New "MP3 100% Compatible" Logo For DRM-Free Music

Sockatume writes "A coalition of seven UK digital music stores have created a logo for DRM-free, MP3 music. The 'MP3: 100% Compatible' logo allows the stores to emphasize the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device and won't keel over and die as DRM-laden files are wont to. The BPI — the UK equivalent of the RIAA — is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores."

Comments

Jews did 9/11.

[Luke727]

I have a mp3 recording that proves it.

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA and FBI are run by Jews?

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[Ethanol-fueled]

That can't be right because the FBI are run by the Catholics.

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know you could post as an AC and then mod yourself up. I'll have to remember that the next time I want to try to make factless BS seem slightly legitimate with an insightful mod.

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[maglor_83]

Ah, but who runs the Catholics?

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[v1]

Ah, but who runs the Catholics?

the old dude with the tall hat isn't it?

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but who runs the Catholics?

the old dude with the tall hat isn't it?

Holy crap, Abraham Lincoln's still alive and he's the secret head of the Vatican? More Kool-Aid please!

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[master5o1]

Catholicism is a derivative of the Christian faiths, which is a derivative of Judaism. So in a diluted method, the Jews do run the Catholics.

In other news, why isn't jews picked up in the right-click list of options as a spelling correction in my UK-dictionary in Firefox. Yeah, so jews corrects to Jews, but why is the correction not on the list (sews news dews mews pews ...)

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[kv9]

So in a diluted method, the Jews do run the Catholics.

don't the jews run everything?

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gandalf!?

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[jabithew]

Catholicism is a derivative of the Christian faiths

If I remember my history correctly, aren't the Christian faiths derivatives of Catholicism?

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally a first post parent and thread that's logical and related to the article. Oh wait.

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[famebait]

Not all of them. The orthodox churches are older, and there are gnostic christians who claim to trace their faith even further back. That last claim may be dubious, but hey do not at any rate descend from catholicism.

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally it would also have "I'm *insert name of Republican here* and I approve this message" at the end of it.

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[bohemian72]

As I understood it, the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) churches went through a schism a little over 1000 years ago. So to say one is "older" than the other is a little off.

Re:Jews did 9/11.

[famebait]

OK, it's not quite as simple as this, but it is entirely possible to argue that the catholic branch was the one that wanted to reform things and 'broke off', and that the orthodox branch most represented the established tradition of the time, even though of course it too was changed by the event.

Sweet

[Captain Splendid]

The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

About frigging time.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

1996 called, it wants AOL back. It was difficult enough to logon before you stole it from it.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

No kidding.

A non-geek friend of mine bitched about this last week. He's nearing 40, doing well, and is a big metal fan. He was trolling memory lane on YouTube, and decided to go get some more albums of one of his old favorites. The store had a deal on the band's full boxed set -- sweet! -- then he noticed the DRM tag. He took it to the till and asked the clerks if he'd be able to play the tunes on his iPod. Clerk 1: "I dunno." Clerk 2: "Probably not."

Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

This new "100% Compatible" logo is /exactly/ what he (and the store clerks) needs. It's due. Regular customers are fed up with this shit now, not just geeks.

Re:Sweet

[Tubal-Cain]

Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

Speaking of which: did you email him links to .torrents with instructions?

Re:Sweet

[lysergic.acid]

having worked in the music industry i'd tend agree with you. i think this initiative, especially the fact that it's backed by a powerful trade group, will send a strong message to record labels and artists.

while i'm hoping my boss learned his lesson after receiving a bunch of complaints and product returns on music CDs using standards-breaking DRM (i think a rep from Megaforce, our distributor, sold him the idea originally), i suspect the notion of DRMing future releases is still in the back of his mind. and, honestly, even without the product liability issues that come with CD DRM technology, it's still a huge waste of money that alienates customers/fans.

resources wasted combating "piracy" and on anti-consumer policies/tactics like DRM, or any other means of restricting consumer freedom, would be better used on music promotion. record labels can't dictate to consumers how they can or can't use the music they've purchased. online file sharing, like swapping cassettes or CDs, is an timeless constant. the smart labels will use this to their advantage rather than try to fight human nature.

record labels spend millions of dollars each year on promotion, whether it's buying spins on the radio, paying for TV/radio commercials, taking out ads in magazines & one-stops, printing fliers, putting your tracks on listening booths, co-op promotions, etc. it's all about getting the music out there, getting the band's name out there. you let people listen to your music for free on the radio, and you grow your fan base. in fact, the more plays you get on the radio, the more albums you sell. the industry understands the value of this kind of _paid_ promotion, but when it comes to free promotion, they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. so they actually waste money to try to stop it.

instead of worrying about the music "pirates" who don't pay for music, which is really a relatively small percentage of the population that you're never going to reach anyway, why not exploit the marketing value of the internet. viral marketing the most effective, and simultaneously cheapest, means of increasing your fan base, and subsequently your customer base. so it makes much more sense to distribute DRM-free MP3s that people can share with their friends and let file sharing work for you through viral marketing.

Re:Sweet

[initialE]

http://xkcd.com/488/
Never a more appropriate illustration.

Re:Sweet

[Yvanhoe]

I once bought a CD that refused to play on my computer. That was 4 years ago and that was the last CD I bought. Recently I discovered deezer and finally get to listen to other things than webradio

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Do you feel that just because something is not for sale the way you like it, you are entitled to copyright infringement?

Re:Sweet

[jonaskoelker]

so it makes much more sense to distribute DRM-free MP3s that people can share with their friends and let file sharing work for you through viral marketing.

Cool. So everybody gets the mp3s and burns their own CDs, no one buys from you. How do you make money?

I'd love to be able to download all the music I want for free without breaking the law, but I don't know how my money is going to become the musicians' money, and I don't know how I'll get well-written, well-performed, well-produced music in large enough amounts to satisfy me without my money becoming they money.

Re:Sweet

[sqldr]

A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

eeeeh! The "september that never ended" is about to transcend into music! aaargh! my ears!!!

Re:Sweet

[Nursie]

"don't know how I'll get well-written, well-performed, well-produced music in large enough amounts to satisfy me without my money becoming they money."

Then you're not a music "sharer".

You pay for it, make your money their money. The point is you're not going to stop people sharing it, thats pretty much impossible, but you can stop punishing legitimate users and learn to live with a level of piracy that's not going to go away.

Meanwhile, you and I are paying for our music because we like it and want more. Actually, I'm buying CDs because I like having a thing and data seems temporary and unreliable, but then I'm apparently a dying breed.

Re:Sweet

[SenseiLeNoir]

Buying the CD, then "cracking" the DRM, may land you a lawsuit, however may be un-winnable for the RIAA or copyright holders.

Downloading off a torrent, and landing yourself a lawsuit is a sure win for the copyright holders.

The former is "unauthorised removal of CopyProtection mechanism, in order to play your purchased item" (note this is different to "Unauthorised removal of copyright protection to copy and re-distribute")

The latter is "Copyright Infringement".

Both are illegal, but one has a chance of being winnable, IF you REALLY need the Song.

Re:Sweet

[Tweenk]

Cool. So everybody gets the mp3s and burns their own CDs, no one buys from you. How do you make money?

MP3s provided for free should be medium quality - 128 or 96 kbps, or 64 kbps OGG. The flood of legal low-quality MP3s would overwhelm high-quality ripped CD content in search results, so people who want high quality recordings will have to buy CDs.

Re:Sweet

[theaveng]

CDs are also uncompressed, so they sound better when played back through, say, a surround-sound system. Downloadable MP#s or AACs are okay for ipods, but sound pretty bad on a full-sized stereo.

Re:Sweet

[jebrew]

Because I bought it 6 years ago and am too lazy to dig through the mountains of crap that have accumulated in my garage for the shiny plastic disc.

If there were no free alternative, it would motivate me.

In the case I never owned it, I'll go with whatever's convenient. It would be places like Amazon music or iTunes, but the DRM means it'll be a hassle down the road, so I'll put up with having to download most of someone's discography in a torrent to get the song I'm looking for, and edit the tags to match my collection manually.

Re:Sweet

[TravisO]

The .torrent argument is weak at best, especially when respectable companies (ex: Amazon) offer high quality MP3s at an affordable price (imho $8 albums makes up for the fact it's not truly CD quality and there's no physical album, otherwise go to Walmart and buy it for $14).

I agree with the OP dead on, but recommending torrents is not "informative", it's slimey.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past I downloaded mp3 torrents - illegally. However, since Amazon.com started selling everything I like in mp3 format, I just pay the $1 per song. It is convenient and I feel like I am supporting the music I like. I know the labels take most of it, but at least the artist gets some of it.

Re:Sweet

[Mateo_LeFou]

No, but in the words of Jeff Goldblum

Life ... finds a way.

l)

Re:Sweet

[Mateo_LeFou]

I recommend he buy the box set and then use the torrent.

Actually, I *really recommend that he explore free music. Free as in music.

Re:Sweet

[Phat_Tony]

This new "100% Compatible" logo is /exactly/ what he (and the store clerks) needs.

It's true, but "100% Compatible" would probably have caught on much better with consumers if they weren't already familiar with what it meant when the music industry sold stuff under the tag "Plays For Sure."

Re:Sweet

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Cool. So everybody... "

Right at the word 'everybody' is where you indicate that you missed the point entirely.

