|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
10-10-2003, 07:26 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
Windows iTunes Oct 16th ??
__________________
Better to use a Mac and be THOUGHT a fool, than to use Windows and REMOVE ALL DOUBT |
|
|
|
10-10-2003, 07:39 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Fullerton, CA
Posts: 7,030
|
Hmm, will it be free?
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2003, 07:47 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
I imagine the software will be, they want and need Windows users to use the itunes music store, so charging for the software would be detremental to their cause.
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2003, 08:48 PM
|
#4 |
|
HOT ROD
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: On the Edge
Posts: 4,565
|
__________________
Fast enough 2 get by.....old enough 2 know what not 2 try -You know it was me 
Last edited by lil Jimmie; 10-10-2003 at 08:51 PM. |
|
|
|
|
10-10-2003, 09:42 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 556
 |
is it true that kazza ia fining people for having too many songs downloaded????
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2003, 10:49 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 83
|
Kazaa isn't fining people for downloading too many songs. The RIAA is. They're taking people to court for sharing songs. You should be able to find some info about that on the TechLive website (http://www.techtv.com/techlive).
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003, 03:57 AM
|
#7 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
Napster Oct 29th.. Cool, choice is always good. I guess now it will come down to the fairest licensing, which by the way, will not be napster which will charge an extra fee to burn songs to CD. Im tired of these companys not being smart enough to figure out what the consumer wants, I guess they just don't have the sense to get the same copying rights Apple was able to.
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003, 12:11 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Audio/Video Expert
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,625
|
Quote:
As as I recall, iTunes - until recently - was fairly restrictive as well. Since I'm not a Mac user, I don't recall the details....but I seem to remember they were using the ACC format and only allowed a file to be copied to one device?? Dave.
__________________
Dave. Go where there is no path and leave a trail. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003, 04:14 PM
|
#9 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 903
|
Well iTunes does do the AAC Format, but I am pretty sure you can put it on as many devices as you want. 3 Computers though. 10 Burns of a same playlist, but you can just move one song and it would burn again... I am rooting for iTunes... But I also like Macs so I guess that makes sense
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003, 10:05 PM
|
#10 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
iTunes has always been unlimited burning, 3 macs and unlimited iPods. Compare that to buymusic.com that has different rights for different songs and you may see why itunes is easier to keep track of. The rights are the same for each and every song.
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003, 10:22 PM
|
#11 |
|
Audio/Video Expert
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,625
|
But the problem is the ACC format. It's designed for control - I would call it the DRM of audio codecs. So there is the potential to 'activate' the rights management built into the ACC codec and control how each song is used.
Don't get me wrong - I like iTunes model. On the other hand, I do not like the models that force me to be on-line to listen to my music (Rhapsody) or use a specific player, or pay more to burn what is already on my computer. And then there is MusicNet - their model is just wrong. Dave. |
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003, 11:26 PM
|
#12 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 903
|
Isn't Napsters music in some odd format? Forgot which one... but I heard it mentioned about how it wouldn't play on the iPod, so I assume it would be some odd format, so it's not just iTunes.
And it says Windows only on the bottom of the napster page... that's a shame 
|
|
|
|
|
10-12-2003, 08:35 AM
|
#13 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
AAC is a much more open format than WMA. AAC does not use certificates and therefore the rights cannot be changed at a later date, All the other sites use WMA and certificates for rights management, and those can be upgraded or downgraded at any time depending on the service used, ie. if you are a member of a service that uses a monthly fee model, your licences have to be renewed each month, if you don't pay then you don't play, simple as that. To me that is unacceptable. AAC files are good for life. iTunes also uses MP3 and WAV and will support WMA with itunes 5.
Not to mention the superior quality of AAC over any of the other formats. Also, If itunes music store songs are burned to CD and then re-ripped to your PC, there are no protections on the songs at all. But this won't work with WMA as the certs reside in your music store account/PC. |
|
|
|
|
10-16-2003, 05:43 PM
|
#14 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
Well, it got released. If anyone has tried it with an MP3 player other than the iPod, did it work?
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
