Honestly, I think DRM *IS* an infection from the very start.
Ok, so we have systems that work. They do what the user wants. Its a pretty healthy system overall. [...]
First of all I really don't see any marketing about "DRM: you want it" (or anything along those lines).
Second, we have systems that work too well. Any moron can buy something, rip it, then give it to everyone else. You might be against DRM (that's your right) but you also have to acknowledge the fact that not everyone respects the rights of others, copyrights, licenses, etc. That DRM is in place to block the illegal/immoral 1% of users. It's been that way in society for a long time. We have 99% of the population limited by laws that are in place because without those laws that 1% would screw everyone at every chance they get without any remorse.
Without DRM, there wouldn't be as much music available in online stores, if there was any online store at all (or at least not in the scale of the iTMS). Joe Street doesn't care about eMusic or whatever, he wants the tune he heard on the radio. RIAA labels have decided that they want DRM to sell their music online. You don't like it, don't buy it.
I don't see any DRM on the music at eMusic, overclock remix, etc. Stop acting like there's DRM everywhere and the world is coming to an end. Never-ending copyrights are doing a lot more damage than DRM ever will.
I agree that "contaminated" is more descriptive than "infected". I got a few tunes bought from the iTMS and so far they haven't "infected" my other files (CD rips, overclock remix files, etc).
I'm sorry but I don't want to handle media anymore. Today, I just rip my music CDs and use files from a huge library.
So forget the whole "which standard am I going to buy" nightmare and the costly playback unit that goes along with that decision.
Get your Mac mini and "iTV" right here. It gives you a really good operating system and amazing H.264/AAC streaming to your living room. It's an iPod for your TV.
Wow, they finally figured out how to put pictures in intertube news?
For those who don't get it, check the last few dozen linked articles... 90% of them are pure text (sometimes spread over a few pages to increase ad revenues).
I don't think Win98SE keeps the compressed JPEG data in memory to use it as a wallpaper. Then again I also don't know how much memory active desktop use because I've never used it.
I do agree that BMPs are a good way to waste storage though, but it's the only way to use a wallpaper in Win98SE without active desktop.
Actually, since I'm using Win98SE on my old Thinkpad 760XL (P166-MMX, 64MB RAM, 10GB) I've hit that limitation a few times. However, you can open the JPEG in Internet Explorer and then "Save as..." a BMP. Not that I use MSIE for anything else, though.
"Share" as in with my own family members, when fully accounted for, is over 10 systems and 4 iPods. Why should I have to buy that song more than once for use with my family? This is a new "feature" added solely through DRM, and benefits no consumer in any way.
If there's more than 5 computers in your household, then yes the DRM is a limit to you. But the number of iPods that can by synced are not limited. As for the "not iPods" scenario, then simply don't buy from the iTMS.
Since you need iTunes to purchase music from the iTunes Music Store and that iTunes is only available for Windows XP/2000 and OS X, they don't need such a notice. At the very least, the notice must say "requires iTunes for playback" or something.
Agh, now it looks like you mixed "shouldn't have to" with "different technologies." Knowing more than just a little bit about game development and OS programming, I know very well why games on one platform won't work out of the box on another platform (although it speaks well of the game developers that they make releases for other platforms).
I was only trying to make a comparison between the two. Of course audio files shouldn't be tied to a particular platform since they don't contain code, however with CODECs and DRM it's almost the same as with games.
If someone could find me a link on the Apple website stating that content bought from iTMS can only be played on Windows and OS X, I would like to see it.
I don't have a link, but I didn't have any problem just copying the music from my Win XP machine to my Mac mini when I switched more than a year ago. The list of authorized computers is five, but it doesn't matter if they're OS X or Windows (or a mix of both).
The license allows you to authorize five computers at once, your media isn't locked to a particular machine/OS install. Of course, you can't reset that list more than once a year, but that should be enough for normal usage.
Aren't you jumping the gun a little? The way I see it, he didn't put any FUD about Apple - unless you can buy songs at a higher bitrate than 128kbps.