Re:Sweet

[greed]

Funny, neither are illegal where I'm from. Though apparently Bush has 77 days to pressure our government to amend the Copyright Act so that they both will be. I'm sure the media companies will be happy to take up any slack in that.

Canada is a haven for piracy, donchaknow.

Re:Sweet

[glennpratt]

Amazon MP3's have no DRM.

Re:Sweet

[mcgrew]

the industry understands the value of this kind of _paid_ promotion, but when it comes to free promotion, they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. so they actually waste money to try to stop it

I always say "never attribute to stupidity or incompetence that which can be easily explained by greedy self-interest". Apply this to your major label, radiocentric overlords.

The majors have radio, the indies don't. The fight against "piracy" is an anticompetetive measure against their competetion, who DON'T have radio.

Look at it this way: the crips have two trucks to import drugs with, the bloods have one. If the crips ram the bloods' truck, they still have a truck while utterly destroying the competetion.

Re:Sweet

[Arterion]

You're asking this on Slashdot?

It's not about entitlement, it's about being hackers. We find a way to do what we want, the way we want to do it. And we try to preach that religion to everyone else.

Re:Sweet

[FlyByPC]

The store had a deal on the band's full boxed set -- sweet! -- then he noticed the DRM tag. He took it to the till and asked the clerks if he'd be able to play the tunes on his iPod. Clerk 1: "I dunno." Clerk 2: "Probably not."

A box set of CDs? Rip 'em to mp3 using AudioGrabber. Even iPods will play mp3s if you can deal with the iTunes interface.

Personally, I'd go for a more standards-based audio player -- like any of the dozens of 'em that show up as a USB flash drive and let you copy folders of mp3/wav/ogg/whatever across, with no iTunes needed.

Re:Sweet

[lysergic.acid]

that's the thing though, i don't work for a major label. i work at an indie metal label--not a mainstream pop label, not a vanity or subsidiary label of one of the big four, not a member of the RIAA, just 100% independent.

i'm sure there are indie labels out there that are more in-tuned with the internet culture, but the majority of labels out there, whether big or small, still subscribe to the old music industry paradigm of file sharing = stealing. and you're right. it runs absolutely counter to their interests.

Re:Sweet

[mcgrew]

Yeah, that's crazy. I can understand the majors wanting to kill P2P, they have radio. But you guys are nuts to not embrace it.

Go to craphound.com and read the introduction to Cory Doctorow's Little Brother (actually read the whole book, it's excellent). Maybe you can at least show the introuction, where Doctorow explains why he's put it online with a CC license.

Tell them about Roger McGuinn of the Byrds, who says P2P brought his music to a whole new generation and revitalized his career.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

they called back, and they want their joke back.

Inevitable Tagging

[dasuser]

Well, I suppose this is gonna get the suddenbreakoutofcommonsense tag.

Re:Inevitable Tagging

[Anonymous Coward]

this is modded insightful, but I cant see why. did anyone expect anything else? should have been modded redundant

Re:Inevitable Tagging

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Tag this: notsosuddenbreakoutofgroupthink

Re:Inevitable Tagging

[swillden]

Well, I suppose this is gonna get the suddenbreakoutofcommonsense tag.

Yes, but unlike many stories that get that tag, this one actually deserves it.

Re:Inevitable Tagging

[shermo]

I think it might get the story tag too

firehose

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad I can't vote this one down for being an obvious slashvert.

WHAT? THE ICON IS FOR THE GNU/PLAYS4SHURE????

yes but...

[Sfing_ter]

Will it run on linux? :?

Re:yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends. Do you live in a country which allows software patents? Do you actually pay attention to legal issues and refuse to use software that violates patents?

If so to both, then no, it doesn't run on Linux. No on either one, and sure, why not?

Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[aliquis]

New logo on top of the Pirate Bays search logo in 5, 4, 3, ... ? :D

Re:Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[Anonymous Coward]

this doesn't have anything to do with anything but i actually have seen albums that have an m4p (itunes DRM'd AAC) file in them on TBP... how stupid can you get...

Re:Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[mikael_j]

Just because a file is using AAC doesn't mean that it is using some kind of DRM, I frequently rip movies I buy to h.264+AAC in an mp4 container, no DRM in there but excellent quality and I can play it back in places other than VLC and Mplayer (.mkv, I'm looking at you!).

/Mikael

Re:Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[SenseiLeNoir]

Read again _carefully_ what the Grandparent wrote.

i actually have seen albums that have an m4p (itunes DRM'd AAC) file

the m4p (as opposed to mp4) is the DRM version of a file. Standard (non DRM) AACs have an .mp4 ext (or a slightly incorrect .m4a if bought as iTunes Plus non DRM file)

regards.

Re:Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[MBGMorden]

Just curious, but is there a decent "video chopper" for mp4 that you've found? I'd use the format more often but Virtualdub nor Avidemux seem to have much success editing them.

Re:Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[AndrewNeo]

Usually unprotected audio files have m4a, whereas video files have mp4 or m4v.

Re:Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[default luser]

This is actually one of the things I hate about AAC: the fact that it is NOT guaranteed to "play anywhere." AAC does not have a standardized profile (LC, MAIN, SRS, LTP), and it does not even have a standardized filename (mp4 or m4a for unprotected files). This makes it difficult for embedded players to support the format correctly, because you have to make sure your encoder is producing the right profie and the right file extension.

For example, the AAC on CD capability on my car stereo only works with Itunes-formatted AAC files with m4a file extensions. If you want to use a different encoder (i.e. Nero), you won't have much luck. This pisses me off, so instead I use VBR mp3s on CDs, which play everywhere.

This is why the market is destined to stick with MP3: it's "good enough," and works everywhere. The advertising campaign stating this fact is long overdue.

The funny thing: when I was shopping for my new car last year, I tested out my mp3 CDs on every car I test-drove. They were formatted by /album/1trackname, /album/2trackname, etc. The CDs played each album correctly, with tracks in-order in every car I drove, which means that the format has essentially become an industry standard.

MP3 != 100% compatible

[russlar]

MP3 is still a closed-source, proprietary format. To call it 100% compatible is a slap in the face of truly compatible formats, like .ogg.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[darkhitman]

Yeah, but '73.38% compatible'* just doesn't have the same ring to it, you know?

*Number pulled out of ass, just so y'know.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaking "compatible" with "open". .ogg is open, but is compatible with significantly fewer devices and computers at the moment. I don't think my computer will play it (though I could download a codec for it if I cared), and I know my phone, portable music player (aka MP3 player), and car stereo can't play it.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[dalurka]

I think they mean that the file is 100% compatible with mp3-players. Ogg is not compatible with most portable music players.
But I think that the logo sucks if its purpose is to represent the absence of DRM in the songs..

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Try finding a media player that doesn't play mp3.
OK now compare that to the number of players that have no clue what an ogg file is.
100% is fine. Go bitch about open sores somewhere else.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I agree that mp3 is suboptimal, and I use flac or vorbis myself(rockbox ftw); but mp3 is pretty damn compatible. There exist several Free implementations of encoding and decoding, and Fluendo makes a binary version of their MIT licenced gstreamer plugin available, for free, with the mp3 licence fees paid. It isn't perfect; but it could be far, far worse. Also, mp3 is a fairly old format, all the relevant techniques and algorithms and whatnot are either unpatentable at this point, or already patented and on their way to expiration(I've seen estimates as optimistic as 2012 and as pessimistic as 2017).

I personally avoid mp3, and would encourage others to do the same, when they can; but I would argue that in the mass market, mp3 is by far the most Freedom friendly candidate(though, among demographics focused on audio quality, flac has strong potential).

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[aussie_a]

Its saying the file is 100% compatible with the MP3 format. As in, there's no additional DRM that has been tacked onto the MP3 file.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[v1]

Proprietary and compatible do not have to be linked.

ogg is not closed source/proprietary, but despite this it only works on what, 60% of players? hardly "compatible". Being open source does not maketh compatible.

But then WMV9 is closed/proprietary, and only works in maybe 1/3 of the players. Probably an intersection of where "proprietary" marries "profit".

Then there's the third alternative, mp3. Proprietary, yet universally (100% for all practical purposes) supported.

Can you find an audio player that does NOT support MP3 but DOES support ogg? Maybe you can find one or two. But I bet I can find a heck of a lot more that do MP3 and not ogg.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Firehed]

Ogg is Open and Free As In Speech, but it's compatible with almost nothing. Yes, devices could be MADE compatible with it with no licensing costs, but good luck convincing Apple, who alone controls over two thirds of the mp3 player market with the iPod. I doubt the Zune supports ogg right now either, though I'm sure many of the less-popular players that are trying to nail as many features as possible in the hopes of taking a couple of Apple's customers support the format.

That's not knocking ogg - it's hardly the format's fault. But I don't think there's a portable player in existence that doesn't support mp3, and that's what consumers care about. And from that standpoint, mp3 is as close to 100% compatible as any format ever will be.

Ogg is fantastic for some things (game audio comes to mind, with zero licensing costs), but portable media player compatibility is unfortunately not one of them. Likewise for FLAC.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[SanityInAnarchy]

Flac, then. Turns into mp3 or ogg easily enough, and is open and unpatented.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[MSZ]

Don't be so sure about Ogg being unsupported. While most of the players never list it as supported format, some will play it just fine anyway.
I have one like that - it does only list MP3,WAV and WMA. Even in the specifications, Ogg is not mentioned. Yet when I tried it, the player had no problem.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[jabithew]

Indeed. The .ogg format would need a new label. "100% incompatible", perhaps?

