The Windows version of iTunes... managed by retards

[Dunderman]

Since I first read about iTunes, I've been craving the same service for those of us who don't use Macs. Today, I read that www.buymusic.com had started such a service. Great, thinks I. I read the article with growing glee. A song costs $0.79-1.20. Great. An entire album for $8-12. Great. 100.000 more titles than iTunes have. Great. Windows Media Format. Gre...

WHAT?

Windows Media? Why in the name of the blue blazes of hell and damnation? What rational explanation could there possibly be for using a proprietary nonstandard format instead of mp3, which is already used by everyone? It isn't even mentioned in their FAQs, which is pure deception on their part since I'm pretty bloody sure it's one of the most frequent questions they get.

I pray to God they crash and burn. Losers. And that someone else learns from their mistake and opens a music store selling mp3s. Then, we'll be getting somewhere.

[Revtim]

They are using Windows media format so they can put restrictions via DRM. Can't do that with MP3.

[Dunderman]

Now that my head is slightly cooler, I realize that I can convert the files after download. It's still bloody stupid and annoying, though.

[Revtim]

Are you sure you can? I would expect that the DRM would prevent that, at least directly. You probably have to jump through some hoops, and maybe lose some quality (like go through an analog step).

[Dunderman]

No, I probably can't, due to the DRM. Analog recording could be an option, though.

I've been reading their website a couple of times over, and I can't see what the point of DRM is. All it seems to do is restrict what players and portable devices you can use. How does it actually "protect the integrity of their content so that their intellectual property, including copyright, is not misappropriated"? I can still burn the music to CDs, move it to another computer, and so on.

[Revtim]

The main point of the DRM is probably to make it difficult to share the track with P2P programs like Kazaa.

[Dunderman]

I read a bit more, and apparently they do have a lot more restrictions than that. You can only listen to the song on a certain number of computers, burn it to CD a certain number of times, and so on.

These guys need to realize they're competing with what is essentially unlimited, free music. If their potential advantages of legality, convenience and consistency aren't enough to offset that, they won't make it.

[Revtim]

Perhaps they are banking on the P2P pirating going into decline now that the RIAA is targeting individual users. I agree that if P2P pirating survives mostly intact, BuyMusic is doomed.

[Puffy Taco]

Perhaps this link might help. It’s a good article on the music site, and talks about converting to mp3’s and burning CDs.

http://www.8bitjoystick.com/

[Max Torque]

Today's Macintouch (http://www.macintouch.com) reveals a few things about the digital rights management (DRM) used by BuyMusic:
The fine print clearly states that you're only licensing the music, not purchasing it, and furthermore that the license is tied to the computer used for the transaction. If you replace your computer, you lose access to everything you've licensed and downloaded (though you'll still have any copies you burned to CD or transferred to a portable, assuming that the DRM on the songs you licensed allowed you to do that in the first place).
Also, check out this passage from their terms of service agreement:
Content Use Rules. All downloaded music, images, video, artwork, text, software and other copyrightable materials (“Content”) are sublicensed to End Users and not sold, notwithstanding use of the terms “sell,” “purchase,” “order,” or “buy” on the Site or this Agreement.
_ Your Digital Download sublicense is nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonsublicenseable, limited and for use only within the United States. End users may play the Digital Downloads an unlimited number of times on the same registered personal computer to which the Digital Download is originally downloaded.
Bolding mine. Ain't that spiffy, they're not actually selling you anything, and it's good for one computer only. Hope you never have to upgrade.

[rjung]

Once again, Apple introduces a quality product, and the fly-by-night clowns come along with a half-assed knockoff. ;)

What I especially like is how BuyMusic.com's selection have different DRM restrictions according to what you buy -- one track might allow unlimited burning, another might not allow burning at all, and a third might only let you burn it twice. Guess who has to keep track of all that crap?

(And pray your computer doesn't ever need replacing, since the music you've bought won't play any more if you switch machines...)

[cheddarsnax]

Originally posted by Priceguy
I pray to God they crash and burn. Losers. And that someone else learns from their mistake and opens a music store selling mp3s. Then, we'll be getting somewhere.
There will most likely not be a legal music download service with the major labels on board that uses MP3s until DRM is integrated with the operating system and/or computer hardware. Sorry.

[pantom]

In which case the legal download service won't succeed. Sorry.

[cheddarsnax]

Originally posted by pantom
In which case the legal download service won't succeed. Sorry.
Isn't iTunes something of a success?

[Alereon]

At least Apple had the good sense to use AAC (MPEG2 Audio), which can, in some cases, actually perform pretty well. Windows Media Audio, on the other hand, sounds like ass. Rotten, nasty, shit-encrusted ass.

[slortar]

Wait...only burn it to cd a number of times? What's to prevent you from ripping the track you just burned into a .wav file and then reincoding into a format that doesn't blow goats? Morons.

[rjung]

Originally posted by slortar
Wait...only burn it to cd a number of times? What's to prevent you from ripping the track you just burned into a .wav file and then reincoding into a format that doesn't blow goats?
Lower quality. Decoding and re-encoding introduces more signal loss.

[Mockingbird]

Retards, huh?

:mad:

[Bongmaster]

Bahh, there's like 1% of the population that can tell the difference with the minimal signal loss you'll get. Audiophiles will always be a different breed willing to pay top dollar for the absolute best in sound quality. Joe Schmoe's CD player only cost him $50 and his speakers are smaller than a breadbox...do you really think a slight decrease, and I mean *slight* decrease in quality, will stop anyone from ripping the files into a better format?

[Geek Mecha]

In case there was any doubt that they're trying to copy the iTunes Music Store, their TV commercial is initially almost indistinguishable from the iTMS commercials. Buncha people, wearing headphones and holding portable mp3 players, dancing about and singing out loud to the music, against a white background.

Given the terms of the downloading, it's misleading that they're called BuyMusic. I hope that bites them on the ass.

[wakimika]

No worries, mate. :)

There will be a pc version of the iTunes music store by the end of the year. And it shall be made by Apple. And it shall rock.

