“First announced last week, online music service MP3tunes has officially launched. The service offers 300,000 songs, initially, and plans to add more in the coming months. The service does not utilize digital rights management (DRM) to limit song sharing. Although this might make MP3tunes a target of future litigation, founder Michael Robertson is ready for a fight, if it comes to that,” Elizabeth Millard reports for NewsFactor Network.
“‘The courts have said file sharing is not illegal,’ he told NewsFactor. ‘So we’re simply exercising our legal right to give consumers what we think they might want.’ The main argument underpinning MP3tunes’ refusal to use DRM is that with services such as iTunes, consumers are ‘renting’ the music, rather than buying it. ‘If you buy a CD, you can do what you want,’ said Robertson. ‘You can loan it to friends, or put it on different computers. But with these current music services, you just get to borrow the music.’ That is limiting to consumers, Robertson said. ‘If you pay for something, it should be yours,’ he added,” Millard reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Huh? iTunes customers are buying their music, not renting it. Maybe Robertson meant Napster To Go or some other subscription service? Still, shouldn’t he know exactly what iTunes Music Store (iTMS) offers if he plans to compete with Apple? For the record, from Apple’s iTunes Music Store web page: “The iTunes Music Store lets you quickly find, purchase and download the music you want for just 99¢ per song. You can burn individual songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for your personal use, listen to songs on an unlimited number of iPods and play songs on up to five Macintosh computers or Windows PCs. And the iTunes software works so smoothly on both platforms that you can share music with any combination of Macs and Windows PCs on a local area network — regardless of whether you’re running iTunes on a Mac or PC.” More info about iTMS here.
He’s half right. We aren’t renting music from iTunes. But has anybody here successfully sold any music they purchased from iTunes? I’m of the opinion that if you can’t sell it, you don’t own it. And I’ve downloaded about 400 songs from iTunes. If I had purchased about 400 songs worth of CD’s, I would at least have the ability to sell them at a used CD store.
i think the transferring of accounts will have to come up at some point, for the exact reason posted above. if i die, what happens to my itunes music? sure, i suppose i could move things to another person, if i have time to prepare, but really, how many of us know when that is going to happen?
and the selling of songs as well. i mean there were songs on itunes that are not there now, so the only way to get them would be (from an itunes standpoint, at least) from someone who did buy them.
and i am SO tired of the DRM arguements. i think they are getting to the one button mouse level. deal with it, or buy music elsewhere (or elsehow)
Magic word is ‘either’ see above.
that’s quite a library they have at mp3tunes. i wouldn’t want anything on there unless perhaps they were paying me 88 cents to do so
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
they have well-known “similar artists” with the albums of their no-name artists but they don’t have any music from the similar artists… kinda funny…
I use itunes to buy my music. I agree with rent is right. I don’t own the music. Apple HAS ALREADY changed the rules of the music i have purchesed. If you own something, can the company you bought it from change the rules of you using it!! I mean, the changed the rules of how many times i could burn a cd AFTER i purchesed the music!
I’ve used iTunes since it came out and have never run into the DRM problems. And I bought my music, I did not rent it. I’ve burned it to CD. So it won’t disappear later. I use it on my iPod and so does my wife on her iPod. So I don’t know where this guy got his info but he really needs to study more about what iTunes is about like MDNS has said.
Good luck to him to sell any major record labeled music without DRM.
It took years for Jobs to get the ball rolling with it. And with the recording industry going after everyone the way they are I seriously doubt that this company will ever have more music than what they have now.
MP3Tunes does have the right idea though. DRM is a great pain, and doesn’t solve anything, as all you people who are talking about burning iTunes tracks onto CD and re-ripping are demonstrating. In addition, the quality of files available on iTunes is disappointing, and 192kb MP3s available on MP3Tunes are much better, and are far closer (if not at) CD quality.
DRM is being used as a business ploy by MS/Apple to attempt to lock people into their products. Maybe that’s what you guys are interested in. Personally, I want to listen to some music, and if I buy a CD (a standard which is not owned by a business), then it will play on any CD player. Playing DRM files is not so easy. What if I get loads of WMA files, but then decide that an iPod is the way forward? Hello to lots of (probably illegal) DRM removal procedures and transcoding. Oh yeah, or I could buy it all again. But why should I have to? That is what Robertson means about renting. If I use an MS device with legally bought DRMed WMAs, then buy and iPod instead, legally I am required to buy all those tunes again if I wish to listen to them. What happened to legal ownership, rather than renting, again? And no, I can’t just transcode them. That is not included in the licence agreements as far as I’m aware. If I buy the tunes off MP3Tunes, then I can just transfer them… And this is such a bad idea? Get a grip.
And no, the artists on MP3Tunes aren’t mainstream. But it is good that it is now easy to buy stuff from lesser-known bands. And remember that just because music is mainstream, that doesn’t make it good. And perhaps in time MP3Tunes will be approached by more major bands. And then it can just claim to be the most democratic of the stores, giving a chance to the small players, while also hosting the big ones.
