Slashdot Mirror


Super MP3 Will Feature User Tracking

An anonymous reader writes "Next generation super MP3 files will support four-channel audio tracks and contain what's dubbed Light Weight Digital Rights Management (LWDRM) code to track it's owner via p2p programs." We've mentioned these multi-channel, DRM-ified MP3s before.

311 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...nobody will use it.

    1. Re:And so... by Leffe · · Score: 1

      True, it's not the RIAA that's ripping the CDs, it's the pirates.

    2. Re:And so... by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, it's not the RIAA that's ripping the CDs, it's the pirates.

      but that's not the point, the RIAA wants to distribute digital audio securely over the internet. The originals will be in this Super-MP3 format instead of on CDs.

    3. Re:And so... by Der+Krazy+Kraut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what will prevent pirates from converting their Super-MP3s to another multi-channel format without DRM?

    4. Re:And so... by Leffe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Windows Longhorn :-)

    5. Re:And so... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      i back up my audio to mp3.
      this does not make me a pirate.
      i download mp3s of audio i have on vinyl and am too lazy to rip backups.
      this does not make me a pirate.
      I'm sure p2p programs will incorporate filters to separate the wheat from the chaff.
      wherethen cometh all this commotion?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    6. Re:And so... by Obyron · · Score: 1

      geeks in colleges would run IRC servers

      And let's not forget BBSes. Next to the old boards, IRC is a whippersnapper.

      --
      --Obyron
    7. Re:And so... by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      but that's not the point, the RIAA wants to distribute digital audio securely over the internet. The originals will be in this Super-MP3 format instead of on CDs.

      If you want to transfer data securely over the internet, why not use SSL or a VPN of some sort. I don't see what security has to do with the transfer of a song over the internet though....

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    8. Re:And so... by suyashs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They will hardcode future motherboard BIOS-es to load only Certified Operating System. The BIOS will not be upgradable. This will be done under the guise of Homeland Security.

      --
      http://chrono.posterous.com/
    9. Re:And so... by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      actually its the Trusted Computing Group (formerally TCPA), nothing to do with Homeland Security

    10. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the biggest reason it will not be used is exactly why mp3pro is unused.

      if the companies wont upgrade all existing equipment to support it for 100% free then people will not use it.

      I am not going to replace my audiotron, Kenwood car stereo, ipod, and other mp3 enabled devices because of a tiny improvment and added features for some rich asshats.

      Same as DVD replacements coming down the line... they WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. DVD for video will be here a really long time as consumers get royally pissed when some moron engineer decides to change things every 3 months. the consumer wants to buy something and use it for 5 years or so. and they get pissy when their old stuff does not work in the new.

      this new mp3 will not be accepted, ipod's native format will never get as big as mp3 and is only popular because of the ipod.

    11. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At this time it has nothing to do with homeland security. Just let the hue and cry go up about evil terrorists circumventing our cyber security and see how long that stays true.
      Bruce Schneier pointed out "security is not about just security" - there are deep pockets that have an interest in seeing DRM happen. conflating unrelated issues is all in a days work.

    12. Re:And so... by suyashs · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just wait for some senator or attorney general to either 1) Use it for extending the gov.'s powers or 2) Be paid by Microsoft to create FUD in congress about how vulnerable we are without it...

      --
      http://chrono.posterous.com/
    13. Re:And so... by Der+Krazy+Kraut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't look like some kind of authentication which can only be acquired using some special Windows Longhorn feature is needed to decode the Super-MP3s. How will Longhorn prevent simple file conversion tools from running?

    14. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, dumb users will use anything the industy can afford to spend a billion dollars to make them use.

      The only hope is if the consumer electronics **industry** rebels against the RIAA MPAA - no one cares about music lovers ... The MPAA and RIAA (with helpfulness from MSoft) want to take control of consumers, yes this is true (see http://www.2600.com/news/0130-flyer/flyer.html). And most governments are in favor of reducing comsumer choice and giving more power to large corporations: the US courts and administration notoriously favor industry over consumers - which is strange for such a liberty loveing individualist country until you remember that these corps. have the status of "legal individuals" ... individuals with rights to their property and several billion$ to pursue court cases when needed!

      Consumers don't have that power ... real flesh and blood indivduals count for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Corporations will always win. Our best bet is to set corporations to feuding and fighting amongst themselves. We need to find allies in other industries and countries. So:

      1) Work to sew contempt and spread distrust between consumer electronics firms and owners of content (of course many have merged - e.g. Sony but many smaller manufacturers have not). Always ask at electronics stores if the equipment is compatible, tell horror stories. If you and your friends are buying gear get them to ask them same questions.

      2) Try to turn music distributors against the RIAA Always ask at the cash if your DVD can be played on your laptop on the plane or if CD tracks can be put transformed and use on your iPod - if they don't know or say no then say: "Oh, hmm damn I like browsing your shelves with the airconditiong and all but these [DVD's||CD's] are so inconvenient". When in a music store add loudly: "Actually on second thought I won't purchase the CD from your store I will look for it at Apple or another online service. Cool to see this place is still going strong!! We used to come here all the time back music stores were the best place to get music. Anyway, sorry these new fangled CD's are way less convenient than the online services". Then toss the pile (of say 5 CD's This works best in a loud voice with a large line behind you - and if you have a friend who will do almost the same thing 2-3 hours later. 10-15 people doing this can make music stores shudder!! One store in our town even put up a sign saying: "Our CDs are not copy protected". They left it up for almost a week.

      3). Always return CD's that don't allow playing on your equipment.

      4). China is a horrific communist regime but thankfully they don't respect IPR laws. Encourage the Chinese consumer electronics industry that does not cooperate with US content makers. If .cn makers of equipment can make a buck selling gear that doesn't build in all the DRM features they will keep doing it. The US will be forced to ban the imports in a big visible way, it will bug people, it will become an issue.

      5). If buying a computer always ask at the store if it runs Linux. If they haven't and they won't let you test a knoppix disk and watch the boot up messages. Leave the knoppix disk in the store (in a small paper CD case with the URL to the site on it) and say: "you guys should test your systems for linux, I am (or my brother my girlfriend is) a computer science major and the machine *HAS* to dula boot and run linux. It's 2004! this is crazy!" (unlike the record store don't be loud though say it sort of sympathetic in a confused voice ... as if you were in a restaurant reading a menu and they only sold porridge). If they say they have a policy against linux or something say: "wow it must be hard for you guys". If they then make a smart ass comment like: "no, everyone buys windows". Just chuckle softly and say "everyone?" ... then walk out or phone a friend on your cell and say: "No don't meet me here actually, they say

    15. Re:And so... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you are kidding yourself.

      step 1) only sell new DVD players (they support the old format so no big deal)
      step 2) start selling HD disks 3 weeks before SD disks.
      step 3) reduce the features on the SD disks gradually until there are no features left but maintain the price.
      step 4) when the market gets to 65% penetration of new players (about 3 -5 years from launch) dump SD disks totally.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    16. Re:And so... by igny · · Score: 1

      Why not? I'd feel proud that a copy made by me is so widely distributed! Imagine the recognition and appreciation...

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    17. Re:And so... by ZeusAndHades · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a valid point. The main purpose of this format seems to be DRM. When you try to sell DRM to the infringing users, they wont buy it. Considering most of the traffic on Kazaa is infringing, what files will be predominantly available?

      --
      -=Zeus=And=Hades=-
    18. Re:And so... by MBCook · · Score: 1
      Insightful? Over DRM on audio files making us safer?

      "Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that unless we have encryption on the lastest Christina Agulara singles, the terrorists will EAT US ALIVE."

      Come on, get serious.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    19. Re:And so... by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      Ripping CDs is fair-use as long as you own the respective CD.(atleast for now anyway)

    20. Re:And so... by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That requires people to buy new items. DVD players came out what 6 years ago, and only in the past year or so has market pentration been high enough to finally displace VCR's. Consumers are only now starting to convert over. If you make them do it again, it will fail miserably. Most want to keep their electronics because they are supposed to be an investment.

      How many people buy new alarm clocks just because a new feature is added?
      How many people have bought HDTV even though you have been able to for years
      How many people have just starting to put together home theater systems??

      90% of america makes less than 100,000 a year. By the time you add up cars, house, kids there just isn't much left for electronics.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:And so... by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

      But it only takes one person to recode it, and i'm pretty sure that other OSes won't be outlawed anytime soon.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
    22. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you're in a dream world...

      if you think that any org can control the gigantic China manufacturing machine that makes all the big companies look like tiny corner stores, then you live on a different planet than me.

      VCD, a format that has been here for years but ignored in the USA until the influx of Cheap china DVD players... Now VCD is taking off in the USA as the format for home users. (a SVCD looks great and costs $0.03 US compared to the cheapest DVD-R at $1.80 plus has a LOWER compatability in set top players than the VCD and SVCD.)

      China will pump out the dirt cheap players (that play as good as a $5000.00 denon) and ignore the silly games that are being played by other companies.

      The biggest company on this planet is no match for the china clones...that is why mp3 is a standard that will not go away any time soon, and why DVD will certianly not go away any time soon.

      as long as you can buy something that play's the old format, it will be alive.

      HELL, up until 2 years ago you could still buy LASERDISC discs of recent films. and they haven't made players cince 1996! Almost 10 years after the last player of a not very common or popular video playback format was called obsolete they were still making media for. DVD's will be pressed in their current form well into this century. And I dont see companies stop making and selling VHS machines or tapes.. a technology that has been called "dead" for over 15 years now.

      the market will NEVER get greater than 65% penetration because there are thankfully, companies that wont play by the rules that someone else makes up.

      that's also the reason that HDTV has such dismal penetration... The set's are so overpriced it's stupid, and there is so little reason for people to switch to it... they simply are not. It will take a LOT of justification to replace a $29.00 DVD player with a $1200.00 HD-DVD player. Just like it takes HUGE justification to replace that $499.00 TV with a $2500.00 HDTV (apples to apples in quality, I won't replace my Sony Tv with a Daewoo low end HDTV.. so the SONY HDTV that is like my set is nasty-expensive)

      I am looking at buying a new tv in the next 3 weeks. and HDTV is not even going to be considered as it's too damned expensive for the tiny improvement it is with NO real content to utilize it. (the 4 HD channels on cable and the broadcast channes with almost no HD content are not content. and HBO-in-HD is not impressive at all... a regular DVD is as clear.)

      I can point at gobs of examples... SACD, DVD-Audio.. both also utter failures right now as most people are not that impressed with it to spend the extra $$$ for it... gee why is there only 10 discs for SACD while ther eare 20,000 for CD??? because SACD is a failure.

    23. Re:And so... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it'll start with idot senators talking about a 'digital pearl harbour' happening unless DRM is made mandatory. It's already starting too, if you listen closely.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    24. Re:And so... by Dr+Tall · · Score: 1

      I'm sure p2p programs will incorporate filters to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      Indeed. All we have to fear to fear from this S-MP3 is that we'll miss the checkbox to ignore them.

    25. Re:And so... by sosegumu · · Score: 1

      I like the word 'asshat'--it's funny.

      --
      It's easier to wear the spandex than to do the crunches. --David Lee Roth
    26. Re:And so... by Blastrogath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >How will Longhorn prevent simple file conversion tools from running?

      As far as I know the Super-MP3s don't use longhorn, but if they did:

      If you don't have longhorn the site that sells the songs and all computers that have bought them (and therefore need to have longhorn) will refuse to send you the file. You would be an un-trusted host.

      If you do have longhorn, the file conversion tools are unsighned code. So you can't run them.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    27. Re:And so... by Der+Krazy+Kraut · · Score: 1

      Longhorn will run unsigned software. Otherwise, it would be totally useless.

    28. Re:And so... by DRUNK_BEAR · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but you missed the point. It's not the transfer that they want to secure, it's the sharing they want to eliminate. By keeping track of the origin of a file, well... it's a good way to start a lawsuit against that mp3 sharer.

      And since the RIAA wants to start selling MP3's as well, they don't want everyone to share them. Thus, they want a security that it will not be freely distributed. The new Super-MP3 allows this.

      --
      DrkBr
    29. Re:And so... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      I heard the phone company was going to start charging a tariff on all modem communications, too.

    30. Re:And so... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Errors:

      LD players were still made until 2002:
      http://home.q03.itscom.net/nsa/PioneerLD-S9 .htm

      According to a test of several hundred models at DVDrhelp.com, DVD-R has a 90+% compatibility rate.

      Good DVD blanks can be purchased for under $1 a piece in quanities of 25 or so.

      One CAN get an HD-ready TV now, 27" for a little over $500 - from Samsung and a couple other players, some widescreen 30" HD-ready sets go for under $1000. The difference in even such a "small" set is that it is a progressive scan TV - very much reduced flickering. I find it highly amusing that geeks clutch to an interlaced TV set when I'm sure they probably wouldn't tolerate using interlaced modes on their computer monitors.

      Some of the DVD players with best high-end value are in the $200 to $500 range, particularly those with a Faroudja DCDi deinterlacer and a Matsushita MPEG decoder. There are simply no equivalents that use these parts made by the Chinese names. All it takes is a side-by-side comparison to see the difference. All it takes is comparing any chinese player with any one of the higher rated models in the Secrets DVD shoot-out, many of which street or have streeted in the $200 to $400 range. These sites also have neat pictures of the kind of flaws that DVD players generate, often the cheaper the player, the more of these flaws it has.

      Frankly to say that a $30 player is as good as a $5000 Denon is silly, I can see MPEG decoding flaws in my sister's $50 player on a 15 year old 19" TV with an RF input that don't show up on my Pioneer or Panasonic DVD players on a 27" screen or XGA projector fed with a component video source. That DVD player uses the same ESS decoding MPEG chip as most of the cheap Chinese players.

      Secrets DVD player shoot-out 2004
      Secrets DVD player shoot-out 2002-2003

      Test materials for the benchmarks

    31. Re:And so... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Online gaming? Been around since Doom, yet only caught on around the time of Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament.

      Maybe for you, but my first online game was a P51 Mustang battle flight sim on the TRS80 in 1983. It ran with relatively little lag on a 300 baud modem and supported 2 players. My BBS friends and I would play for hours and hours.

      Online piracy? Been around since geeks in colleges would run IRC servers sharing everything from music to videos to games using simple dial-up modems yet only now we're hearing about it in the mainstream.

      Nah, the BBS was the birthplace of modern warez distribution. The first time I knowingly logged into one was in 1981.

      Most of the people involved weren't college age geeks, either. We were nerds back then. There was no 'chic geek' thing or nerdy IRC girls on Prozac. Except for Sherrod, but she was an IRC chiq before IRC even existed.

    32. Re:And so... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Insightful

      dude, DVD players began displacing VCRs back 3 years ago.

      and if you make the electronics cheap enough, anyone will buy them.

      it is gonna come to a head when the movies are coming out weeks before on the HD disks, just like they did with the DVDs being released about 1 month before VHS.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    33. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Yeah, we keep seeing this four channel thing being used as the huge savior for the music industry's DRM plans, but it always skips the details about how many sound cards can simulate four channels from two already. This is not to mention the even larger issue that even with just two channels, people often leave the speakers sitting right next to each other because they don't want wires running all over the house. It's technically still stereo, it goes to show you how concerned most consumers are about subtleties like quadrophonic sound.

