- 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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
You realize that your Amazon CD prices are in low quality MP3 format. Right?
Just making sure.
Low quality compared to what?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm unfamiliar as to how CD-RW writes a lesser quality RedBook CCDA than it does to CD-Rs. Can you explain it?
I think he means that when you re-compress it, the quality goes down.