EMI Says ITMS DRM-Free Music Selling Well

An anonymous reader writes "'The initial results of DRM-free music are good' says Lauren Berkowitz, a senior vice president of EMI, at a music industry conference in New York. Berkowitz went on to say that the early results from iTunes indicate that DRM-free offerings may boost revenue from digital albums as well as individual songs."

Comments

Shock!

[thrills33ker]

Who'd have thought that treating your customers with respect and giving them what they want would pay off?

Amazing!

Re:Shock!

[Harmonious Botch]

Only in the long run.

Re:Shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

Clarification: the email addresses are simply attached to the file as a tag, not encrypted or otherwise obfuscated, and can be easily removed by tag-editing tools.

Some people seem to believe that they are encrypted into the music somehow, but it's been confirmed that this is not the case.

Re:Shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is watermarking the files DRM? It doesn't prevent you from doing anything you want to with the file. Now, if you do something illegal with the file, like distribute it on a P2P network, then this could help them track you down. Unless you are saying the only reason you are against DRM is it prevents you from breaking the law.

Re:Shock!

[drinkypoo]

Watermarking is not DRM. It's watermarking. DRM controls when and how you are allowed to use the content, and watermarking does not. It only provides a [potential] trail of culpability. If you are modded down, it will be at least half because you are simply wrong - although I have been hit hard by fanboys as well, Apple and otherwise. Right now it's the OSI fanboys modding me down for pointing out that Perens' claim to invent the idea of "open" source is false and that "open" meant something before he opened his mouth on the subject. I suspect you suffer for the same reason I do; some people mod me down any chance they get to make a plausible-looking negative moderation, simply because they recognize me and disapprove of that for which I stand.

Er, anyway, back on topic: Watermarking is, by definition, not DRM.

Re:Shock!

[Scarblac]

Whatever encoding e-mail addresses should be called, DRM it is not. It doesn't limit you in any way.

Let's not confuse the meaning of terms like this, that's not helpful.

Re:Shock!

[nine-times]

Oh geeze, please stop spreading FUD about having the e-mail address in the song. It's a fricken *TAG*. It'd be like if they sold MP3s and put "Purchased on iTunes by yourname@domain.com" in the ID3 tag. Stop whining already!

Re:Shock!

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Let's not forget, they still encode e-mail addresses and names in these 'DRM free' tracks. I still consider that DRM.

You may not like it, but please don't confuse the issue by calling it DRM. It's metadata, even potentially useful metadata, that discourages copyright infringement while not in any way restricting fair use. You can copy those files to any device, or even transcode them into any other format, easily stripping all metadata in the process. Totally different than DRM, where you have to actually break encryption or suffer quality loss in order to do that.

If we're gonna love someone for providing DRM free tracks, remember Amazon is providing actual unencoded MP3s.

Except that they haven't opened their store yet. So don't go lauding them when you don't even know that they're not going to include the user id of the person who downloaded the song in the metadata.

Re:Shock!

[timster]

But... but... the files aren't even watermarked! It's just a tag!

C'mon, people, this is the worst FUD since the Alexis de Tor-something Institute spit out that paper on how Linux was a copy of Minix.

Re:Shock!

[Odiumjunkie]

> Er, anyway, back on topic: Watermarking is, by definition, not DRM.

And this isn't watermarking. Digital watermarking changes content to encode some kind of message. When you buy DRM-free tunes from iTunes, the actual content, the AAC stream, contains no watermark. If you buy the same DRM-free song from five different accounts, all the AAC streams will be bit-for-bit identical. All that's included is a tag, in plaintext, which contains your info. You can read it, you can edit it, you can remove it. Not DRM, not a watermark.

Re:Shock!

[TheRaven64]

Mod parent idiot. Adding a metadata atom, in the format published in the standard and easily removable, to give a receipt is not DRM. It does not restrict any legal use, and it doesn't serve much impediment to illegal use either.

The tags added by the iTunes store make it easy for you to prove that you purchased the tracks, should you need to. If you don't need to, and you think having your name stored on your hard drive is somehow an infringement of your civil liberties, then just remove them. They're stored in standard MPEG-4 atoms, and there are a number of tools for editing them.

Re:Shock!

[falcon5768]

no its not your moron. DRM means your rights are restricted, you cant copy or even play your music on something you own because it wont LET you do it.

Encoding data does nothing to prevent you from doing anything but ILLEGALLY TRADING MUSIC. You can burn it copy it back it up play it on anything you want and nothing is restricted.... but go ahead and put that on Limewire which is what you really want to do with it by the obvious tone of your writing. Be the ultimate reason the rest of us are getting dicked over by giving the record companies a example.

You dont even have to be a Apple zealot to understand that your whole line of thinking is fundamentally flawed by the fact that in order for your rights to be restricted by having your email encoded in the track, you have to be breaking the fucking law since any law abiding person would not see it as a issue.

Re:Shock!

[InsaneProcessor]

That is right. You can't distribute without impunity even if it isn't there. You are just harder to catch. The tag (watermark) does not prevent you from "fair use". It just identifies you as the purchaser.

Re:Shock!

[Odiumjunkie]

> The tags added by the iTunes store make it easy for you to prove that you purchased the tracks

No! They allow you to prove precisely one thing, and that is the tracks contain a completable editable and non-authoratative item of metadata that describes certain data about you. They don't prove who owns the tracks, who bought the tracks, where the tracks have been, who's done what with them - they're a post-it note on a car saying "Dave bought this car". Anyone can put on a new post-it note saying something different, or remove the post-it note altogether.

The amount of FUD on this topic has been unbelievable.

Re:Shock!

[squiggleslash]

Right now it's the OSI fanboys modding me down for pointing out that Perens' claim to invent the idea of "open" source is false and that "open" meant something before he opened his mouth on the subject

Not sure what this off-topic rant has to do with anything, but I've never seen Perens claim he "invented" open source. Far from it, he's always claimed its the same thing as Free Software and given appropriate credit to RMS et al.

That, however, he was a part of the original group that promoted the term as an alternative/replacement for the phrase "Free software" is beyond question. It is also beyond question that he created the "Open Source Definition", a commonly accepted definition for what open source is.

If you're being modded down, it's because you're lying about what people are claiming.

Re:Shock!

[UncleTogie]

I'd like some clarification, if possible. You'd said:

It only provides a [potential] trail of culpability.
It may be "watermarking" or not, but the Wikipedia article seems to think so, as quoted here:

"Another application is to protect digital media by fingerprinting each copy with the purchaser's information. If the purchaser makes illegitimate copies, these will contain his name. Fingerprints are an extension to watermarking principle and can be both visible and invisible."
As for whether it's DRM or not, IMHO, it IS. Whose benefit is the "trail of culpability" for? The customer, or the RIAA? Once again, IMHO, any technology that embeds information which ONLY benefits the recording industry should be considered DRM.

Re:Shock!

[drinkypoo]

Not sure what this off-topic rant has to do with anything, but I've never seen Perens claim he "invented" open source. Far from it, he's always claimed its the same thing as Free Software and given appropriate credit to RMS et al.

Perens claims to have invented the term "Open Source": in this comment.

It is not the same thing as Free Software, even if he DOES claim that, and I don't think he does (at least, he doesn't seem to have here on slashdot today.) It's vaguely similar, but that's as close as you get.

If you're being modded down, it's because you're lying about what people are claiming.

If only rational, reasonable people got modpoints, you might be right.

Re:Shock!

[drinkypoo]

Well, I sit corrected. I thought the data was merged in with the stream. You're correct that it's not a watermark; it's simply more like a watermark than it is like DRM. If anything, it's a ownership sticker like kids put in books :)

Re:Shock!

[metamatic]

some people mod me down any chance they get to make a plausible-looking negative moderation, simply because they recognize me and disapprove of that for which I stand.

Or maybe it's because half the time you're insightful and half the time you're talking out of your ass (or so I've noticed)--but they never have mod points at the right time.

Re:Shock!

[Evil Adrian]

AMEN!!!

Previous poster is a genius, and that is not sarcasm.

Re:Shock!

[pyite]

As for whether it's DRM or not, IMHO, it IS.

And it's a good thing we don't come to you to give the final say on such matters. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Your rights are not being managed--at all. You can do what you wish with the file. Another point: technically, when you strip DRM from normal iTunes songs, because it relies on an encryption mechanism, you're in theory, violating the DMCA. There's no encryption with the files being tagged as they are in the non-DRM version. Go to the console and type 'strings FILENAME' and voila, it dumps these so-called watermarks. If you want to put these on Bit Torrent, or some P2P network, fine. No one is stopping you. No one is stopping you from easily stripping the tags, either. Calling it DRM just makes you look completely ignorant on the subject.

Re:Shock!

[TheRaven64]

Encoding data does nothing to prevent you from doing anything but ILLEGALLY TRADING MUSIC. It doesn't even stop that, it just makes it slightly more likely that you will be caught if you do.

People like the grandparent, who water down the term 'DRM' to mean 'anything I have an irrational dislike for' are hugely damaging to the anti-DRM movement.

Re:Shock!

[morgan_greywolf]

It is not the same thing as Free Software, even if he DOES claim that, and I don't think he does (at least, he doesn't seem to have here on slashdot today.) It's vaguely similar, but that's as close as you get.

Bruce Perens didn't invent the term 'open source', just ask his friend ESR. It was invented by a secretary at a meeting in Mountain View, CA, with Netscape execs. in 1998.

Re:Shock!

[elrous0]

Sure, this is all well and good. But has anyone thought about the poor folks at the RIAA and MPAA who could get laid off by this sort of thing? Those are people with children to feed, mortgages to pay, elderly parents to support, etc. Won't someone please think of those poor souls?!?!?!

Re:Shock!

[drinkypoo]

A comment from another poster elsewhere in this thread (I've posted too many comments since to easily find it) claimed that Caldera used the term in 1996. I would check, but their robots.txt has resulted in archive.org refusing to serve their archived pages...

Re:Shock!

[Millenniumman]

I really can't understand this complaint. All they are doing is adding your name to a file on your computer, that no one else has access to, and in such a way that is is easily viewable and removable by you. Do you have no files on your computer with your name?

Re:Shock!

[init100]

Alexis de Tor-something Institute

The name you are looking for is Alexis de Tocqueville Institute.

Re:Shock!

[ceejayoz]

Let's not forget, they still encode e-mail addresses and names in these 'DRM free' tracks. I still consider that DRM.

Well, if we're making up definitions these days, I'm calling your post a monkey made out of dragon feces.

Re:Shock!

[reddburn]

Question to add some perspective: how is this different from purchasing a used book with someone's name written inside the front cover, or even one with the insipid "To [Name] on [Joyous Occasion and year]" inscription?

Re:Shock!

[unlametheweak]

Encoding personally-identifiable information in the files is still DRM

This encoding can actually be a part of the DRM process. It may be reasonable to think of it as DRM, but this is incorrect (but understandable) thinking.

DRM is a system, not a single technology. It can consist of many technologies and even laws, including the hardware (Trusted Computing Platform), software applications, and the media itself (songs, movies, etc) including the attributes of that media (encryption schemes, watermarking, even tagging in meta-data etc). So yes personal information in a file can be thought of as DRM, but that would be an extreme simplification.

DRM would be more correctly described as a system and process with many entities. Emphasis should be place on "Management" in Digital Rights Management. If we could make an analogy with the non-virtual world, then "business management" would not be a CEO in a company, or merely a supervisor, but it would be an entire process with many entities and players involved.