      Furthermore, even if you are concerned about the subtle details, all it takes is some basic adjustments to a system such as using good crossovers and keeping different frequencies on two or three separate amps to achieve a roomful of sound. And speaking of the room, this could be the most important part of all. An MP3 encoded at 56kbps played on a well balanced stereo system in a room with a pyramid shaped ceiling will sound far richer and subtle than a DVD audio played in four channel stereo in a box-shaped room. This four channel ploy is a classic example of a red herring.

    34. Re:And so... by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it may prohibit unsigned software to access a secured partition of the OS, e.g. where the Super MP3 file lies.
      Otherwise the security measure of signing would be nearly useless.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    35. Re:And so... by Bill_Royle · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wasn't an idiot Senator that started the "digital pearl harbor" - it was an idiot at the National Security Council, Richard Clarke.

    36. Re:And so... by Blastrogath · · Score: 2, Funny

      Longhorn will run unsigned software.

      You're right. As has been pointed out by others I should have said that it stops you from running anything but correctly signed code on the Super-MP3 files.

      Otherwise, it would be totally useless.

      You've used microsoft's products before, right?

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    37. Re:And so... by ultranova · · Score: 1
      Frankly to say that a $30 player is as good as a $5000 Denon is silly, I can see MPEG decoding flaws in my sister's $50 player on a 15 year old 19" TV with an RF input that don't show up on my Pioneer or Panasonic DVD players on a 27" screen or XGA projector fed with a component video source. That DVD player uses the same ESS decoding MPEG chip as most of the cheap Chinese players.

      Did you mean that the $50 player uses the same decoding chip as the cheap Chinese players, or that the $5000 player uses the same chip as the Chinese players ? Propably the former, but I can't tell for sure...

      Anyway, for this test to say anything, you'd have to test both players connected to the same equipment. The 15 old television with RF input might very well have a worse picture quality than the 27" screen, even if the two DVD players produce the excat same signal.

      In any case, my father's 199 euro DVD player has never produced any visible artifacts on a pretty big two-year-old Panasonic widescreen TV. Cheapest DVD player we could find easily, but can't be region unlocked :(.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    38. Re:And so... by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I got that. But that has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control. That was my point in posting.

      The last two attempts to secure cd's by the RIAA led everyone to start holding the shift key when inserting cd's and a spurt in the purchase of magic markers by pirates.

      When will they get a clue from the MPAA and stop wasting tons of money on stupid shit? The MPAA is evil incarnate like the RIAA, but they have yet to sue a single downloader and have even dropped Macrovision on a few DVD's because it's too expensive and easily defeated (ALA Harry Potter DVD's).

      I'm sure the MPAA is cookin up new ways, but they all rely on a new format to pick up where DVD as we know it ends. What they need to learn is that there are really two problems with the music industry as it stands:

      1) Price! We know how much it costs to burn a cd, we all have CD burners. There is no reason why the soundtrack to a movie should cost more than the movie on DVD!! I can't stress this enough, the RIAA promised 5 dollar cd's when they first released cd's and never came close to delivering.

      2) Stop releasing crap. No I will not buy Puff Daddy's remix of Kung Fu Fighting! No I will not buy Britney Spears.... Shit I'm tired of the same crap being released over and over and over again....

      To quote a PHB, the RIAA needs to concentrate on it's core synergies inorder to survive piratepalooza. Otherwise they will be made irrelevant by the likes of iTunes and others like that. How long till a daring known artist releases on iTunes only and asks for the same cut Apple gives to the RIAA? Bet they'll make a hell of a lot more than they would from a record company, bet it catches on shortly after the success of the first.

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    39. Re:And so... by holizz · · Score: 1

      DVD Jon has his work cut out for him.

    40. Re:And so... by slipgun · · Score: 1

      yes this is true (see http://www.2600.com/news/0130-flyer/flyer.html)

      Wow, if it's on 2600.com it must be true!

      Personally, I don't think DRM will work for a number of reasons:-
      1) People are stupid, but they aren't that stupid. They will catch on eventually
      2) Chinese companies will completely ignore DRM, since they are not subject to the whims of the RIAA/their representatives in the American government.
      3) There are more, reasons but I've got other things to do now.

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    41. Re:And so... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      I have an idea for watermarking online content that just might work;

      At the time of purchase, the track is watermarked with the credit-card details used to buy it. As long as the original purchaser keeps it to themselves, this should never present a problem.

      Nothing about the watermarking scheme needs to be published, nobody needs to keep track of infringements. Nobody needs to sue anybody.

      If you share your music, you risk sharing your credit card details with the world.

      Sure someone will eventually find a way to 'remove' the watermark. A week later someone else will find a way to recover the risidual watermark, and so on.. if it was YOUR credit card and identity, would YOU risk sharing watermarked music online?

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    42. Re:And so... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

      Depends on your country. It's illegal in Australia. It's also illegal in New Zealand. There is talk of changing that there, but the local record association is doing its damnedest to prevent that from happening.

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    43. Re:And so... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      and that has what to do with consumer electronics?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    44. Re:And so... by justkarl · · Score: 1

      Note to self-DON't trash old mp3 encoders.....

    45. Re:And so... by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Yes. I would simply use a disposable credit card number and/or reverse all charges made illegally to my credit card. Just because someone has my card number doesn't mean they are allowed to make unauthorized purchases.

      Also, I'd expect that most people would find this very idea somewhat disconcerting. If someone happened to steal a CD-R I'd stored some MP3s on (say for bringing the files to work or use in a portable player), or they stole my laptop, now they also have access to my credit card details?

      --
      I do not have a signature
    46. Re:And so... by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      i download mp3s of audio i have on vinyl and am too lazy to rip backups. this does not make me a pirate.

      Not true.
      Sadly, this is illegal. Although I doubt you have anything to worry about.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    47. Re:And so... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Many laws are unjust,immoral or just plain wrong.I am not obliged to follow any of the above and still keep my conscience intact.
      Sadly illegal can't mean wrong anymore because of injust,immoral and wrong laws. Specifically because of their status,they have neutralized their meaning and effectivness socially and are chiefly used as revenues for sustaining "justice" rather than as deterrent or public protection.
      "when the cops(legislators) are the crooks,then everyman has to be a cop(legislator)and obey the law written in his heart "

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    48. Re:And so... by radiophonic · · Score: 1

      Can I get an AMEN?!

      --
      Whenever you read this sig someone's refrigerator light turns on.
    49. Re:And so... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      One thing, DVD-R blank disks run as low as $0.72 after shipping if you buy onilne and in bulk(well quantities of 100 - which I think is the amount that many people buy CD's in so compare same quantities).

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    50. Re:And so... by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      They'd still call you a pirate while fining you up to $150,000 per incident.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    51. Re:And so... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      squeeze blood from a turnip.
      get in line buddy.lol.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong... by haxor.dk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but this seems like a perverted 1984-vision. Whats next, death penalty for P2P sharing ?

    Are there more of our privacies the corp execs want to relieve us of ?!

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am guessing that a law will be passed that will make it illegal to pass around somebody's else email, specifically a corporation's e-mail. IOW, you will not be allowed to forward or mention anything that was sent to you.

      But that it just a guess based on how laws are being created.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by imemyself · · Score: 1

      For christ's sake don't give the RIAA any ideas!

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Well if anything is going to stop DRM its telling some people they can no longer forward every joke, quip, or spiritual they get to distant family through the wonders of email.

    4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but an email is copyrighted by its author, so theoretically it should be illegal to reproduce it. And I guess some people already have contracts which state that any obtained information can not be shared. This actually seems reasonable, considering that an email from Darl to employees can say something like "ok guys, there is really no SCO code in Linux, but lets pretend there is".

    5. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Buy CDs
      Rip to OGG (or MP3 if you must)
      No DRM


      This is what I've been doing with my existing music collection, but the problem is that so much new stuff is coming out on those damn copy-protected CDs. Yes, I know some of them rip without any apparent problems, but I'd really rather not spend money on something I'm so ethically against. And even more lately, I've gotten so disgusted with the RIAA's actions I don't want to give them any of my money, whether or not the CDs are copy-protected. Between those two factors, it's really hard to find any new music to listen to these days.

      There is a little hope, though: cdbaby.com and magnatune.com sell mostly RIAA-free music, riaaradar.com tells you if a CD is RIAA-backed or not, and I've found a lot of foreign music (such as European heavy metal that I like) is not affiliated with the RIAA, and these CDs are easily available on amazon.com.

    6. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      actually according to some of the new US laws you could be killed for sharing music over the net.... you see they concider this and act of "terrorism" because it rips off the american economy

      if you read through all the new laws, acts and bills and put them together you can find out some scarry stuff

      i had found a good site with lots of info on this stuff, but after a format i lost my bookmark :\

    7. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by cyt0plas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Having the death penalty as a maximum punishment might not be such a bad thing.

      1) It would never be enforced
      2) It just _might_ help to show people that our current system is broken, and needs a change.

      --
      Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
    8. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      IANAL but I'm sure things aren't copyrighted unless they specifically say so.
      That is why I dont see how they can sue you for downloading copyrighted music, no visible copyright notice, no case?

    9. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Nope, you're wrong.

      Written works are automatically copyrighted if you put your name on it. You then have unlimited rights, etc, etc, etc.

      The problem lies in proving that you put your name on it before anyone else put their name on it, and that can get hairy.

      Not sure if having your email on the top counts as putting your name on it or not, but having a .sig on the bottom with your name in it would certainly count.

      If you actually file for a copyright on music or anything, you can sue for infringment if someone samples a piece of your copyrighted work or reproduces it for someone else.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    10. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by k31bang · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...but this seems like a perverted 1984-vision. Whats next, death penalty for P2P sharing ?

      Only in Texas :-)

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    11. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by torokun · · Score: 1
      Seriously, guys -- "insightful" MY ASS.

  3. And who will use them? by MikeXpop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, who's going to use these things if they have DRM? The average person doesn't care a whole lot about quality (see how fast wma, vorbis, and AAC have caught on?). Throw DRM of any kind into the mix, and it just won't catch. .MP3 is here to stay for awhile.

    --
    Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    1. Re:And who will use them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The average person doesn't care a whole lot about quality (see how fast wma, vorbis, and AAC have caught on?).

      Maybe that's valid for wma and aac, but Vorbis? Wasn't there an article on /. here a few months ago about how Vorbis had been rated the best-sounding, in a double blind test, for medium and low bitrates? I'm too lazy to do the search but I remember it quite clearly...

      Plus from my own personal experience, I can't tell the difference between a quality 4 Vorbis track (roughly equivalent to a 128k vbr mp3) and the original CD audio. But that's just me...

    2. Re:And who will use them? by snake_dad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      90% of all computer users as soon as it is a default format in Windows Media Player (not saying that that is a likely thing to happen). Windows XP phoning home hasn't stopped it from being widely accepted, now has it?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:And who will use them? by sahonen · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about, Vorbis is the best-sounding lossy format I've heard. I get transparent results at quality level 4, which typically averages out to around 120 kbps, beating MP3 hands down. Even when Vorbis has artifacts, they sound much less distracting than MP3 artifacts.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    4. Re:And who will use them? by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood me. I meant that despite Vorbis' (and WMA's and AAC's) higher quality, it hasn't been widely accepted by the music sharing public.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    5. Re:And who will use them? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not happening. Windows Media files already have a DRM system, a pretty good one (from the control prospective, not from the user perspective) from all accounts. They also already support 5.1, 24-bit sources, and lossless compression. I think it's pretty unlikely MS will be dropping it in favour of some MP3 standard. This goes double since they've made it an open standard and are trying to get it adopted as the HD-DVD and digital theatre standards.

    6. Re:And who will use them? by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 1

      MikeXpop's sig is great. If you haven't bothered to decode it, do so.

      --

      Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
    7. Re:And who will use them? by kauschovar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really, who's going to use these things if they have DRM?

      Of course when they're marketed to Joe User, they're not going to count on DRM as a selling point. They're going to count on the multi-channel capabilities to sell the file format to the average user. There's no mistake that these two "features" are paired together.

    8. Re:And who will use them? by toasted_calamari · · Score: 1

      The parent was listing wma, vorbis, and AAC as higher quality codecs as mp3 that havn't caught on. He's right, they are higher quality (yes, even wma), and they really haven't caught on.

      That said, I rip my cds to mp3 at 320 VBR, and I really can't tell the difference. then again, my speakers are awful.

    9. Re:And who will use them? by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1

      Gimme a clue what I'm doing here.. ROT13?

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    10. Re:And who will use them? by XMyth · · Score: 1

      So, WMA has a 90% infection rate today? I don't think so.

    11. Re:And who will use them? by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Arghh yip t'was ROT13.. /me goes into hiding.

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    12. Re:And who will use them? by FFFish · · Score: 1

      *Tons* of people will use it. Heck, it'll come default with Windows and MacOS, and most people will never know and would never care about the DRM.

      Which is fine. Those people don't have any good music anyway, or they'd be out there looking for more of it, and would have learned that the DRM stuff isn't in their best interests.

      So it all works out fine. Auntie Sue can rip her Celine Dion to her MP3 player, and we'll never be offered the opportunity to have a copy ourselves. Thank goodness.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    13. Re:And who will use them? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Why not rip to FLAC instead? It's lossless so that you can compress to a new format without losing any details (unless you WANT to lose them, if you're downloading them to your iPod for instance).

      --
      My other car is first.
    14. Re:And who will use them? by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Who ever modded this as Offtopic clearly hasn't decoded the sig for themselves.. Meta-mods please do your job.

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    15. Re:And who will use them? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      WMA is open now?

      your fucking with me right?

      shit if MS keeps this up, then they might just beat back Linux because all people really want is open formats so that they are guaranteed if the company fails, they will have a migration path.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    16. Re:And who will use them? by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1

      For the moderator with the twitchy offtopic trigger finger who just doesn't get it try visiting rot13.com and entering MikeXpop's sig, "Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN". You'll see that yourself and I have infact just broken the DMCA. I hate to explain jokes but desperate retardation calls for desperate measures.

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    17. Re:And who will use them? by EverStoned · · Score: 1

      The file size of 128kbsMP3s has become standard in the typical user's mind (because it is a very practical size). FLAC files are a fair bit larger. Aaaand, they can't be played on your iPod.

    18. Re:And who will use them? by mallardtheduck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some distros ship MPlayer... that plays wma just fine, I'm not sure if it even checks the Draconian Rights Malware.

    19. Re:And who will use them? by damiam · · Score: 1

      The great-grandparent poster wasn't ripping at 128kbps, he was ripping at 320kbps. That's almost FLAC size, which is why the grandparent suggested FLAC.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    20. Re:And who will use them? by damiam · · Score: 1
      Heck, it'll come default with Windows and MacOS

      No. MS will continue to default to WMA, and Apple will continue nudging everyone towards AAC. Both OS providers have their own pet formats. I don't see SuperMP3 gaining much ground.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    21. Re:And who will use them? by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      Right, DRM-ified MP3s sound as appetizing as non-alcoholic beer. It goes against why MP3s are so popular in the first place. However MP3s will die. It's already old technology. I've re-ripped and replaced all my 160+kbps MP3s with 128 kbps AACs to save space. Fidelity wasn't the issue - space is. DRM-free audio formats will always be consumers' No. 1 choice. And I think people who get surround sound are suckers. Stereo is good enough. So multi-channel drm mp3 gets two thumbs down from me.

