 homeshark
join:2001-03-09
Saint Petersburg, FL | smart they r smart | |
| |  | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason said by TK Junk Mail  :Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free. The fact is correct. In fact, you really can't have a DRM-encumbered CD. If you tried to make one, it wouldn't work with existing CD players. Some approaches have been tried, but they all have been laughably easy to defeat, most by disabling auto-run.
As for why downloadable copies aren't DRM-free, blame the RIAA. They still think that "Internet = Piracy" so they'll resist any efforts to put music online unless they can somehow control what gets done with the file and when. To do this, they need DRM.
In reality, no DRM scheme is perfect. At some point, the audio has to be decrypted to play it. This means that the DRM-ed file can be decrypted, put into a DRM-free format, and uploaded. For example, a user could connect one computer's Line Out port to another computer's Line In and use Audacity to record the audio. Or a person can simply buy a copy of the CD that the music also appears on and rip that.
In any case, the DRM just provides a tiny speed bump in the way of someone who wants to pirate the music. Putting that tiny speed bump in place costs quite a lot and it only really winds up impacting legitimate customers. Of course, not many would argue that the RIAA is acting along logical reasoning. | |
| | | | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason I didn't say they were acting along logical reasoning. I said not many would argue that they were. I was going to say that no one here would argue that they were, but then I remembered Taylor.  | |
| | | mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX | That's all I do; re-record my DRM music using software into MP3 format. I pay my $5/month for Yahoo music and just "dub" it. It retains all the sound quality of the regular DRM-ed file. | |
| | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason said by mobbo :That's all I do; re-record my DRM music using software into MP3 format. I pay my $5/month for Yahoo music and just "dub" it. It retains all the sound quality of the regular DRM-ed file. That's just theft. Just because you don't like DRM doesn't mean you can do that. If you like the songs so much pay the 79¢ they cost. People like you are the reason they justify the stupid DRM in the first place. Quit giving them excuses. No wonder Yahoo is jacking up the rate for their music subsciption. Thanks alot! $5 a month doesn't give you the right to keep thousands of songs. Most everyone here would say 25¢ is more than a fair price for a song. So at most you're entitled to 20 songs a month for your $5. If you are hard up for cash a full days work at Burger King can get you 50 songs from Yahoo. | |
| | | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason said by nixen :said by TK Junk Mail :Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free. EVERY CD (music, not data-only) ever sold has DRM-free content. They had/have to in order to play in CD players. -tom NO, that is not accurate. If the CD was used on a PC , some did have DRM software included on the CD. Sure they could be heard on a plain old vanilla CD player, but they couldn't be ripped to a PC without the DRM coming into play. Remember the SONY rootkit fiasco.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason said by TK Junk Mail :said by nixen :said by TK Junk Mail :Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free. EVERY CD (music, not data-only) ever sold has DRM-free content. They had/have to in order to play in CD players. NO, that is not accurate. If the CD was used on a PC , some did have DRM software included on the CD. Sure they could be heard on a plain old vanilla CD player, but they couldn't be ripped to a PC without the DRM coming into play. Remember the SONY rootkit fiasco. /sigh
Really, genius-boy? So, you're saying that those hybrid/"enhanced" music CDs, playable in "vanilla" CD players, had no non-DRMed data on them?
And, yes, you most definitely COULD rip them on a PC without the DRM coming into play. All you had to do is disable the auto-run feature. The CD tracks were still available as rippable data separate from the "enhanced" content.
The Sony "rootkit fiasco" came from people allowing the code to run on their systems (either accidentally or intentionally). While Sony's to be condemned for victimizing the hapless, users need to take a bit of responsibility for what they allow to run or be installed on their systems.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Those disks cannot be classified as CD (not permitted to bear the trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo) per Phillips because audio disks with DRM do not conform to the Red Book specification for CDs. | |
| | | | | phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA | Re: Reason #3 is the best reason Red book standards are manufacturing standards, not content standards. | |
| | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason Red Book is an audio specification standard as well as the physical standards. Not only does the Red Book standard make specifications for the dimensions of the compact disk it also specifies the bit rate for the content (1411 Kbps), the parameters for disk readers (including error correction), modulation system and subcode channels (anybody remember CD+G?). The Red Book standard stipulates a CD layer at 1.2mm, while DRM enabled CD's have a thinner layer. That and the fact Red Book specifies no more than a bit allocated for anti-copying and you have a non-Red Book disk.
