SanDisk, Music Publishers Push DRM-free SlotMusic Format

Strudelkugel writes "The LA Times and others are reporting the music industry is working with SanDisk to try unrestricted music files on microSD memory cards to improve sales of physical media: 'In addition to music, the slotMusic cards will come pre-loaded with other things, such as liner notes, album-cover artwork and sometimes video.' The important part: 'The music on slotMusic comes without copyright protection, so it can be used on almost all computers, mobile phones and music players — but it won't play on an iPod, which doesn't have a micro-SD memory slot. It has one gigabyte of memory, and the music tracks are played back at high quality.' Could it be the labels have finally recognized that providing features and convenience to customers is preferable to suing them?" Most computers also don't have microSD slots; according to EMI's press release, there will be a "tiny USB sleeve" packaged with each card, and the "high quality" format means up to 320kbps MP3. From the given description, it seems like it would be no harder to transfer the tracks to an iPod (via a computer) than to most other players.

Comments

I want real High Quality

[ottawanker]

I don't want a memory stick containing lossy 320kbit songs, I can get that easily enough off the CD (they are still giving you a real CD, right?).

Why not include a 24-bit 192 or 96 khz lossless format, and maybe something in 5.1 instead? DVD-Audio and SACD didn't take off because no one adopted the players, but it might take off if you made it easily playable. I might even pay a slight premium.

Re:I want real High Quality

[SwedishPenguin]

It's probably to minimize the space required. They don't want half the price of the card be the cost of the card itself after all. Also a 320kbps mp3 can be played by pretty much any mp3 player out there, unlike most lossless compression formats.
Besides, most people (including me) can't hear the difference between 320 kbps lossy and lossless.

Re:I want real High Quality

[uvajed_ekil]

Why not include a 24-bit 192 or 96 khz lossless format, and maybe something in 5.1 instead?

Why? Because most people don't care. People who listen to ipods, buy from itunes, rip their own cds with crappy compression, and mainly listen to their music with $5 headphones, can't tell the difference between a lossless format and the common, lossy formats. That applies to the majority of consumers. Very little demand for anything better than 320kbps mp3 or aac or whatever. I like flac for archiving, personally, but I also often convert to a mediocre mp3 format for portability with my Palm Treo.

Re:I want real High Quality

[suckmysav]

You know, I'm in my mid forties and I grew up with scratchy LP's and compact cassettes. I recall buying LP's and "ripping" them to tapes so that I didn't have to keep handling and playing the LP in an attempt to maintain them in "pristine condition". I've still got those LP's too.

The trouble was that compact cassettes sounded like crap, even when you lashed out and bought the "metal" ones. But we had no choice. You couldn't use LP's in the car so cassettes it was (8-Tracks never caught on in Australia so please refrain from telling me about how they were much better than CC)

Fast forward 30 years and my main problem with music these days is that IT IS MOSTLY CRAP!

To my aging ears, MP3's sound way better than cassette tapes ever did even at 128Kbs. Most of my 120Gb collection is ripped in 128-192K MP3 and I don't care. Most of the music I like was recorded in the analog days anyway, and besides, I'm sure my old ears aren't what they used to be.

128K MP3s still sound better than any cassette tape ever did so I'm happy.

Listening to 50 fucking cent pose and preen in 5.1 lossless audio? All I can say is not in my lifetime buddy.

I'll take an antique recording of Canned Heat, Peter Green or Alvin Lee @ 128Mb any day thanks.

Now, get off my damn lawn you goddamn whippersnappers!

Weird

[suck_burners_rice]

Ok, let me get this straight. No copy protection so it will play on anything, but it won't play on iPods because they don't have a SD slot? WTF?! If there's no copy protection, then you put the songs on your computer and then sync them to the iPod. I love how these sorts of articles are written when the person writing them has never used a computer before.

Still the same problem with buying CDs

[isBandGeek()]

But the biggest problem, he said, may be that Apple's iTunes and other download services have made customers used to buying a song at a time, not an album, and making their own compilations.

The horror! Now we don't have to pay for the album fillers that comes with the one song that we want?

Re:Still the same problem with buying CDs

[repvik]

Unfortunately, even bands with talent has record labels stuffing crap to fill up their CDs. Extremely few artists have 100% control of what is put on their CD.

"Tiny USB Sleeve"?

[mellon]

Great. More crap to throw out. Isn't one of the big selling features of digital distribution that it produces less crap to landfill?

What's the difference?

[Yoo Chung]

I don't get it. What's the difference between slotMusic and a read-only microSD card with a bunch of MP3 files on it?

No copyright protection == public domain

[harlows_monkeys]

No copyright protection? So they are only releasing music that is in the public domain!?

Or did the newspaper screw up, and mean to write "no copy protection"?

Re:EMI is a pioneer

[neocrono]

That's pioneering? I didn't think we'd quite gotten to the point where a DRM-free CD was the exception rather than the rule...

Another Physical Distribution Method?

[DavidD_CA]

Kudos to EMI for doing something digital without DRM, but how is this better than what Amazon.com offers us now?

I can download DRM-free songs from Amazon for less than a buck, and albums at about $8. Windows Media Player downloads the album art, and a plug-in gets me lyrics. I can transfer the song to other devices, friends, or burn to CD. Amazon's library is HUGE.

And internet distribution doesn't impact the environment.

About the only advantage I see to this is the "up to 320k", whereas Amazon's are 160k I believe. But, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference.

Physical distribution is dead. If they want to cater to impulse buyers at a retailer, install a kiosk with a variety of ports, card readers, BlueTooth, etc and let people download stuff instantly.

Is Micro-SD the right choice?

[SlashBugs]

Am I thinking about the same micro-SD as everyone else? Smaller than my little finger nail?

It's small enough to get lost in your pocket, sucked up by a vacuum cleaner or whatever. They're also fiddly to handle: can you imagine picking through your album collection with a pair of tweezers, squinting at the 3mm x 5mm labels to find the one you're after?

It seems a bizzarre choice for a portable music medium. If they're not intended for carrying around but supposed to be used only once, to get the music onto your player/computer, why not just sell the download?

And what else ?

[daveime]

In addition to music, the slotMusic cards will come pre-loaded with other things, such as liner notes, album-cover artwork and sometimes video

And advertisements, rootkits, DRM schemes, spyware ...

Why is it every keydisk manufacturer thinks I want their crappy software to run every time I put a disk in the USB slot ? Sick of this nonsense, meaning your 2GB memory is actually only 1.8GB plus some non removable crap, and not one but 2 drive letters to deal with :-(

Re:5.1 ?

[ceoyoyo]

Because the audiophile world is even more based on pseudoscience than is the alternative medicine world.