Apple's low bit rate and DRM makes them the LAST choice for me. And don't give me that bologna that 128 AAC is equivalent to 256 mp3. I do however like the layout of the iTunes Store. If Apple can go all DRM free, I'll bring my business back to them.
Well, we do need to give you bolonga because an MP3 at 256 *IS* equivalent to an AAC at 128. AAC is actually MPEG4, which provides better sound quality at a lower bit rate, than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
Your entire family would be able to enjoy a DRM-encoded song file without any restriction, well, except the fact that you can't give it away to all your friends.
Since I have seen some new songs put on store for the same $.99 price, is it not possible that we would be able to get our current library that has DRM tracks DRM-free? Or can I assume we would need to re-purchase those songs again?
Well, we do need to give you bolonga because an MP3 at 256 *IS* equivalent to an AAC at 128. AAC is actually MPEG4, which provides better sound quality at a lower bit rate, than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
No it is not, MP3 is MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, nothing to do with MPEG 3, and AAC is MPEG4 AAC
it just needs to work well and be interoperable. all the people upset with it also should know the artists / labels are genuinely concerned after all the illegal filesharing. hell even emailing a friend a song you like hurts their earnings.
I never buy music from iTunes because of the DRM. I browse for music there because it's a great shopping experience. When I find something I want, I head to amazon to buy it DRM free. Apple has lost about 10 album sales from me due entirely to DRM and low bitrate encoding (not iTunes plus). It's not a lot, but I'm not alone either.
Sheldon
I'm with you. I had purchased zero albums online before Amazon came out with their DRM free service. I too, purchased probably 10 albums from them this past year though I'll admit they were only the cheapy albums since I'm not going to shell out $$ for 256 MP3s. I actually did buy my first iTunes album, natch it was an EMI DRM free iTunes plus (256 AAC format) one. Apple and the labels need to move asap to (at least) 256 DRM-free AAC) if they want to see rapid growth in sales.
For those that say that the anti-DRM sentiment is for those who want to pirate you have it all wrong - I can't tell you how many authentication problems I've run into when trying out some of the free downloads from iTunes - songs that would instantly report that I have used 3 of my alloted installations even off of a fresh download. Plus, should I want to use a non-Apple product to play my music (though I will say that's not a big concern just right now) I want to be able to do that.
If Apple can't deliver on this, I'll just keep up buying my CDs in the stores. I don't NEED digital delivery, but I do expect quality and convenience (of playability) of my media.
Well, we do need to give you bolonga because an MP3 at 256 *IS* equivalent to an AAC at 128. AAC is actually MPEG4, which provides better sound quality at a lower bit rate, than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
Your entire family would be able to enjoy a DRM-encoded song file without any restriction, well, except the fact that you can't give it away to all your friends.
Yea my family is in the "business" of stealing music. Jeeze I really like how you assume to know everyone's situation and have such an arrogant tone. You must be a real fun guy to be around.
For your information, most people dislike DRM because it makes it difficult to move your music around to different players and to share within your household as I do. I pay for all my music BTW and fully support musicians and the arts. I like to listen to music in my car, my computer, my ipod, my living room and I don't always want to HAVE to use an Apple product to listen to my music (which Apple DRM forces you to do). So next time you start ACCUSING someone of stealing, maybe you should know your facts or at least try to be a little less arrogant. Its a really ugly trait. BTW, those who steal music (as you seem to think you all know about) don't get their music from iTunes where you have to pay for it, they steal it from file sharing networks for free, duh...
it just needs to work well and be interoperable. all the people upset with it also should know the artists / labels are genuinely concerned after all the illegal filesharing. hell even emailing a friend a song you like hurts their earnings.
Apple DRM doesn't stop people from stealing music, Steve Jobs even said so (he even wants to get rid of it). It only locks you into an Apple product. BTW, CDs are already DRM free...
I never buy music from iTunes because of the DRM. I browse for music there because it's a great shopping experience. When I find something I want, I head to amazon to buy it DRM free. Apple has lost about 10 album sales from me due entirely to DRM and low bitrate encoding (not iTunes plus). It's not a lot, but I'm not alone either.
