Apple, iPod, and CD Copy Protection

[MacRumors]

CNet reports (http://news.com.com/iPod+undermines+Microsoft+on+copy-locked+CDs/2100-1027_3-5263842.html) that two of the major companies responsible for Audio-CD based copy protection methods are approaching Apple to make their CDs compatible with the Apple iPod.

Reportedly 80% of complaints genereted from the copy protected CDs are due to iPod incompatibility. As a interesting side-effect, this may hurt Microsoft's dominence in this field. Current schemes involved providing protected Windows Media Audio files along side the copy protected tracks. While this allows Windows users to load the songs on their PCs, it prevents their use on the iPod - which does not support WMA files.

The upcoming versions of the copy protection appears to be more flexible and will also diminish Microsoft's control of the media:

SunnComm and Macrovision each say that the new generations of their technology, due later this summer and early next year, respectively, will let people effortlessly create versions of songs for computers and portable players, in almost the same way people rip CDs to create MP3 files today. Software will be loaded on the music CDs that will help create a new copy-protected file in a form that can be played on an iPod, or on Microsoft-compatible players such as the Rio Karma, or on whatever else a consumer might be using.

The only sticking point, however, is from Apple - who has not yet licensed their FairPlay digital rights management format to these companies. This could represent a new revenue source for Apple, depending on the terms of such a license.

[Docrjm]

Hopefully Apple will licence. Good revenue stream and another chance to say to M$ "Pog-Mo-Thon". :D

[Stike]

License it, and hit MS hard... thats the best thing they could do...

[dogbyte_13]

2 thing to say
About time!!
and
PPBBTTTTT!!! micro$uck and may you loose many other market shares of whatever you have your greedy hands in! :D

[windowsblowsass]

more mac compatibility and it hurtds microsoft, im in

[G5orbust]

Yes Apple! This is your chance to stick it to MS! Go! Now! Run, dont walk!

[RadiusMan]

Yeah, I agree. This is a great opportunity for Apple to do some ass kicking. The iPod's popularity is something that Apple needs to hold on to for everyone's good.

I have been nervous about them making the same mistake with the iPod as they did with the Macintosh, but things like this will help ensure that that doesn't happen.

[TBR]

License it, License it HARD!

[tliptak]

This is all good for apple.

Anything diminishes microsofts control has got to be good.

[jbembe]

They'd better do this right, I don't want to be forced to listen to a 128kbps file when I bought the CD and want to hear AAC lossless through my Airport Express because they don't want me ripping their CD without DRM!!! I will NOT purchase such CDs.

[Freg3000]

The only way I see Apple saying no is so perverse that I will go crazy if they reject this offer. But the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS, not getting DRM'd files from the CD itself.

Although that would be incredibly stupid. License it Apple!!!

[Lancetx]

Apple won't license it unless they get a very favorable deal, so we shall see I guess how generous Sunncomm and Macrovision are willing to be. I personally won't buy any CD with such copy protection, whether it's endorsed by Apple or not. I might as well download it from the iTMS if that's the case...and that's precisely why Apple will never license it to these guys.

[billyboy]

So where is the catch? The makers of a number one record want Apple to let their music be played on an iPod. It is a request from a company that has so far been totally MS. All sounds plus plus.

I suppose the only thing holding Apple back is deciding whether or not copy protected CDs are going to be the future. If Steve Jobs crystal ball says yes, then it will be on. If his ball clouds over and shrinks to the size of 2" square portable TV screen, then Sunncomm are out of luck.

"the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS"

The music store is a vehicle to sell iPods, so I suppose if another huge source of music that is iPod oriented opens up, ie copyright protected cds, Apple would be daft not to go with it - ie let Sunncomm pay Apple a royalty, sell a $299 iPod instead of an album, and still probably see the person who bought the cd going back at some stage to the music store looking for more music to buy.

[Apmonia]

I might be wrong here, but shouldn't consumers be allowed to put the music they purchased into any type of format they want? Take for example those that listen to jazz or classical, they might want to put the music into a higher bit rate or even a different codec. This is good for Apple, but bad for the consumer.

Apmonia

[Fuchal]

I've personally never run across a CD that my superdrive powerbook couldn't rip... but I do have a few CDs that will ONLY read in my powerbook... my cd players (old) say they aren't cds. :D

[Stella]

The ball is now in favourably Apple's court.. this would be a good time for Apple to license fairplay.. they have the majority of online music business, now its their opportunity to capture the DRMed CD music.

If Apple do not license fairplay now, I shall be stunned.

[uzombie]

I want a black iPod. Not a painted on, but a truly, black iPod. Black wheel, buttons and reverse display (black with white letters). Black accessories. Black earphones.

White is so...passé.

You know iPod is EOL when they have a RealTree® Camo Mossy Oak version.

:p

[Freg3000]

"the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS"

The music store is a vehicle to sell iPods, so I suppose if another huge source of music that is iPod oriented opens up, ie copyright protected cds, Apple would be daft not to go with it - ie let Sunncomm pay Apple a royalty, sell a $299 iPod instead of an album, and still probably see the person who bought the cd going back at some stage to the music store looking for more music to buy.

I know, I know. It's a stupid reason. But Apple has been known to do stupid things in the past. I hope they don't make a mistake now as they are faced with a great opportunity.

[Dippo]

This sucks for all consumers.

If I wanted DRMed music, I would buy it from iTunes or some other online music store.

This would be great for Apple, but bad for honest people that want to rip music as they like. We all know that this won't stop the real pirates...

[stoid]

As The Guess Who said,

It's the new Mother Nature taking over,
It's the new splendid lady come to call.
It's the new Mother Nature taking over,
She's in the zone!

I see this as the first step in the turning of the tables. Apple is on the way up in many big ways and for many reasons. Microsoft is going to fall in many big ways and for many reasons!

[suzerain]

Anything that legitimizes these stupid copy-protected CDs is bad, IMO. Myself, I would prefer to see these CDs remain incompatible with the iPod, so that people would have fewer reasons to buy them in the first place.

This will only make it more likely that these stupid copy-protection schemes will continue, furthering the problems such as buying CDs that don't even work in certain older CD players, and so forth.

Sorry, but under the fair use laws, I should have the right to make copies of my CDs for myself. Anything that gets in the way of that is wrong. I say, don't help these assholes out. :mad:

[stoid]

This sucks for all consumers.

If I wanted DRMed music, I would buy it from iTunes or some other online music store.

This would be great for Apple, but bad for honest people that want to rip music as they like. We all know that this won't stop the real pirates...


It sounds to me that you'll just use the Macrovision or whatever application on the disk to rip the music from the CD. You should be able to rip to whatever format you want, it just adds DRM so that you won't be able to share it over LimeWire or Aquisition.

At least not until someone cracks the DRM. :o

[advocate]

What does FairPlay have to do with this? FairPlay locks a track to a certain Apple ID. Are they going to predict the Apple ID of the purchaser while the CDs are being pressed -- or, in this scheme, individually mastered? Somehow I don't see how that's going to work.

[ericdano]

I don't see Apple doing this. Why? Cause it's redundant. People, including myself, buy a CD to be able to whatever we want with it. I don't want to be FORCED to listen to it at 128 AAC. Protected AAC. I want to rip it however I want, 192AAC, Apple Lossless format, whatever.

I think Steve will say that copy protection doesn't do anything to prevent piracy. And he is right. Adding copy protection that "works with an iPod" isn't going to do anything positive for anyone except Macrovision.

[Lancetx]

I know, I know. It's a stupid reason. But Apple has been known to do stupid things in the past. I hope they don't make a mistake now as they are faced with a great opportunity.

The "great opportunity" for Apple here might very well be to turn these guys down. SunnComm and Macrovision have a greatly reduced market for their copy-protected CDs if they don't work with iPods, so that puts Apple in the position of power here, not them. Unless Apple can make as much per song as they can through their music store, there is no sense in going along with this for them. Besides, Apple could perhaps help kill off the market for copy protected CDs if they don't support them and that would do us all a big favor.

In a nutshell, if it requires DRM and it must play on an iPod, then the iTMS is already there, so who needs copy protected CDs to be compatible? I'm predicting they'll just say no to SunnComm and Macrovision when it's all said and done.

[Doctor Q]

I don't quite understand how this would work, assuming they make this deal.

If I buy a protected CD, I presumably can play the CD on my CD player and copy a protected version of any song from the CD to my Mac, for downloading into my iPod. Can I also play the song on my Mac? On a certain number of computers? On all computers? Can I burn them in mixes to my own CDs?

If the songs are in a protected format on my Mac, what uses would be allowed and not allowed? Do computers have to be authorized to play the music? If so, who would be the authorization authority?

[BornAgainMac]

Wow! Microsoft got a black-eye after picking a fight with Apple. Longhorn should just adopt Quicktime and AAC files as their primary formats.

[mjtomlin]

Freg3000 says... "But the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS"

First of all, Apple is not that stupid... They DO NOT want music from the iTunes store to be the ONLY music playable on the iPod. Which is why we can currently rip music from our CD collection, that was the whole point of iTunes... before there was an iPod and before there was an iTunes Music Store, iTunes was an app to allow you to rip and listen to your music on your computer.

Secondly, from what I've read of a few posts elsewhere, people have been able to rip music off these "protected" CDs on their Macs, because these stupid CDs only know how to protect themselves when loaded into a Windows PC.

[~Shard~]

Hmmm, interesting article - I'm definitely going to be following this and seeing how things play out...

[ericdano]

Anything that legitimizes these stupid copy-protected CDs is bad, IMO. Myself, I would prefer to see these CDs remain incompatible with the iPod, so that people would have fewer reasons to buy them in the first place.

