or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rumor: Apple's iTunes going DRM-free starting Tuesday
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple's iTunes going DRM-free starting Tuesday - Page 2

post #41 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I think it will be awhile yet before we see DRM-free movies (or even TV shows). It's different for music since it's already widely and leagally available in a non-DRM format (CD). All commercial video going back to VHS (Macrovision) has been copy protected. Sure, it's easily broken copy protection; but it's been there for quite sometime none-the-less. Besides, while Apple has a strong position in audio players with the iPod, if they ever want to leverage iTunes for AppleTV sales they will need that "lock-in" with video.

I could maybe see DRM-free standard definition TV shows, but if DRM is dropped on anything else, Apple won't be the one pushing for it. Remember, Steve's anti-DRM letter only addressed music, not video, and specifically pointed out CD sales as why DRM on downloaded music is pointless.

That's what I meant in terms of DRM-free TV shows (i.e. the standard-def variety). Yes, DRM has been around awhile, but VHS did NOT have Macrovision until DVD came along. Basically, if you wanted, say, an older flick (for sake of example Raiders of the Lost Ark) in a DRM-free format, it's out there in VHS format (if you're willing to scrounge)! I'm NOT saying that the newer movies should have no DRM, it's the older flicks, the ones available in VHS (Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life, The King & I, Sound of Music, Oklahoma, et al) that I'm talking about here!

BJ
post #42 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJWanlund View Post

That's what I meant in terms of DRM-free TV shows (i.e. the standard-def variety). Yes, DRM has been around awhile, but VHS did NOT have Macrovision until DVD came along. Basically, if you wanted, say, an older flick (for sake of example Raiders of the Lost Ark) in a DRM-free format, it's out there in VHS format (if you're willing to scrounge)!

The Raiders tape was probably mastered quite a long time ago, I see a page saying its original release was in '87. Macrovision started popping up on tapes in the '90s, before DVD came along. I have a tape made in '95 that I know has it, a couple years before DVDs were available for sale.
post #43 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

At same bitrate, many audio codecs have been shown to be quite comparable here:

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/results.htm

That is interesting, but I'd like to see it at 256kbps as some codecs are better suited for higher or lower bitrates.

Here is an interesting test. It surprises me that some people couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 256kbps with Shures.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itu...bit?page=0%2C2
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #44 of 110
Looks like something's changed already. The Velvet Underground's album Loaded, which I bought encoded in FairPlay, is now in my Upgrade My Library section. It was produced by Atlantic Records, which is owned by Warner Music Group. Up until now, only Elliott Smith's New Moon has been in this area, which was recorded by an indie label anyway.

I've recently bought quite a few FairPlay encoded albums and they aren't showing up yet, but I've seen how searching for some FairPlay artists show up as iTunes Plus in the results and then those little icons disappear when on the album's page. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #45 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJWanlund View Post

That's what I meant in terms of DRM-free TV shows (i.e. the standard-def variety). Yes, DRM has been around awhile, but VHS did NOT have Macrovision until DVD came along. Basically, if you wanted, say, an older flick (for sake of example Raiders of the Lost Ark) in a DRM-free format, it's out there in VHS format (if you're willing to scrounge)! I'm NOT saying that the newer movies should have no DRM, it's the older flicks, the ones available in VHS (Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life, The King & I, Sound of Music, Oklahoma, et al) that I'm talking about here!

BJ

Just to nit-pick many, if not most, Hollywood releases on VHS has Macrovision by the late 80's, about a decade before DVDs came along.
post #46 of 110
I would hope, if true, that they would offer some kind of (hopefully free) upgrade for existing DRM tracks to DRM-free. The only downside of any kind I can think of is that it will be much easier to transfer your ITMS songs to non-Apple software, music players, and mobile devices, not that many would be interested. Its win for the consumer.
post #47 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Then why are they still selling CDs? Any encryption on a download is irrelevant if someone can just buy the CD and redistribute its contents.

Most musicians grew up on CDs, or LPs, and still see that as their medium. Besides the ability to assemble a specific sequence of songs, CDs provide opportunities for cover art, lyrics, etc. Musicians see this whole package as part of their creative work. The fact that musicians still produce CDs doesn't mean they don't think copying is a problem -- they just don't have a good alternative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

DRM isn't the answer.