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[jabithew]

It's also fully lossless. I'm not sure people need or want that, considering the ballooning size of digital music libraries even with lossy compression.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[91degrees]

And requires you to go through a tedious conversion process to use it on most digital music players.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[meringuoid]

It's also fully lossless. I'm not sure people need or want that, considering the ballooning size of digital music libraries even with lossy compression.

Hard disks are up to 1.5TB. That's maybe a hundred times what they were when Napster first became popular. FLAC is typically, what, ten times the size of an MP3? Seems to me the time for lossless compression is here.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[famebait]

Hard disks are up to 1.5TB. That's maybe a hundred times what they were when Napster first became popular. FLAC is typically, what, ten times the size of an MP3? Seems to me the time for lossless compression is here.

The problem is that it is only about half the sized of the raw uncompressed track.
So by the same kind of logic as above, and as has been apparent ever since the performance of lossless audio compression stabilized many years ago:

The point at which lossless compression (of music) becomes useful, is about ten minutes before it becomes pointless.

It might make a difference for slow transfers like torrents, but as for storage: If you can spend that much space, just double it and get rid of the whole encoding and conversion step.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[digitig]

Er, Surely "MP3 100% compatible" doesn't mean the file is compatible with 100% of devices (I challenge you to play any of the formats that have been mentioned on my turntable), it means that the file is 100% compatible with MP3.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Jesus_666]

Are there even any unhacked non-PC devices that play FLAC? Nothing against FLAC, but even Ogg Vorbis' ~5% market penetration is much ahead of FLAC's.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[RockWolf]

*Number pulled out of ass, just so y'know.

This is slashdot. We know.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Soruk]

Out of curiosity, which player is this?

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[funkatron]

No one cares. WMP plays it, iTunes plays it, Rhythmbox plays it, etc. who cares that the ORIGINAL VERSION of the software (which no one uses) was closed source, it's simply irrelevant.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[zippthorne]

Ahh, but is that really the best use of those bits? I mean, sure, if you're starting with CD audio files, lossless from that is the best you can do.

But presuming the songs are actually recorded in something with much more fidelity than CD, I'd think that 30 megs of a careful lossy format taken from that would be better than 30 megs of pefect "CD" sampled from that.

After all, in this example, CD is basically a naive lossy compression format from the "original" higher quality master.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

You also get a standardized and well supported metadata format when using FLAC. That's quite a big bonus.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Jesus_666]

Ogg support is greater than 0% but it's also lower than 100%. I know that my last player didn't do Ogg even though one of its selling points was that Ogg support would come with a later firmware patch (it turned out the processor wasn't fast enough for Tremor). There still are players around that don't do anything but MP3 - but even on players designed for AAC or WMV, MP3 is no problem.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[domatic]

The better class of music library software can automatically transcode files being transferred to a player. I believe Amarok will do this for iPods.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[91degrees]

Does it transcode more quickly than files can be transferred to the mp3 player? If not it requires tedious waiting.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[domatic]

I've had it do ogg -> mp3 and didn't find the wait all that terrible. And this is only remotely a problem for people who are constantly changing the music on their players AND have slow computers. Any machine made in the last three years will transcode flac or vorbis to mp3 with a time penalty per track of 20 seconds or less. I have a 2.4 Ghz P-IV that transcodes a typical 4 minute track from flac to mp3 in less than 30. I do it twice a month tops so I'm going to cheerfully chuck any music I like into my collection and not worry about the format especially since I can do any number of other things while the player syncs.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[jonaskoelker]

I could download a codec for [.ogg] if I cared

Hi. I'm mister pedantic.

Ogg is a container format, meaning you can stick audio and video data inside ogg files much the same way you can files into a zip file. Except that zip has features to enable corruption detection and ogg has features to enable corruption handling (find next magic number, continue from there). Also, Ogg is streaming friendly, zip puts the data first and all the inode-like data last.

The ogg container format is most typically used with Vorbis sound and Theora video. There's also a Speex audio codec optimized for human voices (as opposed to "all sound").

Similarly, AVI is a container format [AVI = Audio Video Interlace], often storing mpeg data I'm told. Other container formats include Matroska (.mkv).

See wikipedia if you lack something to nerd out over :)

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[MBGMorden]

The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between lossless and a decent bitrate lossy encode. Why waste the hard drive space just because it's there?

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

*Number pulled out of ass, just so y'know.

Goatse, is that you?

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[SanityInAnarchy]

If you can spend that much space, just double it and get rid of the whole encoding and conversion step.

Why would you?

On a modern Linux distro, much of the documentation, including the manpages, are gzipped. This is because even if it doesn't buy much space, modern CPUs are so fast that there's no reason not to.

Well, the same is true of Flac. CPUs have gotten fast enough to play it back in realtime on any computer made in the last 10 years, and fast enough to encode as you rip, or decode as you burn.

Given that it costs me nothing to encode to Flac vs storing WAVs, why wouldn't I? Given the choice, wouldn't you want twice as much space for no additional effort?

But here's the main point: Offer it in mp3, so people don't have to do anything to get it working. Also offer it in Flac, for anyone who dislikes the quality of mp3. That way, you don't have to support everyone's pet format -- just the one lossless one, so they can convert it themselves.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[SanityInAnarchy]

If by "tedious" you mean "automatic", you're absolutely right.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[91degrees]

By "tedious" I mean "slow". It takes a few minutes to copy several hundred files to an mp3 player. It takes longer to convert them. Fine if you only have one or two, but if you have hundreds then it's far too long a wait.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Xtifr]

Pretty much all of the Asian-made players are this way. Basically, if it lists multiple audio formats (mp3, wma, aac), then it's going to support Ogg Vorbis unless it's from a company that designs their own chipsets. Stock audio decoder chipsets pretty much all include Vorbis these days.

Heck, Microsoft's Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) defines a standard tag for Ogg Vorbis. That pretty much leaves Apple (and perhaps Sony) as the only company(ies) still trying to pretend Ogg doesn't exist. :)

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[default luser]

FLAC is still not a good option for portable devices because the higher bandwidth required translates to shorter battery life.

As you have stated above, with simple encoding methods, most of the power wasted accessing a pile of bits is the power to access those bits, not the power required to decode them. On portable devices, FLAC will always be at a disadvantage compared to a codec that uses 10x less data. The question is: will power consumption ever get so low that a 10x power difference goes unnoticed?

This is the true power of mp3: an excellent combination of low complexity and high compression.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm also mister pedantic.

AVI stands for Audio Video Interleaved .

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[SanityInAnarchy]

Fine if you only have one or two, but if you have hundreds then it's far too long a wait.

Hmm. Do these players not also support syncing? As in, only convert/transfer new music?

How often do you have hundreds of new tracks to transfer all at once?

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[MSZ]

Optimus OptiPLAYER 2000V. Which is actually some Chinese crap branded for sale in Poland with Optimus logo. Looks exactly the same as several other cheap players, probably differs only in logo and default language.

Anyway, Ogg Vorbis compatibility in popular hardware is way higher that checking offered specifications would show, still since people don't see it offered as a supported format, most don't even know it exists.

Or as I've looked, I found one that does not list playing Ogg, but... it can record Vorbis. Funny.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, how many portable digital music players do not play MP3s? Only count those players where you can load files on yourself, that means CD players, digital radios and the like don't count.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole f*cking logo and your cuntry is deciding its next non-racist leader. GET A FUCKING LIFE.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted already and mindlessly gazing at the results as they come in or are speculated upon is not going to change the results.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Anything not related to the presidential election should grind to a halt. I stopped my clock so I would not look at it but watch the election instead.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Why not wind up your coding c(l)ocks as we speak

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

non-racist? no, i assure you, obama is a racist and those who support him were hoodwinked by his playing of the race card.

Re:Wow!

[Cassius Corodes]

Unless its quantum voting!

For varying definitions of compatible?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Proprietary or not, MP3 is THE audio format to play. Give an ogg file to most people, they are almost certainly not going to be able to play it without some hass.e Most audio devices don't play ogg files, while most audio file player devices can play MP3.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[CRCulver]

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I travel most of the year and offer to share music with a lot of people I meet. Most of my collection is in FLAC, and I'm amazed at how many people I come across with limited computing skills are still open to getting files in such a format, "Lossless, CD audio-identical? Free codecs? Cool." While the lack of support is a problem in portable devices like iPods, I'm not sure there's that much resistence to Vorbis/FLAC/what have you among people who play their music off a desktop or laptop.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[lysergic.acid]

well, MP3 is an ISO standard (approved in 1991). however, i agree that the licensing/patent issues are a huge drawback. to quote Wikipedia:

A large number of different organizations have claimed ownership of patents necessary to implement MP3 (decoding and/or encoding). These different claims have led to a number of legal threats and actions from a variety of sources, resulting in uncertainty about what is necessary to legally create products with MP3 support in countries where those patents are valid.