This will only make it more likely that these stupid copy-protection schemes will continue, furthering the problems such as buying CDs that don't even work in certain older CD players, and so forth.

Sorry, but under the fair use laws, I should have the right to make copies of my CDs for myself. Anything that gets in the way of that is wrong. I say, don't help these assholes out. :mad:

EXACTLY. I totally agree with you. Legitimizing copy-protected CDs is NOT the way to go. I think Apple will say NO to this, and they should. There is NO reason to support Macrovision and it's DRM. You have iTunes music store to get DRM versions, or if you get the CD, you should be able to rip it in whatever format you want.

[Chaywa]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to cheer on one monopolizing corporation against another as if it is some sports event or turf battle. Don't get me wrong, I adore Apple products and I abhor using MS anything. That being said, at the corporate level, away from the beautiful addictive technology, we're talking about two institutions with one goal in mind: getting us to part with our hard-earned dollars. Getting wrapped up in which company is better than all the others misses the point that we are all beholden to major corporations in every aspect of our lives. Whoops! There goes democracy. Bring on the plutocracy. :mad: :(

[mproud]

This article is old. I saw it a week ago.

[ericdano]

Freg3000 says... "But the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS"

First of all, Apple is not that stupid... They DO NOT want music from the iTunes store to be the ONLY music playable on the iPod. Which is why we can currently rip music from our CD collection, that was the whole point of iTunes... before there was an iPod and before there was an iTunes Music Store, iTunes was an app to allow you to rip and listen to your music on your computer.

Exactly. That is why they SHOULD NOT support "copy protection" on CDs that are BOUGHT.

Secondly, from what I've read of a few posts elsewhere, people have been able to rip music off these "protected" CDs on their Macs, because these stupid CDs only know how to protect themselves when loaded into a Windows PC.

The only way I see copy protection working is this:
You buy the CD. You decide to rip it to your iPod via iTunes. iTunes looks on the CD, sees it has "copy protection", then adds some sort of AAC id tag on it saying YOU ripped it. It would assume you had a Apple iTunes store ID.

But I don't see Apple supporting or doing this. Copy protection doesn't do anything positive for anyone.

[croooow]

I haven't run across a CD that iTunes couldn't import. One CD I can think of (Foo Fighters "There Is Nothing Left To Lose") that I couldn't rip with other programs before iTunes came out for Windows and that was because of the Enhanced Media on it (some videos and stuff)

I don't really buy many CDs anymore, Could someone list a CD that is copyprotected from itunes?

[Stella]

128bps encoded AAC on CDs..

Who said any AAC files appearing on CDs would be only 128bps? There is no reason why record companies couldn't record the files at a higher bit rate?

[ericdano]

128bps encoded AAC on CDs..

Who said any AAC files appearing on CDs would be only 128bps? There is no reason why record companies couldn't record the files at a higher bit rate?

Ok, but WHY? I paid for the CD. Why do I have to SETTLE for some rate that someone else sets???

I think that is the whole point. If I buy a $15 CD, I want to do whatever I want with it. Rip to iPod, etc, etc, however I want.

[wPod]

license it!!!! come on you know you want to!!! think of the benifits. . . . more revenue . . . more money for R&D . . . cooler products. . more revenue. . . get it?

[JFreak]

i hope apple doesn't license. everything that violates the red-book cd standard is just simply BAD and should not be supported.

[JDOG_]

Ummm...did anybody read this part?:

"Software will be loaded on the music CDs that will help create a new copy-protected file in a form that can be played on an iPod, or on Microsoft-compatible players such as the Rio Karma, or on whatever else a consumer might be using. "

How stingee can you get? I don't want special software on my computer to help me rip a cd...I have iTunes for that. Shame on the record companies for trying to manipulate digital music when you BUY the CD.

People will always find a way around the problem, whether you like it or not. :cool:

[jxyama]

i doubt jobs will bother licensing this. he said before, he doesn't believe in copy protection. he believes in putting in some protection as long as it's very un-intrusive and will not hinder use for 99% of the users. as someone else posted earlier, he will not legitimize a copy protection scheme that seems to distrust majority users and above all, cripples an established format such as a CD.

it's one thing to put in mild DRM on a music file - an up and coming format for music distribution with the public yet to have a common understanding on how they work. it's quite another to "cripple" an existing, ubiquitous format like the CD. jobs will say it's distrusting and annoyance for majority users to endorse CD-level copy protection.

and with the iPod as popular as it is, labels has to listen to apple. when users find out CDs are incompatible with their iPods, they will boycott the CD, not iPod.

[Azark]

Every protected CD I tried acted as a normal CD on my mac, incl. ripping in iTunes. :confused:
If Apple makes a deal with them, maybe the protections will work on mac then. :(
But, with the iPod dominance, it may be the time for Apple to challenge WMP, by this means or another. I'm not sure protected CD will have a long life when labels realize that it has no effect on piracy...

[Loge]

Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.

[Freg3000]

Freg3000 says... "But the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS"

First of all, Apple is not that stupid... They DO NOT want music from the iTunes store to be the ONLY music playable on the iPod. Which is why we can currently rip music from our CD collection, that was the whole point of iTunes... before there was an iPod and before there was an iTunes Music Store, iTunes was an app to allow you to rip and listen to your music on your computer.

Secondly, from what I've read of a few posts elsewhere, people have been able to rip music off these "protected" CDs on their Macs, because these stupid CDs only know how to protect themselves when loaded into a Windows PC.

I hope you're right.

[manu chao]

If you want to give customers the full quality and the full choice into which format they want to convert their music (and I would settle for nothing else) and if you want to prevent (illegal) file-sharing at the same time, the OS would have to allow only the ripping of music into DRMed files (as in Fairplay-AACs or Fairplay-AppleLossless or Fairplay-OggVorbis (not that the latter would already exist) etc.).
Microsoft is going into this direction with Paladium (or whatever is is called). But I think it is going to be a very long way until Apple is forced to follow them (hopefully never) and forcing Linux to so as well will be even harder.
By that time we will probably all have a microship implanted which monitors all our movements, actions, thoughts....

[g4cubed]

I hear a lot of people talking about copyrights, fair use laws and the such. I too agree that if you purchase a cd you should be able to copy it to whatever player/computer/format/etc. that you use to listen or store that music you legally bought and paid for. But unfortunately we're stuck with it (copyright protection) for now and that Apple would be foolish NOT to license it. It would cement their place in the music market.

[manu chao]

... But unfortunately we're stuck with it (copyright protection) for now ...

Using iTunes and ripping CDs we are not (yet) stuck with anything.

[jxyama]

Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.

excellent point. we are way past the point where customers would accept anything but fully rippable CDs. if they are somehow crippled, i'd definitely demand a refund as it's not what i expect CDs to be and it's borderline fraud to claim these are music CDs. and i am sure i wouldn't be the only one who expect CDs to be what it has always been and continue to be that way - fully compatible with all CD players, PC or otherwise, and can be ripped into arbitrary format of my own choosing.

[Sabbath]

Sounds like a pretty good idea, and I'm not surprised about the number of complaints, as I have had to return CDs for this reason. It must be done properly though. I can think of quite a few people who would be unhappy if there were just 128kbps MP3/AAC on the CD, People want choice over the file size and format type.

I would also like it if there was a way you could get the digital tracks (by this I mean mp3/AAC etc. I realise CDs are digital) if you bought the vinyl, maybe include a CD that could not be played on a CD player but had the tracks to put onto an iPod. I don't really listen to CDs anymore I just use iTunes or iPod and I'd love to collect vinyl rather than CDs but I can't afford to have two copies. If I buy the CD I get or can make the digital tracks, so why not if I buy vinyl, I know I can use a line in but it is lots of effort.

[FriarTuck]

License it for a penny if you have to. But make this happen.

You've got billions in cash. License the darned thing and don't quibble over nickels.

[osprey76]

I've personally never run across a CD that my superdrive powerbook couldn't rip... but I do have a few CDs that will ONLY read in my powerbook... my cd players (old) say they aren't cds. :D

I found this to be the case, too. I read on the forums somewhere that someone couldn't rip the On and On album from Jack Johnson. DRM issues were discussed a bit. I bought it some time ago and had not brought it in to the house yet and, thus, had not ripped it to my Mac. Well, upon insertion iTunes crashed. But, when I reopened iTunes, the CD names came up care of the CDDB and it ripped without a problem. Though, now that I write this, I'm not sure if I tried playing a track to verify integrity.

[snahabed]

Copy protected CD's WILL kill the CD format -- which is what the record companies want anyway.

There will no longer be any incentive to buy a CD -- as it stands, we buy them for uncompressed, unrestricted audio. Will these new copy protected CD's allow us to rip to iTunes in current AND FUTURE formats? I am sure in a few years we will be looking at .m5a files.

Just because it would be favorable for Apple, does not mean it would be favorable for consumers... and is it really fair to force CD buyers into iTunes/iPod? I mean, it will be fine for us, but I'd rather have people come over to the Good Side because they want to, not because they are forced to.

iPod is #1 by far, but there are WAY more people out there who cannot afford an iPod. Why shouldn't the music that THEY BUY LEGITIMATELY be usable on their stupid ugly cheapass WMA player?

It reminds me of freedom of speech in a way. The only way this freedom really MEANS anything is if we protect the VILEST of speech. We should really be protecting the rights of the consumer to CHOOSE what format/player they want to use, no matter how VILE it is. :)

[GeeYouEye]

Here (http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/wave.htm) is how to make it iPod compatible, even on Windows.

[deepkid]

I might be wrong here, but shouldn't consumers be allowed to put the music they purchased into any type of format they want? Take for example those that listen to jazz or classical, they might want to put the music into a higher bit rate or even a different codec. This is good for Apple, but bad for the consumer.

