Advertisement

(1 reply) #1 Posted by dougkinzinger on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:08

Can't you use MusicMatch with the iPod?? I'm confused.

#1.1 Posted by twyst3d on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:28

you could, but if you installed itunes that feature was disabled
but you could only add mp3s


by the way, real needs to get a grip, itunes have sold more music then real could ever sell

Last edited by 33877 on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:33

(3 replies) #2 Posted by velkymx on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:08

What a shock - Real screwed themselves with their crappy spyware. Now they are crying cause no one uses them!

#2.1 Posted by radixvir on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:36

real is still alive because it is owned by aol. people buy real passes for cnn. if it wasnt for that fact they would be dead

#2.2 Posted by tapo on 24 Mar 2004 - 04:03

Real isn't owned by AOL. At all. They just have a partnership.

But AOL is getting Nullsoft to make their own video player and codec, so they can abandon Real.

#2.3 Posted by YaddaMe on 24 Mar 2004 - 11:35

QUOTE (#2.1)

real is still alive because it is owned by aol.

No, they aren't. The reason Real is still alive is because they have some damn good marketing... not towards you, me, and the rest of internet population, but to the many content providers.

Real has bagged exclusive deals from just about all the professional sports, several news outlets, several media providers, etc. If it were not for these exclusive contracts Real would have already (or very soon) seen their demise.

#3 Posted by Chimera on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:09

What a crock of sh*t. iPod supports the MP3 format the same as almost every other portable music player. Saying that the only way to put music on the iPod is to buy it from iTunes is also total rubbish, I have close to 8000 songs on my iPod and not one was purchased from iTMS. They are all legal MP3s from my own music collection.

#4 Posted by win2000b on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:09

QUOTE

Apple is creating problems for itself by using a file format that forces consumers to buy music from Apple's own iTunes site.

What about using Itunes to rip songs from your existing cd's dumb ass

#5 Posted by JonathanSmith68 on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:10

dude, you can buy cds and import them, and it also supports mp3 not just aac. what the hell are they talking about? I havent even boughten a single iTunes song and I have an iPod and over 3,000 songs. It's called buying CDs.

(6 replies) #6 Posted by IGx89 on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:11

I wish Apple weren't stubbornly disabling WMA support on their iPods; otherwise, I'd consider buying one (if it was decently priced).

#6.1 Posted by Phillip on 24 Mar 2004 - 05:37

its just marketing... u would do the same if u were apple

#6.2 Posted by CrimandEvil on 24 Mar 2004 - 08:10

Some people actually use WMA? <shudder>

#6.3 Posted by tomaras on 24 Mar 2004 - 09:33

99.9% of the listeners out there can't tell the difference between ANY of the compressed music codecs at 128kbps or better. WMA9 is a is the equal to any of them. Your statement is just the typical MS bashing crap that permeates these posts. Please tell me about your personal WMA9 experiences at similar bitrates to the codec you prefer and why you feel your chosen codec sounds so much better that you would make such a ridiculous statement.

Of course people use WMA9. Millions and millions of them.

#6.4 Posted by rafter109 on 24 Mar 2004 - 16:04

QUOTE (#6.3)

Personally, I have used WMA, MP3 and AAC. Just out of curiosity, i have encoded the same song directly from a cd with each of these at 128kbps and AAC was the best by far. Both WMA and MP3 leave audible high pitched tones which some people say they can't hear but I can. Therefore if I'm using MP3, I never encode below 160kbps, if I'm using AAC, I use 128kbps, and i have stopped using wma altogether because im not fond of Windows Media player, I prefer iTunes because of the simple interface and the fact that it is by no means a resource hog.

Please tell me about your personal WMA9 experiences at similar bitrates to the codec you prefer and why you feel your chosen codec sounds so much better that you would make such a ridiculous statement.

#6.5 Posted by chacho on 24 Mar 2004 - 23:04

lol @rafter...

i was looking through tomaras's post to see where that quote came from...and then realized you switched the quote and your post...

#6.6 Posted by insurektion on 25 Mar 2004 - 07:47

uh ipod masive space = encode @ 256kbit. who cares about what format now. unless u will argue for you collection of 8X10^12 mp3s then you win.

