iTunes 5 and DRM?

[thrice]

Re: Re: Average Customer

Originally posted by Java
I second that.

Yeah I gotta say...it seems like most of the people who complain about DRM are those whose "activities" it prohibits....like P2P! I too have been using the iTMS since it's inception and I've never had a problem with the DRM in place. The only problem I could see with the rumored DRM from this articel is the possibility of a lower quality sound file due to the digital watermark. That would be bad, but I don't think Apple would allow that.

 

[alset]

Watermark May Distort Sound

Anything within the range of 96KHZ will be audible to some people. Rupert Neve has demonstrated that many people can hear a distinct clarity in sounds that have a bump around 54KHZ (outside the range of natural human hearing). Any watermark has the potential to completely destroy music for those with acute hearing.

Dan

 

[3.1416]

Originally posted by trose
Second, alot of you seem VERY confused about what happens when you buy music. You don't all the sudden "Own" that music, you just bought a license to listen to it.

Not true. When I buy a book, I don't get a "license to read", I own the actual book. I can't make photocopies and hand them out to my friends because I don't own the copyright. Likewise with music. It's a subtle but important distinction. The copyright lobby is trying to turn all purchases into "licenses" so they can exert control over how we use products after we've paid for them, and we shouldn't allow them to get away with it.

Personally, I am fine buying music and listening to it on up to 10 devices. The only reason I would not like it is if I was trying to do something illegal.

"Hard" DRM prohibits a wide range of activities that are not illegal (or shouldn't be). In order to be effective, open source players must be prohibited. "Circumvention devices" like Wiretap or Audio Hijack have to be blocked at the OS level. Apple's entire digital hub strategy is based on being able to move digital media around seamlessly; DRM kills that.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: audio watermark

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
DVD-Audio cannot be output through Toslink. Only the DTS/Dolby Digital can be output.

I think that statement's a little misleading.

Output via Toslink (aka digital optical out) into a receiver or speaker system with built-in Dolby Digital support will absolutely work.

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Watermark May Distort Sound

Originally posted by alset
Anything within the range of 96KHZ will be audible to some people. Rupert Neve has demonstrated that many people can hear a distinct clarity in sounds that have a bump around 54KHZ (outside the range of natural human hearing).

Details? Was this a double-blind test? How many reps, what was the threshold of significance, and what percentage of people passed that threshold (i.e. what percentage heard a difference)?

Originally posted by alset
Any watermark has the potential to completely destroy music for those with acute hearing.

I doubt it. There's a difference between "barely detect" and "destroy".

 

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by 3.1416
Not true. When I buy a book, I don't get a "license to read", I own the actual book. I can't make photocopies and hand them out to my friends because I don't own the copyright. Likewise with music. It's a subtle but important distinction. The copyright lobby is trying to turn all purchases into "licenses" so they can exert control over how we use products after we've paid for them, and we shouldn't allow them to get away with it.

Agreed. Thank you.

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re: Re: audio watermark

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
DVD-Audio cannot be output through Toslink. Only the DTS/Dolby Digital can be output.

I don't know about your first statement, but the second statement is untrue. The optical output will put out 2-channel stereo 16/44 as well.

 

[MetallicPenguin]

Re: Only mildly off topic

And do you know what the great thing is? MacUsers are maybe the only market group who would actually do this. And you know what else? Apple is maybe the only company that would respond to it. That's my reason for choosing this platform....."You mean...the user...matters?"


-Hertz [/B]

My point exactly

 

[obeygiant]

yuck

This whole concept makes me feel dirty. Like someone is looking through my computer and telling me what I can and can't do with my stuff. I don't like it.
It makes me feel as if I'm using Microsoft crap.

 

[Raiden]

Originally posted by 3.1416
I know exactly what you mean. I have no desire whatsoever to smoke, except when I see those sanctimonious anti-smoking spots on TV. Right now I consider the iTMS restrictions just barely acceptable because Apple isn't trying to completely control what you can do with the music, just make it more inconvenient in the hopes of deterring pirates. If they move to "hard" DRM, I'm gone.