Sheldon
+1
And for those of you saying "DRM doesn't matter"... tell that to the folks who bought DRM'd WalMart music. When Walmart shut down their DRM servers they lost the ability to transfer those songs to a new computer ... want to loose all your music when you buy a new computer?... or planning to use the same computer for the next 20 years?
I don't really think Apple/iTunes is going die anytime soon, but.... DRM (as it is executed currently) sucks bad.
Yes, Walmart has elected to keep those servers active for now... but only because of public outcry... they WERE planning on shutting them down.
I don't really think Apple/iTunes is going die anytime soon, but.... DRM (as it is executed currently) sucks bad.
Apple offered an out for your DRM from day one. At the time, it was a big win from the studios to actually allow you to copy it to other media, remove the DRM, and to change the original file format.
Does WalMart have no way for the consumer to remove the DRM by burning to a CD?
256 MP3 is nowhere near the quality of 256 AAC. Listen to it on a decent sound system and you'll know.
Heck, listen to it on my Alpine mid to high end system in my car and it is obvious.
256 MP3 IS in the range of sound quality of a 128 AAC for MOST songs.
Listen to the music on a high end system and most people will hear the difference right away for most songs.
128 AAC does come close to original CD quality on MOST songs, but a discerning listener can tell the difference.
Again, is your HT/stereo system a Home Theater in a Box system? Then buy MP3's and save your money.
If it is even a mid-range system, with appropriate speakers, you will hear the difference. Maybe not at first, but once you get used to AAC, and then go back, you'll notice the difference.
DRM doesn't affect me at all. I can play the tracks on all my Macs, my iPhone, and iPod. So the "I hate DRM" excuse is only because you want to steal music or give it away for free. If you really hated DRM, you would go out and buy the CD, which will never have DRM restrictions, for the highest quality reproduction of the music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
Your entire family would be able to enjoy a DRM-encoded song file without any restriction, well, except the fact that you can't give it away to all your friends.
Please get a clue and avoid repeating any of this drivel in future.
1.) MP3 is not MPEG3, it's MPEG1 layer 3
2.) DRM doesn't affect you therefore anyone anti-DRM is a pirate? Bullshit.
Ever heard of non-Apple mobile phones? They all play AAC tracks. Oh, but not if they've got Apple's DRM.
How about the Sonos multi-room system? That plays AAC files too. Oh, but not if they've got Apple's DRM.
Roku SoundBridge? That plays AAC files too. Oh, but not if they've got Apple's DRM.
Slim Devices squeezebox? That plays AAC files too. Oh, but not if they've got Apple's DRM.
Have you heard of replay gain? It's an algorithm that analyses audio tracks and can then adjust their volume level to a pre-set level (useful so you don't get nasty volume changes when playing tracks at random) the volume adjustment doesn't require converting to PCM and back to a compressed file, it can be performed directly on the AAC (by a utility called AACgain). Oh, but not if the AAC file has Apple's DRM. BTW, Replay gain is vastly superior to Apple's "soundcheck".
What about if you want to edit a song, e.g. cut a bit out? Rogue Amoeba's Fission can be used to losslessly edit AACs. Oh, but not if they've got Apple's DRM.
256 MP3 is nowhere near the quality of 256 AAC. Listen to it on a decent sound system and you'll know.
Heck, listen to it on my Alpine mid to high end system in my car and it is obvious.
256 MP3 IS in the range of sound quality of a 128 AAC for MOST songs.
Listen to the music on a high end system and most people will hear the difference right away for most songs.
128 AAC does come close to original CD quality on MOST songs, but a discerning listener can tell the difference.
Again, is your HT/stereo system a Home Theater in a Box system? Then buy MP3's and save your money.
If it is even a mid-range system, with appropriate speakers, you will hear the difference. Maybe not at first, but once you get used to AAC, and then go back, you'll notice the difference.
True on all accounts. Good post and I hope others will understand your meaning.
Sounds like hyperbole, not a credible comparison. I've never heard of anyone else placing the quality of Amazon's files that low.
The comparison usually made is actually AAC 128=MP3 160, AAC 256=MP3 320, and so on.
It also depends on whether we are talking about varible bitrate encoding for either format.