Interestingly enough since those DualDisk albums also have thinner layer (.9mm). As such they cannot be considered CD's either. | |
| | | | | | | phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA
·Comcast
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason The storage format specs for audio (16 bit resolution and 44.1kHz sample rate) is there for a universal compatible play back in standard cd players. Much like 45s (45 rpm) and Lps (33.3 rpm), in the old days of vinyl records, were the speed standards. If you played it faster or slower it would sound way different. If I made my audio cds at a 24 bit res and 96 kHz sample (what I record at and a better sounding,lower noise floor recording), they would not only not play in a regular cd player but would not have enough space on a regular cd. The files have to be dithered down to 16-44.1.Hence the red book audio storage specification standard. There are no stipulations as to what kind of data is written on the disc, just as long as the audio plays in a regular audio cd player and the tracks can be located. | |
| | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason The reason Philips says DRM enabled disks cannot be considered compact disk audio is because of exactly what you said. Red Book standards are in place to make sure the CDs conform to specifications that make them play on every CD player built to those specifications. No so with many DRM technologies. A DRM disk will not play on all CD readers, thus not conforming to Red Book standards. Pretty cool decision on Philips part if you ask me. | |
| | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
edit:
November 21st, @07:49AM
| Re: Reason #3 is the best reason i'm pretty sure your right
It applies to the software layout of the disc as well things such as pre emphasis, playback gaps and a few other things | |
| 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| What would DRM-less digital world look like? Imagine if record and movie companies started offering DRM-less files for sale. What would happen?
I think that if prices were reasonable, people would pirate less and buy more. If you could get, for example, any song as a mp3 for 50 cents or a wav for $1, and movies in Divx for $5 or DVD for $9, why would you go to the trouble of setting up sharing software and sneaking around the enforcement? Instead of sharing people would say "Buy one yourself" and it would be affordable enough, and a good enough value for the money, that lots of people would do so.
I especially like #5. said by list :
In addition to the many costs of implementing DRM for content there's a cost that is often overlooked: The sales you lose because people don't want to buy DRM'ed content or have incompatible players. This is huge. I would buy a lot if there were just regular stores online where you just pay and get standards-based files for low prices, but I won't deal with anything that requires installing software or tries to lock files to the computer or any other BS like that - and a lot of other people have the same attitude. | |
| | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Re: What would DRM-less digital world look like? ...eMusic.com would happen...
regular MP3 files, no drm, and cheap.
Now, if they had the same major label support that iToons or Napstar, or Rhapsuhdee do, they'd be huge...
problem? ..the major labels are still too scared....
why? they refuse to believe that it actually works!!!
»www.techdirt.com/articles/200607···06.shtml
score 1 for these folks for realizing what a waste of time and money DRM can be. | |
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Exactly. Would you rather go searching among dozens of misnamed files, possible viruses, and low-bitrate/low-quality copies just to find the one good, clean version of a song on a free P2P network? Or would you rather find a good, clean copy immediately that you could purchase for $1.
Actually, I think that the recording industry could meld the original Napster, iTunes, and AllofMP3 and come up with a winner.
Have a centrally controlled network (Napster) where people could share audio, but limit the bitrate (say to 96kbps). Think of this as the equivalent of hearing a song on the radio. It's good and will get you interested in the song, but if you really want the song, you could purchase (iTunes) higher quality versions of the songs at a rate determined by the format/bitrate (AllOfMP3) with all of the files free of DRM. So someone who thinks 128kbps is good enough would pay one rate and someone who won't listen to anything lower than 256kbps can pay a bit more.
I think this would be a hit. Of course, I'm also enough of a realist to know that the RIAA would never allow such a service to survive. | |
| | | 
Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
| Re: What would DRM-less digital world look like? That's exactly what happen when the music business went after cassettes. If you wanted a good copy you had to buy the LP. Cassette quality wasn't very good and if it was recorded off the radio it was really crappy. It's the same way with MP3's especially if they have a low bit rate.
One thing the recorded companies don't seem to get is many downloaded songs would never have been purchased. My friend downloaded men without hats "saftey dance", would he have ever gone and bought it no. At least not in a record store, 50 cents for a so so quality download. Yes he would have done that. Doubt you can even find that in a record store. | |
| George Kidd
join:2001-08-09
Vancouver, BC
| In the Old Days Well lets see... Back in 1981 those games for the Apple ][ generally had copy protection on them also. Problem was the game itself was quite rudimentary, especially by today's standards. Most of the Hackers of the time bought the disk not for the game content but to enjoy the Game of Cracking the Copy Protection. Usually the copy protection only lasted about a day at the most. Fortunately there was a good supply of game disks being rolled out.