Isn't it convenient that you quoted a different part of the parent's post? I quoted the part that was FUD and explained why I thought it was FUD.
You just quoted a different part that had nothing to do with my post. Of course the iTMS sells songs in AAC@128kbps, I never said that was the FUD part.
Gotta love the way some of you make up stuff.
And that was for low-to-medium bitrates, AFAIR. High bitrate encodings are pretty much on par across the established codecs. So depending on your favorite software and the trade-offs you're willing to live with, you can choose any of them. Who is spreading FUD now?
Except that we're talking about online stores here, where 128kbps seems to be the norm. And if you want to go with the "most people don't encode at 128kbps" arguments, fire up your favorite P2P client. Most of the stuff is at 128kbps there too.
I wish there was some way to get this across to all the sheeple out there sucking down poor quality music from iTMS and doing nothing but fattening the wallets of Apple and various RIAA-backed music labels. Why people are willing to pay the same for an inferior product is beyond me.
If I go buy the CD, I'll rip to AAC@128kbps. My end result will be the same (if we take for granted that the labels/Apple use the same encoding software).
As far as price goes, you're right only if you're talking about buying full albums. The iTMS is great for picking a few tracks from a CD instead of buying the whole thing. The choice ends up being between "pay 10-15$ for one track" and "pay 0.99$ for one track" (and "download said track illegally and hope it won't sound like shit and will be properly tagged").
No, burning songs to a CD isn't a huge problem. But I shouldn't have to.
You're mixing "shouldn't have to" and "different technologies". I "shouldn't have to copy my music from a CD to a tape"... but my car only has a tape deck and no CD player. In your case, you either have to burn to CD to stay compatible with the CD player in your car, or buy an iPod and bring it in your car.
You're forgetting one thing: What if I, Joe User, want to put my iTunes purchased tracks on my shiny new Zune?
That's almost the same as if I was complaining that a Windows game won't work on my Mac. I can't do it.
If you look at Starcraft on Windows or OS X (or even OS 9) you won't see any difference in the gameplay. The end result is the same. However, the code underneath is quite different. The same happens with DRM'ed songs purchased online. The end result may be the same (if we forget the differences with the lossy CODECs) but the CODEC and DRM are both different.
The DRM causes other issues, like no sharing, no moving to car on a throw-away CD, no taking a throw-away copy with you on vacation, etc.
If you mean sharing as in "giving illegal copies to your friends or send on a P2P network", then yes, DRM blocks that (it was added exactly for that, in fact).
If you mean sharing with other computers at home, you simply forgot to authorize the other computers (up to 5, with iTunes).
As for moving to throw-away CDs, you can burn your purchased tracks to a regular audio CD.
Aside from illegal uses, I don't see what your problem is, unless you just don't want DRM.
Except that if you allow a higher bitrate for WMA, you either are losing storage space to get the same quality, or you could get an even higher quality for the same higher bitrate.
See how the iPod nano can hold up to 2000 songs? See the (1) note next to the "up to 2,000 songs in your pocket." text?
If you go VBR (or quality-based) you won't know the size of the resulting files. Apple wouldn't be able to market their players based on the number of songs you can store on a given model/capacity of iPod. And since the competition is using that marketing "bullet point" to sell their own players, Apple has to do it too. Especially since other players use WMA@64kbps or ATRAC3@64kbps (or even lower).
I guess it's the whole "VHS vs BETA" argument all over again. The good news, however, is that you're not limited in the CODEC (AAC/MP3/Apple Lossless) nor the bitrate (and even sampling rate) if you rip your CDs yourself.
[...] I usually use 240-355 VBR WMA encoding for personal use.
Personally I've only purchased one album from iTunes (unfortunatly I can no longer play it because I've changed computers too many times) and while their encoding method is fine for listening through earbuds, it shows noticable degredation vs. PCM on my 7.1 home theater setup. But it has nothing to do with watermarking DRM and it definately has nothing to do with quantum theory and schrodinger's cat, it is all about the bitrate and the encoding software. And Apple uses a substandard encoder set to a bitrate that is almost pallatable to AOL dial-up customers.
