People still use this crap? Get real.

Oh, look its Itard7 again, posting about stuff he has never used nor has a clue about.

Thanks for the thrilling discussion that we know you are "capable" of

Crap? Like iTunes & Apple? A proprietary format that is very hard to batch convert to regular MP3 and only plays on iPods and QuickTime?

You sir are the sucker. I have 11,000 songs on my iPod, all MP3, all loaded with SharePod. I only had to sync my iPod to iTunes once when I got it.

I can plug my iPod into anyone's computer, run SharePod right from the player, and upload as many songs as I want to anybody. Oh yes, I can also take whatever I like as well with a tiny stand alone program.

That is called freedom.

Or you could buy non DRM MP3's from Amazon.com and a dozen other places that you could put on any or all your devices, burn to a disc and keep forever.

Why people pay for proprietary music formats that only work on one player is beyond me.

It would make even more sense to buy the source CD and have a higher quality source that can be played as well as ripped for use in a convenient lo-fi device.

But the industry issue is not the cost nor where you can buy it - it is the fact that the teen-aged and early 20's market feels music should be free.

Or you could read the article, and you would see that the 10 free songs are DRM-FREE so at the cost of .99 for 10 songs you hit 9.99 - so for about $5 a month you can listen to whatever you want until your heart's content.

There are some stipulations as not all the songs are available but still $5 a month to listen to whatever, isn't a bad deal plus it can be shared on up to 3 pcs so if you got three friends, you cut it down to about $1.50 for all you can eat.

Sacrilege!!!! You spoke out against the almighty M$!!! Burn the heretic!!!! [smiles]

Yes, and regular MP3 can be shared with everybody on the planet if I choose to do so. Just like I do with my store bought CD's.

Lending a CD to one person or 1000 isn't illegal, but transferring a single MP3 from one device to anothere is? The RIAA and the entire music industry can **** off and suck my balls.

I'll do whatever I want with my music, bought, ripped or downloaded.

For comparison, what was the cost of subscription prior to the "10 free tracks" offer?

Anyone? We could get an idea how "free" these tracks actually are then.

Of course you are paying for them.
This is just another case of symbolism over substance.

Nice to see you put some facts backed up by evidence in your post there.

He asked for evidence.

Give it.

The price of the Zune subscription has always been $14.99. I have had it for about 8 months now with no complaints.

You are obviously oblivious to basic managerial business principles.

So, what are their internal costs for material? And their infrastructure overhead in terms of their fixed and variable costs?

Have you got them? Do they publish them? No? Duh!

But a basic course in managerial accounting would posit that of course such expenses are covered! The failure to do so would be negligent!

And the subscription cost does not provide any indication of this - except to say that they are not(or at least should not be!)operating in the red!

At least I understand this!

Obviously you don't.

Perhaps I worded that wrong.

As I intended it, I was only attempting to find if the end-user would be paying more. In other words, had the subscription fees gone up as well.

Apparently they have not, which answers my question and to the end user, they 10 new tracks would, in fact, be free. (Based solely on the fact that they are not paying more for them)

Sorry if the way it was worded left to much room for interpretation.

Good deal, then.

Thanks for the answer. I knew someone here had to be a subscriber.

"Perhaps I worded that wrong."

New here? :D

You are talking to TexasFox who will put anything in your mouth to play mighty knight of wisdom...

OK.

I wonder just how they are flagging the DRM-free tunes.

And I am guessing that you have a choice of their entire catalog(?)...or are their artists who have perhaps contractually restricted their material from DRM-free distribution (bands such as Metallica come to mind, much like Disney refuses to distribute their movies without DRM).

In all, I wonder what, if any, restrictions there might be...

For those who have actively tried this service as currently configured, any hints or experiences?

Give evidence

He asked for it. You did not give it.
He asked for evidence of the previous pricing plan.

That's nice and simple to find.

Instead you rant on and on about something that doesn't answer what he wanted to know.

I agree that it obviously costs Microsoft money and they are passing it on to the consumer.