There is also a new MP3 format which is about equal to AAC at the same rate, but I don't know who might be using it yet. I'm also not sure if the same decoders can be used, though it's possible that they would have to be upgraded.
I read about this about a year ago, so I don't remember the details.
I decided years ago that MP3 wasn't worth the effort and now prefer lossless compression formats whenever possible. As for iTunes and the competitors, I buy Fairplay drm'ed AAC tracks from iTunes, and would rather do that than get unprotected MP3 files, even it they're free. I just don't see any reason to eschew the more modern (and superior, imo) AAC format to legacy MP3, even the revised VBR formats. Truth be told, Fairplay drm has been nothing but transparent to me, and as such I opt for the newer codec.
Another problem I have with Amazon etc is that the record labels are actively using them to undermine Apple and iTunes, a fact for which I have considerable contempt. There is no way I'm going to support their efforts to screw Apple over in this manner.
Another problem I have with Amazon etc is that the record labels are actively using them to undermine Apple and iTunes, a fact for which I have considerable contempt. There is no way I'm going to support their efforts to screw Apple over in this manner.
What's wrong with that?
It's what competition is all about.
We may be Mac users, but that doesn't mean that other companies should like being in the grip of Apple.
While I'm not happy about what the companies are doing because I'm an Apple stockholder, I have to admit that they have the right to want to regain control over their own distribution channels.
As long as what they're doing is legal, they have the right to do it.
It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
You clearly misunderstood what the original poster said. All he said is that he browses iTunes for music and then goes and BUYS it from Amazon. He at no point said he was trolling the BitTorrent sites to steal it.
I also occasionally browse iTunes for music, mostly to sample an album before I buy it. Then I usually go buy the CD. I do often buy Amazon's cheap album of the day. Tuesday I grabbed Nickelback's new album for $3.99 and this morning I grabbed an old Belinda Carlisle album for 99 cents.
And I hate DRM on music. I don't want to be locked into listening to it on Apple's products. With unprotected music, I can listen to it on all my devices which include an iPod, a PSP, two TiVos and a PS3. I hate DRM on video downloads for the same reason because they all currently lock you into one hardware vendor's equipment.
DRM on DVD and Blu-Ray discs doesn't bother me at all. I can pick up a DVD or Blu-Ray player from numerous manufacturers and get the features I want without the lock-in that all DRM'ed download formats currently possess.
Comments
I do the same thing as do my wife and son.
Apple's low bit rate and DRM makes them the LAST choice for me. And don't give me that bologna that 128 AAC is equivalent to 256 mp3. I do however like the layout of the iTunes Store. If Apple can go all DRM free, I'll bring my business back to them.
Well, we do need to give you bolonga because an MP3 at 256 *IS* equivalent to an AAC at 128. AAC is actually MPEG4, which provides better sound quality at a lower bit rate, than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
Your entire family would be able to enjoy a DRM-encoded song file without any restriction, well, except the fact that you can't give it away to all your friends.
Why don't you just strip the DRM from the iTunes tracks?
You lose quality by burning the compressed file to CD, and recompressing it again as a standard AAC. Not really a good solution.
The whole thing is a headache...
Well, we do need to give you bolonga because an MP3 at 256 *IS* equivalent to an AAC at 128. AAC is actually MPEG4, which provides better sound quality at a lower bit rate, than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
No it is not, MP3 is MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, nothing to do with MPEG 3, and AAC is MPEG4 AAC
The MP3's you buy at Amazon are equivalent to AAC's at 128.
Sounds like hyperbole, not a credible comparison. I've never heard of anyone else placing the quality of Amazon's files that low.
it just needs to work well and be interoperable. all the people upset with it also should know the artists / labels are genuinely concerned after all the illegal filesharing. hell even emailing a friend a song you like hurts their earnings.
I never buy music from iTunes because of the DRM. I browse for music there because it's a great shopping experience. When I find something I want, I head to amazon to buy it DRM free. Apple has lost about 10 album sales from me due entirely to DRM and low bitrate encoding (not iTunes plus). It's not a lot, but I'm not alone either.