Maybe not. But digital distribution without DRM basically comes down to the honor system, and with so many consumers misunderstanding or disregarding intellectual property rights, it's hard to see unrestricted distribution as the answer, either.

Personally, I think a DRM-free iTunes can work because many consumers will pay for music when the convenience and quality of the service is so high. I just got drawn into this by defending another user's post. As a musician myself, I just can't stand the attitude of most consumers -- that all music ought to be available for their unrestricted use, and that musicians should just deal with whatever economic consequences that creates.
post #48 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJWanlund View Post

...but VHS did NOT have Macrovision until DVD came along.

THE COTTON CLUB was released in 1984 with Macrovision.

The first DVD player came out in 1996.

Have you tried macrumors.com? They'll let you post whatever bullshit you want, and they'll even give you an avatar!
post #49 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think I've figured out a possible connection - some people had the belief that only pirates only wanted DRM free, and DRM free would mean a free-for-all for piracy. Not only is it a false belief, even the wacky recording industry seems to have abandoned that belief when they all went DRM-free with Amazon MP3. Maybe some people still haven't stopped clutching those beliefs.

At the same time, few people actually care about DRM.

The evidence for that is the tremendous sales of the iTunes store for music, video, etc, and the sales of DVD's and such.

While fighting DRM is a very LOUD issue for some, it's more of a marketing tool than anything else.

While Amazon is doing ok with their music store, iTunes sales during that same time have risen even more.

For most people, DRM is a non issue, as long as it isn't difficult to use.
post #50 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post

I don't think macologist was saying that the public should pay for musicians' art. I think he was saying that if it's distributed in a format that allows unauthorized replication, it becomes harder to support the continued creation of that art. Since your work fixing computers can't be copied and redistributed beyond your control, there's really no comparison.

You see, there's a lot of contention around this issue. Pirates claim that they don't pay because the record companies rip the artists off, and therefor they don't want to give those scum any money.

Of course, that just talk for saying that they will find any excuse, no matter how stupid, to avoid paying for something.

Pirates won't pay. Period. DRM has nothing to do with it.

Those who steal music for reason of the DRM are doing it for the same reason.
post #51 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

While 256kbps AAC is better than 256kbps MP3, is it better enough to to be worthy of purchasing it over MP3 at an inflated price?. The results seem to be similar to Monster Cables technically being better than much cheaper cables, but not affecting the result in any noticeable way.

Both of those statements could be easily challenged.

The question is how much better are they, and what kind of system do you need to hear the difference?

The kind of music you listen to makes a difference as does the kind of listener you are.

It's not so simple.
post #52 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is interesting, but I'd like to see it at 256kbps as some codecs are better suited for higher or lower bitrates.

Here is an interesting test. It surprises me that some people couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 256kbps with Shures.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itu...bit?page=0%2C2

Safari wouldn't open the page, and I'm too lazy right now to use FireFox.
post #53 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post

Most musicians grew up on CDs, or LPs, and still see that as their medium. Besides the ability to assemble a specific sequence of songs, CDs provide opportunities for cover art, lyrics, etc. Musicians see this whole package as part of their creative work. The fact that musicians still produce CDs doesn't mean they don't think copying is a problem -- they just don't have a good alternative.

But until CD came along, the single was a very important part of music sales.

CD singles didn't make it, although the industry tried. They had to charge too much for it, so it died.

This entire concept about not wanting to sell singles came from the period of the CD. It didn't exist for the decades before the CD, and so I see no problem with it dying again.

As far as cover, and internal, art goes, there's no reason why it can't be offered, along with the lyrics. And remember that when the CD came out, people were up in arms about the small cases that didn't allow the expanse of art that Lp's did.
post #54 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Safari wouldn't open the page, and I'm too lazy right now to use FireFox.

The whole site is down now.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #55 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJWanlund View Post

That's what I meant in terms of DRM-free TV shows (i.e. the standard-def variety). Yes, DRM has been around awhile, but VHS did NOT have Macrovision until DVD came along. Basically, if you wanted, say, an older flick (for sake of example Raiders of the Lost Ark) in a DRM-free format, it's out there in VHS format (if you're willing to scrounge)! I'm NOT saying that the newer movies should have no DRM, it's the older flicks, the ones available in VHS (Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life, The King & I, Sound of Music, Oklahoma, et al) that I'm talking about here!

