Yarr
Right, I know that piracy is wrong and everything, but does anyone else feel that too little effort is being put into legal download systems? I was under the mistaken impression that going legal would be easy, and convenient, and that things would have changed at least a little since I last looked at legal download sites.
In the last week, I've tried both Napster, and itunes, and have found both to be apalling in terms of quality.
Firstly, the costs. The price of a music download is artificially high. I just downloaded 'Foo Fighters - DOA' from itunes, at a cost of £0.79, for which I got an mpeg4 (not mp3) file, that I could not convert to any other form. The quality was only 128Kbps, which consdiering you are paying the same price as you would in Virgin Megastores for a CD, is just stupid.
I'm sure at least one person reading this is thinking 'another idealist complaining about greed in the world.' I'm a business student, I have no issue with charging for things. But I also see that radio stations, even student ones like Storm, are forced to pay thousands a year in royalties if they wish to broadcast fully. Which when you consider how many radio stations there are in the UK, plus the amounts from CD and download royalties...well...its enough.
The next thing that pisses me off about these services is the restrictive licences. They are overly restrictive, and I believe this is why the legal download market is struggling to take off as fast as it could. I understand that the bloodthirsty fuckers at the royalty collection companies want their money, but it's just over the top. I want the freedom to use what I've paid for, otherwise what's the incentive? Why should I lose the ability to listen to my music when I end the subscription, unless of course I convert it to an mp3 file, which is illegal anyway, and kinda negates the point of downloading legally in the first place.
Next, the file format. Call me a traditionalist, but when I hear mp3, I'd actually *like* a proper mp3, not a mp4, or a wma, or any other three letter combination. I realise of course, that this is the case as you can't jam an mp3 file with 57 varieties of copy protection into it.
My final point relates to the software. Put simply, its a pile of shite. Being fair, itunes was a lot better at this than Napster (which crashed when I tried to open an account).
So, interactive time! If anyone is still reading my blog. What are your experiences of legal music downloads? Do you see any shortcomings? Or are you happy with the service you get?
In the last week, I've tried both Napster, and itunes, and have found both to be apalling in terms of quality.
Firstly, the costs. The price of a music download is artificially high. I just downloaded 'Foo Fighters - DOA' from itunes, at a cost of £0.79, for which I got an mpeg4 (not mp3) file, that I could not convert to any other form. The quality was only 128Kbps, which consdiering you are paying the same price as you would in Virgin Megastores for a CD, is just stupid.
I'm sure at least one person reading this is thinking 'another idealist complaining about greed in the world.' I'm a business student, I have no issue with charging for things. But I also see that radio stations, even student ones like Storm, are forced to pay thousands a year in royalties if they wish to broadcast fully. Which when you consider how many radio stations there are in the UK, plus the amounts from CD and download royalties...well...its enough.
The next thing that pisses me off about these services is the restrictive licences. They are overly restrictive, and I believe this is why the legal download market is struggling to take off as fast as it could. I understand that the bloodthirsty fuckers at the royalty collection companies want their money, but it's just over the top. I want the freedom to use what I've paid for, otherwise what's the incentive? Why should I lose the ability to listen to my music when I end the subscription, unless of course I convert it to an mp3 file, which is illegal anyway, and kinda negates the point of downloading legally in the first place.
Next, the file format. Call me a traditionalist, but when I hear mp3, I'd actually *like* a proper mp3, not a mp4, or a wma, or any other three letter combination. I realise of course, that this is the case as you can't jam an mp3 file with 57 varieties of copy protection into it.
My final point relates to the software. Put simply, its a pile of shite. Being fair, itunes was a lot better at this than Napster (which crashed when I tried to open an account).
So, interactive time! If anyone is still reading my blog. What are your experiences of legal music downloads? Do you see any shortcomings? Or are you happy with the service you get?
posted by Tom Giddings at
4:08 am
3 Comments:
BUY A CD SILLY FOO'
I've used Napster and itunes and found them both reeeeeeeeeaally annoying. I hate the copy protection and I REALLY hate the fact I couldn't listen to the music after I gave up my free subscription.
So yeah, legal downloading sucks at the moment and until it gets better, I'm going to stick to buying my music on cd.
Definitely agreed on the legal downloading lacking lots. I would consider it as a cheaper alternative to buying the CDs but still being legal, but I agree with you that charging the amount they do for a limited use file is stupid, if I pay, I want my money's worth, I may as well save up and get the CD...or alternatively wait for ResNET...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home