It effectively removes their potential monopoly over music distribution. Which explains why Apple has better licensing terms on iTunes than anyone else.
The record companies may be dumb, but they're not *stupid*.
I finally was able to use a tablet computer running Windows XP tablet edition.
I was distinctly underwhelmed.
I can certainly see why it would be interesting for vertical applications where it is in essense a replacement for a clipboard. But as a general purpose computing tool? Its clunky, the interface is bad, the software feels prototype-ish.
And while I like the newest toys, I couldn't think of a single practical use for it. I wonder how Microsoft managed to talk companies into building this thing, because I can't believe they'll sell more than a handful.
I don't have an iPod; that's on my purchase list, but I have a perfectly good PJB100 that I've modded with a 20G drive. It works well enough with some Koss headphones.
I'd like to get one of the new iPod's, but right now I'm saving my $$$ for one of the new 15" powerbooks. I've got a pismo right now that's a bit long in the tooth (I added a 900mhz processor upgrade, and its fine now under OS X).
I listen to MP3's, AAC's, and ATRACS in various ways; I listen on my computer speakers (which are pretty good for computer speakers, but computer speakers are pretty lousy). I burn to CD and listen in my car CD player. Again, not highest fidelity, but the car environment is very hard on lossy compression. I have one of the very first PJB100's which is a nice player considering it was the first player with HD. Not as nice as an iPod, but very good. I have an ATRAC player, both in my Clie, and in a Sony ATRACS disc player. And finally on a home stereo, again via burned CD's.
The best I can say for lossy compression is that its convenient; its certainly not great.
"So in *theory* an AAC sampled from master can be of higher quality than the same CD from the same master..."
In theory, that is possible, but I'm saying that in the context of "In theory, a pinto can be faster than a ferrari". The transfer from master tape to CD would have to be from a digital master that is sampled at a much higher rate with a ham-fisted engineer at the controls. I'm sure this exact combination of things can and does happen; just not frequently, and not enough to generalize that 128kb lossy compression sounds as good as a CD. The CD is *inherently* a better way to reproduce music.
Yes, I've listened.
I said in an earlier post that there is in life the "good enough" point of most thing. 45's were "good enough" for listening to the latest hit single, since we would be bored of it within 2 weeks, and the band was probably a one hit wonder. It was not "good enough" for listening to classical music.
iTunes is fine for listening on an iPod with ear buds for the latest flavor of the day pop music. It is not a replacement for CD's for people who care about fidelity of music. Are there exceptions to this? Of course.
In theory, but as someone who bought many 45's during their hey-day, 45's were always of worse sound quality in actual implementation because they were usually warped, and they were pressed from worn-out pressing equipment so they'd have the tell-tale continuous hissing noise.
Nobody cared because the biggest use for 45's for the longest time was the jukebox. Once vinyl jukeboxes became obsolete, 45's faded away as well.
2) CD's do not use lossy compression from the master tape; that is, a CD represents very accurately the master tape.
3) Therefore if you do a lossy compression from a CD or a lossy compression from the master tape, you still have something that is less than the original CD.
In pseudo equalities: CD ~= Master Tape AAC (from CD) CD AAC (from Master Tape) Master Tape AAC (from Master Tape) ~= AAC (from CD) Therefore AAC (regardless of source) CD
There's no magic in the transfer from master tape to CD. They don't "throw away" part of the sound to make a CD; the CD is an engineer's best attempt to transfer the sound to the CD.
Now, will the master tape sound better than a CD? I've never heard anyone claim this. And even if true, the loss is far less than the loss that occurs when going from any source to MP3, AAC, ATRACS or whatever.
This isn't rocket science. iTunes is good enough for pop tunes that you listen to over ear buds. Its not equal to a CD. Logic bears this out, the listening tests bear this out.
The question that you should be asking is "Does it matter for my purposes that the quality of the iTunes is lower than the CD?", the answer may be "no". You may not have a good ear for music, or you may be listening to types of music where fidelity isn't terribly important. But 128kb of *any* lossy compression is not audiophile quality, and its certainly not equal to the CD.
