Yahoo at the end of September will shut down the servers that grant licenses for the digital rights management (DRM) that protects the music files, allowing playback of these longer-lasting songs and barring unauthorized copying.
Exactly how much of a server is really needed to authenticate a user and provide an encryption key? I don't understand the need to shut down these servers, too much support costs? Are they paying a stiff license fee to operate it?
Exactly how much of a server is really needed to authenticate a user and provide an encryption key? I don't understand the need to shut down these servers, too much support costs? Are they paying a stiff license fee to operate it?
If I were running that show, I would want a clean break. No doubt they have tossed around the idea of re-entering the music business in some DRM-free way. While I don't think that will happen tomorrow, they are opening future doors by closing the doors on this bid'ness entirely.
Yahoo should be forced to distribute a patch to make its music player software ignore Yahoo's DRM wrapper and play the track regardless of whether it has an authorization from the home server or not. Yeah, I suppose people will be able to distribute the track through P2P with other people using Yahoo's music player, but since so much music is sold by Amazon and Apple without any DRM at all that old argument doesn't mean so much anymore.
Or maybe provide Apple with some code to allow apple to modify iTunes to run Yahoo DRM music. Then Yahoo members could transfer their music into iTunes.
You're right, in May 2008. I don't know what the hold-up is.
I believe the current hold-up involves digitally re-mastering the entire collection (plus any extra bonus material), something that was not even started until after the Apple Corps business manager died about a year ago.
I believe the current hold-up involves digitally re-mastering the entire collection (plus any extra bonus material), something that was not even started until after the Apple Corps business manager died about a year ago.
That would take some time to be sure, this isn't just redigitizing but potentially completely remixing. I bet some lucky sound engineers are having fun! Wow, imagine remixing original multitrack recordings of the the entire Beatles collection. Pre the White Album they are doubtful to even have multi-track track masters. I wonder if they will use modern technology to create better pseudo stereo from mono masters than the earlier attempts where they simply had some stuff in one channel and some in the other. I have to think Paul and Ringo are involved in this mixing. Has anyone seen any reports anywhere of this process? I used to own a boutique 1" 8 track studio back in the day and drool thinking about this stuff. I had a number #1 hit too ... well OK only in Ireland. \
sidebar: Apple need to include Beatles and Beatle in their built in spell checker before the iTunes launch
I have bought 216 tracks from iTunes and only 72 have been DRM-free - exactly one third. So in my experience iTunes is still primarily a DRM-using service.
I primarily on by from Amazon now. They may be .MP3 but they are DRM free and 256 kbs. Sorry Apple but you do not get much of my money budgeted for music. Amazon is a much better choice and many tracks are cheaper than iTunes.
I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
That's copyright infringement. Why don't you just download them from P2P? The net effect is pretty much the same. Library loan systems aren't meant to be or licensed for helping people build their personal music libraries.
That's copyright infringement. Why don't you just download them from P2P? The net effect is pretty much the same. Library loan systems aren't meant to be or licensed for helping people build their libraries.
Spot on Jeff. It is tantamount to out right stealing, and then advertising that you are doing it.
I have bought 216 tracks from iTunes and only 72 have been DRM-free - exactly one third. So in my experience iTunes is still primarily a DRM-using service.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
My ratio is the other way around, two-thirds DRM-free (iTunes Plus) and one third still DRM. Most of them were upgraded after purchase to iTunes Plus, just today I upgraded another song.
Last I heard, iTunes had 6 millions songs in total, around 2 million of which are iTunes Plus from EMI and a million and a half indie artists. So 1/3 is DRM free.
I'd be interested to know what each of your music collections are mainly comprised of: indie artists vs. or well known artists from the Big Four (minus EMI, obviously).
While Universal is basically conspiring against Apple by only offering DRM-free tracks to iTunes' rivals, and is the largest label in the world, I don't care. Universal largely features and promotes forgettable, replaceable corporate pop, rock, and rap artists.