[Mr2001]

IMO, Windows Media is a better choice than AAC, because there are hardware WMA players. After jumping through (or around) the proper DRM hoops, or if the copyright holder allows it, you might theoretically be able to listen to those WMA files on your car stereo or DVD player. Not so with AAC files - even though AAC is part of the DVD spec.

[SPOOFE]

There's a Windows version of iTunes?

Wait, wait... there's an iTunes?

I guess that's what I get for not giving a damn. Thank you, Amoeba!!

[Zelmph(!)]

Mr2001, you can play AAC files on the iPod. Seeing as how it's got something like 40 percent of the MP3 player market, it seems foolish that buy.com wouldn't at least use a compatible format.

[yosemite]

Also, iTunes allows you to "transfer" the use of your music files over to another Mac. Actually, I think you can play the music on three Macs at a time. If you want to remove one Mac from the list, you "deauthorize" (I think that's the term) it and then "authorize" another Mac. So basically, you can keep moving the music around indefinitely, from Mac to Mac, as time goes on.

All tunes bought off of iTunes allow you to burn up to 10 CDs of the same playlist. All that means is that if you, for instance, bought an entire album and wanted to burn a CD of it, you could burn up to 10 of that album. But if you switched the playlist around a little--took something out, added something else, that's a different playlist and you can burn 10 of that too. And on and on. At least this is the way it I believe it to be.

[Geek Mecha]

Also, "might theoretically be allowed if the copyright holders agree to it and some obstacles are overcome" may as well be "you can't do it now and you won't be able to do it for a while".

Furthermore, it's possible (and easy) to convert AAC files to mp3s so that they can be played elsewhere. I know because I've done it. And since I know someone's going to pipe up and say it, all that yapping about loss of quality is just that-- yapping. The results sound just fine.

[Reuben]

Well my first thought was how fantastic it was that there's finally somewhere we can legally buy music files from! I had my credit card out, all ready to spend a mountain of money. Then www.buymusic.com rejected me because it's detected that I don't live in America, and now I'm angry.

Like most computer-using music lovers I am very bored with CDs, which get scratched, stolen, and lost, are a hassle to constantly insert and remove from players, and which have to be carried around if one wants to enjoy music on the move or at work. Like those people, I have long wanted the ability to purchase music in a computer file format to *start* with.

And after all these bloody years, some genius has finally provided the first legitimate form of the service the world's been crying out for, and it's American only?!

[Reuben]

Originally posted by appletreats
There will most likely not be a legal music download service with the major labels on board that uses MP3s until DRM is integrated with the operating system and/or computer hardware. Sorry.

Correct, and the existing iTunes and BuyMusic services are very vulnerable too. The Digital Rights Management (DRM) that buymusic.com et al insist upon is trivially defeatable, as is any kind of software-based DRM.

For example, I very recently wrote a Windows tool that can hook into any application (Windows Media Player, Winamp, RealPlayer, anything at all) and capture the raw audio data as it is sent to the sound card. It writes the audio out to .wav files which can then be trivially converted to .mp3 or .ogg, neatly rendering all and any possible software-based DRM null and void.

It works because even the most cunningly-written anti-piracy playback software has to, at some point, present raw audio data to the sound card hardware, and this has to be done through certain Windows interfaces that don't (yet) know or care about DRM. My program hooks in at that lower level, so no decryption or reverse-engineering was necessary, and there's no quality loss from analog conversions either.

So real DRM will never be achievable until hardware supports it. And fat chance of that ever taking off - I'm not going to buy a crippled sound card, unless of course there's no choice at all. Even when the OS is DRM-aware for user apps, it will still be easy enough to fool it (e.g. by writing a kernel-mode driver that pretends to be a legacy sound card). It's got to be hardware or nothing.

The record companies are just going to have to learn to trust us a lot more. Their trouble is that they've judged us by their own appalling standards, concluding that we're incorrigible thieves when in fact most of us are more than happy to pay a good price for music, and we don't need to be harangued into coughing up.

[cheddarsnax]

Originally posted by Reuben
For example, I very recently wrote a Windows tool that can hook into any application (Windows Media Player, Winamp, RealPlayer, anything at all) and capture the raw audio data as it is sent to the sound card. It writes the audio out to .wav files which can then be trivially converted to .mp3 or .ogg, neatly rendering all and any possible software-based DRM null and void.
Hell, my Audigy sound card came with a program that does that. Worked nice with the DRM "protected" version of Radiohead's There There.

[Reuben]

Sounds interesting appletreats. I haven't heard of that program, despite my working (indirectly) for the company that makes the Audigy, but it could well be that such programs are a lot more common than I thought. If that's true then software DRM is even more pointless than I had previously supposed.

Anyway, I suspect it only works with the Audigy card, whereas my little private hack works with any soundcard (and any media playing application) you might happen to have... :-)

[NotMrKnowItAll]

Originally posted by Mockingbird
Retards, huh?

:mad:

Gee Mockingbird, BuyMusic isn't your baby, is it?

[bluecanary]

I think Mockingbird's objecting to the term 'retard' being used as a slur. Twas a typical offenderati drive-by.

[ElwoodCuse]

Those rotten bastards actually have a search listing for Ben Folds' new EP, which isn't in stores, isn't significantly shared, costs $8 after shipping to buy online, but it says "songs not available for purchase/download".

[rjung]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
All tunes bought off of iTunes allow you to burn up to 10 CDs of the same playlist. All that means is that if you, for instance, bought an entire album and wanted to burn a CD of it, you could burn up to 10 of that album. But if you switched the playlist around a little--took something out, added something else, that's a different playlist and you can burn 10 of that too. And on and on. At least this is the way it I believe it to be.
Yep. And if you really wanted to, after burning your playlist ten times, you could delete the last song, re-insert the last song, and burn the same playlist another ten times.

Apple's philosophy is that copy-protection schemes will never "win", because a determined thief will get around them anyway. The best a company can do is put up mildly annoying obstacles to prevent regular users from abusing the system. Can't say I object to this idea, actually.

