse you should be crying about. When was the last time you gave any money to a musician without hearing the final product? That's what the labels are forced to do over and over, high risk and most of their product stolen. So for you to plea for them get have a "new business model" would be sincere if you weren't on BitTorrent or Kazza tonight. (And if you're not (!) and don't "share" that is take music from the web for free, my apology, but everybody else in the world does, and you freetards are the reason the ISPs will seen be filtered, which is pathetic, but that's what France and England are starting to do in order for creative people to get paid.)

iTunes is an example of a fair system that pays everybody, (it should probably variable pricing that would be the fairest American style model) but but since only 10% of the music that's heard on you iPod is paid for, for you to complain you're being "abused" by the music business is... you know what it is. Man, get a life.

[dcapi]

I agree with Devindhra. Steve Jobs is by no means a philanthropist, but iTunes first proved to record companies that digital distribution was possible and desirable. Without them it might've taken years longer for digital music downloads to arrive.

In addition, the eventual iTunes monopoly is the only thing that forces record companies to maintain .99 prices. Because iTunes forced this price model upon them, much to their displeasure, they formed Amazon music etc. to compete, with better terms such as DRM free and cheaper prices. But if iTunes disappeared, prices on Amazon and other services would skyrocket for popular songs.

[dcapi]

I agree with Devindhra. Steve Jobs is by no means a philanthropist, but iTunes first proved to record companies that digital distribution was possible and desirable. Without them it might've taken years longer for digital music downloads to arrive.

In addition, the eventual iTunes monopoly is the only thing that forces record companies to maintain .99 prices. Because iTunes forced this price model upon them, much to their displeasure, they formed Amazon music etc. to compete, with better terms such as DRM free and cheaper prices. But if iTunes disappeared, prices on Amazon and other services would skyrocket for popular songs.

[bugm3n0t]

I've got to disagree with Don's perspective. As an independent musician, it was surprisingly easy to get my music on iTunes, so it is empowering a grass-roots rise in the ability of local musicians to sell their own music without the labels. And the success of iTunes is encouraging sites like Amazon.com to offer their music DRM free, which would NEVER have happened if Apple hadn't demonstrated the demand for individual downloads. I've used multiple computers over multiple years, and have found the iTunes restrictions to be no more than a triviality. (After all, you can still burn those tracks to your own CD and use them as you wish.) iTunes is giving power to independent musicians to challenge the old distribution models of the big record companies.