Slashdot Mirror
Bach Launches Updated MP3 Format
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that Bach Technology has rolled out an updated MP3 file format in a bid to combat music piracy. Dubbed "MusicDNA," the new format offers embedded "updatable premium content" like lyrics, videos, news updates, and album artwork. "Using the new technology, music labels and bands will be able to send updates to the music files – with tour dates, interviews or updates to social networking pages – while illegally-downloaded files remain static. ... No major labels have signed up to use MusicDNA so far, but British record company Beggars Group and US label Tommy Boy are both on board. However, the files are likely to be more expensive than MP3 files – according to the BBC – and will have to compete with Apple's iTunes LP, which already provides additional content such as bonus tracks, lyrics and video interviews."
with tour dates, interviews or updates to social networking pages – while illegally-downloaded files remain static.
So if I want to buy music legitly, in addition to paying for the track I will now also get spammed with ads?
Given that one of the main reasons for buying music over simply downloading it is art work, lyrics, and extra content, this might not be a bad idea. IF you can truly restrict access. Otherwise you're just giving more reason to pirate the format.
This was dead before they wrote the first line of the spec. The MP3 genie is out of the bottle and there's no amount of wishful thinking that can be done by the record companies to stuff it back in.
"liberty and justice for all those who can afford it"
Just when the patent on MP3 is set to expire they "update" it with DRM? WTF? This will ensure that the old, soon-to-be free file format will stay around.
I hope Ogg doesn't think since MP3 has this cruft they have to too. Of course, MP3 may be playing catch up with Microsoft; WMA files have had DRM for a long time. The DRM was in fact (and still is) a security risk.
I'll stick with OGG and even better, SHN and FLAC.
Free Martian Whores!
Maybe I'm really bad at marketing, but this seems like it's targeting the wrong audience. Those who download illegal music probably do not care about going to concerts or reading up on interviews - they only want the music. This will at best be another marketing tool for the most hardcore audience, at worst a total waste of time and money.
Yes! Embed video interviews that are 10 times as big as the mp3 itself, because that's exactly what I want to squeeze onto my music player's limited space.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
...a "successor to MP3", which removes the most popular feature of MP3, the ability to control your own purchased copy of the property. Yeah, that'll bring back the customers you chased away with the last 3 attempts at controlled digital content.
It can be "updated"...who wants to bet that one kind of "update" is like the Amazon "update" of their sale of Orwell's '1984'...total deletion.
Do not pass "Go", do not collect millions of customers...go directly to the ash-heap of computer history.
I'll just keep ripping cds to .flac and distributing them so others can convert them to whatever audio format they prefer. Seems like a reasonable compromise.
Using the new technology, music labels and bands will be able to send updates to the music files – with tour dates, interviews or updates to social networking pages
They forgot to mention that this would also provide an exploit for malware writers to use to get into people's machines.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
More expensive DRM-laden adware music! This is JUST what we need to change our minds about NOT CARING about music enterprises! Making the lives of the pirates easier compared to those who pay for the content is such a great idea! It's worked before, hasn't it?
be compatible with my existing MP3 player(s)
Thought not..
I'll just keep ripping cds to .flac and distributing them so others can convert them to whatever audio format they prefer. Seems like a reasonable compromise.
Do the record labels even make Compact Discs anymore? I thought they all switched to non-conforming discs compatible with some CD players.
Both you, and the grandparent post miss the point. You are not the customer.
File sizes do not matter. Spam does not matter. You are not the customer.
You only have one choice, to realize that you are not the customer, or ignore the problem.
Why would you buy something when you're not the customer? Would you buy a McDonalds Hamburger, if what you got was a Spamburger instead? On the other hand, you might prefer spam to McDonalds Hamburger. I know I would!
Except I'm Kosher. ;)
And I figure this is cracked in 3 ... 2 .. 1.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You left out drop the price.
Really folks when a song is less than 99 cents it isn't worth my time to pirate it. If I like it I will buy it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Maybe a cappella, no lyrics or remix versions of the songs, but those would most likely just be pirated just as as the main music files too.
Maybe versions of the song before the vocal track was processed with AutoTune. When people get to hear the real "talent", the record companies won't have to worry about music piracy ever again (or sales for that matter).
http://www.geg.ca/en/show/pressrelease/1348
One example. $250 for the best tickets for U2. Those prices are not unusual any more. Celine Dion did about two dozen shows in Montreal where the best tickets were similarly priced. $100+ for "average" artists is entirely normal. When was the last time you went to a concert? They've become _EXTREMELY_ expensive in the last couple years as bands have realized you can pirate a song but you cannot pirate the experience of going to a live show. That is where the money is to be made.
instead spend money on good song writers and good performers and make good music.
But that's difficult to find. It is easier to spend money on crappy engineers.
(emphasis mine) Ok well I am sorry but I do not understand. According to ematch.eu:
So, how is the company responcible for mp3 format, because Karlheinz Brandenburg was responsible for one of the mp3 algorithms? And, he is just a shareholder. By far, he was not the only one who brought it about, and his implementation was one of several that made it into market. But as you can see -- the major shareholders are the music industry, specifically 247 Inc, the arm of Sony who are interested in it. In short Bach Technologies are overstating their credentials. They did not create MP3 and this was done for no other reason then an attempt to bring more DRM into the fold of the market.
Love how you dismiss the costs of bandwidth.
Oh yes, let's consider the bandwith costs per 99c track.
1 Track on CD approx 30MB
1 Download track, hi-quality, approx 10MB.
Now let's suppose I was distributing this on a really crappy retail cost home connection.
I could probably upload 5Gb/month for $20 - 4c.
Allow for commercial bandwidth rates? Less than 1/2c at worst.
That's why you ignore bandwidth. It's barely worth mentioning on a per-track basis and most importantly irrelevant compared to the 99c cost.