 |
 | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: A good start Yep. Though $1.29 is a bit pricy, no DRM and better sound is probably worth an extra 30 cents. They should drop the price of the DRMed songs. EMI should also do this with other places like Napster, Yahoo Music, Urge and Rhapsody.
Once more companies find that people are willing to pay a bit extra for DRMless songs you'll see how fast the others drop it. Less face it, the people that are willing to buy music in the first place are probably the LEAST likely to pirate the stuff. | |
|
| | 
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: A good start How could this work at Napster, etc.? They require DRM to make sure you pay each month. Otherwise I could sign up for one month, download every single song on there and then cancel my subscription and without DRM I would get to keep all those songs.
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/ | |
|
| | | 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: A good start They could adopt eMusic's model. You get to download a
limited number of tracks per month for a flat rate fee. | |
|
| | | |
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| Re: A good start The key I guess would be the # of tracks... That model favors someone who downloads songs very frequently (someone who likes to download the newest albums) rather than someone who likes a few particular bands or songs of a genre. Not saying I don't like a lot of modern bands, but I probably don't download enough songs consistently to save money via that approach.
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/ | |
|
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: A good start I doubt that anyone would agree that less than eight songs a month would be "very frequently". That's what you'd get from iTunes for what eMusic charges for considerably more.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | 
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| said by Count Zero  :How could this work at Napster, etc.? They require DRM to make sure you pay each month. Otherwise I could sign up for one month, download every single song on there and then cancel my subscription and without DRM I would get to keep all those songs. The press release stated that DRM would still be enforced for subscription based services that are designed to cut off access when you cancel your account. | |
|
| | | |
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Re: A good start I know. I was responding to an earlier post that suggested Napster should adopt a DRM-free program.
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/ | |
|
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Count Zero :How could this work at Napster, etc.? They require DRM to make sure you pay each month. Otherwise I could sign up for one month, download every single song on there and then cancel my subscription and without DRM I would get to keep all those songs. I'm not talking about subscriptions. Napster does sell songs too. | |
|
| | | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 |
Of course, you COULD just use cool edit or some such, play the song back and record it to the hard drive as a WAV. So long DRM, Hello all platforms. | |
|
| | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: A good start I just use a virtual CD drive. "Burn" it to the CD, convert to MP3, delete CD file, rinse and repeat. Never even touches analog.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: A good start Nope. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| Re: A good start How does it not? When you convert from AAC -> PCM on CD you don't lose any quality, but when you re-encode that PCM from the CD into an MP3 it DOES lose quality.
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/ | |
|
| | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: A good start Depends on what you are using, and at what bitrate. AAC already does serious damage to the audio quality of the source material so it becomes a matter of degree. There is nothing stopping me from using any format I want. That's kind of the point of the exercise, right? I can even leave it as raw PCM.
Most people are so used to listening to crappy audio via iPods, etc., that they probably can't tell the difference anyway. Look at all the satellite radio fans who think it sounds great.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| Re: A good start Oh I agree - XM sounds like shit to me, about the only thing I can stand to listen to on it is the comedy channels and news (and even those aren't worth paying for IMHO). I can tell it doesn't have nearly the depth of even a 256kbps AAC I rip from a CD with iTunes.
And yes it is a matter of degrees. Seeing as how the original format was 128 or 256kbps AAC it isn't as clean as the original source, then translating it into MP3 results in another loss of quality. Of course if you use a higher bitrate MP3 it is a lower degree of loss if you aren't using great speakers or listening in a quiet environment (or just aren't a snob about sound quality) it all amounts to a hill of beans anyways.
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/ | |
|
| | | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: A good start Yep. Most listeners under about 30 wouldn't know decent sounding audio these days, which is why iPods, with their puny earbuds, sell like hotcakes, right along with flimsy plastic-case speakers and "home theater" systems which anyone who truly knows audio would laugh at.
But this about ditching DRM without the blessing of anyone, and it works just fine the way I described. The higher bitrate is just the come-on for the no-DRM pitch.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| The iPod is just a MP3 player, depending on the quality of the content is the amount of quality you will get, same applies to any other player unless for some reason its audio out is simply shit.
I think it more applies to cellphones with compressed 3gp videos and they play them extremely loud watching a few blocks of pixels saying "that's my friend!" "There is tina HEY!".