Sheldon
I'm with you. I had purchased zero albums online before Amazon came out with their DRM free service. I too, purchased probably 10 albums from them this past year though I'll admit they were only the cheapy albums since I'm not going to shell out $$ for 256 MP3s. I actually did buy my first iTunes album, natch it was an EMI DRM free iTunes plus (256 AAC format) one. Apple and the labels need to move asap to (at least) 256 DRM-free AAC) if they want to see rapid growth in sales.
For those that say that the anti-DRM sentiment is for those who want to pirate you have it all wrong - I can't tell you how many authentication problems I've run into when trying out some of the free downloads from iTunes - songs that would instantly report that I have used 3 of my alloted installations even off of a fresh download. Plus, should I want to use a non-Apple product to play my music (though I will say that's not a big concern just right now) I want to be able to do that.
If Apple can't deliver on this, I'll just keep up buying my CDs in the stores. I don't NEED digital delivery, but I do expect quality and convenience (of playability) of my media.
Bleep-Bloop
Well, we do need to give you bolonga because an MP3 at 256 *IS* equivalent to an AAC at 128. AAC is actually MPEG4, which provides better sound quality at a lower bit rate, than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
Your entire family would be able to enjoy a DRM-encoded song file without any restriction, well, except the fact that you can't give it away to all your friends.
Yea my family is in the "business" of stealing music. Jeeze I really like how you assume to know everyone's situation and have such an arrogant tone. You must be a real fun guy to be around.
For your information, most people dislike DRM because it makes it difficult to move your music around to different players and to share within your household as I do. I pay for all my music BTW and fully support musicians and the arts. I like to listen to music in my car, my computer, my ipod, my living room and I don't always want to HAVE to use an Apple product to listen to my music (which Apple DRM forces you to do). So next time you start ACCUSING someone of stealing, maybe you should know your facts or at least try to be a little less arrogant. Its a really ugly trait.
Honestly, DRM isn't evil.
it just needs to work well and be interoperable. all the people upset with it also should know the artists / labels are genuinely concerned after all the illegal filesharing. hell even emailing a friend a song you like hurts their earnings.
Apple DRM doesn't stop people from stealing music, Steve Jobs even said so (he even wants to get rid of it). It only locks you into an Apple product. BTW, CDs are already DRM free...
I never buy music from iTunes because of the DRM. I browse for music there because it's a great shopping experience. When I find something I want, I head to amazon to buy it DRM free. Apple has lost about 10 album sales from me due entirely to DRM and low bitrate encoding (not iTunes plus). It's not a lot, but I'm not alone either.
Sheldon
+1
And for those of you saying "DRM doesn't matter"... tell that to the folks who bought DRM'd WalMart music. When Walmart shut down their DRM servers they lost the ability to transfer those songs to a new computer ... want to loose all your music when you buy a new computer?... or planning to use the same computer for the next 20 years?
I don't really think Apple/iTunes is going die anytime soon, but.... DRM (as it is executed currently) sucks bad.
Yes, Walmart has elected to keep those servers active for now... but only because of public outcry... they WERE planning on shutting them down.
I don't really think Apple/iTunes is going die anytime soon, but.... DRM (as it is executed currently) sucks bad.
Apple offered an out for your DRM from day one. At the time, it was a big win from the studios to actually allow you to copy it to other media, remove the DRM, and to change the original file format.
Does WalMart have no way for the consumer to remove the DRM by burning to a CD?
Heck, listen to it on my Alpine mid to high end system in my car and it is obvious.
256 MP3 IS in the range of sound quality of a 128 AAC for MOST songs.
Listen to the music on a high end system and most people will hear the difference right away for most songs.
128 AAC does come close to original CD quality on MOST songs, but a discerning listener can tell the difference.
Again, is your HT/stereo system a Home Theater in a Box system? Then buy MP3's and save your money.
If it is even a mid-range system, with appropriate speakers, you will hear the difference. Maybe not at first, but once you get used to AAC, and then go back, you'll notice the difference.
Does WalMart have no way for the consumer to remove the DRM by burning to a CD?
burning a music CD and re-ripping to mp3 involves a loss of quality... you loose the quality you PAID for initially.