Apmonia

That was my first reaction. As an artist and record label owner, I'm interested in copyright protection, but it can not work if it is perceived to be too restrictive to the fan/customer.

I don't think that we know enough about how this would work with the iPod/iTMS yet, but a handful of caution flags have gone up at the mere mention. This one is certainly more about beating Microsoft.

There's a great deal of education that must happen before all parties involved feel comfortable with the inevitable.

[Sabbath]

Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.

I see your point and agree with it but I think we are stuck with the copy protection issue unless there is a big shake up of the music industry. So maybe Apple licensing is a second best option, it seems someone will produce a copy protection standard at some point and I would prefer that to be Apple. Do not think I am not worried about it encouraging more of these copy-protected disks however.

One thing I would definitely like to see is Apple to start offering a way for artists to sell their music directly to consumers.

[Doctor Q]

Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.I agree. But there is more than one way to solve the problems that copy protected CDs currently present:

(1) Offer a better alternative, such as iTunes, for buying music. If people don't buy copy protected CDs, they will drop out of the market.

(2) Make them practical. Set standards. Make them work with our equipment. Make their rights management invisible to everyday users. Maybe, if Apple took on this issue, used their expertise, and established rules and standards, copy protected CDs might meet their goals of allowing record companies to avoid unrestricted sharing of music, while letting us do what we want without interference. Apple has done a pretty good job of this for online music. Maybe they could do the same for "printed" music, maybe not.

I prefer (1), but maybe (2) is worth speculating about.

[dontmatter]

why do I have the dreadful feeling that apple will keep fairplay it's own?

[outerspaceapple]

license it!!!! come on you know you want to!!! think of the benifits. . . . more revenue . . . more money for R&D . . . cooler products. . more revenue. . . get it?

*do, do do do,*
...that's whaaat its aaaal aaabout!


I agree with you completely! Businesses are in business to make money, not to put customers on comfortable futons. On the flip side, however, the bigger the futon (in the customer's eye), the more money they'll spend! So basically, this copy protection won't even matter to people like me at all (audio hijack anyone??), but will deter your average limewire user (about 80% of the ripping community) from seeding the songs.

Whatever Apple does, license its Fair Play rights or not, will have little effect on pirated music as a whole. What it will do, however is generate more revenue for Apple, which is always a good thing.

The bottom line? Licensing provides apple with 1. More Revenue 2. iPod compatibility (further monopolizng Apple - always a good thing) and 3. Little effect on pirated music.



Sounds like a Win-Win-Neutral to me. Can't get much better than that :D

[cube]

This is complete b.s. I won't buy any non-CD that doesn't allow me to rip at any rate I want, including lossless.

What are you doing, cheering for this crap?

[ballofredemtion]

hi, i'm new here, but i've been following this thread and have a question.

if you rip a disc with DRM, and then make a new cd from it, can't you then rip the new cd you just burned and rid yourself of the DRM altogether? this of course assumes you're successful in ripping the original disc to begin with, but that's never been a problem for me on a mac.

granted, it's a pain in the ass, but i'm not even a fan of apples fair play. once i buy it, it's mine. mine mine mine. i'll endure any amount of hassle i have to to rid myself of *ANY* DRM, just to make a point.

personally, i think all this "stolen music" paranoia is crap anyway. people generally download music they wouldn't buy anyway. if i could make a mixed tape for someone in the 80s and 90s, i expect to be able to burn a cd (or send a file of mp3s) to a friend in the 00s. if the RIA weren't such a horde of flaming pudmunchers - and didn't ROB you for the cost of a new cd - maybe folks would be more open to buying them. (personally, i really like owning the physical cd .. i like to display them, and to have the liner notes and art, etc). i honestly have to wonder if it's really digital sharing that's put a dent in cd sales, or if it's just that folks are buying used. $17 is just too damn much for a cd!

i think digital file sharing is the ultimate capitalist retribution. if your cost is too high, folks aren't gonna buy it. it's kinda sadistically funny to watch the RIA try and squirm out of it's wake-up call. i hope they fail and fail miserably! :D

[SiliconAddict]

I see this as the first step in the turning of the tables. Apple is on the way up in many big ways and for many reasons. Microsoft is going to fall in many big ways and for many reasons!


Microsoft ain't going anywhere. People don't get the fact that no company with 40 Billion in available cash assets goes poof overnight or even in a short period of time. Microsoft is a lumbering giant that sees the portable music market as a cute diversion. If Apple wins *shrugs* they move to the next thing that catches their eye. If MS is really interested in the Music industry then they will pour hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion or two, into the project.

People keep telling me MS is going down. When? How? A 40 Billion dollar company could buy out a record lable or two if they wanted to. A 40 billion dollar company could invest in an alt OS if Windows starts tanking. A 40 billion....get my point? MS may lose in the long run but the company "Microsoft" is going to be around in some form or another for at least as long as we all are alive. Get use to it folks.

[macro_girl]

Until SunnComm and Macrovision can produce a copy protected CD that is effective on the Mac (Red Book does not mount), they have little or no power over Apple. Even if they did find a scheme that fooled the Mac (Mac OS X or Mac OS 9.x) Apple could potentially update the driver software to get round it. These guys really need to work with Apple to get any sort of copy protection of the Red Book working (and iPod support for their DRMed tracks). Unless Steve Jobs has changed his mind about copy protection on CDs, then I think SunnComm and Macrovision are out of luck.

[solafide]

I believe Apple should do this.

Here is a way that it could work. The CD is made to interact with iTunes, so that the consumer has the ability to rip at whatever quality they want, including using Apple's lossless compression. iTunes would interact with the CD company's online database for DRM authentication, allowing the same level of freedom as for music purchased at the iTunes Music store.

The CD WILL die eventually. It is a matter of time. However, business decisions are about successfully navigating to a profitable future by leveraging the present. Right now, it makes sense for Apple to do this, in my opinion. It is my hope that Apple will not turn away from this. This is a different situation than Real's request for Fairplay. Real is struggling and losing ground. CDs are here for a while. Like it or not, DRM is the future we face. Would we rather have Microsoft's version of that future or Apple's? I vote Apple's. Their DRM is much less oppressive.

Go for it Steve!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hacurio1]

Copy protected CD's WILL kill the CD format -- which is what the record companies want anyway.

There will no longer be any incentive to buy a CD -- as it stands, we buy them for uncompressed, unrestricted audio. Will these new copy protected CD's allow us to rip to iTunes in current AND FUTURE formats? I am sure in a few years we will be looking at .m5a files.

Just because it would be favorable for Apple, does not mean it would be favorable for consumers... and is it really fair to force CD buyers into iTunes/iPod? I mean, it will be fine for us, but I'd rather have people come over to the Good Side because they want to, not because they are forced to.

iPod is #1 by far, but there are WAY more people out there who cannot afford an iPod. Why shouldn't the music that THEY BUY LEGITIMATELY be usable on their stupid ugly cheapass WMA player?

It reminds me of freedom of speech in a way. The only way this freedom really MEANS anything is if we protect the VILEST of speech. We should really be protecting the rights of the consumer to CHOOSE what format/player they want to use, no matter how VILE it is. :)


Speaking of the ipod, has anybody here herd about: http://www.savetheipod.com/index1.php.
This is yet another bill being pushed by the RIAA. Check out this website and if you agree, send a fax.

Arn, I haven’t post in Macrumors for a while, and today I just found out I can't start new threads. What happened?

Thanks,

Hugo A.

[må¥å]

I think what these labels want is that they put a copy-protection on the CD's that when iTunes reads it it will apply your computer AAC ID tag. I see this as a bad thing right now its only WMP protected and iTunes can rip almost everything under the sun I only had an issue with one CD that was copy-protected however I found a way around that. Remember some CD that are protected will rip however when you playback the tracks it will seem to play fine until there are blank spots in the tracks, also audio volume at times it will peek and decrease this is copy-protection on some CDs.

Anyhow I don't want iTunes to support this non sense, and big deal a couple dollars here and there are not worth it if it cripples the consumer freedom of rights to do whatever they want with what they bought.

[må¥å]

once flash media cards come down in price we will see the audio cd get replaced with audi flash media (copy-protected). This is where the future is leading.

iPod will eventually aquire a built-in flash media reader and audio files will be able to be encoded in the iPod without the need of a MAC.

I have been and seen the future this is where its all going....... ;) :D

[nagromme]

Apple should say YES. Too bad for Microsoft.

Consumers should say NO. Only buy real CDDA Compact Discs. DRM was needed to make online buying happen at all. It's not needed for CDs.

And pirates are more to blame than anyone. I'm no RIAA fan, so that's saying something.

[sinisterdesign]

They'd better do this right, I don't want to be forced to listen to a 128kbps file when I bought the CD and want to hear AAC lossless through my Airport Express because they don't want me ripping their CD without DRM!!! I will NOT purchase such CDs.

right there with'ya, brother.

if i plunk down $15 (or whatever) for a CD, i want the option of ripping it to iTunes at 192kbps or LOSSLESS if i want. if i don't care as much about the CD, i buy it on iTMS. that's my only complaint w/ iTMS is that everything is 128kbps. yes, it's a nice tradeoff btw file size & sound quality, but sometimes i don't WANT that tradeoff, i want quality.

i think this is a great side effect from the popularity of the iPod, but i still hate DRM on music that i purchase!!!

[Surreal]

i just realized that the copy protection probably works only on pc


by this i mean, who here is using itunes on windows and has ripped these "protected cd's?"

that could be the problem.

i have a cd from japan that isnt supposed to work...but it ripped...it was a little strange for a sec, but itunes trucked on, even got the names in japanese.

