iConfused

[c9]

Alright so I have this iPod now, and I'm putting music on it and all that shit. Some notes:

1. iTunes SUCKS. It's insanely slow. Also, it's slow.
2. Country-by-country iTunes stores suck too. I like the free US track this week, but can't download it because I'm in Canada and the Canadian store doesn't have that track for free. The free Canadian one is garbage.
3. I know there's all sorts of DRM on these things, although it apparently has been cracked, so somebody emailing me the song won't work, will it?
4. Now that I can store 100 songs, I obviously want more! I need to get a new hard drive, digitize all my CDs, and then get an iPod nano so I can listen to them all.
5. I need to win the lottery.

Comments

[iambic-cub.livejournal.com]

Are you running iTunes on a Mac? That might be your first problem. Once you win that lottery, invest in some Apple hardware.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Yup, Windows. But even on fast Windows PCs it seems like a dog. You're right: it takes a lottery win to buy Apple hardware. :)

[canuckboy.livejournal.com]

Find someone in the US who will allow you to use their address *cough*notleegalee*cough and you'll be able to d/l the free song there. ;)

[simplisticton.livejournal.com]

The software you want that will un-DRM the music is JHymn (at least it is on a Mac, I assume it works on Windows too). It just saves the "burn to CD and re-rip" steps. The day JHymn stops working is the day I stop buying music at iTMS.

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

1. the program in general or just the file transfers? i actually think itunes is -great- at organizing the music. also, it's one of the snappiest progs. on my mac. (as opposed to iPhoto, which i abhor.)

2. i completely agree. but, as i'm sure you know, it all has to do with billing laws, record company contracts, etc...

3. jHymn might help you out. i don't know if they released a version for wintel machines, but nothing a little google can't solve. just be careful -- there are different versions, and you may end up rendering the song not playable anyway. but yes, a iTMS song will only play if the person who bought it "unlocks" it on the computer that's trying ot play it. and you get 5 authorizations. so if this person sends you stuff -all the time-, and has only one or two computers, they could always just give you their user/pass to "authorize" your computer for all their downloads. or, like you said, just crack the damned thing.

4. did you get a shuffle or something? that sucks, considering the nano just came out.

5. when you do, i accept donations.

[c9.livejournal.com]

1. In general. The transfers are no biggy, it just seems to spend way too much time thinking about anything I tell it to do. It plays and sorts fine, but this morning I clicked "Autofill" and it took a good 30 seconds (that's even abnormal for what I typically get) before it added the new songs. I agree, it's very good at *organizing*.

2. Yeah yeah. And really I should be happy, since it annoys me when Canada is treated like just another state by many companies.

3. These days, that's too much effort. But perhaps next time I'm bored.

4. I did in fact. But at least it was free. I can still save for a nano.

5. Take a number. (current number: 34,958,734,692,496,824,687. I think some people are taking more than one.)

[rebelprince26.livejournal.com]

as for number 3: the DRM is important so that artists can continue to have their music available for sale. so don't knock it. but yeah, like someone else said, i think you can authorize it to play on a couple computers, so you might be able to make it work.

iPod Nano? I wouldn't waste my money. Get a real iPod that hold ALL of your songs. :) I have a 20GB one and it's clearly not big enough. Not that I'm a size queen or anything...

[c9.livejournal.com]

I understand the reasoning of the DRM, though I dispute whether it protects artists or whether it protects record labels. But that's an argument for another day.

I think a nano would be just fine. I'm not really collecting music any more (I spent so much in university it's scary), so having alimited size might be OK. Also, I like the size quite a bit.

[rebelprince26.livejournal.com]

But that's an argument for another day.

when can i schedule this argument? this is a subject i have LOTS to say about. :)

[c9.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Maybe tomorrow. I just have to finish a bunch of stuff today, that's all.

[rebelprince26.livejournal.com]

i'm just being sassy. don't mind me. i work in the music industry, so i'm pretty defensive of record labels. they're not all evil. i don't even think they're mostly evil.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Oh certainly. But AOLTimeWarnerPepsiSony saying "we're trying to protect our poor artists!" strikes me as disingenuous: they're trying to protect their profits, like any company would. Rather than saying labels (since that means tiny ones too... anybody can have a label these days) perhaps I should say "evil corporate masters." :-)

[rebelprince26.livejournal.com]

well, if they can't make a profit then neither can their artists, right? they actually are protecting the artists. and trying to make enough money to support the very high risk involved in breaking new artists. it's a really tough business. only 10% of albums released each year break even. that means 90% lose money.

[c9.livejournal.com]

But rather than attack that problem, many labels are now releasing less and less albums, and spending all thir promotion dollars on designated "superstar" releases, meaning that the new artist that could hit it big is never heard, most of the time.

Additionally, some people think that labels are a little obsolete now, and some artists are in fact making money selling directly. Labels are required under the old no-internet system, but may not be as necessary now.