If AAC at 128 kbps (or an MP3 copy made at 192 kbps) sounds crappy to you, then iTunes is not for you. The other 99.999% of us are just fine with it.
Sure. If you're part of a generation that's lived on nothing but crappy compressed mp3 served up by an industry that has continually sucked all of the life out of music recordings, I'm sure you think it's just fine. But maybe when you get a little bit older and if you still have (or better yet, gain) a real passion for music like I do, you'll have a half-decent sound system and realize that music isn't just something that gets played in the background, it's something that involves listening actively.
Then you'll realize that there's more to music than listening to the industry-pumped-single-of-the-week with hyper-lossy compression on crappy sounding little ear buds. And you'll realize that sound quality does matter.
And then you'll realize that your music "collection" isn't really a collection at all, but a bunch of crappy sounding junk that you can't really enjoy.
Or maybe if you're lucky you won't ever really truly care about music, so the crappy sound won't really bother you.
Every digital music device on the market today (with a smattering of minor exceptions) will play MP3. Burning a CD from iTunes and then ripping it back to MP3 is trivial. If you can't afford the media, get a CDRW. The whole rant is "you'll be locked into Apple's proprietary format!!!" and that's bullshit. Even if Apple *doesn't* provide a way to migrate forward, the aforementioned "work around" is very likely to be sufficient.
And burning a sucky 128 mbps file, ripping it, and recompressing it makes a SUCKIER sounding file.
So no, this isn't viable workaround to rid the file of the DRM.
The SOLUTION is to refuse to buy DRM'd files in the first place. If everyone would friggin' wise up and do just that, Digitally Restricted Media (DRM) would be history. But they've convinced the world that a little DRM is OK and your comments show that you've bought right into that too. It's just a little DRM now. And then a little more and a little more and a little more until 20 years from now, you'll look back on your comment and wonder how on earth transporting media that you purchased to another format or another player was so easy and FREE those 20 years ago.
But 20 years from now you won't be buying music with any expectations at all of being able to move it from one device to another without paying more. You'll be licensing it and maybe it will be inexpensive to play that album in your car, but it'll cost you a few more cents. Play it at work... a few more cents.
But that'll all feel fine and dandy because you never noticed the rights you once had creeping away. And Apple's oh-so-friendly DRM is step one.
DRM is DRM. Apple's may be one of the more palatable ones to the masses, but it is still RESTRICTED. The fact that they are DRM'd is all some people (myself included) need to know. I've purchased $1.98 worth of music from iTunes. Then I realized that I can't stream them to my Roku Soundbridge in another room. I'm certainly not going to build a music collection only to have some company or computer service dictate what I can can can't do with it.
Screw that. Even if a new service pops up, if it has any level of DRM I know all I need to know about it. So no, it's not unreasonable to me that this person commented on Apple's service even if they haven't used it.
128 kbps lossy (which is sucky quality no matter how you slice it) to CD. And then you can rip it and compress it again (or even if you don't compress it, you're still stuck with that or original 128 kbps crappy sounding file, but now it's the size of an uncompressed file).
Ok captain obvious... what if I like making compilation CDs and a song ends up on several of them? That's something I happen to like to do and I know that there a few songs that have ended up on more than a few compilations.
Of course it's no problem for me because I REFUSE to purchase low-quality Digitally Restricted Music (That's REALLY what DRM stands for).
Does anyone even READ these stories? He and John Madden have been a broadcast team for a while. They apparently like working together and they like the product they bring to the table Madden's contract expired and he signed a new contract with a competing broadcaster (Sunday Night Football moves from ESPN to NBC next year and Monday Night Football goes from ABC to ESPN). Madden signed to do Sunday Night Football for NBC. Michels asked to be released from his ABC/ESPN contract to go to NBC to continue broadcasting with Madden. Michels is a good football announcer. A valuable property to ABC/ESPN (what's why they have him under contract... that's the whole POINT of signing contracts). Michels wanted out. ABC negotiates with NBC to have him released from his ABC contract. ABC gets stuff (including the rights to the cartoon), NBC gets Michels.