[relimw]

The only way I see Apple saying no is so perverse that I will go crazy if they reject this offer. But the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS, not getting DRM'd files from the CD itself.

Although that would be incredibly stupid. License it Apple!!!

Hmm, historically, this seems to be the way most of Apple's management thinks.
Let's hope the wiser people take this to the bank and they license it!

[TomK]

There's lots of money to be made in charging for MD5 and AES (http://nanocrew.net/software/DeDRMS/DeDRMS.cs).

[manu chao]

hi, i'm new here, but i've been following this thread and have a question.

if you rip a disc with DRM, and then make a new cd from it, can't you then rip the new cd you just burned and rid yourself of the DRM altogether? this of course assumes you're successful in ripping the original disc to begin with, but that's never been a problem for me on a mac.

You can do this with the DRMed songs you get from the iTMS, so you presumably could do the same if the CD manufacturers applied the same DRM mechanism to their CDs.

But, the question is what qualtity (128kbit/s, AppleLossless ?) the DRMed songs you can get from such CD will be.

[Trekkie]

I'm voting they don't agree to it unless I can rip at a lossless rate.

Right now it's like 128KB WMA or something like that. All I know is if an artist doesn't release something on iTMS and I have to buy the CD for it, it better be unecrypted or no sale.

I know it seems bass ackwards to buy something off iTMS but I have a double standard. I'm ok with a 'downloaded' song being a lower bit rate but if I by the physical, full quality media I want a physical, full quality song rip.

[SeaFox]

I don't think anyone read the quote from the article closely enough:

"...Software will be loaded on the music CDs that will help create a new copy-protected file in a form that can be played on an iPod, or on Microsoft-compatible players such as the Rio Karma, or on whatever else a consumer might be using."

I don't think we're talking about Fairplay here. The file format is supposed to be playable on the iPod and Microsoft compatable players.

So what are we talking about here. Making Windows players suddenly compatable with protected AAC's? No. This is going to be a completely new file format, requiring a software upgrade for iPods. Either that or a special encoding program added to the CD's that rip the songs to a protected format appropriate for the device you are using.

[Arcady]

I don't want any software on my CD's. I have discs that I bought in 1983. If they had software on them, what is the chance it would work on any OS today? The same thing goes for these new CD's - what happens in 2024 when you pull out your "vintage collection of music from 2005-2009" and the stuff won't work because some 20 year old application isn't compatable with OS 20? Or the online database to create the DRM files long ago ceased to exist? These CD's need to be labeled as software discs that may happen to work in some CD players, or better yet - dropped altogether.

And anyone can plug a toslink cable from a CD player output into the toslink input on their G5 and make a perfect digital copy. What's the point?

[craigdawg]

Seems like there's two competing interests here: Apple, who wants to sell iPods and SunnComm/Macrovision that want to sell CDs.

I would think Apple would only take action if they believed that doing so would lead to increased iPod sales. (Last time I checked, the iPod was selling quite well :)). If it won't--which I'm not sure how it would--they have no reason to do anything.

Would someone really NOT buy an iPod because a CD they purchased isn't ripable? They're returning the CDs not the iPods. They're complaining about the CDs not the iPods.

On a side note: If I'm ultimately going to put the music on my iPod, why would I even bother buying the CD? ("Contraband" and "TT5B" are both available on iTMS).

[iChan]

this might be a bit off-topic, but... except for apple, it seems as though Microsoft will have already dominated nearly all forms of digital content.

It is a scary thought to have Microsoft controlling almost all content that travels through cyberspace and beyond...

I remember being a windows XP user and ripping all my (150+) CD's, only to realise halfway through the process that they were all .WMA files!!! it took almost 2 days to get that far... still, I dumped them all and started again, ripping them into MP3 files... that is how much I hate MS's file formats.

all my new Rips are AAC.

I don't know how Apple licensing anything to MacroVision or SunnCom is going affect anything, but anything that disrupts the MS hegemony will make me feel more at ease...

[winmacguy]

The "great opportunity" for Apple here might very well be to turn these guys down. SunnComm and Macrovision have a greatly reduced market for their copy-protected CDs if they don't work with iPods, so that puts Apple in the position of power here, not them. Unless Apple can make as much per song as they can through their music store, there is no sense in going along with this for them. Besides, Apple could perhaps help kill off the market for copy protected CDs if they don't support them and that would do us all a big favor.

In a nutshell, if it requires DRM and it must play on an iPod, then the iTMS is already there, so who needs copy protected CDs to be compatible? I'm predicting they'll just say no to SunnComm and Macrovision when it's all said and done.
For all the comments I read over at MDN I would have to agree with the above point of view.

I dont want ANY copy protection on CDs that I buy. Unfortunatley we dont have iTMS in New Zealand yet (not really a big deal I just buy my cheap CDs from discount CD stores with no limit on choice)

I think the DRM that Apple uses from the iTMS is sufficient for limiting choice for copying and besides it would only be a matter of hours of its release that any copy protection being applied to CDs was cracked anyway which would amount to a big waste of time.

[mojohanna]

I agree with previous posts. License it Apple. Tell Microsoft to HOBB (Honk on BoBo)!!!!!

[virividox]

Do IT APPLE DO IT this is your chance to reinforce the dominant position

[jwhitnah]

[url="http://news.com.com/iPod+undermines+Microsoft+on+copy-locked+CDs/2100-1027_3-5263842.html"]Current schemes involved providing protected Windows Media Audio files along side the copy protected tracks. While this allows Windows users to load the songs on their PCs, it prevents their use on the iPod - which does not support WMA files.

A monor point. I may have this wrong but iTunes converts WMA to AAC/mp3 just fine. Isn't it the DRM hooked to the WMA that prevents its use on an iPod?

[Abstract]

I found this to be the case, too. I read on the forums somewhere that someone couldn't rip the On and On album from Jack Johnson. DRM issues were discussed a bit. I bought it some time ago and had not brought it in to the house yet and, thus, had not ripped it to my Mac. Well, upon insertion iTunes crashed. But, when I reopened iTunes, the CD names came up care of the CDDB and it ripped without a problem. Though, now that I write this, I'm not sure if I tried playing a track to verify integrity.

That was I, and I was pissed. :mad:

I want everything to stay the way it is. I don't want to allow copy-protection. I still want to be able to rip songs as MP3 since they don't have DRM and work on any music player. I doubt this new format would allow me to rip songs as mp3's because they wouldn't have DRM control of your usage.

[manu chao]

A monor point. I may have this wrong but iTunes converts WMA to AAC/mp3 just fine. Isn't it the DRM hooked to the WMA that prevents its use on an iPod?

No, not at all. The fact that you can get a car with a car alarm doesn't mean that all cars have a car alarm. You can have a WMA file with DRM or without, as you can have an AAC file with DRM (in this case Fairplay) or without. And iTunes (naturally) can only convert non-DRM-protected WMA files.

[Highland]

Anything that legitimizes these stupid copy-protected CDs is bad, IMO. Myself, I would prefer to see these CDs remain incompatible with the iPod, so that people would have fewer reasons to buy them in the first place.

This will only make it more likely that these stupid copy-protection schemes will continue, furthering the problems such as buying CDs that don't even work in certain older CD players, and so forth.

Sorry, but under the fair use laws, I should have the right to make copies of my CDs for myself. Anything that gets in the way of that is wrong. I say, don't help these assholes out. :mad:
YES YES YES YES YES!!!

I'm glad someone can see the light!

I am not against Apple licensing FairPlay, but those CDs breach the Red Book CD standard, and don't work on all players. This takes away rights to use music that has been legitimately paid for. In the end this hurts the users that are doing the right thing (P2P users obviously wouldn't have any restrictions).

Also, ANYTHING can be copied, so I don't know who they think they're fooling. I have a CD player with digital out. I have an audio interface with digital in. Quite simple really.

MORE copy protection IS NOT THE WAY!

I purchase loads of music, and I have no problem returning a CD like these as 'faulty'. Everyone else should do the same.

[Highland]

No, not at all. The fact that you can get a car with a car alarm doesn't mean that all cars have a car alarm. You can have a WMA file with DRM or without, as you can have an AAC file with DRM (in this case Fairplay) or without. And iTunes (naturally) can only convert non-DRM-protected WMA files.
So, do you think that the 'software embedded on the CD' will create UNprotected WMAs? I don't think so. AAC and FairPlay is going to be the only way it'll work (short of Apple adding protected WMA, or another format to iTunes).

Maybe Apple don't want to license FairPlay, because that would make it easier to crack (via more access to information).

[7on]

Every protected CD I tried acted as a normal CD on my mac, incl. ripping in iTunes. :confused:
If Apple makes a deal with them, maybe the protections will work on mac then. :(

Copy-protection has only hindered Mac users in that older Macs can't read some of the newer Copy-protected CDs.

And I could care less in what they do. I'll always be able to de-DRM my music. As long as you can hear the music, it can be re-recorded w/o DRM. To anyone with complaints of quality, Why are you even buying CDs? Vinyl should be your cup of tea.

I for one hope Apple doesn't license it. Make the company a "forbidden fruit" if you will.

[Highland]

Copy-protection has only hindered Mac users in that older Macs can't read some of the newer Copy-protected CDs.
Not true at all. My experience has been that it doesn't matter how new/old a CD drive is... some can read the CDs, some can't. I had a CD that I couldn't read on my work MDD 1.25 Dual G4 (or on the second Pioneer 106 DVD burner), but a friend could read on an old 450mhz Sawtooth G4.

To anyone with complaints of quality, Why are you even buying CDs? Vinyl should be your cup of tea.
That's just crazy (and not really worth a response).

