So, there's a vast misunderstanding throughout this thread. The dichotomy between napster and itunes is false. Napster has downloads just like iTunes, so you can buy tracks and use them under exactly the same rules as iTunes. However, IN ADDITION TO DOWNLOADS napster offers a subscription service that lets you download and stream all you can onto your computer. This is imo a great feature for exploring and discovering music prior to purchasing the right to burn or xfer to devices, but YMMV. So the idea that iTunes does somethign Napster doesn't is simply wrong.
This is very confused. By your definition, all recording is lossy since you always lose some fidelity. There's a difference between recording infidelities (ala nyquist) and lossy encoding (ala mp3 or aac). The latter involves a compression algorithm that throws sound information away and then attempt to reconstruct them at decode, which yields huge compression but also potentially large losses. Your implication that all "loss" is equivalent is specious - CDs are a limited fidelity recording at 1400 kbps. By the time you get to iTMS you are at 128kbps, so you've thrown away 90% of the bits. Hopefully you've done this smartly so that it's not very noticeable, but having started with a master (I don't think this is actually true) wouldn't save you from the sound quality loss at 128kbps.
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I think that there's a false dichotomy here. Napster offers downloads too. I subscribe to Napster and think of the $10/mo as a subscription to a service that lets me discover new music. I usually don't go to a service looking for a specific album - rather I'm looking to find some new music I will like. The subscription helps me find bands based on what others are listening to, makes recommendations, and lets me preview whole albums at 160kbps. Once I decide if I like an album, I can then purchase ala iTunes. Overall, much more powerful than just a store.
Yes, t2 required online license acquisition - but newer WMV-HD disks get licenses locally from the media and thus don't require iaccess and don't require registration.
they also don't use interactual - they custom built a dhtml interface that's much easier to use.
as to your quality comparison, it may be your display technology. It's 6x the resolution of a DVD, but on an ntsc screen or 1280x768 vga you'll not take full advantage of the quality.
Good post - the best point you make is about windows/DVD interop, which is the main driver behind this. This potentially heads off the possiblity of pc-unfriendly DVD standards.
The money to be made with licensing fees on DVD players is relatively small if the vc-9 licensing is anything like the WMV9 licensing.
perhaps should clarify.
distributing mpeg-2 decoding or encoding without paying a license fee to MPEG-LA is illegal. This is why linux distros pretty much never ship with DVD playback built in.
however, I agree that CSS and other DRM schemes are a much bigger challenge to OSS than license fees, which can always be done with separate, binary distributions.
Yes (and in fact the Microsoft WMV9 licensing also enables Linux playback). However, the key problem (leaving aside DRM) is licensing. If licensing terms for a codec are expensive and have no cap, then a software or OS vendor must pay potentially huge $$ for the codec. For MSFT this is merely expensive. For linux it's much worse, since you must redist your distro free of charge via GPL and thus must face limitless fees with no cost recovery mechanism. This is exactly what folks face today with mp3 encoding and mpeg-2 today.
One more thing - the new disks also have a MUCH nicer UI built around DHTML instead of whatever the PC player on T2 and Standing were. Much better perf, nicer UI, etc...
You raise a good point - the T2 and Standing in the Shadows WMV-HD DVDs did require internet connection to play. For the latest generation of these "bonus" disks are built with "local licensing" so that they get the license from the media and don't require an internet connection EVER to play back. The first out is Coral Reef Adventure.
The main Microsoft interest here is ensuring that nextgen DVDs are "PC Friendly" in that they interop with PCs well and without onerous licensing terms. Folks here have wondered about the Linux Lockout problem - don't you think Microsoft worriesa bout the same thing for Windows if nextgen DVDs include uncapped royalties or other unfriendly terms?
Just like everyone else in the patent pool for HD-DVD, there will surely be a license fee. This is exactly the same as the current DVD spec with dolby, DTS, and the MPEG pool getting royalties for their IP.
I think it's nearly certain that HD-DVD and other formats will include SOME DRM since DVD has some today. But this announcement is limited to video codecs. The decision around DRM choice will be independent of video.
The storefronts all use the same version of DRM, and I can assure you the portalplayer would support that version (it does in several other devices today).
The WMA *decoder* hasn't changed in years, so all devices support all versions of WMA. I say again - Apple would just need to flip a bit to make it work.
A good point. This solution is oc highly platform dependent - it could work on the mac and can work on Windows XP/2000. And Apple could no doubt close this hole at any time. But for now, other software tools can render Fairplay on Windows. Not so linux, RTOS, etc...
oc, the fact of all those devices shows that wma and DRM *are* licensable. You are absolutely right about Apple/HP not affecting my ability to choose whatever. I'd say you're wrong about Apple having the majority of the digital audio market - I'd say that's probably the redbook audio CD. My only point is that what apple is doing locks users in, in some cases knowing, in some cases not. Imagine if Amazon sold CDs modified to only play in CD players they manufactured. I just want consumers to go in knowing the bargain they're making.
I saw the HP demo at CES. They showed happy users listening to music on iPaqs (no support for fairplay) and enjoying the 10' UI on their media center editions (no support for fairplay). HP was also showing their HP digital media reciever (no support for fairplay). Thurott Idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
So, there's a vast misunderstanding throughout this thread. The dichotomy between napster and itunes is false. Napster has downloads just like iTunes, so you can buy tracks and use them under exactly the same rules as iTunes. However, IN ADDITION TO DOWNLOADS napster offers a subscription service that lets you download and stream all you can onto your computer. This is imo a great feature for exploring and discovering music prior to purchasing the right to burn or xfer to devices, but YMMV. So the idea that iTunes does somethign Napster doesn't is simply wrong.