Originally posted by ElwoodCuse
Those rotten bastards actually have a search listing for Ben Folds' new EP, which isn't in stores, isn't significantly shared, costs $8 after shipping to buy online, but it says "songs not available for purchase/download".
It is if you go to Applemusic.com... ;)

[spectrum]

Yeah, Elwood, I noticed that, too. I bout the Ben Folds EP off of the Apple iTunes store a few days ago, and was wondering if it were available at BuyMusic. They had a listing, but not the songs for sale. I think that's just awful. People will search for stuff, but its never there, yet it is listed. That's frustrating.

In fact, none of the last 15 or so songs I've purchased from the Apple store were available at BuyMusic. I think its selection is really very weak.

[neutron star]

Originally posted by Reuben
Well my first thought was how fantastic it was that there's finally somewhere we can legally buy music files from! I had my credit card out, all ready to spend a mountain of money. Then www.buymusic.com rejected me because it's detected that I don't live in America, and now I'm angry.

It's not just BuyMusic. It's iTunes, too. In fact, if you should happen to move from the U.S. to Canada, your iTunes will stop functioning (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/07/25/1316225.shtml?tid=141&tid=188).

So the record companies sell music files with ridiculous limitations, without full CD-quality audio, without packaging, without anything but a lousy 3 or 4MB download, and they still charge roughly as much as the albums cost in stores? Somehow this wasn't what I had hoped for in a legal music download service...

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Zelmph(!)
Mr2001, you can play AAC files on the iPod. Seeing as how it's got something like 40 percent of the MP3 player market, it seems foolish that buy.com wouldn't at least use a compatible format.
Interesting. Let me know when there's a car or home stereo component version of the iPod. ;)

If I buy digital music, I expect it to be in a useful format. I own 4 devices besides my computer that can play MP3s - one (Rio Volt) also plays WMA, one (Palm Zire 71) also plays RealAudio and Ogg, but none play AAC. If I have to go through a bunch of trouble to convert the files I "buy" into a useful format, I'm going to start wondering why I "bought" them at all.

Originally posted by neutron star
So the record companies sell music files with ridiculous limitations, without full CD-quality audio, without packaging, without anything but a lousy 3 or 4MB download, and they still charge roughly as much as the albums cost in stores? Somehow this wasn't what I had hoped for in a legal music download service...
That's not all... just think of the spin we can expect in a few months.

RIAA: "Dear Congress, although we went to extreme lengths to provide music online, the operation was a failure. Those scoundrels on the internet have rejected our offer of DRM-protected WMA and AAC files in favor of the pirate-friendly MP3 and Ogg Vorbis formats, and they refuse to pay reasonable prices to compensate us for our valuable marketing and payola efforts. This is one more piece of evidence that the demand for digital music is only about STEALING our content, RAPING our talented artists, and JAYWALKING right across our artistic rights. The only way to stop this spree of theft, rape, and jaywalking is to outlaw MP3 players, make copyright violation a capital crime, and impose a 100% tax on all blank CDs and cassettes."

[rjung]

Originally posted by Mr2001
Interesting. Let me know when there's a car or home stereo component version of the iPod. ;)
The latest iPod has a dock (http://www.apple.com/ipod/accessories.html) with stereo line-out; that should let you hook it up to your home stereo.

As for the car, if your car radio doesn't already have an aux-in, how about an iTrip? (http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/itrip/)

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by bluecanary
I think Mockingbird's objecting to the term 'retard' being used as a slur. Twas a typical offenderati drive-by. Then count me in as well. I was also offended. We would never put up with vile insults against an entire group of blameless people like "nigger" or "fag." "Retards," though, they're really asking for it, huh?

Tell you what. When you have close relatives who have to eat shit from insensitive clods on an ongoing basis, who have to endure assaults on their dignity from people who believe they are beneath respect, who have been physically attacked for kicks because people perceive them as defenseless--all because of something completely beyond their control--well, then you can make blithe dismissals of others taking offense at assholish insults like this. :rolleyes: :mad:

[Dunderman]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
Then count me in as well. I was also offended. We would never put up with vile insults against an entire group of blameless people like "nigger" or "fag." "Retards," though, they're really asking for it, huh?
Well, the difference is that niggers and fags aren't generally speaking more likely to do "dumb" things than the general population. Retards do have mental deficiencies; that's kinda the definition. But if anyone was offended, I am sorry.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Priceguy
Well, the difference is that niggers and fags aren't generally speaking more likely to do "dumb" things than the general population. Retards do have mental deficiencies; that's kinda the definition. But if anyone was offended, I am sorry. If you really wish not to give offense, don't use offensive terms like "retards." I will give you one last benefit of the doubt that you really are ignorant that this is a derogatory term. I can absolutely assure you that no one who is retarded, nor any of those who have mentally retarded loved ones, finds the term neutral. Most of us cringe when we hear it.

And no one is disputing that the mentally retarded have challenges. The point was, and is, that decent people ought not to use these problems as fodder for "humorous" analogies. If your analogy was so innocent, would you make it in the same room as a mentally retarded individual? Would you be comfortable doing so? If not, then perhaps you should rethink your position. And if you would be comfortable, then you are an insensitive oaf--but, again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for the moment at least.

[Revtim]

Just curious, would it have been OK to use "moron" or "idiot"?

[hebesphenomegacorona]

Originally posted by Mockingbird
Retards, huh?

:mad:

What, no reference to "Goat-felching dickhead"?

I expected more of you!

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Revtim
Just curious, would it have been OK to use "moron" or "idiot"? This is just my opinion, but yes, unless you were to try and use these terms as the no-longer accepted psychology definitions they once were. IOW, if you refer to mildly retarded people as "morons," you're an asshole.

However, again just IMO, those words have lost those denotations, and have passed into the lexicon as meaning, simply, a fool or a person who acts stupidly. I don't know of anyone who takes offense to these words (except in the manner I described above), but I will gladly abandon their usage if I find that there are people who do. While I generally am not inclined to indulge those who find offense in obscure connotations, when it relates to those people most in need of our concern and protection, I consider it a simple concession.