  4. What use is 5.1... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What use is 5.1 if CDs (most anyway) only have 2 channels?

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:What use is 5.1... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      who said that next generation music will have only 2 channels? RIAA are looking for a reason to have another generation of CDs. Improved quality is the reason to buy new CDS. Unless indi music really catches on, ppl will just be like sheep and do it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:What use is 5.1... by sabNetwork · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no joke.

      MP3 cannot be changed. Get it? If they want to make a new super-awesome audiophile-and-RIAA-friendly format, they're going to have to name it something else.

    3. Re:What use is 5.1... by challahc · · Score: 1

      If you're downloading music, CDs don't necessarily have to come into play at all. I don't think they care that you will not be able to utilize the full capability of the "Super-MP3" if you are ripping or burning CDs.

      --
      01100010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100101
    4. Re:What use is 5.1... by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      Except thats bucking even more tradition - from LPs to tape to compact disks, music has been stereo. While 5.1 is making advances in home theater, its not as prevelant in home stereo (mostly because there are so few releases for it, granted). My main complaint is that a recording optimized for 5.1 will sound like crap in stereo (i've noticed this mostly with blues and jazz remasters for 5.1). Sure, Joe Average may eventually move their home stereo to 5.1, but headphones are here to stay, and, for that reason, so is stereo.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    5. Re:What use is 5.1... by binner1 · · Score: 1

      Isn't 5.1 DVD-Audio just around the corner? That's been a rumor I've seen several times, anyway.

      It's time to get rid of these pesky non-DRM'd CD's anyway! <groan%gt;

      -Ben

    6. Re:What use is 5.1... by kauschovar · · Score: 1

      Isn't 5.1 DVD-Audio just around the corner?

      No, it's been here for a while.

    7. Re:What use is 5.1... by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Nothing stops a garage band from recording 5.1 stuff anyway. They just need more money and/or a Linux sound geek. ;-)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    8. Re:What use is 5.1... by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • who said that next generation music will have only 2 channels? RIAA are looking for a reason to have another generation of CDs. Improved quality is the reason to buy new CDS. Unless indi music really catches on, ppl will just be like sheep and do it.
      But there has to be a compelling reason to upgrade, and that may hard to come by for the RIAA. As another poster has pointed out, quality doesn't seem to matter to the majority (better qualify audio formats than Mp3 are largely ignored). Also the average user has a cheapo boombox or glorified boombox dubbed a stereo from Wal-mart, most of those don't support true 5.1 surround, and are likely not to for the near future. Even if they do, the speakers they come with are so cheap the difference is likely to not be audible so people won't bother paying more for the "better" CD format.

      People may be sheep, but they're cheap sheep.

    9. Re:What use is 5.1... by BCoates · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wasn't Quad sound (for music) tried in the 70s and a total flop?

    10. Re:What use is 5.1... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      Dolby better get cracking on a surround sound that does not sound like crap in stereo then,.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    11. Re:What use is 5.1... by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      Its not a matter of dolby doing it - its a matter of the mix engineer getting it right, or having seperate 5.1 and plain stereo tracks.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    12. Re:What use is 5.1... by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      who said that next generation music will have only 2 channels?

      Count the ears.

      Although you could make a good argument for 2.1ch (the ".1" to give the bass "feel" of a live performance), having more than two channels really only makes a difference for content designed for more than a single listener at a time.

      For watching a movie, something people usually do (at home, anyway) in small groups, you want good sound quality for a wide area of the room. At least the width of a typical sofa, and the depth of the sofa plus a couple of kids sitting in front of it. Thus, you have 5.1 channel, allowing more than a single person to experience decent sound.

      For listening to music, usually you either have "background" music on (for which, perfect reproduction doesn't matter as much as just having something on), or you wear headphones (truly obsessive audiophiles who may have a whole small room engineered just to accomplish the same effect as wearing headphones notwithstanding). Your ears define the "sweet spot" for the music, and a mere two channels can produce any spatial orientation of sound that you have the physical ability to perceive.

      Thus, for just music, 2 channels will stay the dominant medium not just for the near future, but until evoution gives us another ear (and even including that ".1" I mentioned earlier, you don't need a third channel, since you can derive that from the center of the two channels) .

    13. Re:What use is 5.1... by ldspartan · · Score: 1

      Have you listened to 5.1? Both of the CD-replacement technologies (DVD-Audio and SACD) are designed to hold both 2 channel mixes and multichannel ones. I've sat in a car at the AES convention and listened to a 5.1 and a 2 channel mix of the same song. 5.1 wins hands down - I'd pay more for it any day.

      --
      lds

    14. Re:What use is 5.1... by xandroid · · Score: 1

      Yep. Pink Floyd released an album or two in quadrophonic sound.

      If memory/common sense serves, it failed because no one had four speakers hooked up to their record players.

      --
      $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
    15. Re:What use is 5.1... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      A majority of music listeners listen to their music not in their home theatre but in their car.

      5.1 surround sound car stereos are rare, there are a few really high end units (usually coupled with DVD players and flat panel display's that cost insane amounts of money.)

      Until GM, Ford and Chevy start shipping stock CD radio units that play 5.1 audio and have the speakers installed right (something they STILL dont get right) it will not catch on to anyone but a tiny segment of the market.

      SACD and DVD-Audio are dismal failures. a 5.1 audio CD or mp3 will be the SAME failure or worse as it's quality is sub par.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:What use is 5.1... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      SACD and DVD-Audio are dismal failures. a 5.1 audio CD or mp3 will be the SAME failure or worse as it's quality is sub par.

      that will actually depend on the labels AND the customers. Imagine if the labels decide to quite producing CD's quickly and switch all their groups over to say CD II. If customers are simply chasing whatever the labels give them, then ppl will buy the equipment for car and home. IOTH, enough of an indi music has been developed and perhaps the enough ppl simple say no, then it will prevent it. Right now, I think it is hard to call either way.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re:What use is 5.1... by Mordaximus · · Score: 1
      Count the ears.

      Ears have nothing to do with it. The position of what is making the sound does.

      For watching a movie, something people usually do (at home, anyway) in small groups, you want good sound quality for a wide area of the room. At least the width of a typical sofa, and the depth of the sofa plus a couple of kids sitting in front of it. Thus, you have 5.1 channel, allowing more than a single person to experience decent sound.

      That's about as wrong as wrong can be. 5.1 has nothing to do with making it sound better in any part of the room. It has everything to do with recreating an accurate soundstage, based on the application. Actually in some applications, 5.1 makes things sound worse, since your proximity to the speakers changes your perception of the soundstage, which is usually optimized for a certain position in the room (Regarless of how many people occupy that space.)

      Multichannel sound is about creating a believable soundstage. Think about a live concert. ..You generally face the stage (or the sky if you've had a little too much of $substance.) Any sound behind you is largely irrelevant, or reproducable from sound in front of you. You are a the concert for the music, not the audience behind you. Stereo works exceedingly well for reproducing this kind of setup. There is very little usefull information that can be discreetly encoded in a 5.1 live performance that you cannot do with effects, since the band itself is never behind you spacially.

      A movie on the other hand : you have the illusion of being in the middle of the movie, especially with a well mastered soundtrack. You expect to hear things happen behind you, or beside you. 5 (or more) channels creates this illusion beautifully. The rears rarely play what the mains are at the same time.

    18. Re:What use is 5.1... by pla · · Score: 1

      First, read all of this before you feel I've ignored your point - I agree with you, but think you've made an entirely different argument than I did (A strawman, technically, but I don't consider it intentional).


      Ears have nothing to do with it.

      Ears have everything to do with it.

      Aside from strong bass (which we can sense tactilely but have very near zero discriminatory capability for) Humans have two and only two entry points for sound - Our ears. Every sound that we sense, with the ability to resolve a direction and pitch for that sound, comes through our ears.

      Left/Right sound direction we can resolve very well (since we have an ear on each side). Front/Back we can resolve to some degree, thanks to the shape of our outer ear and timing differences in reflections reaching our eardrum. Up/Down sounds we have almost no ability to tell apart, unless the local environment allows it (ie, a strong reflection from the ground will produce a distinct delay that we can subconsciously process).

      Now, on to apply all that to what you wrote:


      5.1 has nothing to do with making it sound better in any part of the room. It has everything to do with recreating an accurate soundstage

      To reproduce a sound, you need to produce the acoustic equivalent of an illusion. You need to trick the brain into thinking the surrounding auditory environment (the "soundstage", if you prefer) equals that of the original performance.

      You can do that in two ways.

      You can measure the sound incident on the eardrums, and try to reproduce that (which requires two channels, one for each ear). Or, you can try to actually reproduce the 3d pattern of sound present in the local environment (which requires at least four speakers, and 5.1 seems to do a pretty good job of it).

      Now, for a single listener, perfectly positioned withing the target area, these will produce identical results, subjectively. Headphones mean the listener always occupies the perfect position. Random placement on a couch in the den does not. Thus...

      If you reproduce the soundstage, rather than reproduce the pressure at each ear, then people have some ability to move around within that environment (as long as they don't get too close to an acoustically reflective surface, or move outside the boundary of the speakers themselves), and the sound will remain true to the original orientation.

      Thus, you have "widened" the sweet spot from beyond a single two-point listener.


      There is very little usefull information that can be discreetly encoded in a 5.1 live performance that you cannot do with effects, since the band itself is never behind you spacially.

      And here, our arguments come back together nicely. I agree 100%, you can't encode any information in 5.1 that a single listener can appreciate, that you can't also produce in stereo with a variety of subtle delays. Not just with respect to front-to-back, though - You could have a full orchestra sit in a sphere surrounding the listener, and you still couldn't record any information that a single listener can discriminate in 5.1 that you couldn't fit in L/R.

  5. Count me in! by lightspawn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somebody please write conversion software so I can batch-convert all my MP3s to this new and exciting format which will offer me as a consumer many exciting new capabilities!

    Man, I'd better start saving up for a new Super MP3 player...

    1. Re:Count me in! by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it better a conversion software that reads the four-channel input, strips out the LWDRM and writes a LWDRM-free output ?

      --

      -
      Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
    2. Re:Count me in! by Limburgher · · Score: 1
      You can use GNU/Shoes, assuming you have a version of Sox that supports it. :)

      Discaimer: I wrote GNU/Shoes. . .

      --

      You are not the customer.

    3. Re:Count me in! by Tokerat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wouldn't it better a conversion software that reads the four-channel input, strips out the LWDRM and writes a LWDRM-free output ?
      ...or better yet, encodes them with someone else's digital signature :D
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    4. Re:Count me in! by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      I can just see it now, some wiseguy is going to have a tweak for the conversion utility that makes "Jack Valenti" appear at the user a couple hundred times. :o

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    5. Re:Count me in! by deathazre · · Score: 1

      or even better yet, encodes them with a RIAA exec's digital signature

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
  6. Remember other attempts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Allthough i won't go into a discussion on quality of certain files, remember mp3-pro, suppose to be better quality at 64kbits audio compression. It failed complety, based on the fact that most hardware devices now support mp3's (car stereo's, portable devices) and at 192~+kbits it sounds like cd quality, i don't think people are willing to change.

    1. Re:Remember other attempts? by Jardine · · Score: 1

      mp3-pro also doesn't have a free encoder that works easily with ripping programs.

  7. Alternatives to standard MP3 by thedillybar · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There are plenty of alternatives to the standard MP3.

    This one will not be widely used by consumers if it has a light-weight tracking mechanism embedded in it. We'll simply use one of the others. Not to mention, there will always be players (and converters) that disable the tracking and convert to a more well-accepted format.

    But maybe it's a step in the right direction. We'll see what becomes of it. My guess...absolutely nothing.

  8. And? by FroBugg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow, four whole tracks. That's about two hundred and fifty one fewer than Ogg Vorbis, if I recall correctly.

    1. Re:And? by sahonen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's see, what to do with 255 tracks... 27 channel surround, the corners, edge midpoints and face midpoints of a cube around the listener, including one inside the listener for those subliminal message effects. Plus a ".1" sub channel at each of those points. And heck, a tweeter channel at each of those points as well. And... umm, every single instrument in the mix gets a separate channel so you can Mix-It-Yourself (tm).

      That's strange, I didn't know it also had a channel that sounded like it was coming from the upstairs neighbors...

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    2. Re:And? by wouterke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are you suggesting then? Agreed, 255 is probably more than we'll need in the near future, but who is to say what technology will be able to do in the future?

      "640kB? Hell, that's more than anyone will ever need".

      Limits suck. Crazy high limits suck less, but still do. Silly low limits suck majorly.

      a 4-track format falls in the "silly low" category in my book. a 255-track one doesn't.

    3. Re:And? by BCoates · · Score: 1

      Does it do 255-way joint encoding? (like this does for 4-way)

      Obviously it's trivial to add extra parallel streams to a recording, it's the compression that's the hard part.

    4. Re:And? by iabervon · · Score: 1

      There's definitely a market for having separate channels for the lead vocals and the rest of the music, particularly when they get around to having Ogg support for synchronized text.

    5. Re:And? by ratl3 · · Score: 1

      I'm an electronic musician and this would be perfect for sampling other peoples music. How do you encode to one of these 255 tracks? All the software I have just lets you do the usual stereo.

    6. Re:And? by Bilange · · Score: 1

      Agreed, 255 is probably more than we'll need in the near future, but who is to say what technology will be able to do in the future?

      Well, with 255 channels, why not having every instrument on its own channel, and letting the listener mutes and fine-tune every channel for his listening preferences?

      Oh wait.. isnt it what this guy asked?

      --
      "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
    7. Re:And? by bergeron76 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the point is that someone needs to write some "conversion" code that will take 4 track audio from XYZ format (or better yet, a 4 channel analog source) and turn it into 4 OGG tracks. I think OGG is pretty ubiquitous in that it can scale nicely while other technologies catch up to it (less the DRM "enhancements", of course).

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    8. Re:And? by darthscsi · · Score: 1

      My my my, what a bad surround system. Might I suggest a 60 point system arranged in a sphere (think bucky-ball or soccer ball). With you idea of 3 channels per point, I am up to 180 channels. And since I use a sphere, I can keep adding points in a semi-normal arrangement.

      Bonus points if the room looks like the room in X-men or the astro-something room in STNG.

      Oh, and might I suggest just using second order ambisonics? Then you can decode to an arbitrary number of speakers and speaker arrangement, and still only use a handful of channels.

