outerlimits Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 AAC or AIFF also superior to mp3 and wav for that matter. but for those of us that have been shooting most of our lives, you will never tell the difference. period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) Maybe I am confused here... If I go into iTunes and list my music I can select a song , press CTRL and CLICK and there is an option to create an mp3 version of the song If I CTRL and CLICK that Mp3 version of the song and select reveal in Finder then I can Burn it to a disc in MP3 format... Or is there something else I am missing here...? Screen Shot 2014-12-05 at 3.20.04 PM.png What you're missing is that it didn't use to be that easy......The things you can do now, you couldn't do back then. You had to take weird steps like export the songs to CD, then reimport and convert to MP3 before reburning them to CD or sliding them onto an MP3 player. I may have the specifics wrong; but there were several conversion steps. You have the steps right. You had to record the audio file to disc as an "audio file" (which is WAV). After burning the file to the disk, you then import (rip) the disk back into the computer hard drive. Then you could convert the newly imported WAV file to MP3 and end up where you should have started. Britainusa is right. You do not have to do what you suggest. Just convert to MP3. As someone pointed out: Apple may have fixed this NOW, but I absolutely guarantee you that when ITunes originated and for many years after, the conversion process listed was the ONLY way to create an unlocked MP3 file from whatever it was Apple was selling (which was an MP4 file, see my bottom post). Been there, fought that, wasted a lot of hours on it. As the post at the bottom shows, you can NOT convert the MP4 locked files using Itunes. The point is that the substance of the lawsuit is not what exists NOW that Apple has been forced to stop doing what they did which was illegal, it is about recovering damages to the people who got ripped off BEFORE they fixed it. Edited December 7, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 AAC or AIFF also superior to mp3 and wav for that matter. but for those of us that have been shooting most of our lives, you will never tell the difference. period. Maybe, my ears are not so good but it very much surprised me how badly a file can be distorted just doing a few conversions with MP3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) For the record, this is what I was talking about. All the files I was buying were "MP4 protected" files which had to be converted as listed above (burn off to disk, re import to HD, recreate MP3 file) to get a usable file. Don't know what Apple sells now as I have not bought music from them in years. Edited December 7, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) And here is what ITunes puts up if you try to convert the MP4 file using the current Itunes. It's still screwed up. Edited December 7, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Maybe I am confused here... If I go into iTunes and list my music I can select a song , press CTRL and CLICK and there is an option to create an mp3 version of the song If I CTRL and CLICK that Mp3 version of the song and select reveal in Finder then I can Burn it to a disc in MP3 format... Or is there something else I am missing here...? Screen Shot 2014-12-05 at 3.20.04 PM.png What you're missing is that it didn't use to be that easy......The things you can do now, you couldn't do back then. You had to take weird steps like export the songs to CD, then reimport and convert to MP3 before reburning them to CD or sliding them onto an MP3 player. I may have the specifics wrong; but there were several conversion steps. You have the steps right. You had to record the audio file to disc as an "audio file" (which is WAV). After burning the file to the disk, you then import (rip) the disk back into the computer hard drive. Then you could convert the newly imported WAV file to MP3 and end up where you should have started. Britainusa is right. You do not have to do what you suggest. Just convert to MP3. Butch, yep -- he's correct -- now. That's the current iteration if iTunes...... Ten years ago it was a different story..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 For the record, this is what I was talking about. All the files I was buying were "MP4 protected" files which had to be converted as listed above (burn off to disk, re import to HD, recreate MP3 file) to get a usable file. Don't know what Apple sells now as I have not bought music from them in years. One word-Windoz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Some years back, my wife gave me an apple gift card so I could buy songs off ITunes. Seems good, you just download the song you want for 99 cents. PROBLEM: I immediately found out they were not selling the standard MP3 music file everybody else on earth used, they were selling you something called an "MP4" file which was LOCKED..... why care? Because I could not open it to edit the sound or adjust the volume and I could not play it in my car since my car had no way to play from my Ipod. I figured I would just buy the music and burn an MP3 disc and play it but not with Apple's files. Those files