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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
- 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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
...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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Safari wouldn't open the page, and I'm too lazy right now to use FireFox.
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.
Safari wouldn't open the page, and I'm too lazy right now to use FireFox.
The whole site is down now.
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.
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.
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?
Hopefully TV/films will eventually go DRM free too.
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.
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.
- 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.