> *within the Rhapsody program itself* See, that's what I'm objecting to. Having to use a particular piece of software (or hardware) to access content. You could say I have to use a CD player to access content on CDs, but I don't. I access content on CDs exclusively with a CD-ROM, and only once, if I can help it. After that it's just content and I can do whatever I like with it.
I haven't looked at Rhapsody but I had a look at the new Yahoo service - apparently you need Windows Media Player and / or some Yahoo frontend on top of that. Sorry, but no. Other than that it seems a great deal. I think we pay more for the privilege of recieving radio here. Shame, really. :( Rule of thumb is, I don't touch content that I couldn't use with FOSS. > You mention having to pay for bandwidth...most folks I know here in the > states don't have quotas on how much they can download in a billing period. I really can't imagine they'd let you saturate your DSL or cable line for long. For comparision, my line's a dedicated ADSL 256/1024 with 30 GB / month traffic limit and costs $140 / month. > Frankly, I hope CD's do disappear quickly. The idea of having to go and > purchase media and carry it around with you seems rather antiquated. I agree completely, but that's exactly why I like CDs. You have Amazon deliver them to your doorstep, rip them, and store them in big boxes in the attic. :) > And your example of finding your father's or grandfather's record collection > will be irrelevant: with how cheap storage is virtually all the music that > is made will be kept on professionally managed servers and much less music > will be lost over time than is currently lost. Can't really argue that point since I can't see the future. I don't think, however, that media companies will take care to preserve everything and / or make it available to the public. An amendment to copyright law is in order - one should only be allowed to retain copyright on something if one keeps a copy of the work commercially available via the same channels and for comparable prices as are used for new works of the same type. If something goes out of print it becomes public domain. > offer the best quality music as new compression and even multi-channel > formats are > developed so that I wouldn't ever have to repurchase music. As I said in an earlier post, first remasters, then reencodes. An absolute cash cow. I just don't see free upgrades. > I really wouldn't care that I didn't own the music but some folks might. I like collecting stuff and I really do feel too old for trading cards - go figure. :) > Customers can use their pocketbooks as leverage Not in a de-facto monopoly. There is no competition here. If two independent record labels could record the same song with the same or different artists, that would be competition. On another level I expect Rhapsody, iTunes and Yahoo to stay pretty close to one another price and feature-wise. They still get the music from the same source. There's price fixing going on with CDs and why should it be different with online services? You know what, I wish I could view the future as brightly as you do ... :( C. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