You didn't bother doing what he said though, did you.
I called you out on it.

...And being treated to comments from the nitwit for whom no problem is too small or large to blame solely on the US.

Learned anything about that "experimental" massively parallel marketplace yet? LOL!

Just wait, he will find a way to blame the plight of the Roma on the US yet!

They are paying for it.

What part of that have you missed. The subscription fee is $14.99 a month.

Free - that means they do not have to pay. Get it? So what exactly is free? Or are we still going to fast for you?

EDIT: Actually its 90% of the tracks offered are DRM FREE

http://www.zunerama.com/...s-keep-it-forever-model/

There currently is a free trial for the Zune Pass to try out for 14 days.

I believe about 85% of the songs offered through Zune is DRM-FREE, I believe they are encoded at 320 Kbps (I know some are, just not sure how much of the catalog is)

I'll have to check when I am home if no one else knows the answer.

"For comparison, what was the cost of subscription prior to the "10 free tracks" offer?
Anyone? We could get an idea how "free" these tracks actually are then."

You didn't answer this. You can clearly see he knows (as well as I know - as I stated above) that it's not free, he asked for the previous subscription cost.
You didn't give this, instead you pointed out the tracks aren't free, as he already knew.

What was the cost of the previous subscription? Or is that too hard?

So you answered your own question nitwit! They are NOT free. You have to subscribe and PAY for the privilege of downloading 'free' content!

Only someone from Europe could think that free costs money!

You know...'free' healthcare...and to think, you have no taxes! LOL! It's FREE!!! LOL!

FREE means you do not have to pay for them. Sit down and go real slow...

The only thing that is 'free' here, is the absence of DRM on several songs that cost money!

I know! They can make this an even better deal!
One tune costs $14.99 and the rest are FREE!
LOL!

"So you answered your own question nitwit!" What question?

What was the cost of the previous subscription? Or is that too hard?

They are the only two questions I have asked.
The first one wasn't my question. The latter one you successfully answered for me by not answering the former yet again.

Well done for thinking I have asked any questions other than those.

"They are NOT free." Didn't asked whether or not they were free. Not the question at hand.

Better yet, dimwit, the subscription costs $14.99 per month, but ALL of the songs are FREE!

Leave it to the Euros to redefine the meaning of "FREE"! You pay a price and the service is FREE! ROFLMAO!

You must have quite a collection of bridges and beachfront property on Mars! You only had to pay $14.99, and they were FREE!

LOL!

You didn't leave it open to interpretation, it's just Foxfyre isn't 'fyreing' properly today.

It seems he's lost the ability to read.

$14.99 since day one.

Sucker.

Let's see how many more times you can avoid the question and make yourself look like the fool you are.

And this is just another case of foxfyre not being able to read.

No kidding. Im waiting for his answer.

NONE of the songs are free, dimwit! But some of them simply do not have DRM!

Gee, and you could go to Amazon where ALL of the songs are "free"! After you pay!

And there we have it

10 songs = 9.99 - month
4.99 = rent as much music as you like until you cancel the subscription

The previous offering of Zune Pass did not give you any music you could keep, so for people who had it already to them its free, for new subscribers it would be the equivalent of purchasing 10 songs from itunes or amazon and then getting a subscription for 4.99...

Sorry ferret. They are ALL free. AFTER you pay!
Feel better now?

LOL!

Just like your healthcare - you know - FREE.

How are those taxes? Sure seems silly to pay so much for nothing when the services are FREE!

7 threads with no answer. That's a record!

Moron.

You pay for all of the downloads.
$14.99 a month.

If you want to think they are free, be my guest, nitwit!

Boy, are you a target for modern marketing, and you have bought this one hook line and sinker.

Your subscription is "FREE", AFTER you pay $14.99 a month.

Well, gotta run, its time for me to go out to eat a wonderful "free" meal after I pay admission to the restaurant.

Gotta love that "free" stuff! LOL!

What was the cost of the previoussubscription? Or is that too hard?

*Shouts louder*

WHAT WAS THE PRICE OF THE PREVIOUS SUBSCRIPTION?