Lets look at it another way...bad in the days of vinyl records, 33RPM records had the highest quality sound. You could buy 45RPM singles for about a dollar (I'm sensing a strong parallel here). The thing was the 45 didn't sound as good as the 33 RPM. They were made of lower quality materials (much thinner vinyl), and I think the styluses (styli???) of the day were optimized for the grooe size of 33's and tone arms angle were optimized for 12" 33 RPM records.
Did that make 45's "bad"? No. They were good enough to listen to a few throw-away singles that you'd be bored of in a few months. Think of iTunes as throw-away music and you get a better feel for what you're getting. Its not CD quality, its something less... and more... in a cheaper package.
You imply that a CD sounds "worse" than the master tape; this may or may not be true; I suspect it depends on the sampling rate of the master tape; certainly if its from an analog master tape, I doubt there is an audible difference.
Even from a digital tape, I've never heard CD's are a lesser form of the master recording.
The headline seems to imply that AAC is inherently better for sound reproduction; however, the article specifically says 128kb AAC's are not meant for critical listening. Here's the relevant quote:
"Things are somewhat better at 128kbps in both MP3 and AAC, but neither cuts the mustard for critical listening at home."
As to the comparison between AAC and MP3:
"MP3 robbed Steve Swallow's pulsing bass lines of dynamics and punch [...]. AAC fared slightly better, offering better bass response (although it was still pretty lightweight compared to the original CD) "
So now you understand why 128kb iTunes costs less than the CD. They don't sound as good as the CD. Case closed.
There you have it. So please, no more chirping on about how 128kb AAC's are indistinguishable from
But don't you think this is an attempt at intimidation rather than a real lawsuit? In otherwords, SunnComm knows they can't win, but it looks like they're defending themselves, plus it will prevent other people from even discussing SunnComm for fear of being sued.
I mean, a judge would have to be wacky to find for the SunnComm if only because:
1) Microsoft published these directions to bypass the SunnComm protection years ago
2) The publishing of opinions is generally considered freedom of the press isn't it?
My first reaction is that this is an April Fool's joke, except its the wrong time of year.
I bought one fo their networked laser printers at a computer swap show about 6 months ago for $80, and its worked great. It even came with a full cartridge. It was pretty dusty, but an hour with a damp, soapy cloth made it look like brand new! It had about 35K pages on it when I got it, and it looks as if it would last about 3 times as long pretty easily.
I don't like the law, but people who support the law will look at EFF's example's and say "Good! This is what we need to stop".
And so this will amount to nothing. I think the DMCA will hit home if/when people finally get their new HDTV plasma screen, their new HDTV VCR, and they press "RECORD" and it doesn't work.
Then they'll care.
But for now, to the public, this is all about "stopping those hackers who started that virus a few months ago"
If this is unopposed, it will not be long until everything useful requires "trust". And so my PC, the one I paid money for, will not work the way I want anymore. Oh, theoretically it will, but in a practical sense it won't.
If a content provider wants to "trust" a device, then they should buy it for me.
My cell phone providers wants a trusted device. Great. They give me a phone, and I pay to use it.
Ask yourself this... is watching an HDTV version of Star Wars so compelling that you're willing to compromise yout ability to control your PC? If you answered "yes", then you and I simply have a completely different viewpoint on the subject that I suspect we'll never agree on.
First of all, this indemnification is simply a form of insurance. If you think of it in those terms, if something is a sure thing, the cost of insurance is expensive, because the event will likely happen.
For example, if you want insurance against your dying someday, that will be expensive, because you (and everyone) will die someday.
On the other hand, insurance is cheap if the event won't happen. I'm willing to insure a business against any loss if aliens in flying saucers land and take earth women to mars. Its not gonna happen, so I'm willing to provide unlimited insurance for a small amount.
So lets look at HP insuring you against claims by SCO. If they felt this would likely happen, they would either have to charge their customers money, probably an amount they are likely to lose.
But if they feel the chances of SCO succeeding against customers is low, then the insurance will be cheap.
How much is SCO charging for this insurance?
Exactly.