Also the source files quality is what matters, if you burn it on to a virtual CD aka ISO it will simply convert the audio to a uncompressed format/AIFF from there you simply transfer that over and either choose to convert from the original source which in most cases would make perfect sense if the original source was never encoded and is simply a raw and will make no sense if we are talking about a compressed source.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| said by RadioDoc :Depends on what you are using, and at what bitrate. AAC already does serious damage to the audio quality of the source material so it becomes a matter of degree. There is nothing stopping me from using any format I want. That's kind of the point of the exercise, right? I can even leave it as raw PCM. Most people are so used to listening to crappy audio via iPods, etc., that they probably can't tell the difference anyway. Look at all the satellite radio fans who think it sounds great. Just because people are used to bad quality doesn't mean transcoding doesn't further hurt quality. It does.
I fully agree that joe-deaf who goes on the 97 dB subway and pumps his music to 105 dB to hear it isn't going to care, but that doesn't mean it doesn't mutilate quality. 
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: A good start Oh I certainly agree about the quality issue. Problem is that by the time it's put on iTunes, et. al. it's been compressed and corrupted beyond anything that could be considered "hi fi". Pulling it out to raw PCM basically gives you what's left of the corpse.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| said by RadioDoc :Depends on what you are using, and at what bitrate. AAC already does serious damage to the audio quality of the source material so it becomes a matter of degree. There is nothing stopping me from using any format I want. That's kind of the point of the exercise, right? I can even leave it as raw PCM. Most people are so used to listening to crappy audio via iPods, etc., that they probably can't tell the difference anyway. Look at all the satellite radio fans who think it sounds great. »www.poikosoft.com/
rip at VBR 0 (highest level) works like a charm.
--
Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power. | |
|
| | 
disconnected
@snet.net
| I would gladly pay $1.29 for a lossless version of the 10-minute extended version of "Do You Wonder" by Shawn Phillips. 
I recently paid $$ for a CD and when I played it, the song fades at 2:57, just before the best part of the whole track. I felt so taken advantage of by the record company. | |
|
|
|
| |
| 
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| As a music lover, I like the idea of DRM free music. They have some good artists such as Marvin Gaye, Nirvana, Sting (older stuff), Foo Fighters and the Yardbirds. I already have those albums, but the idea of being able to put them on my iPod, CD and play them on my work and home PC without having to crack the DRM is good.
Unfortunately I think the people that pirate are still going to pirate. People have a sense of entitlement and feel everything should be free.
--
"I hate conservatives, but I really hate liberals." - Matt Stone
»www.reason.com/ | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? Yes, the same core groups will be out there, with their loyal followings. But if you could get a Yahoo Unlimited account that provided high quality DRM-free downloads, it would actually be MORE work to pirate. Appealing to peoples general feeling of laziness is an easy sell. Plus a flat rate ~$10/mo is easy to justify. | |
|
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? said by Ahrenl :Yes, the same core groups will be out there, with their loyal followings. But if you could get a Yahoo Unlimited account that provided high quality DRM-free downloads, it would actually be MORE work to pirate. Appealing to peoples general feeling of laziness is an easy sell. Plus a flat rate ~$10/mo is easy to justify. Once again not talking about SUBSCRIPTION based. Just talking about the SELLING part. yahoo does in fact sell songs for 99cents each. 79 cent is you have asubscription. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? Why should we ignore subscription based? | |
|
| | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? said by Ahrenl :Why should we ignore subscription based? If you're paying for a subscription you should expect some retrictions. If you go DRM free on a subscription then what's from stoping me from downloading 100,000 DRM free songs in a month then cancelling? | |
|
| | | | | | 
dv
What was that?
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Goleta, CA | Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? Your "Unlimited" bandwidth cap
even unlimited subscriptions have some form of cap on how many songs you can download | |
|
| | | | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? said by dv :Your "Unlimited" bandwidth cap even unlimited subscriptions have some form of cap on how many songs you can download Well Yahoo charges $8.99 if you pay monthy. I'm sure I can easily download 100 songs a month. That would be $129 worth of songs. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? said by BF69 :said by dv :Your "Unlimited" bandwidth cap even unlimited subscriptions have some form of cap on how many songs you can download Well Yahoo charges $8.99 if you pay monthly. I'm sure I can easily download 100 songs a month. That would be $129 worth of songs. But can you find 100 good songs to download? (that you don't already own on non-DRM media) I'll be lucky to hear more than 9-10 songs a month that I want, but every once in a while there might be a bonus month where I get more than I'm paying for. That's how a subscription model works, or it doesn't work..