And? No pissing off. Nothing strange going on. Just a change in situation and a mis-alignment of contract dates between two people who apparently consider themselves a broadcast "team".
He was UNDER CONTRACT. That's not slavery. He signed a contract that said in essence "I agree to work for ABC/ESPN for some number of years." He wanted to be released from said contract and ABC sought compensation for this. The parties came to a mutual agreement and everyone is seemingly satisfied. I just don't understand why anyone is upset about what happened.
Sorry, but that's NOT slavery. No one put a gun to his head and said "sign this contract or we shoot!"
Exactly! He was under contract with ABC. NBC wanted him and he wanted to go to NBC (and I'm OK with that... I think he and Madden make a pretty decent football announcing team). ABC wanted compensation for releasing him from his contract. ABC (ESPN) asked for a few things and they got them.
I completely fail to see why this is in any way disgusting, morally corrupt, or out of the realm of normal and moral business dealings at all.
I agree that one might argue that the perpetual copyright extensions are a bad thing for the public at large, but that's really not part of this story at all.
First off, what on earth does this have to do with "Your Rights Online"?
Second of all, there was a lot more in the trade than just the cartoon. According to Media Week ESPN wanted:
(1) The cable telecast rights NBC owns to air Ryder Cup golf matches on Fridays in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014; (2) The rights to air expanded Olympics highlights on ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNEWS through the 2012 Games; and (3) The rights to the animated cartoons, Oswald The Lucky Rabbit, which were created by Disney animators in the 1920s, but distributed by Universal Studio, which got the rights to the cartoons.
and...
NBC will run an on-air promotion through 2011 for ESPN's Monday Night Football telecasts each week during its SNF telecasts... Also through 2011, ESPN obtained expanded-highlights rights for NBC Sports telecasts of Notre Dame football, the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.
So, I fail to see what's news here. In the entertainment business, this sort of IP and rights trading/selling happens all of the time. Saying "trading a person for a cartoon" is an incredible dumbing-down of what happened.
So tell me again what this has to do with my rights online?
For what it's worth, iTMS' FairPlay DRM just so happens to let me do whatever I like.
Lucky for you. I want to stream purchased music from my computer to my living room stereo via a Roku Soundbridge. I can't because it's DRM'd. I want to stream it to most any PC I happen to be sitting at via Slimserver. Nope, sorry. Non-ipod MP3 player. Nope.
Yes, I could do those things by burning the song to CD and re-ripping it, but that either results in a quality loss (double encoding) or a larger than necessary file for an already sonicaly compromised 128kbps overcompressed song.
iTMS FairPlay DRM (Fair?!?! Bah!) is oft touted as the Digitally RESTRICTED Media implementation that most people could live with. I guess I'm not most people because I find it to be way overbearing and is the reason that I've purchased a total of $1.98 worth of music from it only to become immediatly frustrated with the restrictions put upon MY use of music that I purchased.
I'm not asking to be able to give the music to the world a thousand times over. And besides, no DRM has ever stopped that anyway.
Sigh. I want... no, expect... absolute portability in media. Period. That means I might want to transfer it to a portable ipod-like device. Or stream it from my PC to my bedroom TV or to my laptop while I'm traveling in Tokyo. Or maybe I want to print out frame stills and wallpaper my office. Who cares! But I simply will not accept anything short of being able to do what I want, when I want, with the media that I purchase.
I've been burned already buying DRM'd (Digitally RESTRICTED Media) files from itunes and from mlb.com and I'm through with that. I won't do it any more. If media companies insist on tying up content so they can decide what I can and can't do with it, then I will continue to NOT give them my money.
I'm sorry, but I should not have to violate the friggin' DMCA to break the stupid copy protection on DVDs just so I can move the files to my laptop so I can watch them on a plane or in a hotel room. And no law, company, or technology should stand in the way of being able to do that.