Here's a list of their fairly well known artists from wikipedia:
Wisin Y Yandel, Def Leppard, The Killers, Mary J. Blige, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Anberlin, Fall Out Boy, Enrique Iglesias, Juanes, Bon Jovi, Queens of the Stone Age, Falco, Elton John, Eminem [the guy had talent, but most of his appeal has vanished], Tupac Shakur, Guns N' Roses, Dr. Dre, 50 Cent, Daddy Yankee, Don Omar, Marilyn Manson, Akon, Reba McEntire, Sheena Easton, Nas, Diana Ross,Barry White, Luciano Pavarotti, Rammstein, U2, the Black Eyed Peas, Nelly Furtado, ABBA, Wu-Tang Clan, George Strait, Gwen Stefani, Soulja Boy Tell Em, Maroon 5, Keane, Tokio Hotel, Elisa, Grace Jones, The Mars Volta, Rihanna, The All-American Rejects, Kanye West, Ashanti, Mims, a-ha, Amy Winehouse, Hayley Westenra, Fergie and most recently Anastacia, New Kids On The Block, Justy Just and The Rolling Stones.
I've bolded the one's I've both heard of AND actually heard. I know most of these artists names, but if I didn't bold someone worth talking about, it's because I simply haven't listened to them yet, or much. The rest like Mariah Carey and Fall Out Boy will never be bolded by me. Artists like U2 are bolded because for whatever reason, they are liked enough to stand the test of time longer than most. Not saying I like U2, just recognizing their popularity.
As you can see, slim pickings. What's funny is how out of touch Universal is with it's mainstream fans. They have a ton of transient music a lot of people like and listen to, but most of them DON'T CARE ABOUT DRM! Shoot, most don't even know their music is encoded in FairPlay. They just buy their Amy Winehouse or Maroon 5 off iTunes, sync it to their iPod or iPhone, or burn it to CD for their cars.
The transcendent artists in Universal's library are mainly older artists, whose listeners do care about DRM...but most of us already have much of that music encoded from the CD version or know how to easily remove FairPlay. They have no new artists that appeal to the people who care about DRM enough to move to Amazon or the recently revised Rhapsody entirely. Sure, some shop around at Amazon to save $0.10 and the fact that it won't require a CD burn to remove iTunes' rather humane FairPlay DRM is a nice extra. But Universal's main consumer base of mainstream pop lovers generally couldn't care less.
I actually kind of like that Universal's being stubborn in opening up their collection on iTunes. It kind of gives indie artists an edge as most of them put up their music in iTunes Plus.
In the future, I'd say these major labels will be massively reduced in size and power, if they don't completely go extinct first. Then we can move on to more important comparisons of online music stores, like...which has the best selection of cutting edge artists, rather than which has the most mediocre pop artists. I'll really enjoy the side-by-side competition, which is already happening. Just a little while back I saw an ad on iTunes for something from Madonna and right next to it, Radiohead was selling "stems" (separate vocals, bass line, guitar, drums) of a song off their recent In Rainbows album, which users could buy, remix, and submit them for peer review on the band's website, with the highest-rated remix getting some kind of prize I believe.
Yahoo should be forced to distribute a patch to make its music player software ignore Yahoo's DRM wrapper and play the track regardless of whether it has an authorization from the home server or not. Yeah, I suppose people will be able to distribute the track through P2P with other people using Yahoo's music player, but since so much music is sold by Amazon and Apple without any DRM at all that old argument doesn't mean so much anymore.
Yahoo would have to get permission from every label involved in order to strip the DRM in a way not previously agreed upon. I don't see that happening.
One can buy shareware to remove DRM, but just a little work it can also be done for free. The steps are DRM selection to AIFF convert AIFF back to MP3 using a Free converter.
You're taking a lossy-compressed track and running it through another lossy-compression stage? What you end up with is called "mush." It may be DRM-free mush, but it's still mush.
"Real" DRM removal utilities are out there for some versions of iTunes, but they're all illegal in the US.
Yes, it's legal to shut down a DRM server with no compensation to the users, but it's illegal to remove DRM. Ponder that the next time you vote.