(3 replies) #7 Posted by timdorr on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:12

Once again, Real has their head so far up their own ass, it's ridiculous.

#7.1 Posted by Saadu on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:57

Exact.

Who in their right mind wants to rip their music to Real format and then listen to it on an ipod? Not like u wanna stream ur music to ur device...

Real just STFU!

#7.2 Posted by bangbang023 on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:24

um real's store doesn't even use real format, it uses wma. I'm pretty sure they want to just be able to sell their music to people with ipods too. I don't fully disagree with them at all.

#7.3 Posted by Galley on 24 Mar 2004 - 06:21

The RealPlayer Music Store files are 192Kbps RealAudio 10 AAC files.

(7 replies) #8 Posted by Knight' on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:13

I think Apple's got it pretty sorted. And only an idiot encodes in WMA.

#8.1 Posted by IGx89 on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:32

Most subjective listening tests I've read rate WMA9 as just as good as MP3, if not much better. I also like it that in just a couple minutes after popping in a CD, WMP9 has already ripped and encoded the entire CD into WMA9 VBR, complete with full tag info and album art.
It usually doesn't say much about oneself, calling people idiots without any very, very convincing (and real) facts.

#8.2 Posted by dp123 on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:42

neufuse and IGx879, your comments are irrelevent when the preferred format on the Mac/iPod is AAC.

In my opinion, only a fool would use WMA... Why tie yourselves to a single company when the best audio (and video technologies) come from hundreds of companies primarily focused on putting them back into mpeg?

#8.3 Posted by neufuse on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:51

why stick to one thing when others are trying to push tech in another direction for the better? I am lost on how my comment is irrelivent, I did state that ACC was the better format.

#8.4 Posted by 123_kid on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:57

Where can I download this ACC? Secondly, what's the point of having higher frequency ranges when there are insane amounts of artifacts? Compression bit rates? MP3 can encode down to 8kbs if I remember correctly. Bit rates mean absolutely nothing if it doesn't sound good. http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html , according to this, WMA9 PRO, not WMA9 Std, the kind that is supported on portables, is tied with Ogg Vorbis and is beaten by Apple AAC and MPC. In reality, those charts mean nothing but it's oddly satisfying to point to actual scientific fact instead of just saying "this x sounds better than that y". Personally, I prefer MP3 over WMA9 Std. at any bitrate.

#8.5 Posted by dp123 on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:07

neufuse, your comment is irrelevent because you are essentially saying: "this years model by company A is better than company B's model from 4 years ago." Big deal, that doesn't say anything. If anything, it's admitting that mp3 is superior to WMA8.. when even mp3 predates WMA8.... Another uninteresting statement, but it does question the value of WMA and Microsoft's commitment to audio.

As for "sticking to one thing", I don't get it: mpeg is many, many things... mpeg-2,mpeg-4, the H.2xx codecs, mp3, mp3PRO, AAC, AACPro... Fraunhofer recently developed a new algorithm to add surround sound which will be added to the mpg and ultimately AAC spec, etc... MPEG keeps moving. I'd rather have the best audio technology from Fraunhofer, Dolby, Sony, AT&T, Apple, Nokia, and many others than the best that Microsoft can produce. Nor do I see how pushing people to go from mpg to AAC is "sticking to one thing." Please explain.

As for "pushing tech in another direction for the better", what other direction is Microsoft going? What is so much better about it? Microsoft leeched a lot of technology from mpeg and wasn't able to make WMA9 superior to AAC, even though AAC had been locked from development for a couple of years before Microsoft starting building WMA9. Please explain.

Last edited by 9953 on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:49

#8.6 Posted by Soleen on 24 Mar 2004 - 02:52

Guys i am confused i know ogg is an open sorced sound compression format.
What about AAC?

#8.7 Posted by tapo on 24 Mar 2004 - 04:06

AAC is not open sourced at all, it is part of the MPEG-4 specification though, and is an open standard. You still need to pay patent royalties to the people who developed it if you create something that can encode in AAC.

