Originally Posted by matt_90048
|
|
I don't believe its fair for people to buy a song and be able to install it only on 5 computers.
|
Hey, there are worse limitations out there. Just think about Napster. Though the model doesn't quite compare, it's more like PayTV with a huge number of channcels imho.
|
Quote:
|
|
I believe it is illegal in this country (U.S.) to charge people for the same product more than once? Or am I wrong here?
|
I don't know US laws, but:
1. you're buying a product with known limitations, so when these limitations are reached, you've got to buy it again. You're charged for a 2nd car when your first one doesn't drive anymore, too.
2. you're not buying the music (it still belongs to one who has the copyright) but a license to play this music. Like with shareware and trials, limited licenses are allowed...
|
Quote:
|
|
I don't believe its fair, to only be able to play videos and mp3s on apple ipods.
|
You can play Videos and MP3s on lots of other devices, too. It's something different with WMA and AAC, but MP3 doesn't have DRM (yet).
I don't think it's fair to limit music to such a small collection of devices, too, but then, nobody's been forced to use iTunes. It's the customers who made this concept a success. If any other company would have tried to sell download music that will only play on the devices of the company itself, for almost the same price than the CD, it'd probably be a flop (like the Zune). But it worked great for Apple.
|
Quote:
|
|
3. encoding. I am not an expert in this area and thats why I asked here. As far as I know the quality of 128kb/s mp3s is inferior to CD quality, yet I am being charge the same price. that means we get ripped off.
|
AFAIK, most audio download shops offer far better quality than 128kb/s MP3s. Most don't offer MP3s at all, because there's no DRM for them. Other codecs do have DRM, but also better quality at the same bitrate. E.g. an WMA or Ogg Vorbis file with 128kb/s often has about the same quality as an MP3 with 192kb/s.
But yes, you get far less for the same price. But, as said, enough people do buy it...
|
Quote:
|
|
according to this source artists don't make money off iTunes sales or they make next to nothing.
|
Most artists don't make much money from CD sales, too. Afaik, only about 10-20 Cents per CD go to the artist(s) of most big labels, everything else goes to the CD shop, the label, marketing, production (studio, mix, etc.), ...
But then, if you listen to artists, most seem like they don't make any money at all. CD/online sales? Just a tip. Gigs? Everything's spend for hotel, food, traffic, and stage rental. Merchandising? Too few customers, and stockkeeping's expensive... (Worst thing is: It's really that way for many. Most artists make their money with an everyday job.)
|
Quote:
|
|
if this source is actually true that mean there is not much difference between allofmp3.com and iTunes except that you pay more.
|
You forgot the main difference: The labels and (non-russian) shops don't get any money! (Well, they could get a bit if they'd take the what this russian association offers, but they're afraid it would legalize them...)
And to be fair to the labels, you've got to admit they're a kind of insurance agency for artists, too. They also spend thousands of dollars to produce CDs that don't sell at all, and not all of those just because the chose terrible artists.