When in doubt, check it out:

Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term referring to technologies used by publishers or copyright holders to control access to or usage of digital data or hardware, as well as to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures, which refer to specific technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital content on electronic devices. Such technologies act as components of a full-blown DRM design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_righ ts_management

BTW: I think tags can be used LIKE watermarks, but they are NOT watermarks. They may have a similar effect, and are therefore somewhat analogous. Watermarks are strictly defined as images though, not tags.

Re:Shock!

[unlametheweak]

go ahead and put that on Limewire which is what you really want to do

You raise an interesting point. I certainly don't know what people's motivations are, but I will tell you mine.

I personally don't like any personal or private information stored in any of my files as meta-data, whether it be hidden, semi-hidden, etc. This is not because I share my files, but because I am very privacy conscious. My thinking may not be rational, but it is what it is.

I would speculate that a lot of people just have a personal FUD of big companies in general, and that this FUD is not unexpected. We hear about corruption and sleaze all the time about big companies. I don't think it's a Limewire issue with a lot of people (most?), although it may be.

Re:Shock!

[SeaFox]

If we're gonna love someone for providing DRM free tracks, remember Amazon is providing actual unencoded MP3s.

How does one listen to an unencoded MP3? That's like listening to an unrecorded audio cassette.

Re:Shock!

[LKM]

I personally don't like any personal or private information stored in any of my files as meta-data, whether it be hidden, semi-hidden, etc.

The iTunes meta data is not even semi-hidden. It's right there in the iTunes info window for every last one of your files. Given that you don't like private information stored in your files, I trust you don't actually have an electronic address book, or any application that you have to register, or any of the numerous applications that store personal meta data in files - Word comes to mind. I'm guessing you also don't use sites that store cookies, or mail. Your mail store contains files containing your mail address, you know.

Re:Shock!

[unlametheweak]

Your assumptions are pretty much correct (assuming you are not being sarcastic). The only site that I allow cookies on is Slashdot, and that has been only recently since I signed up. I don't use address books, and almost never use email. Notepad is my text editor of choice.

When I do use applications, I always check for meta-data and any auto-populating meta-data features, but it's not always obvious where or if you can see meta-data in the files. Most of my applications I have you do not have to register, as they are open-source and generally don't even use an install method. If the apps do have an install method, then I try to unpack the installer and just get the programs running on there own. This seems to work most of the time. The very few times that I do need to register the program (like with the Visual Studio Express programs), I just setup a disposable email account and register under a pseudonym. Yeah it may sound extreme, but that's me, what can I say.

Since I don't use iTunes, I could only make an opinion based on other peoples posts, but it would appear that this meta-data would not be obvious to the average (naive) user. I don't won't to over-stress this point, it's just a problem (for me at least) of checking every application I install to make sure the default settings don't store personal information. This is a real nuisance, and there is always the possibility that I may miss something.

My main concern with meta-data would be if my computer where compromised, and I could be a victim of identity theft. I don't want to over stress this though, because I'm not too paranoid, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Well perhaps there are people who would consider me paranoid :)

Re:Shock!

[MysteriousPreacher]

You have a pretty amazing security set-up there. Paranoid by my standards but then it depends on your needs. My home-setup is certainly considered paranoid by some people but it's necessary for what I do.

iTunes music probably isn't a good idea for you based on your set-up. That said, it's fine for most people. Even if your iPod was loaded up with music and it got stolen, it's very unlikely that someone is going to use it for sinister purposes unless that is the very reason why they stole the iPod (and associated data) in the first place. If that is the case, you probably have bigger worries than your email address leaking out.

Re:Shock!

[MysteriousPreacher]

The only argument I can see against the system is that it could be the thin end of the wedge. However, the same could be said of any web site that requires you to register before posting there.

I agree that most people objecting are probably annoyed since the tags stop them casually sharing the music. This system is certainly better than DRM since it doesn't stop you from making backup copies for yourself, or even converting it in to other formats for use with different apps and devices.

The only thing that would stop me using iTunes music would be if they made it impossible to convert it to other formats. I don't want to left sitting there with the metaphorical box of betamax tapes and no player.

Re:Shock!

[MysteriousPreacher]

Simon and Garfunkel's The Sound of Silence comes to mind.

Re:Shock!

[Maxo-Texas]

"overrated".

What a waste of a good mod point for a stupid joke.

I'm not even sure what the down-modder's point is since I frequently get enough "insightfuls" in a week to max out my carma.

I only mod people up myself.

Re:Shock!

[LKM]

Since I don't use iTunes, I could only make an opinion based on other peoples posts, but it would appear that this meta-data would not be obvious to the average (naive) user.

I think the point of the metadata is to discourage sharing of files. In order to achieve this, users need to know the data is there. It's really not hidden at all, and since pretty much every newspaper on earth has now written about it, most iTunes users probably realize it's there.

Also, given your detailed information about what apps you use, I must admit that iTunes is not suitable for you - if you were to use the iTunes Store, it would definitely store your login name somewhere on your hard disk, so the music files containing your e-mail address would be the least of your problems :-)

Re:Shock!

[UncleTogie]

...but you do come across as the sort of whiny twat who will always find something to complain about when it comes to distribution of payed content, thereby 'justifying' your piracy habit.
Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious, but if you'd read my post, I'd made it pretty clear that I have NO intention of redistributing music. Let me rephrase my issue with the tagging, and I'll use your example:

Why would I need a metatag to tell me something's mine? I know it's mine. I was there when I bought it. Does Apple sticker your name and email address inside your iPod when you buy it? What about any of their computers? Any indication that the iPhone will have the user's information stored anywhere on the phone, or inside? Of course not. This tag isn't there to tell you the song is "yours."

I don't care for piracy, but I also don't like corporations trying to yank my chain.

Re:Shock!

[1110110001]

There's also a code that has not been decoded. It's most likely a signature on the added meta data. So yes you can replace the post-it note, but your signature on it would be fake.

Isn't it ironic ...

[for_usenet]

that with 2 earlier articles - making DVD copying even more illegal (if that were at all possible), and a "desire" for a Canadian DMCA, that we "now just find out" people are willing to pay for DRM-free content. I did my part and paid for a couple of tracks that I bought with DRM and "upgraded" to the DRM-free version, and will continue to do so as more become available, and as content I want becomes available DRM-free. Let's really show them where we willing to spend our $. Seems to be the only thing they listen to ...

Re:Isn't it ironic ...

[drinkypoo]

Let's really show them where we willing to spend our $. Seems to be the only thing they listen to ...

That's because everything else is bullshit. If you don't care enough to alter your spending habits, then you don't care.

Re:Isn't it ironic ...

[Kjella]

But to vote with your wallet, you need someone to know what you're voting for. Have you ever wondered how sales predictions are made up? It's a wild assed guess. So if album A is released with DRM and flops and album B without DRM and is a chartbuster, it might have something to do with DRM. Or a million other things. Never mind the "not voting". This isn't the national election, they've no idea how many considered the album in the first place so you not buying go into a huge black box of "people that didn't buy our album".

This is one of the rare opportunities to say that yes, we prefer DRM-free music over the DRM music with very few other variables interfering. I'm much more inclined to "protest" when I know it gets heard. In fact, I think I've bought most of the music on iTunes Plus I consider good by now. Quite frankly, it's more fun protesting by spending money instead of missing out on stuff too. So far: iTunes Plus - iTunes: 203-0 (about 15 tracks, the rest albums). I hope Apple shares that info with the other big labels, let them know what they're missing.

Re:Isn't it ironic ...

[drinkypoo]

But to vote with your wallet, you need someone to know what you're voting for.

Everyone says that, but actually, it's quite a bit similar. All you need to do is vote. The company you vote for (with your money) prospers while the others (if others feel as you do) decline. They then choose to emulate the company you went with.

Sure, you could write them a letter and tell them that if they don't do what you want that you won't remain a customer. But the only thing they really care about is what costs them money, and if you're writing them a letter about it you obviously don't feel strong enough about it to just stop.

The best thing you can do, therefore, is to spend your money with people who behave in a fashion of which you approve, and convince others to do the same. They're not going to believe that's what's hurting their sales until they do or purchase some research which says so, anyway. You're just this guy. (or girl, as the case may be.)

Until they release the new market impact numbers..

[absterge]

But what about all that unthinkable PIRACY that goes on with the now-DRM free music?! Will Intellectual Property ever be secure?! Ye gods!

how about 'nix

[scharkalvin]

Well if they are willing to go drm-free, how about a site
to buy their 'tunes if you are NOT running M$.
We need an itunes for Linux.

Re:how about 'nix

[drinkypoo]

We need an itunes for Linux.

No, all we need is an iTMS web store that doesn't require iTunes, which would be platform-agnostic and probably require very little work on Apple's part. It would only allow you to download unprotected music (if you don't have iTunes, then the DRM is ineffective) but that's what most of us would want anyway.

Re:how about 'nix

[Aqua OS X]

I don't know if eMusic is carrying the new EMI content, but I imagine they will in time.

I respect the fact that you're sticking to your guns and avoiding a commercial operating system. That said, I don't think anyone is going to look down on you for, at the very least, virtualizing XP. Is the ideological battle really worth a hundred-something bucks and countless compatibility headaches?

Re:how about 'nix

[syrinx]

Well if they are willing to go drm-free, how about a site
to buy their 'tunes if you are NOT running M$.

Hm, I hadn't realized Apple had sold OS X to Microsoft. Must have missed the Slashdot story on that. (I shouldn't worry, it'll be duped soon!)

Re:how about 'nix

[CrackedButter]

You mean like www.bleep.com?

Re:how about 'nix

[Hatta]

That's all well and good if you already own a copy of XP to virtualize. Not everyone does though.

Re:how about 'nix

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with an iTMS store that is seperated from iTunes is that apple is not only selling digital files, but also hardware (the iPod) and, even more importantly, a user experience. The user experience has always been key to apple's success. Generally most of apple's failures have not been because of a technically bad product... that is, consumers don't care if the code is full of kludges and the engineering is horrible... they do care if that bad code or poor engineering adversely affect their ability to use and enjoy the product. The user experience portion of iTunes isn't particularly the Cover Flow or neat interface (although those play a part), the key user experience is that you can one-click purchase a song and have it automatically integrate into your library and sync to your iPod.

Example:
the Apple Newton - early incarnations were expensive, but even worse, had poor hand writing recognition and did not easily sync back to apple software for contacts or calendar. Beyond that, while the GUI was relatively smooth and fast for the time, it was still far slower than using a real pocket address book and calendar with a pen. Even worse, it was gigantic compared to a pocket address book or even the rival Palm Pilot... in the end the Newton failed.
the Apple iPod - early incarnations were expensive, but on the contrary to the newton, it already had iTunes (no windows version or iTMS at the time) and made it very simple to rip your CDs into AAC and transfer them to your iPod with a minimum amount of clicks. The UI on the iPod and early iTunes was simple and easily navigable without training.
so, the newton and the iPod, both were expensive, both were technically designed and engineered very well - the difference between success and failure? user experience.

Re:how about 'nix

[smenor]

As a story here recently pointed out, Steve Jobs does not even acknowledge that Firefox exists

That's funny. I could have sworn I heard him talk about it in the WWDC 2007 keynote and that there was a bar for it in the performance graph for Safari 3

Re:how about 'nix

[Squozen]

Why bother? You wouldn't use it unless Apple used Ogg or FLAC or some other unfinished format...

Re:how about 'nix

[tuxic]

I recommend http://www.magnatune.com/ as a substitute for iTunes. Also, amaroK affiliates with them too, afaik.