Oh great, another Microsoft fan spreading FUD about Apple.
First of all, WMA has been shown to be the worst (or second worst) CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done.
Second, you can reset the list of computers that are allowed to play your purchased songs. In iTunes, go to the music store and click on your account button. If you have 5 authorized computers in your list, you should have a button next to "computer authorizations" which you can use to reset the list. You can use that feature once or twice a year AFAIK. You then simply re-authorize the current computers that you want to use. You don't need the old computers to de-authorize them.
Third, AAC was developped by Dolby and was shown to be the best or second best CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done. As for the bitrate, AAC is more efficient with 128kbps than MP3 or WMA.
As I said, my 17 years experience tells me there's an audio difference[...]
Your 17 years of experience are indeed in the audio field, because it's quite evident that you don't know the difference between DRM/encryption and lossy CODECs.
Or maybe you're just confused about the differences between analog/digital audio and digital lossy audio. We all know that digital audio is an approximation of analog audio, you don't need to explain such a topic on slashdot. That's at least 20 years old news to most of the people here.
From best to worst: analog audio (tape, vinyl, etc) ---> digital audio (WAV/AIFF/etc) ---> lossy digital audio (MP3/AAC/etc). You can insert DRM/encryption in either or both of the digital steps, it won't change the data nor the resulting decoded audio.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all I really don't see any marketing about "DRM: you want it" (or anything along those lines).
Second, we have systems that work too well. Any moron can buy something, rip it, then give it to everyone else. You might be against DRM (that's your right) but you also have to acknowledge the fact that not everyone respects the rights of others, copyrights, licenses, etc. That DRM is in place to block the illegal/immoral 1% of users. It's been that way in society for a long time. We have 99% of the population limited by laws that are in place because without those laws that 1% would screw everyone at every chance they get without any remorse.
Without DRM, there wouldn't be as much music available in online stores, if there was any online store at all (or at least not in the scale of the iTMS). Joe Street doesn't care about eMusic or whatever, he wants the tune he heard on the radio. RIAA labels have decided that they want DRM to sell their music online. You don't like it, don't buy it.
I don't see any DRM on the music at eMusic, overclock remix, etc. Stop acting like there's DRM everywhere and the world is coming to an end. Never-ending copyrights are doing a lot more damage than DRM ever will.
I agree that "contaminated" is more descriptive than "infected". I got a few tunes bought from the iTMS and so far they haven't "infected" my other files (CD rips, overclock remix files, etc).
You mean it adds DRM to files I already have? Files not bought through their online store?!
I know most of you don't like DRM, but it's not infecting files. It's not a virus/trojan/whatever.
It's a lock. A digital lock. Call it Digital Restrictions Management if you must (since it stills describe what it does), but not infection.
The general public already has their hands full trying to understand all this technological mumbo-jumbo. Let's not spread more FUD.
I'm sorry but I don't want to handle media anymore. Today, I just rip my music CDs and use files from a huge library.
So forget the whole "which standard am I going to buy" nightmare and the costly playback unit that goes along with that decision.
Get your Mac mini and "iTV" right here. It gives you a really good operating system and amazing H.264/AAC streaming to your living room. It's an iPod for your TV.
Nope, I'm talking about full paragraphs (basically, all the text on the page) having a mouse-over underline but without any link to the text itself.
... and what's with websites that have underline text for mouse-overs on regular text?!?
For those who don't get it, check the last few dozen linked articles... 90% of them are pure text (sometimes spread over a few pages to increase ad revenues).
I don't think Win98SE keeps the compressed JPEG data in memory to use it as a wallpaper. Then again I also don't know how much memory active desktop use because I've never used it.
I do agree that BMPs are a good way to waste storage though, but it's the only way to use a wallpaper in Win98SE without active desktop.
