Buy.com's answer to Apple's music store - Buymusic.com - Update with review!

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Keego
no Green Day :disgust:

iTunes has Green Day's stuff.

 

What a POS and the ads are total rip-offs of the iTunes Music Store ones. I can't wait to laugh whent they go out of business.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Digobick

Originally posted by: conjur
128kbps, eh?

Why can't they give decent quality music? VBR baby...VBR at the max of 320 and a MINIMUM of like 112 😉

I was under the impression that a 128kbps WMA file is better sounding than a 128kbps MP3?

it even sounds better than a 192kbps mp3

mp3s suck ass

 

[ChefJoe]

Hehehe... I heard about this in the netscape.public.mozilla.general newsgroup before AT.... why? you may ask. .... see below
==========================================================

Below, please find the text of an email that I have submitted to the website of BUY.COM. It is in response to an announced policy to initiate a music download service from their website that prohibits the use of any internet browser software other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (see the story at this link: http://earthlink.com.com/2100-1027_3-5052388.html?tag=newsfeed&subj=technews&part=earthlink&type=pt ). I believe this blatantly policy violates the antitrust settlement agreed to by Microsoft to conclude the US Government's case against it.

As my US Senator/Congressional Representative, I ask that you initiate a Congressional Investigation into this clearly illegal process and compel BUY.COM to reverse this anticompetitve act.

========================================
BUY.COM's announced policy to setup a music purchase service online that prohibits the use of web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer (see story at this link: http://earthlink.com.com/2100-1027_3-5052388.html?tag=newsfeed&subj=technews&part=earthlink&type=ptwsfeed&subj=technews&part=earthlink&type=pt ) is an anticompetitive policy that I believe violates the Antitrust settlement that Microsoft agreed to at the end of the US Government's case against Microsoft.

As a result of this anticompetitive policy, I will not purchase any products from BUY.COM, nor will I revisit its website until this policy is revoked and the software modified to allow alternative browser software. Furthermore, I will be forwarding the content of this message to any and all people that I communicate with regularly (including other contacts in the Information Technology industry); and to my congressional representatives (US Senate and US Congress).

This sort of policy is not only wrong, it is clearly illegal, and I shall do everything within my abilities to stop and reverse it wherever it occurs.

<YOUR NAME>
========================================

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

<YOUR NAME>

 

[ViRGE]

Buy.com is being anti-competitive by meeting the needs of 90% of the US's internet users? I'm sorry, but the Linux/Moz/OSS fanboys are simply going to have to live with the fact that not everyone wants to use OSS, bother with standards, or expend more money than they'd get just to meet the needs of a few people. The idea that they'd use legislation is even more ridiculous.

PS Anyone seen their video ads? For god's sake, does someone need to slap a "sue me" sign on them. If Apple has half a back-bone, they'll sue them for outright stealing every last one of their ideas

 

[aphex]

WHat a crock of shit...

Audioslaves CD was like $11.99 at CC a few weeks back....

LINK - $12.69 to download....

You gotta be kidding me...

 

[Paulson]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Paulson
I'd buy them and just convert them to mp3.... no quality loss because I'd be using the file and then transfering it into wave, and then finally into mp3.. so technically I don't think there'd be that much of a loss..

I'm happy though, this will be a good new way to download music legally..

How do you plan on doing that? There's a reason they added the DRM stuff.

Anyway, this site is a lot less straightforward than iTunes. The license terms and prices vary per song. That oculd get confusing really easily.

JEEZE, lets see here... play song in windows media player... sound forge records what's playing on the sound card... and then I save the file as an mp3... and bam.

There wouldn't be any quality loss, maybe a little, but hey, nothing I'd be able to notice...

If I bought the song, I'm damn sure going to be able to play it in anything I want, and I don't care.

 

[prontospyder]

So if I convert it to MP3 or Ogg Vorbis format, it's illegal? If so, forget about it, I'll just buy the used CD.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Not much of a price savings. The wall from BuyMusic and The wall from Amazon. I'd rather go to a brick and mortar store and pay a dollar or two extra for the disk.

 

Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.

In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
Download Internet Explorer Here.

How about f*ck you? Does that work for you? And where is my Hatiachi 19" monitor you pricks?

 

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: prontospyder
So if I convert it to MP3 or Ogg Vorbis format, it's illegal? If so, forget about it, I'll just buy the used CD.

Bingo. You're licenced to use the music, but you do not own it, so you have no fair use rights. It's just like a subscription system in terms of licencing, they just don't have you paying a monthly fee.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Paulson

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Paulson
I'd buy them and just convert them to mp3.... no quality loss because I'd be using the file and then transfering it into wave, and then finally into mp3.. so technically I don't think there'd be that much of a loss..

I'm happy though, this will be a good new way to download music legally..

How do you plan on doing that? There's a reason they added the DRM stuff.

Anyway, this site is a lot less straightforward than iTunes. The license terms and prices vary per song. That oculd get confusing really easily.

JEEZE, lets see here... play song in windows media player... sound forge records what's playing on the sound card... and then I save the file as an mp3... and bam.

There wouldn't be any quality loss, maybe a little, but hey, nothing I'd be able to notice...

If I bought the song, I'm damn sure going to be able to play it in anything I want, and I don't care.

Wouldn't optical out into optical in also work? You'd have to leave the songs playing, but that's a minor thing...you can leave your computer on the whole night to play and record the music, then encode it in the morn...