Re:how about 'nix

[Aqua OS X]

If you're a computer geek registered to Slashdot, something is wrong if you can't afford an XP Pro disk from ebay or "borrow" a disk from work.

That operating systems is so ubiquitous that you could probably snag a free copy by standing on a corner with a sign that reads "will dance for XP Pro."

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[cayenne8]

Actually they just need to make that final step:

Sell the songs in CD (or better) lossless format, with no DRM, and then I'll be a customer!!!

This first step, is a baby step...a good one but, a small one. Sell me online what I can buy in a store (quality) without DRM, and then, you've got it right. I'll be buying pretty much all my music online.

Of Course It Is.....

[queenb**ch]

Wow, you mean I can put music the same music on my laptop, desktop, MP3 player, and burn a CD to listen to in my car with out having buy the same song 4 times???

Hmmm....this sounds a whole lot like Napster back in the day. Sheesh, it's only taken them six years to come up with a business model that works. Charging us for what we were doing on Napster anyway.

QueenB.

Re:Of Course It Is.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do that with ITunes DRM'ed files, so long as that MP3 player you mention is an Ipod.

Re:Of Course It Is.....

[xgr3gx]

I agree 100%. If I own a copy of music, I should be able to play it on any device I want.
Before there was CD burning, there was copying onto a cassette tape...anyone remember that?

Sad

[thesupermikey]

I had bought about 200 songs off iTMS in the 2 years i have been using it. Not a single song was from EMI.
I don't know what that is important to this discussion, but if felt like sharing.

DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suicide

[tjstork]

I have a soft spot for artists getting screwed by technology. Every technological advance seems to fall on artists particularly hard, so, while I really do hate the RIAA and the music industry and movie industry, I still think there might be a place so someone could show pictures of their work on the internet without having them stolen.

My wife used to use Napster (pre-lawsuit), and Kazaa, but she switched to iTunes because iTunes was more convenient and not choked full of ads, and paying a $1 a song is not so bad. If you add the threat of RIAA letters, then, iTunes seems like a pretty good deal indeed. She also feels a need to support the artists.

But really, the value of iTunes is the convenience and cleanliness, and there's no reason someone could not make a similar, ad-free thing but for file sharing writ large. Really, DRM free on iTunes is predicated on the fact that the recording industry must feel like it is getting some sort of handle on musical file sharing - that is, RIAA lawsuits to music downloaders must actually be working. Were there REALLY no DMCA or copyright controls on music, though, someone would eventually make something with a really cool user interface, like iTunes, but where music would be genuinely free.

Then, musicians would starve.

This is a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer DRM music. DRM adds a certain ineffable flavor to otherwise bland music. It's like a sprinkle of cinammon on hot chocolate. The bass sounds more meaty and the singers sound just a little more angelic and bird-like.

I know, I know, I'm a bit of an audiophiliac. I don't want to sound too pretentious. But give it a try! You'll see. Music just sounds better with DRM.

yours truly,
David Massey

More Interesting Numbers Would Be...

[SlashdotOgre]

The more significant figures would be whether the amount of EMI music being passed on peer to peer services has changed. I highly doubt it has increased more than its usual variance (it may even have decreased), and I hope the other RIAA companies notice this. I'm of the opinion that there's roughly a fixed number of people who would pirate regardless, and distributing music without DRM won't change this. However making music harder to listen due to DRM might actually drive piracy numbers up.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[brunascle]

i agree.

in addition, i'd like them to ship me the liner notes, along with a physical copy of the music on some sort of portable media that's compatibile with my car stereo. and some kind of case to put the media in.

yeah, that'll never happen.

Double Shock!

[TheAxeMaster]

Raising prices increases revenue!

Re:Double Shock!

[danbert8]

Actually, you're wrong... I know it's true in my industry, but others may not follow. We actually gain more revenue when prices go down. When prices increase, sales go down. More sales with a smaller profit usually ends up being a higher total profit than low sales with a high profit.

Re:Double Shock!

[clifyt]

Actually, they didn't raise the prices unless you are buying individual tracks.

I *RARELY* buy individual tracks unless I am evaluating a single and want to see if I want to buy the next one. In which case, I have like 6 months to buy the rest of the album at the cost of said album minus the cost of the tracks I've already bought.

If you want singles, feel free to get hosed. Singles have ALWAYS been the way the industry made money until recently (in which time they decided albums were pretty much going to be one single mixed with lots of shit).

Re:Double Shock!

[digitalunity]

This depends on how much the economies of scale affects your industry. With software distributed electronically, this is especially true. The first one may cost $10M to develop, but every copy after that is effectively free, thus reducing price to encourage sales can make a huge difference in profits.

If you make a one-off embedded controller for a particular purpose and you expect to sell 10 annually, reducing your price will definitely reduce your profits.

Re:Double Shock!

[MysteriousPreacher]

It depends on the software being sold. If the makers have to pay a licence fee for some software or libraries they used, there's an additional cost. You also have to include the cost of supporting each copy you sell. I suspect that licencing is a reason why obsolete software, operating systems from 10 years ago being a good example, aren't released for free.

Overall though, I think you right. It's not like selling cars.

Re:Double Shock!

[mjpaci]

Sounds like the "Bush Tax Cuts" to me. Lower taxes on certain events (long-term capital gains and dividends) and raise revenues by creating a system where there are more taxable events. Sounds good to me! According to a number of sources (Wall Street Journal had a nice write-up a while ago) tax receipts AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts went in were up -- significantly. Once these expire and the tax rates go back up, there will be fewer taxable events and revenues will either stay flat or drop.

--Mike

Hmmmm...

[PlasticMonkey]

Somehow, I think EMI knew that selling DRM-free tracks would make a profit all along.

1. Release DRM-laden, horrific quality tracks
2. Watch consumers buy tracks
3. Wait for consumers to grow angry and realize the restrictions placed on their media
4. Release DRM-free, slightly better tracks
5. Wait for the consumers to REBUY or 'upgrade' all their tracks
6. ???
7. Profit!!

THEN the second round

8. Release slightly better quality tracks...
9. Wait for the consumers to REBUY or 'upgrade' all their tracks...

Re:Hmmmm...

[Goaway]

Your step 8 was already included in step 4. Also, there was no REBUY, just 'upgrade'.

Re:Hmmmm...

[pjviitas]

Ok...maybe I will just buy and rip the CD the old fashioned way...sigh.

Re:Hmmmm...

[QuantumRiff]

which is much different from physical CD's where you have the album, the Greatest Hits CD, the Live CD..

Or for Films where you have the DVD, the Unrated Edition DVD, the Directors Cut DVD, The "the microphone guy didn't like the way this scene looked so here is another copy of the DVD for you to buy" DVD, etc

Or even software for example.. Buy Vista home basic, Upgrade it online to Vista Home premium, then upgrade to Ultimate Edition (with a whole other path for business users to do the same!)

Re:Hmmmm...

[dr.badass]

3. Wait for consumers to grow angry and realize the restrictions placed on their media

Given iTunes sales previous sales figures, I think we're still waiting for this step to happen.

Re:Hmmmm...

[revengebomber]

Even if you pay $5 a song, that's still a good deal considering that $12 CDs contain (usually) only 1 or 2 good songs.

Re:Hmmmm...

[Yoozer]

Your step 8 was already included in step 4

Haven't you heard of "GOTO considered harmful"? ;)

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[TooMuchToDo]

Keep in mind you're in the majority. Most people don't mind that their music isn't super-high-bitrate/lossy compression. You don't have to get all the money in the market to be the biggest player, just the majority. Example: MySpace. Sure, it looks like ass, and it's code is half-broken. But millions upon millions of people use it. And the ad money flows in.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[MightyYar]

I'm guessing that you are into jazz or classical? Higher bit-rates/lossless don't buy you much in the rock/pop/hip-hop category these days...

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[TubeSteak]

Sell the songs in CD (or better) lossless format, with no DRM, and then I'll be a customer!!!

AFAIK, even the best lossless codecs don't do better than ~55% compression. Not to mention that the decoding process for most of them is a bit power hungry.

My main point is that a compressed CD will end up well over 300MB and that's a much bigger bandwidth & storage bill for iTunes

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[maeka]

AFAIK, even the best lossless codecs don't do better than ~55% compression. Not to mention that the decoding process for most of them is a bit power hungry.

FLAC takes less CPU to decode than MP3, AAC, WavePak, or Vorbis.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[moderatorrater]

I still think there might be a place so someone could show pictures of their work on the internet without having them stolen. The internet is a system that allows you to download content to your computer. Assuming by "stolen" you mean "put on someones computer and used as they see fit without the copyright holders permission," well, the whole internet is kind of designed to facilitate stealing. Sorry, but that's the nature of the beast.

Were there REALLY no DMCA or copyright controls on music, though, someone would eventually make something with a really cool user interface, like iTunes, but where music would be genuinely free. Sounds like bittorrent, limewire or any open source file sharing system. The reason that iTunes works is because people often want to do the right thing; it has nothing to do with the DMCA or copyright controls or anything like that. I've purchased a lot of music in my life because it's the right thing to do. If it weren't for my own moral compass, I would be able to get all the music I would like without paying for it. The DMCA and copyright controls have nothing to do with it.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[nine-times]

But really, the value of iTunes is the convenience and cleanliness, and there's no reason someone could not make a similar, ad-free thing but for file sharing writ large.

No, there isn't, except for the fact that it would require a fairly large investment, it would meaning risking a lawsuit from the RIAA, and unless you fill it with ads there's no profit in it. Who's going to do that?

Personally, I think iTunes (DRM-less) is the exact right model for legal online music sales. The interface is clean, the selection is large, the quality of the songs is decent, and it's easy to find what you're looking for. On top of all that, the price is low enough that many people will actually pay for the convenience of near-instant decent-quality digital music with a large selection through a clean interface and have it all be *legal*. In other words, it's not the music alone that makes it worth $1/song $10/album-- part of what people are paying for is *convenience*.

And it's been demonstrated time and again that people will pay for convenience. Even the success of higher-priced DRM-free music depends on people paying in order to avoid the hassle of DRM.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[MontyApollo]

DRM on itunes probably only deters casual file sharing with friends. The songs downloaded off the internet that RIAA is going after probably were just ripped off CDs. DRM on itunes is irrelevant to wide scale downloading.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Sell the songs in CD (or better) lossless format, with no DRM, and then I'll be a customer!!!

Have you actually given yourself a blind listening test? 256 kbps AAC is very, very good. I have never seen a study where anyone could tell the difference between 256 kbps files and uncompressed files a significant fraction of the time. Many people claim that they don't like the sound of MP3 or AAC compression, even at such a high bitrate, but they don't back it up with a real test to prove it.

Do you think that photo sites should get rid of JPEGs and replace them with uncompressed TIFFs, too? I think that JPEG at the 99% quality setting is a fair comparison to AAC 256 kbps.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[alexgieg]

Then, musicians would starve.

What would prevent them from making live shows? Like, you know, all musicians during the whole human history always did? Have they all starved, per any chance? Or what you actually mean is that current musicians would lose the ability (that their predecessors never had) to work once and, if lucky, profit forever? Because this is not what "work" is supposed to be, and it surely doesn't apply to most of humanity.

Give me a way to do my work once, doesn't matter what it is, and live from it until I'm dead, and I'll think it's fair for musicians to have the same privilege. Otherwise, forget it. It's simply fair that they work everyday, as everyone else does, by doing whatever they're good at, as everyone else also does. Copyright is at best illogical, at worst an aberration.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[nine-times]

Sell the songs in CD (or better) lossless format, with no DRM, and then I'll be a customer!!!