DRM doesn't affect me at all. I can play the tracks on all my Macs, my iPhone, and iPod. So the "I hate DRM" excuse is only because you want to steal music or give it away for free. If you really hated DRM, you would go out and buy the CD, which will never have DRM restrictions, for the highest quality reproduction of the music.
than MPEG3, which is an MP3 file. It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
Your entire family would be able to enjoy a DRM-encoded song file without any restriction, well, except the fact that you can't give it away to all your friends.
Please get a clue and avoid repeating any of this drivel in future.
1.) MP3 is not MPEG3, it's MPEG1 layer 3
2.) DRM doesn't affect you therefore anyone anti-DRM is a pirate? Bullshit.
256 MP3 is nowhere near the quality of 256 AAC. Listen to it on a decent sound system and you'll know.
Heck, listen to it on my Alpine mid to high end system in my car and it is obvious.
256 MP3 IS in the range of sound quality of a 128 AAC for MOST songs.
Listen to the music on a high end system and most people will hear the difference right away for most songs.
128 AAC does come close to original CD quality on MOST songs, but a discerning listener can tell the difference.
Again, is your HT/stereo system a Home Theater in a Box system? Then buy MP3's and save your money.
If it is even a mid-range system, with appropriate speakers, you will hear the difference. Maybe not at first, but once you get used to AAC, and then go back, you'll notice the difference.
True on all accounts. Good post and I hope others will understand your meaning.
Sounds like hyperbole, not a credible comparison. I've never heard of anyone else placing the quality of Amazon's files that low.
The comparison usually made is actually AAC 128=MP3 160, AAC 256=MP3 320, and so on.
It also depends on whether we are talking about varible bitrate encoding for either format.
There is also a new MP3 format which is about equal to AAC at the same rate, but I don't know who might be using it yet. I'm also not sure if the same decoders can be used, though it's possible that they would have to be upgraded.
I read about this about a year ago, so I don't remember the details.
I decided years ago that MP3 wasn't worth the effort and now prefer lossless compression formats whenever possible. As for iTunes and the competitors, I buy Fairplay drm'ed AAC tracks from iTunes, and would rather do that than get unprotected MP3 files, even it they're free. I just don't see any reason to eschew the more modern (and superior, imo) AAC format to legacy MP3, even the revised VBR formats. Truth be told, Fairplay drm has been nothing but transparent to me, and as such I opt for the newer codec.
Another problem I have with Amazon etc is that the record labels are actively using them to undermine Apple and iTunes, a fact for which I have considerable contempt. There is no way I'm going to support their efforts to screw Apple over in this manner.
Another problem I have with Amazon etc is that the record labels are actively using them to undermine Apple and iTunes, a fact for which I have considerable contempt. There is no way I'm going to support their efforts to screw Apple over in this manner.
What's wrong with that?
It's what competition is all about.
We may be Mac users, but that doesn't mean that other companies should like being in the grip of Apple.
While I'm not happy about what the companies are doing because I'm an Apple stockholder, I have to admit that they have the right to want to regain control over their own distribution channels.
As long as what they're doing is legal, they have the right to do it.
Would this apply only to the U.S., or for other countries as well.
We still don't have the Amazon MP3 store in Canada
It is up to Amazon to make the deal with each company individually, not the association. Just like Apple has with EMI.
It's great that you, your wife, and your son are in the business of stealing music or giving it away for free by searching for lousy sounding MP3 files on the internet. That is the only reason why people claim to hate DRM.
You clearly misunderstood what the original poster said. All he said is that he browses iTunes for music and then goes and BUYS it from Amazon. He at no point said he was trolling the BitTorrent sites to steal it.
I also occasionally browse iTunes for music, mostly to sample an album before I buy it. Then I usually go buy the CD. I do often buy Amazon's cheap album of the day. Tuesday I grabbed Nickelback's new album for $3.99 and this morning I grabbed an old Belinda Carlisle album for 99 cents.
And I hate DRM on music. I don't want to be locked into listening to it on Apple's products. With unprotected music, I can listen to it on all my devices which include an iPod, a PSP, two TiVos and a PS3. I hate DRM on video downloads for the same reason because they all currently lock you into one hardware vendor's equipment.
DRM on DVD and Blu-Ray discs doesn't bother me at all. I can pick up a DVD or Blu-Ray player from numerous manufacturers and get the features I want without the lock-in that all DRM'ed download formats currently possess.