Also, it's not like you can buy the same music on vinyl, or use it easily with an iPod.

[jwhitnah]

No, not at all. The fact that you can get a car with a car alarm doesn't mean that all cars have a car alarm. You can have a WMA file with DRM or without, as you can have an AAC file with DRM (in this case Fairplay) or without. And iTunes (naturally) can only convert non-DRM-protected WMA files.

Except for the car alarm analogy, how is that different from what I wrote? It just seemed to me many people say wma or aac when they really mean WMA with DRM or AAC with Fairplay (the only DRM I'm familiar with for AAC right now). Technically, you can't play WMA on an iPod, but *cough* a friend of mine downloads plenty of WMA's on P2P and converts them for use on his iPod. He's probably not the only iPod owner who has never used iTMS.

[weldon]

Apple obviously supports copy-protection for music and doesn't support file-sharing piracy. I'd like to see them get a piece of the action for copy-protected music in any form.

That said, I want to be able to get high bitrate files from CD's. That's why I buy the CD instead of just downloading from iTMS. One low-tech solution would be a one-time license key included in the CD that you could use in iTMS to register your iTMS account as an owner of the CD. You could download the entire CD in 128kbps, 192kbps, or Apple Lossless. The record companies would reimburse Apple a one-time fee for setting up the album (and setting up the license keys) and then recurring fees based on the number of downloads (bandwidth, customer service, management, etc.). This introduces a ton of people to Apple, iTMS, AAC, etc. It might also allow iTMS to sell the high bitrate tracks as download only to people that didn't buy the CD.

[Highland]

The bottom line...

This form of copy protection can not be played on all CD players.

It breaks the Red Book standard.

It's not good for paying consumers.

It means you lose you're legal right for 'space shifting' (if the protection works).


Wasn't there a court case in France where EMI CDs with protection were considered faulty (setting a precedent for similar cases in France)?

As a music producer, I am all for iTMS (I just wish it was available in Australia), and very against P2P networks. However, CD protection is total BS--it cripples many of the devices that should be able to play them. You just can't **** your PAYING fans around like that.

Apple should not support this crap (and I don't think they will license FairPlay).

[Porchland]

The only way I see Apple saying no is so perverse that I will go crazy if they reject this offer. But the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS, not getting DRM'd files from the CD itself.

Although that would be incredibly stupid. License it Apple!!!

Yeah, it's sort of a paradigm thing. Are CDs going to continue to be the dominant model with a side of downloads, or are CDs going the way of the 8-track?

I suspect it's a little of both -- at least for the foreseeable future. Downloads will continue to take marketshare from shrink-wrap sales, but I don't think CDs as a business model will be displaced at the same rate tapes displaced 8-tracks or CDs displaced tapes. PCs are never going to have the market penetration of CD players, so there's going to be a need in the market for downloads and CDs.

Personally, I'd rather see iTMS become the dominant model, but Fairplay, ultimately, is bigger than iTMS in a market sense.

I applaud Apple for the effort. Grudgingly.

[Kagetenshi]

Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.

Is it a disc? Yes. Is it compact? Yes. Therefore it is a CD, or a Compact Disc. It may not be an Audio CD, as that means something specific, but it most certainly is a CD.

Also, can we stop calling CDs "disks"? They have no case, and are thus discs.

~J

[deejemon]

*

[JFreak]

i have a harman/kardon hifi system that happens to reject cd-r discs altogether. that's a copy protection scheme i'm fine with - i don't even want to be able to play cd-r discs because they are not the original ones i like to have.

but...

when i buy an original cd that i have a legal right to listen to, i will return it to the store if that original cd will not work in any cd players out there - in other words, if it's not a red-book cd, it will be boycotted. there is no quarantee that the disc will play in any given cd player if it's not a red-book cd, and any kind of copy-protection that was not available in the 80's when the red-book was specified, will break the red-book standard. should be very understandable.

apple knows this and steve jobs is a wise man. he will not license.

[cube]

Is it a disc? Yes. Is it compact? Yes. Therefore it is a CD, or a Compact Disc. It may not be an Audio CD, as that means something specific, but it most certainly is a CD.

Also, can we stop calling CDs "disks"? They have no case, and are thus discs.

~J

It is definitely not a CD. It doesn't conform to the standards. Ask Phillips.

[Loge]

DRM on itms is acceptable to many because it is clear and consistent - you know exactly what you can do with the files. Attempts to protect CDs are neither; you buy one of these, you have little idea what it will play on, now or in the future. I can't see why Apple would want to be associated with this mess; their resources would be better targeted improving itms (geographical spread, size of catalogue etc).

[Highland]

when i buy an original cd that i have a legal right to listen to, i will return it to the store if that original cd will not work in any cd players out there - in other words, if it's not a red-book cd, it will be boycotted.
I know I'm just repeating myself, but I couldn't agree more with you!

I don't understand why Apple would want to be any part of this.

The big issue here is that most stores have a no return policy on opened CDs. If you buy it and you can't play it... TOO BAD! I really can't believe label managers think this is good for them and their labels. As soon as iTMS is available in Aus AND I can download Apple Lossless, I think I'll be forgetting about CDs forever (if only to send a clear message to the labels).

BTW : Red Book audio CDs *do* contain copy protection, it just didn't really do anything (it was a flag for each track... ie. the CDROM/player knows that you shouldn't copy it, but there's nothing actually stopping you!)

[SiliconAddict]

Is it a disc? Yes. Is it compact? Yes. Therefore it is a CD, or a Compact Disc. It may not be an Audio CD, as that means something specific, but it most certainly is a CD.

Also, can we stop calling CDs "disks"? They have no case, and are thus discs.

~J

Yes and no. Go find a CD or a CD case. On it somewhere, more recent CD's don't have this which I will explain why in a sec, you will find the CD logo that is labeled Compact Disk Digital Audio. This logo means it conforms to the Redbook digital audio standard. See: RedBook (Audio CD Standard) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDA)
The standards body that created this has been rumbling that companies that create DRMed music should not be using the logo on their media since the standard was not established with any DRM in mind. This is why many vendors have stopped carrying the logo. CD obviously is the name of the media not what is contained on the media (Is a Mac OS disk a CD or not?!) But the industry is running a fine line between what is considered in the public mind a CD and what isn't. You have to admit to the average user on the street when you say CD...the first thought is the thing that pops into any CD player on the market for obvious reasons. It hasn't happened yet but I can guarantee you that in the next few years lawsuits against labels that aren't labeling their CD's with approp warnings that this thing will NOT work in some CD players will become more commonplace.

[SiliconAddict]

I have mixed feeling on this issue. On one hand I want Apple to give MS a run for their money. But on the other its like making a deal with the Devil. No real good can come out of this for the consumer who doesn’t have an iPod. And then there is the question on those who aren’t running Windows or OS X. Future competition in the OS market isn’t going to be Windows vs OS X. Its going to be Windows vs. Linux. So what happen to fair competition when Linux users are left out in the cold? I just don’t know. :confused:

[Nermal]

Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.

My copy of Red Hot Chili Peppers' Greatest Hits says on the front:

The ultimate collection of Chili peppers songs and videos
On CD-14 favourites
Plus 2 brand new songs
& DVD-16 videos, plus band commentary on each video

On the back, it also refers to it being a CD. Yet it doesn't have the CD logo, and is "copy controlled". It rips perfectly in iTunes though.

[garybUK]

If a shop sells you a DRM'd disk under the pretence that it is a CD or Compact Disk (i.e. Advertised as a CD etc.), as stated a redbook standard by Philips & Sony, then you can demand your money back if it doesn't work on some CD Players.

This is simple trading standards and assume applies to other countrys ??

Personally, i may look at investing in a decent turntable and having a look at that vynil floor in the Virgin Megastore / HMV in manchester :)

[Mac-Xpert]

The bottom line...

This form of copy protection can not be played on all CD players.

It breaks the Red Book standard.

It's not good for paying consumers.

It means you lose you're legal right for 'space shifting' (if the protection works).


Wasn't there a court case in France where EMI CDs with protection were considered faulty (setting a precedent for similar cases in France)?
Exactly. I'm very much against copy protected CD's. I own a high quality Denon CD-player, and some time back I purchased the copy protected "Let It Be... Naked" album from the Beatles. This is one of those copy-protected EMI CD's. Although it plays on my Denon CD-player, I can hear the errors they deliberately put on the disc as a means of copy protection. Throughout the whole disc there are distortions (particularly noticeable in the high frequencies like some sort of periodic flanging in the cymbal sounds.) It sounds awful. I tried the CD also on two of my old CD-players. My 1988 Philips CD-player played the CD correctly without the above-mentioned problems, but my 1986 Sharp CD-player refused to play the CD altogether.

I was very disappointed with all this. Obviously I want to be able to play any CD on my high quality Denon CD-player. I now will never buy any of these crippled CD's again. :mad:

I agree with the people here that say that Apple should not co-operate with these CD-cripplers. Everybody should just ban these copy-protected CD's altogether. That's the only way we can get rid of these crippled CD's.
:(

[Mac-Xpert]

If a shop sells you a DRM'd disk under the pretence that it is a CD or Compact Disk (i.e. Advertised as a CD etc.), as stated a redbook standard by Philips & Sony, then you can demand your money back if it doesn't work on some CD Players.

This is simple trading standards and assume applies to other countrys ??
Yes, you can return the CD, and get your money back, put what's the point? I don't want to have to return the CD's. If I buy a certain CD, I buy it because (obviously) I want to listen to / own that album. If it then turns out to sound like crap due to some silly copy protection, I have no way to own and enjoy that music. Although I also own a record player, I want to be able to buy most my music on CD. The longevity of CD's is one of the reasons why I usually prefer CD's. Vinyl can sound great in certain circumstances, but with digitally recorded music, the benefits of vinyl (warm analog sound) disappear and only the bad sides (like wear out, pops and noise etc.) remain.