You really think you can tell the difference between CD-quality and 256kbps AAC? Doubtful. I call BS. And even if you can tell the difference, and the difference is obvious enough to you that you care, you're one in a billion. For pretty much everyone, 256kbps is near enough to lossless that you could treat it as lossless (even transcode it to another format) and never be able to tell the difference.

And for that miniscule nearly-undetectable drop in quality, you're cutting your download time, increasing the amount of songs you can hold on your mp3 player, and maybe even increasing battery time.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[Kamots]

I think Jonathon Coulton would be happy to contest your point of view.

But then he's making a living from his music. His music that he sells as DRM-less mp3s... that he releases under the Creative Commons license...

Strangely, despite it being perfectly legal for me to give his music away to the world, or for you to download it from whichever file sharing app you want... in other words... despite him making his music available for free... he's making a living.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[friedmud]

Not true.

Copying CDs has been pretty easy for a long time now... but musicians haven't starved.

Copying copyrighted music has always been illegal... the DMCA didn't make it "more illegal" or whatever.

Some (I would argue most) people really do like to follow the law, even when it's easy not too... those people will always continue to buy the music they want to hear. Not too mention that some of us feel _good_ about buying cds because we like to support artists that we enjoy (even if most of the money doesn't go to them, more cds sold = good chance of another from the same artist).

Really... assuming that everyone in the US (or world) would break the law and not give any compensation for any entertainment they enjoy is just foolish. I think the RIAA and MPAA forget this sometimes... that 99% of people in the world are actually good people who like to do the right thing.

Friedmud

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[MontyApollo]

>>Give me a way to do my work once, doesn't matter what it is, and live from it until I'm dead, and I'll think it's fair for musicians to have the same privilege. Otherwise, forget it. It's simply fair that they work everyday, as everyone else does, by doing whatever they're good at, as everyone else also does.

In Soviet Russia...

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[IP.Address.Conflict]

You mean like http://www.emusic.com/? Funny, I've been buying DRM-free music from those "starving artists" since way back, and they seem to be doing perfectly fine as is.

I wish

[niceone]

I wish apple would offer this option to indie musicians (like me), I'd sign up for straight away.

(strictly speaking they'd have to offer it to the the aggregators like tunecore that people like me use)

Re:I wish

[El Mariachi 94]

Why not just release all of your music for free MP3 download? The best incentive to get your music heard is to give it out for free. You won't be making any money off your music, but you'll gain an audience.

Re:I wish

[niceone]

Heh, click the link in my sig - it is all there as MP3's.

But the problem I have with giving it away is that I never find out if anyone actually likes it! Sure, they can say it's great, but then if they don't think it's worth paying 10 bucks for I've got to wonder how sincere they're being!

Re:I wish

[ins0m]

Even the indie distributors and aggregators (e.g., Ingrooves, Iris, and GrooveSource) aren't getting that deal... and they've been asking for it since Jobs made the initial announcement.

Re:I wish

[El Mariachi 94]

What you could try is selling hard copy CDs with packaged artwork/cover art that has additional songs your audience can't get anywhere else. Something for the diehard fan. Price the CD competitively against mainstream CDs. You can also advertise the CD as being "digitally mastered" or "remixed" which will be half true since you'd be burning the master copies. But really, if people truly like your music, they'll share it with their friends by giving them copies or linking them to your music page. The best you can do is count how many times your mp3s are downloaded.

Re:I wish

[El Mariachi 94]

Wow. Okay, so I checked out your site. Kudos for the bravery of trying out this experiment!

It still seems that you need to create more incentive to download the album. I still suggest only partially releasing the album and encoding the mp3s at a lower quality. It doesn't have to be crappy quality, just not the best. Maybe around 96kb/s.

Either way, good luck!

Re:I wish

[niceone]

Thanks! Yeah, I have thought of doing it lower quality. I thought I would start out assuming the best of people and then try tweaking things if it didn't work!

Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

I agree that technically, it's not a watermark - but the end effect to the average user is that of a watermark, as to them the data is the whole file and not just the encoded audio data within the AAC wrapper.

You have to call it something, and to my mind watermark is an acceptable term even if it's a variant of the core meaning.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

You have to call it something,

How about a 'metadata tag' or even just 'tag'? ...to my mind watermark is an acceptable term even if it's a variant of the core meaning.

Maybe, if you interpret the core meaning of a "watermark" as simply a "mark". But then why have this separate word 'watermark'?

This iTunes thing is the same as the serial number on the bottom of your laptop, or the service tag stored in bios (if you have a dell or whatever). Actually, the iTunes thing is even MORE transparent -- its your bloody email address so you KNOW its "personally identifying" when you see it. And its stuck right there with all the other meta-tags on the song.

Meanwhile the serial number on the bottom of your laptop is far more insidious... it appears 'anonymous' and its on the bottom where you won't likely see it... sometimes its even inside where the battery goes. the laptop manufacture can lookup what store they sold it too, and then store can probably look up who they sold it too.

Oh NOES!! Gotcha!

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

How about a 'metadata tag' or even just 'tag'?

That does not imply a unique value per file the way the term "Watermarking" does automatically.

Maybe, if you interpret the core meaning of a "watermark" as simply a "mark". But then why have this separate word 'watermark'?

Those are pretty interchangeable terms though, watermark being more a specialized term for a technique of marking paper... but I would still argue in the shift to the digital domain the meaning is more of uniqueness than ability to remove (I would say most Marks applied to things are equally irreversible).

This iTunes thing is the same as the serial number on the bottom of your laptop

Aha, but that is external to the device, visible and alterable (potentially) by the user. The iTunes mark is not.

its your bloody email address so you KNOW its "personally identifying" when you see it

Only if you used an email address easily traced to you. And a watermark is just as identifiable if a record of which marks were sent to who is kept.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

That does not imply a unique value per file the way the term "Watermarking" does automatically.

Watermarking means no such thing.

Watermarks were used in drafts, demos, and other such things, partly to identify them as such and partly to prevent someone from stealing it. e.g. if you hired a design firm to create a poster for you they might send you a watermarked draft so that you could see the finished result, but if you decided not to pay for it, the poster was still useless because it had a giant watermark through the middle that said 'draft copy - property of design company'. Once you'd approved and paid, they'd send you an un-watermarked version for you to reproduce.

Watermwarks were also used in coporate letterhead, cheques, and other docuements to help prevent forgery and authenticate that they were genuine. For the most part this was just used to help foil attacks. The same way most banks.

Never to uniquely identify individual documents.

but I would still argue in the shift to the digital domain the meaning is more of uniqueness than ability to remove

Again not true. With the digital transition, the primary motivation for watermarks was, as before, to 'damage' files so that people could see images but not steal them due to the watermark. (or more precisely, they could steal the watermarked image, but because the mark was hard to remove it wasn't worth it, and you couldn't leave the mark on for obvious reasons.)

Watermarks have been used for a long time on sites hosting high res photos or other digital art to prevent people from just downloading the image and using it. In order to get an image with the WATERMARK removed, you had to pay for the picture. Because the watermarks were translucent and applied over of the picture they are relatively difficult to simply remove.

Only very recently has watermarking technology been applied like a serial number, to uniquely identifying documents or files.

** Quite Simply there is no 'automatic' association with unique identifiers and watermarks. **

Aha, but that is external to the device, visible and alterable (potentially) by the user. The iTunes mark is not.

The itunes meta tag is not part of the song data, although it is in the same file.

It is visible in the sense that *any* program that can view the meta tags can see it -- and iTunes software itself will show you this information if you tell it to show info about the song. And the itunes tag is EASILY removed and or altered which is the antithesis of a watermark.

The iTunes tag is as much a 'watermark', as putting your email address in the filename.

And a watermark is just as identifiable if a record of which marks were sent to who is kept.

This whole 'invisible digital watermark serial number thats hard to remove' thing is pretty new, and really isn't entirely in keeping with the historical meaning or use of watermarks. Moreover, the apple meta tag is really none of those things. Its not invisible, not hard to remove.

If you didn't like the analagy of the laptop serial number because it was visible and alterable. Consider that at least half a dozen parts inside the laptop are also serialized. And that even if you scratch off the laptop serial number, if someone found the laptop they could not only infer what that number was, but potentially also who bought it.

Point is: laptops aren't 'watermarked' despite having serial numbers. And neither are iTunes files.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

the poster was still useless because it had a giant watermark through the middle that said 'draft copy - property of design company'.

Just as the iTunes files are of no use to you for use with P2P because it has a "file delivered to" stamp in it.

Never to uniquely identify individual documents.

But we're talking about digital watermarks, which ARE used ot uniquly identify documents. My example was not the greatest before, but that is what digital watermarks do.

Watermarks have been used for a long time on sites hosting high res photos or other digital art to prevent people from just downloading the image and using it. ...
Only very recently has watermarking technology been applied like a serial number, to uniquely identifying documents or files.

Yes I know watermarks can be used to mark images, I do that with my own pictures. But think about what you are saying. That watermarks job is to uniquly identify the owner of that image, just as the ITMS watermark uniquley identifies the owner of a song. Just because it's acceptible for the photographer to have wider distribution of his image does not change what the watermark is doing for that image, or that song.

  Quite Simply there is no 'automatic' association with unique identifiers and watermarks.

Then describe a use that does not do just that.

The itunes meta tag is not part of the song data, although it is in the same file.

It's not part of the audio data - but just because the file holds seperate chunks of typed data, does not mean that the file as a whole cannot be thought of logically as an atomic unit. Again you are splitting hairs to claim the "song" is not watermarked when to some people, the file is very much the song.

It is visible in the sense that *any* program that can view the meta tags can see it -- and iTunes software itself will show you this information if you tell it to show info about the song. And the itunes tag is EASILY removed and or altered which is the antithesis of a watermark.

You yourself pointed out original uses of watermarks had giant letters stamped across a work. Obviously visibility is not a component of something being watermarked or not.

Moreover, the apple meta tag is really none of those things. Its not invisible, not hard to remove.

Tell your grandmother to remve it, with no instructions. In fact while you or I may be able to remove it, I'll bet 95% of the populace could not do so correctly.

If you didn't like the analagy of the laptop serial number because it was visible and alterable. Consider that at least half a dozen parts inside the laptop are also serialized.

On futther reflection you are correct, the serial number is a form of watermark.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

Thanks for your considered reply, its helped me refine my position.

Quite Simply there is no 'automatic' association with unique identifiers and watermarks.
Then describe a use that does not do just that.

Samples, demos, and drafts are often simply watermarked with the word 'sample', 'demo', or 'draft'. Copies of important documents are often watermarked with the word 'Copy'. In these cases the watermarks do not identify the owner at all. Never mind 'uniquely'. They are simply used to 'damage' the copy so that it can't be mistaken for a paid for, legit, complete or original copy.

In fact, many of the watermarks websites use to mark images are primarily for *that* purpose. The fact that the watermark happens to identify the website it came from is a completely secondary concern. The watermark would be just as effective for their purpose if they watermarked with a generic design. They use their logos and website address as the watermark because its free advertising.

And the itunes tag is EASILY removed and or altered which is the antithesis of a watermark.
Tell your grandmother to remve it, with no instructions. In fact while you or I may be able to remove it, I'll bet 95% of the populace could not do so correctly.