The various patents claimed to cover MP3 by different patent-holders have many different expiration dates, ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S. The initial near complete MPEG-1 standard (parts 1,2,3) was publicly available in December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. Since US patents must be filed by no later than a year after publication, some of the later patents are questionable, and MP3 may be patent free in the US by December of 2012.

sounds like typical patent-trolling to me. this is a prime example of how our IP laws hinder technological progress/innovation rather than encourage it. and a 20-year patent term for software algorithms is just plain insane. by the time the patent expires and finally goes into public domain the algorithm will likely be obsolete. technological progress is the result of open collaboration and collective efforts. these type of patent lawsuits are counter-productive and greatly hamper cultural symbiosis that every field of knowledge/research depends on to move forward.

so it's too bad that petty patent claims plague the dominant digital music format. maybe Ogg should be made into an ISO standard. perhaps then more hardware manufacturers (and downloadable music retailers) will adopt it alongside of MP3. frankly, MP3 is already a little outdated as it's fallen behind other compression formats over the years.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think that does make a good amount of sense, because computers can easily play just about any file format, given an easy installation of a driver or decoder program. Getting a typical phone, car audio head unit, iPod or ipod-like device to play them generally isn't going to be so easy. If you offer to install the player, I would bet the resistance would be low, but people without that kind of acquaintance would probably just forgo it.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[AKAImBatman]

Since they're going for patented technology anyway, I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't push the AAC format. While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players. As a bonus, it's smaller, better quality, and a heck of a lot easier to license than the craziness behind the MP3 and MPEG formats.

Yeah, yeah. I know that MP3 has brand recognition. But nothing will ever change if no one pushes things forward. And besides, MP3 100% Compatible? That doesn't even sound cromulent!

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[hairyfeet]

While I am sure that is true for the older generation,for the younger they pretty much think music=MP3. A few weeks ago I went to pick up the oldest from school and all you saw was MP3 players everywhere. Some of his buddies were talking up how they had all gotten these cool speaker docks to play their iPods at home. They started to laugh at how my nephew plays his tunes at home on his PC until he said "Well my uncle gave me his huge super powerful '80s Pioneer home stereo which he wired into my PC so all my games and tunes ROCK!" Needless to say they were impressed,LOL

But the point is for the teens/early twenties crowds music=MP3 player. They just add all kinds of home/car adapters and carry the things wherever they go. So while I think having choices is great I doubt seriously when my nephew's generation grows up they are even going to know other formats exist. For them it is all whatever works on their iPod/Creative/Sandisk. And the only format you can be sure they will all play ATM is MP3.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[hairyfeet]

Umm...I don't think most of the Sandisk support AAC,just MP3 and WMA. I know that the 3 M-series my family has doesn't support AAC. I have also noticed most of the under $100 players that the kids at my youngest nephew's school carry online and most of those only support MP3 and WMA. So while AAC may be better bitrate wise,pretty much the only format that you can be sure that everything from the $25 Coby they sell at Walgreens to the $300 Cowon PMPs will play is MP3.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[zxsqkty]

I travel most of the year and offer to share music with a lot of people I meet.

Terrorist!!1one

Won't somebody please think of the starving artists??''?

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Anonymous Coward]

... was publicly available in December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. Since US patents must be filed by no later than a year after publication, some of the later patents are questionable, and MP3 may be patent free in the US by December of 2012.

December of 2012, why does that date sound familiar? 8^)

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't push the AAC format. While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players.

AAC is not even close to half as "standard" as MP3 in newer (and existing) portable audio players, car stereos, DVD players, CD players. Did you miss the part of the summary that says: "... the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device"?

Unlike Vorbis, FLAC, and other open formats, AAC requires a non-free-as-in-beer license.

As a bonus, it's smaller, better quality, and a heck of a lot easier to license than the craziness behind the MP3 and MPEG formats.

Only if you believe Apple's bullshit marketing. iTunes uses the shittiest MP3 encoder in existence (Fraunhofer's) and a very good AAC encoder (Quicktime). When using a good MP3 encoder (like LAME, which Amazon uses), the quality is equal to AAC at 128kbps+ bitrates except in a few rare musicical situations when listening on very good headphones or speakers.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you believe Apple's bullshit marketing ... except in a few rare musicical situations when listening on very good headphones or speakers.

so you just admitted he was right. aac is better.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[cgenman]

Your alternative standard of choice (ogg, aac, wmv, flac) isn't the basic standard. It may be superior in many ways (size, sound quality, openness), but everyone has an MP3 player. As Sony proved several years back, you can't have a hardware player that doesn't play MP3's. It can play MP3's *and* another standard, but if it doesn't at least play MP3's it won't work with most people's equipment.

For those people who are aware enough to want AAC, get an AAC player. This branding is for those people who bought a car stereo which will play those newfangled computer disks or ipod thingies, and are confused by DRM about what will play on them.

BTW, MP3-only players are still cheaper to produce, as AAC, FLAC, and OGG require significantly more processing power.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[hldn]

.. and MP3 may be patent free in the US by December of 2012.

Many esoteric sources interpret the completion of the thirteenth B'ak'tun cycle in the Long Count of the Maya calendar (which occurs on December 21 [2012] by the most widely held correlation) to mean there will be a major change in world order.

coincidence? i think not..

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Here's the difference:

If you provide an mp3 download, everyone knows what it is, and they don't have to be bothered with learning anything.

But that doesn't stop you from providing alternatives. Throw up an AAC as "best for iPod", and FLAC, because then geeks can either keep it in full lossless glory, or transcode it to what we want.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[LeafOnTheWind]

Bonus: AAC should properly be known as audio MPEG-4, meaning that it's both MPEG and ISO (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43345). AAC was designed to be the technical superior to mp3 (and it really is in potential) and is part of the next generation MPEG-4 standard.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[stephanruby]

While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players.

You mean Apple iPod or iPhone players? My two Creative mp3 players and my Krazor cell phone can not play .aac files. And the only thing on my computer that can play those files is the VLC player, and VLC can pretty much play anything -- anyway. .aac files are some of the most finicky media files I have. Almost all the other medias I have can be pretty much played on several of the players I have installed, .aac can not, it can only play on one software player, the VLC player (besides iTunes). And don't even get me started on the .aac quality, .aac files just sound awful.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Jesus_666]

It's the old "good vs. good enough" thing again. MP3 is good enough. If you want realy high quality then 320 kbps MP3 is good enough. If you want even more quality you're someone who thinks 5000 bucks is not too much to spend on a new sound system and thus aren't representative for the average listener.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[mikael_j]

Last time I checked pretty much all mp4 audio (AAC) files were named .m4a or simply .mp4, not .aac. This repeated mistake makes me wonder just how much exposure you've had to the format.

/Mikael

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[MtViewGuy]

While this is a great idea, I still think with server storage being so cheap nowadays they should also offer it in non-DRM'd WMA and AAC formats, too. The reason is simple: most non-Apple portable music players can play unprotected WMA files, and many newer portable music players can play unprotected AAC files, too.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[MtViewGuy]

I support your suggestion of people pushing the AAC format. After all, the number of iPods out there is HUGE, and many newer non-Apple portable music players can decode unprotected AAC files, too.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[c]

> most audio file player devices can play MP3

More or less. Some players choke on oddball frequencies and bitrates and things like VBR; the 8 year old player in my truck being a good example, but I've even seen it on other cheap players in the last couple of years. Then there's meta-data support (ID3) and niceties like replay gain.

It's fair to say that MP3 is the best supported format, but 100%? Not so much.

c.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a small epsilon

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[TheRaven64]

Every Nokia mobile phone has been able to play AAC for ages. My old Sony Ericsson one could too, but with only 1.5MB of flash storage space it couldn't play very long ones. Before I got a Mac, I was playing AAC files with WinAMP ripped with CDex.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[TheRaven64]

.aac is used for raw bytestream AAC files. FAAD plays these, but I don't know of anything else that does. They often have ID3 tags bolted on as well. Apple use MP4 containers for their music, which is a bit nicer, and these are supported by a lot of devices, such as every Symbian phone I've seen. If the grandparent has only seen .aac files, not .m4a/.mp4 AACs then their assessment would be correct, but irrelevant.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[thepotoo]

Exposure to the format or not, he's right. I've worked far more than I'd like to with the format, it being required for audio books for the iPod.

It doesn't matter if it's called .aac, .mp4, .m4a, or .m4b; these files are a real bitch to get to play (and if they're called .m4p you might as well head off to TPB). VLC is OK if you play through start to finish, but if you're trying to skim through a book, it's pretty flaky. Winamp is all right at playing AAC, but it's only a small step better than iTunes.

Cross-platform compatibility is a joke, GP is spot on there.

As for the quality claim, I will admit that the quality is pretty good. I wouldn't say better than mp3, but when converting mp3 files @ 64k (standard for audio books) to .m4b @ 64k I cannot hear the difference. Considering I'm going from lossy format to lossy format, I'd say that's pretty good (also, 256k music sounds fine in .aac, but I haven't really done extensive tests on it, I prefer .ogg or FLAC. I am not an audiophile, YMMV, OMGWTFBBQ).

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[TeknoHog]

While I am sure that is true for the older generation,for the younger they pretty much think music=MP3. A few weeks ago I went to pick up the oldest from school and all you saw was MP3 players everywhere. Some of his buddies were talking up how they had all gotten these cool speaker docks to play their iPods at home. They started to laugh at how my nephew plays his tunes at home on his PC until he said "Well my uncle gave me his huge super powerful '80s Pioneer home stereo which he wired into my PC so all my games and tunes ROCK!" Needless to say they were impressed,LOL

I get this a lot. I mention to someone that I'm listening to this and that on my computer, and they assume it means some crappy plastic speakers. People seem to think in terms of different appliances for different jobs, even though you can do everything sound and video related on a single computer, with a proper amplifier and speakers. I also think it saves energy and environment, as well as money and space, not having all those separate widgets.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Anonymous Coward]

The people worried about lack of support for FLAC and Ogg Vorbis need only use Rockbox on their iPod.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Just Some Guy]

I'm not sure there's that much resistence to Vorbis/FLAC/what have you among people who play their music off a desktop or laptop.