    9. Re:And? by sahonen · · Score: 1

      Nah, I was just having a little fun with the idea of having 255 tracks to play with, with a slight reference to Space Quest 4, where there's a shop that advertizes a "dodecaphonic around-sound system" (In front, behind, left, right, four midpoints in between, above, below, inside, and from the upstairs neighbors!). I know that as a musician it would be handy to be able to encode some in-progress studio work to a however-many-channel FLAC file and bring it home to do some mixing.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    10. Re:And? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      Forget the room, you just need a buckyball shaped helmet. What to do about the channels that would intersect the listener's neck? I leave this as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    11. Re:And? by iabervon · · Score: 1

      oggenc supports encoding from raw PCM with an arbitrary number of channels. Of course, you may have to interleave the data yourself, and I have no idea what players will do with the extra channels.

  9. *sigh* by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I have that sinking feeling that we will soon be seeing a law that will require P2P to DRM everything they download, and then instantly send the RIAA an email with the subject "Sue This Person Or Die".

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:*sigh* by j.bellone · · Score: 1

      This is why everyone should use software such as piolet (the ads suck, but hey, anon!). Or you could go the whole iTunes route, but I refuse to pay anything to an RIAA organization, much less Apple. When a iPod becomes affordable; I may consider buying one.

      --
      I'm f#$king magic!
  10. Riiiiight... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see Super-MP3's will incorporate a lightweight DRM?

    How long is it going to take to have a converter that transforms Super-MP3s into normal MP3s, with the DRM stripped?

    How long until someone incorporates this into, say, xmms or lame, so that the conversion is actually totally transparent to the user?

    Gentlemen... start your compilers!

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Riiiiight... by CoolVibe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just give Jon (from DeCSS fame) a few weeks. That guy is the ultimate masochist, and we love him for it :)

    2. Re:Riiiiight... by ad0gg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is backwords compatible MP3, only difference it has a watermark and some extra for multichannel. So All you have to figure out is how to strip it.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    3. Re:Riiiiight... by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Well presumably when you receive the MP3 you need to decode the watermark, add your name to the list, and re-stamp the watermark. If that's the case I guess you could just replace the last step with nothing. Alternatively it might just tack crap on the end of the file for each user, which is easy too. Or it might just watermark the entire file multiple times, which would probably be really hard to implement.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    4. Re:Riiiiight... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How long is it going to take to have a converter that transforms Super-MP3s into normal MP3s, with the DRM stripped?

      This isn't going to happen, because it's illegal under the DMCA. Notice how no one has dared defy this law which protects even simple protection mechanisms such as DVD CSS, Adobe e-book, and Apple's iTunes. Oh, wait...

    5. Re:Riiiiight... by konmaskisin · · Score: 1

      you sir, by providing illegal reverse engineering instructions to the /. audience, have violated the DCMA in plain sight!!

      You will receive a "visit" shortly ... it will be painless if you cooperate :-)

    6. Re:Riiiiight... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      If it's backwards compatible, then stuff stripping watermarks, etc. Just use any old MP3 player that doesn't act on the DRM information in the file.

      Having a DRM file-format doesn't mean squat unless you also have a DRM-aware player, and a mechanism to ensure that the media can only be played on such a player.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Riiiiight... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      There is no circumvention (sp?) of digital encryption, dmca safe.

  11. Ok... by protocol420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So another good reason to use OGGs. I never trust any non-open-licenced formats (it's all an illuminati plot).

    --
    www.gaian-mind.org - eco-punk/crust coop and collective | www.anarchistfederation.org - so cal anarchist federation
  12. MP3Pro by metalhed77 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope this will be as sucessful as MP3PRo.

    --
    Photos.
  13. Cut them off at the pass. by ameoba · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's to stop the community from making some sort of DRMless multi-channel MP3/Ogg format? Let the RIAA push their own formatfor their own files, it doesn't force us to use it for our own data. If users demand support for the non-restricted format, media player authors will be forced to either support it or lose customers.

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    1. Re:Cut them off at the pass. by rokzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    2. Re:Cut them off at the pass. by Agent+Green · · Score: 3, Informative

      Umm...Ogg is already DRMless, multichannel, and pretty much maturized.

      Why repeat ourselves??

      --
      // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
      // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    3. Re:Cut them off at the pass. by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

      The RIAA will never support an unrestricted format no matter how good it may be (they could care less). If you don't care about RIAA content, there's nothing stopping anyone from encoding their home made material into multichannel Ogg today. You guys are bent out of shape because you want commercial content and you want it unprotected.

  14. just give up already by Chucklz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They release it, two days later someone cracks it, writes a nice program to strip the DRM. Seems we've traveled down this road before. If it didn't work the first couple of times, why try again?

    1. Re:just give up already by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the RIAA, MPAA, and a few other old school companies (Is Qwest vs VOIP next?) are completely incapable of thinking up new tactics to deal with this changing world we live in.

      Instead, they keep repeating their same old tricks. Hard to copy media isn't anything new, that's one of the major reasons they moved from casettes to CDs, because no one could easily copy them. They're just trying to extend that old trick to digital media, and it's failing badly.

      Thus reveals problem #2 with these groups. They are NOT used to people competing with them, yet alone their own customers. That is why you see people look so dumbfounded when people aren't content to just sit back and accept what is fed to them. (For example, that RIAA guy who muttered "un-fucking-believeable" when he saw that some "random college idiot" had dared to break their CSS cash cow.)

      Rather than see their customers quietly put up with the record companies and the movie companies putting out some horribly self-serving content like they have so many times before, they're seeing us turn on them and use every bit of our skills to bypass and ignore their self-serving bits. You can see this in a few dozen ways:

      1. Our own audio and video format that lack DRM to contest their digital versions of disposable dvds. (OGG and XviD/OGM)
      2. P2P, which is a direct result of them trying to put out 1 or 2 good songs on a CD and force us to buy them. (iTunes store is the ultimate end result of this, and they're trying to kill that too by forcing Apple to bundle songs.)
      3. Distributed and Encrypted P2P like Gnutella and WASTE, to fight them trying to make the very act of sharing content online illegal. (I consider attacks on P2P to be more of an attack on indy music and artists who don't mind their content being shared. Who would buy Metalijoke when there are 50 other small bands better than them who'd love to just be heard?)
      4. Distributed projects in countries that haven't yet been "DMCA-afied", to fight them trying to destroy fair use.

      Of course, they're doing their damnest to try and make the very act of even discussing their tricks illegal.

      So, er, yah. Longer than I expected, but, quick synopsis -- basically, they're trying the same old trick because they're dinosaurs who can't think of anything new.

    2. Re:just give up already by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Why try again? See this comment.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  15. OGG Vorbis by amembleton · · Score: 4, Informative
    Next generation super MP3 files will support four-channel audio tracks

    IIRC OGG Vorbis can support upto 255 channels. Shame its not more mainstream.

    As for the p2p tracking, people may not use it because of this or it may just get cracked.

    1. Re:OGG Vorbis by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Vorbis can support that many channels, but so far it hasn't AFAIK.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  16. Don't cry.... by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't bitch and moan. This is wonderful for independant artists and those listeners that want to make sure where an mp3 came from. Personally i will encourage those recording friends of mine to use this...it's not to keep you from copying/sharing, rather to guarantee quality and authenticity.

    1. Re:Don't cry.... by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      What stops me registering my imaginary band with the same name as another band, and then using that tag to stamp ripped MP3s? Do you really think that ordinary users know how to read certificates?

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    2. Re:Don't cry.... by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      signatures and cryptography

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    3. Re:Don't cry.... by jarran · · Score: 1

      it's not to keep you from copying/sharing, rather to guarantee quality and authenticity.

      Yeah right. Music sounds so much better when you have a digital certificate proving it really is by your favourite band, and not some cheap immitation.

    4. Re:Don't cry.... by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      >it's not to keep you from copying/sharing, rather to guarantee quality and authenticity.

      You know what? I'd rather take my chances and have to throw away some downloaded bits.

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
  17. what about AAC? by JebusIsLord · · Score: 4, Informative

    I cannot see a single legitimate reason why people would dump MP3 for this when they can simply switch to the much better LC-AAC in the mp4 container such as Apple and Nero are using now. 4 channels, optional DRM, standardized tagging (id3 is NOT a part of the mp3 spec people!) and lower bitrates, plus better handling of problematic samples.

    --
    Jeremy
    1. Re:what about AAC? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Two words - legacy and popularity.

    2. Re:what about AAC? by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      but this is not legacy they are talking about! These won't work without a different decoder, they just use 10 year old mp3 tech.

      --
      Jeremy
    3. Re:what about AAC? by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      thanks, that IS an excellent choice for a command line, but what the hell does that have to do with the current discussion? I could recommend some excellent pizza joints too if you are interested.

      --
      Jeremy
    4. Re:what about AAC? by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      sort of - the SBR stuff will get ignored if it is played back on a non-HE compliant decoder, exactly like mp3pro files on a regular mp3 decoder. The "normal" type of AAC you are refering to is LC-AAC or "low complexity" (high complexity is used for more advanced stuff and requires more features and horsepower to decode... won't be used for consumer audio at all I believe). As both HE-AAC and LC-AAC are both part of the official MPEG-4 specification, decoders will hopefully soon do both.

      As an aside, why the hell was I moderated down for stating absolute truths? Some jerkoff OS zealot i'm sure. Take it in metamod, asshole!

      --
      Jeremy
  18. Great by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And just how are they planning on getting these to replace the old MP3s?

    As long as there is a way to encode them in the old way, people will do it. Duh!

    This seems more like an attempy by Fraunhofer to pacify the corporates and "make up" for their follies.

    If the owner who originally purchased the rights to that MP3 file publishes it online in a shared environment, the file will display the original owners digital signature, thus allowing the individuals to be immediately identified.


    And what if the user purchased the rights to an Audio CD containing that track and converted it into a good old MP3?

    This new trackable, un-sharable "Super MP3" may be an attempt by the Fraunhofer Institute to make amends with the disgruntled music industry.

    Are they going to sue all the existing MP3 players if they don't change into the new format? Now *that* would be funny.

    Bite me.

    The can of worms is open, you are not going to be able to contain piracy this way. Change the way music (and media in general) is being sold - think up a new business model, the old one has been proven time and again not to work.

    And guess what? Tracking users or preventive DRM is not the solution.

    What are they going to do if I changed the ID of my MP3 to reflect that of someone else? How long is it going to take to crack this thing? A week? A month?

    Sheesh. Won't these people ever learn? What beats me is that smart research institutes like FI are coming up with crap like this.

    1. Re:Great by segfault7375 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...Sheesh. Won't these people ever learn? What beats me is that smart research institutes like FI are coming up with crap like this...

      Yes, but that is what they are paid to do by the music industry. RIAA management keeps telling them to come up with uncrackable DRM, and if it does get cracked, it doesn't matter to the lab, they got paid. As long as the RIAA throws money at this (and let's hope it's a very LONG time) the labs will get major bling-bling (which could be very good for long term research on more important things) and the in the long run, the RIAA simply puts itself out of business from years of hemmoraging cash on litigation and needless DRM research. :)

      Segfault

    2. Re:Great by Trespass · · Score: 1

      FI doesn't expect it to work. Read between the lines. They just want to get the RIAA et al. to stop bugging them for a techno fix for a socioeconomic problem.

      To paraphrase a famous quote: "The RIAA has made their decision. Now let's see them enforce it."

    3. Re:Great by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how research into DRM can lead to any kind of useful goal.

      Some information needs to be free, some needs to be locked down. This sissy encryption stuff that fits in 1k is a waste of everyone's time. It hurts the uninformed keeping them that way.

      Sigh I feel lazy about this issue too but someone should really make an effort to at least try and get the government to listen to reason on this one.

  19. File traders are screwed this time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Redundant
    REALLY! P2P IS DEAD!

    They are adding some bits to the file to track the original owner! Think of how serial numbers, product activation, and dongles are so uncrackable!

    Oh wait...

    serial numbers (think: photocopy machine, IRC .nfo files)

    product activation (see: Windows XP and NAV 2004)

    dongles (think: AutoCAD and the # of BBS's that had cracks the next day a version came out back when dongles were used)

    Yawn. It will be cracked. And Cat, meet Bag, the brown paper one you just came out of. 12 year old kids look for cracks for games and know how to rip cd's. They will know how to find and get whatever program will be develloped to strip the ID out of the song and replace it with something generic so it will be safe to trade. Next...

  20. Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by MBCook · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I really don't care about multi-channel. I spend 95% of my time listening to music listening to my iPod (only two channels, only two ears). The rest of the time I'm listening in the car (which is noisy, and multi-channel music won't do me much good). I don't care about multi-channel music. The only thing I see it as any good for would be the BGM in computer games or something like that. I don't want it.

    That said, I would LOVE multi-track audio files. I would love to be able to press a button to disable the vocal track, or turn down the volume on the guitar track, or turn up the base track, or whatever. Basically like the tracks you see in Frequency or Amplitude on the PS2. There are many times I would love to be able to turn off the vocals, or turn UP the vocals to hear them over the rest of the music.

    I would love this for TV too. I would love to be able to turn up the dialog track, or turn down the sound effects. Or my idea: turn OFF THE DAMN LAUGH TRACK.

    THIS is the feature I want. Give music like this and files to store it in, and I'll be happier. Don't give me something I can't use. If you want me to swallow DRM (even LIGHT DRM) give me something that I want in exchange, not something useless.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by mrgreenfur · · Score: 1

      multi track mp3 != non-mixed down audio

      They'll still mix it down to the correct tracks, you won't be able to turn of certain tracks. It just means you'll get the laugh track in surround.

      Enjoy.

    2. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Not all recordings are multitrack or can have tracks removed without affecting the song. Beyond all the live recordings, one track with a loud moment (drum or guitar sound) may hide where they merged two vocal takes. Often a vocal only track has a quiet demo track or rhythm guitar in the background; or simply a click track that is audable when you kill everything else.

      Bemani and Freq/Amp songs are recorded quite differently than normal studio sessions.

      As for TV, you can turn off the laugh track quite easily. You turn off the TV as a whole, but any show with a laugh track (other than MASH), that's an improvement.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    3. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by irrelative83 · · Score: 1

      But without the laugh track, how are you supposed to know when to laugh?

    4. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by BCoates · · Score: 1
      But without the laugh track, how are you supposed to know when to laugh?
      That's easy, during the creepy pause when the actors wait a beat for the laughing to stop.
    5. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by MBCook · · Score: 1
      Yeah. You'd only be able to do it with new music that was recorded after this started, because obviously you couldn't just pop a Beatles CD in and have it have all the tracks automatically.

      Yes, you'd totally have to change the way recording sessions were done, but I'd like to see it. I'd still prefer it to having two surround channels on CDs.

      PS: If anyone from Sony is reading, PLEASE release another sequel in the Frequency/Amplitude series, and how 'bout releasing soundtracks for them?

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    6. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Speaking as a musician who has spent time in studios with various bands, I've gotta say that there's no way whatsoever that that's going to happen. Studio time is insanely expensive as it is, and it's a rush to get the best takes put together as fast as is damn possible.

      Plus, outside of gimmick and "neato" appeal, there's no reason to do it. Musicians make music, a sound engineer put it together to make sure it's balanced, and the musicians (and producer) sit in to make sure it sounds the way they want. They are working on a single perfectly crafted project. Then they send it to the label (assuming they have even a fairly small label), where an audio engineer fucks the sound and kills all life from every song so it will sound "current" and "radio friendly". The label wants it to sound like everything else that's selling, and letting people futz with individual tracks will screw that up big time.