And, just to make my opinion crystal clear, "retard" is a completely different matter. Everyone knows that this refers specifically to the mentally retarded, that it likens people to those who are in that category. I know of no one close to a mentally retarded person who does not take offense to this. There is nothing obscure about this. It is by definition a denigration of the mentally retarded.

[Revtim]

You take offense because you choose to take offense. Why not just treat "retard" like "moron"? You say "Everyone knows that this refers specifically to the mentally retarded", well, that's simply not true anymore. In the context it was used, it means exactly the same as "moron" or "idiot".

[yosemite]

I know where Bob Cos is coming from. I work with the developmentally disabled (mentally retarded) and while I knew the OP used the term "retard" as "moron" or "idiot", I did cringe a little. I don't bring it up everytime I see it (I guess I just get exhausted) but truly--people do need to know that it is not an okay term to use as a slur. I always kind of hear "REtard" in my head, and it sounds cruel. Even though I know that the OP wasn't thinking that and didn't have any intention of being cruel like that.

The word "retard" makes those of us who have mentally retarded people in our lives cringe. Just an FYI.

[yosemite]

Getting back to the topic of BuyMusic.com... this review (http://scriptygoddess.com/) certainly does not recommend BuyMusic. Among some of her complaints are:
Before each song plays - it has to download and verify your license. You can't mulitple select a bunch and do this. You need to do this before EACH SONG will play. [Edited to add: "Verifing your license" means another window pops up that asks for your buymusic login and password... you enter it... it thinks awhile... it thinks some more... Then it comes back and says click "play" to actually play the song...]And then there's this:Since I'm using Windows2000, they force you to use a windows media plugin made by Roxio. Roxio doesn't even really mention this plugin on their site except for a one year old press release. (I went there hoping they'd have an update). This plugin CRASHES consistently EVERY time I try to burn a CD. It is simply impossible to create a cd from my machine using that plugin.And then there's this:Privacy policies are something I don't usually pay attention to but really should, but what buymusic.com has in theirs is just wrong. Jenett linked to Stereoboy's post where he pointed out this little tidbit from their policy:"we may disclose, sell, trade, or rent your Personally Identifiable Information to others without your consent". Not cool.

Read the review for yourself; it's very interesting. Basically, she could never get her computer to burn CDs and until she made a HUGE stink, Buymusic was going to leave her high and dry and not refund her money. She couldn't transfer the music to another computer and burn CDs there, because Buymusic won't allow that. And then the final insult is that they will sell customer's personal information without their consent.

How bad can they be? Apparently pretty bad.

[Waverly]

I don't have any experience using it, and going into too much detail is probably against some unwritten forum rule, but I remember there being a program that would remove the DRM.

Keeping in mind that the R in DRM is a complete sham, because they are selling a product and then restricting your rights to use it, I don't think there is anything unethical about nixing it.

Search google for "unfuck DRM"

[Revtim]

Godalmighty, that sounds like a crappy service. It's a much bigger pain in the ass than buying the friggin' CD at a brick n' mortar store and ripping the MP3s yourself. WTF are they thinking?

[Dunderman]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
If you really wish not to give offense, don't use offensive terms like "retards." I will give you one last benefit of the doubt that you really are ignorant that this is a derogatory term. I can absolutely assure you that no one who is retarded, nor any of those who have mentally retarded loved ones, finds the term neutral. Most of us cringe when we hear it.
I'm not a native English speaker and do not live in an English-speaking country, so I never use the term as anything but a synonym for "moron". Also, I'm part of a subculture that has more or less adapted the English word "retard" to use in that sense. That's why it was the first word that popped into my head when I wrote the subject line (which was done in five seconds). Since I hear it and use it as often as I do, it sounds neutral to me. I do apologize for any offense taken.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Revtim
WTF are they thinking?
As I said back at the start of this thread, "Once again, Apple introduces a quality product, and the fly-by-night clowns come along with a half-assed knockoff." ;)

Fly-by-night clowns? Check.
Half-assed knockoff? Check.
Gullible Windows users? The jury's still out on that one, at least.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Revtim
You take offense because you choose to take offense. Why not just treat "retard" like "moron"?Yep, and when my cranky old Uncle Benny says somebody is as "shiftless as a nigger," I know what he means in that context, and we should all just choose not to take offense. Gotcha.You say "Everyone knows that this refers specifically to the mentally retarded", well, that's simply not true anymore.OK, how about "virtually everyone in America knows this." Were you confused by the term? Did it's origin escape you? I didn't think so.In the context it was used, it means exactly the same as "moron" or "idiot". Yes, and it is still offensive to the mentally retarded. Why do you assume these conditions are mutually exclusive?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Priceguy
I'm not a native English speaker and do not live in an English-speaking country, so I never use the term as anything but a synonym for "moron". Also, I'm part of a subculture that has more or less adapted the English word "retard" to use in that sense. That's why it was the first word that popped into my head when I wrote the subject line (which was done in five seconds). Since I hear it and use it as often as I do, it sounds neutral to me. I do apologize for any offense taken. I appreciate your explanation and your apology.

[Revtim]

I should have realized it's impossible to take away the warm glow of finding offense. Please, by all means, take whatever pleasure you get from finding offense where none is intended. I apologize for trying to stem the tide of extreme offense-searching.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Revtim
I should have realized it's impossible to take away the warm glow of finding offense. Please, by all means, take whatever pleasure you get from finding offense where none is intended. I apologize for trying to stem the tide of extreme offense-searching. Right. Something's not offensive because Revtim says it's not. You know what? It's a free country. Use whatever terms you want. But keep your own sanctimony to yourself. Something ain't acceptable because you have deemed it so.

Answer the question I directed to Priceguy earlier, smartass. I dare you. If there was a mentally retarded person and his family in the room would you be perfectly comfortable using the term "retard"?

If your answer is no, that says something about your convictions regarding how inoffensive the term is. If your answer is yes, you're an asshole. I'll leave it to you to conduct your own straw poll to see if your own acquaintances agree that using this term in front of a mentally retarded individual is insensitive and cruel.