So if they're charging $0 to indemnify against potentially $millions in damages, tell me what you think HP feels about this risk?
Or do you think HP is so desperate for customers for Linux that they're willing to bet the company on a wild gamble.
I doubt it.
I'd say SCO's press release smells of desperation; it means that they want to be mentioned in the press so desperately they drop a press release the way an elephant drops, er... well, you get the picture.
If you have an air-tight case against IBM, why so desperate for attention? Draw your own conclusions. It certainly doesn't look pretty for SCO at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
...why MS was railing against iTunes.
It effectively removes their potential monopoly over music distribution. Which explains why Apple has better licensing terms on iTunes than anyone else.
The record companies may be dumb, but they're not *stupid*.
"It is easily disabled/configurable as any blocking software is."
No, its not configurable; that's the point.
Good blocking software would allow you to view the list of sites being blocked and then enable individual sites or add your own.
No blocking software does this primarily because the only thing of value this software brings to the table is a list of objectionable sites.
I finally was able to use a tablet computer running Windows XP tablet edition.
I was distinctly underwhelmed.
I can certainly see why it would be interesting for vertical applications where it is in essense a replacement for a clipboard. But as a general purpose computing tool? Its clunky, the interface is bad, the software feels prototype-ish.
And while I like the newest toys, I couldn't think of a single practical use for it. I wonder how Microsoft managed to talk companies into building this thing, because I can't believe they'll sell more than a handful.
" Without "intellectual property," friend, you'd be reading this article on a soot-darkened cave wall"
With all due respect, there is no such thing as "intellectual property", there are trademarks, patents, and copyrights.
And for the most part, none of them existed more than a few hundred years ago, with the concept of "IP" existing less than 40 years.
As to the USPTO: Do we need to throw it out? No. Do we need to roll it back by 100 years. Probably.
" Which means if one person figures out how to get it, everyone has the book for free (thanks to kazaa and sharing.)"
Don't tell anybody, but I figured out an easier way...
Go to the library, borrow the book and read it...
WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT!
I heard that the library will do this for an unlimited number of people too. I wonder how much authors lose because of this "income stealer".
If people want to read stuff, they should pay. None of this "reading for free" nonsense that a lot of thieving kids think they have the right to.
I mean, really!
We're spending all out money destroying Iraq and then rebuilding it.
Not meaning to sound bitter, and I think its fantastic that the Chinese did this. I hope China goes to the moon or beyond.
I don't have an iPod; that's on my purchase list, but I have a perfectly good PJB100 that I've modded with a 20G drive. It works well enough with some Koss headphones.
I'd like to get one of the new iPod's, but right now I'm saving my $$$ for one of the new 15" powerbooks. I've got a pismo right now that's a bit long in the tooth (I added a 900mhz processor upgrade, and its fine now under OS X).
So the iPod will have to wait another year.
Have fun.
I listen to MP3's, AAC's, and ATRACS in various ways; I listen on my computer speakers (which are pretty good for computer speakers, but computer speakers are pretty lousy). I burn to CD and listen in my car CD player. Again, not highest fidelity, but the car environment is very hard on lossy compression. I have one of the very first PJB100's which is a nice player considering it was the first player with HD. Not as nice as an iPod, but very good. I have an ATRAC player, both in my Clie, and in a Sony ATRACS disc player. And finally on a home stereo, again via burned CD's.
The best I can say for lossy compression is that its convenient; its certainly not great.
"So in *theory* an AAC sampled from master can be of higher quality than the same CD from the same master..."
In theory, that is possible, but I'm saying that in the context of "In theory, a pinto can be faster than a ferrari". The transfer from master tape to CD would have to be from a digital master that is sampled at a much higher rate with a ham-fisted engineer at the controls. I'm sure this exact combination of things can and does happen; just not frequently, and not enough to generalize that 128kb lossy compression sounds as good as a CD. The CD is *inherently* a better way to reproduce music.
Yes, I've listened.