A year or so ago, I spent a few hours on a Segway for a tour of Epcot Center at Disney World in Orlando. It was a ton of fun crusing around on the thing and I'd highly recommend it. But in the end, I found that my feet were really sore and tired at the end of the experience. Why? Because basically, you're just standing there. Just stand for 3 hours and let me know how you feel. Now walk around for 3 hours. Completely different feeling. Just standing and doing nothing else is very fatiguing.
If anyone has taken a kid to Disney World, you know that you do a LOT of walking. My feet hurt more after my time on the Segway than they did chasing a 5-year old around Magic Kingdom all day.
So while this may seem "lazy" and easier than walking or riding a bike, I can't exactly imagine a less comfortable way for an able-bodied person to travel a long distance. That said, I'd still love to get one.
A couple of weeks ago, I went to the Star Wars exhibit at the Museum of Science in Boston. They've got all kinds of props that were used in the movies, including Darth Vader's helmet from Revenge of the Sith (the one you can see the inside of while they're putting it over his cripsy burnt face).
As most people know, movie props are often made of common items and then painted, dressed-up, etc, but you don't often notice them as such. Now here's how this is related to the subject at hand (don't mod me off-topic just yet).
I'm not sure how many non-geeks (or even semi-geeks for that matter) know what the inside of a hard drive looks like or what the parts look like. But there, inside Darth Vader's helmet... the one used as a prop in ROTS... are two stacks of hard drive head arms. They just look like some high-tech gizmo to give it a cool futuristic cyber look.
I wonder how many people actually saw them and recognized them for what they are. I have no idea if they can actually be seen in the movie or not. I just though it was kind of cool that there are hard drive parts inside Darth Vader's helmet.
I will not be so stupid as tell the court that I believe in nullification... And, no, they have no business knowing what happens during deliberation.
Bingo! It's a shame that the American public, of which I'm a member, don't know/understand more about jury nullification. It amazes me how many people I know who complain about unjust laws and how "they'd make it different" and then they try to do whatever they can to get out of jury duty. Not I. I very much look forward to the day that I can get onto a jury with the possibility of invoking my right of nullification if indeed the case calls for it (for example, just about any "victimless" crime).
Unfortunately, these RIAA cases are civil (RIAA suing an individual) and in general, verdicts do not need to be unanimous and the evidence does NOT need to show wrong-doing "beyond a reasonable doubt", so it's a little harder for one person on the jury to make it right.
Now I know you were trying to be funny, but Time's "Person of the Year" is nominated not for being a good person, but for being an impactful person. By Time Magazine's own words the "Person of the Year" is chosen for good or for ill. Because they chose Hitler DOES NOT mean they found him to be a stand-up person of good will. They chose him because he had an unbelievable effect on the history of mankind, though in this case of the worst possible kind.
"...or for ill." Get it?
Now in this case, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are being recognized for their efforts to make the world a better place.
A lack of technical knowledge means that the person is "lesser educated"?
Go re-read what I wrote. I didn't say anything of the sort.
News flash for you - an awful lot of highly educated people (doctors, lawyers, etc) are clueless about technology
Didn't I say exactly that when I wrote "Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either".
Like I said, it should come as no surprise that on average, google would have an audience that's more tech-savy. It should also come as no surprise that, again on average, more tech savy leads to (or is caused by) being more affluent. And yes, there are highly affluent people who are not tech savy and there are people below the poverty level who are absolutely technically brilliant.
I see nothing arrogant about anything I wrote. Please read what you're replying to before hitting the "submit" button.
Joe Average goes to his local Best Buy, Circuit City, or other mega-store and buys the PC that the pimply sales dweeb recommends. He doesn't know a Gigahertz from a megabyte. He unpacks his PC, plugs it in, answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to. He opens the browser and it points to MSN. His twelve year old daughter's friend uses Yahoo messenger, and therefore so does she.
Is anyone surprised that the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous don't know what's out there and pretty much just take what's fed to them? Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either.
-S
Kinda like "Why Does the Sun Shine"
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 1
From the song "Why Does the Sun Shine" made famous by They Might Be Giants (though it's not their song... it's from a 1959 educational record called "Space Songs" on the Singing Science Records series from Motivation Records).