Also, it's only $129s worth of songs because they say so. It could be $8.99 worth of songs per month.. Frankly if people are happy with the service, most users will probably keep paying, and paying, and paying. Because, in the end, $8.99 isn't a whole lot for a month, unless I have to go and download my whole song catalogue every 3 months (or however long it is) because they all expired. You make it easy and convenient and you've got yourself $8.99/mo for life. Now multiply that by 6 billion, at very little marginal cost, and well.. this is what they're missing.. | |
|
| | |
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA | good point. | |
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by TKJunkMail :Well, the 1st step in what everyone has proclaimed as a necessary part of paying for music has been taken. There will be legal DRM free music from a major music provider. Now, the question is - will people pay for the music or will they find other reasons to keep pirating it? You know what I think!! People NOW pay for music that is of lower quality and is full of DRM. The pricing structure needs to change instead of this one price fits all mentality. That'll help. I have a subscription to Yahoo Music because I've never been a big music owner and I can buy songs for 79 cents, there's alot of older songs I like to listen too so I do on my subscription and I might actually own them outright, but not for 79 cents. A song from the 60's, 70's or 80's should not cost as much as a new song. Go to wal-mart, new DVD $15-$20. Older movies from the 80's $5. I do see where exception can be made of popular older artists where demand is such you could charge full price, but seriously some song I happen to like from 1983 that never made higher than #25 on the charts is 99 cents? I'm sure that guy or band that wrote that song rather have a small % of 49 cents than 0% of 99 cents.
Some people will always pirate even if you offer the songs for a nickel, because some people are jerks. | |
|
| | bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | Re: DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate? I agree on the 49 cents thing.
I think an entire album for $4.99 would be a great move too.
I agree that there are a lot of jerks out there....
Applause to EMI | |
|
| |
itunesmonkey
@rapidsys.com | The RIAA tried to get apple to there rates like you wanted.
Like something release last week 1.50
But something form the 90s would be like 49-59 cents.
Steve Jobs said no my way or the highway. The RIAA then folded. | |
|
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| said by TKJunkMail :will people pay for the music or will they find other reasons to keep pirating it? yep.
At least the paying consumer gets a break here. | |
|
| 
trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI
·AT&T Yahoo
| I think it will work. I will gladly pay for songs if I can transport, store and use on multiple devices. Great move.
Look at the Baen Webscription ebook model. They make money on non-encrypted books and it hasn't hurt but rather helped sales.
Great move. | |
|
| 
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs: | Twice the quality and an almost infinite increase invalue (being able to have the must you bought do what you want) for only a 30 cent increase? Even I'll support that!
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal | |
|
| jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| Actually according to the RIAA themselves online music buying has been increasing by leaps and bounds. This can only further that progress. I suspect that there are a lot out there that either didn't want to try it because they heard that DRM would limit their choices.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
|
|
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
1 edit | I don't think "piracy" has to do with the idea of not paying for something anymore, it has to do with the level of choice and control you put in the hands of the user.
You choose the quality, you choose what you want, when you want it, and you choose when/what you want to pay - even though, for a lot of people, the price for all of their computer equipment/internet connection far outweighs the worth of their music collection in CD format! Short of the RIAA offering 24/96 remixes of everything in the past 9-10 years or so that's been recorded this way, I don't see myself buying anything but used CDs on ebay.
I think people have been paying for "pirated" content all along. People get the 6 mbps internet service over the 768/128. People get the 500 gig 7200.10 seagate over the 80 GB hitachi. People subscribe to usenet. People buy faster computers to work with unrarring a 25 gig HD movie, people buy HTPCs to play it, people buy DVD-Rs/DVD+Rs to store it. People buy a $100 soundcard to go with their hifi. It costs money for these things. People are willing to pay, pirates are willing to pay, so the arguement of having everything for "free" is moot. Some of the biggest pirates have fileservers and home HTPC/streaming setups that cost a fortune, so it can't all be about the money. It doesn't add up.
