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

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]

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.

Inevitable Tagging

[dasuser]

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

Time until TPB updates their search logo?

[aliquis]

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

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.

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: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: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: 100% Compatible' != legit

[Stormwatch]

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

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

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: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?

[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!

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

[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

[Minwee]

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

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: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: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 :)