I agree 100% with that statement.

Ok, I get annoyed when I hear this DRM palladium type stuff. I dont have many CDs because they are so expensive. In my area, 17 bucks for new CDs. Its damn near rediculous. Im a bag boy at a grocerie store. I dont make much cash. So when corperate big-whigs tell me that I cant (as someone said before) burn a CD for my girlfriend, or I cant trade a few of my fav songs with a friend, or I cant add "x" song to my PC that I payed 2000 bucks for, I get will get really pissed!

I swear, I will boycott to hell this kind of stuff. I will stop buying CDs, I will not buy any computer that has any type of hard DRM on it (and I will think reeeal hard if it has soft DRM), and I will personally send emails, letters, etc to any and all DRM associated companies. I would even go so far to protest publically in front of buildings if I have to.

Man is my blood boiling right now!!

 

[bluebull]

Note to self: do not use iTunes 5. And to everyone who is against file sharing, look at this . I guess we're not the only ones who steal money!
"The 2000 lawsuit claimed companies and retailers conspired to illegally raise prices by creating minimum advertised price policies, violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits practices that restrict competition in the music market."
Interesting.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by frozenstar
Okay, so which of the following is it?

You think everyone should be trusted to do what's honest and right?
You don't think artists deserve money for the music they make?
You don't care about theft and legality at all?

I really hate being mean, but sometimes I can't help it... Your stance is foolish and closed-minded. As with most things, a balanced solution is the right one. Being too extreme to either side will only set the industry back.

Yes, I agree with you. It would be very nice if everyone could be trusted to do what's honest and right, but we know that there are a lot of people who wouldn't. So, finding a balanced solution to curb the opportunists (the true pirates will, as has already been noted, find their way around almost any type of DRM) without overly inconveniencing the rest of us is the best route.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by 3.1416
Not true. When I buy a book, I don't get a "license to read", I own the actual book. I can't make photocopies and hand them out to my friends because I don't own the copyright. Likewise with music. It's a subtle but important distinction. The copyright lobby is trying to turn all purchases into "licenses" so they can exert control over how we use products after we've paid for them, and we shouldn't allow them to get away with it.

This is actually very much a two edged sword. If the argument is successful that purchasing a book or CD is a (materials +) license purchase, then, if you keep your proof of purchase and something happens to the book or CD, you should be able to purchase a replacement for cost of materials only (which should be a small fraction of the original cost). I'm sure that the copyright loby is well aware of this implication and they are appropriately cautious about asserting that you're purchasing a license.

Also, copyright law makes it fairly clear what you have the right to do with a purchased, but copyrighted, item.

 

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by bosskxx1
Do you think that Apple wants to put DRM into their software?

This is all because the RIAA wants more protection, otherwise they would pull back from the iTunes store.

I agree this is why the DRM is being put in, but I refuse to have my love for Apple used to lever these kinds of fair use violations into place.

I really want to see the Music Store succeed. I think it is succeeding. I also think services like this are the only hope the labels have of surviving.

I think it would hurt Apple to have people leave the store in droves, but I refuse to let the RIAA use Apple as a "human shield". If the labels see a successful online venture suddenly tank because they got too heavy handed, they'll probably claim that it's proof people just wanted to pirate music, but maybe someone will miss the profits and realize the reality of the situation which is that they've degraded the utility of the product to the point people won't buy it.

Originally posted by bosskxx1
But if you are a legitimate customer you probably won't notice any of it.

No, you won't notice it... until you do.

 

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by trose

Second, alot of you seem VERY confused about what happens when you buy music. You don't all the sudden "Own" that music, you just bought a license to listen to it.
This is coming from the same group of people who get mad because MS steals Apple idea's. Its the same thing..stealing.

No, I think you are very confused about the differences between copyright and software licensing. There are very specific "fair use" protections to the consumer for making personal copies of copyrighted material, excerpting material for the sake of review, and even making copies for non-commercial distribution-- ie. making a tape for a friend.