True. But my grandmother wouldn't be able to change the 'genre' tag either without instructions, nor could she lower the skip count, or most of the various other meta-data in/about the song file.

Similarly, an email my grandmother sends contains a variety of plain-text headers. These headers are not remotely tamper-proofed in any way. The fact that our grandmothers wouldn't have a clue how to remove or modify them doesn't make these sorts of things 'watermarks'. And calling them watermarks is inappropriate.

There aren't watermarks. They are not hard to remove, nor did it require a one time investment in time to 'crack' in order make it easy to remove, it was simply never intended to be hard to remove.

I think what differentiates a watermark from just a mark. Is that a watermark is a tamper resistant mark, it ranges from difficult to impossible to remove, and it was specifically designed that way. When I hear something has been watermarked I think not that the thing has been uniquely identified, but that rather that it bears a mark that cannot be removed.

In point of fact, watermarks are so named precisely because they originally used water to irreversibly damage the paper to leave a permanent mark.

Simple plain-text meta-tags and file attributes do not qualify, in my opinion. They do not conjure up the sort of tamper resistance implied to be by the word 'watermark'. They are little more than an easily removed sticker.

On futther reflection you are correct, the serial number is a form of watermark.

Actually, I was arguing that serial numbers were NOT a form of watermark.

I think this is interesting because you think they are watermarks I've come around to somewhat agreeing with you here. But not because a serial number uniquely identifies a product or even its owner or even its manufacturer, but because, separately from being unique identifiers they are often designed to be tamper resistant marks -- and THAT is what I think the threshold for watermarking is.

The test of a digital watermark should likewise be a mark applied to a file that cannot be easily removed, and the various plaintext meta-tags in an mp3/mp4 container do not pass that test, our grandmothers lack of ability notwithstanding. If I send you a PDF file and the last page is short disclaimer saying it belongs to so and so and was sold to so and so, it is indeed 'marked' or 'tagged', but not 'watermarked'. The disclaimer is not tamper resistant, and is utterly trivial to remove or alter for anyone knows anything about pdfs.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

Samples, demos, and drafts are often simply watermarked with the word 'sample', 'demo', or 'draft'. Copies of important documents are often watermarked with the word 'Copy'. In these cases the watermarks do not identify the owner at all.

Not an owner, but again uniqueness of that document - that it itself is a copy, or a draft, and is not to be confused with other versions.

In fact, many of the watermarks websites use to mark images are primarily for *that* purpose. The fact that the watermark happens to identify the website it came from is a completely secondary concern.

I think I misled by talking about ownership, because I really feel uniqueness is key - and the case of images is the same to be as the copy above, because there are many physical images but the watermark is describing how that document is different from others that may be like it, but are not. That sounds confusing again... perhaps I should say the watermark allows for the possibility of determining origin, but as you say that is not a primary use, but a possible use.

True. But my grandmother wouldn't be able to change the 'genre' tag either without instructions, nor could she lower the skip count, or most of the various other meta-data in/about the song file.

But it is not about how easy other features are to access that are supposed to be accessible, just that the feature is not generally accessible (thoguh I would argue being different per document actually is the only thing that matters and even if alterable easily is still a watermark.

Similarly, an email my grandmother sends contains a variety of plain-text headers. These headers are not remotely tamper-proofed in any way. The fact that our grandmothers wouldn't have a clue how to remove or modify them doesn't make these sorts of things 'watermarks'. And calling them watermarks is inappropriate.

But that's where I am headed now - why is that in appropriate? That actually seems equivilent to me - a document with an email address contained in metadata. Though I could see where you would look at that and say exactly the same thing, while reaching the opposite conclusion,

That mark (really marks) distiniguishes that email from any others, just as a watermark distinguishes one version of a document from another.

I think what differentiates a watermark from just a mark. Is that a watermark is a tamper resistant mark, it ranges from difficult to impossible to remove, and it was specifically designed that way.

But again it goes with the shift to what "Digital Watermark" means, because no "Digital Watermark" is really tamper resistant. That word perhaps should not have been the one to be brought in, but it was and so in the digital domain the meaning changes.

I think this is interesting because you think they are watermarks I've come around to somewhat agreeing with you here. But not because a serial number uniquely identifies a product or even its owner or even its manufacturer, but because, separately from being unique identifiers they are often designed to be tamper resistant marks -- and THAT is what I think the threshold for watermarking is.

I was thinking earlier in the post you would have to agree on this, and I see it is so... I agree that in the physical domain, the perminence aspect is important but I think where I am stuck is that to me the meaning shifted with the movement into the digital domain. I think you have a good point as to tamperability, but again I just can't see ever using the word "Watermark" with digital thigns as there is no perminence, no lack of ability to alter or reverse the imposition of any kind of mark to anything digital. to get back to where I started I think in the digital domain "irreversability" has been shifted to "Uniqueness" which is as close as you can get to the original purpose of non-repudiaation as to origin or some other aspect, that you can get with digital works... to mark the metadata is to alter something about the file which says it is different.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

But again it goes with the shift to what "Digital Watermark" means, because no "Digital Watermark" is really tamper resistant. That word perhaps should not have been the one to be brought in, but it was and so in the digital domain the meaning changes.

And that's where I think you are mistaken. A complex translucent image overlaid onto another image, which is what watermarks on digital images are is *tamper resistant*. Not in the sense that those bits are harder to change than the other bits, but restoring the image to what it looked like before the watermark can be extremely hard, especially to the point that the owner of the unwatermarked image can't determine that someone tried removing the mark.

Similiarly in the case of songs for example we do have 'real' watermarking techniques. It is possible, even easy, to overlay someone saying 'this is a sample track' in the middle of a song, and it would be fairly difficult to remove all traces of it. Or if they want the mark to be less intrusive they can vary the sound levels in the song ever so slightly - so that the ear wouldn't be able to hear the difference but a computer would be able to determine the marked one from the unmarked one trivially. Again, removing that 'mark' would be exceedingly hard.

In fact its possible for that type of watermark to be preserved even through a digital-analog-digital conversion. So even streaming the file through the analog hole might not damage the mark enough to make it undetectable.

I don't think simple 'Uniqueness' is enough to qualify as a watermark, at least given that we do have techniques for tamper-resistant marking. I think serial/uniqueness marking can be done with watermarks and often is... but I don't think bearing a unique id alone is sufficient to be a watermark.

Though it seems we disagree.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[LKM]

The effects for the end user are different. A watermark survives many things that a tag does. Encode your AAC file into an MP3 file using another app than iTunes, and the tag is probably gone. Open the AAC file in a music editor and save, and the tag is probably gone. A good watermark would survive these actions.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

Encode your music using a 64k stream though, and an audio watermark may well be degraded to the point it is not recognizable. It's still no different, just because different technologies may accidentally or purposefully remove a watermark - again with digital media it's not possible to ever protect against removal of a mark, there is no concept of true permanence.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

But tampering is not at issue as I have said, the degree of difficultly in viewing or removal does not a watermark make. The fact is with the right software any watermark is easily removable, just as without the right software it is more difficult. What was once a watermark does not cease being a watermark just because you acquired some software that can remove it for you, just as a watermark is already a watermark even if you already have software that might be able to remove the mark.

I think the best you can do is to propose using the term "digital mark" and see if you can get the change to stick, since that would be more accurate by traditional measures. But language has a habit of doing its own thing, and that's just what it has done here.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

The fact is with the right software any watermark is easily removable

That simply is *not* a fact.

A watermarked image file is *not* easily repaired. The data is fundamentally DAMAGED by the overlaid mark. It can't be undamaged because there is no way to determine what the original data was.

In fact, the only way to effectively remove a digital watermark is to have the original file available, so that you can compare it with the watermarked one to restore the damaged data.... but that's irrelevant because if you have access to the original file you really don't need to be removing the watermarks.

Watermarks -damage- the file in a way that cannot be easily undone.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

That simply is *not* a fact.

A watermarked image file is *not* easily repaired. The data is fundamentally DAMAGED by the overlaid mark. It can't be undamaged because there is no way to determine what the original data was.

It's a fact in terms of if there is software dedicated to do it, it's a fact - circular I know but my point is the mere existence of an application with that ability should not alter a files condition as being watermarked or not.

However, in my defence I was thinking of semi-translucent watermarks which are often used with images - those can be easily undone because knowing the color of the overlay it's mathematically easy to regain the original data (sort of like an XOR). Are you saying the semi-transparent versions are not watermarks? That's again my point, that degree of reversability is not a determinant as to something being a watermark.

Watermarks -damage- the file in a way that cannot be easily undone.

But again digital watermarks are about unqiueness, not about damage. Sorry but I cannot yield on what I see as a very fundamental point since it is not possible to "damage" a digital file in the same way.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

However, in my defence I was thinking of semi-translucent watermarks which are often used with images - those can be easily undone because knowing the color of the overlay it's mathematically easy to regain the original data (sort of like an XOR). Are you saying the semi-transparent versions are not watermarks?

You mean if you stuck a uniformly translucent square or other simple shape on it. Then no, I wouldn't consider that watermarked. It is to watermarking what ROT13 is to encryption. Just because the 12 year old thought it was encrypted, doesn't mean it was.

However, that's not to say a translucent image applied to an image can't be a watermark. Consider a complex translucent shape superimposed onto a photo, where both the translucency, and colour are non-uniform, e.g. some random 'noise' was added as well. It would be impossible to automatically remove all traces of such a mark because; not only would it be impossible to determine exactly which pixels were even affected, but it would also be impossible to know by how much any given pixel was affected. There would be no way of guessing the random noise distribution, or the exact shape of the mark. (Unless you tried to watermark a simple pattern or other completely symmetrical image -- that type of image cannot be effectively damaged (watermarked) because it contains a great deal of redundant information. It would take FAR more damage to overwhelm it. Complex photos are much easier, because there is far less redundant information.

Its true automated tools might be able to help mitigate the watermark and render it invisible to the human eye, but any sort of automated watermark checker would still be able to see that the file had been damaged.

Basically any sort of lossy compression or adding random noise can be used as a digital watermark. The very nature of lossy compression or the addition of noise is that the original data cannot be exactly determined. It can be imperfectly guessed at, at best. But any comparison between the original and the guess will show up the fake for what it is.

But again digital watermarks are about unqiueness, not about damage.

I remain unmoved as well. I think the damage caused by watermarking may often be used as a unique identifier, but they are fundamentally about causing damage that can be detected and not undone, at least not without access to original file.

I also think achieving this level of damage is relatively easy on many types of digital file.

-cheers

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

You mean if you stuck a uniformly translucent square or other simple shape on it. Then no, I wouldn't consider that watermarked. It is to watermarking what ROT13 is to encryption. Just because the 12 year old thought it was encrypted, doesn't mean it was.

It was a textual overly from a graphic, using Aperture's watermarking feature that allows you to use any image as a watermark - however logos are typically rather monochrome. And that feature is called watermarking, which prooves the point I have been making - the term digital watermark does not mean what you wish it would mean. There are any number of tools that apply similar digital watermarks.

If you have a problem with my definition, you must first convince Apple and Adobe of your definition!

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

The fact that Adobe or Apple allow you to use a very poor choice as your overlay image doesn't detract from the validity of the underlying -technique-.

Just as the weakness of a lock design doesn't it cease being a lock. Like the little combination locks on cheap luggage that can be shaken open. They're still locks. Their ineffective, but they're still locks.