Apple have been the best of the bunch, and probably still are choice-wise, but that doesn’t mean that they have the system perfected. If Apple announced tomorrow that they were going to have 192kb MP3s on iTunes, without DRM, then I’m sure you would all be praising their genius. Michael Robertson has had a good idea. I hope he succeeds. If he does, perhaps it will drive Apple to move its superb store towards better things.
david,
how many things have you “rented” that you only paid a one-time fee for and got to keep or use for the life of the product?
Renting involves paying for something on a consistent basis, i.e. daily, weekly, monthly.
with ITMS you pay you fee for the song and that’s it, they can’t take the song away from you, like the other “renting” music services.
and how many times has apple changed the rules on your music? how many times are the changes negativly affecting you?
Sorry, MDN, but there’s a certain validity to what he’s saying. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it “renting,” but let’s not accuse the guy of being ignorant. He states pretty clearly what he means by saying they’re renting it, essentially that because of the DRM you are limited to what you can do with the music you purchase through iTunes, where you are not limited with a traditional CD, and he’s absolutely right. Now I use iTunes and own an iPod and I’ve never run into any issues with the DRM personally. That does not mean, however that his argument is wrong or he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If you disagree with him, fine, but that doesn’t mean he is “ignorant.” Too often MDN jumps the gun and accuses people of ignorance and bias without really reading what they are saying…
“DRM is being used as a business ploy by MS/Apple”
WRONG, DRM is being used by RIAA, Apple is just trying to work with RIAA to make music available to all of you in a more convenient way. i.e. iTMS.
You’re not going to beat the RIAA, so you might as well work together for the benefit of the consumer. and no, you the consumer, is not going to get everything you want, neither are the companies. there’s a middle ground.
I have many friends in the music business, the rights to their music and getting paid is their lifeline, their food on the table.
wait, did anyone go look at the site?
it looks like the itunes music store / itunes page on apple. i mean really. he can bash itunes but can’t think up his own interface??
yeah, mp3tunes is ripping off the design, too funny, it’s even the same font!!
Brian-
“WRONG, DRM is being used by RIAA, Apple is just trying to work with RIAA to make music available to all of you in a more convenient way. i.e. iTMS.”
Apple won’t license out Playfair. This has nothing to do with the RIAA. It is all about locking users down to one system.
And I know that musicians have the right to be paid for their work. Which is why I buy music. But that doesn’t mean that you have to claim that Apple aren’t exploiting the use of DRM. Perhaps the RIAA should come up with some sort of standard DRM that can be used by all companies, with all music formats. That might improve the situation for the consumer, so that they can transfer their own music onto whatever player they wish, easily and LEGALLY.
I agreee. It’s rental. Low cost long-term rental, maybe, but until I can sell those songs on, I’ll stick to CDs thanks.
The only songs I’ve bought have been ones I don’t mind losing the rights to in the near future. OK, I’ve burned them to CD too (I had to in order to use AIFF in FCP, because AAC sounds shit in FCP).
I love apple. I’m addicted to Apple. I love my iPod. I love iTunes. I think iTMS is the best/easiest/most convenient online store available. But it has DRM. DRM sucks. Ergo, I do not love iTMS.
right, buy cd’s
like the new velvet revolver cd!!!
errr… wait. i can’t play that one on my ipod. WMA files… protected CD… wait a sec.
and the requirement for DRM is probably coming from the RIAA or the record companies themselves.
but i don’t “know” for sure. (mdn magic word)
Jeff:
“He’s half right. We aren’t renting music from iTunes. But has anybody here successfully sold any music they purchased from iTunes? I’m of the opinion that if you can’t sell it, you don’t own it. And I’ve downloaded about 400 songs from iTunes. If I had purchased about 400 songs worth of CD’s, I would at least have the ability to sell them at a used CD store.”
Actually Jeff you could “sell” your iTunes music.
You could sell your iPod or Mac/PC with the music on it and add in a additional value for the music on it!
Of course you cannot have a copy of that music on another PC/Mac/iPod as that would be illegal, but then if you copy all your CD’s and then sell them, that is illegal too!!!
Sure it’s a different way to sell your music to taking a bunch of CD’s to a second hand store, but then iTunes Music Store is a different way to buy music (ie NOT having to go into a store in the first place).
As David Vessey explained people think they OWN the music on the CD’s they buy – they DON’T! They own a license for the music on the plastic CD they own.
You CANNOT just pass on your CDs to others for their use, if you ALSO use the contents of that CD at the same time (ie you burn copies of them for eachother (this is the law of copyright).
Of course if you and your friends copy CDs from each other then you are breaking the law. And if that is what you choose to do (and are willing to risk) then you can do that with iTunes music too. There are programs that allow you to move music off your iPod to another PC – again illegal to do, but hey its your choice.’ You can alo burn CDs of your iTunes Music store music, and then burn copies of those – illegal but possible.