I'm fairly resistant even though my Rockboxed Sansa can play both just fine. My situations is that I ripped a few hundred of my CDs to high-quality MP3 and it takes up about 30GB of storage. With an 8GB portable player, that means I can take along about a fourth of my collection. This works out pretty well because a lot of it is my wife's stuff that I'm not into, and I don't like every single song from even my favorite artists.

Now, suppose I were starting from scratch and considering FLAC. I'm going to ballpark estimate the resulting collection to be about 3 times larger than what I have now. This is no big deal at all on the desktop, but suddenly the Sansa presents an awful decision:

• Only take 1/12th of my collection along, guaranteeing that I'll get an overwhelming desire to hear "Rye Or The Kaiser" which is sitting at home, or
• Transcode from FLAC to something reasonably sized at sync time.

You hear variants on the latter a lot: "just transcode when you want another format!" But why? Lame can already make MP3s that are much better than my concert-damaged hearing can distinguish, and they take a third the space of FLAC. Now, I love the idea of FLAC, but in practice I don't really see what problems it would solve for me.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[AnnoyaMooseCowherd]

I'm in a similar position, but what I would like is for CD ripping software that, at the ripping stage, produced at least 2 versions; compact MP3 for syncing with my PMP and a lossless format for playing via my Squeezebox/HiFi. Does anyone know of anything that does this?

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Just Some Guy]

If I were going to do that, I'd almost run it as a scheduled batch process that looked for FLAC files without corresponding MP3s and transcoded them. This way you don't have to use special software setups and it would automatically handle files you buy online.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[lysergic.acid]

AAC encoding is actually noticeably better than LAME at lower bitrates (128 kbps and below). so you can actually compress a track more with AAC and produce the same quality audio as a higher bitrate MP3.

most sources seem to agree that MPC and AAC are at the head of the pack amongst modern audio codecs. MPC being an open source codec would be preferable over AAC, but AAC obviously has much wider acceptance while MPC is supported by very few hardware manufacturers.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention that warm fuzzy feeling you get from saving something that was destined for a landfill. Last year I picked up some small form factor 733MHz Compaq Deskpro PCs that the local school didn't want anymore. My family thought I was nuts until I added a $20 capture card(for remote control) along with a couple of SDRAM sticks and an old DVD ROM I had in a drawer. Now instead of those crappy $50 DVD players that they used to go through my sis has a machine that not only plays DVDs,but any format you can name,plays all her favorite tunes from the HDD,and soon she is going to add a couple of wireless game pads so she can play her favorite old games with the boys on the set with emulators.

All of that from something that would have probably ended up in a landfill. It really is a shame that folks don't seem to realize how truly versatile a PC truly is anymore. Even something as old as a 233MHz can be made into a useful tool with just a little TLC. A couple of years back I got a handful of them given to me by a company cleaning out their back room and thanks to OO.o and Puppy Linux they ended up with a single mom who uses it to type resumes and help her kid with homework,a church which I set up OO.o Base with some templates as a single use appliance for keeping track of donations,mailing lists,etc and the last one ended up being bought from me along with my old 300MHz gaming rig so a lumber company would have spare PCs with DOS 3 and ISA slots for an old custom lathe controller that they use for carving columns.

Which is why I always urge my fellow geeks to show the folks around you what can be done with older PCs and to offer to take older machines when offered. Because with a little TLC not only can we cut down on the e-waste being dumped into landfills,but we can re-purpose these machines to help out those that don't have as much. And I apologize about the length,but as you can probably tell it is a subject I feel strongly about. After all,how often do we get to use our geek powers to not only help the environment,but make someone's life a little easier at the same time?

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[stephanruby]

Last time I checked pretty much all mp4 audio (AAC) files were named .m4a or simply .mp4, not .aac. This repeated mistake makes me wonder just how much exposure you've had to the format.

Thanks for the heads up. .m4a files I can play just fine (at least on MediaMonkey). It's the .aac files I can't (unless I'm on VLC). And I have plenty of both .m4a files and .aac files (I just doubled-checked). The files with the .aac extension I have are all audiobooks (if that tells you anything). Are you saying the .aac extension/wrapper is not related to the (AAC) format everybody keeps on talking about? What is it then?

Re:For varying definitions of compatible?

[Draek]

If you want even more quality you're someone who thinks 5000 bucks is not too much to spend on a new sound system and thus aren't representative for the average listener.

But on the other hand, you're part of the market segment that spends the most money per capita in music, so you're still pretty f'in important to the music industry.

I've seen Magnatune.com being recommended plenty of times in not-techy sites just because of their huge classical collection available in FLAC (though it's also available on MP3s and OGGs if you care). It's kinda like Apple: you can do quite well catering to a niche, if it also happens to be the richest one.

'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[syousef]

How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.

mp3 is nice, but...

[rampant mac]

"The 'MP3: 100% Compatible' logo allows the stores to emphasize the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device and won't keel over and die as DRM-laden files are wont to."

What about AAC? Ogg? Flac? I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Kamokazi]

Because it's hard, if not impossible to find a player that doesn't support MP3. You actually have to look for OGG or FLAC support while buying. This is about making it easy for consumers, not forwarding the agenda of open source/format nazis. Maybe, just maybe, something not completely open is actually...good?

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[amazon10x]

mp3 is nice, but... (by rampant_mac)

Haha, a mac user complaining about proprietary formats.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[phatvw]

MP3 is supported on more handheld players and integrated chipsets that's why. It may not be the best compression scheme as there have been some great developments in psychoacoustics in the last 15 years, but MP3 just works.

Also, don't worry about Fraunhofer/Thomson. The patents are gonna expire in a couple years and none of the big companies have sued anyone for using LAME yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[aussie_a]

I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

You don't seem to have a problem using it on proprietary devices.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Politas]

Car stereos, DVD players, etc, etc. Ogg's a solution to a non-existent problem.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Si-UCP]

I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

You don't seem to have a problem using it on proprietary devices.

Rockbox + your device with proprietary firmware (including iPods -- up to 5.5G) = your device with new, shiny open-source firmware, that, of course, supports .ogg.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[runlevelfour]

Nicely done. Sometimes you can almost hear the whip of whit come right back to crack the smartass. Fail + 2 Rockbox = good stuff.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

whip of whit

I believe that the word you were looking for was "wit", not "whit". Not that I care a whit, mind you :)

HTH. HAND.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[maglor_83]

I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

That's OK. The files will come pre-encoded.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[aussie_a]

I'd be really curious to see if rampant_mac would sully his Apple goods (including his latest iMac) with free software, including a free operating system. And if he is, why is he bothering to pay for a Mac instead of buying a generic computer.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[grumbel]

Solution to a non-existent problem? The gaming world seems to disagree, since Ogg is used in plenty of games.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[theurge14]

Yes, tell us all about that proprietary Apple audio format.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, what we need is 100% FLAC.
not only its lossless, its also gapless format (very important for classical music)

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Philips (now NLX) was actively suing a few chip manufacturers in the last few years of their I2C patents. The fat lady has not sung yet.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, tell us all about that proprietary Apple audio format.

You mean Apple Lossless?

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, just maybe, something not completely open is actually...good?

Perish the thought!

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[jonaskoelker]

Maybe, just maybe, something not completely open is actually...good?

I send katana warrior. He reeducate infidel!

(http://xkcd.com/225/)

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[mcgrew]

Gapless? You mean between tracks? Neither XMMS (Linux) nor Winamp (Windows) has gaps between tracks any more.

However, there is a 1/44,000th of a second gap between every sample on your CD, and it IS audible, even with sub-audiophile equipment.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[Politas]

But why? Has anyone ever been sued or legally threatened for utilizing an unlicensed MP3 decoder algorithm in a program?

If not, then, as I said, Ogg Vorbis is a solution to a non-existent problem.

If the MP3 patent holders have been exercising their patent rights, then you might have an argument. People avoiding the issue doesn't really do it, unless they had good reason to do so.

Re:mp3 is nice, but...

[badkarmadayaccount]

And I thought that no one would find a good use for that xkcd, kudos to you sir.

EVIL PLAN!

[mrSteveBallmer]

All of you cheap music stealing thieves out there make my skin crawl! You constantly come up with all types of stupid justifications for stealing other peoples content, intellectual property, music, .... Why don't you people use some of all that welfare money I send to the government for you and actually pay for your entertainment once in a while! Now you trailer people make up a logo! SHEESH! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/

Easier solution

[sleeponthemic]

Swastika on all the DRM'ed files.

Re:Easier solution

[duckInferno]

I'd imagine that would send the wrong message in India.

Re:Easier solution

[z0idberg]

Final...Easier...whatever.

Re:Easier solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm too lazy to try to figure out what piece of obscure knowledge you're referring to.

Re:Easier solution

[east coast]

Sadly, for 90% of the worlds population it's not obscure at all.

Re:Easier solution

[Caetel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism

Re:Easier solution

[Jugalator]

Then tilt it 45 degrees. ;)

Re:Easier solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's a common symbol in many cultures and religions. That's why the H-man chose it. For example, it's the main element of the scroll work on the exterior of the US dept. of Agriculture building.