I said in an earlier post that there is in life the "good enough" point of most thing. 45's were "good enough" for listening to the latest hit single, since we would be bored of it within 2 weeks, and the band was probably a one hit wonder. It was not "good enough" for listening to classical music.
iTunes is fine for listening on an iPod with ear buds for the latest flavor of the day pop music. It is not a replacement for CD's for people who care about fidelity of music. Are there exceptions to this? Of course.
In theory, but as someone who bought many 45's during their hey-day, 45's were always of worse sound quality in actual implementation because they were usually warped, and they were pressed from worn-out pressing equipment so they'd have the tell-tale continuous hissing noise.
Nobody cared because the biggest use for 45's for the longest time was the jukebox. Once vinyl jukeboxes became obsolete, 45's faded away as well.
Here's my point:
1) AAC is lossy compression.
2) CD's do not use lossy compression from the master tape; that is, a CD represents very accurately the master tape.
3) Therefore if you do a lossy compression from a CD or a lossy compression from the master tape, you still have something that is less than the original CD.
In pseudo equalities:
CD ~= Master Tape
AAC (from CD) CD
AAC (from Master Tape) Master Tape
AAC (from Master Tape) ~= AAC (from CD)
Therefore
AAC (regardless of source) CD
There's no magic in the transfer from master tape to CD. They don't "throw away" part of the sound to make a CD; the CD is an engineer's best attempt to transfer the sound to the CD.
Now, will the master tape sound better than a CD? I've never heard anyone claim this. And even if true, the loss is far less than the loss that occurs when going from any source to MP3, AAC, ATRACS or whatever.
This isn't rocket science. iTunes is good enough for pop tunes that you listen to over ear buds. Its not equal to a CD. Logic bears this out, the listening tests bear this out.
The question that you should be asking is "Does it matter for my purposes that the quality of the iTunes is lower than the CD?", the answer may be "no". You may not have a good ear for music, or you may be listening to types of music where fidelity isn't terribly important. But 128kb of *any* lossy compression is not audiophile quality, and its certainly not equal to the CD.
Lets look at it another way...bad in the days of vinyl records, 33RPM records had the highest quality sound. You could buy 45RPM singles for about a dollar (I'm sensing a strong parallel here). The thing was the 45 didn't sound as good as the 33 RPM. They were made of lower quality materials (much thinner vinyl), and I think the styluses (styli???) of the day were optimized for the grooe size of 33's and tone arms angle were optimized for 12" 33 RPM records.
Did that make 45's "bad"? No. They were good enough to listen to a few throw-away singles that you'd be bored of in a few months. Think of iTunes as throw-away music and you get a better feel for what you're getting. Its not CD quality, its something less... and more... in a cheaper package.
I respectfully disagree with your point.
You imply that a CD sounds "worse" than the master tape; this may or may not be true; I suspect it depends on the sampling rate of the master tape; certainly if its from an analog master tape, I doubt there is an audible difference.
Even from a digital tape, I've never heard CD's are a lesser form of the master recording.
The headline seems to imply that AAC is inherently better for sound reproduction; however, the article specifically says 128kb AAC's are not meant for critical listening. Here's the relevant quote:
"Things are somewhat better at 128kbps in both MP3 and AAC, but neither cuts the mustard for critical listening at home."
As to the comparison between AAC and MP3:
"MP3 robbed Steve Swallow's pulsing bass lines of dynamics and punch [...]. AAC fared slightly better, offering better bass response (although it was still pretty lightweight compared to the original CD) "
So now you understand why 128kb iTunes costs less than the CD. They don't sound as good as the CD. Case closed.
There you have it. So please, no more chirping on about how 128kb AAC's are indistinguishable from
Now we don't have to listen to people complain that Apple's prices are too high.
These comments are being made by network jockey's they hardly represent corporate strategists; that applies for both pro- and anti- MS comments.
What's really shocking to me is that despite MS's huge cash cow, nobody is willing to seriously challenge them in the office suite world or OS world.
Instead everybody has Linux out there like a proxy that they can disavow if things don't look good, or embrace if things look better.
Will it take someone from the Far East to mount a serious challenge to MS?
But don't you think this is an attempt at intimidation rather than a real lawsuit? In otherwords, SunnComm knows they can't win, but it looks like they're defending themselves, plus it will prevent other people from even discussing SunnComm for fear of being sued.