Companies then even spent millions of dollars on copy protection which some noob bypassed within a day usually.  | |
| | 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
Levittown, PA
| Re: In the Old Days Choplifter! Knight Of Diamonds! Wizardry and Ultima series! Bards Tale! Drol! Apple panic! all on one disc!
Not that I did any of those cracks, per say, I liked having a bunch of games on one floppy side (SSDD, DSDD...). 5.25" floppy with a hole puncher = double sided goodness!
| |
| | | 
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H2Z
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Already figured it out I already figured a lot of this out last summer when I prepared my CRTC application for a Category 2 digital television license. The proposed service will be a Canadian public access channel called "The Canadian Public".
In the application, I indicated that I was going to distribute as many of the TV shows as possible on BitTorrent with no embedded DRM or copy protection schemes. The catch? I'm leaving in all of the commercials.  But that's it! The files themselves will be ordinary AVI files encoded in XVID and MP3.
DRM and copy protection schemes are a real pain for any computer system. They steal processing power, they render the content incompatible on other devices, and they sometimes compromise the stability of an individual's property i.e. their computer. I want no part of that. | |
| 
ninjatutle
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | 1 Reason to Keep DRM Rentals. | |
| | Biskit
join:2003-02-07
Fenton, MO
| Re: 1 Reason to Keep DRM Yes, possibly, but if, as one other user pointed out, content was affordable, most would just buy the DVD or CD instead of renting anyway. If I could buy a DVD for 7 or 8 dollars I would do that instead of renting for 4 or 5. The way my wife returns movies I could have bought 4 copies anyway!! | |
| | |
ninjatutle
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: 1 Reason to Keep DRM $5/month with Yahoo Music Unlimited is dirt cheap. | |
| | | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: 1 Reason to Keep DRM You have a point as long as you are talking about DRM as an option. In other words, DRM may have a place in a market where you can buy the unencumbered file for one price and a DRM'd one (rental) for less. The rental option would be suitable for listening to decide what one likes, and purchase for long-term copies.
The article fails to consider this possibility of multiple options in the marketplace. It's written as if it's "all or none". Of course the copyright cartels are stuck in the "all DRM all time" mentality.
Although DRM might have a place as an alternative that people could choose, the "try before you buy" could be provided just as well by giving away low bitrate files and selling the better ones, as Jason Levine points out above. | |
| GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK
| Plays for maybe? Just look no further than Microsoft's own, "Plays for sure" fiasco.
»blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/index.php?p=364
They get a bunch of vendors to support their plays for sure format and then the Zune comes out and it's not even compatible with their own format. Where does that leave all these companies that made devices for this proprietary format? Holding the buck that's what. They might as well have put a boat anchor to their leg.
The same dumb big movie studios are also the one's that forced the rediculous DRM in the HD-DVD and BlueRay format. Once customers start figuring how their getting screwed on the new formats I doubt customers will support either of the formats unless it's in their best interest long term. | |
| 
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
·Comcast
 ·GoDaddy Hosting
| DRM Pisses Me Off! I buy tracks from Napster fairly regular, and I have a portable player that will play DRM'ed tracks. Last weekend I wanted to add some new tracks I had payed for on my player, but it would not synch and acquire a license. I look at the properties of the track to see if the license is valid and what do you know. It says I can not synch this track. WTF???? I payed for this track and if I want to play it on my fracking toilet then I will. I get frustrated, blood pressure goes up, and I start bitching to my wife how these ass holes are screwing everyone. Then turn around burn the CD, and RIP it back to mp3 and put it on my fracking player. It took my half an hour to do what should have taken 5 minutes.
F**K DRM!!!
F**K Napster!!
F**K iTunes!!
MP3's are cool.
F**K RIAA!!!
I'm out! | |
| | 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: DRM Pisses Me Off! I can understand your frustration. Will you put your frustration to good use and refuse to do any future business with napster, itunes, et al or will you keep buying and then burn and rip? Unless people are willing to make the sacrifice and simply no longer do business with such companies this problem will continue. If you continue to buy drm infected material and then remove the drm you are only feeding the beast. | |
| 
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY | ... Offer me the ability to buy a track OR a CD, at a reasonable price, AND with NO DRM and in FLAC format (or other lossless), and i'll probally buy 90% of the stuff i download now.
