For you Mac users out there, how do you feel about WMA files being offered for download by the club? iTunes and the iPod (the world's most poplular digital music player) don't support WMA files.

I'm a long-time mac user and, while I have Windows Media Player 9 and will be able to listen to the tracks, I am bummed about burning cds and playing them in itunes. But, where did this info actually come from? Also, in the past version of NPGMC, files where offered in quicktime and it seemed like effort was made to accomdate mac users.

I'm a Mac user, and I'll be able to play the tracks, just not put them on my iPod. I'm a little disappointed if that's the case . . .

Usually, though, Prince does accomodate Mac users -- he always has. Even the videos are downloadable in Quicktime versions too. We'll see -- hopefully he'll offer both platforms.

Prince should take a look at how iTunes Music Store is offering rights-protected songs (each song has your email address encoded into it, so it can't be shared).

I'll download songs either way . . . just prefer Quicktime versions.

One workaround for Mac users running Virtual PC is to install Ahead Nero (CD/DVD burning proggy) on your Windows.
This will install a plugin for Windows Mediaplayer 9 that allows Nero to be used for burning the protected files to CD. The good thing about that is that Nero allows you to "burn" to an image file instead of an actual disc. So you can create an audiocd image file containing the uncompressed audio. Copy that over to your Mac and take it from there.
The image file created by Nero will be in the proprietary .nrg format, but Mac tools exist to convert it to iso.

I haven't tried this yet btw
[This message was edited Sat Feb 28 19:19:05 2004 by m3taverse]

m3taverse said:

aargh no .. i tried burning a copyprotected WMA file to the Nero plugin through WMplayer and it wouldn't accept it.

natechi said:

The news that the music files will be rights-protected WMA files came from PP9 in a post on the music club forums (it's quoted in another thread on this site...see http://www.prince.org/msg/13/82597 )

There was a follow-up post from either PP9 or another moderator at the club that said they were looking into accommodations for Mac users, so that is encouraging. AAC format would be great -- rights-protected files like the ones available through the iTunes store.

But if WMA files are all that's available, I will purchase them. I will also find ways to burn them to a CD for my own listening, a la use of a couple Macs and an iMic or other method. I have no interest in breaking any club rules regarding use of the music, but I do believe we should all have the same priveleges with the music that we purchase. And that includes burning a CD for personal use.

I don't like the idea of wma files....does P ONLY listen 2 music on his computer....don't think so...SO Y SHOULD WE?!!!! I agree with copy protecting etc etc...but damn....I ain't a bootlegger so Y treat me (and us all) like 1.....what ever happened 2 letting the music b free.....If I purchase it I will b making sure I can listen 2 it at work and in the car...otherwise whats the point.....luckily I am sure some1 here will know a workaround.....

message 2 prince -Y not just go after the bootleggers - instead of your loyal fan/ms....we just wanna njoy yr talent and let others in on it 2....maybe u can see that isn't such a bad thing - oh and 4 the record - I have never made $$$ from u or sold anything that u have done.....trading I have done - but no trading of anything u have released 'officially'....is that so bad?

Doozer said:

But if the WMA bitrate is low, I won't be a happy camper.

if it doesn't work on the iPod, I won't buy it.

squirrelgrease said:

Amen -- but I have a feeling they'll be decent bitrate files since they're charging for them. The 96 kbps stuff that's been on the site for the last year or so have all been free...and even when they put Reflection up for official download, they made it 256 kbps. I'm betting the pay-for-downloads will be decent quality.

alandail said:

Currently, the iPod doesn't support WMA files. But, it has the capability of doing so. Apple may add this functionality in a firmware upgrade in the future:

http://www.macrumors.com/...2320.shtml

has it been said these files would be WMA, or is this just speculation?

alandail said:

Comments from the moderators at the club confirmed that there would be no MP3s...there would be rights-protected WMA files.

Doozer said:

I wish they'd just put the stuff up at the Apple iTunes music store instead of spending all of the monty it takes to do something on their own that isn't going to work as well. Why design a song selling service that doesn't support the iPod?

It's not just Mac users that will be upset with this. Lots and lots of iPods are owned by windows users too.

I would assume if you can make an audio CD from these files, you can then make whatever you want after that.

Right?