The previous subscriptions, what price was it?
The previous subscription had a price, what was it?

The price of the previous subscription was what?

Hopefully you'll understand one of those questions.
Just in case you try to answer them all, they're all the same question.
None of them ask whether or not it's free.

Do not say free in your next answer or you're clearly an idiot and haven't grasped the simplest of questions.

Maybe you can't answer it, and I'm fine with that. Just say so, so you stop looking like a fool and show you're not just talking to yourself like you're the centre of the universe.

It's kind of humorous actually... After reading all of it, only to find he's stuck on his original rant.

Think before you speak.. does not ring any bells here?

EDIT: that question is directed at him not you dvferret.

Go back and read dimwit!

"Just how free" are the 'free' tracks...

NONE of the content is free! Although, if it makes you feel better, you can define any or all of it free if you like.

But then you confuse DRM-FREE with a FREE price.

And the cost of the subscription includes 10 "free" downloads of DRM-free music. Note the words "cost of the subscription".

Such a complex concept for you.

In the illustrious words of Burt Reynolds, "does F O mean anything to ya?"

Trial period aside, NONE of the material is FREE. Show us what songs you get without paying? Name just one. So, "just how free are they"? They aren't.

Amortize the cost however your feeble mind permits. None of it is free. You pay for it all. You don't pay, you get nothing.

But ignorance is indeed bliss, as you delude yourself into thinking any of the content is Free of cost.

It was, and still is $14.99 a month. Deal with it. Nothing is free. Changing the product mix does not make any of the product free, despite whatever you may feel.

"Just how free are they"?: $14.99 a month!

that seems a tad un-called for. It was an honest question.

Although, looking at the posts below, it seems I should have stuck to lurking.

Not to draw fire...

For the record, I did encapsulate "free" within quotes.

I am not a complete idiot. I do know that when you pay for a service, that cost is what supports those services.

Hmmm...

Okay, look at it this way:

Past plan:
$14.99, DRM encoded tracks.

New plan:
$14.99, DRM encoded tracks.
$0.00, 10 DRM free tracks.

Obviously, they must still be making money, and those tracks are paid for. but to the end user, they are getting more for the additional cost of nothing.

I think that is the point that the other is trying to get across.

I hope that helps. I did not intend to start a war over the meaning of "free".

"Go back and read dimwit!"

HAHAHAHAHA. Nice.

You can't read at all, can you.

I'll quote it at you again:

"For comparison, what was the cost of subscription prior to the "10 free tracks" offer?
Anyone? We could get an idea how "free" these tracks actually are then."

He has used quotes on the word free. He knows, as I know, it isn't free.

He wanted to know how much the subscription cost before now.

He knows the tracks aren't free, he knows it's a market gimmick.

I'll tell you what. I'll answer the question for you, and maybe you can go back and look through the comments and work out where you went wrong.

$14.99

It's not changed.

This doesn't mean the tracks are any more 'free' than they were before. I know this, the original poster knows this. Yet you can't answer the real question because you can't comprehend what simple questions (with no ulterior underlying question) mean.

He asked what the previous subscription cost was, and you went on a wild rant about it not being free (which, obviously, it isn't).

$14.99 was all you needed to say.
Perhaps even "I don't know", but there would have been little point in replying that.

Replying "The tracks are not free" is completely pointless.

Heh. It's like this every article.

One of us makes a stupid comment, we argue it out, Foxfyre thinks he's won (and on the odd occasion he does - and I'm willing to admit this).
On this occasion he hasn't and he's having a hissy-fit because he can't admit he's wrong to be ranting on about something unrelated.

Don't worry.

I have also had it for a couple of months... Im very happy with it, and I really like the zune software also

Foxfire,

It is an American myth that Europeans pay more taxes because of the benefits.

In Holland I paid less taxes (also percentagewise) than I pay here in New York.

Only American residents who are married pay less taxes than most Europeans do. Single American residents pay more taxes, at least more than many Dutch residents do. As I am gay, I am doomed to pay more taxes in the rest of my life.