Go on. Explain yourself, Mr. High and Mighty, since you're above all this semantic bullshit. I can't wait.

[Revtim]

Where in the post you quoted (or any post I made) did I say things aren't offensive when I say they aren't? Please explain.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
Answer the question I directed to Priceguy earlier, smartass. I dare you. If there was a mentally retarded person and his family in the room would you be perfectly comfortable using the term "retard"?
I wouldn't be comfortable saying it, but neither would I be comfortable saying "moron", "idiot", or "stupid". I don't think I'd even be comfortable using the word "retarded" for its medical definition in the presence of a retarded person, because the slur is the first meaning that comes to mind.

Are those words also Not To Be Said Anymore?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Revtim
Where in the post you quoted (or any post I made) did I say things aren't offensive when I say they aren't? Please explain. Please explain what other inference to take from this:You take offense because you choose to take offense.If the word is offensive only to those who choose to take offense, then the word is not inherently offensive. Why? Because you say so, unless there was some other support I missed. The fucking word is offensive by definition, by the way, but let's not let that get in the way of your crusade to stem the tide of extreme offense-searching.

And, gee, I noticed you neglected to answer my question. It was a simple one. Why don't you give it a try?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Mr2001
I wouldn't be comfortable saying it, but neither would I be comfortable saying "moron", "idiot", or "stupid".Why? If you're being sensitive to the fact that some offense might be inferred, you're a good egg, but I, for one, would not be offended by these terms unless someone used them ("moron" and "idiot," that is) to refer specifically to retarded people. As I mentioned before, if I have misread this, and there are people who take offense, I would stop using the terms.I don't think I'd even be comfortable using the word "retarded" for its medical definition in the presence of a retarded person, because the slur is the first meaning that comes to mind.You sound like a decent guy.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
And, gee, I noticed you neglected to answer my question. It was a simple one. Why don't you give it a try? You mean, would I use the word "retard" in the presence of the mentally disabled? Of course I wouldn't. But just because there's an occasion where a phrase or word is inappropriate doesn't mean it should be fobidden by the offenderati in every situation. Practically any insult or joke will have a situation where it's inappropriate. Does that mean one should only mumble to themselves in the corner?

Have fun finding getting offended by practically every thing you hear and read, because nearly all of it can be inappropriate under the right circumstances.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Revtim
You mean, would I use the word "retard" in the presence of the mentally disabled? Of course I wouldn't. But just because there's an occasion where a phrase or word is inappropriate doesn't mean it should be fobidden by the offenderati in every situation. Practically any insult or joke will have a situation where it's inappropriate. Does that mean one should only mumble to themselves in the corner?Are you for real? First, thanks for contradicting yourself and taking away all doubt as to what an ass you are. If the word isn't offensive, why wouldn't you use it? If the person takes offense, it's only because he chooses to do so, that's all. Sort of takes all the starch out of your tirade, eh?

Oh, what's that? It's because of the situation. And what is the situation, specifically? What are the extentuating circumstances that render the term offensive, finally, for Revtim? Oh, nothing other than the fact that the person that the vile term refers to is present. That's the special circumstance that makes the term offensive. Because the person it ridicules is there. How courageous and sensitive. So, on your planet "nigger" is not offensive if blacks are not present, huh? I mean, gee whiz, what are supposed to do, sit around and mumble to ourselves?

"Practically any insult or joke will have a situation where it's inappropriate." Genius, if you see this as analogous to the term "retard," do you understand that you are conceding with this comment that the term is insulting and makes fun of the people it refers to? At what point does your twisted definition of "inoffensive" break into a thousand pieces? At the point where you concede you shouldn't say it in front of the people it refers to, or at the point where you allow that it is insulting?Have fun finding getting offended by practically every thing you hear and read, because nearly all of it can be inappropriate under the right circumstances. Have fun creating specious charges of sensitivity over anything and everything. Last I checked in this thread, I objected only to a term that is offensive by definition. Sorry your crusade lost all its steam when you got called on your bullshit. :rolleyes:

[yosemite]

In my job (working with the mentally retarded) we often call them, well, "mentally retarded." (It's sort of interchangable with "developmentally disabled." )

The words "mentally retarded" can be used appropriately, and without offense. Most certainly. I hear it every day at work.

But the word "retard"? I use it to describe a product that slows the drying time of my acrylic paints. I don't use it to describe a person. It's not used in that context except to be an insult, and it is a derivative of "mentally retarded", so do the math.

I do understand that people use "retarded" and "retard" meaning no offense to the developmentally disabled, and I don't necessarily want to make a big stink about it when I hear them say it, because I know that they are saying it out of ignorance. But do I still cringe inwardly? Yes. Do I feel amazement that someone would defend the use of these words as insults, when called upon it? Yes.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I do understand that people use "retarded" and "retard" meaning no offense to the developmentally disabled, and I don't necessarily want to make a big stink about it when I hear them say it, because I know that they are saying it out of ignorance. But do I still cringe inwardly? Yes. Actually, I feel much the same way. There are people I genuinely like who have used the term, and I assume generally that no offense is intended. It's merely ignorance.

But what never fails to set me off is when, after someone mentions that this insults people they love, people respond with rolling eyes and exasperation over how unreasonable it is to expect others to refer to the mentally retarded with respect. Priceguy's response is much more typical, I'm happy to say--i.e., something along the lines of, "Sorry, I didn't mean anything by it." Revtim's vociferous defense of the use of a pejorative is, frankly, unusually petty.

[Purd Werfect]

Sorry to stick with the main topic, but I question the reasonableness of the $8-12 for a CD's worth of music. The materials, handling, and distribution costs go down considerably for the music company, so it seems like the price should get pretty low using the download model. I could see $8.00 as the upper end for price, but any higher doesn't seem like much of a better deal than the currently too-high CD prices.

[gloaming]

Rev, I notice that you commented a couple of times about the "offenderati" having their "fun" criticising your terminology.

Seems to me that the tone here's been sort of stunned, sort of sad.

Not much fun being had at all.

