2005 - The Year In Rear-View
As we speed forward into the last half of the first decade of the new millennium, at least two items "may be larger than they appear" when we glance in the mirror.
The first of course is the continued onslaught by the Copyright Cartel (RIAA/MPAA et al) to persecute fans and customers of their "product", while the second is the near-sickening dominance of the Apple, iPod and iTunes triple-threat on the digital music scene.
With the profusion of "legal music download" sites, sparked by the much-trumpeted success of iTunes with its millions of tracks sold, comes the question of music subscription vs. buying. In order to bolster the concept of subscribing, an idea has been borrowed from the earliest days of peer-to-peer, namely the sharing of playlists. CNet News takes a look at this latest attempt to woo the consumer.
As a life-long collector of music, from the precious little 45rpm records that ate my allowance, to the lavishly-packaged LP's that chewed my paycheck, until today whereupon I have a sizable financial investment in CD's, I'm afraid I will never be entirely comfortable with the idea of paying for digital bits online. All the music I have ever purchased has been of a tangible nature, and I feel as if I "own" something. The fact I can re-sell that purchase, should I choose to do so, would appear to validate that feeling.
Therefore, I find it interesting (amusing, actually) to hear Apple Executives - surely the slickest snake-oil salesmen ever to slither out of silicon valley - make the following statement:
It's been said before, the Industry is going about this all wrong, but, as the song says...
- Loco -
(Now Playing: Too Late To Turn Back Now - Cornelius Brothers & Sister Rose)
The first of course is the continued onslaught by the Copyright Cartel (RIAA/MPAA et al) to persecute fans and customers of their "product", while the second is the near-sickening dominance of the Apple, iPod and iTunes triple-threat on the digital music scene.
With the profusion of "legal music download" sites, sparked by the much-trumpeted success of iTunes with its millions of tracks sold, comes the question of music subscription vs. buying. In order to bolster the concept of subscribing, an idea has been borrowed from the earliest days of peer-to-peer, namely the sharing of playlists. CNet News takes a look at this latest attempt to woo the consumer.
As a life-long collector of music, from the precious little 45rpm records that ate my allowance, to the lavishly-packaged LP's that chewed my paycheck, until today whereupon I have a sizable financial investment in CD's, I'm afraid I will never be entirely comfortable with the idea of paying for digital bits online. All the music I have ever purchased has been of a tangible nature, and I feel as if I "own" something. The fact I can re-sell that purchase, should I choose to do so, would appear to validate that feeling.
Therefore, I find it interesting (amusing, actually) to hear Apple Executives - surely the slickest snake-oil salesmen ever to slither out of silicon valley - make the following statement:
Apple executives have said that consumers want to own their music, rather than "rent" it through subscription services.I fail to see the difference between what's being offered by both purveyors of "the digital experience" - what, exactly do you own when you purchase from iTunes? Can you re-sell them on e-bay when you're tired of listening to them? It's bad enough when fans of entertainment get branded as pirates, but surely trying to re-define the terms of ownership smacks of hubris.
It's been said before, the Industry is going about this all wrong, but, as the song says...
- Loco -
(Now Playing: Too Late To Turn Back Now - Cornelius Brothers & Sister Rose)
posted by Loco Jones | 8:04 AM
|
0 comments