BJ

Well actually any movie before 1998 (or so) can be had without copy protection in the form of a laser disc. But like VHS, a laser disc is analog (at least the video portion on the disc). This means that if you want to make a copy, it will take real time. And you must do it from the analog outputs. The copies will be inferior to the original.

DVD's (and movies sold on line) on the other hand can be copied in less than 15 minutes if there were no DRM or once the DRM is removed. And with the right software, the copies will be exactly like the original.

Music CD's on the other hand is already a digital format. And a better quailty than MP3's. You can make a better copy off a CD (and a vinyl album for that matter) than you can buy in an MP3 format. So it makes no sense to put DRM in MP3's sold on line. But DRM for movies on DVD's and sold online still makes sense.

On a side note- The digital audio track of a laser disc may have some form of DRM. I copied my laser disc copy of "The Wizard of Oz" (1989, 50th anniversery copy) into iMove by first putting on VSH tape and then using an analog to digital converter (with firewire) to input into iMovie. The video portion came out fine but the audio was garbled in iMovie. But both video and audio was fine on the tape. So iMovie software detected some kind of DRM in the digital audio track (even though it's on VSH tape) and prevented me from making another digital copy of it. I didn't explore this any further as all I needed was the video portion anyways. I was making a "Dark Side Of Oz" video by dubbing in my Pink Floyd CD.
post #56 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

And I could stop buying from Amazon. Oh, wait...Apple's prices will still be more than Amazon's and nearly as much as buying the CD (if not more). I could wait for those famous iTunes sales...oops, Apple doesn't do that (okay, iTunes says that Britney Spears albums are on sale this week but weirdly iTunes sale prices are Amazon's regular price).

Never mind, regardless of what happens, it seems I can just go back to ignoring the iTunes Store.

You realize that your Amazon CD prices are in low quality MP3 format. Right?

Just making sure.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #57 of 110
When at last will we in Europe be able to buy videos from the iTunes shop?! Get moving, Apple!
post #58 of 110
10:15 AM in Belgium and the store is still filled with DRMed tracks.
post #59 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

You realize that your Amazon CD prices are in low quality MP3 format. Right?

Just making sure.

You do realise that Amazon CD's are just that, CD's, like audio cd's, maybe you are thinking of Amazon mp3's?
post #60 of 110
First the Amazon DRM store comes to the UK and now this. Christmas has come early.

Hopefully TV/films will eventually go DRM free too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is interesting, but I'd like to see it at 256kbps as some codecs are better suited for higher or lower bitrates.

Not really. A higher bitrate means less compression. Thus, the compression algorithm used is less important at high bitrates.

At low bitrates, the difference between MP3, AAC, WMA, ATRAC, etc. can be very noticeable. However, once you start getting up to 256kbps and above, the difference is so negligible that you'd never be able to tell the difference in a double blind test - not even on high-end audio gear.
post #61 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Well that's true if:

- You can actually find anything on Amazon amid the advertisements and junk

Sorry, but it takes me no longer to find anything on Amazon than it does in iTunes. Which is pretty spectacular considering the amount of stuff Amazon offers in comparison to the iTunes Store. Maybe if I was looking for some obscure offering it might be harder, but Amazon's search and autocomplete work really well to make it a painless experience. If you have problems with Amazon's search functions, maybe you should take a basic computer skills class at a tech school.

Quote:
- You don't mind the lower quality of Amazons digital offerings

A couple of cents more per track for a higher quality download and a nicer more organised experience seems like a good deal to me. The kind of folks that will pay a bit more for a computer (Mac folks) because it's designed better and of better quality, will always appreciate the same features in a music store IMO.

I don't find iTunes' organization much better than Amazon's, especially after the additions of movies, tv shows, and applications. It's a messy a home page as Amazon's. Worse, the search feature seems a bit wonky and requires even more clicks than Amazon to get to what you want at times. Usually Amazon's result lists brings me back the item I'm looking for at or very near the top of the list. Type in an artist's name on iTunes and you'll end up with a list of TV shows or movies they may have appeared in, podcasts that mention the artist in the description and also a short list of a few albums by that artist. In contrast, type in an artist in Amazon, and you'll get back a list of their albums first and foremost and then somewhere down the page (or a subsequent page) you might get to the random junk.