No, it was the tone you asked it, however it seems it was different below, but I didnt read those posts till after I posted. :P

I felt just fine before. :)

Poor baby,
My statement was that they were not "free".
Regardless of what some amorphous and spurious marketing blurb "promis(ing) "free" MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers"! You see, MS also literally defined the meaning of "free" by their use of the term!

The company is compensated. And the subscriber pays for them! MS does not make ANY of them available without one PAYING for the subscription. And your trying to redefine the meaning of the word "free" to some amortized cost of the download is superfluous relative to MS' EXPRESS marketing claim! Duh!

To arbitrarily designate part of a package that is only available AFTER payment in full as "free" is meaningless. You pay for a box of Cheerios, and 10 Cheerios are "free". Meaningless. You buy a house, and one room is "Free". As they are not selling them 'per unit' and individual titles are not available independently of the package - the individual cost is meaningless. Or to put it another way, the unit price varies depending upon how many tunes you listen to. Again, the term "free" is meaningless.

"Just how free are they?" They aren't, not before, not now. You must pay before you receive anything. How much or little you use doesn't matter.

The service is not free and the company is compensated. Therefore the tunes are NOT FREE.

In any manner.

And any reference to their being free are spurious. They are not free,
A fact that everyone here now agrees to.
That was the scope to which I responded and that is exactly what I meant.

Poor Skinner repeatedly tries to do this. And more often then not he IS wrong.

Too bad Skinner, the tunes are in no manner "free", regardless of what semantic gymnastics you attempt to employ.

And any characterization of their being such exists only in your feeble imagination. The term "free" is meaningless in a subscription model.

And I don't care what they may have intended by the poster. The article was very plain regarding the MS assertion of the "promise of "free" MP3s". I responded relative to the MS claim stated in the article and the economic reality of the situation rather than to some perceived marketing hype or semantical query.

But I find it hilarious that you feel I must morph to 'your' interpretation despite my meaning being very clearly defined and delineated from the beginning - as well as by the article which clearly states the "promise of "free" MP3s".

Perhaps you might want to go back and read the article and the claims made therein!

But congrats on continuing your grand tradition of trying to redefine MY point. Regardless of what someone else posts. And after all of this, you posit my point as correct and then glibly attempt to dismiss it. That was my point from the beginning, and its amazing it took so long for you to admit to its obvious validity.

So much ranting and raving to dispute a simple assertion that you yourself finally posit as correct.

You indeed continue the tradition of attempting to argue what was a simple valid point.

I simply have fun giving you a hard time regarding your inability to acknowledge exactly that you finally say is obvious!

And it doesn't depend on what the other poster 'meant'! The article itself refers to the assertion of "the promise of "free" MP3s" by MS.

So, to reiterate, there ARE no "free" tracks. MS' claims are spurious. 'How' free are they? There are no "free" tracks. 'How' stupid are you? LOL! Apparently the depths of your stupidity are limitless.

There are NO

Sorry if you are trying to make more of the FACT

it really is!

lol

Actually MS does offer free tracks.

Maybe you should check out the marketplace before you go on a rampage. I was on it the other day and noticed a free song or two.

Oh you didnt start the war. Foxy loves to argue.

Now only if foxy could understand what you just said.

Read the claims regarding "free" made by MS in the article.

I don't care what sample tracks they make available...nor a trial period available without paying. That is not that which MS nor what I was referring!

That is outside the scope of the MS claim made above that a Zune Pass subscription affords you "free" downloads.

And obviously their claim is too complex for you to grasp as well.

Oh.

Go back and try actually reading the claim asserted in the article by MS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...8personal_income_tax.29

It still appears that nearly all other European countries have higher taxes.

Apparently its too hard for you too grasp considering you have to edit all of your posts.

Yup, the original claim where MS asserts "the promise of "free" MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers".

Yup, I read the article, and I remarked based upon the ARTICLE'S content! Its a shame that the simple statement in the article is so complex to you as well as skinner and the ferret.