I know that I'm arguing that a watermark is tamper resistant by definition, and something that is easy to tamper with isn't water mark. But its not a hypocritical stance. Just as a lock is defined by its ability to keep people out, an ineffective lock is still a lock. It looks like a lock, acts like a lock, operates on the same principles as lock... its a lock. Ditto for a weak watermark.

Back to the original debate - an iTunes tag still isn't even a 'weak watermark'. Its to a watermark what a sign saying 'do not enter' is to a 'lock'.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

The fact that Adobe or Apple allow you to use a very poor choice as your overlay image doesn't detract from the validity of the underlying -technique-.

But the technique does not matter when we are discussing terminology. That seems to be standard accepted terminology across digital imaging products, which are the closest you have to the analog equivilent of a watermark. Other uses diverge from there.

I know that I'm arguing that a watermark is tamper resistant by definition

But (to go back to the original discussion) the Apple AAC file email addressed stored is "tamper resistant" The software that you use to purchase and manage that file cannot by itself alter or even view that mark. Just because other software enables you do to so, does not mean that for most people it truly is tamper resistant, just as most people could not undo a semi-translucent watermark in a digital image without some trace.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[vux984]

But the technique does not matter when we are discussing terminology.

The principle of watermarking is to 'damage' the file to mark it. That is exactly what watermarking in the 'real world' does.

I agree, the 'technique', the 'how' the object is damaged , or what is used to damage it is fairly immaterial.

The software that you use to purchase and manage that file cannot by itself alter or even view that mark.

What part of 'select the file in itunes and select "Show Info" would that be? Viewing it is trivial.

The iTunes software doesn't let you change a number of the tags directly -- including play count. (although you can increment it by listening to the song.) These tags aren't watermarks.

Just because other software enables you do to so, does not mean that for most people it truly is tamper resistant, just as most people could not undo a semi-translucent watermark in a digital image without some trace.

Look, I've got some of those 'watermarked' songs. You know how to remove the tag?. Open it with notepad, search for your email address, change it. Save the file.

All done. All traces of the mark are gone.

I suppose at this point all we can do is agree to disagree.

-cheers.

Re:Spiltting hairs

[SuperKendall]

The principle of watermarking is to 'damage' the file to mark it. That is exactly what watermarking in the 'real world' does.

The physical principle is damage, yes. As I have noted, that does not hold true in the digital domain according to common use. Again, you should really take this up With Adobe if you feel strongly that this is incorrect.

The iTunes software doesn't let you change a number of the tags directly -- including play count. (although you can increment it by listening to the song.) These tags aren't watermarks.

Correct, they are not watermarks because they don't provide a unique indicator the way the email does.

Look, I've got some of those 'watermarked' songs. You know how to remove the tag?. Open it with notepad, search for your email address, change it. Save the file.

Are you sure notepad does not damage the song? I did not think it was binary safe.

I suppose at this point all we can do is agree to disagree.

That's where I'm at - like I said, I know you feel strongly about this but too many other common usages do not line up with your thinking on the matter.

Money now or later

[SuperKendall]

Your steps make no sense - because after you upgrade a track, EMI has just as much money as if you had bought the DRM free version in the first place!

It what world is it more beneficial for EMI to get a partial payment now, and then HOPE that maybe they might get a little more later, instead of just collecting the same amount upfront?

Re:Money now or later

[PlasticMonkey]

Because it means they can charge 'extra' for the new-improved version.
It costs them nothing more to produce.

After restricting choice, consumers are more likely to pay the extra 30p per track.
If you buy 6 DRMed albums from iTunes: ~£48.
If you buy 6 NonDRMed albums from iTunes: ~£66

By now introducing DRM-less tracks, EMI have now made an extra £18 by providing something I should have got in the first place. It costs them LESS to distribute over the net, so there is NO reason for them to be charging more.

If they add another 'upgrade' to 320kbps quality audio, does this mean they can charge me another £18 to match the quality of a CD?

Re:Money now or later

[dr.badass]

Because it means they can charge 'extra' for the new-improved version.
It costs them nothing more to produce.

They can charge extra because it is different. Who ever said that retail price was based on the cost to produce? A $20 widget doesn't cost $10 more to produce than a $10 widget with fewer features.

By now introducing DRM-less tracks, EMI have now made an extra £18 by providing something I should have got in the first place.

EMI doesn't make any more money unless you choose to buy. Why did you buy it in the first place if you "should have" gotten something more?

If they add another 'upgrade' to 320kbps quality audio [...]

They could charge whatever they want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to pay it. Why is that hard to comprehend?

Re:Money now or later

[PlasticMonkey]

They can charge extra because it is different. Who ever said that retail price was based on the cost to produce? A $20 widget doesn't cost $10 more to produce than a $10 widget with fewer features.

Yep, I agree. I was just simply stating by holding out on releasing DRM-free track, or by releasing DRM-laden tracks first - EMI can provide these 'different' tracks and therefore make more money. I was simply clarifying my original post. (a couple of places up).

EMI doesn't make any more money unless you choose to buy. Why did you buy it in the first place if you "should have" gotten something more?

Because it was one of the only options available for acquiring EMI music digitally, eg: without purchasing a physical disk. Would a starving child turn down a piece of bread because they 'should have' gotten more?

They could charge whatever they want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to pay it. Why is that hard to comprehend?

I'm not sure why you're so riled up. It isn't hard to comprehend, but the fact that I don't have to pay for it if I don't want to doesn't make it right. Why should I be subject to restrictions because I bought my music a certain way? I can digitalize analogue music and do what the hell I want with it - why should pre-digitalized music be any different?

Re:Money now or later

[SuperKendall]

I see your reasoning now, but I still buy the simplest answer - they were afraid of DRM free stuff before and would not allow it, and coerced into supporting it by Apple with the lure of slightly increased profits.

To think it was a part of a master plan is to credit the music industry and EMI with way more intelligence than they seem to have exhibited, in terms of sales lost over the years through bad choices.

Re:Money now or later

[gsslay]

Would a starving child turn down a piece of bread because they 'should have' gotten more?

Wow, you need EMI's music that much? I sure they must be delighted your brand loyalty is so entrenched, like your life depends on it. They should put up the price.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[UnknowingFool]

Huh? CDs do not have DRM. The DRM-laden media that companies pass off as "CDs" do not meet the Red Book definition that Phillips established as the Compact Disc. It's a technical point. But it's like calling WMA files MP3 files.

No, no splitting hairs

[CallFinalClass]

Since is is NOT a watermark, calling it one is simply incorrect.

Re:No, no splitting hairs

[Fahrenheit 450]

Net necessarily. For example, you can mark a gif file by inserting information in unused portions of the color table and leaving the image data completely untouched. Is this a watermark by pour definition? Or is it one only if used color entries or pixel entries are altered? Or is it a watermark of the container, but not the data (even though it is potential data...)?

Really, nitpicking about something that was never given a formal definition in the first place is just silly.

Re:No, no splitting hairs

[Odiumjunkie]

> For example, you can mark a gif file by inserting information in unused portions of the color table and leaving the image data > completely untouched. Is this a watermark by pour definition? Or is it one only if used color entries or pixel entries are altered? > Or is it a watermark of the container, but not the data (even though it is potential data...)?

The defining feature of a digital watermark is that it cannot be removed given only the watermarked data. That is its point. A digital photograph emblazoned with a watermark cannot readily be transformed into the original. A digital video file with an invisible-to-the-human-eye-digiatl-watermark inserted to allow the owners of the video's copyright to see who has leaked a copy if it to p2p is useful only because the altered bits cannot be reset to their original state.

So you see, the idea of calling this a watermark isn't just fudging the concept slightly. It's nonsense. It is completely trivial to remove the identifying information, so it is innapropriate to call it a watermark because it neither performs the function nor attempts to perform the function of a watermark.

Re:No, no splitting hairs

[Fahrenheit 450]

The defining feature of a digital watermark is that it cannot be removed given only the watermarked data.

That may be the ultimate goal, but I have yet to see it be included as a requirement in any formal definition in any fairly standard reference. It's a bit like "encryption". The term encryption implies some notion of security, but it's not really a requirement at all, the Caesar Cipher is a form of encryption even though it's trivial to break. And so we formalize notions such as semantic security and ciphertext indistinguishability to capture these requirements. And like encryption, watermarking is a nebulous notion without a formal definition.

Re:No, no splitting hairs

[LordVader717]

With encryption, I think it's a question of intent, or at least how much was intended: If you encode something to specifically hide it from a third party, it can be considered encryption.

But with watermarking, I consider it to be something that distorts the original content to apply a notice, and which can't be removed without reconstruction of the content it replaced.
As such, any "normal" reproduction would contain the mark.

Re:No, no splitting hairs

[MikShapi]

And obfuscating it further will help what exactly?
I agree with the grandparent that tag info is /not/ a watermark.
If it is, is including your email in the filename a watermark too? Is placing a (separate) file with your email on a CD with aac files a watermark? Is just printing your name on the CD? Is printing it on a jewel case? All we're doing is playing around (deliberately to the absurd in my example) with what we consider the black box we wish to consider "the content in question". Is it the jewelcase and all that is inside? Is it the CD? The iso? Directory? file? aac stream?

Is the meaning of "watermarking" a function of how dumb consumers are, thus incapable of grokking what lays beneath the file layer? The answer, in case you haven't figured out, is NO.

It's a slippery slope you're jumping on, and there's nothing but useless terms too meaningless to be of any use at the bottom. Just drags us one step closer to an idiocracy.

I don't see why we need to dumb our language down to the lowest common denominator. It may be you prefer to do things in the US, I think it's outright idiocy. Do we need to start giving "detergent" or "carbon" a new meaning because the average person is clueless in chemistry? No. You either talk the talk or accept the definitions of people who do.

Watermarking refers to embedding data in the media data. Appended stuff that is meaningless in the context of the data is just that. Appended stuff. Think back to where watermarking came from - marking paper. Would scribbling a note (on the same piece of paper, at the bottom) with your name on it constitute a watermark? No. The "water" in "watermark" has a reason for being there - to lay the extra data *on top* of the existing document.

Sweet.

[n1hilist]

Now maybe I'll start buying music online.

All I want is the rights to copy it to my laptop and/or portable music player and/or the media center PC that's hooked up to the sound system.

Oh and back it up onto DVD/tape/toilet paper/papyrus.

So only about 5 copies will be made but it will be used by me and the immediate family, is that okay Mr MegaCorp CEO.. Sir?

And just out of interest:

I asked the company that develope the commercial music software I use and they say it's okay to install it onto my laptop and home PC and use it at the same time, I bought it, they say I can do what I want with it as long as I'm the only one that use it. I'm pretty sure they won't mind if I use it and maybe teach my girlfriend how to use it at the same time.

I'm just saying this because I feel like I could be a criminal or something! :meek:

EMI Not Releasing Everything DRM-Free

[chefmonkey]

You're probably basing that on the fact that iTunes didn't ask you to upgrade any of your music, right? That doesn't necessarily mean it's not EMI.

I don't know why there hasn't been more noise about it, but iTunes is apparently making only a tiny fraction of the most popular EMI music available through iTunes plus. For example, Ferry Corsten is an EMI artist, and most of the stuff he's released has been through EMI. Go try to download a non-DRM version of anything he's released. It's just not there. Certain other EMI artists are having only selective parts of their catalog released through iTunes plus -- to cite a more mainstream band, the Pet Shop Boys have been on EMI since the mid-'80s. By my count, about 2/3rds of their tracks on iTunes are still listed only as the DRM-laden "iTunes minus" variety.

