I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.
The reason is simple.
While it's isn't all that difficuly to burn a Cd with whatever encoding you may want, and then give it away to someone with a different player, or even to just play on their computer, that is still too much work for many people.
Now, it's easy to just give them the song as is, no work involved. So there is a greater chance of people doing that.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,
It matters because CD's have never had DRM. That means that all of this music is already available for pirating without having to use wonky programs to do it.
It also matters because without DRM, all of this music is available to anyone.
But with video, that is not the case. All DVD's are DRM'd. While it's possible to get around that, it does take some work, and a fair amount of time. That means the average person won't be doing it. Having the video without DRM therefore will make it just as easy to give away as music.
This also means that the content providers will, in their eyes, be taking a step backwards to the days of VHS, where the anti-copying provision never really worked, as long as you were willing to buy a $30 to $50 box to plug in between recorders.
So...when given the opportunity to provide studios with the data that folks prefer no DRM with concrete evidence (ie sales) you'd rather send a petition to Apple about how they aren't going far enough?
Come on...you DON'T think that Apple is stacking the deck in favor of no DRM? They could simply have charged more money for no-DRM which the studios could then claim "there's no interest in the buying public to reduce DRM...only pirates want us to eliminate DRM" if there were weak sales.
In this case you get both higher quality and no DRM for 30c/song and zero (I believe) per album. Now if you're DRM agnostic but want "higher quality" you automagically count in the "See the market wants no DRM" column.
Studios wanted more album sales anyway so this is another nudge toward no DRM...the cost delta might result in simply more no-drm album sales vs individual track sales.
I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.
Just a guess, maybe Apple decided they would like ALL their music offering to eventually move to a higher bitrate (256 instead of 128). While at it (the encoding) they got the music companies to agree to drop the DRM. They figure more people would be interested in this higher quality music and the majority would choose it over the lower quality. Thus, why spend the time to re-encode all the 128 bitrate songs so they don't have DRM. Just a thought.
Way to go Apple!! Everything I buy will be high-quality, DRM-free from now on and I'll be the first to upgrade all my songs too. It's going to sound great through my AppleTV!
I'm there ALSO! I've just added four 400GB SATA drives to my G4 tower to be my media server. I've been re-encoding all my music CDs (500+) at AAC 320 bitrate. I was just wishing I had higher quality purchased songs. Now I can upgrade! I've been eyeing HDTVs of late and once purchased I'll order my AppleTV.
Maybe not entirely. There was a court case relating to that recently. I forgot the name, so I can't look it up, and I failed to bookmark it, but I'm sure that others here will find it.
The judge ruled that the anti-copying clauses in the DVD license were so badly written, by a "committee of lawyers" as was said by the court, that it was thrown out.
Some in the Senate, and the House, are going to be holding hearings on this as well.
What's interesting here, it that this agreement between Apple and EMI can now come up before those committees to testify, lending credence that DRM is not, after all, such a requirement.
This could influence those lawmakers to allow workarounds, or possibly even more.
Smart movie Apple. You know you have the inertia to withstand this. This will only "help" iTunes purchases and not hurt them. Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.
Actually Microsoft is killing Playforsure with their own Zune product. It won't play music purchased from Playforsure stores. They realized Apple had the right idea.
What I'm happy about is that Apple just gave the AAC standard a real boost with this move. Now ALL the other player will have to support AAC wholesouled if they want to play the game. Thank goodness Windows Audio didn't become the "standard".
IN YOUR FACE NORWAY! They just killed your argument dead. Of course Norway got kind of silent so methinks Apple put the DRM free content smackdown on them a couple of weeks ago.
I'll certainly buy my Jazz and Classical at 256kb AAC. I haven't tested myself but I'm sure the doubling of bitrate is going to help.
Anyone do any comparison themselves?
Smart movie Apple. You know you have the inertia to withstand this. This will only "help" iTunes purchases and not hurt them. Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.
What I've found is that 128 works fine for the headphones sold with these players, and really cheap computer speakers with poor hi frequency response, though some songs with strong hi frequencies can have distortion up there.
Going to 256 seems to solve the distortion problem with those.
Om listening over my audio system, 128 is 50/50. 256 is more like 90/10. 320 is most like true CD quality under those conditions, though there are still occasional differences.
If their 256 encoding is good, I will finally start to buy certain music from them, which I haven't done so far.
As long as they ask him those questions, he will give them those answers. They may ask the same question in different ways, but the answer remains the same.