Except that in the eyes of many (me included) it totals up to four different operating systems:
;-)
- OS X
- Windows
- Linux/KDE
- Linux/Gnome
BSD? Nah, it's dead.
Actually, since I'm using Win98SE on my old Thinkpad 760XL (P166-MMX, 64MB RAM, 10GB) I've hit that limitation a few times. However, you can open the JPEG in Internet Explorer and then "Save as..." a BMP. Not that I use MSIE for anything else, though.
Since you need iTunes to purchase music from the iTunes Music Store and that iTunes is only available for Windows XP/2000 and OS X, they don't need such a notice. At the very least, the notice must say "requires iTunes for playback" or something.
The license allows you to authorize five computers at once, your media isn't locked to a particular machine/OS install. Of course, you can't reset that list more than once a year, but that should be enough for normal usage.
You just quoted a different part that had nothing to do with my post. Of course the iTMS sells songs in AAC@128kbps, I never said that was the FUD part.
Gotta love the way some of you make up stuff.
Except that we're talking about online stores here, where 128kbps seems to be the norm. And if you want to go with the "most people don't encode at 128kbps" arguments, fire up your favorite P2P client. Most of the stuff is at 128kbps there too.
As far as price goes, you're right only if you're talking about buying full albums. The iTMS is great for picking a few tracks from a CD instead of buying the whole thing. The choice ends up being between "pay 10-15$ for one track" and "pay 0.99$ for one track" (and "download said track illegally and hope it won't sound like shit and will be properly tagged").
That's almost the same as if I was complaining that a Windows game won't work on my Mac. I can't do it.
If you look at Starcraft on Windows or OS X (or even OS 9) you won't see any difference in the gameplay. The end result is the same. However, the code underneath is quite different. The same happens with DRM'ed songs purchased online. The end result may be the same (if we forget the differences with the lossy CODECs) but the CODEC and DRM are both different.
If you mean sharing with other computers at home, you simply forgot to authorize the other computers (up to 5, with iTunes).
As for moving to throw-away CDs, you can burn your purchased tracks to a regular audio CD.
Aside from illegal uses, I don't see what your problem is, unless you just don't want DRM.
Except that if you allow a higher bitrate for WMA, you either are losing storage space to get the same quality, or you could get an even higher quality for the same higher bitrate.
In both cases, WMA loses.
See how the iPod nano can hold up to 2000 songs? See the (1) note next to the "up to 2,000 songs in your pocket." text?
If you go VBR (or quality-based) you won't know the size of the resulting files. Apple wouldn't be able to market their players based on the number of songs you can store on a given model/capacity of iPod. And since the competition is using that marketing "bullet point" to sell their own players, Apple has to do it too. Especially since other players use WMA@64kbps or ATRAC3@64kbps (or even lower).
I guess it's the whole "VHS vs BETA" argument all over again. The good news, however, is that you're not limited in the CODEC (AAC/MP3/Apple Lossless) nor the bitrate (and even sampling rate) if you rip your CDs yourself.
First of all, WMA has been shown to be the worst (or second worst) CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done.
Second, you can reset the list of computers that are allowed to play your purchased songs. In iTunes, go to the music store and click on your account button. If you have 5 authorized computers in your list, you should have a button next to "computer authorizations" which you can use to reset the list. You can use that feature once or twice a year AFAIK. You then simply re-authorize the current computers that you want to use. You don't need the old computers to de-authorize them.
Third, AAC was developped by Dolby and was shown to be the best or second best CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done. As for the bitrate, AAC is more efficient with 128kbps than MP3 or WMA.
Or maybe you're just confused about the differences between analog/digital audio and digital lossy audio. We all know that digital audio is an approximation of analog audio, you don't need to explain such a topic on slashdot. That's at least 20 years old news to most of the people here.
From best to worst: analog audio (tape, vinyl, etc) ---> digital audio (WAV/AIFF/etc) ---> lossy digital audio (MP3/AAC/etc). You can insert DRM/encryption in either or both of the digital steps, it won't change the data nor the resulting decoded audio.