This is slightly off topic as it doesn't really address the issue of the cost of music; however, here is my soution to the issues of file trading and DRM:
--- Let the file trading networks do their thing with one rule:
* if songs are compressed into a
specific format
they can be traded freely.
* any other format incurs a trade fee. ---
The free format will be some specifc, low resolution format.
If you want to trade for free
it has to be in this
low res format.
If you want better quality
you have to pay. All the music industry has to do is sit back and let the money role in. They may want to monitor things to make sure the rule is being adhered to and that they are getting paid the correct fees for the paid trades. This is should be far less overhead for them.
My objection to itunes is the cost and that the music is restricted with drm. At a dollar a song it is arguably more expensive than buying a cd:
lower than cd quality audio
no artwork
no freedom
In this scheme, drm is less import because monitoring the trading networks for formats and fees is the key. I would think that the monitoring should be easier than putting drm into every piece of software and hardware.
The advantage to the music industry for file trading is that the users provide the infrastructure over which the trading occurs and they provide the files that are traded at no cost to them since users do the ripping, the encoding, provide the bandwith for trading etc. All the music industry has to do is keep doing what they have been doing: make and sell cds, dvd-audio or whatever other formats come along. If they want to, they can distribute the music on-line just by signing onto a trading network just like everyone else and inject the high res formats.
Of course, no drm leaves open the issue of physical trading. I.E. people making copies of cd and giving them to friends. However, this is issue of quantity. Its easy to trade thousands of songs on-line but hard to trade thousands of cds. Trading cd's in this way, as long as it is kept in low quanties should fall under far use.
Eliminating drm this way means that we can preserve the music that we love for the future - a process that drm could very well interfere with. Low quantity trading of cds can go on, but so can the on-line trading. The old music that gets preserved can be traded for many years to come in both low and high res formats. The music industry get income from the high res trades for a very long time into the future without the overhead of a distribution method.
1> Let people trade mp3's for free, not full quality audio.
This means that you have to decide what quality is free to trade (64K mp3 for example). So medium quality mp3' are free to trade (advertising); but, if you want full quality audio you have to pay for it.
2> Anything that plays, records or copies music has to retain and display the artist name, disk title, track title. That includes cd players. Now, when you have a copy of something that you would like to buy, you know what it is
Well, the QT licensing may not be an issue but is there a difference between qt's developer version and their GPL version? The reason that I'm asking is because of QCAD. They say that their software is GPL'd; but on their download page http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad_downloads.html they specify that the source code requires the Qt developer edition. So you can have the source for free but you can't compile it unless you pay for the developer verision or QT?? Isn't that kinda like source under glass? Is there really a difference between QT's GPL version and the developer version that would stop QCAD from compiling?
Yes I know that QCAD is actually pretty cheap to buy ($26 for one user); but I just curious about the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
This is slightly off topic as it doesn't really address the issue of the cost of music; however, here is my soution to the issues of file trading and DRM:
---
Let the file trading networks do their thing with
one rule:
* if songs are compressed into a
specific format
they can be traded freely.
* any other format incurs a trade fee.
---
The free format will be some specifc, low resolution format.
If you want to trade for free
it has to be in this
low res format.
If you want better quality
you have to pay.
All the music industry has to do is sit back and let the money role in. They may want to monitor things to make sure the rule is being adhered to and that they are getting paid the correct fees for the paid trades. This is should be far less overhead for them.
My objection to itunes is the cost and that the music is restricted with drm. At a dollar a song it is arguably more expensive than buying a cd:
lower than cd quality audio
no artwork
no freedom
In this scheme, drm is less import because monitoring the trading networks for formats and fees is the key. I would think that the monitoring should be easier than putting drm into every piece of software and hardware.
The advantage to the music industry for file trading is that the users provide the infrastructure over which the trading occurs and they provide the files that are traded at no cost to them since users do the ripping, the encoding, provide the bandwith for trading etc. All the music industry has to do is keep doing what they have been doing: make and sell cds, dvd-audio or whatever other formats come along. If they want to, they can distribute the music on-line just by signing onto a trading network just like everyone else and inject the high res formats.
Of course, no drm leaves open the issue of physical trading. I.E. people making copies of cd and giving them to friends. However, this is issue of quantity. Its easy to trade thousands of songs on-line but hard to trade thousands of cds. Trading cd's in this way, as long as it is kept in low quanties should fall under far use.
Eliminating drm this way means that we can preserve the music that we love for the future - a process that drm could very well interfere with. Low quantity trading of cds can go on, but so can the on-line trading. The old music that gets preserved can be traded for many years to come in both low and high res formats. The music industry get income from the high res trades for a very long time into the future without the overhead of a distribution method.
1> Let people trade mp3's for free, not full quality audio.
This means that you have to decide what quality is free to trade (64K mp3 for example). So medium quality mp3' are free to trade (advertising); but, if you want full quality audio you have to pay for it.
2> Anything that plays, records or copies music has to retain and display the artist name, disk title, track title. That includes cd players. Now, when you have a copy of something that you would like to buy, you know what it is
Well, the QT licensing may not be an issue but is there a difference between qt's developer version and their GPL version? The reason that I'm asking is because of QCAD. They say that their software is GPL'd; but on their download page http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad_downloads.html they specify that the source code requires the Qt developer edition. So you can have the source for free but you can't compile it unless you pay for the developer verision or QT?? Isn't that kinda like source under glass? Is there really a difference between QT's GPL version and the developer version that would stop QCAD from compiling? Yes I know that QCAD is actually pretty cheap to buy ($26 for one user); but I just curious about the situation.