could be loaded onto an Ipod but nothing else. Bottom line is that every song bought from Itunes had to be "burned off" to a disc as a WAV file then recopied back onto my computer in WAV then converted to MP3 before I could work with it. A major pain in the rear for music I had paid good money for. Apparrently, Apple is finally getting a legal smackdown for selling people music that only works on an Ipod..... when what we thought we were buying was just regular music files. And Apple also had put "internal lockouts" into the Ipod so it could not play music files bought from other music sources. The lawsuit claims Apple would only allow music bought from its iTunes store to work on the iPod. According to the plaintiffs, this required them to continue to purchase iPods in order to keep their music instead of competing cheaper music players. Apple took DRM off their music years ago. I got an iPod in 2005, and loaded dozens and dozens of classical CD's into iTunes and synced to the iPod. NO problems whatsoever. Then iTunes match came along which I ran for a year and it upgraded many of my burned cd's over to their DRM-free equivalent .M4A albums, which was also great. A couple of years back, I learned about apple-lossless, which is a 1-for-1 bit copy of music from the cd, albeit the resulting files are larger. I do that now with any new physical albums I buy. As to stuff I've bought through iTunes...., no audio or acoustic complaints whatever. So basically, the suit is about something that apple already addressed years ago. To my mind, that makes it frivolous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 8, 2014 Author Share Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) Some years back, my wife gave me an apple gift card so I could buy songs off ITunes. Seems good, you just download the song you want for 99 cents. PROBLEM: I immediately found out they were not selling the standard MP3 music file everybody else on earth used, they were selling you something called an "MP4" file which was LOCKED..... why care? Because I could not open it to edit the sound or adjust the volume and I could not play it in my car since my car had no way to play from my Ipod. I figured I would just buy the music and burn an MP3 disc and play it but not with Apple's files. Those files could be loaded onto an Ipod but nothing else. Bottom line is that every song bought from Itunes had to be "burned off" to a disc as a WAV file then recopied back onto my computer in WAV then converted to MP3 before I could work with it. A major pain in the rear for music I had paid good money for. Apparrently, Apple is finally getting a legal smackdown for selling people music that only works on an Ipod..... when what we thought we were buying was just regular music files. And Apple also had put "internal lockouts" into the Ipod so it could not play music files bought from other music sources. The lawsuit claims Apple would only allow music bought from its iTunes store to work on the iPod. According to the plaintiffs, this required them to continue to purchase iPods in order to keep their music instead of competing cheaper music players. Apple took DRM off their music years ago. I got an iPod in 2005, and loaded dozens and dozens of classical CD's into iTunes and synced to the iPod. NO problems whatsoever. Then iTunes match came along which I ran for a year and it upgraded many of my burned cd's over to their DRM-free equivalent .M4A albums, which was also great. A couple of years back, I learned about apple-lossless, which is a 1-for-1 bit copy of music from the cd, albeit the resulting files are larger. I do that now with any new physical albums I buy. As to stuff I've bought through iTunes...., no audio or acoustic complaints whatever. So basically, the suit is about something that apple already addressed years ago. To my mind, that makes it frivolous. The suit is about recovering damages to pay back to people who got screwed back when Apple was acting in a fraudulent manner. That's not frivolous in my book. If they no longer do it, that's fine but a lot of people spent a lot of money back then buying stuff that Apple had intentionally "booby trapped" to force users into only using Itunes as their source. It was s stupid thing to do, they would have won anyway without doing that. If Apple had been truthful and said: "Hey! Come buy music that can oly be transferred to an Ipod and by the way, the Ipod has traps to make it incompatible with other music sources." That's OK, but IPods were EXPENSIVE then and people didn't find out about it until after they were "hooked". It was dumb, and Apple will probably pay damages back to users..... I'm sure everybody will get about a buck and a half after the lawyers get paid. Edited December 8, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 8, 2014 Author Share Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) Some years back, my wife gave me an apple gift card so I could buy songs off ITunes. Seems good, you just download the song you want for 99 cents. PROBLEM: I immediately found out they were not selling the standard MP3 music file everybody else on earth used, they were selling you something called an "MP4" file which was LOCKED..... why care? Because I could not open it to edit the sound or adjust