[Dunderman]

Guys, if you really want to debate the word "retard" any further, please open another thread. If anyone wants to say anything else about buymusic.com, please post in this one.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by Revtim
Are you sure you can? I would expect that the DRM would prevent that, at least directly. You probably have to jump through some hoops, and maybe lose some quality (like go through an analog step).

My friend's sound card can record any sounds that is playing on his computer. He can, for example, capture streaming radio stuff or even the audio from a video he is watching. The only annoying thing is that if he gets, say, an IM during the recording, that sounds gets recorded too! heh.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
I can absolutely assure you that no one who is retarded, nor any of those who have mentally retarded loved ones, finds the term neutral.


Ehh... my sister has Down Syndrome, but the term "retard" when used as it is here doesn't bother me. If someone calls someone who is actually mentally disabled retarded, that bothers me, but that is a totally different situation.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I know where Bob Cos is coming from. I work with the developmentally disabled (mentally retarded) and while I knew the OP used the term "retard" as "moron" or "idiot", I did cringe a little.

I cringed too, but only because I knew someone was going to panty-wad on it.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by rjung
Fly-by-night clowns? Check.
Half-assed knockoff? Check.
Gullible Windows users? The jury's still out on that one, at least.

I take offense to your use of the term "half-assed". As someone who is close to an ass-challenged loved one, I have to say that...

[Liberal]

Originally posted by OpalCat
I cringed too, but only because I knew someone was going to panty-wad on it. Same here. At a site where pot shots at the very Creator Himself are officially encouraged, it is monumentally bizarre that terms like "retard" or "injun" would be suppressed. Besides, what term would be acceptable? How should the title have been worded — "managed by [what]"?

[rjung]

Originally posted by OpalCat
I take offense to your use of the term "half-assed". As someone who is close to an ass-challenged loved one--
Have you met the man with three buttocks? (http://www.skepticfiles.org/en001/buttocks.htm)

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Same here. At a site where pot shots at the very Creator Himself are officially encouraged, it is monumentally bizarre that terms like "retard" or "injun" would be suppressed. Besides, what term would be acceptable? How should the title have been worded — "managed by [what]"? Suppress what? I stated in this thread, "It's a free country. Use whatever terms you want." Just don't kid yourself that the term is not insulting. If you find a request not to use an insulting term unreasonable, then that says more about you than the requester, IMO.

And, please, there's no substitute for this word? Hey, there's a strong argument. How about incompetents, fools, airheads, blockheads, dunces, oafs, meatheads, clods, nitwits? But, oh wait, nothing adds a regal air to one's writing quite like the word "retard." I forgot.

OpalCat, you see nothing wrong with a term that uses your sister and people like her as a frame of reference for derision, so long as they don't refer directly to your sister. Um, OK, sure, I can see that. Right, makes perfect sense.

Ya know what, to each his own. After all, it's only retards we're talking about. :rolleyes:

[OpalCat]

See, that's where you are wrong. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 'RETARDS'! It would be quite different if we were.

Now I don't personally use the word, but I don't find it offensive, either.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by OpalCat
See, that's where you are wrong. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 'RETARDS'! It would be quite different if we were.Someone calls a person "like a kike" because the he thinks the guy is cheap. Or my example from earlier, someone else describes a person as shiftless by using "niggers" as a reference. Neither person being insulted is black or Jewish. IOW, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KIKES OR NIGGERS HERE, we are simply using the terms to help describe a particular quality. If you heard a person use these terms these ways, I bet you'd know exactly what they meant.

Do you consider these offensive terms? If not, then you're consistent at least, but I'll have to disagree with you again. If so, why are these qualitatively different than using the mentally retarded as a convenient reference when one wants to hold somebody in contempt? Can it be lost on you that the title for this thread uses the word as an insult?Now I don't personally use the word, but I don't find it offensive, either. Why not use it if it's not offensive?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
Neither person being insulted is black or Jewish. IOW, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KIKES OR NIGGERS HERE, we are simply using the terms to help describe a particular quality. Just in case it's remotely possible I'm creating offense for someone else who might be misunderstanding me, let me make it crystal clear: I consider both of these terms vile, awful words, which is why I am using them for comparison. "I bet you'd know exactly what they meant" should not be interpreted as, "Bob Cos believes these are acceptable terms or that they accurately describe Jews or blacks." I absolutely, 100% do NOT.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
Someone calls a person "like a kike" because the he thinks the guy is cheap. Or my example from earlier, someone else describes a person as shiftless by using "niggers" as a reference. Neither person being insulted is black or Jewish. IOW, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KIKES OR NIGGERS HERE, we are simply using the terms to help describe a particular quality. [/B]

...because those aren't actual qualities? "Retarded" has an actual legitimate definition, you know... It isn't a word that was created as a slur. My mind boggles that you can't see the difference here.

As to why I don't use the word... dunno. Maybe it's a regional thing. I've always used "idiot" "moron" etc. and so do most of the people I've been around, and was around when growing up. I guess unlike you I don't consciously plan out every word that comes out of my mouth and ponder all the synonyms that I could use... I just say what comes naturally and the vocabulary I'm used to. :rolleyes:

[beagledave]

Originally posted by OpalCat
See, that's where you are wrong. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 'RETARDS'! It would be quite different if we were.

Now I don't personally use the word, but I don't find it offensive, either.

The Windows version of ITunes..managed by fags.

If someone started a thread with that title..it would be OK?

1) We're not talking about 'FAGS' (the sexual orientation of the people) ..just a general swipe at buymusic.com

2) "Fags" does have a "legitimate" usage (bundle of sticks..smokes..)

So would you be ok with that usage?

[PunditLisa]

I don't have a Mac, darn it, because I'm really interested in the iMusic site. I burned several cd's from Napster before the site was shut down (and before you all made me feel guilty about doing it even though I owned 95% of the music already). Geesh.

Think the concept is great and hope Apple's stock goes thru the roof. And I'm not just saying that because I own Apple stock. And because I think Steve Jobs is hot.

Can't wait for the Windows version of iTunes to be released. I have a whole song list just waiting to be burned.