      So, doing you way occurs over the objections of the original artists, the studio engineer and the label. Pretty much everybody who is making the music.

      Not to mention that there are plenty of cases where multiple instruments are recorded at the same time, or the demo and/or timing track is audable in the background if you play one track alone. It's hard run to get in and out of the studio as is, and it costs beaucoup bucks. No way is there time or money to do it the way you want. Only somebody like Bowie, who has the eccentricity, money, time and freedom to play around can do something like that. Working bands and artists can only have the first.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    7. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by MBCook · · Score: 1
      I agree, it will never happen. Between the expense, the musicians who say that their work shouldn't be tampered with, and the problems of getting a new format out there, it will probably never happen, as cool as it is.

      That said, I was only proposing it becasue it's something I would like as opposed to quadraphonic CDs (which for me add nothing). They need to come up with something most people would want. You wouldn't sell more cars by giving away a free toothbrush with each one. That's about how important quadraphonic CDs are to me.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    8. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by sr180 · · Score: 1
      Get a surround sound system and you will get close...


      want to turn up the vocals, turn up the centre channel.
      Want to turn off the vocals, turn down the centre channel.
      Want to turn off the laughs, turn down the surround channel.
      Hate movies where the vocal track is heaps quiet while the music is blearingly loud? well turn up the centre channel..
      Its not perfect, but it sure helps.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    9. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Well, Kareoke CDs are available. These aren't CDs without lyrics, they are a special format, and drive specialized hardware (although some DVD players can play them). So, I could see it as a niche player, even as a fad phenomenon. Just not replacing the primary way artists put out their music.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    10. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by Threni · · Score: 1

      > That said, I would LOVE multi-track audio files. I would love to be able to press a
      > button to disable the vocal track, or turn down the volume on the guitar track, or turn up
      > the base track, or whatever.

      Ugh. I don't want multi-channel tracks for that reason. I want to have them so I can listen to Stockhausen and other `electro-acoustic` artists multi-speaker creations properly, not mixed into just 2 channels.

    11. Re:Multi-channel? I want multi-track! by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

      But... then they won't be able to sell those Karaoke single track CD's with MIDI-ized versions of the songs!

  21. It just might catch on though. by qortra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All things being equal, I would agree. This format has no actually value in the community. However, this format has one huge advantage; name recognition. Look at the new Napster: absolutely no advantage over any other existing service, but it did a great deal of business because people recognized the name. There's a very good posibility that soon, people will want to be able to say they have a "super mp3 player" because they think it makes them sound cool, and people just know the 'mp3' name.

    I hope you're right, but I'm not sure you are.

    1. Re:It just might catch on though. by valintin · · Score: 1

      "Super Stupid" has name recogniton as well. SS MP3 Player.

      Hey Bob you have to have to listen to this.

      Sorry Ted you have the Super Stupid MP3s with enhanced DRM and no audio advatage. I'm just going over to Carol's house and share music with her and Alice. When you figure out how to rip and burn your new music come on over, but uh... leave the spandex super suit behind.

  22. That's fine with me... by Ghengis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's all fine with me. It's simple. I just wont use them. :)

    --

    "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

  23. 4 channels? by sharph · · Score: 1

    What are you going to do with 4 channels?
    Everybody has ether 1 channel (mono), 2 channels, or 5 channels. (or maybe 7 in some rare cases.) Who has 4???

    Unless you're one of those people with quadraphonic surrond, but that whole idea is based around processing two channels anyway...

    so... wtf?

    1. Re:4 channels? by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      You don't really need a center channel - if you've got front left and right, you can have a 'center' channel. and the sub isn't necesary with good speakers and decent crossoevers.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    2. Re:4 channels? by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      I guess nobody has four, which is why there is a word for it.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    3. Re:4 channels? by ActiveSX · · Score: 1

      Yes, the word he used in his post.

  24. So they'll catch people that don't know better... by UPAAntilles · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anything you play over speakers can be recorded. If you really need to share those files go ahead and rerecord them. Time consuming? Yes. But infinitely better than a lawsuit.

    Of course, just about everyone reading this comment already knows that.

  25. Announcing... by jedrek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    eMule, eMulePlus, BitTorrent, iMesh, Soulseek, etc, etc... now featuring auto Super MP3 DRM stripping.

  26. You are confused friend. by qortra · · Score: 1

    You and a few other people seem to be making the same mistake about your parent post. He is saying that Vorbis, AAC, and WMA all have superior quality to MP3, yet have failed to catch on. He's just trying to establish the importance of momentum in this market.

    He isn't at all putting down vorbis

    1. Re:You are confused friend. by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

      It is because it is better, but not better enough to warrant change. Think VHS --> BetaMax.

  27. Lightweight DRM = watermark? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure looks like it... so tell me:

    1) Won't they be trivial to remove?
    2) What will happen when the next Internet worm shares your watermarked files?

    This is about as realistic as going after people whose registration keys show up at serialz sites. "Why your company was issued the 'Devil's Own' key, please pay us X kazillion billion dollars for pirated copies of Windows using your serial".

    Do you see it happen? No. But you can bet that this racketering will happen. It's like some lawsuits I've been hearing about, US companies sue companies overseas for hacking their network, even though they both know "they" didn't do it, only their trojaned machines.

    It'll be the same thing with RIAA vs individuals. Even if you didn't to anything, the cost to settle is cheaper than hiring a lawyer. I would never get any of these simply for the legal liability they could get me in.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Lightweight DRM = watermark? by starman97 · · Score: 1

      I think the implication of "Devil's Own"
      is that it's a Microsoft Internal CDKEY.
      afterall, we all know Microsoft==tehD3v1L :)

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
  28. I know why they needed 4 tracks! by flyboy974 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think they needed a way to say "This song is copyrighted. The RIAA is coming to get you" without corrupting the quality of the MP3 music itself (artists would get upset).

    That way all RIAA approved players that support the limited DRM only plays the last two tracks while WinAmp plays them all.

    Just think, RIAA in my rear channels with Metallica in the front. Woo hoo!

    1. Re:I know why they needed 4 tracks! by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1

      "Just think, RIAA in my rear channels..."

      Ewww! I don't want to think of the RIAA in ANYONE'S rear channels! :-(

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
  29. Re:And so... [no onw will use it ..] by kabz · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, of course they will use it ... how do you think RealNetworks will scare people into not swapping their downloaded for and paid content ?

    As soon as Real add this into their next compulsory/automatically downloaded player, we'll probably see all kinds of scary warnings.

    I bet Real will get all kinds of juicy goodies from the music industry for this.

    Keep music errrr free !

    --
    -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
  30. Use Responsibly by nacturation · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't read the article (surprise!) but this sounds fairly reasonable. Attach a unique ID to an MP3 file that says "John Doe" purchased it. As long as John Doe uses it responsibly, he can take advantage of all kinds of fair use, record it to other media, etc. that he could with an unprotected MP3 file.

    This is like arguing against certain types of guns because the FBI can do ballistics analysis on the spent casing and wear patterns of the round in order to match the bullet lodged in the dead victim with the one that came from your gun. Shouldn't people be arguing for guns which don't leave any traceable patterns? Or do people realize that as long as they use their guns responsibly, who cares if the bullet and casing have certain patterns which can identify the particular gun?

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:Use Responsibly by omeomi · · Score: 1

      huh? the "rifling" on the inside of a gun is there to make the bullet go straight...the fact that it's effects can be used to identify the gun like a fingerprint is merely a side-effect...

    2. Re:Use Responsibly by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is that I can do whatever I want with the things I own. When I buy a CD, I own it. I have every right to share it on a P2P network if I so choose.

      Sure, and when I buy bricks I have every right to build a six foot thick solid brick wall around your car. They're my bricks and mortar, I own them. I have every right to build walls around your car if I so choose.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Use Responsibly by man_ls · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you buy a CD you have the right to do what copyright law and the license of that work says you can do.

      You're right about the physical CD, you can do whatever you want with that. But the music on it, you don't own, you're leasing for an infinite amount of time on their terms.

      Redistributing the copyrighted work is generally a no-no, in about 90% of countries. Especially "western" ones.

    4. Re:Use Responsibly by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shouldn't people be arguing for guns which don't leave any traceable patterns?

      I'd imagine if guns origionally were untraceable, as far as bullet markings, and a private industry wanted to add a watermark feature that scored the bullet such that it was identifiable, people would argue against it. It was a natural property found through forensic evidence.

      Aside from which, dude, it's a murder scene versus a copied MP3. Jesus, it's not even in the same league.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    5. Re:Use Responsibly by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a side effect of having a round which spins and therefore flies straighter, but the fact that this is effectively fingerprinting has absolutely no consequences to you. Unless, of course, you choose to do something illegal with your gun.

      You could encourage weapons manufacturers to develop technology where this fingerprinting is statistically indistinguishable from one gun to the next to avoid any privacy or identification issues.

      Having your name stamped onto an MP3 file has no consequences to you either. Copy it to your iPod... burn it to a CD... make a tape recording... put it on your other computers... it doesn't matter. Unless, of course, you choose to violate the licensing terms you agreed to when you purchased it.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:Use Responsibly by nacturation · · Score: 1

      No, of course it's not in the same league. I'm playing devil's advocate here, seeing where it goes. However, both are currently illegal to different degrees. What does it matter to anyone that their name is effectively fingerprinted to an MP3 file? If they comply with the licensing terms they agreed to when they purchased it, what's the issue? It's not a privacy thing because someone already has a record of selling that MP3 to them. So why the big fuss?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:Use Responsibly by trawg · · Score: 1

      Mp3 Order form:

      Name: John Doe
      Address: 123 Fake St

    8. Re:Use Responsibly by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's the problem:

      You might want to share your MP3 with your friend. This is fully legal under the Audio Home Recording Act. Then, your friend gives a copy to his friend. Then, that person uploads it on a P2P network, and suddenly people all over the world have it. The RIAA gets a copy, tracks it to you, and gets you arrested. Now you're liable for untold dollars in damages. But all you did was give a single copy to your friend, which as I said is fully legal, but you can't prove that you're not the one who uploaded it to the P2P network. So this tag has basically changed our justice system, making you guilty until proven innocent. This is wrong.

      The gun analogy is silly. If you lend your gun to someone, there's still only one gun. If they commit a crime with it, the bullet can be traced to your gun, but there might be evidence to corroborate your story that you lent it to a friend. It's not possible for that friend to make millions of identical copies of the gun and pass them around the world for free. And you'd be stupid to lend your gun out like that anyway. MP3s aren't capable of killing people, even though the media cartels would like us to believe it's worse to copy music than to kill people, since copying affects their profit margin.

    9. Re:Use Responsibly by vert2712 · · Score: 1

      Guns are supposed to be safeguarded and stored in a safe place. In most cases you can't even take them with you. MP3 files on the other hand are much more portable and have a much greater chance of being misplaced. What happens if your perfectly legal superMP3 files, all with your name/personal identifier embedded in them, are stolen and traded online? Loss or theft of a portable MP3 with thousands of songs on it is not such a far-fetched idea. If you own a gun and it's lost or stolen, you can report this to the police. What happens if you lose thousands of MP3 files? Assuming it's worth the hassle to report the theft of individual files, would you be able to know exactly how many songs were stolen, and their individual titles?

    10. Re:Use Responsibly by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Sure, so your files can be stolen. And? One of the benefits of this could be that it's then possible to identify people who are hosting your songs on P2P networks and you can send the RIAA after them. Much like a serial number on an expensive camera can be traced to the thief, now the identifier can also be traced to the thief. Just tell them "Hey, I'm John Doe and my iPod was stolen... if you see files on Kazaa with my name on them, please go after the person at the IP address who's hosting those files." Who knows... you might even get your iPod back.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:Use Responsibly by vert2712 · · Score: 1

      I think it's a naive point of view, especially if you can't easily prove that your MP3 files were stolen.
      Given the "sue first, ask questions later" mentality of the RIAA, I'm more inclined to think that the RIAA would go after the person whose ID is in the MP3 files being traded.
      Sure, in the end you may be able to prove that you are not the file-swapper, but at what cost? Why take the chance?
      The potential hassles in storing personal identifying information in MP3 files IMHO far outweigh the few hypothetical benefits.

    12. Re:Use Responsibly by badzilla · · Score: 1

      This is why real tin-foil-hat shooters prefer a shotgun :)

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    13. Re:Use Responsibly by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Informative
      When you buy a CD you have the right to do what copyright law and the license of that work says you can do. Whoa... just a little correction. You have the right to do what copyright law says, period.

      Licenses only come into play, if you want other rights in addition to what copyright law says. In practice, that is almost never the case.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    14. Re:Use Responsibly by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      In theory, I don't have a problem with it either, depending on how it's implemented. I have long been in favor of using watermarks for that purpose.

      The problem is that there isn't any way to prevent people from removing that information, which doesn't also involve crippling or removing the openness of the file format, making it nearly useless for their customers. Can you come up with a scheme that

      1. marks the file this way and makes the info hard to remove
      2. but doesn't interfere with me using whatever software that I want, to do anything I want with the file? For example, I should be able to transcode it to any format. That means the file format and codec can't be a secret in any way, require licensing a patent or trade secret, etc.
      Those two things seem to be mutually exclusive. The second one, however, is non-negotiable if they want to remain in the Having Customers business. The Having Customers business has been an excellent racket so far, and I would recommend they not exit that market, especially if they're accountable to any stockholders who expect profits.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  31. DVD-A, SACD, Audio tracks for video... by kauschovar · · Score: 3, Informative

    What use is 5.1 if CDs (most anyway) only have 2 channels?

    ... are a few uses I can think of off the top of my head. DVD-A and SACD are both hi-fidelity audio formats, and just because it's an MP3 doesn't mean that it has to be used for music. It could be used for an audio track for a movie file.

  32. Great idea! by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or, they'll set all DRM info to indicate that the original ripper and "pirate" of each track was Jack Valenti!!! :)

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Great idea! by nautical9 · · Score: 1
      Or, they'll set all DRM info to indicate that the original ripper and "pirate" of each track was Jack Valenti!!! :)
      Jack Valenti = President and CEO of MPAA (Movies)
      Cary Sherman = President of RIAA (Music)
  33. That's cool, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    we'll just put MP3Jon on it right away...

    Bring it on...

  34. iPod by ThreeDayMonk · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for Apple to add iPod support for this exciting new DRM format!

    Come to think of it, four-channel audio wouldn't be much use on stereo headphones, either.

    --
    If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
    1. Re:iPod by Animats · · Score: 1
      So use four channel headphones.

      For that "thumpa, thumpa thumpa" subwoofer effect, there's the Aura Interactor chest-mounted subwoofer.

  35. what is by deadmongrel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mp3Pro?

    1. Re:what is by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      No, MP3Pro is MP3Pro. Look it up. CoolEdit/Adobe Audition uses it as its default MP3 encoder.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
  36. So just use 'standard mp3' instead by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And its not an issue.

    If at some point we cant use old style mp3 for some unforseen reason, then we us something else entirely.

    Sharing is a moving target, and all this nonsence to try to control it just causes the target to move even faster.