It's not like with other products, that you can return them if they’re faulty, and get a good working version (maybe from another manufacturer) instead. The record companies have a monopoly position. If you can't use their crippled CD's in the way you want, then your left with nothing, there is no choice.

[garybUK]

Vinyl can sound great in certain circumstances, but with digitally recorded music, the benefits of vinyl (warm analog sound) disappear and only the bad sides (like wear out, pops and noise etc.) remain.

It's not like with other products, that you can return them if they’re faulty, and get a good working version (maybe from another manufacturer) instead. The record companies have a monopoly position. If you can't use their crippled CD's in the way you want, then your left with nothing, there is no choice.

I fully understand what you are saying and agree, but people may not know what they are buying, say if they order a cd off the net, people should be informed, thats what i was getting at about returning products.

Vynal can last as long as cd's but with the hiss and pops. My dad has a load of old Vynil that still goes strong on a cheap £30 turntable he bought.

Funny really when you think about it.. copying has been going on for ages, people can record from analogue sources, so digital copying is just the same, but only some silly no-brained corporations like RIAA panic, see their wages going down and panic then comes another fat-cat to make some money.

I can see a change in how society treats music/movies and the supposid 'stars' in the not to distant future.

Tbh, i dont really listen / buy many american artists, with the exception of the occasional Blink 182 or Linkin Park, so im hoping that they dont impact many of the british bands etc..

[Windowlicker]

I want a black iPod. Not a painted on, but a truly, black iPod. Black wheel, buttons and reverse display (black with white letters). Black accessories. Black earphones.

White is so...passé.

You know iPod is EOL when they have a RealTree® Camo Mossy Oak version.

:p

why don't you buy an iRiver? it's black right? what you're talking about here is a mac in a PC case. no, they will stick to white (hopefully).

oh whatta heck.. i shouldn't be mocking someone just because he/she prefers something i don't.

[ericdano]

Apple obviously supports copy-protection for music and doesn't support file-sharing piracy. I'd like to see them get a piece of the action for copy-protected music in any form.

That said, I want to be able to get high bitrate files from CD's. That's why I buy the CD instead of just downloading from iTMS. One low-tech solution would be a one-time license key included in the CD that you could use in iTMS to register your iTMS account as an owner of the CD. You could download the entire CD in 128kbps, 192kbps, or Apple Lossless. The record companies would reimburse Apple a one-time fee for setting up the album (and setting up the license keys) and then recurring fees based on the number of downloads (bandwidth, customer service, management, etc.). This introduces a ton of people to Apple, iTMS, AAC, etc. It might also allow iTMS to sell the high bitrate tracks as download only to people that didn't buy the CD.

Interesting idea, but I think another way to do it would be to have something on the CD that, when iTunes is loaded and the CD is about to be ripped, that it puts some sort of ID tag with your AppleStore ID or something.

But, I still think if you BUY the CD, you shouldn't have to worry about this sorta thing.

[Mac-Xpert]

That said, I want to be able to get high bitrate files from CD's. That's why I buy the CD instead of just downloading from iTMS. One low-tech solution would be a one-time license key included in the CD that you could use in iTMS to register your iTMS account as an owner of the CD. You could download the entire CD in 128kbps, 192kbps, or Apple Lossless. The record companies would reimburse Apple a one-time fee for setting up the album (and setting up the license keys) and then recurring fees based on the number of downloads (bandwidth, customer service, management, etc.). This introduces a ton of people to Apple, iTMS, AAC, etc. It might also allow iTMS to sell the high bitrate tracks as download only to people that didn't buy the CD.Since the iTunes store is only available to a limited group of people/countries (looking at this from a global point of view) I don't think this can be a solution right now or in the foreseeable future. Until Apple releases the iTunes store worldwide, this would be limiting the use of such a technology greatly.

[Kagetenshi]

It is definitely not a CD. It doesn't conform to the standards. Ask Phillips.

"com·pact disk or com·pact disc
n.
Abbr. CD
A small optical disk on which data such as music, text, or graphic images is digitally encoded."

It is quite definitely a CD.

SiliconAddict, you're entirely correct. But it conforming to the Redbook standard affects whether or not you can call it compact disc digital audio, it doesn't change the fact that it is a CD.

Yes, copy-protected CDs need some sort of clear labelling that they are such, but they're still CDs.

~J

[Mac-Xpert]

I fully understand what you are saying and agree, but people may not know what they are buying, say if they order a cd off the net, people should be informed, thats what i was getting at about returning products.Ahh, right. I didn't get that from your first post. I totally agree that it should be clear from the start that a certain album is copy protected. In fact I would like governments to force the record companies to put big stickers on the front of these CD's stating that they're copy protected (much like the health warning stickers on cigarette packages). It would be even better if record companies would be forced to release a regular audio-CD (non copy protected) version of each copy protected CD as well. Then they could sell the protected version for less than the regular CD-prices and sell the non copy protected one for the normal price. This gives people a choice. If they have no problem with the limitations of the copy protected CD, they can buy that one. If they don't like the restrictions, or have a problem playing the protected CD on their system, they can buy the normal audio-CD version for the regular CD price.
Vynal can last as long as cd's but with the hiss and pops. My dad has a load of old Vynil that still goes strong on a cheap £30 turntable he bought.
It both depends on how many times you play the record and the expectations you have in terms of sound quality. I quite like the sound of good quality vinyl records with analog recordings, but I’m also aware of their limitations. In general the CD just has a better longevity because there is no physical contact with the surface of the CD during playback. When you play a vinyl record there is always going to be some wear to the record surface no matter how good your record player is. Eventually the sound will start to deteriorate. My oldest CD’s go back to 1986, and still sound as good (actually better due to the much better CD-player I now own:)) as they did when I bought them.

[Trekkie]

"com·pact disk or com·pact disc
n.
Abbr. CD
A small optical disk on which data such as music, text, or graphic images is digitally encoded."

It is quite definitely a CD.

SiliconAddict, you're entirely correct. But it conforming to the Redbook standard affects whether or not you can call it compact disc digital audio, it doesn't change the fact that it is a CD.

While it is in the dictionary like that, it is in many patent databases as that as well. That patent includes 'must adhear to the redbook standard' or terms like that and if you don't, you cannot call it a 'CD', 'Compact Disc', or display the CDDA/CD logos on it.

See here (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50101,00.html) for a new article where it's discussed how Philips (one of the owners of said copyright) jumped in and told anyone that copy protects that breaks the redbook to take a flying leap and they can't use the logos.

An important distinction in my book. Now I know I can look at the CD and tell if it's copy protected or not, and not buy it if that is the case.

[Highland]

Go Philips!!!

Another problem is that I have heaps of CDs with copy protection, and I've only had issues with about 2... So it's not a black & white case of not buying CDs with protection.

[weldon]

Interesting idea, but I think another way to do it would be to have something on the CD that, when iTunes is loaded and the CD is about to be ripped, that it puts some sort of ID tag with your AppleStore ID or something.
But that wouldn't do anything for all the users that don't have iTunes installed, or don't use it to rip CD's. It seems that iTunes would get labeled as the "bad" player that forces DRM when you rip your own CD's while other software would rip and encode without restriction.

[weldon]

Since the iTunes store is only available to a limited group of people/countries (looking at this from a global point of view) I don't think this can be a solution right now or in the foreseeable future. Until Apple releases the iTunes store worldwide, this would be limiting the use of such a technology greatly.
I understand your point. I was thinking of the one-time license key for iTMS as something they would include in addition to other measures. So the rest of the world would be stuck with the WMA files on the CD until Apple rolled out the iTMS to those countries. Still, such a deal could help bring iTMS to those countries even faster.

I think in many cases, they have two versions of the CD. One with the copy-protection and one without. The copy-protected versions are more prevalent in Europe but many countries don't get them at all.

[Bad Beaver]

I will not buy DRMd data carriers, round, 12cm, silvercoloured.
I do buy CDDA.
I do buy SACD.
I decide what to do with it, and if I want to rip it to AL I will do it, and if I want to rip it to 32kbps MP3 I will do it.
All by myself.
I never in my life stole a song from p2p or uploaded one, and I have no desire to do so.
But I decide by myself what to do with the music I pay good money for, and need no MI executive telling me that the MI, or anyone, knows what I want on my iPod better than me. That is especially the case it the MI thinks that I might have the desire to pay them for some 128kbps BS.
If the MI decides to intrude on this by making their silly DRM schemes Mac-compatible and obligatory for all releases, I will just go and buy a decent USB/Firewire digital-in solution and record my own AIFF files from my CD player, that is how use- and pointless DRMing "CDs" is.
Or I will just stop buying new releases, no problem. There is more music than I could ever listen to on non-DRM-infested media.

It it me, the mighty consumer, with my big fat wallet, and I say F#CK DRMd hardcopies. :cool:

[sjk]

And pirates are more to blame than anyone. I'm no RIAA fan, so that's saying something.Of course it goes beyond simply blaming "those damn pirates" into looking at different motives behind pirating/non-pirating. One way I see it goes something like this:

Pirate #1: "You have what I want and I'm going to take it from you because <reason>"
Non-pirate #1: "You have what I want and we agree I'll give you X for it"
Non-pirate #2: "You have what I want and I can't afford X for it so I'll do without for now"
Pirate #2: "You have what I want and I can't afford X for it so I'm going to take it from you because <reason>"

Protection, legislation, etc. doesn't stop pirate #1; he'll need other help and/or punishment to be shown his wrongdoings.
Non-pirate #1 has a mutually satisfying transaction. That's an ideal situation.
Non-pirate #2 may accept the situation, consider alternatives, be disappointed, etc. and at an extreme will find a reason (sometimes the same one as pirate #1) for becoming pirate #2.
Circumstances will determine if pirate #2 behavior is a temporary, isolated incident or, at worst, eventually becomes pirate #1.