128K AAC or MP3? Pfft....i wouldent even CONSIDER buying it | |
| | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Re: ... I would also LOVE it if there were FLAC music available on a more widespread scale at a good price!
Already bought a few shows that way, with artwork, for a decent price. Fidelity is very good too. Strange how we've taken such a backwards approach to quality that people don't seem to notice... Heck, with 10Mbps+ connections, they should start selling DVD-Audio online The whole need for such massively compressed media was brought about because of the lack of fast internet connectivity anyway... ..well, that and storage... think back to 2GB hard drives and smaller...
Now, not to tout these guys as the best, but I was very surprised that eMusic had decent quality VBR mp3's. After giving them a try, I really wondered why other services couldn't emulate their business model, and then it dawned on me... it makes too much sense!!!
...Too much sense that one could offer ZERO digital Restrictions Mucky-muck, VBR mp3's, at a CHEAP price. Really, the ZERO DRM thing sold me from the get go, but learning that the quality was also decent (though, as you point out, lossy) helped my decision to buy some albums.
The saddest part I found about eMusic... is that there was some music ALSO available on Rhapsody (and, by extension, I'm sure was also on iTunes, Napster, etc.).
.....So, let's see, would I rather pay $.90-$1 per track (albums are sometimes discounted, I know) or $.25?
The more expensive one is FAR more restricted, has LESS quality, but the CHEAPER one is BETTER, AND has ZERO restriction??????? ..hmmm.. | |
| kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Hemet, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·Dreamhost
·Charter Pipeline
| the industry should just try nonDrm'd files! I keep saying the industry should just give undrm'd files a try. It's obvious it would work, and both sides involved in this mess would win. And the **AA's could aford to do it! When you buy a CD, you're not told on what brand of CD player you can play your purchased CD in, or how often you could transfer your CD between players, so why should computers be any different? Rather than restricting what you can play your purchased content on, imagine if the **AA's offered downloads of digital content with NO DRM, via high speed servers connected at major internet backbones? Even users of usenet wouldn't mind purchasing from the RIAA if they had that kind of flexibility! So why won't the industry realize, that if they'd just give this a try, both sides would win, consumer's would get content at fast speeds, at good prices, and the industry would get money as well. It's a win win situation, yet the industry doesn't realize this? How can we get them to realize the obvious here! | |
| | AnnaS8
join:2005-05-26
Annapolis, MD
| Re: the industry should just try nonDrm'd files! And they wonder why AllofMp3.com does so well. Why does it do so well?
1. DRM free
2. Several choices in file types and bit rates.
3. Full Albums not parts of one.
4. Cheap price.
Now I don't mind paying a good price for digital content. The only problem is that any "legit" online store wants to sell you poor quality audio and video files that comes with DRM so it has no portability. I think the reason that do that is to get folks to keep buying the the higher quality CDs and DVDs. | |
| | 
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| They forgot number 11-and 12 11. I am entitled to free music.
12. Nobody can pirate music and up load to peer-to-peer server so I can do 11.
13 did I mention 11?
There is only one reason you want music for fee. Don't give me no lip about oh I will pay if the price is right. You all are like a pack of dogs around a food bowl just waiting for somebody to fill it. Get a job folks. | |
| | 
Black Box
join:2002-12-21 |  Re: They forgot number 11-and 12
Argh... Don't Argh... Feed Argh... The Argh... Troll Argh...
--
Keep It Safe, Stupid!
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? | |
| | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | how many DRM mp3's do you own? | |
| | |
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Re: They forgot number 11-and 12 I guess the ones I bought on Rhapsody about two classical albums and about 20 or so old school soul and funk. This doesn’t count songs I download to my computer but unable to burn a CD with my (PAID) subscription Yah it can be a pain but it is a minor inconvenience. | |
| mw3051
join:2001-04-01
Tulsa, OK
|  dues not needed to fight DRM
very disapointing.
not only do they make the pictures they offer hard to get by using flash instead of jpg, they make the browsing an unpleasant experience.
then they want me to donate to become a member.
no thanks.
i will fight DRM without paying membership dues. | |
| | | |
|
|
Ten Reasons to Ditch DRM
Reason #3 is the best reason
·