Don't you just wish other people performed this way when interviewed, instead of trying to think 'on the fly' and out-finesse pseudo-savvy reporters. Just answer the damned question as directly as possible.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,
IMO it's simple...
1 - iTunes (as in music) has grown into 'a force' in music sales and given Steve's desire for non-drm content the labels are taking notice and acting.
2 - iTunes (as in MPAA movies) isn't even a pimple on the ass of even the smallest national dvd retailer (just a guess but I'm betting pretty acurate) and as such the idea of Steve pusing the studios to not only provide Apple/iTunes with their movies but at the same time strip all the DRM from them... It just wouldn't happen.
Lets revisit this (if/when) iTunes movies is one of the largest (or one of the larger) sellers of movie studio content.
Man... is it just me, or do some of those questions seem to beat a dead horse.... how many times does Steve repeat "PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A CHOICE WITH iTUNES!"
What choice was that again? My way or the highway? Buy a low quality, protected track from us or buy the entire album from someone else to get that track?
Playsforsure has been dead for a while now. But your point would be well taken, if you'd found an effective pun on the Zune's DRM scheme.
It doesn't get the numbers iTunes gets, that much is certain, but it's still in use. How much of that business was lost to Zune won't be known until some more quarterly reports come out.
Thus, why spend the time to re-encode all the 128 bitrate songs so they don't have DRM. Just a thought.
IIRC, that's not how Fairplay works. The file is encrypted after it has been encoded into AAC. Apple already has the songs at 128kb. There was a good article on Roughly Drafted a couple of months ago on how it's done.
But since Zune can play unencrypted AAC files, this has the interesting side-effect of opening up a new distribution channel for high-quality content to play on a Zune, too. Wait... Isn't that exactly the sort of effect the Norway consumer ombudsman had been advocating all along?
I don't think this will help Zune much. Apple still has a huge installed base of happy iPod users. And even if they can buy new titles without DRM, any users that have used iTS for any length of time have a string incentive to stick with Apple.
I disagree with Steve Jobs that the non-DRM route will become predominant, and I don't think he believes it either. With a two tier-system, Apple gets to have it both ways -- non-DRM is available for the people who cry about it all the time, but most iPod users (i.e., the majority of MP3 player users) will stick with Apple.
This deal is aimed at regulators who want to shut DRM out of Eurpoean markets and not at the tiny percentage of iPod users that care about DRM.
Today changes everything for me. Up until now I've refused to buy anything from the iTunes store because I considered the price too high for 128-bit DRM saddled tracks. Yes today marks a price increase, but we finally have the choice of a product that's roughly CD quality at roughly CD price. I hope the other labels join the party sooner rather than later.
Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.
Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.
Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.
I disagree with Steve Jobs that the non-DRM route will become predominant, and I don't think he believes it either. With a two tier-system, Apple gets to have it both ways -- non-DRM is available for the people who cry about it all the time, but most iPod users (i.e., the majority of MP3 player users) will stick with Apple.
If they get the other labels on board, you're going to be wrong. I don't remember the exact number, but I think a bit over half of the tracks apple sells is in the context of a whole album sale, and those are going to be 256 DRM free. As someone else has said earlier in the thread, they have stacked the deck for DRM free to succeed.
Yes today marks a price increase, but we finally have the choice of a product that's roughly CD quality at roughly CD price.
Even $1.29 a track is a '(much) better than CD price', considering that most albums only have one or two good tracks on them, thus, you'd be better off 'cherry picking' the good tracks rather than buying the entire album.
Yay, music industry. So many acts today cannot put out a single cohesive album worth buying in its entirety. \
Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.
Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.
Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.
The court case that Melgross is referring to is, I believe, the one between Kaleidescape and the DVD Copy Control Association. I'm very, very happy to hear that Kaleidescape prevailed*! (although, I'm sure, there'll be an appeal )
The case had nothing whatsoever to do with the DMCA. Kaleidescape do not remove DRM at any stage. The DVD Copy Control Association were alleging that Kaleidescape's system violated the terms of the licence for DVD's CSS (content scrambling system).
* because I respect Kaleidescape's engineering, and it opens the door for Apple to implement a much cheaper alternative via AppleTV.
Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.
Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.
Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.
Comments
I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.
The reason is simple.
While it's isn't all that difficuly to burn a Cd with whatever encoding you may want, and then give it away to someone with a different player, or even to just play on their computer, that is still too much work for many people.