The whole reason for the EULAs attached to most software is that they are asserting restrictions beyond copyright.

 

[steveh]

Originally posted by dguisinger
Heh, maybe its a good thing I didn't backup my collection before my system got wiped clean last night....I'm still pissed that I lost my music and there isn't an economical way to replace music I already paid for. With a subscription service, that would never matter.

It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't backup your music.

Perhaps you *are* the type of customer that a subscription service was made for.

 

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by frozenstar

You think everyone should be trusted to do what's honest and right?
You don't think artists deserve money for the music they make?
You don't care about theft and legality at all?

I'll take "(d) None of the Above"...

I think there are fair use provisions for a reason and I don't want to have them impeded.

I do think people should be trusted to do what's right-- until they don't.

You know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we love so much?

Like I said in my first post on this thread-- I've got nothing against watermarking for identification purposes. I don't like DRM as a control mechanism.

This has broad implications, beyond Kazaa... Open source players was a good example. The tradition of mixing tapes for friends is another. Propping up a distribution monopoly is a third.

Finally I don't like being victim to a "bait and switch". Putting DRM in a song means they can decide later what I can and can't do with it.

 

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by bluebull
Note to self: do not use iTunes 5. And to everyone who is against file sharing, look at this . I guess we're not the only ones who steal money!
"The 2000 lawsuit claimed companies and retailers conspired to illegally raise prices by creating minimum advertised price policies, violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits practices that restrict competition in the music market."
Interesting.

You know, I don't like DRM either...but two wrongs don't make a right. If the music industry is participating in collusion or other crappy behavior, that is orthogonal to the issue at hand.

Let's call a spade a spade. People downloading MP3's instead of buying music are stealing. Whether or not you care about that is up to you. If you don't want to steal and you think music is overpriced or you can't afford it, then listen to the radio instead.

Personally, I love MP3's and the various grassroots distribution systems. Why? Because they allow me to discover new music so that I can then buy the CDs or buy the iTunes. I have hundreds of CDs. 95% of those I would not have bought were it not for MP3's.

 

[Trekkie]

Let's See....

Originally posted by whfsdude
Yeah, I know you are going to say that is crazy but my dad needs the AAC without DRM for his peecee.

Second so I can share my music with friends

So you won't use iTMS or any new version of iTunes because it won't let you steal music and give it away to other people? I'm shocked.

I'm all for new ways of distributing music. I'm all against easy ways that let you give it away to anyone you feel like without the artist/label being compensated for their work

 

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
I'll take "(d) None of the Above"...

I think there are fair use provisions for a reason and I don't want to have them impeded.

I do think people should be trusted to do what's right-- until they don't.

You know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we love so much?

I agree.

DRM is like requiring steak knife makers to dull all their blades, so that you can't use them to kill people.

 

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
Nothing is inevitable. DRM will only take hold if consumers continue to act like sheep and let the Recording Industry Ass. of America herd them into their pens.

This argument holds no water.

RIAA is only attempting to maintain their ability to make money off of a product they sell.

however misguided some of these attempts are to do so, it all boils down to one thing.

People want something for free and are upset that people want them to pay for things that they put their effort into.

I don't care *what* argument you come up with. The ability to make a perfect copy of something and give it to whomever you want, either via p2p, email, CDs, floppies, or a number 2 pencil you are stealing. plain and simple.

It'd be just the same as if you were to go out, and buy a PowerMac G5 and then take it home, and put it in your hand dandy transmogrifier & make 50 million new ones giving them to everyone that walked by.

What stops you is you can't photocopy a G5 as easy as you can digitize a CD.

What's even worse, is all the flap & stuff so far in this forum is probably a huge overreaction. I'm betting that this entire DRM discussion is so that DVD-Audio and SACDs will work with iTunes. The Music industry put in so much copy protection into these two devices that you can't even use a simple digital out (toslink or coax) and have to use a seperated 5.1 output from your SACD or DVD-A player directly into an amplifier. So right now the one SACD i have has never been listened to because I have a pre/pro setup that doesn't have an analog bypass.

