Uh, the record labels, if they so desire. But you seem to be implying that somehow WMA-format stores will be immune to this kind of price-hike, which is quite unlikely indeed.
Has any business ever been able to raise a wholesale price against Wal*Mart?
Okay... you caught me putting a three where a ten belongs. However, you also slipped.
What this means in reality is that any two tracks even from the same store might have different limitations. If you make a mix with tracks A and B, with burn limits of 1 and 5, respectively, you won't be allowed to make two copies of that mix.
Once it's on an ISO CD format, it's fair game. Just make a binary copy of that CD as many times as you want.
Maybe the solution is to give users unecrypted un drmed music, ala eMusic? The RIAA needs to face the fact that DRM is not going stop illegal downloading. Giving your customers what they want will attract people from kazaa and emule.
"What they want" is music for nothing. That isn't gonna happen. There's no way you'll get people off of kazaa and emule as long as they still are allowed to operate, which is why the effort is to shut them down.
Or, you know, playable in any standard CD audio device. Of which there are a hell of a lot more of than digital music players of any description. This alone is going to keep Apple on top for a long, long time. As I don't see Microsoft opening up a "hole" like that in their iron Digital Rights Infringement scheme.
Apple's PlayFair files only allow burning under limited circumstances, particularly that the same mix of songs can only be burned three times.
Microsoft's WMA format allows the DRM applier to set whether they want to allow 1 burn, 5 burns, any other number of burns, or infinite burning. Again, Microsoft's just the software provider, it's up to the store to make the deals for these things....
and The most interesting quote NOT in the article is from Steve Jobs stressing that he can't possibly make money if the record industry jacks the prices to $2.50/song and bundles crappy songs with good songs, and is quietly scheming to force the music stores to do.
The thing is, Apple's not the only front. The RIAA would also have to convince Napster 2.0, BuyMusic, and Wal*Mart to do the same...
Wa-wa-wa-Wal*Mart? We're talking about one of the biggest physical CD retailers in the nation. Wal*Mart's well-known for their tendancy to squeeze suppliers and drop ones who don't bend to their demands. So, this could get very interesting if they decide to throw their weight around.
I wouldn't mind the price of online songs going down but lets hope that the artist's cut goes up. http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
Downhill Battle is an absolutely clueless group. Artists who want to directly get themselves into iTunes without any RIAA hand in the till can do so, but they also have to trade off not getting RIAA label promotional help.
They really should be trying to get indie artists into the other DRMed music universes... or is their real agenda trying to get DRM music to fail as a whole?
Looking at the comparison table, it isn't fair to list Rhapsody in there, with Rhapsody being a streaming service and almost every other player in there is a download service. Interesting to note that , RealPlayer music store is listed in there too and has a pretty good download number for something that opened just one-two months back.
Napster, by that logic, is double-dipping because they offer both a 99-cent download-and-keep service, and a $9.99 a month stream-but-don't-keep service.
You're right, the chart is not exactly apples-to-apples comparing... Rhapsody and Napster are offering a different service model altogether compared to the other stores, even though their owners are also keeping their toes in the store model just in case.
I wouldn't mind having compatible formats either, I just don't want the RIAA having absolutely any say in it whatsoever, because they don't exactly have the best track record of making decisions which are beneficial to customers.
The RIAA is going to have to be involved in any DRM system that wants to catch on, because simply put, they control most of the recognizable music in the world. Even if new indie labels start to catch on, that still won't account for the massive back catelog.
Useful to some, for sure, but useless for those among us who are trying to find ways of acquiring musical samples to "try out" various musical bands.
That is called "radio". It is any medium in which you don't get direct control over what song plays next, and therefore can be exposed to music you haven't heard of yet.
That's why that format of pushed-content pays less per song than any format that lets the user directly edit the playlist.
Real, issuer of the weakest format of the three DRM systems, has already waived the white flag and was looking for a compatiblity truce with Apple. Apple wasn't buying though...
Maybe Real should join the rest of the non-Apple world over in the WMA camp.
None of the RIAA-approved DRM systems right now plays ball on Linux, period. I know most people who drink the GNU/Kool-Aid absolutely hate DRM because all content should be free, but that just ain't happening any time soon...
So, while Linux tries to capture the desktop environment, this is one piece of technology that is popular on the Windows and even Macintosh platforms, but just simply isn't on Linux. Open Source projects just aren't going to fit the bill here, somebody needs to convince the DRM people that they'll be safe in writing decoders for Linux.
