Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Internet Connectivity

Can someone clear this up? It appears you must be physically connected to the Internet for it to determine your computer is authorized before permitting you to play your purchased songs. Nothing else would seem able to control limiting the number of authorized computers. If something were downloaded to your computer to authorize it, you could simply disconnect and use it forever, right?
 
Streaming Purchased Music

Rendezvous streaming works great on non-AAC DRM encoded songs (i.e., up to the iTunes concurrent limit of five streams). With purchased songs, wouldn't you be able to stream them to another authorized computer? Or, does the authorization only apply to physically copying the purchased songs to another computer, so that you can stream purchased music to non-authorized computers on your local subnet, as with your non-DRM protected music (i.e., up to the five streams iTunes limit)?
 
Re: Streaming Purchased Music

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
Rendezvous streaming works great on non-AAC DRM encoded songs (i.e., up to the iTunes concurrent limit of five streams). With purchased songs, wouldn't you be able to stream them to another authorized computer? Or, does the authorization only apply to physically copying the purchased songs to another computer, so that you can stream purchased music to non-authorized computers on your local subnet, as with your non-DRM protected music (i.e., up to the five streams iTunes limit)?

I had an earlier question somewhat related to this and found this on MacCentral:

Apple, analysts on the new music service

Sharing your tunes



Using Rendezvous zero configuration networking, users can now share their music on an internal network with other iTunes 4 computers. A checkmark in the preferences allows all music or certain playlists to be shared with a password if you choose.



You can also connect to other people's playlists over the Internet using iTunes 4. By entering a friend's IP address and the password they assigned to their music library, you can access their entire library of music or individual playlists and stream it to your computer. You cannot, however, download any of their music to your computer.



"There is an advanced feature that's intended for your own personal use that will allow you to type in your IP address so you can listen to your home music library from the office," said Bell. "We designed the feature around personal use in a local network."
 
Re: Re: DRM

Originally posted by frinky23
Are you saying that with Toast you can burn a CD using the AAC files downloaded from the service? I don't care about re-ripping to strip the DRM, I just want to burn music CDs and iTunes does not support my CD burner (an internal Plextor 40x burner). I've sent a message asking Apple to add support for my burner, but I doubt that will happen.


Yeah it works. It was a surprise to me too i thought i would have to hack my system to enable disc burning support on my Sony 48x24x48x but I dropped the playlist right from iTunes into toast and it started converting. Maybe Quicktime 6.2 gives toast the ability to read the AAC files or on of the resent updates to it 5.2 added the functionality
 
Re: AAC, MP3 and CD

Originally posted by steve-not-jobs
Sorry for the list of questions, but it's all a bit vague for me;
If I download a song from the store and burn it to CD do I need to decompress it before I can play the CD in a standard CD player (eg in my car)?

The act of burning a Music CD (as opposed to an mp3 CD) decompresses the audio to a format known as PCM (Pulse Code Modulated), the standard for CDs.

Also my Home Theatre plays MP3's burned on a CD - I guess AAC is completly different, so again I would need to decompress the file before burning.

Correct. You have two options: either decompress the AAC to CD for your home stereo, or "cross-code" it to mp3 (which is essentially decrypting the AAC to PCM and then encrypting back down to MP3 at a chosen bitrate).


How much quality (if any) do you lose when decompressing?

None (or very little ... depends on how well your player/decrypting codec is written). You lose quality on compression. Of course, the AAC files are already compressed, so you've already lost quality from the studio masters or pressed CDs that Apple uses as its source. So long as you have a well-coded player, however, you should lose no quality on decrypting the AAC stream.


Do you only get a problem if you try and recompress to say MP3?
Thanks

Yes. Cross-coding is generally not advised because over multiple generations (cross-code to 192kbit MP3, then cross-code to 128kbit MP3, then make a few edits and resave as 128kbit MP3, etc) you tend to hear very noticable artifacts (blips, bleeps, bloops, and clicks :) ) crop up in the audio. Artifacts tend to self-reinforce, such that every generation has more noticable artifacts than the last, until all you have is one big artifact mess.

