DRM will continue as long as Apple continues to sell iPods. And I am guessing record labels have agreed with Amazon to launch the service to compete against Apple (in fact, all albums are cheaper in Amazon than in iTunes).

Hmm, I give my music away DRM-free, but only at 128/160 kbps. (My latest album I encoded in the higher quality.) Do most people really care about the bitrate? I figure that 128kbps is still good enough for just about everyone. Unless the MP3 format is degrading over time...

Being the copyright holder on my music, I figure DRM would be highly ineffective at getting people to listen to it. However, those who make money from music could care less who listens to it, all that matters is that it sells. And I don't think that most people care if music is DRMed or not. "Will it play on my iPod? Good, that's all I need to know." As long as DRM sells it won't go away.

(Note that I don't have an iPod, I prefer to interact with the people around me. "Can I download it with Linux? Oh, I guess I'll listen to free music instead...")

Since the very beginning (Napster's days, I mean) it was known that 128 was good for walkman-like players but not for speakers. Also, 128 gives the typical "1mb per minute" ratio. 192 has always been the minimum for me (and since a few years, VBR instead of constant bitrate). Ogg is always a better choice, but very few players support it.

And that is why companies feel cheated by Apple's strategy and hadn't been good at creating their own alternatives. The old industry paradigm is that you pay the recording company the full CD price, even if you only like one song. With iTunes, you buy the song you want, which directly impacts in the discographies.

Die Apple, die!

My friend has a Mac and I don't like that. For a couple reasons. Number one is that Apple is the company I hold the most disdain for. That, and he got a $1,500 laptop while I don’t even get a $700 desktop (which my parents could afford...they won’t even let me chip in money!) and runs jack shit on it. The only thing he has is C&C3 which he got 2(ish) days ago. But C&C3 is really really fun so I forgive him. (I built a nice-ish computer on IBuyPower for $682 with 2.33x2 CPU, 1x2 Gig Ram, NoIdea on Video card (I have a 9550), 200Gig 7200RPM HD, standard sound card. No moniter. Does this seem like a good deal for an ok computer? I could probably upgrade to 2.66x2 GHz for ~$80. Then I could run C&C3!)

Ummm...topic...ummm...

The DMR on Apple pisses me off. Why? My sister uses the same desktop as I do and we sometimes trade songs from the store. Usually she jacks my songs. But sometimes when I try to play the songs, it will be like [Enter Password: ****...2/5 Computers Unlocked] and I need to do that ~1/2 times. ANNOYING. And it takes forever to verify.

Geez, mine is just 5gb (not counting Do As Infinity, which is in another disk, and the latest CDs from Epica, Within Temptation and Nightwish, which I hadn't yet received):

Most are 192kbps MP3s, although I have oggs in a new directory. And use vux to play them. I need to sort them, but since vux does do that directly, I just throw the albums there.

Not enough Weird Al. I took full advantage of Ruckus and got all of his albums.

Apple isn't bad. Just too expensive. My friend has a macbook pro, and it's fairly nice.

And $633, IMO, is way overpriced for that computer. You could build your own with better specs for around that. Anyway, thats a topic of its own.

Ruckus is nice, cause it's free. I forgot about it until just now. Thanks for reminding me!

I wish one day all (most) music selling would be like on Magnatune: low quality MP3 full length previews of all songs and you can download songs in most formats (mp3, ogg, FLAC, wav). Naturally there is no DRM at all. Also you can choose how much you pay for the music. You can buy one album for $5 to $18. Whatever you buy half of it will go to the artist and other half to the store. If you buy through Amarok then 50% goes to artist, 40% to store and 10% to Amarok

I would pay the artist directly.

If one believes what they say on their page then yes, many people do

Well, for that you'd need to get the information from the artist and I don't think he could just sell the song directly to you, at least not if (s)he has any kind of contracts with someone.

Yeah, I know. But I guess more would support musicians going independent. However, they will always prefer getting 1 cent per song sold via a discography than 99 cents per song if they sold directly to the mass market, to prevent having to spend money in promotion, videos, etc. And don't forget, artists are just as money whores as anyone else.