LOL!

What? Your the one making it difficult.
*tsk*

Not at all, I go back and edit the typos.

At least I am able to recognize them once I see the post in its entirety.

Compare that to your and skinner's inability to read "the promise of "free" MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers" for meaning!

I'm just having fun.

Try querying the meaning of "the dozens", as I am sure that being culturally deprived you have no clue as to its meaning.

You and skinner are the ones who can't fathom the meaning of MS's "promise of "free" MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers".

Your manner of encapsulation doesn't matter at all.

The article itself clearly esablishes the precedent for the meaning of an 'encapsuulated 'free'' when it states stated MS's "promise of "free" MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers"

"Free" was already erroneously established by precedent by MS's use of the term IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

The use of the term "free" is already specified in the article, nitwit!

Go back and try actually reading the article, you ferret.

Neat.

So it seems that most material, unless the owners have specifically designated otherwise (like Disney and Metallica(?) who have historically opposed this), might be offered DRM free.

A nice trend.

The article was quite clear in defining the use of the term in MS "promise of "free' MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers".

I read the article's statement referring to MS's "promise of [i]"free"[i/] MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers" just fine.

What is obvious is that you didn't.

Just like the ferret's inability to read the article's reference to MS' "promise of "free" MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers", he posts and then goes back and occasionally actually tries to pick out the big words using his big letter addition of "hooked on phonics".

He really is illiterate...and a jerk.

A textbook example of "ignorance as bliss".

Now wipe the drool from you moronic grin.

"He really is illiterate...and a jerk."

The pot calling the kettle black?

And your lack of ability to read a simple ****ing question.

We weren't talking about your quote from the article, which only now do you bother to quote.
That quote was not brought up.
It was an entirely different issue we were talking about.

Whether or not the MP3s were free: not at issue. Everyone knows they're not free.

What was the price of the previous subscritipion, though, was the question.

However, it seems you managed to blindly stumble through your irrelevant argument even though no one cared.

Strangely, it's you who can't fathom that no one in this thread cares about that sentence.

We all know they're not free.

Someone right at the top had a question. You didn't even get close to answering it properly.

I'm satisfied that you are, in fact, too blindly self-righteous to see that you're in the wrong here (though your statements aren't wrong, they are not about the case in point).

He wasn't debating that.
I wasn't debating that.
dvferret wasn't debating that.

Only you are debating that.

Find me the point at which I said the tracks are free.

Nope nitwit! I responded to the use of the term as defined in the ARTICLE.

You fools are trying to dynamically redefine the term as you go along to rationalize your divergent interpretation.

And I don't give a F#$% about your errant interpretation of the term.

Figure it out: I don't care how you pervert the term except to say that I was not responding to your hallucination.

I was responding to the term as employed by precedent in the article.

But then referring to the actual article simply confuses you, doesn't it? LOL!

The irony is that I can state this 100 more times, and you still are too stupid to understand this. Just as you are too stupid to refer to the use of the 'encapsulated term' AS ESTABLISHED BY PRECEDENCE IN THE ARTICLE!

"Everyone knows they're not free."

Well then, nitwit, tell us, just how "free" are the "not free" MP3s?

Sometimes, words mean things. ...Except of course in your convoluted fantasy land where you dynamically attempt to redefine the term to suit your own hallucination.

Only you would stand by and assert the validity of such a ridiculous statement! But it certainly isn't the first time!

So, if everyone knows they are not free, it doesn't make much sense to ask just how "free" they are. Well, to all but you and the rodent.

And the 'argument' you refer to is the "dozens" Look it up genius.

It hilarious to bang on your cage and watch you run about bouncing off the walls of your little cell designated for those who debate how free something is that everyone knows is not free, with each tap of a response!

But continue to attempt to determine how "free" is something that "everyone knows is not "free"". Its hilarious, And so easy to tap on your cage and watch you run about. Its simply a perversely fun distraction for me. Watching your illogic is simply hilarious.

ROFLMAO!

The archtype speaks.