Now, with a single-cycle cross-code, you're probably not going to notice anything. It's certainly worth trying on a bit of music you know well. Take the original CD, import into iTunes with AAC, then cross-code it to mp3 (I don't see a simple way to do this with iTunes ... you might need a third-party utility ... you might be able to burn AAC files to an "MP3 CD" with an implicit cross-code thrown in there for free, but I haven't tried it), burn it to an MP3 disc, and play it on your home stereo. If you can't hear the difference, then the cross-coding process should work just fine for you. If you can hear the difference, then just burning to CD as CD audio (not MP3) would be your only option. If you can hear the difference in just that one AAC round-trip, then you have pretty much ruled out the possibility of using internet audio for your ears altogether :)
 
It has been mentioned a couple of times that it is possible to remove the DRM encryption by burning a CD or by using applications like Audio Hijack to achieve a digital copy, then to re-encode the file into AAC format without any perceptable loss. This is true, as long as you encode the file using the same algorithm that was originally used, in this case AAC@128kbps.

Naturally, this brings up the question of how legal such an action is. Recently there has been a lawsuit against the author of the DeCSS application (the mac port is called OSEx) for removing region information from DVDs - supposedly for backup reasons. The DVD industry didn't win in this case; however, they will very probably try again. The debate is about whether or not one is allowed to analyze/exploit property which one does legally own. The same problem will appear in the case of removing the DRM encryption of a AAC file of which you believe you completely own in all legal aspects. I'm really interested in seeing how this issue will develop over time. The basic rule is: As long as there are barriers in this world, people will seek to overcome them, legally or illegally :-(
 
arn, how does one go about reporting errors in grammar on articles? I assume you care about that? "seemless" is not the word you were looking for there in the news article, if it is one at all. it's "seamless." should we just PM you?
 
byebye biggies

why $ 0.99 or $10 is too much:
considering that these prices are lower than their cd counterparts is not saying music is actually cheaper this way.
the biggest costs for a record label are: big contracts, production, distribution, stock,...
almost all of these costs have been eliminated by using a digital way of dispersing music. What remains are production (of the music) fees, contracts and some administration
the risk for the recordcompany is thus very low
so actually profits are much higher considering the huge reduction in cost.

this leads me to conclude a further evolution of something that has already been happening worldwide: a lot of people are starting their own label because it has become even harder to get a contract and usually your fate as a signed artist is in one persons hands (that is why tons of potentially good music goes to waste on the subjectivity of one man)

the impact of services like this could be huge on the record industry:
if all those artists/small labels start coming along services like this, who needs all the majors and their distributing force? why sign at all when you can sell your music directly without all those moneyhungry middlemen?

money could finally go back to the people that deserve it: the artists
 
i think you're missing the point of the question

Originally posted by nickgold
You can burn the protected AAC files directly from iTunes, as a standard, non-DRM music CD. Toast not necessary at all.

I too have a few burners NOT SUPPORTED by itunes, so the "burn" option in the top right corner really has no meaning on a few of my macs.

so back to the question - can you burn AAC files thru Toast - I dunno yet. I'll get back to you when I do find out.



-edited 'cause my html didn't work...
 
Re: Re: AAC, MP3 and CD

Originally posted by jettredmont
The act of burning a Music CD (as opposed to an mp3 CD) decompresses the audio to a format known as PCM (Pulse Code Modulated), the standard for CDs.



Correct. You have two options: either decompress the AAC to CD for your home stereo, or "cross-code" it to mp3 (which is essentially decrypting the AAC to PCM and then encrypting back down to MP3 at a chosen bitrate).



None (or very little ... depends on how well your player/decrypting codec is written). You lose quality on compression. Of course, the AAC files are already compressed, so you've already lost quality from the studio masters or pressed CDs that Apple uses as its source. So long as you have a well-coded player, however, you should lose no quality on decrypting the AAC stream.



Yes. Cross-coding is generally not advised because over multiple generations (cross-code to 192kbit MP3, then cross-code to 128kbit MP3, then make a few edits and resave as 128kbit MP3, etc) you tend to hear very noticable artifacts (blips, bleeps, bloops, and clicks :) ) crop up in the audio. Artifacts tend to self-reinforce, such that every generation has more noticable artifacts than the last, until all you have is one big artifact mess.