    Be it right or wrong, its going to persist... 'The man' best get over it and move on..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  37. Aren't we the Illuminati by loftis · · Score: 1

    Aren't we (we fine sceptics and intellectuals, all) the Illuminati? I thought we were. And MS & other Big Biz (DRM enablers) the parallel to the Church dictating our morality? Seriously, The over-under for DVDJon cracking this thing it 14 days.

    --
    Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
  38. And the file format is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bytes 16-512 contain the http address of the source file.

    Now I'm going to be sued by the RIAA for breaking the DMCA

    1. Re:And the file format is... by j.bellone · · Score: 1

      A time will come when you can be sued by the RIAA just for speaking about being sued by the RIAA. I love polotics. Until then, download your music for free.

      --
      I'm f#$king magic!
  39. Technically speaking... by MukiMuki · · Score: 1

    If you really wanna get all technical about it, this system could theoretically (assuming you have the processing power, proper sound control, have the time to mix it properly(That's a BIIIGGG one), and can justify the cost..) be very useful in a stadium situation (sports games, concerts, comedy shows.... ummmm.... circus? ice shows?) for, errr.... cool stadium-wide surround effects? ^_^

    Okay, obviously this wasn't well thought out....

    1. Re:Technically speaking... by BCoates · · Score: 1

      This ADA-compliant stadium provides extra audio cues for 'the Wave' for our vision-impaired fans.

      Please stand up and raise your hands over your head when you hear the tone.

  40. Re:But Microsoft will make it the 'standard' by thryllkill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too true. If everyone was so concerned about DRM, why did iTunes Music store get so big. Truth is the only people who really get their panties in a twist over DRM are Slashdotters, pirates, and tin-foil hat fuckos.

    Please note, I am not saying that DRM is a good thing, I am just pointing out that the average consumer/computer user doesn't care. When and if the RIAA gets their wish and ends all file trading the average joe will shrug it off and go back to buying Good Charlotte cds like a reall American.

    --

    Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

  41. The eventual decline by Mr.+Ophidian+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    every content provider is looking to incorporate more and more DRM as the quality, cost, and ease of creation of copies improves.

    the music industry doesn't care about people copying songs off the radio. it didn't even really get its panties in a bunch when CD-Rs first hit the market. or when mp3s hit the ftp servers. It went ballistic when anyone could download a single application and instantly find a never ending stream of perceptibility loss-less perfect digital copies.

    likewise with the MPAA and DVD encryption, likewise with the new Cable Set-top standard.

    They want to cut out MythTV, Tivo, splitters, H-cards, and cable descramblers. It's becoming too easy to get at the current data, so they want a change.

    with the analog system working (fairly) well as is, why else would they create a new 'standard' for the digital system? It certainly isn't in the interest of the consumer.

    Why doesn't Sony support the Blu-Ray with its stock rewritable feature?
    Why did Disney/Circuit City/et al try to push (the bad) Divx onto the market in the first place?

    It isn't because consumers are clamoring for less control or cheaper movies.

    The time is coming when content producers are going to have to realize that their profits will no longer come from format-updates (repurchasing 8-tracks as CDs, VHS classics as DVDs, etc), and will -not- come from service-style access to data. Classic TV advertising may even have to give way to pure product-placement campaigns.

    Cable will realize that a move to pay-per-channel is the way to support content without advertising in our new time-shifted digital reality. Some people -will- pay $1/mo for TLC. Home Depot will still pay for product placements in Trading Spaces. Maybe the Super-station will go away - but the cable companies, and popular channels, need not.

    the film industry has already shown that the theatre experience is not losing out to cheap cam copies. they've learned that feature-rich dvds or dirt-cheap dvds are preferred to the customer over hacked-together recompressed copies on filesharing networks.

    The record companies will need to realize that to win with digital music requires providing the best quality, with the least hassle. They will need to realize that they must beat file-sharing on features. People will give up hunting around for a good (not mislabeled)256kbps rip of Britney's newest song - if they know they can just hit iTunes or its ilk and cough up $1.

    Fair Use needs to win out. These purported 'losses' from file-sharing need to be revealed to be grossly overestimated fabrications. (A PSA from a supposed union set painter claiming that file sharing is killing the movie industry, and threatening his job - airing during it's highest grossing year of all time is particularly tactless)

    DRM is the tool of the content dinosaur. If they concentrated on actual content piracy rings - where big money is being made off black-market copies, and abandoned their fruitless DRM research - their profits could be higher than ever.

    But such is not the reaction of anti-competitive cabals. Being forced to -compete- is not what they do. Suing, threatening, bullying, bribing - these are the blunt instruments they wield instead of the precise tools of innovation, imagination and competition.

    So in the meantime - expect every advance to carry DRM in the fine print.

    1. Re:The eventual decline by God+Takeru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are suffering from a rather selective memory, there. When radio came out, the music industry lost its mind, thinking that if you could hear a record on the radio, you'd never go to the store and buy it (WRONG!). They lost it again when recordable tapes came out, thinking that all the taping from the radio would end the industry, and we had to hear it from them again when CD-R came out-- the argument then being that CD quality is so much higher, that it's different than analog tapes.

      I agree with many of your latter arguments, but anybody who's been working in radio the last thirty years can tell you, the people who control the music seem to wet their pants in fear every time ANYTHING changes, it wasn't just the world of P2P that changed everything.

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    2. Re:The eventual decline by Desirsar · · Score: 1

      "Cable will realize that a move to pay-per-channel is the way to support content without advertising in our new time-shifted digital reality. Some people -will- pay $1/mo for TLC. Home Depot will still pay for product placements in Trading Spaces. Maybe the Super-station will go away - but the cable companies, and popular channels, need not."

      While it's true a good number of people will pay a subscription fee to have a particular channel, there are too many different people and too many choices, with not enough expendable income to go around. Cable access fees barely cover the operating expenses of the cable companies. It's not very likely a different source of income will ever be found for television than advertising. Also, a lot is profit driven - a wrestling pay-per-view doesn't need to place ads, it will make a profit from its buyrate, but if they have a few sponsors, it means that much more to the shareholders.

  42. Re:And on top of that.. by Trejkaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    No way, all those people with four-ear headphones will love this stuff.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  43. I'm still waiting on track divisions... by crashnbur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...so one album can be spliced into one MP3 with 10, 12, or however many tracks, allowing navigation through an album without those annoying pauses between tracks -- especially on MP3 CDs.

    1. Re:I'm still waiting on track divisions... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are already MP3 players that can do gapless playback. Even better, Ogg Vorbis is designed specifically to support gapless playback.

    2. Re:I'm still waiting on track divisions... by crashnbur · · Score: 1

      Yes I know. That's not what I'm talking about.

  44. I see the possibility for fraud by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    #1 Learn how the Super MP3 file format works.

    #2 Collect information on your enemies.

    #3 Insert that information into various Super MP3 files and strip out your information.

    #4 Share files on web sites or P2P file sharing networks using an alias on a system that is not yours. Like upload files from a library, college, rental system (Kinko's, CyberCafe, etc using an fake ID to get access to the system, wear a disguise too).

    #5 Sit back and watch the RIAA punish your enemies for you.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:I see the possibility for fraud by chaos421 · · Score: 1

      it could be as simple as:
      #1 learn how super mp3 file format works
      #2 delete additional personal usage information
      #3 ???
      #4 profit!

      i do like your twist, however. once the code is cracked, you could insert bill gates every time... or elmer fudd... if the riaa thinks this will work, they must have some amazing new encryption technology... like these files are only allowed on computers in fort knox that are turned off and disconnected from the internet.

  45. That is somewhat problematic by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Technically, it's problematic because of storage space. Each track is going to increase the storage space a whole lot. See you can't really compress a lone instrument track a whole lot more than the overall track. You can to a degree, but not a large one. So if instead of one stereo track you now have 4 stereo and 4 mono tracks, you are now talking files that are 6x as big, more or less.

    Stuff like this is workable on many game platforms because the music isn't in a final format. It is stored in terms of notes and samples and such and then synthesized on the fly by the audio processor.

    Then there is any post processing that is done. Music isn't done when you mix it to 2-track usually. Often (far roo often on popular music) there is limiting, compression and/or EQ added before it's released. Well that means you either have to do without those, or processors to do that need to be implemented in the playback hardware. This is doable, DVD player implement a dynamic compressor for example, but it isn't done in anything like an iPod at this point.

    The music industry would also never spring for it because it gives the end user WAAAAAY more contorl than they want them to have (since what they want them to have is nothing).

    1. Re:That is somewhat problematic by MBCook · · Score: 1
      I realise it would take way more space, but the industry is trying to find reasons to push us to SACD and DVD audio, this would give consumers a REASON. As it is now, about the only way they'll get most people is to stop making CDs to force consumers.

      And while an iPod may not be able to mix things together right now, by the time the industry got around to doing what I suggested (even if they started yesterday) iPods and other portables would be more than powerful enough to do it.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:That is somewhat problematic by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well I'm pretty happy with the choices for DVD-Audio. I happen to like listening to music in a quiet setting, with full surround sound. For me, 6-channel 24-bit sound IS a reason to own DVD-A discs.

      For average consumers, I don't even know that your idea would make any difference. Most are happy to just listen to music as is (I mean look at the crap that gets sold). I think most new technologies over CDs and MP3s are going to be a really hard, and probably impossible, sell. They have all they need or want in the current formats, at least for portable music.

  46. Don't forget... by MacDork · · Score: 1
    They'll need to raise prices to cover the cost of the conversion too!

    I've got a better idea. Instead of changing the technology, let's change the law. The law has made everyone a criminal. The law has made copyright something largely ignored by the people. The blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of the legislature. 28 years is more than long enough for copyright.

    1. Re:Don't forget... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I've got a better idea. Instead of changing the technology, let's change the law.

      That sounds great. How exactly do you propose to do this?

      1) Write to your representatives? Sure. Like they care, while at the same time the RIAA/MPAA are giving them bags of money and telling them they need longer copyrights and more restrictive laws. Who do you think they're going to listen to? Unless you can cough up some serious cash, er, campaign contributions, and do a lot of lobbying, you have no hope of getting any laws changed through this method.

      2) Vote in new representatives sympathetic to your view. First, see #1. Not many legislators are immune to the effects of lobbying. Second, how are you going to organize enough voters to elect such a person? Copyright term length isn't exactly a hot-button issue outside of Slashdot. Most consumers just don't care about this stuff; older people just watch whatever's on TV, and don't really listen to music. Or they're more worried about terrorism, gas prices (because they're pissed at having to pay $60 to refill their giant SUV), etc. Teenagers (who drive most RIAA music sales) are too young to care about copyright lengths since everything they listen to is less than 6 months old.

      Unless something really serious happens (I have no idea what) to make it plainly obvious to everyone that copyright law needs to be fixed in favor of the people and not the big media companies, it's not going to happen in our lifetimes, unless there's some revolution and a totally new government and system of law is created.

    2. Re:Don't forget... by westlake · · Score: 1
      older people just watch whatever's on TV, and don't really listen to music.
      Teenagers (who drive most RIAA music sales)

      But older people do listen to music. Norah Jones, Diana Krall. Top Sellers It's becoming very questionable whether young adults are still the driving force behind the major labels.

      The older audience is receptive to the arguments of the RIAA and being able to afford high end audio, satellite radio and other subscription services, has probably already made it's peace with existing copyright law and the future of universal DRM.

    3. Re:Don't forget... by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1

      "Unless something really serious happens (I have no idea what) to make it plainly obvious to everyone that copyright law needs to be fixed in favor of the people and not the big media companies, it's not going to happen in our lifetimes, unless there's some revolution and a totally new government and system of law is created." Revolution, you say? Totally new government, you say?

  47. 5:1 stereo equipment is dirt cheap and don't ... by linzeal · · Score: 1

    ...tell me that it is not of a good enough quality because most people still listen to the TV through 2 inch papercone speakers and they don't complain. The next generation of kids who have made it to college don't even think anything of setting up a surround sound speaker system properly. Most new consumer computers come with the very least a 4:1 system and with the price of a decent 5:1 system coming down in price all the time who says that the consumers are not already preparing themselves? They do make 5:1 headphones as well, ya know.

  48. Re:5:1 stereo equipment is dirt cheap and don't .. by crackshoe · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong - 5.1 is great. but i don't see a point for it in headphones, and i know that powred 5.1 recievers are becoming dirt cheap. However, i don't see stereo going to way of the dodo anytime soon. In my experience, very few people really care all that much about 5.1 sound (outside of audio and video philes) - its mostly just a neat toy thats recently become affordable. But if this audio format becomes prevelant, then i'm sure it'll spur a lot more people switching over. I personally find anything beyond stereo excessive, but thats because i have neither the space (for all those extra speakers) or the need (everything i listen to, aside from movies, is stereo). My athlon system has 5.1, yes, but i don't use it. Its just not something that appeals to me..... And just because they make 5.1 headphones doesn't make it a worthwhile technology. If they make 5.1 earbuds, i'd consider it, but until then i'm sticking with my nice studio headphones.

    --
    Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
  49. Doesn't affect me by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Funny

    My favorite musician is retired. I bought and ripped to MP3 all of his existing albums already.

    But hey, at least we'll be able to find out who has been distributing Jessica Simpson and Backdoor Boys MP3s and beat the hell out of them.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  50. bah by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    nothing the lame project cant fix or otherwise bypass.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  51. Re:So they'll catch people that don't know better. by BCoates · · Score: 1

    It's not entirely impossible to develop a watermark that survives reasonable-quality analog copying.

  52. Clarification needed... by thedji · · Score: 1
    "Next generation super MP3 files will support four-channel audio tracks and contain what's dubbed Light Weight Digital Rights Management (LWDRM) code to track it's owner via p2p programs."

    This can't mean the code is embedded in the MP3's, surely? This loses cross-platform support and introduces viruses...

    I can see it now though:
    Some_Artist_-_Famous_Track_1.i386.RH9.supermp3
    --
    ... and then there were none
  53. Leaked promotional video by bgeer · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Hi I'm Troy McLure and this is LightWeight DRM: Content delivered your way. You may remember me from such brand resuscitation films as How Asbestos saves YOUR CHILDREN from burning to death or Firestone Tires: Now with 33% less explosive power"

  54. Re:Tracking by huchida · · Score: 1
    Good question, since the user won't voluntarily put his name on the track when ripping the song. Could it be storing your machine ID? Could they pressure iTunes to incorporate the technology to do so?

    Or, are they going to imbed info. on the music track itself? Or will future CD's come with mp3's on tbe disc already, so you won't have to rip them... And so they can track them when you put them on P2P?

  55. mod parent up by aliquis · · Score: 1

    he should atleast have +6 insightful.

  56. MP3s....again? by WheelDweller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this the same format for which we are to pay, while .ogg files eclipse them? Let me get this straight- we're PAYING to give out personal information?

    Put another notch in the bedpost for the Microsoft mindset.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  57. Very well. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why don't we just stick with Ogg Vorbis audio compression for our file trading needs?

    1. Re:Very well. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      because many players are hardware based and ogg isn't in hardware yet (its still firmware-only, I believe).

      for consumer devices, you better use mp3 cause that's all there is that is 100% compatible.