 

[XForge]

Re: audio watermark

Originally posted by mr.v
Sometimes I think the music industry may forget that maybe the reason people aren't buying as much music is because the there are so many crappy releases. These days notice when there is a new Hit it only lasts a week and the artist is gone.

It's because the number of marketers in the music biz has long since exceeded the number of people with a single iota of musical taste. The music isn't allowed to market itself on the basis of its own, uh, likeability; instead almost everything "commercial" is produced for the sole purpose of selling thousands of copies to people who either have no taste (i.e. 12-year-olds whose sense of what's good is still forming), or for some reason need to have their taste in music dictated to them (i.e. the kind of people that actually enjoy watching "Survivor").

Hopefully people will get into musicianship and making solid tunes that last again. Instead of what can we sell this week attitude/limited scope :-(

This is what I'm hoping too. I've become so completely jaded with what commercial outlets (radio, VH1, music outlets like Circuit City & Best Buy) are trying to ram down my throat that I've taken to seeking out the most esoteric and eclectic net-radio stations I can find, listening and taking note of what artists I like, and then going out and buying those discs, from independent dealers if possible. (That last part is just for the principle of it of course.) I've been doing this for just a little while and I already feel better about my music choices.... = )

 

[frozenstar]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
I'll take "(d) None of the Above"...

I think there are fair use provisions for a reason and I don't want to have them impeded.

I do think people should be trusted to do what's right-- until they don't.

You know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we love so much?

Like I said in my first post on this thread-- I've got nothing against watermarking for identification purposes. I don't like DRM as a control mechanism.

This has broad implications, beyond Kazaa... Open source players was a good example. The tradition of mixing tapes for friends is another. Propping up a distribution monopoly is a third.

Finally I don't like being victim to a "bait and switch". Putting DRM in a song means they can decide later what I can and can't do with it.

I completely sympathize with people that feel inclined to download music off of file-sharing networks. The RIAA and the big five labels have been screwing artists and consumers for years. They've been found guilty of price-fixing and of many other unfair business practices, and they've provided no good legal alternative for buying music online.

But...

Even once large-scale electronic music distribution services (like iTMS) are in place and widespread there will be people that will continue to steal music. These people will be the driving factor for the enforcement of DRM.

As I've said before though, an extreme solution is not a solution at all. It can only serve to cripple music sales even more. We must find a happy medium, one where consumers will not be inconvenienced in their daily music management tasks, and one where thieves will not have the freedom to illegally replicate hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of electronic music in the blink of an eye.

Don't worry though.... the RIAA and the big five will get what's coming to them. I believe they are ultimately doomed. The only reason they are still in the picture is because most artists need these companies to get their music out the door and into the world. Guess what happens once legal electronic music distributon services proliferate? You won't need some multibillion-dollar excuse for a company to get recognition. You simply encode your music in the proper format, fill out some electronic forms, pay the fees, and upload your music!
That will be a day of celebration.

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
This is actually very much a two edged sword. If the argument is successful that purchasing a book or CD is a (materials +) license purchase, then, if you keep your proof of purchase and something happens to the book or CD, you should be able to purchase a replacement for cost of materials only (which should be a small fraction of the original cost). I'm sure that the copyright loby is well aware of this implication and they are appropriately cautious about asserting that you're purchasing a license.

Wow, excellent point. Does anyone know where we're at on this--have any copyright holders tried to assert that, as you put it, "purchasing a book or CD is a (materials +) license purchase"?

WM

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by Trekkie
I don't care *what* argument you come up with. The ability to make a perfect copy of something and give it to whomever you want, either via p2p, email, CDs, floppies, or a number 2 pencil you are stealing. plain and simple.

Yes, if you give it to whomever you want you are stealing, but the problem comes when you're just trying to exercise your fair use rights--making a perfect copy isn't always stealing. But it sounds like it is prevented in many cases under many of these DRM schemes, and that's what makes people angry.

WM