Now, it's easy to just give them the song as is, no work involved. So there is a greater chance of people doing that.
One step at a time I guess.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,
It matters because CD's have never had DRM. That means that all of this music is already available for pirating without having to use wonky programs to do it.
It also matters because without DRM, all of this music is available to anyone.
But with video, that is not the case. All DVD's are DRM'd. While it's possible to get around that, it does take some work, and a fair amount of time. That means the average person won't be doing it. Having the video without DRM therefore will make it just as easy to give away as music.
This also means that the content providers will, in their eyes, be taking a step backwards to the days of VHS, where the anti-copying provision never really worked, as long as you were willing to buy a $30 to $50 box to plug in between recorders.
So...when given the opportunity to provide studios with the data that folks prefer no DRM with concrete evidence (ie sales) you'd rather send a petition to Apple about how they aren't going far enough?
Come on...you DON'T think that Apple is stacking the deck in favor of no DRM? They could simply have charged more money for no-DRM which the studios could then claim "there's no interest in the buying public to reduce DRM...only pirates want us to eliminate DRM" if there were weak sales.
In this case you get both higher quality and no DRM for 30c/song and zero (I believe) per album. Now if you're DRM agnostic but want "higher quality" you automagically count in the "See the market wants no DRM" column.
Studios wanted more album sales anyway so this is another nudge toward no DRM...the cost delta might result in simply more no-drm album sales vs individual track sales.
Vinea
Right.
I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.
Just a guess, maybe Apple decided they would like ALL their music offering to eventually move to a higher bitrate (256 instead of 128). While at it (the encoding) they got the music companies to agree to drop the DRM. They figure more people would be interested in this higher quality music and the majority would choose it over the lower quality. Thus, why spend the time to re-encode all the 128 bitrate songs so they don't have DRM. Just a thought.
I thought I heard YoMama at first.
Way to go Apple!! Everything I buy will be high-quality, DRM-free from now on and I'll be the first to upgrade all my songs too. It's going to sound great through my AppleTV!
I'm there ALSO! I've just added four 400GB SATA drives to my G4 tower to be my media server. I've been re-encoding all my music CDs (500+) at AAC 320 bitrate. I was just wishing I had higher quality purchased songs. Now I can upgrade! I've been eyeing HDTVs of late and once purchased I'll order my AppleTV.
Better talk to your congressman. Or elect Steve for President.
In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it a crime to bypass copy protection.
http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/Secu...pyrightAct.pdf
Maybe not entirely. There was a court case relating to that recently. I forgot the name, so I can't look it up, and I failed to bookmark it, but I'm sure that others here will find it.
The judge ruled that the anti-copying clauses in the DVD license were so badly written, by a "committee of lawyers" as was said by the court, that it was thrown out.
Some in the Senate, and the House, are going to be holding hearings on this as well.
What's interesting here, it that this agreement between Apple and EMI can now come up before those committees to testify, lending credence that DRM is not, after all, such a requirement.
This could influence those lawmakers to allow workarounds, or possibly even more.
Smart movie Apple. You know you have the inertia to withstand this. This will only "help" iTunes purchases and not hurt them. Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.
Actually Microsoft is killing Playforsure with their own Zune product. It won't play music purchased from Playforsure stores. They realized Apple had the right idea.
What I'm happy about is that Apple just gave the AAC standard a real boost with this move. Now ALL the other player will have to support AAC wholesouled if they want to play the game. Thank goodness Windows Audio didn't become the "standard".
Man I'm so happy to see this today.
IN YOUR FACE NORWAY! They just killed your argument dead. Of course Norway got kind of silent so methinks Apple put the DRM free content smackdown on them a couple of weeks ago.
I'll certainly buy my Jazz and Classical at 256kb AAC. I haven't tested myself but I'm sure the doubling of bitrate is going to help.
Anyone do any comparison themselves?
Smart movie Apple. You know you have the inertia to withstand this. This will only "help" iTunes purchases and not hurt them. Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.
What I've found is that 128 works fine for the headphones sold with these players, and really cheap computer speakers with poor hi frequency response, though some songs with strong hi frequencies can have distortion up there.
Going to 256 seems to solve the distortion problem with those.
Om listening over my audio system, 128 is 50/50. 256 is more like 90/10. 320 is most like true CD quality under those conditions, though there are still occasional differences.
If their 256 encoding is good, I will finally start to buy certain music from them, which I haven't done so far.