Is there any way that a DRM-compliant music player could survive in the Linux world without risking being captured in the unencrypted digtal form... or is this something Linux just will never be able to do?
It's interesting to me the way the three major players have laid out their strategies for digital music...
The Apple camp exists in a silo, as usual. Music purchased at the iTunes Music Store is only playable in iTunes, and only natively transfers to an iPod family portible.
The Real camp is using their proprietary format for audio that only RealPlayer can play in software, and there's only a limited number of portables that are compatible. In fact, only one of those portables is a true music player, the rest are Palm devices because there's a compatible player for Palm.
But Microsoft's only entering into the game as a software provider. That means there's no Microsoft music store, but everybody major other than Apple and Real are using WMA as the secure format of choice, including Napster, Wal*Mart, and BuyMusic. They've also got the largest selection of compatible players.
Really, going the Microsoft route for your DRMed music collection seems like the best answer to me, because you can then shop arround for the best price on single-track buys, and often find the hot songs for 79 or 88 cents. Who says the price of legal music downloads is going up?
The biggest problem I see is that this service is subject to a perfectly legal denial of service if anybody were to flood the place with any other WiFi signal...
That's the advantage that licensed frequencies have, they'd could be jammed, but then the jammer would be transmitting without a license and in trouble. Here the DOS wouldn't quite be covered by that.
In electrical terms, imagine a processor that has left some of its circuit space with a "This space for rent!" sign posted. Instead of being a hard-wired function like normal, there's a grid of switches that cna be turned on and of in combinations in order to create define a few new processor functions.
Sure, you have to "call your shot" and define your new function before you can use it, but storing the function inside the chip rather than as code makes it a whole lot faster to use...
first, where exactly is code run, if it isn't 'on a chip', and second, what? speed up the experienced speed?
When a function is defined in code, you have to use multiple processor cycles to complete the function. However, when the funciton is "on the chip", that entire function can be completed in just one assembly-level call to the processor.
"Experienced speed" is of course a pseudo-benchmark because it can't be standardized, and its components highly specialized. It's how fast you can complete a set of particular real-world task without having advance knowledge of what the chip is going to be asked to do. It's how fast the system actually "feels" to the user...
Right now, this product isn't meant for PCs quite yet. Basically, the manufacturer instructions are to write your program in standard C, and then run it through their application which will convert the most-used C functions into a RISC instruction for the chip.
So "virtual machines" is a situation this chip hasn't had to encounter yet. I'm guessing that a PC user would have to throw the switch manually to change which "processor image" is running at any given time...
I think we're going to have to move the crypto benchmarks back a step when this tech comes out. Not very many of us have RISC chips that are optimized for MD5 or any of the other popular crypto formulas, but if the typical consumer PC had this technology, we could all effectively have an on-demand RISC for whatever we need at the moment sitting in our PCs.
In short, the time-to-crack using consumer technologies for almost any form of crypto is about to take a step backwards. It won't "break" anything, but the brute force combinations will be able to be examined in a faster time, meaning higher standards will be needed for the same level of protection you have today.
Not surprising, these breakthroughs will always keep coming...
If this doesn't rempresent the death of the megahertz as a processor-benchmark standard, I don't know what will...
Effective application speed was never based on a cycle count alone, because different processors can have better instruction sets for the given application. The main breakthrough here is that this chip leaves "user-definable" space in its instruction set so they can re-optimize the instruction set on the fly. Whatever you're running, its most commonly used functions can almost slide from being code to being "on the chip" and that's sure to speed up the experienced speed.
Yeah, I know its a/. cliche, but... imagine a cluster of these!
Taking away their favorite registrar would only cause the spammers to pick another. Besides, spammers can be just as annoying using IP addresses and no domains...
Nope, only *you* can block email to *your* server.
Those who blindly trust a blocklist will get burned eventually. Don't just trust some stranger you meet on the Internet to do your work for you... they will eventually screw up when you're not looking.
Slashdot Mirror
MP3 caught on because it was easy and legal to convert their current format of CDs to MP3s...
Come on... if you can burn it once, you can make unlimited lossless digital copies. Just use a CD-copying tool instead of your music player to do it.
For that matter... Windows Media Player has an API that would allow other applications to play back DRM'ed WMA files.