If we're too passive towards actions that infringe on fair use, etc. we may be stuck with some unfortunate consequences of them. Pirating will definitely be one of the negative side effects, more like pirate #2 than pirate #1 above. And RIAA reactions tend to leave an impression that every pirate is a #1, trying to apply their brand of "help"/punishment to pirates that are really more like #2.

Drifting back to the main topic...

While reading this thread I thought of comparisons between CD and DVD copy protection issues... how trying to force DRM restrictions on CD media that originally didn't have them differs from DVD media that originally did (IIRC). And reasons for boycotting protected CDs seem worthwhile right now while boycotting DVDs now seems a mostly self-serving futility.

I'm still unsided since it's not clear what Apple's choice would be for the longer-term overall best interest of customers, but that's what would get my vote if it were possible to foresee.

[sjk]

I have mixed feeling on this issue. On one hand I want Apple to give MS a run for their money. But on the other its like making a deal with the Devil. No real good can come out of this for the consumer who doesn’t have an iPod. And then there is the question on those who aren’t running Windows or OS X. Future competition in the OS market isn’t going to be Windows vs OS X. Its going to be Windows vs. Linux. So what happen to fair competition when Linux users are left out in the cold? I just don’t know. :confused:Yeah, that's a nice summary of some things I've been flip-flopping with while reading the thread. Along with some earlier posts from Lancetx and winmacguy.

[Fitzcaraldo]

Readers in the USA may never have experienced the problem cd's... they are a European issue that I first encountered last winter on a Dido album.

The discs are not labled CD (because they are not) and further carry a warning "Not Compatible with Macintosh"

When incerted only Track 1-7 apppears. all subsequent tracks are unplayable.

Yes it can be circumvented, but its complicated.

A have to say that anybody thinking that Apple co-operating on this issue will somehow benefit Apple is Shortsighted and mistaken. What we will see is a Mac version of the drm, as well as the current Windows version. All that will happen is that it would rip to fairplay on Mac and some other on PC/Win amp.

I see this a a gross violation of "Fair Use" and for the life of me see no reason for Apple to even consider suporting such protection formats. The only winner would be the companies trying to get a strangle hold on the DRM'ed CD Market.

Further, Who is paying for the protection? I doubt its free? will this raise CD prices? Will the Record Companies Foot the Bill? or will it be the good old artists again?

Bad Idea. Think about it... :rolleyes:

[arogge]

People keep telling me MS is going down. When?

According to a prediction made by J. Richard Gott for the January 1, 2000 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft would last more than 7 months but less than 975 years. The future longevity predictions for this and other phenomena can be found in this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618257357/qid=1090471454/).

[Mac-Xpert]

I think in many cases, they have two versions of the CD. One with the copy-protection and one without. The copy-protected versions are more prevalent in Europe but many countries don't get them at all.I have never seen a non-protected version offered at the same time as a protected version. Even worse, when you look for a CD in one of the online stores it's (like garybUK already mentioned) now unclear if it's a regular (unprotected) version or one of the crippled ones.

So there's no way I can get (or know where to get from) a non-protected version of certain album on CD. And with my CD player bringing out the errors in protected CD's very clearly, I don't like to take the risk of buying a protected one either.

[Mac-Xpert]

I will not buy DRMd data carriers, round, 12cm, silvercoloured.
I do buy CDDA.
I do buy SACD.
I decide what to do with it, and if I want to rip it to AL I will do it, and if I want to rip it to 32kbps MP3 I will do it.
All by myself.
How can you rip a SACD? As far as I know you can't play SACD's on a computer.

[JFreak]

How can you rip a SACD? As far as I know you can't play SACD's on a computer.

same as HDCD - when played on regular cd player, it will be cd quality and 100% compatible. but when played on correct player, the audio quality is better. these don't break red-book.

[Bad Beaver]

same as HDCD - when played on regular cd player, it will be cd quality and 100% compatible. but when played on correct player, the audio quality is better. these don't break red-book.

Exactly, while SACDs cannot be ripped (and who'd want that at this time, it would mean severeal GB per disc), almost all releases are SACD-Hybrids by now and have a redbook layer, and the standard does not allow crippeling it. Up until now that is. In Germany, some record company would give you the SACD-Hybrid version of an album if you complained that the "CD" did not work, that was in the news a few months ago.

[macnews]

Even if you don't like copy protect CD's Apple MUST license their DRM. The iPod has become MUCH more than a switcher vehicle. It is a very nice profit vehicle, switcher vehicle and iTMS driver which is now becoming profitable. If you license the DRM that too could drive people to iPods which re-enforces all of the above points.

Something else to think of, some one is going to have the DRM. Up till now it was MS. If corporate america sees MS as willing to play ball they will embrace them and not leave us much choice. If Apple can at least get in the ball park and show they can be willing partners, like with HP, the tendancy of other groups going to Redmond may stop. Sure, you may not like DRM'd CDs, neither do I, but until they die, let the DRM be made by Apple, not MS.

[technohedz]

Exactly, while SACDs cannot be ripped (and who'd want that at this time, it would mean severeal GB per disc), almost all releases are SACD-Hybrids by now and have a redbook layer, and the standard does not allow crippeling it. Up until now that is. In Germany, some record company would give you the SACD-Hybrid version of an album if you complained that the "CD" did not work, that was in the news a few months ago.

I've been paying attention to this in market terms. Considering that record companies always make money on format shifts (Vinyl, cassette, cd, sacd, dts, dvd-audio), they want to make the format appeal to the consumer so they get some bucks.

Also consider that now companies that vend hardware for consumer playback are also media labels (remember lots of people think sony is the bomb and I'll admit I have a sony parts in my component system...I also ONLY use Earthquake Amps in my car so that might help you see where my acoustics are coming from). Right now you can go buy an el cheapo sony dvd changer that plays DVD/CD+-/rw Dolby Digital, DTS, etc etc.. (I think the latest ones are SACD'ed since it only makes sense) and you think 'hey, user friendly' (nevermind that the US versions are so friendly as to not even have the PAL conversion in them).

So regardless of your player you go and buy a couple of SACD hybrids (remember it's not the approved hi-def dvd audio standard so that cd layer is important...except sony wants to rule the world and most companies will license if they can). Great, the CD (as in SP of SPDIF CD red book part works fine and even plays through the analog subsystem on your receiver, while the SACD on certain sony's only comes through the optical out and requires analog input to be output as analog). So you use it, you buy some more, you use them in your computer, you use them in your car, more and more companies play SACD etc...you decide to upgrade your audio eq..you get a really great SACD players that still plays audio cds..only now they gotcha...

Because the installed base of non-redbook audio cd players grows to the point that suddenly disks AREN'T available w/ the cd hybrid layer..and reasoning...not consumer drm certainly..they'll throw on a dts layer or something to take up space and tell you that you get either SACD or dts depending on what your player supports.

What's the only place you're going to be ripping from? (just so ppl know that DRM'ed stuff that isn't passed along the analog bus on many units...is ALMOST always put out through the headphone jack..it's not fast and it's got the whole volume level issue, but it's there).

I say buy CD's that play in anything now only and never buy into the format shift unless you can also shift the format yourself without encumberance. Also reject any technology which fails to play something if it ISN'T DRM'ed (certain HDTV cons etc).

As for apple going into this.... All it will do is cut down on the availability of Audio CD's that aren't crippled. Since people can pirate from ITMS it doesn't really protect the companies, but it will happen. So Steve says yes to do what? It seems like if he says no and Apple keeps patching to play stuff w/ itunes they can just say 'hey, we made it so it only encodes to the hardware key of the ipod or computer it was ripped on and that's the DRM' and nobody can really argue w/ them (it just doesn't cripple the media or the machines).

People try to sue for software update when they should really sue for only 5 region changes on a laptop..go figure..

[yamabushi]

Copy protected disks just encourage people to find their music elsewhere. If the labels continue to add restrictions illegal downloads will increase and improve in quality. But they are paranoid and more interested in control than profit. So the labels will continue to work against their own best interests by increasing production costs and increasing piracy. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[~Shard~]

Copy protected disks just encourage people to find their music elsewhere. If the labels continue to add restrictions illegal downloads will increase and improve in quality. But they are paranoid and more interested in control than profit. So the labels will continue to work against their own best interests by increasing production costs and increasing piracy. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way... ;) :cool:

[Mac-Xpert]

Because the installed base of non-redbook audio cd players grows to the point that suddenly disks AREN'T available w/ the cd hybrid layer..and reasoning...not consumer drm certainly..they'll throw on a dts layer or something to take up space and tell you that you get either SACD or dts depending on what your player supports. This already happens to a certain extend. I was reading a interview with Peter Gabriel (http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=141&releaseid=12283&magazinearticleid=199419&siteid=15) And there is some mentioning of the release of older albums on the SACD format.

Your catalog was released on SACD last year. When we received the releases, a number of us convened at Georgetown Mastering in Nashville to listen to them. The first thing that inspired remarks was that the SACDs weren't backward-compatible.

Yeah. You can only play them on an SACD player, which is, I think, a space issue as far as I understand. I would prefer that you could play them on anything.

You can format SACD to have another layer that can play CD. That is easily doable. I was curious as to why that happened. The Rolling Stones CDs came out before yours and they were able to play on both CD and SACD units.