The quality difference is debatable. While AAC may be technically better than mp3, Amazon has a higher bitrate than even iTunes DRM-free stuff. So quality-wise, they're pretty much a wash (feel free to argue about it, but most people can't tell the difference between a 128kbps and a CD...I think I can but I might be imagining it). It's a small thing, but I also appreciate that Amazon's stuff has the artwork embedded in the album as opposed to iTunes' method of adding it the iTunes database; it makes it much nicer when I copy the album to my PS3 as I don't have to go find and download it.

I buy 99% of my music in CD format (from various sources not just Amazon) and about 80% of the time buying the CD costs less than it would from iTunes (I'm probably averaging less than $8 a CD). As for downloads, I check Amazon everyday to see what mp3 album is on sale that day. For 99 cents to $2.99, you can't beat that price. I also occasionally pick up other random mp3's like CD singles that are really hard to find and generally not very cost effective to order from Amazon.
post #62 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Well that's true if:

- You can actually find anything on Amazon amid the advertisements and junk
- You don't mind the lower quality of Amazons digital offerings

A couple of cents more per track for a higher quality download and a nicer more organised experience seems like a good deal to me. The kind of folks that will pay a bit more for a computer (Mac folks) because it's designed better and of better quality, will always appreciate the same features in a music store IMO.

This whole post is BS. It's not hard to find anything on Amazon, and are you serious about the 'ads', iTunes has a more cluttered store front than Amazon, imo. Nevermind the fact you don't seem to know what quality of rip each offers. It's not always a couple cents a track, in most cases it's $2 an album. On avg 25 cents a song cheaper on Amazon, thats for a better quality rip with no DRM also.

They both have +/-'s but the comments you made are false.
post #63 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

I've been very limited in my iTunes purchases due to DRM restrictions.
What little I've purchased is mainly iTunes plus.
If this happens, I can finally through caution to the wind.

I think 'throw' was the word you were looking for.

DRM has never been an issue for me. If I need the DRM removing I burn and re-rip the tracks. I even have a cdrw for that purpose so i don't go wasting cd's.

Apple will, at some point, have to go DRM free as they a quickly becoming the only company who sells songs which are DRM protected.
post #64 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

You realize that your Amazon CD prices are in low quality MP3 format. Right?

Just making sure.

Low quality compared to what?
post #65 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

I think 'throw' was the word you were looking for.

DRM has never been an issue for me. If I need the DRM removing I burn and re-rip the tracks. I even have a cdrw for that purpose so i don't go wasting cd's.


Don't you lose quality doing that?
post #66 of 110
I think it's absolutely overdue they sell DRM free music.

But as storage costs (and bandwith costs for net providers) decrease year by year and as music downloads more and more become a substitute für CDs...it's time to get the same CD quality as downloaded music costs the same as on CDs:

So when can I finally download music as an Apple lossless file? I'd rather pay a premium to get music which I can archive and enjoy on my home stereo.

Would be perfect to be able to choose the wished format when shopping in the iTunes store. This is would the russians from "allofmp3.com" did years ago. You chose the bitrate and file format and then paid for what you choose. 128 Bit was cheaper than 256 etc. - freedom of choice!
post #67 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post

Don't you lose quality doing that?

That depends on how you are defining lose. If you take an AAC track, uncompress it thus remove the DRM, and then re-encode it back to MP3 their will be a decrease in data, but if the bitrate is comparable it probably won't be noticeable. If you re-encode, for example, at ≥160kbps MP3 or ≥128kbps AAC then the chances of noticing any difference looks to be about nil. re-encoding back as Apple Lossless you'll maintain the same quality that you originally had.

I've read speculation that the AAC encoder used by Apple at the back-end may not be the same as the encoder engine used by the iTunes application, but I doubt that any variance there would be enough to noticeably weaken a track if you use the same codec and bitrate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauner View Post

So when can I finally download music as an Apple lossless file? I'd rather pay a premium to get music which I can archive and enjoy on my home stereo.

