Apple, iPod, and CD Copy Protection

[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 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.

 

[PrometheusG5]

"Bangin' 02"

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.

 

[AllieNeko]

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!!!!!!

 

[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.