BTW, some enterprising computer geek should open a site where you can go and tell him what songs/artist you wan burned onto a c.d.. For a fee, someone with the techo-knowledge and kick-ass burner could burn c.d.'s and snail mail them to people like me who don't have any desire for an iPod. I just want to be able to pop a disc into my car c.d. player. I'd be willing to pay $5 extra for someone to burn a c.d....

[Waverly]

Fuck
I'm sorry to have participated in this thread with an on-topic suggestion.

I could have guessed it would be about political correctness when I read the title.

In this case, however, the PC police should invest in a dictionary. The meaning of retard is "a person of sub-normal intelligence." If the old spectrum were still in use, this would be a sub-70 IQ, far enough below the 100 median to be significant. Imbecile, moron, and cretin have all been used for various ranges below 70. Should we also not use these terms any longer?

I have an idea, how about we accept that words mean a bit more than our first knee-jerk reaction, particularly when they are surrounded by lots of other words (lets call this ‘context’ for arguments sake) and there is no indication that the one uttering the word meant offense?

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Waverly
Fuck

In this case, however, the PC police should invest in a dictionary.

Good Idea (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=retard).


re·tard2 Audio pronunciation of retard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rtärd)
n. Offensive Slang

1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.



Irony. Heh.

[beagledave]

..and for shits and giggles, m-w.com

has


2 /'rE-"tärd/ often offensive : a retarded person; also : a person held to resemble a retarded person in behavio


Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=67486&dict=CALD) dictionary says


retard noun [C] OFFENSIVE
a stupid or mentally slow person:
I'm not playing with him, he's a total retard.

retarded adjective OFFENSIVE OLD-FASHIONED
having had a slower mental development than other people of the same age:
mentally/emotionally retarded

the retarded plural noun OFFENSIVE OLD-FASHIONED
people with slow development, usually mental development:
The programme offers intermediate care for the mentally retarded.


IOW...the "slow mental development" definition is recognized as offensive and old fashioned.. NOT a standard advocated definition.

As a matter of fact, Waverly..since YOU made the assertion..can you provide an example of a definition of "retard" that you claim? One that is not categorized as offensive or outdated..but in current standard use?

I'll be waiting.

[Waverly]

Originally posted by beagledave
Good Idea (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=retard).




Irony. Heh. How about the entire dictionary, not just the part that supports your malformed opinion? Cripes, talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Your second post is bit more accurate, but you had me laughing when I saw you were using the Advanced Learner’s dictionary. Do you really think you are in the advanced class? It’s one thing for a dictionary to tell you a usage is archaic, slang, or vulgar, it’s another for it to admonish you that it is offensive. Kind of silly, don’t you think? Well maybe not, but I think it’s a silly thing for a dictionary to offer an opinion like that.

Retard, in this usage, is short for retarded, or more specifically, mentally retarded.

NOUN: 1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay. 2. Music A slackening of tempo.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English retarden, from Old French retarder, from Latin retard re : re-, re- + tard re, to delay (from tardus, slow).

The etymology is pretty clear here, if we can avoid playing dictionary wars and word parsing games. Every of the many usages stem from the original Latin, and the accepted English definition. [Mentally] slow.

You are free to take offensive if suits you, but don’t assume the word itself is universally offensive.

[spectrum]

Originally posted by Waverly
If the old spectrum

I take offense at your deriding me as "old," you scurrilous snack cracker.

:D

[Waverly]

Originally posted by spectrum
I take offense at your deriding me as "old," you scurrilous snack cracker.

:D You calling me a cracker?!

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Waverly

The etymology is pretty clear here, if we can avoid playing dictionary wars and word parsing games. Every of the many usages stem from the original Latin, and the accepted English definition. [Mentally] slow.


Ummm you began the "dictionary wars"..and you still have yet to provide a cite for


The meaning of retard is "a person of sub-normal intelligence."


Your reference to "slowing down" is generally accepted for usage outside of decriptions of people. (Hence the "offensive/outdated" label for descriptions of people).

So again, do you have a cite for "a person of sub-normal intelligence" for standard (read NOT offensive and NOT outdated) usage. I don't mean retard as in slowing down of musical tempo..or slowing the rate of infection..I mean as in describing a person.

I note that you chided me for using the "Advanced Learners Dictionary"..fine, it's the default search dictionary.

If I use the "dictionary of American English" at the same site (golly..hope thats ok for you)..we get


retarded
adjective
having a slower mental development than other people of the same age
Because retarded has sometimes been used as a term of insult, it is now less often used as a specialized term in the care of people with slow mental development.
mentally/emotionally retarded

[Waverly]

beagledave, do you really see a difference between "having a slower mental development than other people of the same age" and "a person of sub-normal intelligence" other than the latter usage is a noun?

My paraphrasing is shortened from Merriam Webster's Collegiate. A worn desk copy I've kept around. Please let us all know what you are getting at. For my part, I'm happy with your latest definition if you prefer it - at least until they depart from offering definitions. You may want to note when you add your own emphasis. I think they've gone into enough conjecture without you highlighting it for them.

[neutron star]

Originally posted by PunditLisa

BTW, some enterprising computer geek should open a site where you can go and tell him what songs/artist you wan burned onto a c.d.. For a fee, someone with the techo-knowledge and kick-ass burner could burn c.d.'s and snail mail them to people like me who don't have any desire for an iPod. I just want to be able to pop a disc into my car c.d. player. I'd be willing to pay $5 extra for someone to burn a c.d....

This would be illegal, wouldn't it? I don't know any enterprising computer geeks that have distribution rights to major label recordings.

Even if it was legal, that extra $5 for each disc would add up pretty quick. A new 52x CD-R/W drive can now be had for a mere $34 (including shipping), and the discs themselves cost 30 cents or less apiece (free if you happen upon a mail-in rebate).

Originall posted by Priceguy
Guys, if you really want to debate the word "retard" any further, please open another thread. If anyone wants to say anything else about buymusic.com, please post in this one.