Now, with a single-cycle cross-code, you're probably not going to notice anything. It's certainly worth trying on a bit of music you know well. Take the original CD, import into iTunes with AAC, then cross-code it to mp3 (I don't see a simple way to do this with iTunes ... you might need a third-party utility ... you might be able to burn AAC files to an "MP3 CD" with an implicit cross-code thrown in there for free, but I haven't tried it), burn it to an MP3 disc, and play it on your home stereo. If you can't hear the difference, then the cross-coding process should work just fine for you. If you can hear the difference, then just burning to CD as CD audio (not MP3) would be your only option. If you can hear the difference in just that one AAC round-trip, then you have pretty much ruled out the possibility of using internet audio for your ears altogether :)

Great thanks - a very useful non-techie answer.
 
Originally posted by arn
You can't migrate to a PC yet. Not until Apple releases a PC client... because you can't play them on the PC yet.
Has anybody actually tried this? There are quite a few non-DRM AAC/MPEG4 decompressors for Windows, quite more than for the Mac in fact.

Did anyone try to read those audio files in one such thing?
 
BAD BAD BAD

I have a few computers that are not macs as well as a few older macs that can't run iTunes 4 and/or cannot connect to the internet. NONE of these computers will be able to play my Apple downloads, even the systems that support AAC. If it's AAC, it should work on any player that can do AAC. Otherwise, they shouldn't call it by that name. I know that there are ways to circumvent the DRM, but they're all too much hassle. I'll stick with CDs for now.
 
Re: byebye biggies

Originally posted by Matthé
why $ 0.99 or $10 is too much:
considering that these prices are lower than their cd counterparts is not saying music is actually cheaper this way.
the biggest costs for a record label are: big contracts, production, distribution, stock,...
almost all of these costs have been eliminated by using a digital way of dispersing music. What remains are production (of the music) fees, contracts and some administration
the risk for the recordcompany is thus very low
so actually profits are much higher considering the huge reduction in cost.

That might be true if the costs you mentioned above had already been discarded, which of course, they haven't.

Those costs are still present, and until the record industry goes completely digital, they will remain.

I'm no fan of the record industry, but I would expect that the price their digital files would still reflect some of these costs.

On a side note, have any of you started compiling a "suprised" list regarding the artists offered on the music store.

Here's a brief version of mine

Suprised to find them:
Mike Watt
Pulp
Paul Weller/Jam/Style Council
Uncle Tupelo

Surprised by absence:
Beatles
Sex Pistols
Belle and Sebastian
Badly Drawn Boy
 
Originally posted by Shadowfax
arn, how does one go about reporting errors in grammar on articles? I assume you care about that? "seemless" is not the word you were looking for there in the news article, if it is one at all. it's "seamless." should we just PM you?

just use the submit story link. :)

arn
 
Personally, I think 99¢ per song isnt a big deal. Think about it......you buy a bag of chips for a $1 (maybe even more). And roughly $10 for a CD isn't bad either.

As for the AAC audio.....can't you just use iTunes to convert it to mp3?

icon3.gif
OR...use AudioHijack to convert to mp3 if iTunes won't let you.....hmmmm......
icon12.gif
 
Re: i think you're missing the point of the question

Originally posted by Mudbug
I too have a few burners NOT SUPPORTED by itunes, so the "burn" option in the top right corner really has no meaning on a few of my macs.

so back to the question - can you burn AAC files thru Toast - I dunno yet. I'll get back to you when I do find out.

Yes you can (from a technical standpoint) burn a DRM AAC file to a standard audio CD (CD-R or CD-RW) using either iTunes or Toast.

You can then rip it back to you computer as a Wav, AIFF, AAC or MP3.

Will you hear a difference when comparing it to the original DRM AAC?
Probably not, assuming you rip as a high quality file.
You should not be able to hear a diference between a 44.1KHz 16-bit WAV or AIFF and the original DRM AAC. If you rip to AAC or MP3, the difference will only be what is inherent in the compression to begin with.

Let's say you have an MP3 only player and want to convert your purchased downloads to the player. Burn your song to a CD-RW (just keep using one for this task) or CD-R. Make sure you're burning it as an Audio CD in Toast or iTunes. If you play this CD, it should sound exactly like the original DRM AAC.

Now rip the song from the CD to disk using a high quality MP3 setting (or AAC if that's what you want).

What's the quality of this new MP3 or AAC?

Well, lets talk in terms of comparison to original as opposed to yumminess. By this I mean doing an A/B test as opposed to just listening to the file and saying it sounds good (yummy).

Lets say you take the original store purchased CD and compared the song to one purchased through iTunes. Can you hear a difference? If not, stop right there, the answer is that the DRM stripped files won't sound any different either.