Yeah, but how "black", despite everyone knowing that the kettle is "black"?

LOL!

Okay.

I didn't come here for an argument over the definition free. I thought I had stated that pretty clearly.

I asked (what I thought) was a pretty simple, straightforward question. Which dvferret answered quite nicely.

I'll leave it at that, and let you guys argue, as you seem wont to do, about meaningless drivel.

In the future, if I ever make the mistake of asking another question here, please try and remember that I only want a simple answer, not a discussion of the meaning of certain words I may have used. If such a response is impossible for you, please do not bother responding.

I have better things to do with my time than make such a big deal over absolutely nothing.

I give up. It's pointless talking to you.

Ever hear of proofreading?

Gee what a coincidence, edited yet again.

Are you calling me a rodent? You POS! :P

lol.

I was only bringing up a point.

I dont see why you whine so much about an added gift for zune pass subscribers.

Sorry. Not here to play games.

I have actual games for that.

Argue with the rest of your boys, you all seem to enjoy it so much.

Dude, calm down.

No, it wasn't. The article never stated the cost of the tracks or the subscription.

Hence why I asked.

I am not debating definitions with you. That was never my intention, nor is it at all related to my initial question.

Sorry if that means you have to go find one of your other "dozen" to argue with.

Then the way to "not play" is not to respond...or is that a bit too complex?

And that is exactly why many of us are here -is to play - some offering a few ideas, and still more do not. Its a great quick diversion and break from the more pressing issues at hand.

You used a direct reference from the article where MS "promised "free" MP3s for Zune Pass subscribers".

You don't get to redefine the already established precedence by claiming to have "encapsulated" what was already "encapsulated"!

You dance with who brought you, and in this case the quote is precedence.

You must have been the one person who actually understood the "It depends what the meaning of "is" is" quote! LOL!

Just "how "free" are they?" $14.95 a month free.

You simply have the option of making 10 of your "free" $14.95 a month MP3s DRM free.

Sorry, I somewhat overestimated your abilities, and intelligence...as a rodent is a mammal... ;-)

Yup, as as I am currently using IE (aaaaargh!) without spell check, I edit just about everything as the 10 line preview is a bit restrictive.

And have you looked up "the dozens" yet???????

To the degree that you try to reframe what I said, just as the other person tried to reframe what the article said, your point is a a waste of time just as are your efforts.

But if you wish to determine "how "free"" is product sourced for $14.95 a month - have fun.

I guess you can amortize the price of the $1495 divided by the total number of titles in their database; or you could calculate the average download time requred per month to access them and divide that into $14.95; or you can figure that no downloads per month STILL costs $14.95.

Take your pick genius.

But after you do that, it STILL costs you $14.95 per month.

SO many choices! Confusing isn't it? LOL!

$14.95 a month whether you download all of their database or if you download nothing.

$14.95

NOTHING is free.

Some things are just TOO simple for you erudite scholars who seek such meaning of he universe.

The irony is that anyone gives a sh!t about #$@% MP3s at all! THAT, along with your intense concern - where the various computational options have already been presented - is the real joke here.

And its fun to just keep you running about as you try to figure out "just how "free"" is $14.95 a month!

LOL!

Everyone else understood me. Seems the only one with issues here is you.

Well, I guess this settles the DRM issue once and for all! LOL!

This is very cool. As people will speed 15 to basically have access to all music they want. This is just a bonus to keep your favorites. 10 a month is pretty much a CD today. While the people above can play with the words about "free" they are just starting fights. Fact is, Apple isn't do this. And if you are going to spend money on music, this now is an amazing deal. So much, that I have to re-think keeping XM. At this price, I do put all my music on the zune, podcast, and monthly start my collection of CD or songs I want to keep for what ever reason.

Except in some rare instance, this is not an issue of 'platform' at all, as just about all have the ability to accept varying formatted content from a variety of sources.

It would seem to best be viewed as simply the search for the cheapest, highest quality DRM-free source material.

But that doesn't stop the fanboys here from trying to turn this into a platform dependent whine.