By the way, AAC is made by the same people that brought you the MP3 format. (MP3 also needs royalties, and is the reason Ogg Vorbis was developed.)

(3 replies) #9 Posted by Mr magoo on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:19

I was going to say; isnt it ok to just stick your mp3s on a ipod?

#9.1 Posted by 123_kid on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:01

Amen.

#9.2 Posted by Techo on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:47

I would think the article is turned upside down. You need an IPod to listen to ITunes downloads on the go, but you don't need ITunes to use the IPod.

#9.3 Posted by thexfile on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:15

HAL has closed the iPod doors...

(2 replies) #10 Posted by neufuse on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:27

WMA is higher quality then MP3 in terms of sound frequency ranges to compression bit rates. Still not as good as ACC though.

#10.1 Posted by aboi on 24 Mar 2004 - 07:39

is not ACC. its AAC doppie

#10.2 Posted by tomaras on 24 Mar 2004 - 09:41

Sound frequency ranges to compression bit rates? What exactly does that mean? You need to do a little research and actually do some listening yourself. I'll confidently bet you that you can't tell the difference between MP3, WMA9, AAC or an orginal CD when they are played back at 128kbps or better. All of this bickering is nonsense as all of the modern codecs do a great job. Use a codec that makes you happy and works well with your chosen devices.

(2 replies) #11 Posted by neufuse on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:30

QUOTE

Open iPod or shrivel.

what or the 1% market share of Real will destroy apples market if they don't?

It supports ACC and MP3, thats about 90% or more of the market out there

#11.1 Posted by Krankerz on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:34

Isn't it AAC?

Just sayin'

#11.2 Posted by chacho on 24 Mar 2004 - 23:05

yes.

(2 replies) #12 Posted by Test Zero on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:37

QUOTE

Glaser said. "The only way to presently put songs on an iPod is to (buy) them from iTunes."

What a stupid ****!

#12.1 Posted by Galley on 24 Mar 2004 - 06:23

I think he meant to say "the only way to put purchased music on the iPod is those from iTunes".

#12.2 Posted by Proneax on 25 Mar 2004 - 04:30

Yeah, I'd have no difficulty putting mp3s from IRC on an iPod, I don't know what this guy is talking about.

#13 Posted by StaticFish on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:43

Man... Real are the ones in danger of shriviling and dieing. Who likes that crapware ridden software anyway?

Just because noone will visit raphsody

(3 replies) #14 Posted by TrekXP on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:48

Real sues Microsoft... doesnt win
Real sues Apple... wont win...

maybe they should just roll over and die............. please?

#14.1 Posted by sadatkarim on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:55

Second that.

#14.2 Posted by Dashel on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:48

Motion passed. ****ing die already Real and take your ****ty format with you.

#14.3 Posted by Saadu on 24 Mar 2004 - 00:00

yeah yeaah yeaaaah!

(4 replies) #15 Posted by BTallack on 23 Mar 2004 - 21:56

Is it just my imagination, or does iTunes have the majority of the online music store market share?
What advantage does the Real store have over iTunes? Do they have a better selection? no. Is the sound quality higher? no. Is the product interface better? no.

#15.1 Posted by bangbang023 on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:26

sound quality is higher. 192 wma is downloadable in real player 10.

#15.2 Posted by dp123 on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:29

I would dispute that 192 kbs WMA is of greater quality than 128 kbs AAC. Particularly, when Apple has done a ton of work with the studios to re-master or to create higher quality compressed media files.

As for BTallack, yes, iTunes has about 70% of the music download business in the US.

#15.3 Posted by Galley on 24 Mar 2004 - 06:25

The RealPlayer Music Store has 192Kbps RealAudio 10 AAC files, NOT WMA's!

#15.4 Posted by tomaras on 24 Mar 2004 - 09:47

>"Particularly, when Apple has done a ton of work with the studios to re-master or to create higher quality compressed media files."<

Where do you come up with that notion? Which studios have "remastered" there albums and which studios have been working with Apple to create higher quality compressed media files? You don't know what you are talking about. The music gets encoded by an encoding application....nothing is artistically remastered for iTunes. Can't believe how much **** gets made up out of thin air on the internet. I defy you to provide even a single link corroborating your imagination.