As for Apple Lossless, the bitrate will about 1Mbps, or about 55% of the bitrate of the average song on a CD. An 8x jump from 128kbps and 4x jump in file size from 256kbps seems a bit excessive at the moment. Plus, Apple Lossless is proprietary so that basically introduces another wrench in trying to get a ubiquitous lossless codec as standard, but I can't tell if ALAC is free to use like FLAC.

There is also an issue with all of Apple's PMPs being able to use lossless codecs. The Shuffle can't load ALAC. I'm not sure if that is artificial limitation do to file size or one an actual limitation due to the CPU/RAM.

A marketing issue is that Apple would probably have to change their PMP advertising to list a new audio capacity or 1/8 the current size if the iTS only sold ALAC. I guess they could advertising the exact codec and bitrate that they measure with but if iTS music is vastly different then I think you can expect a lawsuit. Sony did something similar for awhile regarding their PMPs back in the 'rootkit' days. I think they were using a 96k bitrate to advertise their player's capacities. I'm not sure if they got sued, but it wasn't a popular strategy.

Another issue that has been tackled but still lingering is the actual, not psychologically perceived quality, of CD to 256kbps AAC or 256kbps MP3. None are audiophile quality. I think we'll see a move within 5 years to offer much higher quality tracks in a digital format. The studios will get to resell you tracks you own, which is the only way they can make money on old music these days. But I doubt Apple would be at the forefront of any such movement. They'll probably dominate it in the end, but they won't start it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #68 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Pirates won't pay. Period. DRM has nothing to do with it.

Well, I'd say there are three groups of people out there:

1) People who will pay for the music they use, even if they have easy ways to get it for free. I might be the only person in the world who falls into this category, but I have paid for everything that's on my iPod!

2) People who don't really understand the issues behind intellectual property and DRM, and who will copy music if it's easy to do so, but won't bother to figure out how if it's less easy. I meet people like this all the time. "What, I can't copy songs from your iPod to mine? Oh well, I guess that's that then."

3) People who have the motivation and the skill to go around the restrictions and copy whatever they want. Obviously these people will always exist regardless of the technology. But how large is this group, really? I'd guess 10-20% now, with the number falling as a proportion of all users as the technology becomes more mainstream.

So, it's not logical to say that we shouldn't use DRM because it's not effective, if it's still, say, 85% effective.

With the advent of iTunes, I would add a fourth group: people who could bypass the DRM if they felt like it, but would just as soon pay 99 cents to use a great interface with a huge inventory. This could actually improve sales because the people who were undercutting sales before will start ponying up. I wouldn't mind Apple going in this direction because I think they, if anyone, can pull it off -- and because I think they will help counteract this prevailing attitude that music should be free.

That being said, I just don't take it as a given that DRM is bad. I respect that that's the copyright owner's decision, not the consumer's.
post #69 of 110
Does anybody know if this is U.S. only?
post #70 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post

Arguing over who has the "rights" to Christmas is silly. I use it as a time to celebrate the birth of my Savior. It's origins are of no concern to me.

Thank you! I'm glad somebody said it. Merry Christmas to all of you!
post #71 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You see, there's a lot of contention around this issue. Pirates claim that they don't pay because the record companies rip the artists off, and therefor they don't want to give those scum any money.

Of course, that just talk for saying that they will find any excuse, no matter how stupid, to avoid paying for something.

Pirates won't pay. Period. DRM has nothing to do with it.

Those who steal music for reason of the DRM are doing it for the same reason.

No, I think that's a blanket statement and a large generalisation.
Not to sound like a commercial, but I used to pirate music a lot (read: understatement), until I found services like eMusic and then iTunes Plus came along. I haven't pirated a CD in over a year now, and purchase all that content legally.

For me, the option to have something high-quality, DRM free, affordable and legal was attractive. I can't speak for everyone and I'm sure I'm a minority here, but in this issue value seems to speak louder than anything for me. I'm willing to pay if I feel I'm getting a good product.

I'm not willing to pay for restrictions, low-quality, or marginal improvement. That's why I haven't jumped to blu-ray yet. But let's not get started on that....