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: ChefJoe
Hehehe... I heard about this in the netscape.public.mozilla.general newsgroup before AT.... why? you may ask. .... see below
==========================================================

Below, please find the text of an email that I have submitted to the website of BUY.COM. It is in response to an announced policy to initiate a music download service from their website that prohibits the use of any internet browser software other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (see the story at this link: http://earthlink.com.com/2100-1027_3-5052388.html?tag=newsfeed&subj=technews&part=earthlink&type=pt ). I believe this blatantly policy violates the antitrust settlement agreed to by Microsoft to conclude the US Government's case against it.

As my US Senator/Congressional Representative, I ask that you initiate a Congressional Investigation into this clearly illegal process and compel BUY.COM to reverse this anticompetitve act.

========================================
BUY.COM's announced policy to setup a music purchase service online that prohibits the use of web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer (see story at this link: http://earthlink.com.com/2100-1027_3-5052388.html?tag=newsfeed&subj=technews&part=earthlink&type=ptwsfeed&subj=technews&part=earthlink&type=pt ) is an anticompetitive policy that I believe violates the Antitrust settlement that Microsoft agreed to at the end of the US Government's case against Microsoft.

As a result of this anticompetitive policy, I will not purchase any products from BUY.COM, nor will I revisit its website until this policy is revoked and the software modified to allow alternative browser software. Furthermore, I will be forwarding the content of this message to any and all people that I communicate with regularly (including other contacts in the Information Technology industry); and to my congressional representatives (US Senate and US Congress).

This sort of policy is not only wrong, it is clearly illegal, and I shall do everything within my abilities to stop and reverse it wherever it occurs.

<YOUR NAME>
========================================

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

<YOUR NAME>

I don't get it. Please explain why it is illegal (or against the US-MS Antitrust settlement) for a private non-Microsoft affiliated company to choose to only use a MS product. I can see why it's anticompetitive, and why it sucks, but I don't see why it's illegal. MS itself is not violating the Antitrust settlement as far as I can see.

 

[LordMaul]

Gah. Pure crap. You may burn it only xxx times? Upload to an "Approved Portable Device" xxx times? WTF? Fvck them. :|

 

[pennylane]

I still wouldn't pay for this. I'd pay 99 cents for a song... if it was the WAV (or AIFF for the mac people).

 

Originally posted by: fanerman91
I still wouldn't pay for this. I'd pay 99 cents for a song... if it was the WAV (or AIFF for the mac people).

Or if it was in FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) or MAC (Monkey's Audio Codec - also lossless).

Those formats rock my world.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: fanerman91
I still wouldn't pay for this. I'd pay 99 cents for a song... if it was the WAV (or AIFF for the mac people).

Or if it was in FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) or MAC (Monkey's Audio Codec - also lossless).

Those formats rock my world.

Those too. Forgot to mention that. Either the original uncompressed or a lossless codec.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: fanerman91
I still wouldn't pay for this. I'd pay 99 cents for a song... if it was the WAV (or AIFF for the mac people).

Or if it was in FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) or MAC (Monkey's Audio Codec - also lossless).

Those formats rock my world.

Those too. Forgot to mention that. Either the original uncompressed or a lossless codec.

Can you really tell the difference? I mean maybe you do have a multi-thousand dollar setup (in which case I appologize), but the vast majority of people who claim they can tell the difference are using relativly cheap setups that would make it very difficult to tell.

As for me, I have an old car with stock speakers (and I play music off of a diskman with one of those tape things no less) and relativly cheap computers speakers and headphones. So for me the minute differences don't matter too much, and anyways, for me it's about the music more than the sound.

 

[Lucky]

And where is my Hatiachi 19" monitor you pricks?

hahahahaha

 

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: fanerman91
I still wouldn't pay for this. I'd pay 99 cents for a song... if it was the WAV (or AIFF for the mac people).

Or if it was in FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) or MAC (Monkey's Audio Codec - also lossless).

Those formats rock my world.

Those too. Forgot to mention that. Either the original uncompressed or a lossless codec.

Can you really tell the difference? I mean maybe you do have a multi-thousand dollar setup (in which case I appologize), but the vast majority of people who claim they can tell the difference are using relativly cheap setups that would make it very difficult to tell.

As for me, I have an old car with stock speakers (and I play music off of a diskman with one of those tape things no less) and relativly cheap computers speakers and headphones. So for me the minute differences don't matter too much, and anyways, for me it's about the music more than the sound.

I can't tell the difference on my Logitech Z560s between 128 kbps mp3 and MAC. However, I love the idea that I will be able to convert to whichever emerging codec comes about without sacrificing quality. If I'm paying for music, it better be archival quality.

It's like the difference between 87 brightness and 92 brightness computer paper - either will do, but when it counts, brighter is better.

 

[FuZoR]

require IE to run....

greatttt

 

[AnImuS]

yuck :disgust:

 

[loup garou]

iTunes Music Store Not Available

The iTunes Music Store requires:

A Macintosh computer (iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac or Power Mac)
Mac OS X 10.1.5 or later. (version 10.2.5 or later recommended)
iTunes 4 must be installed
Internet connection (DSL, Cable or LAN connection recommended)
Apple ID or .Mac account. If you don?t have one, it?s easy to sign-up.
The iTunes Music Store is only available in the U.S.

WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAAH

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: jumpr
I can't tell the difference on my Logitech Z560s between 128 kbps mp3 and MAC. However, I love the idea that I will be able to convert to whichever emerging codec comes about without sacrificing quality. If I'm paying for music, it better be archival quality.

It's like the difference between 87 brightness and 92 brightness computer paper - either will do, but when it counts, brighter is better.

Although geeks whine about mp3 quality, I doubt most have quality speakers where you could even tell the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps.

And most consumers have even worse sound systems than geeks. Judging from the number of people who burn mp3s from kazaa straight to CD, the overwhelming majority simply don't care what the bitrate is.