Over 30% of DMCA takedown notices have been deemed improper and potentially illegal
What I find most disturbing about that statement is that it implies that something a bit less than 70% of DMCA takedown notices are not improper and not illegal. That is a law that is far over-reaching, draconian, and designed for abuse. I guess that's what happens when one lives in the good 'old U.C.A (United Corporations of America).
API - Washington, DC. The FBI and local authorities today arrested Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn at the behest of the MPAA and RIAA. "Their design of the software code used to transmit data over the Internet has cost the entertainment industry hundreds of billions of dollars in annual losses." said MPAA president Dan Glickman. "These two thugs deserve what's coming to them in prison." added RIAA president Cary Sherman. Meanwhile, Sherman and Glickman, working with congressional leaders, have drafted a bill to add "design of internet software" to the list of federal crimes eligible for the death penalty. "The crimes of Al Gore will not go unpunished." said Republican House leader Tom DeLay. "He invented this internet thing and it's destroying our way of life."
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. If you're part of a generation that's lived on nothing but crappy compressed mp3 served up by an industry that has continually sucked all of the life out of music recordings, I'm sure you think it's just fine. But maybe when you get a little bit older and if you still have (or better yet, gain) a real passion for music like I do, you'll have a half-decent sound system and realize that music isn't just something that gets played in the background, it's something that involves listening actively.
Then you'll realize that there's more to music than listening to the industry-pumped-single-of-the-week with hyper-lossy compression on crappy sounding little ear buds. And you'll realize that sound quality does matter.
And then you'll realize that your music "collection" isn't really a collection at all, but a bunch of crappy sounding junk that you can't really enjoy.
Or maybe if you're lucky you won't ever really truly care about music, so the crappy sound won't really bother you.
-S
And burning a sucky 128 mbps file, ripping it, and recompressing it makes a SUCKIER sounding file.
So no, this isn't viable workaround to rid the file of the DRM.
The SOLUTION is to refuse to buy DRM'd files in the first place. If everyone would friggin' wise up and do just that, Digitally Restricted Media (DRM) would be history. But they've convinced the world that a little DRM is OK and your comments show that you've bought right into that too. It's just a little DRM now. And then a little more and a little more and a little more until 20 years from now, you'll look back on your comment and wonder how on earth transporting media that you purchased to another format or another player was so easy and FREE those 20 years ago.
But 20 years from now you won't be buying music with any expectations at all of being able to move it from one device to another without paying more. You'll be licensing it and maybe it will be inexpensive to play that album in your car, but it'll cost you a few more cents. Play it at work... a few more cents.
But that'll all feel fine and dandy because you never noticed the rights you once had creeping away. And Apple's oh-so-friendly DRM is step one.
-S
Uh-huh. And you've heard of the DMCA, right? Breaking the DRM is illegal, regardless of whether you think your cause is noble or not.
-S
Screw that. Even if a new service pops up, if it has any level of DRM I know all I need to know about it. So no, it's not unreasonable to me that this person commented on Apple's service even if they haven't used it.
-S
128 kbps lossy (which is sucky quality no matter how you slice it) to CD. And then you can rip it and compress it again (or even if you don't compress it, you're still stuck with that or original 128 kbps crappy sounding file, but now it's the size of an uncompressed file).
No thanks. That's a non-solution.
-S
Ok captain obvious... what if I like making compilation CDs and a song ends up on several of them? That's something I happen to like to do and I know that there a few songs that have ended up on more than a few compilations.
Of course it's no problem for me because I REFUSE to purchase low-quality Digitally Restricted Music (That's REALLY what DRM stands for).
-S
I'll believe it when I see it.
Er, or maybe when I don't see it.
-S
Slaves have no choice. He WILLINGLY entered into the contract. That's a choice. If he didn't like the terms, he didn't have to sign.