My 2 cents…
Me again…
Actually after writting that last post I realised something.
You OWN iTunes songs as much as you own CD songs. You have a license with the contents (“0’s & 1’s”) encoded on a piece of plastic or a license with “0’s and 1’s” on a hard drive (or flash memory now too!). Your use of this content and ability to pass it on was always limited, but the format made it possible.
It is obvious from the amount of people that assume they OWN the music on their CDs to do whatever they want with it (ie I have freedom to pass it on to friends etc), that burning copies of CDs is common, and that many people share music this way, assuming it is OK (as they OWN the music) but not realising that is just as illegal as a download from a file sharing service.
As a result, looking at the situation this way, if I was a record company/label prick, I’d stop selling CDs and make everything DRM’d online music – of course being that sort of prick I’d make the DRM Windows based (high chance of failure therefore high chance of repurchase), and also limit it to ONE iPod (or crap imitation), one PC, and no burning – ever!
From this perspective Apple’s Fairplay is JUST THAT. It is secure enough to ensure that artists (and of course the labels) get income from their work, and also free enough to allow as much tranfser/portability as any consumer would need (as opposed to a pirate that wants to illegally distribute copyrighted material.
My 4 cents…
Luke
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smirk” style=”border:0;” />
Luke et al:
And sorry for the long-winded post, but I did it for a reason.
Because I bear all the costs for creating a photgraphic image (either the film or a digital file) I get 50% of the sales royalties. My agent gets the other half because he (well it’s not a HE, it’s hundreds of people all over the world) creates the web site, does the sales efforts, talks with the buyers, bills the job out, pays me my cut.
A lot of work. Which is fine with me, I want to be a creative most of the time, not a business person. More Fun!!
A lot of people, especially those who SHARE music (LimeWire etc) are under the impression that the recording artists, own little or none of their copyrights. That the Recording company has ALWAYS wangled the Copyrights out of the recording artist. That the artist MUST tour to make a living.
THUS, (with that line of thinking) if you ‘share’ a song with a buddy or a stranger you are only hurting the RIAA or the recording company. I’m not sure at all what the percentage is, but a lot of artists DO own the Copyright, and a lot DON’T. Or some percentage in between. I suppose it depends how shrewd the artist is, how badly they need to ‘borrow’ the money to produce their first albums or pay for other expenses, etc.
John Phillips (of Mamas and Papas) wrote songs and performed as Mamas and Papas for about 3 years in the 60’s. After that the band was over and he moved to a mansion in Long Island and was a full-time junkie. His royalties (paid to him) were about $250,000. a year.
Not bad. A guy’s gotta EAT!!
There were no music videos then. So it was cheaper to launch a band back then. Anyway the whole thing is INSANELY complicated, and ownership of a song can be split a dozen ways. Or more.
Bands can be set for life, or robbed blind. Terry Knight (manager for Grand Funk Railroad) stole EVERYTHING from GFR.
So there’s no hard and fast rules, no ‘automatic’ good or bad guys, or formula in the music business.
I’m making no ethical judgments here, or pointing fingers. I don’t care what people do with their Macs or their hard drives. Or whether they make a Xmas CD for the family, or run a huge P2P server.
It’s just TOO COMPLICATED. I merely brought this up because a lot of people think it’s more cut and dried than it is.
I DO know that about 8 years ago I could count on a certain amount of money every month as my royalties. The ‘digital revolution’ has hit the Photography field, and my royalties have fallen about 75%. And not just ME. Most Stock Photo shooters have seen huge declines as well. There are other factors in play here, so I can’t necessarily blame ‘digital shrinkage’. But it is a LOT easier to copy a 50mb image, and let someone use it in a remote area of the world (meaning less chance of being discovered) than it used to be to dupe it on a copy stand. Digital, as always, is faster, the copy is as perfect as the original scan, and it’s a lot less friction.
Am I, and other photographers, being nicked by employees at my agency, in farflung parts of the world? In most cases it would be hard for it to be discovered. I think perhaps, here and there, but not for much. Large infractions would show up.
So, I’m a bit grumpy about the possibility. If some of you think I ‘have it made’ anyway, it just so happens I caught a nasty neurological disease two years ago, and am mostly handicapped, but I am getting better. In the meantime I can’t walk or use my hands much, and my royalties (which have started to RISE thank goodness) are an important source of money for me, my wife and 2 kids. But I’m not looking for sympathy. I’ve had a blessed life and I AM getting better.
So Keep On you guys and gals!!
david vesey
2 points:
DRM is attached to each song individually (duh) so if the rules change it doesn’t mean the DRM for previously downloaded songs changes also – old downloads go by the old rules – new downloads go by the new rules – there are no retroactive changes to DRM. You can look at your “info-summary” to see if a particular iTune is Fairplay 1 or 2.
I believe Ringo does own 5% of Lennon-McCartney.