the volume and I could not play it in my car since my car had no way to play from my Ipod. I figured I would just buy the music and burn an MP3 disc and play it but not with Apple's files. Those files could be loaded onto an Ipod but nothing else. Bottom line is that every song bought from Itunes had to be "burned off" to a disc as a WAV file then recopied back onto my computer in WAV then converted to MP3 before I could work with it. A major pain in the rear for music I had paid good money for. Apparrently, Apple is finally getting a legal smackdown for selling people music that only works on an Ipod..... when what we thought we were buying was just regular music files. And Apple also had put "internal lockouts" into the Ipod so it could not play music files bought from other music sources. The lawsuit claims Apple would only allow music bought from its iTunes store to work on the iPod. According to the plaintiffs, this required them to continue to purchase iPods in order to keep their music instead of competing cheaper music players. Apple took DRM off their music years ago. That is of no value to me or the other people who bought the original files. As I posted above, all the files I bought are still unable to convert even in the current version of ITunes so they did not fix anything for the people who bought the original music format. Those files are still locked and in a "proprietary" format. If Apple had actually fixed it, let them upgrade Itunes so that it will detect the "locked" apple files and let the user change them to MP3 which is what they should have been in the first place. It doesn't matter to me because I already went through all the time and trouble to burn them to disks and re import them to my HD and convert them to MP3 using my own software. But that's not what I paid for and I shouldn't have to go through that hassle. And as I said, for the people duped by the original Apple format, they haven't fixed anything. Edited December 8, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 sorry bountyhunter, that suit is gonna get tossed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Maybe. let's hope the bundle they had to spend on lawyer's fees will be enough of an attitude adjustment. Kind of ironic that people like me who didn't do the Napster piracy method of stealing tunes en masse back then (and actually joined a legal music service) ended up buying tracks that could only be transferred to an Ipod which cost like $400 back then...... and even then you could only play the tracks on the Ipod, no other devices. Whole thing gets filed in the "no good deed goes unpunished" folder. Edited December 9, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 sorry bountyhunter, that suit is gonna get tossed anyway. Here is what I found: Elaborating on earlier findings regarding plaintiff Marianna Rosen, Apple notified presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers that device purchases were made using a credit card assigned to the Rosen Law Firm. ???????????????????????? So, because it was paid on a commercial credit card, that let's Apple off the hook? I guess it's lucky I am not a lawyer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 sorry bountyhunter, that suit is gonna get tossed anyway. Here is what I found: Elaborating on earlier findings regarding plaintiff Marianna Rosen, Apple notified presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers that device purchases were made using a credit card assigned to the Rosen Law Firm. ???????????????????????? So, because it was paid on a commercial credit card, that let's Apple off the hook? I guess it's lucky I am not a lawyer.... Or because the story changed 27 times...... ....or because that makes it smell a little -- as in the appearance that the law firm bought the devices to create standing for them to sue..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 And Apple's not going to get whacked in any event -- they're being sued for $ 350 million; considering their cash reserves that's like me being sued for the change that's in my 1 qt. Mason jar.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) sorry bountyhunter, that suit is gonna get tossed anyway. Here is what I found: Elaborating on earlier findings regarding plaintiff Marianna Rosen, Apple notified presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers that device purchases were made using a credit card assigned to the Rosen Law Firm. ???????????????????????? So, because it was paid on a commercial credit card, that let's Apple off the hook? I guess it's lucky I am not a lawyer.... Or because the story changed 27 times...... ....or because that makes it smell a little -- as in the appearance that the law firm bought the devices to create standing for them to sue..... The facts of the overall story never changed. I know because I was part of "the story". Apple used deceit to rip people off by selling a product they couldn't use unless they ponied up $300 for an Ipod and they didn't disclose it. I am not absolutely sure if it's illegal but it is certainly a scummy way to do business. To this day, Apple has not made any correction to "free up" the original locked files it sold me that only work on Ipod. Don't know how I could have laid it out any