Re:Easier solution

[Jesus_666]

In that case the DRM logo is a raised middle finger. If that doesn't work, Goatse.

Re:Easier solution

[SenseiLeNoir]

Well said...

Although I am a Hindu, I have lived in the UK all my life, and I see the swastika as an "evil" symbol because of the actions of a madman in Berlin over 60 years ago.

In India though, the symbol is revered, as it is a Symbol of peace, tolerance, and welcoming.

Its really sad, as some countries such as Germany and France ban the Swastika. They do allow exception to Hindus as a religious symbol, but its very difficult to use it still. A hindu would offer the symbol as a welcome to all, but if it still gives the wrong impression to a normal person receiving it, its no point using it.

There is a grassroots campaign by some Hindus (and Jains, as well as other Dharmic Faiths) to reclaim the Swatika back to where it belongs, and restore its original meaning, but I think it will not be easy.

hm

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand this DRM stuff. I've never had a problem copying DRM music. and I've never tried, but I imagine I wouldn't have a problem copying DRM movies. and I'm not that smart, I know lots of people smarter than me. I guess it keeps the honest people honest.

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Non-racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get that from? Why would the Messiah attend the church of a man who hates whites fr 20 years if he didn't agree with him?

A Good Idea Really

[ITEric]

Let's face it, I'd probably never buy a song on-line if I had any doubts about whether I'd have to put up with DRMBS, and many others probably feel the same. The nifty little logo would make me much more likely to part with my cash because I would expect to actually get my moneys worth from DRM free files.

Re:A Good Idea Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Strictly speaking, wouldn't you be merely renting a DRM'd song? :)

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[Stormwatch]

Of course they won't. Unauthorized use of that logo would be copyright infringement... oh, f-

A Great idea, really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if 100% Compatible means 100% Copyable

Ugly logo

[Yvan256]

But at least they didn't spell it "compatable".

Re:Ugly logo

[leamanc]

Yeah, I'm "definately" glad they didn't spell it that way.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[Captain Splendid]

How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.

And your point is? They could tell me they have the cure for cancer and I, aware that I am on a freaking torrent site, will take that pronouncement with the required grains of salt.

Whole point's moot anyway. With Sony's rootkit et. al, do as Mulder did: Trust No One.

Could have used a better name

[sootman]

Wow, what a mouthful. 12 syllables. "MP3 100% Compatible" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. They should have gone with something shorter, catchier, but with the same meaning... like "plays for sure!" or something.

Re:Could have used a better name

[T3hD0gg]

"Plays Damn Well!"

Re:Could have used a better name

[Chrisq]

like "plays for sure!" or something.

Why do I think of Irish folk music when I read that one?

Re:Could have used a better name

[Chrisq]

"Plays Damn Well!"

Great for heavy metal, but might seem a bit strange on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's latest release.

Re:Could have used a better name

[lartful_dodger]

Definitely Replayable Music

Re:Could have used a better name

[Jesus_666]

If someone decides to start an anti-DRM alliance I think something like "Customers First" would be a good name for a logo/certificate/etc. Essentially something that implies that a) the music is not considered to be consumed by the end user and b) the members consider the customer more important than the distributor.

Re:Could have used a better name

[jonaskoelker]

12 syllables. "MP3 100% Compatible"

Em Pee Three (3) Hun dirt (2) per scent (2) Come pat bull (3).

That's ten. Wear did you lern gra'ma?

Re:Could have used a better name

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard "+1 Right" and "-1 Wrong" suggested plenty of times, but wow...to think that we actually need a "-1 Hillbilly" mod is a scary, scary thought indeed.

Re:Could have used a better name

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

"Plays Ya Betcha" -Sarah P.

Re:Could have used a better name

[badkarmadayaccount]

Fuck'em, they can suck my little dick, those religious freaks! They are fucking up thew educational system! I like me, in a weird way, but wouldn't wish my fate upon any innocent soul, sadly the world isn't perfect, and somebody has to manufacture the AK-47s for the current "tinfoilhats" when the revolution comes. Amin!^H^H^H^H^HFuck the president!

Signed, a geeky Eminem fan who needs to cut down on the coffee.

I'm a bit suspicious ...

[ScrewMaster]

The BPI â" the UK equivalent of the RIAA â" is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores.

I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones. Makes me think that as soon as they have people aware that MP3 is different than whatever it is they're offering, they'll start spending billions vilifying MP3 files. These guys are sneaky and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

Re:I'm a bit suspicious ...

[TubeSteak]

I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones.

I disagree. It is not odd at all.
They are trying to break the back of iTunes and preventing anything like it from ever arising again.

It drives them insane that a 3rd party has the kind of market power that lets it set pricing on their product.

Re:I'm a bit suspicious ...

[FourthAge]

And iTunes is the monster they created. "Hey, let's insist on DRM for all online music stores! Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?" The irony makes me feel all warm inside.

Re:I'm a bit suspicious ...

[ScrewMaster]

"Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone"

Re:I'm a bit suspicious ...

[swillden]

They are trying to break the back of iTunes and preventing anything like it from ever arising again.

It drives them insane that a 3rd party has the kind of market power that lets it set pricing on their product.

If that's their reason, they're going to be disappointed. It will be MUCH easier for iTMS to add MP3 versions to their lineup (or just DRM-free AAC, which is where Jobs wants to go) than for someone else to build a real iTMS competitor.

The only way they can win is if they push the MP3 idea while simultaneously using contractual means to prevent Apple from embracing it. If they try that, though, Apple will sue, and I suspect they'll win.

Re:I'm a bit suspicious ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd make me feel better if the labels actually understood that. They don't, and they won't learn anything from it, and as such, they're just looking for another way to screw over consumers and get back to the "golden days" where they controlled everything from end to end and raked in the dough because of it.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clear that you do not know what you are trying to criticize. Please fully read and understand posts before you reply to them.

The post in question sent a chilling, informative message to those involved -- Americans whose corrupt Gestapos known as the FBI, CIA, NSA, and ICE are trashing the common man's freedom while the Greedy, hooknosed Jew who orchestrated it all rubs his hands together as a fly on a fat steaming shit would in anticipation of his meal -- dead babies in the Jew's case.

WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

how unique and profound of a logo. I could have come up with that in my sleep.

Why don't these companies hire designers?

[basslineshift]

This logo is horrible.

Re:Why don't these companies hire designers?

[cheater512]

They do. It probably cost a few hundred million.

Re:Why don't these companies hire designers?

[6Yankee]

It may not be fancy, but I'll bet it works when printed 1cm wide in the corner of a CD cov- oh wait...

Almost! Just a little more thought needed

[93 Escort Wagon]

If they'd only thought it through a bit more, they could've come up with a catchy, easily-remembered name.

Like, for example, PlaysForSure.

what's with all the 'not' tags?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry this is offtopic.

currently there is a !whataboutogg tag. 'not what about ogg'?? that doesn't make any sense!! the 'not' tags have gotten out of control.

can someone explain this to me?

Re: what's with all the 'not' tags?

[Barny]

Oh, I can explain this one (and burn karma)

1. People are idiots

2. Anonymous people are ignorant arseholes

3. See point #1

Signed
An anonymous Idiot.

Not so

[Craig Ringer]

Actually, there's a legal, licensed MP3 decoder available for Linux. http://www.fluendo.com/resources/fluendo_mp3.php It's open source (MIT) with binaries approved by Fraunhofer available. So you're OK even if you do stick strictly to all patent law, live in a country where such law applies to software, and require source to all code running on your system (above BIOS/firmware level).

Re:Not so

[Varun Soundararajan]

I always thought Fraunhofer licensed decoders for free. Only the encoders needed to pay royalt to Fraunhofer. Am I right?

Re:Not so

[c_forq]

As I understand it they don't approve of all decoders, but allow them. As I understand it they will fight arm and leg for encoders though, as they see that as their money maker. I may be talking out of my ass though, so mod me accordingly.

Re:Not so

[daniorerio]

Hmmm, I checked but there seems to be no "talking out of his ass" mod...

Re:Not so

[Minwee]

It's called "Insightful". Just look around for some examples of its proper usage.

Re:Not so

[ta bu shi da yu]

Could take a while.

Re:Not so

[ThatGuyJon]

But wait... You're modded insightful... Which means you're talking out your ass... Which means that's not what insightful means... Which means you're wrong... Which means you're talking out you're ass... Which means that's what insightful means...
Hopefully someone will mod you Funny so I can break out of this loop...

Slashdot's priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has just won the election, and this is what Slashdot writes about. And no, the logo doesn't actually mention DRM. And yes, the logo only touts MP3, leaving Vorbis where? I mean it's nice to see some positive development on this front, but as the actual issues are muddied as ever.

Re:Slashdot's priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone already knows, do you think slashdot needs to post the same shit?

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[Anonymous Coward]

Use of this logo doesn't imply that you're legit, only that you're MP3-compatible.

mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

they are Come outreach are your spare time flaws in the BSD Satan's Dick And Are having trouble Raadt's stubborn Baby take my bdevelopment. BSD dabblers. In truth,

Plays for sure...

[flyingfsck]

I remember another catch phrase by some strange little company, that promised something similar.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[Firehed]

Well, if you use the logo and don't provide MP3 files to your customer, I'm pretty sure you've just gone and opened yourself up to a false advertising lawsuit.