(2 replies) #16 Posted by divertom15 on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:00

QUOTE

Apple's (market) share will go down if they continue to do this," Glaser said

Hes a moron if he seriously believes that statment

#16.1 Posted by Mr magoo on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:10

Not strictly true. One of the main reasons why apples system has been so sucessful is that it was one of the first to market. As such, it faced little competition. However, as more companies enter a low profit market they are going to have to start offering greater services (in terms of intergration + features) to survive.

#16.2 Posted by dp123 on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:14

They were neither first to market with an mp3 player or with a music download service.

What has kept them at the top is doing the most to advertise, creating the best relationships, building an actual 3rd party market (check out the number of apps, add-ins, etc... for the iPod, check out the number of peripherals and cases, etc...), and actually having (surprise, surprise) the BEST products.

integration and features? Nothing still has gotten close to the integration of the iPod and iTunes and the iTMS after 2 years of copycats... Feature-wise, they continue to focus on simply core features: digital music playback... Still waiting for all those "iPod Killers" with FM radios to make the slightest blip on the marketshare radar.

Last edited by 9953 on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:22

(1 reply) #17 Posted by Simon- on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:08

like Real is one to talk about closed formats.

#17.1 Posted by plasticparadox on 25 Mar 2004 - 05:10

hehe

#18 Posted by aristotle-dude on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:22

I don't understand why this real networks is pushing for WMA support. Shouldn't they be pushing their own format? Why should he care if WMA suceeds?

#19 Posted by oddBall on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:27

Apple can do what it bloody well wants!!

It is very easy to open up the iPod to other formats - a firmware upgrade is all that is needed.

Real are sweating because of iPods high market penetration. Sweat on dudes - when Apple are ready they will open up WMA on iPod.

#20 Posted by acidic-e- on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:31

Personally REAL can drop dead because there service sucks ass and they know it. I'll stick with ITMS and yes I have tried the rest no thanks.

#21 Posted by Dashel on 23 Mar 2004 - 22:47

Give em the finger Apple. Real is the only one around here that is going bye bye. Good riddence.

#22 Posted by icecaveman on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:00

Finally something people with common sense can agree with Real Networks.

#23 Posted by virtorio on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:03

Maybe Real should start following their own advice before they start to dish it out to other companies.

(1 reply) #24 Posted by altermind on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:11

real should be shut down for making crappy software and spewing crap out of there ass

#24.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 24 Mar 2004 - 21:16

QUOTE (#24.0)

real should be shut down for making crappy software and spewing crap out of there ass

lmao... i agree...

(1 reply) #25 Posted by 123_kid on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:11

Isn't it Real's fault for not using a compatible system? If I remember correctly, the real store sells 192kbs MPEG-4 AAC (the exact same format that the iPod can play) files wrapped in a proprietary .ra container. Why couldn't Real use the FairPlay protection system that Apple uses? It's a bunch of BS by Real if you ask me.

#25.1 Posted by pdog on 26 Mar 2004 - 05:43

because they are lazy and don't want to spend the money. There may be royalties to whoever created FairPlay. ?Was it Apple?

(1 reply) #26 Posted by njlouch on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:24

Come on, let's face it, real sucks a$$. I own neither a mac, nor an iPod. I have never used iTunes. However, even I know that you can store illegal or ripped MP3s on an iPod.

I also know that Real creates crappy wrappers for good formats, which essentially locks them down to their players. And their point is?

#26.1 Posted by sputnik on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:47

I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF.
when i saw this article i was laughing at real

(7 replies) #27 Posted by matric on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:29

It has been well documented that the iPod chipset does support the use of WMA, yet it is disabled. Now, if Microsoft did this, it would be anti - competitive. Why is Apple different. Gotta love the dual standards.

#27.1 Posted by dp123 on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:41

It is not this basic. Just because PortalPlayer has WMA capabilities, this does not mean that it includes WM licensing. Why should Apple license Microsoft technology? MS refuses to even support mp3 encoding. Microsoft wants to claim that an mp3 encoder is too expensive; I have no problem with Apple not licensing a competing product, particularly when it was largely built on stolen, "appropriated" QuickTime technology.