And yes, I'm a MAC user as well.
I'm bummed about that decision too. I do, however have a Widoze ME machine that I use for testing. I guess it's finally got some value to me now!

yamomma said:

Yes, absolutely. And, there are plenty of ways to get audio from WMA files into iTunes for personal use with a little ingeniuty. See http://www.macworld.com/2...igitalhub/

The point is that it's certainly going to be more difficult for Mac users to burn their own CDs from purchased tracks if they're in WMA format. And jumping through hoops to do so is a) a bit of work and b) could be construed as misuse of the rights-protected WMA files.

Let's hope the club offers an alternative to WMA files before the downloads become available.

pp9 told me that they were looking into alternatives for us MAC guys when I asked him.

yamomma said:

Yes...and I hope they do. I just did more reading, and the Mac version of WMP doesn't even PLAY the digital-rights-managed WMA files they've said they will be selling for 77 cents. The Mac version supports level 1 encryption, not the most recent encryption levels, which NPGMC is planning on using.

Doozer said:

Right. Read that too.

I would hope that one of the alternatives, would be to hook up the same downloads through the i-tunes store. The AAC format.

Why not?

I've been taking the pepsi cola codes from people around the office that just throw them away and buying tunes there. Great quality in my opinion. NPGMC could have killed a lot of birds with that one stone. Imagaine getting the free CD from the concert that way. When you go to the show, a coupon code is printed on your ticket that allows you to download the album from the i-tunes music store. Save a whole lot in manufacturing that way, right? The musicology store could be set up that way too. You purchase a coupon code that can only be used once and get your tunes from the i-tunes store!

I don't know what he has to kick over to microsoft, but at i-tunes the artist gets 66 cents per 99 cent download.

everyone respond to the poll I set up on the U Tell Us forum at NPGMC

yamomma said:

I think an important issue for NPG is that using the protected AAC format right now means that all purchases have to go through Apple's ITunes service. There would be no way for NPG to maintain a direct billing relationship with its customers.

m3taverse said:

If they put the songs on Apple's store, they reach a wider audience because they will get people who wouldn't think to look for a prince web site but would take a listen to new prince music if they see it, and Apple will even include a link to NPGMC.com their Prince page.

alandail said:

Seems like a good idea, but Ijust doubt they are eager to let Apple get a share of the pie...
hmmm... wonder why I'm so sceptical...?

who thinks the whole thing is simply about the people running the NPGMC trying to justify a bigger budget for themselves? With credit card processing fees, bandwidth fees, hardware expenses, software expenses, extra staffing expenses, etc., who really thinks Prince will net more money with 77 cent downloads than he would net from distributing through the Apple online store?

It's either that, or they're drinking from the Microsoft kook-aide fountain. Just look at the difference between how Apple and Microsoft distribute software. Every single Microsoft program requires inputting your special code - even software that comes bundled on a computer. Add some hardware, you have to dig up the special code again. Lose the code, you can't reinstall the program/os. Be on the road when it figures out you upgraded something, you can't do your work until you get back to your special codes. Apple, on the other hand, trusts their customers. I've never had to input an authorization code to use use an apple product. I suppose there is a code to unlock Quicktime Pro.

Now Microsoft is adopting the same crazy approach to selling music.

alandail said:

I'm not saying i disagree with you, but Prince probably does cos the exact same argument could be made about signing with a record company versus doing it all himself. Prince seems to be willing to let other companies do promotion and distribution, as long as he's able to negotiate his own terms... i doubt that is possible with ITunes at the moment.

m3taverse said:

If Prince could tone his demands down just a little bit, especially in the finacial sense, I'm sure Apple will be willing to make exceptions in his case. I also haven't heard any complaints about Apple paying too little to right holders for downloads from their store.

Abrazo said:

Apple does not pay the artists for downloads from their store, they pay the record company, who in turn pays the artists. If Prince signed onto iTunes as the NPG record company (which, of course, he would), he'd get quite a large chunk of change for very little expenditure. Much more then he would through his own store, especially if you consider the traffic would be much higher. The only draw back is Apple is having trouble going international, though they are working through those. (It don't affect me in mpls, but I do care about others). As a multiplatform user, I will not buy wma files. Since I use iTunes/iPod, I would buy aac files.

amyhr said:

Apple pays record companies because they are usually the right holders, like I said, and not the artists.

Abrazo said:

How could they possibly do anything different? Where is the controversy? Selling music at the Apple iTunes Music store is really no different than selling music somewhere like Best Buy.