Re:EMI Not Releasing Everything DRM-Free

[Squozen]

I see plenty of Ferry Corsten's iTunes Plus stuff on the Australian store - which country are you in? Are you sure EMI distributes him in your region?

Re:EMI Not Releasing Everything DRM-Free

[chefmonkey]

Good catch! I'm in the US, and apparently he's distributed by someone else here. I apparently can get it from the Australian store, but AU$2.19 = US$1.86 (which is closer to $1.95 after the credit card companies take their pound of flesh), which is a bit much for a single track...

They will

[SuperKendall]

They are slowly expanding the set of DRM free songs, and have said they will allow anyone that wants to use this to do so - contact them.

I didn't have any songs that were DRM free at launch of iTunes+, but just recently two came up as upgradeable.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[metamatic]

And for that miniscule nearly-undetectable drop in quality, you're cutting your download time, increasing the amount of songs you can hold on your mp3 player, and maybe even increasing battery time.

I don't care about download time. However, if I have a lossless original, I can encode a high bitrate copy for home listening, and a lower bitrate one for my iPod.

That's why I prefer lossless. However, as iPods get more capacious, the need for lower bitrate mobile versions of tunes is going away.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[sricetx]

I agree with you Dominic that 256 kbps AAC may sound fine. But what if you want to play it on a device that doesn't support AAC? If you re-encode a lossy format it may not sound so good anymore. I rip my cds to FLAC so that I have a choice later in what format I want to listen to the music in. A simple shell script is all that is needed to convert a directory full of flac files to MP3 or Ogg. Disk space and bandwidth are cheap, but rebuying music in another format is not.

Slashdotters, please go buy something

[metamatic]

This is the single biggest, highest profile way we can get the message to the industry that DRM doesn't pay.

So please, find a Mac or Windows box if you have to, but go buy something from the iTunes music store. Even if it's just one album and you then shunt the AAC files back to Linux to listen to.

Personally, I recommend something from the Mute back-catalog.

(And yes, I've bought 2 albums so far, I plan to keep buying preferentially from iTMS at least until the other labels get the message.)

Re:Slashdotters, please go buy something

[bigstrat2003]

I can't agree more with this. I'm planning on buying music I already have, just to send the message to EMI that I appreciate what they're doing.

Re:Slashdotters, please go buy something

[Squozen]

I've bought 6 EMI albums, plus a bunch of singles since the DRM-free tracks came out - that's more than I have since the store existed. My purchased collection, previously under 50 tracks, now stands at 149. I can't make a clearer statement than that, and I really hope some sales information comes out soon. I don't expect EMI to release the amount of songs sold, or the income they've made. Just a percentage increase over the previous month would be enough. If they sell 2-3 times as many tracks as they did earlier in the year, I can't see shareholders allowing the other labels to continue with DRM.

Re:Slashdotters, please go buy something

[neminem]

I keep trying... none of the songs I've wanted to get my hands on, that iTunes had, were available in the new format. But I'll keep trying, anyway.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[nine-times]

I don't care about download time. However, if I have a lossless original, I can encode a high bitrate copy for home listening, and a lower bitrate one for my iPod.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that "high bitrate copy for home listening" isn't going to need to be more than 256kbps, and if you wanted to transcode the 256kbps AAC to 128kbps AAC, it won't sound much different from encoding the 128 from lossless. Unless you're really going to process the sound a lot (like remastering and crap), the 256kbps AAC is going to be good enough to consider it "lossless" for most practical purposes. Distributing in ALE or FLAC would generally be a waste of bandwidth and disk space.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[jeremyp]

If it makes that big a difference to you, you'd probably consider it not too much inconvenience to go to a record shop and buy a CD which, I understand, is of CD quality and in a lossless format. Furthermore, when you buy a CD it comes with a back up bundled.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[aichpvee]

It sounds crappier when you convert it to MP3 to play on your MP3 player.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[aichpvee]

Or decrease your battery time since FLAC uses less processing power than most, if not all, lossy decoders.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[TheRaven64]

They are CDs. To be a CD, it just has to be a certain size, with pits in a spiral track starting in the centre comprising pits that can be read with a specific wavelength of light. They are not, however, CDDA, and are likely to not display the CDDA logo. If they do, and don't conform to the Red Book spec then you can try suing for misleading advertising, assuming Philips don't beat you to it.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[TheRaven64]

At the moment, a lot of music players are still hard drive based. In these, the hard drive is a large contributor to power drain, and a FLAC track at 512Kb/s will need the hard drive to be spun up twice as often as an AAC track at 256Kb/s (more if the cache is file-granularity). This can dramatically shorten the battery life of this kind of player. For Flash-based players, I believe the difference is somewhat lower.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[cayenne8]

"Have you actually given yourself a blind listening test? 256 kbps AAC is very, very good. I have never seen a study where anyone could tell the difference between 256 kbps files and uncompressed files a significant fraction of the time. Many people claim that they don't like the sound of MP3 or AAC compression, even at such a high bitrate, but they don't back it up with a real test to prove it."

I've got a pretty decent home system. I can hear the difference of good vs bad recording on it...even with ears not being what they used to be.

I prefer to have the best quality I can have for home listening, and to rip to lossy formats for horrible listening environments like the car and on the portable for the gym. I mean, why would anyone not want the best possibly copy for perm. storage, and then rip from that to suit needs? Seems like a no brainer for me. I don't have the fastest connection at home (about 7mbit down), but, its fast enough that downloading a whole uncompressed cd isn't THAT bad...lossless AAC would not be a big deal.

I've got good speakers and a decent amp to run them on and a decent subwoofer and soon to get a newer processer. I've got klipsch center channel, and some day hope to round out the surround with klipsch heresey's or the like.

No, I didn't plunk down a bunch of $$ all at once, but, have been building my stereo since I was 12...a piece here and there, swapping out things over the years. It is very efficient and I can hear differences in music on it. On good recordings, you can hear people breathing in the background...

I'm not an 'audiophile'...I don't freeze my stereo cables...but, I do and always have as a kid, appreciated good sound reproduction...I bought what sounded best to my ears. Others that have heard my system agree often that it is good. So, for people out there (there has to be more than just me) that want good sound for home listening...they want the best source they can get for that.....and go from there for poorer listening environments.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[Hatta]

Were there REALLY no DMCA or copyright controls on music, though, someone would eventually make something with a really cool user interface, like iTunes, but where music would be genuinely free.

They already have. It's called Oink.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[cayenne8]

"And for that miniscule nearly-undetectable drop in quality, you're cutting your download time, increasing the amount of songs you can hold on your mp3 player, and maybe even increasing battery time."

Download times mean nothing to me....and not everyone ONLY listens to music on a portable player, or car stereo. Some people have nice stereo systems at home too....I like to have choice about the quality of the sound based on where and what I'm using to listen to it.

What do you have against more choice?

:-)

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[cayenne8]

"If it makes that big a difference to you, you'd probably consider it not too much inconvenience to go to a record shop and buy a CD which, I understand, is of CD quality and in a lossless format. Furthermore, when you buy a CD it comes with a back up bundled."

Currently, that is what I'm forced to do....either that or 'back up' copies of songs from friends' CD's, much like we used to do as kids with albums and cassettes.

But, that puts me at a disadvantage. Some more modern stuff...I don't like but one or two songs on the cd, and I'd like to buy individual songs, but, I'd like them at CD+ quality. If that avenue were open to me, I'd certainly be buying MUCH more in the way of music, and doing it online is a great convenience. I've got disposable cash to spend...but, I prefer to spend it on quality items. I'm not the only one out there that thinks this way. Hell, I know friends now that have iTunes stuff, and they'd gladly upgrade to AAC lossless with no DRM if it were offered to them.

Not everyone is a broke college student...some of us have grown past that and have jobs that earn real money and are an untapped market for higher grade audio/video online.

I will buy ..

[dltaylor]

FLAC (or other lossless) studio- or CD-quality tracks from a store I can access from my Linux or BSD system. I'll pay more than the AAC stream price per track, and I want a discount for albums, which should include the cover art and text in a generally readable, like PDF, format. The album could be packed in a container file.

Yes, I CAN tell the difference between 256 kbit AAC and CDs on more than half of the streams I have tested, but I can also tell the difference between clean vinyl and CD, which could be related more to the dynamic range limitations of CDs than the sample rate. Fewer bits per sample lowers the data rate (information), just as sampling at a lower frequency does, which is why I requested studio-quality, since those files usually have more bits per sample as well as more samples per second.

With these files, I can use my home stereo system to good effect, plus down convert to something usable in a car or portable where the background is too noisy to hear much subtlety in music, and the number of tracks is a convenience.

When a store offers that, post to /. and I will check it out.

Re:I will buy ..

[Squozen]

Wait.. are you trying to tell us that CD has LESS dynamic range than vinyl?

Re:On AVERAGE 256 is okay, but it's not ALWAYS oka

[timster]

I'd like to know where the photographer got that "perfect" lens and infinite-resolution film to get that PERFECT image in the first place.

All sound formats, including analog ones, are lossy. The question isn't whether compression artifacts will be present, but whether and to what degree they are noticeable.

Even for the "best possible" (with our current technology) you'd need a way higher bitrate than CD, and then you truly are talking about impractical file sizes for consumer use.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[josh_miller]

Then, musicians would starve.

Or they'd make their money by performing and selling t-shirts

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[csnydermvpsoft]

What would prevent them from making live shows? Like, you know, all musicians during the whole human history always did?

According to Google, 99.48% of musicians that have performed live shows are now dead. That's a pretty high mortality rate.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[cayenne8]

"Distributing in ALE or FLAC would generally be a waste of bandwidth and disk space."

Bandwidth and disk space are cheap and becoming commodity things...not really the consideration or impediment they once were.

Besides, I wouldn't mind paying more for lossless than lossy. I can afford it easily. Even if they sold it at normal CD prices (like what, $11 $12 on sale at BB?)...I'd pay that much for online purchases. Just saving me a trip out to the box store to fight crowds, traffic and burn gas would make it worth it to me...besides I can listen to samples online before buying too...

Havent you heard?

[geekoid]

Apparently almost everyone on slashdot can tall the difference!
I figure they built there own bionic ear or something...or are delusional.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[hankwang]

Or decrease your battery time since FLAC uses less processing power than most, if not all, lossy decoders.

... if true, it is more than compensated by the fact that the hard disk has to spin up much more often at lossless (700 kbps) bitrates than at 128-ish bitrates.

Again, to the user...

[SuperKendall]

The defining feature of a digital watermark is that it cannot be removed given only the watermarked data.

Then to the user, it is a watermark, as it's metadata embedded in the file that cannot be removed by consumer tools.

You can hack other digital watermarks to degrade or destroy them, how is it any different that you can "hack" the file to remove or replace the email address contained?

More and more, it seems a grey area to me to consider any metadata in the same file as data to be off-limits as far as using the term "Watermark". My definition is an attribute that marks a file uniquely, which makes a lot more sense when you consider that there is simply no watermarking technique that cannot be overcome in terms of removal - the very existence of a hack would then render the watermark, not a watermark. To say the presence of a unique identifier in a file is a watermark then seperates the existance of a watermark with the degree of repudiation it offers.

I laud your attempt to try and keep terminology accurate, but I just cannot agree in this case.

Re:Again, to the user...

[LKM]

Then to the user, it is a watermark, as it's metadata embedded in the file that cannot be removed by consumer tools.

Except that it can.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[nine-times]

I'm in favor of choice. I'm just tired of all the FUD from the anti-Apple crowd. "I need lossless!" and "I don't want to use Apple's proprietary format!" and "Apple is watermarking the audio! That's the same as DRM!"