-S
Does anyone even READ these stories? He and John Madden have been a broadcast team for a while. They apparently like working together and they like the product they bring to the table Madden's contract expired and he signed a new contract with a competing broadcaster (Sunday Night Football moves from ESPN to NBC next year and Monday Night Football goes from ABC to ESPN). Madden signed to do Sunday Night Football for NBC. Michels asked to be released from his ABC/ESPN contract to go to NBC to continue broadcasting with Madden. Michels is a good football announcer. A valuable property to ABC/ESPN (what's why they have him under contract... that's the whole POINT of signing contracts). Michels wanted out. ABC negotiates with NBC to have him released from his ABC contract. ABC gets stuff (including the rights to the cartoon), NBC gets Michels.
And? No pissing off. Nothing strange going on. Just a change in situation and a mis-alignment of contract dates between two people who apparently consider themselves a broadcast "team".
-S
He was UNDER CONTRACT. That's not slavery. He signed a contract that said in essence "I agree to work for ABC/ESPN for some number of years." He wanted to be released from said contract and ABC sought compensation for this. The parties came to a mutual agreement and everyone is seemingly satisfied. I just don't understand why anyone is upset about what happened.
Sorry, but that's NOT slavery. No one put a gun to his head and said "sign this contract or we shoot!"
Nothing to see here. Move along.
-S
Exactly! He was under contract with ABC. NBC wanted him and he wanted to go to NBC (and I'm OK with that... I think he and Madden make a pretty decent football announcing team). ABC wanted compensation for releasing him from his contract. ABC (ESPN) asked for a few things and they got them.
I completely fail to see why this is in any way disgusting, morally corrupt, or out of the realm of normal and moral business dealings at all.
I agree that one might argue that the perpetual copyright extensions are a bad thing for the public at large, but that's really not part of this story at all.
-S
Second of all, there was a lot more in the trade than just the cartoon. According to Media Week ESPN wanted:
(1) The cable telecast rights NBC owns to air Ryder Cup golf matches on Fridays in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014; (2) The rights to air expanded Olympics highlights on ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNEWS through the 2012 Games; and (3) The rights to the animated cartoons, Oswald The Lucky Rabbit, which were created by Disney animators in the 1920s, but distributed by Universal Studio, which got the rights to the cartoons.
and...
NBC will run an on-air promotion through 2011 for ESPN's Monday Night Football telecasts each week during its SNF telecasts... Also through 2011, ESPN obtained expanded-highlights rights for NBC Sports telecasts of Notre Dame football, the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.
So, I fail to see what's news here. In the entertainment business, this sort of IP and rights trading/selling happens all of the time. Saying "trading a person for a cartoon" is an incredible dumbing-down of what happened.
So tell me again what this has to do with my rights online?
-S
Lucky for you. I want to stream purchased music from my computer to my living room stereo via a Roku Soundbridge. I can't because it's DRM'd. I want to stream it to most any PC I happen to be sitting at via Slimserver. Nope, sorry. Non-ipod MP3 player. Nope.
Yes, I could do those things by burning the song to CD and re-ripping it, but that either results in a quality loss (double encoding) or a larger than necessary file for an already sonicaly compromised 128kbps overcompressed song.
iTMS FairPlay DRM (Fair?!?! Bah!) is oft touted as the Digitally RESTRICTED Media implementation that most people could live with. I guess I'm not most people because I find it to be way overbearing and is the reason that I've purchased a total of $1.98 worth of music from it only to become immediatly frustrated with the restrictions put upon MY use of music that I purchased.
I'm not asking to be able to give the music to the world a thousand times over. And besides, no DRM has ever stopped that anyway.
-S
I've been burned already buying DRM'd (Digitally RESTRICTED Media) files from itunes and from mlb.com and I'm through with that. I won't do it any more. If media companies insist on tying up content so they can decide what I can and can't do with it, then I will continue to NOT give them my money.
I'm sorry, but I should not have to violate the friggin' DMCA to break the stupid copy protection on DVDs just so I can move the files to my laptop so I can watch them on a plane or in a hotel room. And no law, company, or technology should stand in the way of being able to do that.