I think it is because most of the manufacturers want to persuade you to buy their thing, or maybe it is the record companies who want you to buy the catalog again. I don't know. It's silly, isn't it?Also I wouldn't be surprised if record companies start to cripple the regular CD layer on SACD's as well. Just a matter of time I'm afraid.

[ericmooreart]

It's a double win. We win because copy protecting CD is just plain wrong, and Apple wins with ipod compatability. "Microevil" dosen't stand a chance

[JFreak]

It's a double win. We win because copy protecting CD is just plain wrong, and Apple wins with ipod compatability. "Microevil" dosen't stand a chance

that's only a half-truth. on the other hand it's a lose-lose situation because we lose the red-book standard and in the long run lossless cd audio cannot be listened to with computers.

if steve bows to record labels, they will be in charge. if steve stands tall and refuses, the record labels will need to pay more attention to what apple does. refusing to license might actually help itunes music store, come to think of it...

[obiwan]

One of the first copy-protected CD's I came across and tried to rip in iTunes (unsuccessfully) was Phil Collins album 'Testify'. Ironically, the music video for the title track featured someone listening to the song on an iPod! - Maybe they'd given them a special iTunes/iPod compatible version of the CD to rip first - who knows!

More seriously though, you have to wonder about this one. From Apple's perspective, they don't want to get involved in a Digital Rights management battle. They wanted to prove to the world (through iTunes) that they could create the best music jukebox software, and the best portable music player. Then, they wanted to make that combination even more powerful by perfectly integrating the best online music store. - The only way Apple have managed to succeed in this is by controlling all the technology themselves. Apple have created a perfect model of how this should be done, which is demonstrated by how easy the technology is to use, and how well thought out it is which is why the competition is fighting to keep up. Digital rights management is just one-small part of the model as a whole.

Record labels are looking at Apple's success with the iTunes music store, and think the answer lies with Digital Rights management, in order to improve flagging record sales. - Although in reality they're missing the point about how people want to listen and pay for their music. - Apple have really grasped this issue and record labels are WAY behind. Apple hardly makes any money on the iTunes music sold - their motives are to raise awareness of Apple products and sell more iPods. Record labels just see Digital Rights as a way of screwing the consumer out of more money.

Apple will never go for this in a million years, UNLESS they get to do it on their own terms, by making copy-protected CD's ONLY work from within iTunes/QuickTime (as with sticking to AAC on the iPod over .wma format). This undoubtedly will not be the case, and the record labels won't allow it.

[weldon]

Apple will never go for this in a million years, UNLESS they get to do it on their own terms, by making copy-protected CD's ONLY work from within iTunes/QuickTime (as with sticking to AAC on the iPod over .wma format). This undoubtedly will not be the case, and the record labels won't allow it.
Labels wouldn't put out an iTunes-only disc because it would be bad business for them. Think people complain about copy-protection now? Wait for the day you can only listen to that music on iTunes or an iPod.

There's another group of people that seem to think Apple won't participate because they think copy-protection is evil or anti-American or something. I think this group is delusional if they believe Apple shares their world view. Apple clearly supports DRM and discourages illegal copying. They developed technology to allow for legal downloading with DRM precisely so they could play with the Big Boys in the music industry.

Bottom line for me? Labels are going to try and protect their product from unlawful copying. Currently, the only solution available works on Windows and uses .WMA files. Apple should try and work with the labels and the folks like Macrovision, et al to find something that will work for more people, be better for consumers, integrate with the iPod, and make some money for Apple Computer, Inc.

[Kagetenshi]

Steve is on the record as saying that DRM is nearly worthless. Apple probably won't refuse out of moral concern, but you can't say that the company embraces DRM.

~J

[MattSD]

Actually, you can say that Apple embraces DRM (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001557.php).

[PrometheusG5]

I haven't run across a CD that iTunes couldn't import. One CD I can think of (Foo Fighters "There Is Nothing Left To Lose") that I couldn't rip with other programs before iTunes came out for Windows and that was because of the Enhanced Media on it (some videos and stuff)

I don't really buy many CDs anymore, Could someone list a CD that is copyprotected from itunes?

Try ripping that CD ("Bangin' 02", a club compilation mixed by DJ Manny Lehman). I found a way around it by duplicating it in a component CD copier, then (for some reason) iTunes was able to rip it just fine.

[markie]

Personally, I sincerely doubt Apple will license it. Yes, they ARE that stupid. But seriously - how often does Apple license ANYTHING? The only hope is in the hPod. Other than that, I see no historical evidence that Apple might license this technology. Too bad, as Apple would rule the world if they'd license their OS...

[MCSnuggles]

They'd better do this right, I don't want to be forced to listen to a 128kbps file when I bought the CD and want to hear AAC lossless through my Airport Express because they don't want me ripping their CD without DRM!!! I will NOT purchase such CDs.



you an idiot? 128 aac sounds the same as a cd, the compression takes away noise the ear can't hear, so essentially your going to all that trouble of buying a cd for extra sound quality that your dog can hear.......jezuz, i sometimes think that I'm the only sane guy who knows anything about music.

MCSnuggles - www.suprnova.org - The Digital Directory!

[weldon]

you an idiot? 128 aac sounds the same as a cd, the compression takes away noise the ear can't hear, so essentially your going to all that trouble of buying a cd for extra sound quality that your dog can hear.......jezuz, i sometimes think that I'm the only sane guy who knows anything about music.
AAC encoding is a bit more complicated than just applying a high-pass filter to the original file. It's fairly easy to distinguish between 128kbps and the original CD if you know what to listen for and use good headphones. But then, you'd know that if you knew anything about music.

[jbembe]

you an idiot? 128 aac sounds the same as a cd, the compression takes away noise the ear can't hear, so essentially your going to all that trouble of buying a cd for extra sound quality that your dog can hear.......jezuz, i sometimes think that I'm the only sane guy who knows anything about music.

MCSnuggles - www.suprnova.org - The Digital Directory!

HEY!

My Dog LOVES music!!!!!! :eek:

[Highland]

you an idiot? 128 aac sounds the same as a cd, the compression takes away noise the ear can't hear, so essentially your going to all that trouble of buying a cd for extra sound quality that your dog can hear...
Actually, there's quite a big difference between a CD and 128kbps AAC.

That massive difference in file size means information is lost. EVEN if AAC encoding ONLY applied a digital high pass filter at 20hz (it does way more!), the mere fact that it's processing the signal another time means things will sound worse for it. MP3, AAC, and all other forms of lossy compression can do some really nasty things to your audio.

Here's a comparison for you : http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-05.html

Also, there has been significant research into the effects of equipment that can handle signals greater than 20hz to 20khz (which, by the way is usually much more than most adults can 'hear'). What happens when you change or discard frequencies outside this range is interesting... it can affect other frequencies at multiples (ie. 2x, 4x, 8x, or half the frequency etc). So you 'feel' the change. It affects the sense of quality, as well as imaging. When you know what to listen for, it can become VERY obvious. This one of the main reasons is why the music industry now uses frequencies of up to 192khz and 24bit to record. Once you've heard a recording like this on good speakers, listening to a CD is actually not all that amazing. With good dithering (POW-r, Apogee UV22 etc), CDs can be pretty close to the original though.

Of interest, it's usually imaging that's lost--the subtle differences between left and right channels that give a sense of depth to the recording.

So, in some situations, it'll be hard to hear the difference, but there's plenty of us that WILL be able to hear. I think you might need some better speakers.

[SeaFox]

AAC encoding is a bit more complicated than just applying a high-pass filter to the original file. It's fairly easy to distinguish between 128kbps and the original CD if you know what to listen for and use good headphones. But then, you'd know that if you knew anything about music.

My sentiments exactly.

[andiwm2003]

cnn has a report on the copy protection on cds.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/10/04/music.copy.reut/index.html

this copy protection seems only to make itunes users life miserable.

these music exec's are really dumb:

now i have the choice to buy a copy protected cd that won't work with my ipod (or only after some extra hassle) for $20 or i buy the songs right away at itunes for $12. of course i will go for the itunes deal. so this copy protection nonsense just speed up the decline in cd sales.

if you can't sell your product anymore make it cheaper or better you dump@##$#! don't make it more annoying to the customers!

[Doctor Q]

these music exec's are really dumb:

now i have the choice to buy a copy protected cd that won't work with my ipod (or only after some extra hassle) for $20 or i buy the songs right away at itunes for $12. of course i will go for the itunes deal. so this copy protection nonsense just speed up the decline in cd sales.

if you can't sell your product anymore make it cheaper or better you dump@##$#! don't make it more annoying to the customers!I find it hard to believe that businesspeople can be 'really dumb'. It certainly seems that way, but don't they pay people to forecast how their actions will affect sales? The music industry isn't dying, it's changing. Are the record labels really run by old-line stuck-in-the-mud non-visionaries who are scared by the online music revolution and locking down the house because they are afraid of trying anything new? People get scared, but do businesses?

Thinking that a business isn't aware of the market issues right in front of their faces seems farfetched, so I am at a loss to explain why they always appear to be running scared, fighting back against their consumers, and not asking what we want and taking our money for providing just that. Not being an economist, I can't understand what I see happening.

[Highland]

The music industry isn't dying, it's changing. Are the record labels really run by old-line stuck-in-the-mud non-visionaries who are scared by the online music revolution and locking down the house because they are afraid of trying anything new?
The simple answer is yes.

But... the more complex answer is that they've worked hard to fight for their distribution networks. These are essentially what separates majors from indy labels. If iTMS is a huge success, then they lose the control of the distribution to iTMS. That's MASSIVE, and why most majors are starting their own online stores.