I suspect opening it up would make no difference for apple. I don't see the average user buying music from a different service and then importing it into itunes for use on their ipod. That's not convenient. Maybe people that care about having things all at once instead of jumping through hoops.
I might be one of those people. There may be a lot more of me out there. It would be great to get higher quality audio than 128AAC. I think it would be really good for the market to open up. Perhaps Apple would be forced to sell higher bit-rate files? Competition is good.
Why don't the record companies come up with the DRM?
I mean they've been attempting it on CDs as of late (of course, with a whole lot problems). So why not create the standard for all music distributors. It's not like Wal-Mart has to produce their own type of music CDs in comparison to Best Buy or Target. All music CDs are made by the music companies using a technological medium that has its standards.
So why must it be Apple's (or Microsoft's, or Sony's, etc.) responsibility to create the technological medium standard that all it's competitors get to reap from?
I mean, let's cut the BS here...isn't that what is being asked of Apple? "Thanks Apple for creating all the technology hardware and software as well as promoting the concept with your own business capital. Now that your digital music model is a success with no effort on our part, we need you to give it to your competitors, since they can't make it on their own. That way we can make more money."
Perhaps then, piracy is just that. It's the method by which the music industry has to drink its own medicine.
In my way of thinking you dump the DRM but add a watermark to the downloads. If someone then puts them up on the Internet the lables can find out who it was.
In my way of thinking you dump the DRM but add a watermark to the downloads. If someone then puts them up on the Internet the lables can find out who it was.
Assuming you can do this in a way that doesn't impact the sound quality.
Given the fact that lossy compression formats (like MP3 and AAC) work by discarding audio components that are not normally audible, it would be hard to come up with a watermark that can survive recompression and not significantly mess with the sound.
Assuming you can do this in a way that doesn't impact the sound quality.
Given the fact that lossy compression formats (like MP3 and AAC) work by discarding audio components that are not normally audible, it would be hard to come up with a watermark that can survive recompression and not significantly mess with the sound.
I think the encoders can be tweaked a little, but most watermarking systems are easily defeatable simply by reencoding.
I think the encoders can be tweaked a little, but most watermarking systems are easily defeatable simply by reencoding.
Although you suffer some loss of sound quality, file size bloat, or some compromise between the two, current DRM schemes are defeatable by a decode/re-encode cycle as well. Watermarking which doesn't impact sound quality -- because it's embedded in file wrapper info, not within the audio signal -- isn't great watermarking, but it would probably be good enough, protecting the record labels interest nearly as much (maybe even a little more) than current DRM does.
Although you suffer some loss of sound quality, file size bloat, or some compromise between the two, current DRM schemes are defeatable by a decode/re-encode cycle as well. Watermarking which doesn't impact sound quality -- because it's embedded in file wrapper info, not within the audio signal -- isn't great watermarking, but it would probably be good enough, protecting the record labels interest nearly as much (maybe even a little more) than current DRM does.
If the watermark isn't in the audio data, then it is trivially stripped, and is completely useless.
If the watermark isn't in the audio data, then it is trivially stripped, and is completely useless.
All I'm saying is that current DRM is pretty much just as useless as such watermarking would be, yet current DRM seems to (at least partially) satisfy the record labels need to feel in control. If the labels going to be stupidly placated by the one, why not by the other instead? At this point, none of it amounts to more than creating an annoyance and having token control over the situation anyway.
Comments
I suspect opening it up would make no difference for apple. I don't see the average user buying music from a different service and then importing it into itunes for use on their ipod. That's not convenient. Maybe people that care about having things all at once instead of jumping through hoops.
I might be one of those people. There may be a lot more of me out there. It would be great to get higher quality audio than 128AAC. I think it would be really good for the market to open up. Perhaps Apple would be forced to sell higher bit-rate files? Competition is good.
I mean they've been attempting it on CDs as of late (of course, with a whole lot problems). So why not create the standard for all music distributors. It's not like Wal-Mart has to produce their own type of music CDs in comparison to Best Buy or Target. All music CDs are made by the music companies using a technological medium that has its standards.
So why must it be Apple's (or Microsoft's, or Sony's, etc.) responsibility to create the technological medium standard that all it's competitors get to reap from?
I mean, let's cut the BS here...isn't that what is being asked of Apple? "Thanks Apple for creating all the technology hardware and software as well as promoting the concept with your own business capital. Now that your digital music model is a success with no effort on our part, we need you to give it to your competitors, since they can't make it on their own. That way we can make more money."
Perhaps then, piracy is just that. It's the method by which the music industry has to drink its own medicine.
Just a thought.
In my way of thinking you dump the DRM but add a watermark to the downloads. If someone then puts them up on the Internet the lables can find out who it was.
Assuming you can do this in a way that doesn't impact the sound quality.
Given the fact that lossy compression formats (like MP3 and AAC) work by discarding audio components that are not normally audible, it would be hard to come up with a watermark that can survive recompression and not significantly mess with the sound.
Assuming you can do this in a way that doesn't impact the sound quality.
Given the fact that lossy compression formats (like MP3 and AAC) work by discarding audio components that are not normally audible, it would be hard to come up with a watermark that can survive recompression and not significantly mess with the sound.
I think the encoders can be tweaked a little, but most watermarking systems are easily defeatable simply by reencoding.
I think the encoders can be tweaked a little, but most watermarking systems are easily defeatable simply by reencoding.
Although you suffer some loss of sound quality, file size bloat, or some compromise between the two, current DRM schemes are defeatable by a decode/re-encode cycle as well. Watermarking which doesn't impact sound quality -- because it's embedded in file wrapper info, not within the audio signal -- isn't great watermarking, but it would probably be good enough, protecting the record labels interest nearly as much (maybe even a little more) than current DRM does.
Although you suffer some loss of sound quality, file size bloat, or some compromise between the two, current DRM schemes are defeatable by a decode/re-encode cycle as well. Watermarking which doesn't impact sound quality -- because it's embedded in file wrapper info, not within the audio signal -- isn't great watermarking, but it would probably be good enough, protecting the record labels interest nearly as much (maybe even a little more) than current DRM does.
If the watermark isn't in the audio data, then it is trivially stripped, and is completely useless.
If the watermark isn't in the audio data, then it is trivially stripped, and is completely useless.
All I'm saying is that current DRM is pretty much just as useless as such watermarking would be, yet current DRM seems to (at least partially) satisfy the record labels need to feel in control. If the labels going to be stupidly placated by the one, why not by the other instead? At this point, none of it amounts to more than creating an annoyance and having token control over the situation anyway.