The correct approach to buying music is just what others have said: Buy used CDs. Rip. Now you have DRM-free lossless audio.
Way to be a blatant fanboy. This is exactly what Yahoo is urging its costumers to do. The only way to remove drm-protected music from iTunes is to burn as audio cds and rip those back into the computer. You can't remove the drm just by transferring them onto a disk as aac files directly.
Woe is me, I am incapable of realizing that I can burn a DVD-Audio and that should take most people 1 to 2 discs and then just let iTunes or whatever your jukebox is do the rest of the work. a *tiny* bit annoying? Sure. But so it changing the oil in your car but that doesn't mean it's a broken and worthless system.
Call him a fanboy all you want but all he/she is, is a realist. Nothing in the world is given to you for free and occasionally it might take a little bit of effort to get what you want. Welcome to life...
Many sociopaths think that admitting to getting away with a crime will make them look cool to others. They fail to see the utter disdain that they generate in law abiding people.
Woe is me, I am incapable of realizing that I can burn a DVD-Audio and that should take most people 1 to 2 discs and then just let iTunes or whatever your jukebox is do the rest of the work. a *tiny* bit annoying? Sure. But so it changing the oil in your car but that doesn't mean it's a broken and worthless system.
Call him a fanboy all you want but all he/she is, is a realist. Nothing in the world is given to you for free and occasionally it might take a little bit of effort to get what you want. Welcome to life...
Whoah, you just went on a tangent. I never said iTunes was broken or worthless. And I don't think iTunes can do dvd-audio, only data. First, the guy was saying iTunes is better because one can burn the songs to disc to remove drm. How can this be better when both uses the same method to remove drm? And i think the problem isn't removing drm, it's more of ripping the songs BACK again and losing quality in the process, which occurs when one rely on burning and re-ripping. Also, the poster never mentioned other jukebox programs, he only focused on iTunes.
um...you do know the difference between .wav (burned as audio disks, remove drm) and .aac/.m4p/etc (burned as data disks, retains drm) right?
Comments
Yahoo at the end of September will shut down the servers that grant licenses for the digital rights management (DRM) that protects the music files, allowing playback of these longer-lasting songs and barring unauthorized copying.
Exactly how much of a server is really needed to authenticate a user and provide an encryption key? I don't understand the need to shut down these servers, too much support costs? Are they paying a stiff license fee to operate it?
Exactly how much of a server is really needed to authenticate a user and provide an encryption key? I don't understand the need to shut down these servers, too much support costs? Are they paying a stiff license fee to operate it?
If I were running that show, I would want a clean break. No doubt they have tossed around the idea of re-entering the music business in some DRM-free way. While I don't think that will happen tomorrow, they are opening future doors by closing the doors on this bid'ness entirely.
Yahoo should be forced to distribute a patch to make its music player software ignore Yahoo's DRM wrapper and play the track regardless of whether it has an authorization from the home server or not. Yeah, I suppose people will be able to distribute the track through P2P with other people using Yahoo's music player, but since so much music is sold by Amazon and Apple without any DRM at all that old argument doesn't mean so much anymore.
Or maybe provide Apple with some code to allow apple to modify iTunes to run Yahoo DRM music. Then Yahoo members could transfer their music into iTunes.
You're right, in May 2008. I don't know what the hold-up is.
I believe the current hold-up involves digitally re-mastering the entire collection (plus any extra bonus material), something that was not even started until after the Apple Corps business manager died about a year ago.
I believe the current hold-up involves digitally re-mastering the entire collection (plus any extra bonus material), something that was not even started until after the Apple Corps business manager died about a year ago.
That would take some time to be sure, this isn't just redigitizing but potentially completely remixing. I bet some lucky sound engineers are having fun! Wow, imagine remixing original multitrack recordings of the the entire Beatles collection. Pre the White Album they are doubtful to even have multi-track track masters. I wonder if they will use modern technology to create better pseudo stereo from mono masters than the earlier attempts where they simply had some stuff in one channel and some in the other. I have to think Paul and Ringo are involved in this mixing. Has anyone seen any reports anywhere of this process? I used to own a boutique 1" 8 track studio back in the day and drool thinking about this stuff.
sidebar: Apple need to include Beatles and Beatle in their built in spell checker before the iTunes launch
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
I hope you do not copy the CDs on loan, I have a feeling your membership at the library specifically states you cannot ...