Uh, the record labels, if they so desire. But you seem to be implying that somehow WMA-format stores will be immune to this kind of price-hike, which is quite unlikely indeed.
Has any business ever been able to raise a wholesale price against Wal*Mart?
Okay... you caught me putting a three where a ten belongs. However, you also slipped.
What this means in reality is that any two tracks even from the same store might have different limitations. If you make a mix with tracks A and B, with burn limits of 1 and 5, respectively, you won't be allowed to make two copies of that mix.
Once it's on an ISO CD format, it's fair game. Just make a binary copy of that CD as many times as you want.
Maybe the solution is to give users unecrypted un drmed music, ala eMusic? The RIAA needs to face the fact that DRM is not going stop illegal downloading. Giving your customers what they want will attract people from kazaa and emule.
"What they want" is music for nothing. That isn't gonna happen. There's no way you'll get people off of kazaa and emule as long as they still are allowed to operate, which is why the effort is to shut them down.
Or, you know, playable in any standard CD audio device. Of which there are a hell of a lot more of than digital music players of any description. This alone is going to keep Apple on top for a long, long time. As I don't see Microsoft opening up a "hole" like that in their iron Digital Rights Infringement scheme.
Apple's PlayFair files only allow burning under limited circumstances, particularly that the same mix of songs can only be burned three times.
Microsoft's WMA format allows the DRM applier to set whether they want to allow 1 burn, 5 burns, any other number of burns, or infinite burning. Again, Microsoft's just the software provider, it's up to the store to make the deals for these things....
and The most interesting quote NOT in the article is from Steve Jobs stressing that he can't possibly make money if the record industry jacks the prices to $2.50/song and bundles crappy songs with good songs, and is quietly scheming to force the music stores to do.
The thing is, Apple's not the only front. The RIAA would also have to convince Napster 2.0, BuyMusic, and Wal*Mart to do the same...
Wa-wa-wa-Wal*Mart? We're talking about one of the biggest physical CD retailers in the nation. Wal*Mart's well-known for their tendancy to squeeze suppliers and drop ones who don't bend to their demands. So, this could get very interesting if they decide to throw their weight around.
Your own question: Why not a neutral file format that all can use and enjoy - not locked into anything?
Your own answer: How do you think all those mp3s end up on Kazzaa?
The dumb-user's urge to file share things that under copyright is why the content industry doesn't want to release things in open formats anymore.
I wouldn't mind the price of online songs going down but lets hope that the artist's cut goes up. http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
Downhill Battle is an absolutely clueless group. Artists who want to directly get themselves into iTunes without any RIAA hand in the till can do so, but they also have to trade off not getting RIAA label promotional help.
They really should be trying to get indie artists into the other DRMed music universes... or is their real agenda trying to get DRM music to fail as a whole?
Looking at the comparison table, it isn't fair to list Rhapsody in there, with Rhapsody being a streaming service and almost every other player in there is a download service. Interesting to note that , RealPlayer music store is listed in there too and has a pretty good download number for something that opened just one-two months back.
Napster, by that logic, is double-dipping because they offer both a 99-cent download-and-keep service, and a $9.99 a month stream-but-don't-keep service.
You're right, the chart is not exactly apples-to-apples comparing... Rhapsody and Napster are offering a different service model altogether compared to the other stores, even though their owners are also keeping their toes in the store model just in case.
I wouldn't mind having compatible formats either, I just don't want the RIAA having absolutely any say in it whatsoever, because they don't exactly have the best track record of making decisions which are beneficial to customers.
The RIAA is going to have to be involved in any DRM system that wants to catch on, because simply put, they control most of the recognizable music in the world. Even if new indie labels start to catch on, that still won't account for the massive back catelog.
Useful to some, for sure, but useless for those among us who are trying to find ways of acquiring musical samples to "try out" various musical bands.
That is called "radio". It is any medium in which you don't get direct control over what song plays next, and therefore can be exposed to music you haven't heard of yet.
That's why that format of pushed-content pays less per song than any format that lets the user directly edit the playlist.
Real, issuer of the weakest format of the three DRM systems, has already waived the white flag and was looking for a compatiblity truce with Apple. Apple wasn't buying though...
Maybe Real should join the rest of the non-Apple world over in the WMA camp.
None of the RIAA-approved DRM systems right now plays ball on Linux, period. I know most people who drink the GNU/Kool-Aid absolutely hate DRM because all content should be free, but that just ain't happening any time soon...