Jimzip
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
post #72 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

At the same time, few people actually care about DRM.

....

For most people, DRM is a non issue, as long as it isn't difficult to use.

But it will be interesting 10 years from now when people with iTunes libraries worth $1,000s die, get divorced, kids go off to college, etc. Today you can split the CD/DVD collection and go your separate ways. How are you going to do that with your iTunes library? iTunes DRM is easy to use, but difficult to pass on as there is no way to transfer ownership. I don't have a problem with this when it comes to music. I don't buy a whole lot on iTunes, and I figure I get my 99 cents worth through repeated listening. But start charging $14.99 per movie (at lower quality that DVD, mind you) and it starts to become an issue if I can't lend, give, or sell it to someone after I've watched it a few times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Apple will, at some point, have to go DRM free as they a quickly becoming the only company who sells songs which are DRM protected.

I'll amend your statement to say that "at some point the music labels will need to allow Apple to go DRM-free" as it is my understanding that they are the ones who are not letting Apple remove DRM from their music. They are doing this to make iTunes less attractive to buyers in order to build support for alternate outlets (such as Amazon) and create competition for iTunes and not let Apple have domination of the market. As a group (except EMI) they are giving preferrential treatment to non-Apple stores in order to hurt Apple's business...borderline collusion, if you ask me! But it sounds like the playing field is close to being levelled, so each retailer can compete on their own merits.
post #73 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

But it will be interesting 10 years from now when people with iTunes libraries worth $1,000s die, get divorced, kids go off to college, etc. Today you can split the CD/DVD collection and go your separate ways. How are you going to do that with your iTunes library?

iTunes was the first RIAA approved method of removing DRM, moving audio to other media and altering audio codecs. You can get a single CD-RW and use it to convert your FairPlay protected tracks over into any format and bitrate you choose in a single automated swoop. The sadists can do it manually and the more tech savvy with basic Googling skills can simply use the illegal method to simply strip the DRM from the intact track.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #74 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

iTunes was the first RIAA approved method of removing DRM, moving audio to other media and altering audio codecs. You can get a single CD-RW and use it to convert your FairPlay protected tracks over into any format and bitrate you choose in a single automated swoop. The sadists can do it manually and the more tech savvy with basic Googling skills can simply use the illegal method to simply strip the DRM from the intact track.

Of course... the CD-RW method includes a noticeable loss of quality... perhaps why the RIAA isn't actively fighting it.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #75 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Of course... the CD-RW method includes a noticeable loss of quality... perhaps why the RIAA isn't actively fighting it.

I'm unfamiliar as to how CD-RW writes a lesser quality RedBook CCDA than it does to CD-Rs. Can you explain it?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #76 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post

THE COTTON CLUB was released in 1984 with Macrovision.

The first DVD player came out in 1996.

Have you tried macrumors.com? They'll let you post whatever bullshit you want, and they'll even give you an avatar!

This made me laugh more than it should have done.


As for this "rumour" (and I do not use those quotemarks lightly): So unbelieveably full of shit that I can't believe it made front page.
post #77 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post

Well, I'd say there are three groups of people out there:

1) People who will pay for the music they use, even if they have easy ways to get it for free. I might be the only person in the world who falls into this category, but I have paid for everything that's on my iPod!

2) People who don't really understand the issues behind intellectual property and DRM, and who will copy music if it's easy to do so, but won't bother to figure out how if it's less easy. I meet people like this all the time. "What, I can't copy songs from your iPod to mine? Oh well, I guess that's that then."

3) People who have the motivation and the skill to go around the restrictions and copy whatever they want. Obviously these people will always exist regardless of the technology. But how large is this group, really? I'd guess 10-20% now, with the number falling as a proportion of all users as the technology becomes more mainstream.

So, it's not logical to say that we shouldn't use DRM because it's not effective, if it's still, say, 85% effective.

With the advent of iTunes, I would add a fourth group: people who could bypass the DRM if they felt like it, but would just as soon pay 99 cents to use a great interface with a huge inventory. This could actually improve sales because the people who were undercutting sales before will start ponying up. I wouldn't mind Apple going in this direction because I think they, if anyone, can pull it off -- and because I think they will help counteract this prevailing attitude that music should be free.

