Talk:ITunes Store/Archive 2

iTunes (Apps) Store Available in More Countries
Please check. Should we add it in the article now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.44.207 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Artist's interests
How has the iTunes store impacted on the power of individual artists to distribute their music ? How much do artists earn through this distribution network ? Or is this a matter of taboo ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisscott (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV picture?
I think this artwork is non-NPOV, non-encyclopedic and doesn't really add to the discussion. The article it was lifted from is unabashedly POV. I reverted it once, but the original editor put it back in. No Silly Edit War without a discussion, so what say you all? -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FSF copyright explicitly only allows reproduction of "entire article". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To BBird: FSF's copyright clearly states "Verbatim copying" of "entire article". That means the whole thing or nothing. We aren't going to reproduce the whole thing, so the only other choice is nothing. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * two points (i) For sure the FSF allows for using the pic. When I have time I will check previous cases/policies. imho some wk users are getting paranoid about (c), but I can understand in part. But not to be able to use a FSF pic, this is too much. (ii) As for the content, and why I put the pic in the article -- It helps giving some notoriety to the issue of iphone / ipod user rights, which are a valid point and btw not much covered in wk. The original article is here. btw -- I have and use an ipod touch and I love it. same with itunes store. thanks. --BBird (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry -- one note to KelleyCook -- of course the pic is totally one sided. But you have to show relevant opinions (and art of relevant opinions) in order to have a balanced, npoved article -- you can talk about a POV in a NPOV way, thats what I mean. Btw -- I did not discuss the first rv because I made it from... my ipod. Best regards.--BBird (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's late but I just need to object to one point. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used to give notoriety to issues. Content only belongs in Wikipedia once it has already gained notability. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And the drm issue has no notability?--BBird (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have screeds of information on the DRM issue. Whole articles on the subject. This article alone has something like 800 words on the subject. The image adds nothing. Neither does the blog post to which it was attached. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The image was not copyrighted and what you did is not fair. Your opinion above just shows that you simply did not like to see it there. It was not wikipedian from your part.
 * btw -- I will come back to the issues of user restrictions/drm in ipod and iphone. --BBird (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the bottom of any page on the FSF website. Their copyright statement is clear for all to see. "Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc." "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved." AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also please note that it was someone else who deleted the image. Someone who obviously did agree that it was a copyright violation. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked the Free Software Foundation for a GFDL image that could be used and they sent me this one with explicit content. Now I believe this image is useful to illustrate a point in the article -- DRM restrictions --, and kindly ask other editors for their opinion. Thanks. --BBird (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, but that doesn't change the fact that, as KelleyCook originally pointed out, the image is non-NPOV, non-encyclopedic and doesn't actually add anything to the article. The issue of DRM is already more than adequately covered and Wikipedia shouldn't be used to push the FSF's campaign. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and I disagree as explained above. I would like to hear more people willing to help improve the article. BR. --BBird (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ITunes-aacp.png
The image Image:ITunes-aacp.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

articles
I think its safe to say that any song on itunes is deserving of a wikipedia article. ONe of those bands is Blue Flannel. Please help me out with that.76.235.234.236 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

iTunes U
Added to iTunes U section and removed template. Hope this helps. mattclare (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Artists Not Avaliable
I removed AC/DC & Kid Rock from the list of artists not avaliable in the iTunes Store. I did a search and they are avaliable. I haven't checked the other artists there, but if somebody wants to they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.102.212 (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

iTunes Plus Labels
Where it says under the File Format section "As of May 29, 2007 tracks on the EMI label have been made available in a DRM-less format called iTunes Plus", I think it should be updated to reflect the fact that there are now more labels than just EMI with DRM tracks. Maybe something like "...track from EMI and numerous independent labels have been..." 75.128.51.91 (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent events
In recent events, Apple has announced a three tier pricing system, and has made a lot more music available DRM free - except this time, you have to pay extra to get the DRM free versions of the music. I'm not much of a writer, but I'm thinking that somebody should be making changes to this article. —CobraA1 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"The pricing model has basically remained this way in all countries though in some places song prices can vary based on artist." Located: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Pricing_model

Doesn't the second part of the statement disprove the first?--Sean Cansdale (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Article too long
I feel this article is ridiculously long. It has over 10'000 words and 84 external links to describe an online music store. Sure, it was the first important store of it's kind, and still is the most important one, but 10500 words and 84 external references!... I stumbled upon this page trying to find if I could buy music from the store without having the iTunes program on my computer. I have not found the answer, though it may be buried somewhere among all the trivia. The store's web page seems to imply I can only buy from the iTunes program on a Mac or Windows PC (or from an Apple device). Whether this is indeed the case or not, that would be valuable information and only need a single short paragraph. If someone finds the time to clean up this page and shorten it to maybe a quarter or at least half it's current size, I think that would be really helpful. (Yes, I realize it's much harder to condense information and remove unnecessary details, than to keep adding bits of info...) rduke15 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm of the opinion that the length is pretty good... sure it's long, but it's a complicated program with numerous features. However, it could use some defluffing (but I doubt that would knock more than 500 words)... Anyway, I'll answer your question... You do need to have iTunes to buy music from the iTunes store.  It may be theoretically possible to create a third party program to do it, but as Apple uses their own propriety markup language (if I recall correctly) it would take a lot of work.  On top of that, for the moment almost all content in the iTunes store is FairPlay protected... so you'd have to have a player that supports fairplay... ie iTunes or an iPod. I hope that's what you needed to know.   D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Internationalization
Specifically, this line: ''These countries also pay €0.99 for songs, and all these stores share the same catalog and are available only in English. The French, German, American, and British stores are localized for their respective countries and have different catalogs.''

This is inaccurate because the Austrian, Italian, and Spanish stores all have some level of localization put to them now (as does the Japanese store). Also, the stores no longer share the same catalog. I think this section should undergo some serious revision; is the entire history of each store necessary? Simply listing available stores and the dates they went online would probably be enough.


 * Hey anyone else think that the Internationalisation should really list individual countries separately? It's very difficult to find information on your own country. Greg (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pricing model
this section isn't very universal, only says the US prices, not even like Euro, UK Pound, AUD and other big currenies. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

swears on platform?
In this article platform section, there are many f-word swears. please delete it. tablo 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)