Doesn't address piracy issues, but then again I don't tend to associate piracy issues with retail stores or well-known online sellers like Amazon.

what does it mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there something as "MP3 99% compatible"? Or "50% compatible"? I know what a non-CD is, does anything comparable (DRM-encumbered, will probably play but breaks the standard) exist for MP3? Or is "100% compatible" just blurb?

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it would probably be trademark infringement unless they didn't trademark the logo.

High end and jukebox

[DrYak]

Are there even any unhacked non-PC devices that play FLAC? Nothing against FLAC

FLAC is currently the most popular Lossless compressed format for hardware players.

High end living-room digital players usually support it. Some offer services where you send your CDs and when you receive your player it's pre-loaded with FLACs of your music (like Olive for example)

Several Jukebox also exist with support for FLAC, like in car systems from PhatNoise's.

Logitech's latest Squeezbox supports it too, for a more recent example.

For more detailed and longer list see FLAC's own list.

In addition to all these branded software, don't forget also about all the countless of no-name "multimedia-harddisk-case" (small box usually centered around some miniITX board running a small embed linux-based mediaplayer. Sold pre assembled in store and buy-your-own-harddisk in computer shops). Granted most of them DO use Linux and PC-like hardware. But they are sold as ready-to-use appliance, like your DSL/Cable modem and Wifi router (which is most likely to run Linux, too).

In short the fact the iPod doesn't play it, and Microsoft's "Play-for-Sure" logo forbids it in the USA, doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't already using it.

Re:High end and jukebox

[Jesus_666]

That's nice. Now show me a generic $20 portable MP3 player that also pays FLAC. "Generic" means "I type 'music player' into the eBay search box and select a random result", not "I have to buy a particular model or brand".

The problem is that people want to share their files between all of their devices without any hassle at all. Buying specific hardware for compatibility reasons is acceptable for the average Linux user but most people expect things to Just Work. When a format is not supported by all devices on the market that's not a fault of the device but of the format.

FLAC is probably nice for the people who buy home jukeboxes but it can't be an MP3 replacement unless it is at least as commonly suported as MP3. That means 100% market penetration everywhere, which seems impossible as FLAC requires more powerful hardware than MP3 and thus can't compete in the ultra-low cost sector.

Re:High end and jukebox

[Anonymous Coward]

So a shitty player won't play a high end format. Woopdy doo

Re:High end and jukebox

[SanityInAnarchy]

When a format is not supported by all devices on the market that's not a fault of the device but of the format.

Erm, no, that's the "fault" of the device.

Flac is royalty-free and open source. What more could they do to get into portable media players?

it can't be an MP3 replacement unless it is at least as commonly suported as MP3.

And yes, some people would rather simply buy MP3s, for it to Just Work.

But you know, iPods support AACs and Apple Lossless. PlaysForMaybe devices support WMA. Sure, all of them will also play MP3, if you want worse quality for more space -- but by also providing Flac, you let the audiophiles choose exactly how they want it encoded for that player.

Re:High end and jukebox

[Jesus_666]

Flac is royalty-free and open source. What more could they do to get into portable media players?

Make it so that FLAC does not require more powerful hardware than MP3. And make FLAC as important as MP3.

We're talking about a full-fledged MP3 replacement here. Remember, this is not about "this would be nice as a parallel thing" but about "why did they give MP3 and not FLAC their logo". And the answer is that FLAC is neither universally supported nor universally used. Everyone knows MP3, most people find it sufficient and virtually every device can play it.

FLAC is nice and I think it's good when a device supports it, but it's not an MP3 replacement.

Re:High end and jukebox

[SanityInAnarchy]

make FLAC as important as MP3.

Details, please.

why did they give MP3 and not FLAC their logo

No, the question is, why did they give a specific format their logo?

Re:High end and jukebox

[Jesus_666]

Details, please.

- Penetration. Virtually every portable player, car stereo, PC and other device capale of audio playback supports MP3. FLAC is only found on certain jukeboxes, some PCs and some portable players. Yes, this is a feedback cycle.
- Recognition. Virtually everybody knows MP3 and associates it with unrestricted digital audio. Portable music players are even usually called "MP3 players". Most people have never even heard of FLAC.
- Efficiency. MP3 is Good Enough fr most users while consuming less space and resources than FLAC.

FLAC is nice but to most people it's simply not important whether their player supports it or not. MP3, on the other hand, is a definite requirement.

No, the question is, why did they give a specific format their logo?

See "Recognition" above. They want to distinguish their offering from that of others by not using DRM. MP3 has a strong reputation as being not only DRM-free but also the audio format of choice. Telling people that they sell "100% compatible MP3s" sends a much clearer signal than telling them they sell "100% compatible audio".


If you want the industry to use a "100% compatible FLAC" logo to inform people of their DRM-free tracks you have to get to a point where FLAC is a household term, people are running around with "FLAC players" and any player not supporting FLAC will simply be rejected by the market. You need to put FLAC into the position currently occupied by MP3. That's my entire point.

Re:High end and jukebox

[SanityInAnarchy]

Penetration.

Not a lot more an open source project can do than, well, be open source.

Recognition.

Ok, true, this could help. But I doubt FLAC has Firefox's budget.

Efficiency.

So what you're saying is that we should make FLAC lossy?

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the fucking point?

If you want the industry to use a "100% compatible FLAC" logo

No, I don't. I want a "100% Compatible" logo, maybe with "No DRM". It doesn't need to cite specific formats -- if it's the wrong one, it's easily converted, unlike a DRM'd version.

Re:High end and jukebox

[Jesus_666]

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the fucking point?

As the point is do become an immensely popular DRM-free digital music format and nothing else: No. FLAC's properties ensure that most will find it unsuitable because MP3 already faithfully-enough reproduces their overcompressed rock/pop/rap songs on their iPod with the $5 earphones and anything that adds further space requirement is essentially just dead weight.

It doesn't need to cite specific formats -- if it's the wrong one, it's easily converted, unlike a DRM'd version.

Who cares? The vast majority of people only cares about MP3 - it does everything they want, plays everywhere and is reasonably small. The only other free formats they could use are Ogg Vorbis (slightly smaller, doesn't run everywhere -> no deal) and FLAC (much larger, perhaps slightly better sound, doesn't run everywhere -> no deal) and those aren't attractive.
The only other format people care about is CD Audio and most people already know you can burn MP3s to a CD.

This is a point where the Free * world is disconnected from the general market: Most users neither care about MP3 being patent-encumbered nor do they care about MP3 being inferior to most other formats. Neither do they want to care. All they want is a way to get their latest Nickelback album onto their iPod Shuffle with the minimum of hassle and knowledge required. "MP3 is digital music" is all they want to have to know about the topic. Maybe "192 kilobytes are good, 320 kilobytes are CD-quality" for the "high-fidelity" crowd (read: those who actually spend $30 on their earphones).

Ogg Vorbis and FLAC are formats mostly Free * advocates and audiophiles care about. The rest of the world is happy with MP3, just like they were happy with VHS and not Betamax. And they are as interested in alternative formats as you are interested in an in-depth comparison of cotton vs. linen vs. cotton-linen mix vs. microfiber for dish towels.

Re:High end and jukebox

[SanityInAnarchy]

As the point is do become an immensely popular DRM-free digital music format and nothing else: No.

That is not, however, the point of FLAC.

The only other free formats

MP3 isn't free. In either sense of the word, if you're encoding.

And your list is a bit short, if we're including MP3 -- because then we should also include AC3, AAC, WMA, etc.

And this isn't an entirely unheard of proposition. There are at least a few online stores that I buy from which have both MP3 and FLAC. Some also have Vorbis. And they can charge more for FLAC, anyway.

Re:High end and jukebox

[Jesus_666]

I really get the feeling I'm feeding a troll here, but here goes anoher post with the exact same point...

That is not, however, the point of FLAC.

In that case we might agree that FLAC is unsuitable for replacing MP3, thus FLAC is unsuitable for becoming the default digital sudio format, thus the format they should make a label for is not FLAC. I already pointed out why the label needs to talk about a specific format.

MP3 isn't free. In either sense of the word, if you're encoding.

Well, in that case it's probably good that I never used it in the sentence where I talk about free formats. I admit that the "free" was not positioned optimally; "the only free other formats" would have been clearer in conveying what I meant: The only other formats that happen to be free.

And this isn't an entirely unheard of proposition. There are at least a few online stores that I buy from which have both MP3 and FLAC. Some also have Vorbis. And they can charge more for FLAC, anyway

Yes, but in the end all alternative formats fail in not being MP3. MP3 is the Windows of audio file formats: Not being compatible is seen as a flaw in itself and due to (near) 100% market penetration it is the standard period. If you want to change that you have to change the entire music player market (including portables, standalones, car radios...) AND change the entire userbase. Unless you significantly take both market share and brain share away from MP3 it's going to stay the default format because it's the default format.

To use another analogy: MP3 is DVD. FLAC is BluRay. Most people are using 20" CRT TVs and are perfectly happy with them. Good luck trying to upsell them on a new format that does nothing for them unless they buy expensive replacements for their perfectly-okay gear.
Ogg Vorbis would be XviD DVD. You can rip it to a smaller ISO than a regular DVD but it doesn't work with all players.

Re:High end and jukebox

[SanityInAnarchy]

thus the format they should make a label for is not FLAC.

Correct and irrelevant, yet again.

You're laboring under the assumption that I want FLAC to be the default format for that label. That is incorrect.

I am rejecting the notion that anything should be a default format for that label.

I already pointed out why the label needs to talk about a specific format.