And, again, Microsoft is a monopoly -- things can be asked, demanded, legislated of them that cannot be asked of other companies. It's not unfair. It's the law. What is unfair is that Microsoft is understood the world over to be guilty but got off largely unpunished.

#27.2 Posted by 123_kid on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:10

Another thing I thought of is that decoding WMA is good and all but you have to have the DRM part of the Windows Media 9 Series built-in too. I'm not familar with the details of the WMA format (being proprietary, I don't know how any one else, outside of Microsoft can say they are either), but I assume the WMA file is encrypted, even on portable players. Just because an iPod can play WMA's, doesn't mean that it can play those bought from an online music store.

#27.3 Posted by tapo on 24 Mar 2004 - 04:12

Apple HATES it when Microsoft manages to sneak in a closed "standard". And they won't let Microsoft do this to them again.

AAC (Advanced Audio Codec) is part of MPEG-4, and is an open format controlled by a third party. Why dosn't Microsoft just play AAC? with Windows Media?

Personally, I wish the iPod could play Ogg Vorbis, it sounds excellent, and it's patent free. It seems they're planning to, as hidden icons in iTunes' resources folder show an OGG icon.

#27.4 Posted by tomaras on 24 Mar 2004 - 09:57

123 kidd seems to have some confusion about WMA and DRM. Windows Media Audio is a codec that Microsoft developed. Digital Rights Management is something the studios implement. The DRM solutions that Microsoft has created and sell to studios are the most configurable and effective solutions available which is why Napster, Wallmart, and a number of upcoming music stores are using them. It's also why movie studios will be drawn to them as well with video and HD content.

#27.5 Posted by dp123 on 24 Mar 2004 - 17:58

I didn't even mention DRM, moron.

All I said was Apple would have to pay Microsoft licensing fees for WMA and questioned why they should do that. What the hell does that have to do with configurability? Where is my confusion?

#27.6 Posted by tomaras on 25 Mar 2004 - 08:14

I was not directing my comment towards you dp123. As you can clearly see from the the first sentence of my post I was directing it towards 123 kidd. Maybe you guys should fight it out over the use of the numbers 123 in the names you hide behind on this board. Your names are so similar that even you got confused over your own name. So take back the moron comment now and direct it towards yourself.

#27.7 Posted by pdog on 26 Mar 2004 - 05:44

you could always install linux on the ipod and play the stuff with that. Talk about open source

#28 Posted by Matt500 on 23 Mar 2004 - 23:52

Not a fan of real at all

#29 Posted by demorgoron on 24 Mar 2004 - 00:21

"unistalling Real"

(1 reply) #30 Posted by Garry on 24 Mar 2004 - 00:28

I personally think Real ... [BUFFERING] .... has a point. [BUFFERING] After all, Real's [BUFFERING] codec is far [BUFFERING] superior to anything [BUFFERING] out at the [BUFFERING] moment. Or it would [BUFFERING] be, if it wasn't for all the [BUFFERING] ... [BUFFERING] ... [BUFFERING] ... [BUFFERING] ... [BUFFERING] ...

#30.1 Posted by aaron901 on 24 Mar 2004 - 00:49

lol couldn't have said it better.

die real!! just die!!!

(1 reply) #31 Posted by kether2012 on 24 Mar 2004 - 00:49

ha ha... apple are in a position to do what it wants. it doesn't have to yield to this kind of pressure "yet". one day it might licence wma or let other music shops use aac, but right now it's ontop. it would be commercially stupid. apple want to kill as much of the competition while they can (i.e. do a microsoft)... i don't care about this because apple do stuff so much better.

#31.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 24 Mar 2004 - 17:01

Other music stores are perfectly free to use a format that would work on the iPod. AAC is not controlled by Apple, nor is the FairPlay DRM that they chose to use (both are controlled by third parties). Anyone else could just as easily license the same formats if they wanted to.