      I care more about being able to play my music than to show politics about encoding licensing.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Very well. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1
      for consumer devices, you better use mp3 cause that's all there is that is 100% compatible.

      For portable listening purposes, you can be sure that you're not going to notice the loss in quality from transcoding to MP3. In fact, this is even preferable because downsampling for portable devices means greatly increased capasity. I am really just talking about using Vorbis for distribution and listening otherwise.

      Of course, there's always the chance that if the market demands portable music players that support Vorbis, companies will begin making them.

      I care more about being able to play my music than to show politics about encoding licensing.

      My comment wasn't so much about codec licensing issues, although those issues are important. It's about not using a format that tracks usage back to you such that the RIAA can more easily catch you red-handed then sue you $150,000 per song.

  58. Do the math in man hours by dark-br · · Score: 4, Insightful

    10 DRM coders working 9-5 vs 10 million "pirates" working nights and weekends.

  59. I'll tell you what's next! by BerntB · · Score: 1
    Whats next, death penalty for P2P sharing ?

    What's next are virus/worm writers writing code so many millions of users claim over the net to listen to these mp3s. Just to be contrary.

    So no one can be proved to have listened.

    To counter that, laws will probably be run through congress that ignores if listening data might be wrong and that people have to pay anyway. :-(

    I'm not certain, but probably:
    :-)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  60. what is it? by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

    Exactly.

    --
    And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
  61. Not at all by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    They want to be encoding standard on HD-DVDs. Well, the DVD consortium will not consider any format that isn't open and controlled by the appropriate standards body. So MS submitted WM-9 to SMPTE, and it has now been accepted and standardised. It is available to everyone under standard licensing terms.

    Now notice I said open, not free. It is like MPEG-4, MPEG-2, AAC, MP3 and so on. Anyone many implement the standard for a fixed licensing fee ($0.10 per decoder, $0.20 per encoder) but it isn't free of charge. As a pracitcal matter they'd probably ignore not-for-profit, source-only implementations like the MPEG consoritum ignores Xvid.

    But yes, it's open and controlled by SMPTE now. Your money goes to MS if you license it, but the fees are fixed, and any changes to the standard must be approved by SMPTE and will be given to all licensees as part of the license. It now is a viable alternative to MPEG-4, and it is one of the three finalists for the HD-DVD format.

    1. Re:Not at all by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      sweet!!, I stayed away from WMA and WMV because of their close nature.

      if MS keeps up like this, I might invite Longhorn in on one of my Boxes.

      I still like Quick time and all the goodness that comes with it for media creation though, so I think I am gonna stick with AAC for maya audio work.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Not at all by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      Does it matter that WM-9 has been accepted as a standard? The DRM that goes with WM-9 is NOT open and never will be. Being able to implement a WM-9 player is not much use if it cannot handle the DRM ladened content, which as we all know, will be just about all content pumped out from the RIAA/MPAA.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    3. Re:Not at all by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      The DRM component is also part of the open spec. The video, audio, and container, are all open standards now. Go read the SMPTE docs if you like or go look on MS's site.

    4. Re:Not at all by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      There is always more to MS then what you see on the surface. Do you really think MS's DRM will be fully documented and open? No. The version for SMPTE may be, though as you pointed out there are fees for the documentation and SDK which are not really priced for small business or individuals and then there is the license fee which again, I don't consider open in any sense of the word. Concerning MS's DRM, it will still be closed and proprietary, otherwise you would have 1,000+ cracks out there and the RIAA/MPAA would never go for it. The DRM that the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers use may be documented while encumbered by patents, the DRM that will go into the OS to protect digital content will be closed. There is nothing stopping MS from having two version of WM9 and DRM. The SMPTE won't use WM9 since there is a trademark so MS can continue WM9 down the closed proprietary path and have a slightly different version called VP9 or whatever for the SMPTE.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  62. This should lead to some good hacker hijinx by not_bio · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am sure it will take less than a week, err make that hour, to figure out how to spoof it. Another 2 days for some GUI guid spoofer tool to be published. Probably 5 days to figure out the guid of some famous person who uses this stuff. 10 days before everyone is just hacking the guid flag to make it look like it came from said famous person. 3 weeks for slashdot to pic up the story :P

    1. Re:This should lead to some good hacker hijinx by Halthar · · Score: 1

      Number of hours before Taco posts a dupe.....Priceless.

  63. Already questionable by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, you have a typical 5MB mp3 song.

    For a song to become a super mp3, tracking P2P users and multi channel sound.... wouldn't this be naturally much bigger than 5MB? If so wouldn't it be easy for the P2P user to just recognize that and avoid downloading it right away.

    Not to mention this is probably going to create a new P2P feature to flag an mp3 as "super" or "regular" before downloading.

    1. Re:Already questionable by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      For a song to become a super mp3, tracking P2P users and multi channel sound.... wouldn't this be naturally much bigger than 5MB? If so wouldn't it be easy for the P2P user to just recognize that and avoid downloading it right away.

      A significant increase in size would mean there was actually information to fill those extra tracks, wouldn't it? P2P info would be really small compared to the audio data. If I take a normal stereo song and put it in this 4 channel format, what would go in those other two tracks? And while you and I probably do look at the file size most of the time, I can assure you that quite a lot of people don't. I don't know how many times I've had to point out to people that they should be looking at the bitrate, or the size, to figure out whether they are going to get a good quality version. Most people respond with a blank look when the subject of compression comes up. Tell them to look for a song that's about 1 meg per minute as a baseline of quality, and they will ask, 'What's a meg? I know that word from somewhere, I have 125 of them I think.'

  64. 5.1? Who cares by retro128 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not exactly up to date on the latest music that's being released, but last I checked CD's were still being released in stereo, and seeing as how standard players are only capable of decoding 2-channel, 16 bit, 44.1kHz PCM streams that's the way it's going to be for a long time, if not forever.

    DVD's are another story. I'm sure the \AUDIO_TS directory could hold some 5.1 music, but I've yet to see it being used. There'd be a small market if so. Would people really buy the super whizbang 5.1 version of their favorite music that will only run on their DVD player, given that they listen to CD's in their cars, discmans, etc?

    And now to the crux of the problem. Since there is no 5.1 music out unless you are ripping it straight from a movie, why does SuperMP3 matter to p2p, or anything for that matter? IMHO, it doesn't - for straight music files.

    Possibly, however, it might make a difference with DVR's. In the distant future, when all TV is HD and all audio is 5.1, DVR's will perhaps encode to SuperMP3 to save space and keep the 5.1 channels. Will this matter to p2p? Only if you rip the movie out of the box and place it on the 'Net.

    Regardless, SuperMP3 will probably end up being yet another case study on why DRM doesn't work.

    --
    -R
    1. Re:5.1? Who cares by raynet · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of 5.1 music DVDs out there. Like this Mike Oldfield Tubular Bells II&III DVD I'm listening. It has 5.1 AC3 compressed and surround remixed soundtrack and also 2 channel PCM uncompressed 48KHz track.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
  65. "Unsigned" by tepples · · Score: 1

    I assume the "unsigned" comment refers to Microsoft's next-generation secure computing base called Palladium. It will run unsigned code, but its "sealed storage" permits access to files in encrypted Palladium archives only to code signed by the owner of monopoly in the file.

  66. It's different because... by EvilCabbage · · Score: 1

    ... my CD collection has never killed anybody, dickhole.

    You're comparing apples and organges there son.

    1. Re:It's different because... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Well of course I'm comparing apples and oranges. Comparing an MP3 file to an MP3 file would be rather meaningless, now wouldn't it? The analogy I made is that having a fingerprint on an MP3 file is there to catch any potential illegal activity without infringing your fair use rights. Fingerprints on a bullet or casing can also be used to catch any potential illegal activity without infringing your rights to shoot a gun.

      It's incredibly disingenuous of you to infer that I'm suggesting that your CD collection has killed someone. But thanks for the lesson, dad.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  67. 4 channels? by JFMulder · · Score: 1

    I mean, why not 5.1? Most people these days have 2.0 or 5.1 sound cards, not 4.0. Isn't the goal of software to sell hardware? So make it 5.1 or even 7.1. Oh, and put the lead voice in the central speaker. So I can shut it off and have decent karaoke parties without resorting to midis or expensive DVDs with 15 songs on them.

  68. Re:And so... 5 years! by saskboy · · Score: 1

    5 years is bloody short in my opinion. CD-ROM has been around in main stream for a decade now, and CDs in audio for nearing 20 years. DVDs better bloody well be the video standard until at least 2015, or I'M going to pissed, and it takes a bit to do that I might add.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  69. The trend against new formats is growing by tentimestwenty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The parent poster has got the thinking right. I run a record/CD store so I have lots of opportunity to talk with customers about their digital music needs. The basic trends are:

    1. People want vinyl records. They see it as a format from simpler times. They hate CDs for any number of reasons and vinyl lets them just listen to music.
    2. People buy CDs, copy them and sell them back. For those that rip they use MP3 and they don't care about quality. They hate any compressed format other than MP3 because it's one extra choice they don't want to think about.
    3. The only people that are happy with digital music are the ones that have an iPod because they see it has being their whole collection in a little box. People who listen to music on their computer jukebox, or any of the competing portable players complain about the experience for any number of reasons.
    4. The people who do know about DRM or any new formats have sworn to never use them.

    Overall from what I see, the trend is to actively resist any kind of format that requires too much decision making, too much restriction, or which makes too much extra work. This negative wave has extended back against CDs and no one wants the majority of them because they have no physical character. I think from here on out, all new consumer audio and video formats are going to have a huge problem with adoption. The effort to adopt them is well past the acceptable limit of consumers. Need we mention DVD-A or SACD?

    1. Re:The trend against new formats is growing by Ateryx · · Score: 1
      For those that rip they use MP3 and they don't care about quality. They hate any compressed format other than MP3 because it's one extra choice they don't want to think about.


      This is sadly true. I have had ~4000+ mp3s for the last 6 months and have only downloaded ~80 new songs. Recently with the purchase of a new fatty hd, I have begun replacing all of my .mp3's with .ape's. I'm definately not your textbook audiophile, but many of the mp3s you find are ripped by the asshats mentioned above who don't know a quality track if it hit them in the [insert witty place here]. Once you've started listening to .apes, you can easily hear the difference between lossless compression and some crap ass encoded mp3.

      --
      "The truth suffers from too much analysis"
    2. Re:The trend against new formats is growing by JamieF · · Score: 1

      >1. People want vinyl records. They see it as a format from simpler times. They hate CDs for any number of reasons and vinyl lets them just listen to music.

      I've never met anybody who thinks quite like that. Maybe the fact that you work in a record store affects your perceptions? People who want vinyl want it for retro kitsch reasons, so they can be a trendy DJ hipster.

      CDs in no way prevent you from listening to music. WTF are you talking about? I guess I haven't seen any hand-cranked CD players but that hardly seems relevant as I haven't seen any LP walkmen either.

      >4. The people who do know about DRM or any new formats have sworn to never use them.

      Meanwhile, consumers buy DVDs in massive volume and don't whine about it. Yeah, there is piracy, but the simple fact that DVDs are so successful just goes to show how stupid the record industry is. If they had, for example, solidly embraced MiniDisc instead of switching to a DRM-less lossless medium, they might not be as fucked as they are now. No, I'm not a MiniDisc fan; I'm just making a point: DRM is wildly successful (in terms of adoption and resulting profits), except in the music industry.

    3. Re:The trend against new formats is growing by trezor · · Score: 2, Insightful
      • 4. The people who do know about DRM or any new formats have sworn to never use them.

      How surprising. Almost as surprising as the fact that the industry is doing everything they can to keep the DRM-issue out of the public. People like owning things, owning them for real, just admit it. It's not that hard?

      Subversion is the keyword here. Not to be a zealous troll, but the only way this thing can be put to work, is trough subversion.

      What does that tell you about the basics of this technology?

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  70. Vorbis by RabidChicken · · Score: 1

    I. Don't. Care. The only people that will encode with this are the ones who encode with WMA or use Internet Explorer. Because it's the default and that's exactly what they'll use if it works. I, on the other hand, care about sound quality and being able to redistribute the files. I don't listen to music from RIAA (www.magnetbox.com/riaa/) and most of it I do is from artists that encourage or post their songs on the web. They won't use this crap, WMA, or DRM-boxed AAC. They WANT people to use these p2p apps because they love the music and makes them more popular at live shows. The point is the format is only important to those who are against P2P or the new wave of music. Those of us who aren't interested in that music will continue using MP3's or Ogg. Makes life simple, really.

  71. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by J+Nny · · Score: 1

    Homer: You tried your best and failed miserably. The
    lesson is, Never Try.

  72. Headphones. by OrthodonticJake · · Score: 1

    How many people have four-channel headphones? I ask because my iPod is used on the go, and not on my home stereo. Oh, wait, my home stereo doesn't have four channels either. Hell, I don't even know any songs that employ four channels. Why do I need more channels again?

    --
    I regularly report MSN spam to the Hotmail admins.
    1. Re:Headphones. by pyrote · · Score: 1

      Hell, I don't even know any songs that employ four channels. Why do I need more channels again?

      well just in case you want to rip the audio from a copy of star wars THX edition and drive down the highway as red one.

      you need the laser effects to come from behind so you know if the subaru in the other lane is red 2 or a tie fighter.

      gotta get that shot in the manhole cover before your shot down.

      just lock a midget in the trunk to simulate r2-d2.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
  73. Blackmail by tepples · · Score: 1

    True, but this beautifully sets up a blackmail: Mr. Valenti, agree to our demands, or we'll sic the RIAA goons on your precious MPAA.

  74. "Original hits by original artists" by tepples · · Score: 1

    I've been bit once too many buying a CD claiming to contain original recordings by the original artists, but in fact "original" was used in the copyright-law sense of "newly created", and what I got was a cover album.

  75. Java anyone? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no reason to lose cross-platform support if your code is a bytecode that all licensees' platforms can interpret.

  76. Bitrate by tepples · · Score: 1

    wouldn't this be naturally much bigger than 5MB? If so wouldn't it be easy for the P2P user to just recognize that and avoid downloading it right away.

    Most current p2p user agents do not display number of channels. They do display bitrate, but until upgraded, they won't be able to distinguish a 192 kbps rip with 96 kbps per channel from a 192 kbps rip with 48 kbps per channel.

  77. Unless the music gets a lot better very fast... by Nice2Cats · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...I don't think anybody will be using any format for anything anymore, let alone buying CDs. Has anybody listened to the Top 10 in their country the last few months and actually liked something their heard?

    1. Re:Unless the music gets a lot better very fast... by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      Not since Nirvana. (Someone make a music poll. I'm curious.)

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  78. Re:tracking eh by CaptainTux · · Score: 1
    Next generation super MP3 files will support four-channel audio tracks and contain what's dubbed Light Weight Digital Rights Management (LWDRM) code to track it's owner via p2p programs.

    Personally, I think one of their problems will be getting their terms straight. If they define me as the "owner" of an MP3 (as opposed to the licensee) then doesn't that give me unlimited rights? If I "own" something then I can do whatever I want and nobody but me can place any restrictions on it.

