What is Digg?
78 Comments
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50the more DRM-free anything the better.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27As long as:
-The pricing is the same or better as iTunes
-The format they choose plays on an iPod
-The compression is equal to or better quality than 128kbps AAC, i'll switch to Amazon in a second.
A lossless, DRM free download would be amazing. - Ag3ntOrang3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18How about lossless? Who wants 128kbps, come on now. Give it to me in a lossless format and let me convert it to whatever I want from there. Lossless will get my business in a heartbeat.
- datsclark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Me soon buy music
- majoogybobber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"-The pricing is the same or better as iTunes"
Hell, I would even pay up to 3 cents more for no DRM. - majoogybobber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Wow, you might be on to something.... and to take your idea further, imagine if someone made a program that let masses of people share their music like that? And then called it.. Napster? That would be big trouble indeed.
I'm glad that sure doesn't or hasn't ever existed. - majoogybobber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+111. eMusic is subscription-based.
2. Missing the big 4 labels (though since I listen to primarily jazz, I care less about this. But other people will!)
Bleh. - archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Music with no DRM always deserves a digg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If anyone can dent Apple's marketshare, it's Amazon. Next to all the CDs, make it so you can buy it digitally too, and on the track lists have it so you can download individual tracks.
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+84 things are needed before I will EVER buy online music from a US retailer
#1 DRM FREE Wide open unencumbered mp3's this is a deal breaker ANY DRM at all and I have no interest. NOT wma NOT aac NOT mp3pro JUST regular old mo3.
#2 MUCH cheaper prices. 99 cents a song is NUTS thats more than the cost of a CD Track at times !!! and you get so much less for me this maxes at around 25 cents a song. anything over 25 cents a song ($5 an album) and I will have SERIOUS second thoughts.
#3 Minimum Quality - Properly encoded 192kbit Stereo. anything less and I have no interest.
#4 No overreaching terms of service or EULA's ZERO restrictions on personal property rights Normal already in place restrictions on intellectual property rights (IE existing law nothing new or added)
The only retailer who currently meets all 4 of these requirements is www.allofmp3.com (in fact they are cheaper than my conditions under #2 averaging 17 cents a song and $4 an album)
I am slightly flexible on price but NOT anywhere near to the tune of 99 cents for a freaking digital file. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9amen
- alphacorvus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I agree that lossless would be a no-brainer.
- drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Precisely, just the idea of an actual corporate backing of DRM free music is good news for us. Also being it a local company for me, I am happy they are the ones trying to take steps forward in this way.
- kagelump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6seriously tho
i'd doubt the majority of the people who use these things can't tell apart 128 kbs mp3 and 320kbs mp3
especially on those $15 earbuds - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"emusic already does it"
Yeah, I tried emusic. The selection sucks.
I can't envision the big labels allowing DRM-free music. I can dream about it, but I can't envision it. - Gm7Cadd9, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It is far too trendy to blame Apple for restrictive DRM when the truth is the record companies wouldn't have it any other way. Apple has dragged the RIAA through the digital music revolution kicking and screaming and all along the way they have only asked for more money and more DRM.
You hear this sort of thing all the time talking about how something new is going to trump Apple... the zune wireless sharing is the new thing... free downloads!!!! oh yeah, only 3 plays over 3 days... if it is too good to be true, then it probably is. - forceflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think a variable pricing and quality scheme similar to allofmp3 makes the most sense. Allow users to choose the quality of the music they want, and pay accordingly.
- ashester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Gotta agree, what ever Amazon is cookin smells good.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"No one has actually blamed Apple in these comments."
Actually, Apple frequently gets the blame (direct or indirect) for DRM when it's absolutely, positively the record companies behind it.
The arguments "Company X will slaughter Apple if they sell DRM-free music!" are silly since the major record companies aren't going to allow Company X to sell their music without DRM. Hence we end up with alternatives like eMusic, with a meager selection and little compelling reason to buy. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"emusic already does it."
The more the merrier! Especially if Amazon signs some of the artists that aren't on eMusic. - luigi1015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think they bother with DRM to keep the honest people honest.
I would think most people that buy DRMed music either aren't tech-savvy enough or are just too honest to "share" the music. The DRM keeps such honest people from being tempted to put their purchased file on some P2P site.
It's the same thing as the average joe's locks on his doors. The average door lock will keep out the (average) neighbors but won't keep out the determined and competent burglar. - jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If only they can make it as good as Unbox...
/sarcasm - OmegaNine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I would love to see this happen, but it will not happen with big name bands for a while. So untill i can move my MP3s from ipod to zen to zune...im going to keep bit torrent running.
- anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To Amazon:
Don't forget Canada, Australia and Europe; Like you did when you make Unbox. (Aside from Windows only and DRM infested) - bgiese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If the labels offer Amazon a DRM free consent to sell online; they'll surely have to offer the same type of arrangement to Apple.
Steve Jobs said their fairplay DRM was added because the recording industry needed restrictions to protect their intellectual property. Apple doesn't need the iTunes store to sell iPods. The record label on the other hand needs the iTunes store more and more every day in order to sell music.
If Amazon is able to get a deal to sell music without DRM you can bet that Steve Jobs will be on the telephone the next day getting the same deal for the iTunes store.
Once Apple had gotten deals to sell music for 99 cents and $9.99 it was no coincidence that other online stores also begun selling music at a similar price points. Worked the same way. - mattchambers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Tell you what. If I can get what I get on a CD, non-DRM and lossless, then I'll pay up to the price of the CD for it. It really is that simple. Until then I am not going to pay the same amount for less, I don't want to prove myself an idiot.