clearer. Apple sold itself as a music service and then sold music files that could only be transferred to an Ipod. As somebody said: how happy would you be if you bought a bunch of video disks and tried to play them and got nothing but error messages and then found out they only worked if you bought a $300 DVD player from the same place selling you the disks. You would not be happy. Edited December 9, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) And Apple's not going to get whacked in any event -- they're being sued for $ 350 million; considering their cash reserves that's like me being sued for the change that's in my 1 qt. Mason jar.... Yeah, isn't that a surprise: the guy with the most $$$$ will end up winning in court. That hardly ever happens..... Bottom line, it's a symbolic victory for those of us who got screwed. And maybe a legal precedent that will reign in how far other companies will go in the future to kill competition. Edited December 9, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 sorry bountyhunter, that suit is gonna get tossed anyway. Here is what I found: Elaborating on earlier findings regarding plaintiff Marianna Rosen, Apple notified presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers that device purchases were made using a credit card assigned to the Rosen Law Firm. ???????????????????????? So, because it was paid on a commercial credit card, that let's Apple off the hook? I guess it's lucky I am not a lawyer.... Or because the story changed 27 times...... ....or because that makes it smell a little -- as in the appearance that the law firm bought the devices to create standing for them to sue..... The facts of the overall story never changed. I know because I was part of "the story". Apple used deceit to rip people off by selling a product they couldn't use unless they ponied up $300 for an Ipod and they didn't disclose it. I am not absolutely sure if it's illegal but it is certainly a scummy way to do business. To this day, Apple has not made any correction to "free up" the original locked files it sold me that only work on Ipod. Don't know how I could have laid it out any clearer. Apple sold itself as a music service and then sold music files that could only be transferred to an Ipod. As somebody said: how happy would you be if you bought a bunch of video disks and tried to play them and got nothing but error messages and then found out they only worked if you bought a $300 DVD player from the same place selling you the disks. You would not be happy. I meant the story of how the plaintiff acquired her iPod...... Not your gripe -- which I remember and can relate to..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 As a shareholder and a consumer, I could care less. $$ is king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Verdict is not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 Yep: BRANDON BAILEY, AP Technology Writer OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — A federal jury decided Tuesday that Apple didn't compete unfairly when it sold music players and songs with copy-protection software that was incompatible with rival devices and music from competing online stores. I guess that's why companies indulge in shady and nefarious practices in business...... they get away with it and it makes them very rich. My main gripe was never so much WHAT they did but the fact they did not tell buyers about it until they had you. In the overall picture, Apple was forced to stop selling "incompatible locked" format. The only people who really got screwed are people who bought music early (like me) as Apple never offered to replace the locked tunes with open ones. Whatever. I don't buy from them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 They did offer, actually, for a lot of things. Not all, but most. All you had to do was to re-download your music and it would have been drm-free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) OK. But that became available a LOOOONG time after I bought the tunes and "fixed" them myself by offloading then ripping back onto my hard drive. Web shows Apple changed from "protected file format" in April 2009. Don't need to duplicate the files I already recreated in WAV , just wish they had given them to me in the first place. So basically, Apple started doing the right thing about six years after they started ITunes. But by then, they had pretty much squashed the competing music services. Protected AAC audio file: A protected AAC file was the default filetype for songs purchased from the iTunes Store prior to the introduction of the DRM-free iTunes Plus format in April 2009. It is noted as being protected because the DRM built into the file prevents it from being copied/shared beyond the iTunes account it's associated with. Edited December 18, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Anybody else remember the wal mart MP3 music service? That's what threatened Itunes. I don't even know if it still exists. Kind of like looking at an ad for a Betamax recorder. Edited December 18, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) That answers the question what happened to the wal mart music service..... RIP. Edited December 18, 2014 by bountyhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now