    And before anyone compares the MP3 with a CD whereby you own the CD but are licensing the music think of it this way: a CD is an actual tangible, physical object that *contains* the licensed information. In the case of an MP3 the file (aka delivery vehicle) *is* the information.

    --
    Anthony Papillion
    Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
    "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
  79. Stop this -groundless- stupid paranoia by trezor · · Score: 1, Troll
    • If you do have longhorn, the file conversion tools are unsighned code. So you can't run them.

    As far as I know the TCPA specs, Longhorn won't stop you from running unisgned code.

    TCPA will stop you from allowing unsigned code to access trusted mode and trusted keys.

    There is no way TCPA can prevent you from bruteforcing the key, or even aquirering them by using a Un-TCPAed bootfloppy (w/some possibly necassery bruteforcers as well....)

    This might not be as easy as DeCSS, but saying Longhorn won't run unsigned code at all is just plain stupid.

    You think Microsoft will dear to break backward compatebility that bad? Nobody will upgrade, regardless of pressure, if it means that all other software will have to go, and Microsoft knows this.

    So stop misinterpeting things, and repeating stupid, groundless claims. Get a tinfoil hat, and get rid of your fullcover tinfoil body-suit.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:Stop this -groundless- stupid paranoia by duren686 · · Score: 1

      This is one of the few Longhorn/Palladium-related posts that isn't brain-shatteringly stupid, and I thank you for it.

      --
      Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
  80. Not yet, anyway. by trezor · · Score: 1
    • and i'm pretty sure that other OSes won't be outlawed anytime soon.

    Erm... Are you that sure? :)

    Really. In the DVD-Jon (argh, I hate that handle!) DeCSS-case in norwegian criminal court, Linux was referred to as a "hacker os". No big news here, and any hacker will claim the same, but I guess governments and hackers define the word "hacker" rather differently.

    Ask any government official, and he will firmly claim that a "hacker" is a criminal. Outlawing tools which may assists criminals, is catching on like nothing else these days, so I'll just say "beware".

    If we allow big buisness to define the language (as we more or less are doing now), don't be suprprised when even current laws start outlawing things in a totally unreasonable manner.

    /No tinfoil hat, but it's allways best to take precautions.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  81. It's not secure, never was. by trezor · · Score: 1
    • Sorry, but you missed the point. It's not the transfer that they want to secure, it's the sharing they want to eliminate.

    I think the main point here is to repeal this defintion of "secure". If every tech-writer reading slashdot started referring to these files as "restricted" files and the methods used as "restricting" (as opposed to securing), I think we can come a long way.

    "Securing" the files and transfers almost sound good you know. However enforcing "restrictions" sounds quite borderlining to criminal, if you ask me. But IANAL and I don't know trade-laws and trade-treaties.

    Oh. And it only takes one guy to break the encryption and it's all useless. Anyone have the odds on that not happening?

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:It's not secure, never was. by DA-MAN · · Score: 1
      Oh. And it only takes one guy to break the encryption and it's all useless. Anyone have the odds on that not happening?
      <Han_Solo> Never tell me the odds... </Han_Solo>
      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
  82. Wow. Insightfull by trezor · · Score: 1
    • and I've found a lot of foreign music (such as European heavy metal that I like) is not affiliated with the RIAA

    You are saying that European-made and recorded music is not affiliated with the Recording Industry Assosiation of America? You must be joking!

    You might have ment the big labels, but I'd still like to point out that's there more in this world than the US. In fact I'm glad there is.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  83. Eclipse? by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 1

    Ogg is a competitor, but I don't think any rational person would say that ogg "eclipses" MP3 at similar bitrates. The consensus on hydrogenaudio is that ogg is very capable but currently requires higher bitrates to achieve the same quality as MP3.

    Put another notch in the bedpost for the "Open source is ALWAYS better" mindset.

    1. Re:Eclipse? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      "Ogg is a competitor, but I don't think any rational person would say that ogg "eclipses" MP3 at similar bitrates. The consensus on hydrogenaudio is that ogg is very capable but currently requires higher bitrates to achieve the same quality as MP3."

      Let's see:

      • It's free, and going to stay that way
      • It doesn't track people, never will.
      • It sounds at least as good as MP3's, if not better
      • We control it, so we can change it.

      Yes. It eclipses MP3's in the way most Open Source software does: on the important parts.

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  84. Re:Ah, the perspective of an asshole by thryllkill · · Score: 1

    1) I'm 27, not 16
    2) I only think my iBook is magic, apple has flaws
    3) iTunes is pretty much the digital music seller that other digital music sellers want to be
    4) I make my own money
    5) I tend to buy my music from interpunk.com if I buy CDs (the punk assed part is right, just not Good Charlotte, I was bagging on those talentless fucks)
    6) I don't use iTunes, when I buy mp3s I use audiolunchbox.com so I get good mp3s without DRM.
    7) You're a goddamn idiot.

    --

    Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

  85. I have always wondered about this by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Exactly *where* do you see these decoding flaws?

    And no, your fancy DVD decoder tester discs don't count.

    I have a el-cheapo chinese 45 dollar DVD player, and honestly I cannot see absolutely *any* diference between it's quality and the quality of my friends $500+ model.

    Are these "errors" you cite based on playing any actual movies? Is the "error" larger than 2px by 2px? ( as in, would anyone watching the movie actually *see* it if they were paying attention to the film and not scrounging it for errors? )

    Regardless of your response, I sure won't be inclinded to spend more than I have to, since I can personally see no quality difference whatsoever. I am just curious where people like you get these numbers.

    1. Re:I have always wondered about this by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Actual DVD movies. MASH TV DVD in particular, definitely around the credit titles. On sets calibrated as well as I possibly can.

      Often they are added Gibbs effects. Sometimes I think they are color upsampling errors too.

      And no, I wasn't really looking for flaws.

  86. XP Service Pack To Install DRM by webzombie · · Score: 1

    So what will happen when millions of XP users unknowingly install the DRM required for the grand evil plan when they install XP'x soon to be rolled out "Our Focus is on Security" Service Pack?

    Instantly half the market has now accepted the new terms of abuse for the world's biggest convicted monopolist and the consumer pillaging continues!

    No amount of geek tweaking is going to stop the inevitable. This is not the fuckin' Matrix kids. Big biz, convicted monopolists and corrupt politicans rule the day so bend over and stop bitchin' or try and vote the bastards out of office!

  87. Just one comment. by imidazole2 · · Score: 1

    OMFG! IEI? TISL!

    --

    -Imidazole2
  88. "Just listen to music"? by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1
    People want vinyl records. They see it as a format from simpler times. They hate CDs for any number of reasons and vinyl lets them just listen to music.

    Sooo... let me get this straight - these people think that the vinyl listening procedure is simpler? WTF?

    1. Take record sleeve out of outer sleeve
    2. Take record out of inner sleeve
    3. Place record on TT
    4. Turn on TT motor
    5. Use carbon fibre brush to remove dust from record
    6. Use stylus brush to remove dust from stylus
    7. Raise tonearm lifter
    8. Move tonearm over first groove
    9. Lower tonearm lifter
    10. Enjoy the music!!!

    And, of course, after 20 minutes max you'll do it again.

    Granted, it can be relaxing to play around with vinyl. Hell, I own more than 500 of the buggers. The sleeve artwork is also often way cooler than with CD's. But "just listen to music"? I don't think so.

    1. Re:"Just listen to music"? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hell, I own more than 500 of the buggers. The sleeve artwork is also often way cooler than with CD's. But "just listen to music"? I don't think so.

      Well, I own more than 25,000 of 'em and I love the sleeve artwork, too. One of these days I'll frame a few of my favorites.

      It pains me to admit that you're right on with your comment about LPs not being for just listening to the music. Yes, they still tend to sound better than CDs, but if the highest of fidelity was the only thing guiding my choice of music formats, I'd use reel-to-reel. I still have several hundred of those. No, I find that as I get older I have little tolerance for the rituals necessary to clean microscopic cat dander out of the grooves. It wasn't so long ago that I saw a calculation that given the cost of an extremely high-end phono cartridge and the frighteningly fast rate at which they wear out, you could literally hire classical musicians, in small groups and as soloists, to come to your house and play more hours of music than you could get from the damn cartridge. The only good reason to use LPs is for the superior sound but the maintenance and expense to maintain that superiority is just too much of a pain in the ass for me to continue to use them.

      I've been a lot happier with my music since I gave up on trying to outrace the audiophile treadmill. CDs are pretty good. MP3s and streaming formats are good enough when I'm not listening carefully. And tickets to the symphony are cheap; as an added benefit, they get me out of the house.

      I love my listening room. I've got wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling custom shelving on all four walls stuffed solid with more LPs than most people have ever seen in one place at one time. But it's time to take it apart and turn it back into the master bedroom the architect of the house envisioned. Yes, I sleep in a secondary bedroom because I converted the master suite into a dedicated listening room many years ago.

      So it's time to let go. I know I should. But I just can't bring myself to start pulling those beautiful discs off the shelves. Is there a support group for people like me?

  89. Vinyl simplicity by SolemnDragon · · Score: 1

    I can speak on this one. What i look at vinyl for is not 'simpler,' per se, but 'analog.' The joy of vinyl is simply that it isn't digital; that it is a reproduction that you could conceivably build a home listening station for without needing any programming ability. For some people, this is a big deal- the way books are so lovable in hard copy. Any bibliophile can tell you about the smell of a bookstore specialising in antique books.

    This doesn't mean that vinyl i necessarily better, but it does mean that there isn't exactly a replacement for it so much as an alternate choice. Personally, i don't mind CDs or MP3s. My collection is stored mostly digitally. But i understand about vinyl- it's not just simpler, but to some people, more 'real,' because there are fewer leaps between product and music. The sound quality may not be the same- but there's a perception about the type of recording, rather than the quality, that gets involved.

    1. Re:Vinyl simplicity by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

      This is what I meant by "simple" in relation to LPs, thanks for the expansion.

  90. Vive la revolution by waxxie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Being that the US is a Constintutional Republic and not a Constintutional Democracy, the rights of big business far outweigh the rights of the individual.

    Now if you really wanted to "mix" things up... Imagine if everyone in North America where to register themselves as a corporation, you'd pay less tax AND have more rights (the ones that the big corporations have, that you the citizen dont have). You would be able to deduct all living expenses and only pay tax on any profit at the end of the year. Of course this requires lots of paperwork, but the government loves paperwork & red tape. So why not indulge them ;)

    Another simple idea is to just stop living by their terms. Get OFF the grid, stop using their services, listening to their propaganda and most of all stop believing the president. He is only there to serve big business and make sure you pay their salaries.

    Another thing to note is that while the current system of government has worked in the past, it has become quite antiquiated. The levels of corruption, influence and ass kissing run so deep that unless something is done SOON, there is no other route for it to go but to a future similar to that of 1984.

    Cut away the cancer, a bloody revolution IS the answer.

  91. Sigh by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 1

    Another open source fetishist.

    Listen I'm not saying ogg is bad, but you are denying reality if you think that the quality is the same between ogg and mp3 at the same bitrate. I trust the people on HydrogenAudio, I guarantee they care more about quality than either of us. They perform blind listening tests all the time and they've concluded that mp3 sounds better than ogg at a given bitrate. So no, ogg doesn't sound "at least" as good as mp3. As for your other points:

    Lame is free, and going to stay that way.
    Standard mp3 doesn't track people, and it never will.
    We control Lame, so we can change it. It's open source too, if you've forgotten.

    Now if you absolutely must have patent-free audio, ogg is a fine choice but don't go around saying it sounds better than MP3.

    Fraunhofer's super mp3 won't have any effect on regular mp3, and I doubt anyone will even use it.

    1. Re:Sigh by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      Well ogg sounds better at even lower bitrates.

    2. Re:Sigh by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      [Long comment, snipped]

      What's it matter about the bitrate? So it takes more bits to rip it into equal quality...do you know how many people are ripping mp3s at 128 and thinking it's a precision standard? Don't sweat it. It's not like disk space is a premium anymore.

      It's like comparing two cars- one we own, the other we'd be in debt for, for at least 4 years. And the only difference is the amount of shine on the hood. MP3 is effectively owned by a corporation that isn't GPL-friendly. Why is bringing in more of that of any benefit?

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    3. Re:Sigh by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 1

      Device support mostly.

      As I've said in EVERY response in this thread, I think ogg is a good codec but it just doesn't eclipse MP3 yet. One of these reasons is device support, no other codec can touch MP3's penetration into the device market. If I want a tune that will play on my discman, my tivo, and in my car, there's only one format that fits the bill. Bitrate is a relatively minor concern.

  92. Re:tracking eh by Jordi+Bunster · · Score: 1

    Just because the mp3 file is non tangible, it doesn't mean that the *file* is not an entity in itself, separate from the information it contains. Even if it had zero overhead data.

    --
    Jordi Bunster http://bunster.org/contact/
  93. Sony LP Walkman - yes, it played 33RPM records by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

    WTF are you talking about? I guess I haven't seen any hand-cranked CD players but that hardly seems relevant as I haven't seen any LP walkmen either.

    Actually, Sony did make an LP Walkman. It was the original Discman, released in about 1983. I've never seen one in person; they didn't catch on for obvious reasons of practicality. Nor could I find any references to it anywhere online, but it was featured in the Gadget section of Hands-On Electronics magazine at the time - I think I'll have to scan the article and put it online. The Sony model looked like a large 80's-styled plastic C-clamp. It came with a belt clip (presumably only for carrying it to your listening spot, since having a whirring record on your hip would be ...problematic), and it took a 33RPM LP. I don't know what you'd use it for - back when I was a kid, libraries would lend LPs, maybe for listening in the library?

    Others did make similar things but mostly in slot-load format - check out these pictures of one which was only capable of 45RPM singles.

    Yes, I know. It's asinine. But they did make 'em.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  94. Re:And so... $30 player $200 player not true! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Claiming that as a rule a $30 chinese player is never as good as a $200 jap player is more than silly, Demaagd. Most of the players out there, no matter whether they're jap-made Philips/Panasonic or ones from Red Star Corp., China use common chipsets that allow little to no control over the quality of the decoded YUV data and use the same Philips patent NTSC/PAL/SECAM encoders. Only when it comes to some analog circuitry and mechanical parts (loading tray etc.) that you will notice differences in quality.

  95. Re:Utter nonsense. Mod parent DOWN. by sydb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Between the facts and your ignorant claim, there are lightyears of difference. And that you actually got moded "interesting" for this... The moderators are still clueless, I guess.

    It's possible to be interesting and wrong, just as it's possible to be boring and right!

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  96. Re:Utter nonsense. Mod parent DOWN. by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
    It's possible to be interesting and wrong, just as it's possible to be boring and right!

    That's an interesting theory. However, I believe you are incorrect.
    --
    I'd rather be lucky than good.
  97. Re:here by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

    It's not my fault slashdot's formatting code is about as reliable as a 72 Pinto with no fuel pump.

    And yes, I now realize I assigned a variable improperly. Next time, I'll be sure to send my 15-second "+5, Funny"s to you to proofread.

    In conclusion, eat a dick.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"