This is very confused. By your definition, all recording is lossy since you always lose some fidelity. There's a difference between recording infidelities (ala nyquist) and lossy encoding (ala mp3 or aac). The latter involves a compression algorithm that throws sound information away and then attempt to reconstruct them at decode, which yields huge compression but also potentially large losses. Your implication that all "loss" is equivalent is specious - CDs are a limited fidelity recording at 1400 kbps. By the time you get to iTMS you are at 128kbps, so you've thrown away 90% of the bits. Hopefully you've done this smartly so that it's not very noticeable, but having started with a master (I don't think this is actually true) wouldn't save you from the sound quality loss at 128kbps.
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I think that there's a false dichotomy here. Napster offers downloads too. I subscribe to Napster and think of the $10/mo as a subscription to a service that lets me discover new music. I usually don't go to a service looking for a specific album - rather I'm looking to find some new music I will like. The subscription helps me find bands based on what others are listening to, makes recommendations, and lets me preview whole albums at 160kbps. Once I decide if I like an album, I can then purchase ala iTunes. Overall, much more powerful than just a store.
As I've said elsewhere - this announcement has nothing to do with msdrm. it's just the video codec, which has been submitted as a SMPTE standard.
Yes, t2 required online license acquisition - but newer WMV-HD disks get licenses locally from the media and thus don't require iaccess and don't require registration. they also don't use interactual - they custom built a dhtml interface that's much easier to use. as to your quality comparison, it may be your display technology. It's 6x the resolution of a DVD, but on an ntsc screen or 1280x768 vga you'll not take full advantage of the quality.
Good post - the best point you make is about windows/DVD interop, which is the main driver behind this. This potentially heads off the possiblity of pc-unfriendly DVD standards. The money to be made with licensing fees on DVD players is relatively small if the vc-9 licensing is anything like the WMV9 licensing.
perhaps should clarify. distributing mpeg-2 decoding or encoding without paying a license fee to MPEG-LA is illegal. This is why linux distros pretty much never ship with DVD playback built in. however, I agree that CSS and other DRM schemes are a much bigger challenge to OSS than license fees, which can always be done with separate, binary distributions.
Not legally. But yes, CSS is a much larger challenge.
There are already WMV9 linux implementations and nothing stops someone from licensing VC9 for linux.
Yes (and in fact the Microsoft WMV9 licensing also enables Linux playback). However, the key problem (leaving aside DRM) is licensing. If licensing terms for a codec are expensive and have no cap, then a software or OS vendor must pay potentially huge $$ for the codec. For MSFT this is merely expensive. For linux it's much worse, since you must redist your distro free of charge via GPL and thus must face limitless fees with no cost recovery mechanism. This is exactly what folks face today with mp3 encoding and mpeg-2 today.
One more thing - the new disks also have a MUCH nicer UI built around DHTML instead of whatever the PC player on T2 and Standing were. Much better perf, nicer UI, etc...
You raise a good point - the T2 and Standing in the Shadows WMV-HD DVDs did require internet connection to play. For the latest generation of these "bonus" disks are built with "local licensing" so that they get the license from the media and don't require an internet connection EVER to play back. The first out is Coral Reef Adventure.
The main Microsoft interest here is ensuring that nextgen DVDs are "PC Friendly" in that they interop with PCs well and without onerous licensing terms. Folks here have wondered about the Linux Lockout problem - don't you think Microsoft worriesa bout the same thing for Windows if nextgen DVDs include uncapped royalties or other unfriendly terms?
Just like everyone else in the patent pool for HD-DVD, there will surely be a license fee. This is exactly the same as the current DVD spec with dolby, DTS, and the MPEG pool getting royalties for their IP.
Hard to imagine that getting worse, given that mpeg-2 in DVDs is already very linux-unfriendly/expensive.
The final HD-DVD spec will include some DRM or other. But winning the video blessing is unrelated to the DRM blessing.
I think it's nearly certain that HD-DVD and other formats will include SOME DRM since DVD has some today. But this announcement is limited to video codecs. The decision around DRM choice will be independent of video.
No, no. This has nothing to do with DRM. It's a video codec.
The storefronts all use the same version of DRM, and I can assure you the portalplayer would support that version (it does in several other devices today). The WMA *decoder* hasn't changed in years, so all devices support all versions of WMA. I say again - Apple would just need to flip a bit to make it work.
Apple could certainly stop Real simply by updating QT with a new version that disables the API they're using. Whether they will is up to Apple, oc. dc
A good point. This solution is oc highly platform dependent - it could work on the mac and can work on Windows XP/2000. And Apple could no doubt close this hole at any time. But for now, other software tools can render Fairplay on Windows. Not so linux, RTOS, etc...
oc, the fact of all those devices shows that wma and DRM *are* licensable. You are absolutely right about Apple/HP not affecting my ability to choose whatever. I'd say you're wrong about Apple having the majority of the digital audio market - I'd say that's probably the redbook audio CD. My only point is that what apple is doing locks users in, in some cases knowing, in some cases not. Imagine if Amazon sold CDs modified to only play in CD players they manufactured. I just want consumers to go in knowing the bargain they're making.
Well, assuming this is legal (ianal), it only works on platforms with Quicktime and iTunes. No devices, no Linux, etc...
He's actually right about this. The iPod uses a Portalplayer chip that includes WMA decoding support. Apple would just need to flip the bit.
I saw the HP demo at CES. They showed happy users listening to music on iPaqs (no support for fairplay) and enjoying the 10' UI on their media center editions (no support for fairplay). HP was also showing their HP digital media reciever (no support for fairplay). Thurott Idiot.