I have bought 216 tracks from iTunes and only 72 have been DRM-free - exactly one third. So in my experience iTunes is still primarily a DRM-using service.
I primarily on by from Amazon now. They may be .MP3 but they are DRM free and 256 kbs. Sorry Apple but you do not get much of my money budgeted for music. Amazon is a much better choice and many tracks are cheaper than iTunes.
I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
That's copyright infringement. Why don't you just download them from P2P? The net effect is pretty much the same. Library loan systems aren't meant to be or licensed for helping people build their personal music libraries.
That's copyright infringement. Why don't you just download them from P2P? The net effect is pretty much the same. Library loan systems aren't meant to be or licensed for helping people build their libraries.
Spot on Jeff. It is tantamount to out right stealing, and then advertising that you are doing it.
I have bought 216 tracks from iTunes and only 72 have been DRM-free - exactly one third. So in my experience iTunes is still primarily a DRM-using service.
and
My ratio is the other way around, two-thirds DRM-free (iTunes Plus) and one third still DRM. Most of them were upgraded after purchase to iTunes Plus, just today I upgraded another song.
Last I heard, iTunes had 6 millions songs in total, around 2 million of which are iTunes Plus from EMI and a million and a half indie artists. So 1/3 is DRM free.
I'd be interested to know what each of your music collections are mainly comprised of: indie artists vs. or well known artists from the Big Four (minus EMI, obviously).
While Universal is basically conspiring against Apple by only offering DRM-free tracks to iTunes' rivals, and is the largest label in the world, I don't care. Universal largely features and promotes forgettable, replaceable corporate pop, rock, and rap artists.
Here's a list of their fairly well known artists from wikipedia:
Wisin Y Yandel, Def Leppard, The Killers, Mary J. Blige, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Anberlin, Fall Out Boy, Enrique Iglesias, Juanes, Bon Jovi, Queens of the Stone Age, Falco, Elton John, Eminem [the guy had talent, but most of his appeal has vanished], Tupac Shakur, Guns N' Roses, Dr. Dre, 50 Cent, Daddy Yankee, Don Omar, Marilyn Manson, Akon, Reba McEntire, Sheena Easton, Nas, Diana Ross,Barry White, Luciano Pavarotti, Rammstein, U2, the Black Eyed Peas, Nelly Furtado, ABBA, Wu-Tang Clan, George Strait, Gwen Stefani, Soulja Boy Tell Em, Maroon 5, Keane, Tokio Hotel, Elisa, Grace Jones, The Mars Volta, Rihanna, The All-American Rejects, Kanye West, Ashanti, Mims, a-ha, Amy Winehouse, Hayley Westenra, Fergie and most recently Anastacia, New Kids On The Block, Justy Just and The Rolling Stones.
I've bolded the one's I've both heard of AND actually heard. I know most of these artists names, but if I didn't bold someone worth talking about, it's because I simply haven't listened to them yet, or much.
As you can see, slim pickings. What's funny is how out of touch Universal is with it's mainstream fans. They have a ton of transient music a lot of people like and listen to, but most of them DON'T CARE ABOUT DRM!
The transcendent artists in Universal's library are mainly older artists, whose listeners do care about DRM...but most of us already have much of that music encoded from the CD version or know how to easily remove FairPlay. They have no new artists that appeal to the people who care about DRM enough to move to Amazon or the recently revised Rhapsody entirely. Sure, some shop around at Amazon to save $0.10 and the fact that it won't require a CD burn to remove iTunes' rather humane FairPlay DRM is a nice extra. But Universal's main consumer base of mainstream pop lovers generally couldn't care less.