Bottom line: There is no acceptable DRM. Period.
-S
If anyone has taken a kid to Disney World, you know that you do a LOT of walking. My feet hurt more after my time on the Segway than they did chasing a 5-year old around Magic Kingdom all day.
So while this may seem "lazy" and easier than walking or riding a bike, I can't exactly imagine a less comfortable way for an able-bodied person to travel a long distance. That said, I'd still love to get one.
-S
-S
Finally... a reason to rejoice in a BSOD.
As most people know, movie props are often made of common items and then painted, dressed-up, etc, but you don't often notice them as such. Now here's how this is related to the subject at hand (don't mod me off-topic just yet).
I'm not sure how many non-geeks (or even semi-geeks for that matter) know what the inside of a hard drive looks like or what the parts look like. But there, inside Darth Vader's helmet... the one used as a prop in ROTS... are two stacks of hard drive head arms. They just look like some high-tech gizmo to give it a cool futuristic cyber look.
I wonder how many people actually saw them and recognized them for what they are. I have no idea if they can actually be seen in the movie or not. I just though it was kind of cool that there are hard drive parts inside Darth Vader's helmet.
-S
Bingo! It's a shame that the American public, of which I'm a member, don't know/understand more about jury nullification. It amazes me how many people I know who complain about unjust laws and how "they'd make it different" and then they try to do whatever they can to get out of jury duty. Not I. I very much look forward to the day that I can get onto a jury with the possibility of invoking my right of nullification if indeed the case calls for it (for example, just about any "victimless" crime).
Unfortunately, these RIAA cases are civil (RIAA suing an individual) and in general, verdicts do not need to be unanimous and the evidence does NOT need to show wrong-doing "beyond a reasonable doubt", so it's a little harder for one person on the jury to make it right.
-S
"...or for ill." Get it?
Now in this case, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are being recognized for their efforts to make the world a better place.
-S
Go re-read what I wrote. I didn't say anything of the sort.
News flash for you - an awful lot of highly educated people (doctors, lawyers, etc) are clueless about technology
Didn't I say exactly that when I wrote "Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either".
Like I said, it should come as no surprise that on average, google would have an audience that's more tech-savy. It should also come as no surprise that, again on average, more tech savy leads to (or is caused by) being more affluent. And yes, there are highly affluent people who are not tech savy and there are people below the poverty level who are absolutely technically brilliant.
I see nothing arrogant about anything I wrote. Please read what you're replying to before hitting the "submit" button.
-S
...while I put my surprised face on.
Joe Average goes to his local Best Buy, Circuit City, or other mega-store and buys the PC that the pimply sales dweeb recommends. He doesn't know a Gigahertz from a megabyte. He unpacks his PC, plugs it in, answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to. He opens the browser and it points to MSN. His twelve year old daughter's friend uses Yahoo messenger, and therefore so does she.
Is anyone surprised that the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous don't know what's out there and pretty much just take what's fed to them? Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either.
-S
"The sun is a mass of incandescent gas,
A gigantic nuclear furnace,
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees."
So, nothing new really...
-S
What I find most disturbing about that statement is that it implies that something a bit less than 70% of DMCA takedown notices are not improper and not illegal. That is a law that is far over-reaching, draconian, and designed for abuse. I guess that's what happens when one lives in the good 'old U.C.A (United Corporations of America).
-S
API - Washington, DC. The FBI and local authorities today arrested Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn at the behest of the MPAA and RIAA. "Their design of the software code used to transmit data over the Internet has cost the entertainment industry hundreds of billions of dollars in annual losses." said MPAA president Dan Glickman. "These two thugs deserve what's coming to them in prison." added RIAA president Cary Sherman. Meanwhile, Sherman and Glickman, working with congressional leaders, have drafted a bill to add "design of internet software" to the list of federal crimes eligible for the death penalty. "The crimes of Al Gore will not go unpunished." said Republican House leader Tom DeLay. "He invented this internet thing and it's destroying our way of life."