So, while Linux tries to capture the desktop environment, this is one piece of technology that is popular on the Windows and even Macintosh platforms, but just simply isn't on Linux. Open Source projects just aren't going to fit the bill here, somebody needs to convince the DRM people that they'll be safe in writing decoders for Linux.
Is there any way that a DRM-compliant music player could survive in the Linux world without risking being captured in the unencrypted digtal form... or is this something Linux just will never be able to do?
It's interesting to me the way the three major players have laid out their strategies for digital music...
The Apple camp exists in a silo, as usual. Music purchased at the iTunes Music Store is only playable in iTunes, and only natively transfers to an iPod family portible.
The Real camp is using their proprietary format for audio that only RealPlayer can play in software, and there's only a limited number of portables that are compatible. In fact, only one of those portables is a true music player, the rest are Palm devices because there's a compatible player for Palm.
But Microsoft's only entering into the game as a software provider. That means there's no Microsoft music store, but everybody major other than Apple and Real are using WMA as the secure format of choice, including Napster, Wal*Mart, and BuyMusic. They've also got the largest selection of compatible players.
Really, going the Microsoft route for your DRMed music collection seems like the best answer to me, because you can then shop arround for the best price on single-track buys, and often find the hot songs for 79 or 88 cents. Who says the price of legal music downloads is going up?
The biggest problem I see is that this service is subject to a perfectly legal denial of service if anybody were to flood the place with any other WiFi signal...
That's the advantage that licensed frequencies have, they'd could be jammed, but then the jammer would be transmitting without a license and in trouble. Here the DOS wouldn't quite be covered by that.
You're better off selecting one or two specific areas and focusing on getting experience within it.
Can't get a job without experience, can't get any experience without a job...
In electrical terms, imagine a processor that has left some of its circuit space with a "This space for rent!" sign posted. Instead of being a hard-wired function like normal, there's a grid of switches that cna be turned on and of in combinations in order to create define a few new processor functions.
Sure, you have to "call your shot" and define your new function before you can use it, but storing the function inside the chip rather than as code makes it a whole lot faster to use...
first, where exactly is code run, if it isn't 'on a chip', and second, what? speed up the experienced speed?
When a function is defined in code, you have to use multiple processor cycles to complete the function. However, when the funciton is "on the chip", that entire function can be completed in just one assembly-level call to the processor.
"Experienced speed" is of course a pseudo-benchmark because it can't be standardized, and its components highly specialized. It's how fast you can complete a set of particular real-world task without having advance knowledge of what the chip is going to be asked to do. It's how fast the system actually "feels" to the user...
Right now, this product isn't meant for PCs quite yet. Basically, the manufacturer instructions are to write your program in standard C, and then run it through their application which will convert the most-used C functions into a RISC instruction for the chip.
So "virtual machines" is a situation this chip hasn't had to encounter yet. I'm guessing that a PC user would have to throw the switch manually to change which "processor image" is running at any given time...
I think we're going to have to move the crypto benchmarks back a step when this tech comes out. Not very many of us have RISC chips that are optimized for MD5 or any of the other popular crypto formulas, but if the typical consumer PC had this technology, we could all effectively have an on-demand RISC for whatever we need at the moment sitting in our PCs.
In short, the time-to-crack using consumer technologies for almost any form of crypto is about to take a step backwards. It won't "break" anything, but the brute force combinations will be able to be examined in a faster time, meaning higher standards will be needed for the same level of protection you have today.
Not surprising, these breakthroughs will always keep coming...
If this doesn't rempresent the death of the megahertz as a processor-benchmark standard, I don't know what will...
/. cliche, but... imagine a cluster of these!
Effective application speed was never based on a cycle count alone, because different processors can have better instruction sets for the given application. The main breakthrough here is that this chip leaves "user-definable" space in its instruction set so they can re-optimize the instruction set on the fly. Whatever you're running, its most commonly used functions can almost slide from being code to being "on the chip" and that's sure to speed up the experienced speed.
Yeah, I know its a
Taking away their favorite registrar would only cause the spammers to pick another. Besides, spammers can be just as annoying using IP addresses and no domains...
Nope, only *you* can block email to *your* server.
Those who blindly trust a blocklist will get burned eventually. Don't just trust some stranger you meet on the Internet to do your work for you... they will eventually screw up when you're not looking.