Slashdot Mirror
Review of Amazon's DRM-Less Music Download Store
fdmendez writes to tell us that he had a chance to check out Amazon's DRM-less music download store that was recently released as a beta trial. "Amazon one-ups the iTunes store in every way except for popularity. Never once did I find an album to be more expensive on the Amazon store in comparison to the iTunes store. The download experience was pleasant, and the lack of DRM truly makes it YOUR music. I don't know of any other download service that could top the Amazon MP3 store."
"I don't know of any other download service that could top the Amazon MP3 store."
Bittorrent?
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I don't know of any other download service that could top the Amazon MP3 store.
AllOfMP3.
I tried the store out yesterday (bought 1 track) and was very impressed. No special software needed (making it Linux friendly). This might just get me back into buying music again instead of listening to all my old stuff.
God is imaginary
I hope this service takes off, as competition between iTunes and other services only means less DRM, higher quality songs, and better selection for all of us. Amazon just needs to land some deals with record labels...
"the lack of DRM truly makes it YOUR music"... and YOURS, and YOURS, and HIS, and HER, and THEIR.
don't worry - you don't appear as an Apple fanboy.
You appear as an idiot. If the distinction is meaningful is up to you.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Amazon does sell .cdas of music. It's DRM-free too. Thing is, it takes forever to download, but you get a free frisbee and storage case for the trouble.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
and found your credit card number in it.
Amazon trumps iTunes on DRM-free volume, but iTunes trumps Amazon by selling 256kbps AAC, as opposed to the 256kbps MP3 that Amazon sells.
Isn't that 256kb AAC the optional higher priced version?
More importantly the improved "quality" of 256 kb AAC over 256kb MP3 is largely hypothetical, few if any could tell the difference. However even if we accept marginal quality and size improvements these are overwhelmingly outweighed by the universal nature of MP3 files. Every digital player supports MP3. Portables, cars, home stereos, etc. There is no vendor lock.
Give them a fake address. A friend of mine in Brazil just told me that they're not checking.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Just tried it. XP & VISTA or MAC OSX ONLY for Albums!!!
-------------------
You have selected to purchase:
GREATEST HITS by Elton John
(Amazon MP3 Purchases are limited to U.S. customers.)
You must install the Amazon MP3 Downloader to purchase albums. (learn more)
* It automatically adds your music downloads to iTunes or Windows Media Player
* It takes just a few clicks and less than 30 seconds to install
DOWNLOAD NOW -- WINDOWS XP & VISTA
I agree to the terms of use | Download Mac OS X version
-S
Are we still supposed to loathe Amazon for their patent nonsense with crap like the 1-click issue? I mean...I thought we weren't supposed to buy from them and support evil patent trolls. But now, we are supposed to buy from them to show support for non DRM music stores. But we aren't supposed to buy from Apple anyways because of their iPhone shenanagins. But we are supposed to love Apple because its trendy. I am so confused. Will someone please deconflict the groupthink so I know if I'm allowed to buy non-DRM (good) music from Amazon (bad) instead of DRM music (bad) from Apple (both) or if I am supposed to loathe all of the RIAA music and not buy DRM or non-DRM music from any source if it is RIAA owned. What about indie music with DRM? Where does that fit in? God, someone please help... All I know for sure is the MS music store is 100% evil and the Zune will eat your soul.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
They're not 256kbps CBR mp3s. They look like -V0 or -V1 files, based on the bitrate, but are definitely joint-stereo VBR files encoded using LAME 3.97. Run it through strings to see for yourself. There are a lot more devices that support MP3 than AAC (don't just think about pocket jukeboxes here -- think of stuff that plays MP3 CDs and DVDs). 89 cents for a high-bitrate LAME VBR MP3 is without doubt a better choice than an AAC at a slightly lower bitrate for $1.39.
(the two files I've inspected myself, by the way, averaged 279 kbps and 280kbps.)
Some of their MP3s are in fact watermarked, but by the label, not amazon (at least not yet).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The question is not whether you can distinguish one from the other. Anyone can do that. The question is, if you're not told beforehand (blind), can you pick out the higher quality recording more than 50% of the time. And the answer is you can't.
Best slashdot comment
That's funny! At one time I thought the same thing. Anecdote: I was going through the tedious task of ripping my CDs, and after going through my collection of Nine Inch Nails and Autechre discs, I got the bright idea that instead of ripping my Aphex Twin collection, I'd just download a torrent. Same end result, right? I figured Aphex Twin fans would be fairly careful about audio fidelity, so I grabbed a torrent of some giganto Aphex Twin collection.
The end result was all over the map. Sure, there were a number of albums that were alright, some of them were terrible, with skips and low bitrates and mistitled songs, not to mention whole albums of "rare and unreleased" mislabeled garbage that wasn't even by Aphex Twin. I would have better spent my time continuing to rip them myself.
Alternatively, if I didn't already own the CDs, I would have happily bought large chunks of the Aphex Twin catalog from Bleep.com, which has been doing the DRM-free $1 MP3 download thing for over three years now.
I am Leviathant and I approve this message.
While I agree (mostly), those lines of thinking side-step things like convenience (I download it when I like, from the comfort of my home, probably while doing other things) and format (I use mp3's exclusively, so buying 'hard' media simply adds an additional step between me and the music).
So while I agree that you end up paying more for less (no album cover, no liner notes, no physical media) it comes close to being a wash (not quite) with the immediacy and the convenience.
Quack, quack.
Couldn't care less!
Just for some balance,
I mean, it seems to me like they're on the right track, but someone hasn't put too much thought into the fact that classical music tends to have a lot of very short and very long tracks. Evidence of this -- compare the prices for the complete set of Prokofiev symphonies in those three recordings:
Who's going to pay more than three times as much for a Naxos set as for the Berliner Philharmoniker???