I don't really care whether you buy shit from Apple, but right now Apple has the best possibility of convincing the rest of the big 4 to drop DRM. If Apple is successful, we're more likely to end up with more choice.

And honestly, seriously, do a blind test with the nicest stereo equipment you want, and I doubt you can hear the difference between 256kbps AAC and FLAC. I help run a media processing company, and even the real audiophile musicians who think they can tell the difference can't tell the difference.

What is "quality" in sound?

[bwbadger]

I too am waiting for something like FLAC encoded CD quality (or better) downloadable recordings before I get back into seriously buying music again. There are companies doing this already. For example Linn (search for "linn flac" in Google).

As for your "calling bullshit" on the quality thing, you might be right but really and truly my Linn LP12 still blows the socks of a CD player in my experience. I could not tell you exactly why, but I can tell you that I really do enjoy listening to a piece of music on my Linn vs. anything else. It's just more satisfying and to me that kind of equates to "quality".

Can you prove there is NO steganography?

[FatSean]

Surely it is possible that information was embedded, but we are unable to read it?

Re:Can you prove there is NO steganography?

[Gogogoch]

Get the same file using different accounts and compare. Any hidden information - if account specific, which I assume is the point - will show up in the differences.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[Goalie_Ca]

Mostly it affects transcoding. The initial encoding takes a large amount of raw time sampled data. Then it does two things, approximates the frequency content and tries to quantify it less. You remember pallets back in the old days of computing. Computers couldn't show 256 colours all at the same time, but they could show any 16 of those 256. In audio files a similar thing happens. Reducing the number of "numbers" really helps save space but causes a lot of loss. Unfortunately each encoding has its own paremeters and sometimes completely different algorithms for deciding what should or should not be one of the "numbers".

Re:On AVERAGE 256 is okay, but it's not ALWAYS oka

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>With a lossy compression, data is lost, and each additional encoding may loose more data and add more artifacts.

I think the poster is referring from the original loss when encoding from the actual performance to a digital recording. (And whatever signal compression they use, etc).

Even following NyQuist, you put a limit on how much sampling you need to do in order to reproduce a certain amount of information... but there's likely more that you could get if you tried. (it just may not matter to most)

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[The One and Only]

But what if you want to play it on a device that doesn't support AAC?

If your device supports CD, then you can burn your AAC songs to CD and have no loss. If your device supports MP3 or WMA but not AAC, it's a pretty shitty device.

Right.

[FatSean]

But has anyone actually done this? I hear a lot of "There is no crypto, it's just tags" but I haven't yet found anyone who has done as you state. Perhaps I'm not looking well enough...

Re:Right.

[Gogogoch]

Good point - don't know.

Re:Right.

[LKM]

But has anyone actually done this?

Yes. The EFF did. The audio streams are the same for every download.

I upgraded, so should you!

[Not-a-Neg]

I upgraded every EMI song in my music collection, all 2 of them! Hopefully, other companies will go DRM-free on iTunes, so that I can convert the other 99.999% of my iTunes collection as well.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[Lars T.]

Then, musicians would starve.

What would prevent them from making live shows? Nothing but maybe the fact that it'll end like the Blues Brothers gig at Bob's Country Bunker.

They might.

[ins0m]

I'm sure they're intending to, in due time, but it's pretty unorganized in the iTMS camp. Specifically, there's a different label manager for each global region in which you sell your product, and something like this requires a renegotiation/re-signing of the contract for each region. Most of the indie's basically get ignored (last contract we had to sign with them had a ~8-week turnaround from when we mailed it in to confirmation that the manager had even seen it. And that was just for the US). We're realizing more and more that, in order to get any real feature spots, even a niche genre like electronica/dance needs a fulltime iTunes relation manager, because they simply don't care about anyone outside of the Big Four.

Conversely, there are a lot more boutique sites out there which sell better bitrates, without DRM, globally. Turnaround time from initial contract signing to posting content live? Beatport can have you signed on Thursday and putting content live on Tuesday. Even Rhapsody, eMusic, and Napster are easier to work with, and they certainly aren't small by any means.

Until they're willing to play ball, we'll continue to ship them at the very end of the distribution cycle. Fans are willing to pay up to $3/track, and with the artist getting 60% of that, the boutiques serve a better avenue to support the niche. Who would want to sell their music on the digital music version of Walmart?

Re:Troll?!

[PMBjornerud]

You got the -1 because this is neither DRM now a watermark. Go read up on some definitions instead of creating your own.

QED, bitches. Sounds like you enjoy those -1s.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[Kjella]

Well, unlike FairPlay-music, AAC is a standard supported by a huge range of devices. Probably doubly so as non-iPod owners can buy AACs now. Yes, if you have a non-AAC player now which is very important to you this might be an issue, but honestly... this will be a complete non-issue unless you go far out of your way to buy an AAC-incapable player.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[PMBjornerud]

She also feels a need to support the artists. I would encourage her to pirate the songs and send cash directly to the artists. If you buy records, she is mostly supporting the middlemen which keep pretty much everything. Artists only get 6-18 cents per song. Horribly inefficient system, yes.

Who wouldn't?

[SuperKendall]

Who would want to sell their music on the digital music version of Walmart?

I imagine, anyone who would like to make a lot of money through far wider distribution.

There obviously can be a path where it makes a lot of sense to ignore them and go boutique as you say, especially for very specialized music. But for many artists that kind of reach is what they dream of.

Re:Who wouldn't?

[ins0m]

The interesting issue that always comes up with independents (who are used to not only writing and performing their music, but actively manufacturing and promoting it as well), is that this mentality comes out: "All I need is big site X, because everyone's heard of it!" With iTunes, you're virtually guaranteed to get buried on the new releases section, and you lose out on a lot of potential fans/consumers because advertising real estate is incredibly limited.

What about, however, sync licensing? Ringtones? OTA downloads? What about exploiting pre-release exclusives? What about getting front-page feature spots? Certainly, the market adjusts when consumers and producers find that happy equilibrium price. When you're dealing with an almost-perfectly inelastic supply curve, this really comes down to consumer preference. There's no reason to preclude iTunes from the overall strategy by going niche-vendor-only. However, considering Cupertino's general reticence toward helping independent distributors to provide content, especially in a DRM-free format, I'd venture that independent artists have even less of a chance of getting this to happen.

From a business standpoint, I'd rather make 60% of something than 100% of nothing. Most digital distributors are dying to find good, new talent, and there are ones specialized in just about every genre you could want. Exclusivity typically comes up for working the distribution, but artists still retain ownership of their masters and publishing rights. Within any genre, there's at least one distro that allows the deal to be terminated by the artist at any given time for dissatisfaction with the service (we're one such). Getting proper distribution (which includes advertisement, feature spots, and maximizing price points within the target demographic) isn't as hard as most artists think.

Oh Noes!

[LKM]

I agree with the grandparent that tag info is /not/ a watermark. If it is, is including your email in the filename a watermark too? Is placing a (separate) file with your email on a CD with aac files a watermark? Is just printing your name on the CD? Is printing it on a jewel case?

Oh my god, all the mail I receive is watermarked with my address! They are on to me!

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[cayenne8]

"I'm in favor of choice. I'm just tired of all the FUD from the anti-Apple crowd. "I need lossless!"

Actually, I'm quite an Apple fan....it is just that I won't purchase music with less quality than what I can get on a CD...seems a waste of money. If you look at my other posts on this thread, you'll see I have a fairly decent home system, and I can hear differences in the quality of music recordings.

Re:DMCA is only reason DRM-Free is not music suici

[alexgieg]

What about musicians who, for whatever reason, choose not to tour? Should they just not be able to profit from their work?

What about the truck driver who, for whatever reason, choose not to drive trucks anymore? Should they just not be able to profit from their previous truck rides?

Answer: no, they shouldn't be able to profit from previous work.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[MysteriousPreacher]

MySpace is a nice containment facility for the "HAI, IM ON TEH INTERNET LOL" crowd. As long as they don't bother us on the real Internet, everything is going to plan.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[MysteriousPreacher]

It's all subjective really when it comes down it but your idea of buying things because they sound the way you want them makes a lot of sense. My hearing has been punished by too much metal so I'm content with a reasonably low bit-rate.

Blind-testing is the only way to establish whether there really is a difference, particularly with the cable freezing crowd. It's incredibly hard to do these tests though since people are often rating the way they think the music should sound rather than the way it is. I've plenty of Beatles songs that just don't sound right on CD because they're missing the little defects that crept in to the vinyl recording over the years.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[MysteriousPreacher]

Agreed, there are some things that I would only buy on CD but that has a lot to do with the album artwork.

iTunes Store's biggest advantages are convenience and the ability to cherry-pick the songs from albums.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[WarJolt]

I know mpeg. You turn up the bitrate and it looks perfect till you get that extremely complex scene(i.e. try encoding water rippling). It's the same with mp3 and AAC. It generates a psychoacoustic model that makes the mp3 sound "like" the original. The keyword is "like". The acoustics have changes and unless your ear is sensitive enough you'll never know. Mpeg really depends on what video you're watching. Complex scenes take up more bits to make the quality the same. This goes the same with mp3. In certain songs it is a lot easier to hear the distortion. For me though I accept the loss. I trade it for convienence. I'm a musician. I'd rather lisen to live music anyway.

I must say I'm amused.

[Kashgarinn]

Slashdotter reacting to his files being personalized : "They wrote my name in there! How dare they!"

Fan who buys a CD which has been personalized : "they wrote my name on the CD! How cool is that!"

Get some perspective people, this is just cool, it's marked with your name, _because_the_music_is_yours_ enjoy it.

K.

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[afidel]

Depends on how well mastered the recording is. I know with my Tool cd's and my new midrange speaker system I've heard things that I've never even heard in concert due to shitty road consoles. I know that the majority of mass consumed music is compressed to within an inch of its life with the gain pushed to 11, but there are still some studio guys that enjoy producing good albums =)

Re:With sales tax it's a buck-fifty !!

[MightyYar]

No question, but I doubt very much that your listening experience would be diminished much by compressing the audio with, say, lame --alt-preset-extreme... that would not destroy the mastering job that was done. MP3 is really bad at high frequency stuff like cymbals, but even that can be pretty faithfully reproduced at higher bit rates.

Musicians must get off their asses and work.

[jotaeleemeese]

I studied music and wanted to be a musician, but it is hard work that is mostly lowly paid.

The problem is that you are getting confused about the role of musicians in society. Their role is not to make CDs, their role is to create music (compose it, perform it).

The musicians that have understood this are working hard touring and playing music. The ones that want to live a parasitic life of play once, sit in you fat ass for the royalties kind of lifestyle, well, they can go to the moon as far as I am concerned.

Recorded music brought an anomaly in how musicians and people relate to music. Before recorded music the musicians neede to perform in front of paying audiences in order to make a living, this was fair because they were doing as in any other trade: they performed a job, they weh compensated for their efforts.

Come the recording of music, and now some musicians play once, and they want to make money for doing precious little, based in a completely artificial mechanism (copyright) that the companies exploiting them have extended beyond anything that is fair.

If copyright was limited in a reasoned, sensible way, I may be more inclined to sob for the poor musicians (the poor ones actually don't care about CDs, they have to do real work to make a living or earn some money), as things stand now I can't care less if the rich fat cats are deceive from their profits. I will not partake in breaking the law mind you, but find nor place on my heart for musicians that are masochistic and lazy.