iTunes in Canada
p2pnet.net News:- Are you a Canadian music lover? And have you been, “itching to get into the ITunes online music store”? If so, your prayers will be answered next month when Apple opens a Canadian version of iTunes.
There was a passing reference to this in Apple’s iTunes European Union invasion post, but according to a Canadian Press story, neither the exact date nor the number of downloads that’ll be ‘available’ have been set.
Apple will no doubt try to con the usual dollar per download from the hapless few who opt for its ’service’.
Several other corporate plastic music sites are already in Canada. They’re collectively hoping and praying the Big Four record label cartel’s appeal against a decision by the Justice Konrad von Finckenstein’s will be upheld. He ruled that putting music into a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn’t constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
“The ITunes Music Store allows PC and Mac users to legally purchase and download music online,” says CP, the implication being that downloading in any other way is illegal.
That is, of course, utter nonsense.
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of Canada’s Copyright Act dealing with private copying legalized, “copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as ‘private copying’).
In short, Canadians can already download all the music they want.
CP doesn’t explain why anyone would want to spend good money on a very limited number of tracks from the Big Music Music backed and supplied sites when there’s a whole world of wonderful free music literally at their finger-tips.
===================
See:-
itching – ITunes coming to Canada in November, Canadian Press, October 27, 2004
post – Apple Launches EU iTunes Music Store, Apple, October 27, 2004
appeal – New Big Music Canada report, p2pnet, July 7, 2004
free music – P2p file sharing is thriving, p2pnet, October 27, 2004
October 27th, 2004 at 10:10 pm
what?
I want my click back.
October 27th, 2004 at 11:43 pm
I’m Canadian, and I would consider a fee for a single track. Although it’s unlikely to happen soon (no excuse after broadband is mainstream):
1) ABSOLUTELY lossless quality (40 MB should go to ~30 MB, plus or minus some – FLAC anyone?). Taken from a master track would be good too.
2) Reasonable fee. ie: <= 50 cents. No cost for medium production, no cost for shipping, no cost for any kind of reproduction (except for electricity when encoding these things for online distribution); 99 cents is too much, considering actual retail albums are going for $12.99 and less now. Adding in the ‘hidden tax’ levy on blank media for the customer…
These are my ‘rules’ unless absolutely no other option (in which case, I’ll consider compressed versions). I am aware of the indie scene… Now, can someone explain to me any reason why these things would not be feasible (bandwidth not included).
October 28th, 2004 at 12:49 am
“can someone explain to me any reason why these things would not be feasible”
Ask the labels.
October 28th, 2004 at 2:22 am
Since Apple is pretty much doing Canada LAST,
and Apple is being greedy by trying to be the sole
controlling commercial music distribution channel for
music on the iPod, I say p!$$ on iTunes!
Canada customers weren’t good enough before,
and now they want money, and we’re all supposed to
cheer and line up and act like it’s a blessed priviledge
to fiiiiiiinally get to buy music from Apple/iTunes…
And the fact they don’t like Real’s ‘Harmony’ online
music service offering music for iPods, and others
that are following suit – all the more makes me give
a rat’s @$$ that they’ll be available in Canada!
Apple will likely litigate to keep it’s proprietary system
to itself. Greedy power hungry companies don’t get
my money!!! (…sigh! governments do…)
October 28th, 2004 at 7:37 am
Fallacy! Your argument is just baseless. Last I checked, it was music labels that control music, not Apple COMPUTER. The LABELS decide where music is sold and by whom, iTunes is just one of the mediums! You fault Apple over something it doesn’t control. Two, the music store means very little to Apple in terms of money, how are they being greedy??? It wasn’t music sales that brought the profits last quarter for Apple, it was iPod sales. iPod is the gem, iTunes music store is just an extension of it.
You also complain about Apple being not compatible with Real Player’s Harmony. Well why don’t you write a letter to Sony and complain that I can’t play any XBOX games in my PlayStation. iPod belongs to Apple. They designed it, they made it, they have the right to control what goes with it. PERIOD. I don’t necessarily think that its the right decision myself; Apple could get a lot out of a partnership with Real, but the choice belongs to Apple. I want Apple to make decisions based on what will be best to the bottom line, both as a shareholder and as a user, but not because you want to use Harmony on your iPod.
Most importantly, EVERY costumer has a choice if they want to use Harmony. Just as EVERY costumer has a choice to download & use iTunes. Compare that to MediaPlayer by Microsoft, apparently it is “ESSENTIAL” to remain on your hard drive (said so by microsoft). Now talk to me about a “greedy power hungry” company. I’m sad you don’t see the big picture.
October 28th, 2004 at 5:10 pm
Well, if you want to put it that way, EVERYBODY has a choice.
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. (Not much of a choice by my standards)
And don’t get me started on Microsoft and it’s monopoly.
There’s just waaaaay too much to say there. You could fill
encyclopedias with it!
Yes, if you want to put it that way too, Apple created iPod and
therefore has the right to do whatever it wants, but on that same
note, so does Microsoft. Since they created Windows, they have
every right locking out companies from writing software for Windows.
And since iTunes is only a small part of Apple’s revenue,
why wouldn’t it be in their best interest to allow anyone to
sell music for iPods, and perpetuate the sale of iPods?
