It's clear that different people have different priorities when it comes to how they pay for and consume music. I trust that the market will have different approaches that will meet the needs of different types of consumers. I'm sure each of us will continue to consume music in the way we feel serves us best.
However, notice the discrepency: > where one stands on this issue I would appreciate the US and its > lobbies staying out of other countries' law making process. You would like the US to stay out of influencing how you choose to consume music in your country. Similarly I would appreciate it if you didn't take on a condescending attitude and would "stay out" of how I choose to consume my music. > Agreed. Notice I never said it wasn't useful functionality - IIRC I > said people requesting such features makes me sad. I'd rather the > market didn't accept DRM. That's all. Your take on it is that DRM is necessarily at odds with the rights of the consumer. I don't necessarily agree that that's the case (though I would hasten to add that I *don't* find the current generation of DRM to be acceptable, and thus don't purchase DRM'd music at this point) and it's my business, as an educated consumer, to choose the method of music consumption that serves me best and that I want to support. While I didn't author the original post, I certainly support it's sentiment. As someone who's carefully considered the options and has purposefully chosen a method of music consumption, it's a bit insulting to have this very valid feature enhancement burdened by the weight of naysayers such as yourself calling my decision to use these services "sad". When on a product's mailing list asking for features I don't feel as though I ought to have to defend the way I choose to consume music. I don't really desire to take this conversation too much further, but I am curious about one more thing: > 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. :( Firstly, though this may have been just a loose use of the term, I'm not sure why you say "we" in the last statement. "We're" not paying for anything. "I'm" paying for it. I'm not asking for you to pay for it. Secondly, you're not the first person I've heard who has mentioned that they think it's like paying for radio. Perhaps you can help me understand this because I really don't understand this argument. Have you tried one of these services? It's nothing like radio. Granted you have to use the service's client or Windows media player which I grant may bother some people (and I hope that the companies will consider those people and research ways to meet the needs of those people) but doesn't bother me--I mean...I have to pick some media player to use and really, the Rhapsody client suits my needs as well as any other. But aside from the media player limitation the music behaves just like it's local. With the new version of Rhapsody (I can't speak for the other services since I haven't used them) you can even change tag info to organize your DB however you want. That's hardly paying for the privilege of receiving radio. Trust me, I wouldn't pay for the privilege of receiving radio. I want to reiterate that my argument is not that you need to adopt this method of music consumption, but rather that if you're really going to dismiss this as a "shame" then you need to use reasonable and logical arguments. Oh, and I just wanted to ask about your broadband prices--seems awfully steep! Is it typical of your region? What country are you in? I guess we have it pretty good here in the states: I get 4mbps/512kbps with a 40gB downstream limit for $40/month from my cable provider (Cox communications). _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