I actually kind of like that Universal's being stubborn in opening up their collection on iTunes. It kind of gives indie artists an edge as most of them put up their music in iTunes Plus.
In the future, I'd say these major labels will be massively reduced in size and power, if they don't completely go extinct first. Then we can move on to more important comparisons of online music stores, like...which has the best selection of cutting edge artists, rather than which has the most mediocre pop artists. I'll really enjoy the side-by-side competition, which is already happening. Just a little while back I saw an ad on iTunes for something from Madonna and right next to it, Radiohead was selling "stems" (separate vocals, bass line, guitar, drums) of a song off their recent In Rainbows album, which users could buy, remix, and submit them for peer review on the band's website, with the highest-rated remix getting some kind of prize I believe.
I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
You have just shown your complete lack of ethics on a public forum. Happy now?
Yahoo should be forced to distribute a patch to make its music player software ignore Yahoo's DRM wrapper and play the track regardless of whether it has an authorization from the home server or not. Yeah, I suppose people will be able to distribute the track through P2P with other people using Yahoo's music player, but since so much music is sold by Amazon and Apple without any DRM at all that old argument doesn't mean so much anymore.
Yahoo would have to get permission from every label involved in order to strip the DRM in a way not previously agreed upon. I don't see that happening.
One can buy shareware to remove DRM, but just a little work it can also be done for free. The steps are DRM selection to AIFF convert AIFF back to MP3 using a Free converter.
You're taking a lossy-compressed track and running it through another lossy-compression stage? What you end up with is called "mush." It may be DRM-free mush, but it's still mush.
"Real" DRM removal utilities are out there for some versions of iTunes, but they're all illegal in the US.
Yes, it's legal to shut down a DRM server with no compensation to the users, but it's illegal to remove DRM. Ponder that the next time you vote.
The correct approach to buying music is just what others have said: Buy used CDs. Rip. Now you have DRM-free lossless audio.
DRM music is for suckers.
Way to be a blatant fanboy. This is exactly what Yahoo is urging its costumers to do. The only way to remove drm-protected music from iTunes is to burn as audio cds and rip those back into the computer. You can't remove the drm just by transferring them onto a disk as aac files directly.
Woe is me, I am incapable of realizing that I can burn a DVD-Audio and that should take most people 1 to 2 discs and then just let iTunes or whatever your jukebox is do the rest of the work. a *tiny* bit annoying? Sure. But so it changing the oil in your car but that doesn't mean it's a broken and worthless system.
Call him a fanboy all you want but all he/she is, is a realist. Nothing in the world is given to you for free and occasionally it might take a little bit of effort to get what you want. Welcome to life...
I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
That's called piracy.
That's called piracy.
Save your breath dude. He won't come back to defend the indefensible.
That's called piracy.
Many sociopaths think that admitting to getting away with a crime will make them look cool to others. They fail to see the utter disdain that they generate in law abiding people.
Save your breath dude. He won't come back to defend the indefensible.
While I tend to agree with what you say, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
Woe is me, I am incapable of realizing that I can burn a DVD-Audio and that should take most people 1 to 2 discs and then just let iTunes or whatever your jukebox is do the rest of the work. a *tiny* bit annoying? Sure. But so it changing the oil in your car but that doesn't mean it's a broken and worthless system.
Call him a fanboy all you want but all he/she is, is a realist. Nothing in the world is given to you for free and occasionally it might take a little bit of effort to get what you want. Welcome to life...
Whoah, you just went on a tangent. I never said iTunes was broken or worthless. And I don't think iTunes can do dvd-audio, only data. First, the guy was saying iTunes is better because one can burn the songs to disc to remove drm. How can this be better when both uses the same method to remove drm? And i think the problem isn't removing drm, it's more of ripping the songs BACK again and losing quality in the process, which occurs when one rely on burning and re-ripping. Also, the poster never mentioned other jukebox programs, he only focused on iTunes.
um...you do know the difference between .wav (burned as audio disks, remove drm) and .aac/.m4p/etc (burned as data disks, retains drm) right?