I mean, a judge would have to be wacky to find for the SunnComm if only because:
1) Microsoft published these directions to bypass the SunnComm protection years ago
2) The publishing of opinions is generally considered freedom of the press isn't it?
My first reaction is that this is an April Fool's joke, except its the wrong time of year.
" Depends upon the ear of the listener."
Lets level set here... Emusic is changing their price to $15 for 65 downloads (I believe the original article is wrong). That's 5 albums.
Now to get on with the comparison...
The CD has the physical media, it has a case, and it has liner notes (including artwork).
192kb MP3's aren't bad but hardly CD quality; probably slightly better than Apple's iTunes offerings, but hardly CD quality.
So its less. We can argue about how much less, but its less.
And the selection on EMusic is spotty, and that's putting it charitably. Lots of older stuff that isn't owned by RIAA members.
I'm cancelling.
I bought one fo their networked laser printers at a computer swap show about 6 months ago for $80, and its worked great. It even came with a full cartridge. It was pretty dusty, but an hour with a damp, soapy cloth made it look like brand new! It had about 35K pages on it when I got it, and it looks as if it would last about 3 times as long pretty easily.
Cost per page so far has been less than a penny!
So, Lexmark really does provide value!
I don't like the law, but people who support the law will look at EFF's example's and say "Good! This is what we need to stop".
And so this will amount to nothing. I think the DMCA will hit home if/when people finally get their new HDTV plasma screen, their new HDTV VCR, and they press "RECORD" and it doesn't work.
Then they'll care.
But for now, to the public, this is all about "stopping those hackers who started that virus a few months ago"
I bought the book a few months ago... I really like it. There's very few tech books I read cover to cover any more, yours is/was one of them.
Thanks.
If this is unopposed, it will not be long until everything useful requires "trust". And so my PC, the one I paid money for, will not work the way I want anymore. Oh, theoretically it will, but in a practical sense it won't.
If a content provider wants to "trust" a device, then they should buy it for me.
My cell phone providers wants a trusted device. Great. They give me a phone, and I pay to use it.
Ask yourself this... is watching an HDTV version of Star Wars so compelling that you're willing to compromise yout ability to control your PC? If you answered "yes", then you and I simply have a completely different viewpoint on the subject that I suspect we'll never agree on.
Well, its my computer, and I can damned well modify it to my hearts content. This seems more than reasonable; it seems *necessary*.
"What SCO is claiming here is unclear. It seems like the wording is regarding patents but they cite Copyright infringements as evidence."
I'm still fuzzy how they can claim any type of patent violation since Sys V code was written before software patents were recognized or granted.
So what's going on here?
Obviously, I meant "how much is HP" charging.
" SCO's interpretation is certainly correct"
No, its really not for a lot of reasons.
First of all, this indemnification is simply a form of insurance. If you think of it in those terms, if something is a sure thing, the cost of insurance is expensive, because the event will likely happen.
For example, if you want insurance against your dying someday, that will be expensive, because you (and everyone) will die someday.
On the other hand, insurance is cheap if the event won't happen. I'm willing to insure a business against any loss if aliens in flying saucers land and take earth women to mars. Its not gonna happen, so I'm willing to provide unlimited insurance for a small amount.
So lets look at HP insuring you against claims by SCO. If they felt this would likely happen, they would either have to charge their customers money, probably an amount they are likely to lose.
But if they feel the chances of SCO succeeding against customers is low, then the insurance will be cheap.
How much is SCO charging for this insurance?
Exactly.
So if they're charging $0 to indemnify against potentially $millions in damages, tell me what you think HP feels about this risk?
Or do you think HP is so desperate for customers for Linux that they're willing to bet the company on a wild gamble.
I doubt it.
I'd say SCO's press release smells of desperation; it means that they want to be mentioned in the press so desperately they drop a press release the way an elephant drops, er... well, you get the picture.
If you have an air-tight case against IBM, why so desperate for attention? Draw your own conclusions. It certainly doesn't look pretty for SCO at this point.