As long as they ask him those questions, he will give them those answers. They may ask the same question in different ways, but the answer remains the same.
Don't you just wish other people performed this way when interviewed, instead of trying to think 'on the fly' and out-finesse pseudo-savvy reporters. Just answer the damned question as directly as possible.
One step at a time I guess.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,
IMO it's simple...
1 - iTunes (as in music) has grown into 'a force' in music sales and given Steve's desire for non-drm content the labels are taking notice and acting.
2 - iTunes (as in MPAA movies) isn't even a pimple on the ass of even the smallest national dvd retailer (just a guess but I'm betting pretty acurate) and as such the idea of Steve pusing the studios to not only provide Apple/iTunes with their movies but at the same time strip all the DRM from them... It just wouldn't happen.
Lets revisit this (if/when) iTunes movies is one of the largest (or one of the larger) sellers of movie studio content.
Dave
Man... is it just me, or do some of those questions seem to beat a dead horse.... how many times does Steve repeat "PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A CHOICE WITH iTUNES!"
What choice was that again? My way or the highway? Buy a low quality, protected track from us or buy the entire album from someone else to get that track?
Playsforsure has been dead for a while now. But your point would be well taken, if you'd found an effective pun on the Zune's DRM scheme.
It doesn't get the numbers iTunes gets, that much is certain, but it's still in use. How much of that business was lost to Zune won't be known until some more quarterly reports come out.
Thus, why spend the time to re-encode all the 128 bitrate songs so they don't have DRM. Just a thought.
IIRC, that's not how Fairplay works. The file is encrypted after it has been encoded into AAC. Apple already has the songs at 128kb. There was a good article on Roughly Drafted a couple of months ago on how it's done.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...610E66A46.html
OMG!!!11one!
But since Zune can play unencrypted AAC files, this has the interesting side-effect of opening up a new distribution channel for high-quality content to play on a Zune, too. Wait... Isn't that exactly the sort of effect the Norway consumer ombudsman had been advocating all along?
I don't think this will help Zune much. Apple still has a huge installed base of happy iPod users. And even if they can buy new titles without DRM, any users that have used iTS for any length of time have a string incentive to stick with Apple.
I disagree with Steve Jobs that the non-DRM route will become predominant, and I don't think he believes it either. With a two tier-system, Apple gets to have it both ways -- non-DRM is available for the people who cry about it all the time, but most iPod users (i.e., the majority of MP3 player users) will stick with Apple.
This deal is aimed at regulators who want to shut DRM out of Eurpoean markets and not at the tiny percentage of iPod users that care about DRM.
Maybe not entirely.
Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.
Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.
Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.
* http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
I disagree with Steve Jobs that the non-DRM route will become predominant, and I don't think he believes it either. With a two tier-system, Apple gets to have it both ways -- non-DRM is available for the people who cry about it all the time, but most iPod users (i.e., the majority of MP3 player users) will stick with Apple.
If they get the other labels on board, you're going to be wrong. I don't remember the exact number, but I think a bit over half of the tracks apple sells is in the context of a whole album sale, and those are going to be 256 DRM free. As someone else has said earlier in the thread, they have stacked the deck for DRM free to succeed.
Yes today marks a price increase, but we finally have the choice of a product that's roughly CD quality at roughly CD price.
Even $1.29 a track is a '(much) better than CD price', considering that most albums only have one or two good tracks on them, thus, you'd be better off 'cherry picking' the good tracks rather than buying the entire album.
Yay, music industry. So many acts today cannot put out a single cohesive album worth buying in its entirety.
.
Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.
Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.
Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.
* http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
The court case that Melgross is referring to is, I believe, the one between Kaleidescape and the DVD Copy Control Association. I'm very, very happy to hear that Kaleidescape prevailed*!
The case had nothing whatsoever to do with the DMCA. Kaleidescape do not remove DRM at any stage. The DVD Copy Control Association were alleging that Kaleidescape's system violated the terms of the licence for DVD's CSS (content scrambling system).
* because I respect Kaleidescape's engineering, and it opens the door for Apple to implement a much cheaper alternative via AppleTV.
Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.
Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.
Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.
* http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
You are wrong about that. If this case stands, then they will have to scramble to rewrite their license. That's pretty simple.
As for the rest, you are wrong there as well. Congress IS looking to this. There are going to be hearings.
This isn't over yet, despite what you might think.
This the story about the case. I still can't find the case file. If I have time later I'll look.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...d-copying.html