said by WileEC :

What makes you think Apple is any better than the RIAA?

said by peter_m :

The RIAA regularly sue deceased people and single mothers for no apparent reason. RIAA wants your bank account to be deducted every time you hum a song.

said by peter_m :

Apple sells DRM free music so you can stick it where ever you want

said by peter_m :

Apple want to make money in exchange for a unique, well designed and functional product.

said by WileEC :

The RIAA has every right to defend their intellectual property. People want to share copyrighted music online, which is against United States and international laws, they get caught, they get sued. Case closed.
Apple sells DRM free music that (1) costs more than non-drm music and (2) contains your personal information in an effort to keep people from trading it online.
As far as well-designed, that is easily debatable and based on opinion. How is an iBone well designed when it lacks basic features found on most inexpensive modern cell phones such a voice dialing (a feature I use ALL THE TIME), changeable ring tones, replaceable battery, etc? Sorry, but its all iHype and smart people aren't buying into it.

Anyone stupid enough to THROW AWAY $600 on a pretty CELL PHONE is an iTard.

said by M A R K :

Please get a grip

said by james :

A man broke into my house and made me use my credit card to buy his songs from iTunes (they were exclusive to iTunes.
Also he said he'd kill me if I bought a cd and/or ripped it.
Then he touched my bum in a most unpleasant manner, it was awful. *cries*

How much longer are we going to subject ourselves to this kind of terror waged upon us by Iran? HOW MUCH LONGER?

said by WileEC :

The RIAA has every right to defend their intellectual property. People want to share copyrighted music online, which is against United States and international laws, they get caught, they get sued. Case closed.

said by WileEC :

Apple sells DRM free music that (1) costs more than non-drm music and (2) contains your personal information in an effort to keep people from trading it online.

said by WileEC :

As far as well-designed, that is easily debatable and based on opinion. How is an iBone well designed when it lacks basic features found on most inexpensive modern cell phones such a voice dialing (a feature I use ALL THE TIME), changeable ring tones, replaceable battery, etc? Sorry, but its all iHype and smart people aren't buying into it.

said by WileEC :

Anyone stupid enough to THROW AWAY $600 on a pretty CELL PHONE is an iTard.

said by peter_m :

As for missing feature, you are talking about FM tuner and mic??? Well I considered the mic might come in handy some day... and it never has.

said by matrix3D :

...The RIAA is one of those organizations run by those of a certain ethnicity that have figured out how to make tons of money by basically doing nothing...

said by peter_m :

The RIAA regularly sue deceased people and single mothers for no apparent reason. RIAA wants your bank account to be deducted every time you hum a song.

Apple want to make money in exchange for a unique, well designed and functional product. Apple sells DRM free music so you can stick it where ever you want

said by dvd536 :

And they charge a 30 cent premium for the non DRM version.

said by WileEC :

What makes you think Apple is any better than the RIAA?

said by WileEC :

What makes you think Apple is any better than the RIAA?

Apple is a for-profit company (and woah, really for-profit considering how much they hose the average Mac/iPud/iBone owner for). 2nd, not everyone subscribes to their sales model. I personally would NEVER buy from iTunes. I have a Rio Karma, probably one of the best MP3 players ever (not that any Apple fanboi would agree or even have knowledge of what a Rio Karma is) - point is that not everyone owns an iPud. Many people have many players from many companies. Why should Apple have any control over what I do?

said by ColorBASIC :

The artist gets money from touring as well. If their music is popular, they will do very well. If their music sucks, the music publisher who did the investing and took the risk loses money as well.

If the artist thinks they are getting a raw deal, they can sign with a different label or self publish.

said by ColorBASIC :

Wow, the concept of an artist having to actual WORK for their money is shocking to some people. Some artists just expect to do a recording session and the money should just flow in by the millions.

But if you want to take advantage of RIAA's immense and expensive to support resources, and you want the RIAA membership to risk millions putting together an album and promoting an untested artist so that you dont' have to do all that work, it will cost you .70 of a dollar and you make the bulk of your money actually PLAYING your music for those fans you expect to buy your music.

Any artist that is so lazy that they're not willing to do any work doesn't deserve zillions of dollars.

IOW, that .70 buys the artist the "resources and financial backing" and in exchange, if their music is good, the artist stands to make MILLIONS touring the nation or world playing for their fans. That's a fair deal IMO.

Resources and financial backing are expensive...just look at how much interest you pay on a home mortgage over the life of the loan.

Meanwhile Madonna looks to have done pretty well under the oppressive thumb of the RIAA membership.

said by ColorBASIC :

Toby Keith isn't with an RIAA label and doesn't appear to be living in a refrigerator box eating dog food...White Trash with Money was #2 Billboard without the RIAA. Gnarls Barkley gets plenty of airplay without the RIAA as well.

The RIAA doesn't control what I listen to and no artist is forced to sign with an RIAA member label. Artists not wanting to pay the RIAA member label just have to be willing to do the work the label does (promotion, networking, getting the music out there). I hear plenty of indie music on Sirius and on the internet that isn't from RIAA labels. But then again I don't listen to Top 40 because Top 40 music for the most part sucks ass.

And despite their best efforts, the RIAA doesn't seem to be able to control Steve Jobs and iTunes. Music is still $1 a song and RIAA artists are filthy rich.

The whole point is the RIAA DOESN'T control distribution. They're worried that Apple will be controlling phone music distribution and the history of Apple and iTunes that I've seen is that they refuse any price increase from the current $1/song model.

said by qworster :

The RIAA decides how much to spend and what to spend it on, and the artist gets to pay it out of their paltry share!

Don't believe me? Read these:

»www.negativland.com/albini.html

»archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2···14/love/

said by jmn1207 :

Who, in there right mind, can self-publish? Who has the type of resources and financial backing to make it on their own? Madonna? The music industry has always been, for the most part, a brutal industry for newcomers. Why should any talented artist be forced to hit the road to make a living? If the music is good and enough people can hear it, buy it, and play it, that should be more than enough to have a lucrative business for any budding creator of music.

said by qworster :

But the RIAA gets 70 cents of every 99 cents spent for a song on iTunes.

The artist/singer get 7 cents to split.

said by ColorBASIC :

My heart bleeds for the bloodsuckers at the RIAA. It's the iTunes store being, I believe the #3 music retailer, not the iPhone giving the phone so-called clout.

The flat rate $1/song model of iTunes is good for consumers and the RIAA has been fighting Apple to try and get tiered pricing for quite a while with Jobs simply flipping them the bird.

I messed around with a friend's iPhone last night and it's way cool. I'm definately going to stop by the Apple store some time next week and pick one up.