Listen closely for the differences. Identify the differences...not just the tin sound but all the subtle differences...like tasting a wine. You'll hear some differences you might actually like (yummy) because the audio is more compressed (in the analog sense).

Now the difference between the store purchased CD and the iTunes purchased song should be more significant than the iTunes purchased song and a high quality encoding in MP3 or AAC. The reasons:

1) During the original encoding for iTunes, the audio is compressed...as in made less complex. Analog compression was a big thing in the '70s, and today compressing the audio makes it easier to encode and tends to add a quality that most feel is yummy, but it does change the audio from the original source. During the process of stripping DRM the compression is neither undone or redone...the sine wave has already been compressed within the threshold of the encoding algorithm. Though it should be noted that it is different between AAC and MP3 as well as with different bit rates so there will still be a difference between the original DRM AAC and the stripped version, but much less than the store purchased CD and the iTunes purchased song.

2) You can encode the new file at a higher bitrate. You aren't limited to a 128K AAC. This with a higher bitrate there will be a lower difference from what is now the source and the copy.

Bottom line: It's really easy to strip DRM and still have good results whether it's MP3 or AAC. If there is a concern about audio quality its more of an issue of the original source file and its 128K AAC encoding.

From a legal standpoint you can't do any of this. It's illegal to disable or remove digital copy protection - period.

My argument (though I'll be the first to admit it won't fly) is that DRM AAC is not copy protected. It's more of a copy annoyance, and a minor one at that.

[edited to include moral standpoint]

I wanted to add that given the price of the music that Apple is offering...especially for entire albums, the ease of downloading and finding music, makes it compelling for me to purchase my music this way, and unlikely that I'll download files from sharing services, unless they aren't available through iTunes.

Stripping DRM is something that I feel is morally justified for personal use...such as transferring to my MP3 only player.

Your moral mileage may vary.
 
AAC-DRM to MP3

I can't find the exact quote right now, but I believe I read in the iTunes Help system that you CANNOT convert a purchased AAC-DRM song directly into MP3.
 
Ummmmmm

why $ 0.99 or $10 is too much:
considering that these prices are lower than their cd counterparts is not saying music is actually cheaper this way.
the biggest costs for a record label are: big contracts, production, distribution, stock,...
almost all of these costs have been eliminated by using a digital way of dispersing music.

Ummm....are you forgetting about promotion and marketing? That has been and always will be a big part of cost of the record labels and it is NOT true that if you build it, they will come. Getting the music in front of eyes and ears is not cheap and Internet distribution is not going to change that.
 
Re: Re: i think you're missing the point of the question

Originally posted by MacSlut
From a legal standpoint you can't do any of this. It's illegal to disable or remove digital copy protection - period.

My argument (though I'll be the first to admit it won't fly) is that DRM AAC is not copy protected. It's more of a copy annoyance, and a minor one at that.as transferring to my MP3 only player.

What is odd about Apple's choice of DRM, is that it seems to inherently violate the DMCA -- the very act of recording the AAC-Protected file as a standard audio CD, or even MP3 CD, is striipping away a level of digital rights management -- which is apparently outlawed by the current sad excuse we have for a democracy called the USA.

Odder still is that Apple's lawyers, a generally savvy bunch, should have understood this before moving forward -- did they set things up like this intentionally? To display the DMCA as a blatant crock of you-know-what? To reclaim fair-use, but surprisingly, doing it from the fairly protected angle of a large corporation? The world may never know.
 
Re: Ummmmmm

Originally posted by gwangung
Ummm....are you forgetting about promotion and marketing? That has been and always will be a big part of cost of the record labels and it is NOT true that if you build it, they will come. Getting the music in front of eyes and ears is not cheap and Internet distribution is not going to change that.

besides - you are not buying the physical CD. If that were the case, I can tell you that you can get a stack of blanks for near nothing after rebates.

You are paying for the MUSIC.

The Music has an intangible value.

arn
 
Re: Ummmmmm

Originally posted by gwangung
Ummm....are you forgetting about promotion and marketing? That has been and always will be a big part of cost of the record labels and it is NOT true that if you build it, they will come. Getting the music in front of eyes and ears is not cheap and Internet distribution is not going to change that.
true, marketing isn't cheap and is certainly a big money factor, but how many bands/artists are being promoted big time?
it's mainly the smaller underground artists that have the potential to benefit more
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.