#32 Posted by Starcom826 on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:08

Nice! Real sucks. Apple sucks. If either of them dies, I'm happy. It's a win win situation. Bad side-effect would be WMV streaming only, but maybe xvid can get around to streaming sometime.

#33 Posted by frod on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:15

QUOTE

"Apple's (market) share will go down if they continue to do this,"

that should probably be "Real's market share will never go up if they continue to do this."

#34 Posted by ThunderRiver on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:46

Rob Glaser said to Steve Jobs "Hey! can I add some Real Network branded adwares and spamwares into your iPod?"
Steve Jobs "eh...."
Rob Glaser "C'mon! .. it is good for everyone!.. oh yeah hey! Make your iPod to include my Real version of ACC too, ya know I need to make some bucks as this on going battle with M$ is never going to end. Oh yeah, lets boycott WMA"
Steve Jobs "Eh..... I am Steve Jobs. and Apple doesn't eat your crap"
Rbo Glaser "Waaahhhh! I am giong to sue your ass!"

#35 Posted by NeoMayhem on 24 Mar 2004 - 01:50

I want real to die as well, but sadly they have enough paying member of their crapware/crapservices to keep them alive

#36 Posted by obake on 24 Mar 2004 - 03:32

Real Networks should be skull-****ed, plain and simple.

#37 Posted by Gary_Player on 24 Mar 2004 - 07:58

As if Real was in any position to criticize Apple

God I HATE RealCrap

#38 Posted by aboi on 24 Mar 2004 - 10:25

didn't napster did something simular to this ?

#39 Posted by kwyjibo on 24 Mar 2004 - 13:37

GO TO HELL AND DIE, REAL.

#40 Posted by StarfireCT on 24 Mar 2004 - 15:22

I can't believe this statement comes from the same company that adds more blinking and popup displays than any other piece of software I've ever installed (and uninstalled). Last time I tried it, it installed a handful of new desktop icons, added a blinking blue word balloon in my task tray and just generally sucked.

If "open" means having to download extra crap just to use an application, Mr. Real, I'll stick to a closed system. ******s... the lot of them!

(3 replies) #41 Posted by dropkick murphys on 24 Mar 2004 - 20:15

1st --> Download music from the usenet binaries, that way, --> 1. its free --> .2 you can get albums weeks and sometimes months before there release date. --> 3. 99% of the mp3s in the usenet are the entire album and are at 192 bitrates and above

2nd --> with all the money you save by not feeding the sharks that are the music industry you can buy yourself a nice mp3 player, personally i bought a sony mp3-cd walkman for about 100 bucks and you can put an entire artists catalog on one cd (max of about 10-12 albums).

Mp3 format is the way to go, why fix something that is not broken --> dont buy devices that use proprietary formats, because they are only looking for control

there is My Two Cents

#41.1 Posted by tomaras on 25 Mar 2004 - 08:23

So you are one of the thiefs that think that music should be free? You don't think the musicians should be paid? You don't think the engineers in the recording studio should be paid? You don't think anyone in the music industry deserves to be paid for what they do?

What do you do for a living? Thieves like YOU are the reason all these companies are making it increasingly difficult for us to use the music we purchase on all of our devices.

I suppose you think shoplifting is ok as well?

#41.2 Posted by pdog on 26 Mar 2004 - 05:49

don't start this ****. People are free to do what they want and noone gives a **** about what anyone else thinks. People should just STFU on this topic and move on.

#41.3 Posted by tomaras on 26 Mar 2004 - 06:36

So you illegally download and steal intellectual property as well? OK, I won't hold a mirror up to any of the faces of the thieves out there. My mistake...stealing is OK as long as you don't get caught. Who am I to say you aren't free to break the laws of the United States and many other countries as you see fit. That's what makes the world go round...a bunch of people who only obey the laws they agree with.

(1 reply) #42 Posted by Galley on 25 Mar 2004 - 06:47

RealPlayer 10 now rips 192Kbps .m4a AAC files by default!

Source: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=17401&st=0&#entry197005

RealPlayer 10 Gold is now available for download. http://www.real.com.

As we expected, there were some complaints about wr