Apple isn’t the smartest company. Beause THEY had to be the
sole source of Macs and be greedy and militant about NOT licensing
the technology, the world is filled with inferior PC technology.
Sorry, but I’m more pro consumer choice, than I am for the rights
of monopolies.
P.S. I’m no Anonymous Coward,
I’m a smart guy who doesn’t get SPAM!
October 28th, 2004 at 9:59 pm
I’m Canadian as well. I would consider buying single tracks also, but for the money I absolutely won’t accept lossy files. If bandwidth is a problem for them, then changing to a per megabyte charge would make the most sense, and give us users more choice over quality. I would especially prefer downloading lossless files if they came from the masters, but only as long as when I download gapless albums they actually playback as gapless. Otherwise it still makes much more sense, quality and moneywise, to just go out and buy a CD. Plus, don’t forget you can buy CD’s used as well. That just leaves DRM. Not sure where I stand there but I doubt it’s that big of a deal really. If you think about it, it’s kind of obvious why they don’t want to offer lossless files.
October 29th, 2004 at 1:24 am
— P.S. I’m no Anonymous Coward, I’m a smart guy who doesn’t get SPAM!—
Way OT, while I fully respect your decision to stay anonymous (although you could use a nick) how does registering with p2pnet subject you to SPAM?
Cheers!
Jon
October 29th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
Screw iTunes and it’s pricing.
Here in Ottawa there are LOTS of good “music go rounds” and pawn shops. Over the last ten years the price for a used CD has gone from about 10 bucks to about 2 or 3 bucks. Considering that if I wait, I can get the CD I want three weeks after the release date by putting my name it. I get the album, rip it, lend the CD out to others to listen to and put it in my stack.
Now the iTunes bullshit about charging a buck a song or whatever is absurd versus me buying the CD used from a pawn shop or a “music go round”. I’ll use pink floyd:the wall as an example.
On iTunes it would cost me 30 bucks to get the thirty some odd tracks in that collection. If I find it at a used place, it costs me about 5 for a two cd set. Which works out to about 16 cents a song and I get the physical CD to put into my collection.
I realise that going to pawn shops isn’t p2p, but you’d think that music business owners would realise that there really isn’t a problem with p2p cutting into their bottom line. It’s pawn shops that sell the albums for exactly what they are worth (ie 2-3 bucks).
October 29th, 2004 at 6:53 pm
I don’t really see this as a take it or leave it choice, personally. Whether Apple allows Real to sell music to the iPod crowd or not is not that significant to the bigger picture. In my music library I have around 3000 tracks. Roughly 250 tracks are from my own CD collection, 13 tracks “legal” from iTMS and the last 2500+ songs are from P2P. Let me also add that the songs I have from iTMS were free thanks to that deal with Pepsi. So in the end, I have never actually purchased any songs online. Further, most people will not get their music from a paid source either. The argument that Real makes is really insigificant. With labels bullying Apple and the other music stores, track prices may soon jump to $1.49 per track (or $1.29, I’m forgetting the number). I’m sorry, thats rediculous! I think even less people will be inclined to purchase music when that happens.
Real is just being a cry baby. The online music market is so small and insignificant. They are making a big deal out of it because the want a piece of the action and they want publicity. I don’t even think that Apple would be pushing the iTMS so hard if RIAA didn’t act like the Gestapo on sharers. Apple could have made it like Sony, and only support their own file format from the start. They didn’t, and as a result I can play every single song I can fit on my iPod, P2P or not. Not only that, as far as I know (and I could be wrong), CD’s with copy protection work just fine on Mac’s. Look at Microsoft, they want to imbed CD protection into the core of their operating system. Thats really ironic to me because a large portion of the music industry and creative industry uses Apple computers. Apple is definitely walking a fine like here. I just hate when people get the wrong impression of what they are trying to do.
That said, I really disagree with their choice to tell Real to F* off, because let face it, they did just that. Steve said something to the extent of “the number one company in online music sees very little to work with the number 2 company in online music.” For one, thats really funny. Two, Apple is missing a GOLDEN opportunity to corner off the juggernaut (aka Microsoft) and its crappy MediaPlayer. The CEO of Real hates Microsoft too, a partnership would be win-win for both companies. I think this a HUGE mistake on Apples part and it is frustrating many Apple users out there. Three, QuickTime has lost a lot of ground. Its not the best player out there anymore, and I hate to admit this. Unfortunately Apple is not seeing this and they still claim they are on top. Sometimes, Apple doesn’t do what’s best for Apple, Apple does what Steve Jobs wants. He is a genius but he has made some dumb calls in the past, and thats just one of the perils of being an Apple user.
So in the end, Apple appears to have a monopoly in only one thing, the online music market. Who cares, P2P is thriving and its free! Apple will have a dominant position in only one market, potable music. I do not see them becoming a monopoly in that segment either. Lets face it, iPod is fantastic but there are so many other great players out there too. Except for copycat Dell, those suck
October 29th, 2004 at 7:07 pm
You shouldn’t be upset at iTunes and its pricing. Like I said before, iTMS is only a service, its the labels that charge so much for their music. Apple makes very little from their store.
I’m a hardcore Apple user but I’ll be dammed if I buy one track at $.99. Used CDs rock! At our “music go round”, we for every 10 used CD’s we buy we get one free. Can’t beat that!