I'll address that, then:

They want to distinguish their offering from that of others by not using DRM.

MP3s can be DRM-encumbered. DRM is not limited to a single format -- nor is there a single codec out there which cannot be made DRM-free.

It may be a good PR scheme, but it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. It seems very likely that if the focus is on "mp3" and not on, say, "unencumbered", or "compatible", this campaign could easily be hijacked by something which is indeed mp3, but is also heavily DRM-encrusted.

Re:High end and jukebox

[Jesus_666]

I'm not sure whether the logo says "100% MP3 compatible" or "MP3 - 100% compatible", but a DRM'd MP3 would not meet those requirements either way.

Re:

[clint999]

Catholicism is a derivative of the Christian faiths

Please tag this "!altattribute"...

[Anonymous Coward]

... as the img tag of the mp3-Logo has no alt attribute!

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[ale_ryu]

I think the whole point of this logo is to label DRM free mp3s, not legitimate them. Creating a logo to indicate mp3 legitimacy would be plain silly.

Em Pee What? Dee Are Who?

[d0n quix0te]

Like MP3 or DRM matters anymore.... let's stop deluding ourselves. Beyond us no one even realizes what format music is in...

-S

Re:Em Pee What? Dee Are Who?

[MBGMorden]

Format no. But trust me they understand very well when their latest music purchase doesn't play on their iPod. DRM when used on it's target device only bothers us. It's when purchases from different stores no longer work together that people get pissed. They don't know why it doesn't work, and they don't care. They are simply pissed. They're either going to call the store angry, or call their computer savy friends (ie, us) where I'm more than happy to explain to them just why their music won't work on whatever device they're wanting it on.

Re:Em Pee What? Dee Are Who?

[Draek]

In many places, the word "MP3" has become synonymous with "digital music file", and people expect any such file, regardless of format, to play in the same places a regular MP3 does. Which is why most "MP3"s are, in fact, MP3s, and DRM'ed audio files are rarer than Linux-using grandmas.

This is only a marketing campaign trying to bring the same understanding to cultures where the iPod became more notorious than the little format that started it all.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[Sockatume]

Traditionally the way logo-approval schemes have gone is that you apply to the group that owns the logo for permission to use it, and possibly pay out a lot of licencing fees. That's my biggest concern. I'd like to see this logo pop up on emusic.com, or ocremix, for example, but politically that may not happen.

It's not for sale

[Anonymous Coward]

"You have bought a license not the music", remember.

So how can you stop a sale of something that isn't sold?

"It's been 43 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Which is why I don't subscribe

Why no lawsuits?

[anilg]

I've wondered about why no one is sued for using LAME> My theory is that almost everyone has licensed rights to MP3 patents if they have ever:

*Bought windows
*Bought am MP3 player
*Bought a music playing software
*.. etc.

I think most of us have paid F/T multiple times for the rights to MP3.. thus they wouldnt really stand a chance in court in proving that a person used MP3 encoder without rights.

Of course, IANAL, and my understanding of this is very naive.

Legitimate stores...

[mysidia]

... the UK equivalent of the RIAA â" is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores."

Like say slashdot.org? Note the logo is printed on the article, and slashdot front page.

A logo is no hinderance to truly illegitimate stores, the true criminals will just download the logo from a legitimate store and illegally display a rendition of the logo on their own site.

In this manner, the logo suffers the same problem as security and trust logos that banking and e-commerce websites are so fond of displaying.

It is not hard for a criminal to display a fake logo.

And they don't have to bother making them clickable; hardly ever does the average computer user ever try clicking a security logo.

For all the user knows, the site didn't pay extra for clickability, they installed the logo wrong, or "THAT" logo isn't clickable to verify currently/anymore.

Re:Legitimate stores...

[Sockatume]

I imagine it's not "a criminal" they're worried about but organised-but-unapproved stores like allofmp3 or pirate sources like ThePirateBay. ThePirateBay is protected by their juristiction's hands-off approach to file sharing, but I imagine that trademark law there is much more cut-and-dry.

Re:Legitimate stores...

[mysidia]

ThePirateBay is protected by their juristiction's hands-off approach to file sharing, but I imagine that trademark law there is much more cut-and-dry

As if someone going to a website like "ThePirateBay" will need to notice the absence of a logo to realize the MP3 file is an illegal/illegitimate upload they are fetching.

As for legal but not-authorized-by-the-recording-industry sites like allofmp3... it's not all that clear that allofmp3 wouldn't be able to join the coalition if they wanted to.

They are certainly offering non-DRM MP3 format files, in keeping with the mission of the local...

As I understand it's not like the logo belongs to BMI.. So BMI's standing to pursue trademark infringement charges would be, well, none...

Lowest common denominator MP3?

[Comboman]

Linux is fine since you can always upgrade it, but what about older hardware MP3 players? I have some older players that don't work with MP3s encoded with a variable bit rate. If the MP3s being sold with this logo are truly "100% compatible", does that mean that they are encoded with the lowest common denominator MP3 format that will work in even the oldest players? And is that really a good thing?

Re:Lowest common denominator MP3?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the MP3s being sold are 100% compatible, the fact that your player is not 100% MP3 compatible has nothing to do with it so no, they probably still won't be playing if they're encoded in a bit rate that your player can't handle.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit

[wvmarle]

As an AC pointed out, it is a trademark, not copyright.

Secondly, if for example TPB would put this logo on their website, they can be sued for the use, and it's an easy case. Website uses logo without permission, gets fined.

The torrents they host on the other hand is not so clip and clear legally speaking: TPB is not directly infringing on copyright here, however they do facilitate it.

Anyway not likely that sites like TPB will use it unauthorised, way too risky.

Facebook group

[Anonymous Coward]

Put an end to DRM FB group!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2207668375&ref=ts

MP4, but not AAC!?

[Midnight Thunder]

Since they're going for patented technology anyway, I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't push the AAC format. While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players. As a bonus, it's smaller, better quality, and a heck of a lot easier to license than the craziness behind the MP3 and MPEG form

I too find this surprising. AAC, aka MP4 Audio, is where we should be going. Suddenly accepting MP3 in the mainstream is like accepting Vinyl records just as the CD is replacing it. The other craziness I find in the market are players that play back MPEG4 video, but can't handle AAC!? This is odd because AAC is the audio layer in MPEG video.

similar to other marketing statements..

[greywire]

This is right up there with other common marketing statements you see on products and services, such as:

"Under new management". Translated: our new management wont screw you over like the old ones did, apparently.
"Improved flavor!". Translated: now it actually tastes good, because apparently before, it did not.
"10% larger!". Translated: now there's actually enough product to be worth the price and it might satisfy your hunger.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you can BUY MP3s now?

Doesnt matter

[Anonymous Coward]

A 'logo' should not be the way you discover music. Music discovery should not take you to DRM. I would argue the crass'ity' of logos as you don't need much to deal with any type of DRM while still keeping dynamic range (and no dithering) on the copy.

Just another way to not think.

Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Its too late though.

What about watermarking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they really letting go?

Are wont stop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could ya stop with the "are wont do" bullshit?

I hate how these stupid phrases gain usage for really no reason at all.

Re:Are wont stop!

[JSBiff]

First off, it's "are wont to", NOT "are wont do".

That's not some new-fangled fad language. I believe the expression 'wont to do' and variations on it are quite old (I don't know how old - hundreds of years?). It's not common in American usage of English, but I think the Brits use it more commonly.

why do people buy shitty products?

[Briden]

I always find it interesting to know that a lot of people seem to take the "default" route and go with mp3 providers that use this sort of crap. I buy my tunes off DJ specific websites like:

• http://www.juno.co.uk/
• http://www.3beatdigital.com/
• http://www.beatport.com/
• http://www.necodo.com/
• http://www.psyshop.com/
• http://www.dancerecords.com/

I've never once had an mp3 delivered in anything but it's pure non drm laden form. also available are .wav and .flac, multiple bitrates, package deals etc. It stuns me that people would actually pay for such files from the likes of microsoft or apple, why?

I guess DJ specific music has to be provided this way(i would never accept any limitations on my files as a DJ such as not being able to burn or transfer them between machines, this is essential to our work), but is it really impossible to purchase something like a beatles boxed set from other sources than itunes?

I will not pay for compressed music

[SCHecklerX]

DRM or not. Why would I want to do this? I'd be happy to pay for an .ISO, or .flac, but mp3? No thanks. If It's going to be encoded and tagged, I'll do the encoding, thanks.

But if you want to give me compressed files to see if they are worth purchasing the real thing? Sure, why not.

Ogg is widely supported, just not advertised

[Xtifr]

You have to look long and hard to find a portable audio device (from a vendor other than Apple) which doesn't support Ogg. They may not list it on the outside of the box, but it's built into the standard multiformat-decoder chipsets that nearly everyone uses. If it says "mp3, wma, aac", there's a very high chance it supports Ogg as well. Especially if the brand is Asian.

I've tried several players from Asia, and have yet to find one that didn't support Ogg. (Although I have my suspicions about Sony, but I'm not interested enough in their products to even try.)

Up next...

[xactuary]

A logo that conveys "This music is from before 1990 and hence worth listening to."

I see...

[jonaskoelker]

So when parent^n said "that people can share with their friends", meant it in the sense of what's easy to do, not what's legal.

Yep, I missed the point :(

In the legalize-all-noncommercial-distribution scenario, my post makes a lot more sense, right?