That being said, I just don't take it as a given that DRM is bad. I respect that that's the copyright owner's decision, not the consumer's.

What I meant in that post was that "pirates", meaning those who deliberately hunt out ways to get their entertainment files for free, knowing that they should be paid for, won't pay, whether DRM exists or not.

There will always be some who really don't understand the issues. My daughter was like that when she was younger. I had to explain it to her so she would.

I rarely buy any compressed music. I prefer to buy it on disk, uncompressed, with notes.

The few times I did download mp3's that were illegally done, was back when this all started, and I downloaded a couple dozen from some usergroups so that I could check what the quality was, to get some idea of what people were actually getting. Pretty poor was my conclusion, though today the software is better and much easier to use.

I don't see DRM as automatically being bad, and despite what some try to convince themselves of, it was in response to piracy. If people didn't steal digital files, whether they are entertainment or programs, there wouldn't be the need for DRM. That doesn't mean that DRM is 100% effective. As you say, for most people it is, but not for those who really want to get around it.

And piracy is nothing new. Around the turn of the previous century, when almost every middle class family had a piano, and bought sheet music, piracy of that sheet music was a major problem as well. It lessened once recorded music cam out, because it was far too difficult to copy recorded music in those days.

It only became a problem again once tape machines became better, and cheaper in the '60's. But it remained a secondary problem until the CD recorders and media became cheap, and expanded much further once the internet became widely available at broadband speeds. We're back to the days of easy copies as it was with sheet music, when anyone with access to a cheap press could make thousands of copies.
post #78 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimzip View Post

No, I think that's a blanket statement and a large generalisation.
Not to sound like a commercial, but I used to pirate music a lot (read: understatement), until I found services like eMusic and then iTunes Plus came along. I haven't pirated a CD in over a year now, and purchase all that content legally.

For me, the option to have something high-quality, DRM free, affordable and legal was attractive. I can't speak for everyone and I'm sure I'm a minority here, but in this issue value seems to speak louder than anything for me. I'm willing to pay if I feel I'm getting a good product.

I'm not willing to pay for restrictions, low-quality, or marginal improvement. That's why I haven't jumped to blu-ray yet. But let's not get started on that....

Jimzip

We use generalizations because they are generally true. They don't cover everyone, every time.
post #79 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

But it will be interesting 10 years from now when people with iTunes libraries worth $1,000s die, get divorced, kids go off to college, etc. Today you can split the CD/DVD collection and go your separate ways. How are you going to do that with your iTunes library? iTunes DRM is easy to use, but difficult to pass on as there is no way to transfer ownership. I don't have a problem with this when it comes to music. I don't buy a whole lot on iTunes, and I figure I get my 99 cents worth through repeated listening. But start charging $14.99 per movie (at lower quality that DVD, mind you) and it starts to become an issue if I can't lend, give, or sell it to someone after I've watched it a few times.

It will be interesting to see how that works. But you are allowed to share your library now, so there may be some way around that problem.


Quote:
I'll amend your statement to say that "at some point the music labels will need to allow Apple to go DRM-free" as it is my understanding that they are the ones who are not letting Apple remove DRM from their music. They are doing this to make iTunes less attractive to buyers in order to build support for alternate outlets (such as Amazon) and create competition for iTunes and not let Apple have domination of the market. As a group (except EMI) they are giving preferrential treatment to non-Apple stores in order to hurt Apple's business...borderline collusion, if you ask me! But it sounds like the playing field is close to being levelled, so each retailer can compete on their own merits.

I was going to comment to that post as well. That's correct, it's the content companies that are insisting upon the DRM.
post #80 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

iTunes was the first RIAA approved method of removing DRM, moving audio to other media and altering audio codecs. You can get a single CD-RW and use it to convert your FairPlay protected tracks over into any format and bitrate you choose in a single automated swoop. The sadists can do it manually and the more tech savvy with basic Googling skills can simply use the illegal method to simply strip the DRM from the intact track.

For the sake of the argument, let's just talk about the legal way of doing this.

Most people aren't aware of software that will allow them to get around the DRM anyway, though they read vague articles about it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rumor: Apple's iTunes going DRM-free starting Tuesday