- majoogybobber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4No one has actually blamed Apple in these comments. They've cited Apple as a competitor, sure, but that's to be expected in a music download discussion.
- andrewpmk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why do the record companies bother with DRM for music anyway? CDs have no DRM, although the record companies made an unsuccessful attempt at it. Since it is trivial to rip a CD to either a lossless or lossy format and share it on BitTorrent anyway, there is no advantage to putting DRM on downloadable music. Such a trivial barrier is useless against the pirates.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If this goes through and Amazon does indeed release DRM-free music I will hold myself to this public promise to buy a minimum of 10 songs.
- rypaintD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well you could just as easily download it through P2P and copy it though.
- majoogybobber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hem, sarcasm aside, I think there's a market for non-DRMed music outside of piracy despite the fact that, as elnerdo aptly pointed out, it could quickly be shared. That will happen anyway with piracy.
On the other hand, piracy is free, but risky-- I'd imagine plenty of people would switch to a legal method if it provided them with a similar product at a reasonable price. And right now, that product doesn't really exist because of DRM restrictions. So if this happens, it could be big. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I went through several MP3 players before settling on an iPod. What makes the iPod work so well isn't the iTunes store, but the software. If Amazon signs onto this, hopefully they'll have the forethought to come up with software that will manage MP3s and seamlessly sync up music. That's where Apple wins.
- MattH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digital Watermarking and Digital Fingerpring will replace DRM as the new Technical Protection Measures .
- dimension128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Would be cool if you could download the music in multiple formats, loseless, ogg, mp3, different bitrates, etc. I imagine I'd select 256 ogg as my default format. But to know that I could also get a full FLAC version of the file, would be just amazing.
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can someone vouch for Hypebot (the source cited)? I really want to believe this!
The day Amazon puts its name behind a service that pushes non-DRM downloads, the future of entertainment and the internet will brighten by a rather startling degree. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Provided they don't screw up in any of the ways they did with their video service (unreliable play back, draconian EULA, poorly written custom software, and DRM) it could be a success. Any company that can convince major labels to let them sell unencumbered MP3s at a reasonable price is going to do significant damage to Apple's exclusive tie in for the iPod, as others will be able to say they're iPod compatible (like emusic does now). If Amazon did manage to create such a service I think there would quiet a bit of pressure for Apple, Napster, and Rhapsody to follow suit. Of course making it available in multiple formats (which should be easier not have to worry about DRM) would make it all the better, especially if they threw in a lossless format or two. I'd pay $0.99 for a DRM free lossless track.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree with all your points except calling allofmp3 a "retailer." Let's face facts - they're a glorified pirate site, nothing more. A pirate site that charges you for their musical contraband. How else do you think they meet all your (and my) requirements?
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What happens to them? The same thing that happens when I buy a CD and rip it, or remove the DRM from iTunes music. It's not like this is creating any new possibilities as far as piracy goes. At most, it's making it marginally more convenient.
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"what would make the giant music labels change their minds? "
A mandatory licensing scheme, just like we got with radio back in the 1930s.
-jcr - anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"emusic already does it."
I have paid emusic in excess of $350 in subscription fees. I consider myself an indie junkey. There aren't even enough indie labels signed. Time after time I search for something (non-major4) I like, and it's not there. My other option is to try to browse for good music in their database. Their navigation system SUCKS. You're either faced with having to search through a lot of crap or having to re-consume the ones that have gotten popular by fluke and stayed up there in a loop. Their editors' taste is worse than my hypothetical grandfather and they ALWAYS pick the ***** albums. By the end of the month I run out of time to find things I like so my subscription goes unused. If I go to a lower subscription level, I can't even DL two full albums.
I would really like Amazon to cut a deal with major labels over a DRM free service. emusic doesn't cut it.
(DRM ones are out of the question) - malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More than likely will be US only, oh you're from Australia we won't sell to you. BAH!
That was the best thing about allofmp3.com - good price, choice of format and encoding and they didn't care where you were from! - pdotnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd buy music from Amazon
- kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nothing will beat limewire
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with your post up to and including the price, but if I'm buying songs in bulk, then the price better be considerably better than that. There will be give and take on both sides, but as a consumer, I'm not willing to get completely reamed to buy DRM-free music online, but I'll pay a fair price for it.
- bigwyrm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If so, that is probably why they're trying this. I hope it works for them. After so many years of the RIAA crying that the Internet is going to bring about the downfall of civilization, it will be satisfying to see somebody build a large-scale, legitimate music business on the Internet. I hope.
- decipherd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Nerys,
As long as you can play it out of speakers it can be copied. So fortunatly this won't be true for a long, long time when the music is playing directly into our brains ;-) - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1uh...no, don't think so...the cheaper the better...the cheaper it is, the less inclined people will be to try to cheat the system. same thing goes for taxes, too--that way you won't have billionaires that pay a lower pecentage than the rest of us.
- d3faultnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2if i was more into music (i don't even own an mp3 player), and i actually bought my music online, i would definitely use amazon over apple's itunes.
though, doesn't anyone remember what happened when amazon was selling the xbox 360 for $100??? the servers got slammed and couldn't handle the load. obviously, they will upgrade the server, but still...... - Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Didn't Amazon get slammed for an incredibly convoluted DRM scheme for some sort of online sales?
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That would be excellent. If they offer WMA Lossless and it's cheaper than buying a CD, I'm definitely interested (since I encode all my CD's to WMA lossless anyway). Without DRM, I'm also worried about how good the selection will be... I'm crossing my fingers.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is