This is like when Lincoln freed the slaves.
You're no longer slaves, but can you vote? Are you treated with any dignity or respect? Are you welcomed with open arms within your community?
...Is the audio quality here optionally CD quality(REAL 16/44, not this 128k nonsense), or better? A CD costs the same, and you get the physical copy, so surely this would have an equal(or better) quality option.
Nah. We need to move backwards from where things were 22 years ago, from 16/44 to the garbled mess we have now, and the price hasn't changed a bit. Wonderful. 
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | April Fools? Hrmm... Maybe? | |
|
| smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home | Re: April Fools? Yep, because everyone knows April 2nd is the real April Fools Day and not April 1st... | |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
|  What quality?
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | EMI Ditches DRM After All EMI was shrewd to get a price increase for eliminating what will soon be worthless DRM. | |
|
|
THXULTRA
@il.us | Re: EMI Ditches DRM After All I see this as a great move. DRM free legal downloads at $1.30 are totally fair. This is much fairer then paying almost $6 for a cd single. Definatly a step in the right direction. | |
|
| | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| Re: EMI Ditches DRM After All said by THXULTRA :
I see this as a great move. DRM free legal downloads at $1.30 are totally fair. This is much fairer then paying almost $6 for a cd single. Definatly a step in the right direction.
$6 for a cd single ? entire CD's go for $12 - $25CDN, with each track at $1.30x12tracks=$15.60, now how does that work as an alternative, sure they may be hand picked songs, but there are people out there that listen to ENTIRE records. and if a record at the mall is $12, and your paying almost $16 for it online(with no art or packaging, meaning without hard production cost) where are you saving money ? | |
|
| | |
trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI | Re: EMI Ditches DRM After All Entire albmums DRM free are $9.99. | |
|
| | |
Bencoder
@orionamerica.com
| You're not. But the Record Biz sure will be hauling it in. Printing costs and fuel and freight costs are no longer issues and we can get 1.29 US$ across a network by simply negotiating the price UP to do away with DRM which was a hopeless bust anyway.
No thanks.
BTW, did you know when CD production came on-line it saved the industry a lot of money because LP's were more expensive to produce (and probably to ship).
So to show their love for the customers, they jacked the CD release album price up to 15.99 from around 8.99.
And people think they are going to get a fair shake from these greed-hounds. Unbelievable. | |
|
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Lets see How long this will last DRM free music lets see how ling this will last. It makes it easier to transfer songs to bit torrent.
My prediction is those who were complaining about DRM will start crying the music price is too high. If not DRM, or price it will be something else because those who making the complaint do not have the balls to tell the world there real agenda is desire for a handout. | |
|
|
Anonywho
@bellsouth.net
| Re: Lets see How long this will last said by richardpor :If not DRM, or price it will be something else because those who making the complaint do not have the balls to tell the world there real agenda is desire for a handout. Yeah, if you aren't happy with what company X is offering, you are always looking for a handout... Whatever. Yeah, let's ignore all the headaches that DRM can cause and make it about people looking for a handout. | |
|
| 
chanur
Premium
join:2001-02-26
Colorado Springs, CO
| said by richardpor :DRM free music lets see how ling this will last. It makes it easier to transfer songs to bit torrent. My prediction is those who were complaining about DRM will start crying the music price is too high. If not DRM, or price it will be something else because those who making the complaint do not have the balls to tell the world there real agenda is desire for a handout. Come-on, anything you could want is already out there - they have NOTHING to lose. They will make some money from me, once a purchase path is identified I will gladly walk there catalog and buy songs, many songs. | |
|
| |
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Re: Lets see How long this will last said by chanur :said by richardpor :DRM free music lets see how ling this will last. It makes it easier to transfer songs to bit torrent. My prediction is those who were complaining about DRM will start crying the music price is too high. If not DRM, or price it will be something else because those who making the complaint do not have the balls to tell the world there real agenda is desire for a handout. Come-on, anything you could want is already out there - they have NOTHING to lose. They will make some money from me, once a purchase path is identified I will gladly walk there catalog and buy songs, many songs. Show me your receipts, here is mine.
