Interesting. I actually used to use iTunes a lot, but I've lost a lot of music through them. The first time was before I had my iPod, and my old computer died. I had tried to make an mp3 cd of those songs before the compy died, but back then, iTunes didn't allow it. I went to iTunes on my new computer, and I wasn't allowed to re-download the songs I'd already purchased.
I have a lot of issues with iTunes and iPods (how the hell do I transfer music from my iPod to my PC? This is really not clear), but I actually want to pay for music, and so far, it's the best fit for me.
It was really laughable when Sony installed malware on peoples' computers for having legitimately purchased their music cd, and then was unapologetic about it.
I always argue that people should pay for copyrighted material, rather than violate the copyright, but when I read some of the stories about the RIAA's activities, I feel like I'm playing the devil's advocate.
Did you try contacting Apple about redownloading the music? I've heard that they're usually sympathetic to people who lose downloaded music when computers and hard disks die.
At some point in time I've owned Sticky Fingers in LP, 8-track, cassette, and compact disc. At least once in each format. They've all been lost or FUBAR through the years, and even if I still had them I couldn't play them.
Sticky Fingers in my iTunes library gets backed up with rsync every night, and I can't accidentally leave my iTunes library on the dashboard of a 1964 Mustang parked in the sun.
I've been a big fan of emusic over the last few years. The subscription based model can be a bit awkward but it does encourage you to check out music you normally wouldn't listen to.
I think that almost every single time I buy a CD I get buyers remorse. I have decided I will never buy another CD or single track, as I get this feeling even from buying a single track on iTunes. Thankfully, mog.com alleviates all of my remorse!
Thanks for the down votes. I feel like sites like mog.com (I'm just a happy customer) are really much better than any alternatives. They have all of the songs I want, I don't have to download anything, and I don't have to pay per track. So, if I don't like a song, I don't feel bad about it. Add social features on top of that and the experience is even better.
As a customer, I don't feel cheated with subscription services. I think they are a real way to stop piracy and make people want to pay for music again.
I've never noticed an issue with mog sound quality. AFAIC it's great. I'm sure other services are on par with that. While the difference between a CD and a stream are noticeable, it's like watching a netflix movie on your xbox and watching the actual DVD: I prefer netflix for the convenience and price and my friends do too.
The same thing happened with FM radio, the cassette tape, and the VCR. I sympathize to a certain degree with the record labels, but they're essentially just middlemen. Door-to-door vacuum salespeople were undoubtedly upset when the market shifted and made their business model irrelevant -- the primary difference is that vacuum salespeople don't have a powerful lobby presence and thousands of attorneys on retainer.
Personally, I'll never buy another CD, because I feel like the prices are artificially inflated to sustain a large number of unnecessary middlemen in an outdated supply chain. I do miss the feeling of buying a new album, reading the insert, and so forth -- but it's just not worth it to me knowing I'm funding the record labels' war on their own customers.
I don't want to sound "elitist" but I still enjoy buying CD's from artists websites. Usually they let you download the MP3 album and ship the CD to you. Best of both worlds.
"The same thing happened with FM radio, the cassette tape, and the VCR. I sympathize to a certain degree with the record labels, but they're essentially just middlemen. Door-to-door vacuum salespeople were undoubtedly upset when the market shifted and made their business model irrelevant -- the primary difference is that vacuum salespeople don't have a powerful lobby presence and thousands of attorneys on retainer."
The problem is that many people say this, yet they still pirate music from independent labels and artists.
"Personally, I'll never buy another CD, because I feel like the prices are artificially inflated to sustain a large number of unnecessary middlemen in an outdated supply chain. I do miss the feeling of buying a new album, reading the insert, and so forth -- but it's just not worth it to me knowing I'm funding the record labels' war on their own customers."
I hope you don't download them either. If you are, it makes me think you are just using this as an excuse to not pay for music.
I haven't done any downvotes, but I do note that you have made quite a few posts in regards to DRM and other forms of restricted access methods.
In your posts, I have noted the constant refrain of people being prone to theft. That may or may not be true.
Why then would music/game/whatever companies devote so many resources to something that only causes problems for actual (rare) paying customers? I don't think you have ever really answered that in a satisfactory way.
A related data point is the Humble Indie Bundle, which is a pay-anything (including $.01) software bundle that is experiencing fairly heavy levels of piracy.
This is arguable, and relative. The 25% figure is almost certainly inflated, and is much lower than World of Goo's usual piracy rate, estimated at 90%+.
"A related data point is the Humble Indie Bundle, which is a pay-anything (including $.01) software bundle that is experiencing fairly heavy levels of piracy."
This shows further proof that the people bitching about DRM still won't pay for software if they can easily get it for free. This is why you need to have some sort of copy protection in place if you are going to sell software.
I'm not sure how it does, since "copy protection" never seems to stop software, music, movies, etc. from showing up on pirate sites. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but DRM is really a pain-in-the-ass for legitimate customers who are perfectly happy paying money for their software, movies, etc., but it doesn't seem like it ever amounts to more than a minor speedbump to pirates.
I'm sympathetic to software devs, musicians, movie makers, etc. who don't want to see their work pirated, I really am. But as a customer, I FUCKING HATE being treated like a criminal when I try to play games, watch movies, etc. that I legitimately fucking payed for.
I don't see how this is a sustainable situation, particularly when each new generation of DRM seems to punish legitimate paying customers harder than the last generation.
"I'm sympathetic to software devs, musicians, movie makers, etc. who don't want to see their work pirated, I really am. But as a customer, I FUCKING HATE being treated like a criminal when I try to play games, watch movies, etc. that I legitimately fucking payed for."
How is copy protection treating you like a criminal? Do you FUCKING HATE when the website for your bank makes you login with a username/password to prove your identity?
"I don't see how this is a sustainable situation, particularly when each new generation of DRM seems to punish legitimate paying customers harder than the last generation."
If you really want to blame someone, blame the pirates. DRM was created as a direct result of things like Napster and most recently, thepiratebay. Most people laughed in the faces of the software, music, and movie industry. They never offered any kind of solution for those industries to make money and continued to download their work for free. Now, customers are complaining and wondering why there is so much copy protection on software and games.
I have a lot of issues with iTunes and iPods (how the hell do I transfer music from my iPod to my PC? This is really not clear), but I actually want to pay for music, and so far, it's the best fit for me.
It was really laughable when Sony installed malware on peoples' computers for having legitimately purchased their music cd, and then was unapologetic about it.
I always argue that people should pay for copyrighted material, rather than violate the copyright, but when I read some of the stories about the RIAA's activities, I feel like I'm playing the devil's advocate.