Nice try, but it's looking like a lost cause. :D

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by OpalCat
...because those aren't actual qualities? "Retarded" has an actual legitimate definition, you know... It isn't a word that was created as a slur. My mind boggles that you can't see the difference here.My mind boggles that you parachute into the thread to defend the use of the word "retard," then somehow think that pointing out that "retarded" can be a legitmate reference for the mentally retarded somehow supports your position. Um, OK. Really, your dancing in this thread has been quite amusing, actually. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that you understand this is an offensive term, but you just don't care?As to why I don't use the word... dunno. Maybe it's a regional thing. I've always used "idiot" "moron" etc. and so do most of the people I've been around, and was around when growing up. I guess unlike you I don't consciously plan out every word that comes out of my mouth and ponder all the synonyms that I could use... Right, that's what I do. That's what I've been arguing for all along. :rolleyes:

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Waverly
beagledave, do you really see a difference between "having a slower mental development than other people of the same age" and "a person of sub-normal intelligence" other than the latter usage is a noun? I know I see that this is not a definition for "retard," which is what beagledave requested you provide a cite for. Keep trying, bub...

[Waverly]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
I know I see that this is not a definition for "retard," which is what beagledave requested you provide a cite for. Keep trying, bub... :dubious:
There have been several provided (albeit not all nouns, though it is still easy enough to draw meaning,) including one from an old fashioned paper dictionary. Ask your mom, maybe she has one. Your family may refer to it as 'the thingie that props up the wobbly leg of the coffee table.'

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by neutron star
This would be illegal, wouldn't it? I don't know any enterprising computer geeks that have distribution rights to major label recordings.
I believe it could be done legally, thanks to the AHRA (http://virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm), as long as:

1) You only used AHRA-sanctioned devices (stereo component CD burners) and media ("music CD-R").

2) You had a legitimate copy of every song you wanted to distribute.

3) And the kicker... you didn't make a profit from it. The AHRA only exempts noncommercial copying from prosecution.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Waverly
:dubious:
There have been several provided (albeit not all nouns, though it is still easy enough to draw meaning,) including one from an old fashioned paper dictionary. Ask your mom, maybe she has one. Your family may refer to it as 'the thingie that props up the wobbly leg of the coffee table.' My mom uses the Sears catalog, thank you. And, just for the record, "retard," the noun, is inherently offensive when it is in that form. It is the very word you defined (as a noun, sparky) in trying unsuccessfully to show that the word had a simple, unloaded meaning, a definition for which you can apparently find no support. Pointing out that the phrase "mentally retarded" and the verb "retard" are probably the origin(s) of the offensive slang noun, "retard," is neither a great revelation nor support for your assertion, which was:The meaning of retard is "a person of sub-normal intelligence."The word "homosexual" is not the same as the word "homo," and the fact that the latter has its origins in the former does not change that fact. This sinking in, bub? If you say that "Jap" simply means a person of Japanese origin, and someone asks you to find a cite that doesn't categorize the word as offensive, citing "Japanese" or "Japan" won't do the trick. Pointing out that "Japanese" is another form of the word is not relevant. If you use the word "Jew" as a verb, providing the definition of the word when used as a noun will not even slightly change the fact that when used a verb, it is a disgraceful slur.

So, either retract your baseless contention, or provide a cite for the word in question, in the form you used it, as beagledave requested (without it being categorized as outdated or offensive). Come on, you can do it.

[black rabbit]

Uhhh... buymusic.com. Right.

If you're at all fond of underground/indie/classical stuff, check out http://www.emusic.com. It's 15 bucks/month for unlimited downloads, and you get real live non-DRM VBR MP3s. It ain't oggs, but it's something.

I haven't tried the iTMS, as I don't have a Mac, but eMusic is the closest thing to free-n-legal p2p that I've been able to find. You won't find complete catalogs or the most up-to-date stuff, but I'm more of a nugget-hunter than a slave to release dates.

[Waverly]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
And, just for the record, "retard," the noun, is inherently offensive when it is in that form. Please consider this message formal notification of my request to be added to the distribution for future revisions of Bob’s Inherently Offensive Words List.

I defer to Bob’s morally superior extra sensory subjective knowledge of what is, and is not offensive in this, any, and all matters. Amen.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by beagledave
The Windows version of ITunes..managed by fags.

If someone started a thread with that title..it would be OK?

1) We're not talking about 'FAGS' (the sexual orientation of the people) ..just a general swipe at buymusic.com

2) "Fags" does have a "legitimate" usage (bundle of sticks..smokes..)

So would you be ok with that usage?


*sigh*
The usage here is calling someone stupid.
The word basically means stupid.
Thus the word actually applies--the person is implying that the person is stupid. True, they probably aren't actually, literally stupid, but would you be offended if they'd said stupid or idiot?

If you were using 'fag' would you really be saying that the person is a bundle of sticks? The word doesn't apply. It would be meaningless in that context.

Again: I don't actually use the word. I never got into the habit, and I also figure that touchy people would spaz on it, so I just use other words instead. However, I don't get offended when other people use it.

Deal.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by beagledave
Good Idea (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=retard).

re·tard2 Audio pronunciation of retard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rtärd)
n. Offensive Slang

1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.

dis·par·age ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sprj)
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry.
To reduce in esteem or rank.

Well duh, you're insulting someone! Calling them "stupid" would be the same. :rolleyes"

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
My mind boggles that you parachute into the thread to defend the use of the word "retard," then somehow think that pointing out that "retarded" can be a legitmate reference for the mentally retarded somehow supports your position. Um, OK. Really, your dancing in this thread has been quite amusing, actually. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that you understand this is an offensive term, but you just don't care? [/B]

Uh...no? Calling someone "stupid" is offensive. Calling someone a "bitch" is offensive. Lots of things are offensive, and they're meant to be since you're insulting the person!

As for "parachuting into the thread" I was simply providing an example that the comment that *everyone* who had a mentally disabled loved one would think the word was offensive was inaccurate. It was you guys who decided to make a huge big debate out of it.

[Coldfire]

All right, I suppose that's enough of that. Seeing as no one is talking about the subject anymore, let's just close this puppy down.

And OpalCat: is is possible to quote multiple people in one single reply. Thanks.