Mar 26, 2007 RN ($11.57) I bought some middle eastern songs and a Rai thing going on.
I do not see those crying about DRM running in mass to Itunes for the next DRM free release, but to Bit torrent. Why pay why one can steal.
*real networks | |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | Almost there Wow all they have to do now is reduce the price by $1.29 and they will be able to compete with p2p. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| What is higher quality? Unless it's better than 16 bit/44K, I'm not buying it.
At $1.29/track, think about it.. I can get the full CD, no DRM, a physical copy with the cover notes, and still save.
If this is 24/96 or 24/192, fuck, I might seriously have to buy/rebuy my entire music collection. I honest to god would if it meant I could hear it the way it was recorded(24/96 has been around forever).
But, what is it really? 192 kbps AAC instead of 128k? Please.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
2 edits | Re: What is higher quality? Agree..
While I applaud the non-DRM goodness, whatever form it will actually take, the whole sheebang is kind of cheesy. "Dear customers, we're going to stop punishing you for buying our stuff, and as a bonus, we'll throw in an almost meaningless bit-rate increase, and a higher price!"
But again, good show.
--
The worm he licks my bones | |
|
| 
Fronkman
Macs Do It Better
Premium
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO
| yeah, but what if the cd is like 99.999999999% of CDs and only has one song worth buying. i would rather pay $1.29 instead of $15 for the "privilege" of listening to one song.
oh, and it is 256 kbps AAC. the overwhelming majority of the world does not have "special ears" like you and cant tell the difference between a 256 kbps AAC and CD audio. hell, it sounds like no recording is good enough for you. do you just have the bands play live for you so that you dont have to "suffer" through recorded audio.
--
Everyone should own a G4 cube or an iBook or the Mac mini! | |
|
| |
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
1 edit | Re: What is higher quality? said by Fronkman :oh, and it is 256 kbps AAC. the overwhelming majority of the world does not have "special ears" like you and cant tell the difference between a 256 kbps AAC and CD audio. hell, it sounds like no recording is good enough for you. do you just have the bands play live for you so that you dont have to "suffer" through recorded audio. No, I don't have live bands play for me, so please try to get a gig elsewhere. I do listen to many recordings, including those in compressed formats, but I don't suffer through them - because the CD it came off of cost four bucks on ebay. It would be nice if 7-10 year old technology could finally be used to record modern music, but that'd confuse the consumer who is too illiterate to read the format on the front of the jewel case.
If it costs more than the original CD for this version of the album, if I hadn't been following this from 2002, I'd guess they were giving out SACD/DVD-A quality copies, or something better than CD. 256k aac is fine compared to CD, but for more than the price of the CD I'd figure they do better. The "higher quality" version shouldn't be $1.30, it should be the normal version. I was hoping that wouldn't get lost, but you're special.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| what does this mean??? ..For the little guy?
What if a band is ALREADY on iTunes/Rhapsody etc. but wishes their music to go without the 'protection'? What if an indie band wishes to be on a major service MINUS the madness???
At least somebody's finally giving it a shot.
I can't count how many times a burn has screwed up on Rhapsody due to some stupid DRM issue.
Heck, good gesture by them I'd say....
Somebody still needs to offer FLAC for a reasonable price... | |
|
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | What bit rate? What bit rate will this music be? If its 128K forget it 320K or higher then yes.
Sorry, but 128K sounds like total crap.
Rob | |
|
| 
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | Re: What bit rate? It says in the article that it would be 256 kbps AAC.
--
There's no place like ::1. | |
|
| 
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Wait,,, first they install DRM on EVERY good they sell, then tell us "ok, we'll take it out, BUT you have to pay a premium."
Yep, sounds like a 'Murrikkkan get rich scheme... | |
|
| |
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | Re: Wait,,, Bandwidth increase, plus the inevitable fact that many copies will end up on P2P services.
--
There's no place like ::1. | |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Two can play at that game Microsoft is now in talks with EMI to offer the label's
songs DRM free on their Zune service.
»business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b···8585.ece
Don't know if they are going to use AAC or WMA. AAC looks
like it is becoming the inudstry standard.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot) | |
|
|
|
|
EMI Ditches DRM After All
Am I dreaming?
·
DRM free music; will people pay or will they still pirate?
·
They're learning!!!