What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
92 Comments
- lnfiniteLoop, on 11/19/2008, -0/+42Please note that CNet has since changed its story to omit mention of MP3 as the format in which the new unrestricted tracks would be sold. The author responded to a comment on the matter by saying "I don't know whether my sources were just throwing out MP3 as a way to describe unprotected music." It's likely Apple would make the tracks available in unprotected 256 kbps AAC format as it does with those from EMI.
- ButterBuddha, on 11/20/2008, -16/+45I hear the music on Pirate Bay doesn't have any DRM...
- wisedude, on 11/20/2008, -18/+41It wouldn't distance it from its rivals. It would merely help it to catch up....,
- deadmoo, on 11/20/2008, -1/+24How retarded are you? wisedude was referring to the fact that other online music services already have had DRM-free MP3 for a long time now. And they are cheaper than Apple's DRM-ridden tracks too.
- colorme, on 11/20/2008, -2/+19Yet another reason that I use Amazon's MP3 store on my Mac. The client is a little clunky, but the files are 240kbps (VBR), DRM-free mp3s. Songs are $0.99 at most, and albums max out at $9.99, but many cost less.
- TheZorch, on 11/20/2008, -0/+15If the labels refused Apple would have a case, they could claim the RIAA is engaged in unfair business practices by allowing its competitors to offer unprotected music yet forces them to offer protected music. They'd win hands down because clearly doing that to Apple is illegal. The RIAA is its own worst enemy, DRM is a failure it doesn't stop criminals at all, but it certainly does stop legitimate consumers from enjoying their products.
- unitedkronos, on 11/20/2008, -0/+15I wish Apple would go a step further and start to sell Apple Lossless, FLAC or WAV files, many indie/underground music stores like...
http://www.beatport.com http://www.beatsource.com http://www.trackitdown.net http://www.junodownload.com http://www.bleep.net ...do so already. - smoger, on 11/20/2008, -0/+11"a move that could further distance the digital download service from its rivals"
..but it's rivals already *have* unprotected mp3 tracks. what am i missing? - MonkeyFit, on 11/20/2008, -0/+11And yet study after study shows more devices support mp3 than AAC. That is why so many people prefer mp3. It is the standard. Not a standard, the standard.
That being said, we're talking about Apple here, who will probably use AAC for the simple fact that it's what they've always used, and because they don't care about making their music compatible with other devices. However, I could also see a huge amount of newer players suddenly supporting the AAC format should these deals actually go through. In that case, we may see a shift to AAC being the standard. - so1omon, on 11/20/2008, -1/+10This I don't understand... You'd be willing to pay a subscription fee of $20 a month for 2 albums a month? You realize that 2 albums on iTunes costs $20 now, right?
How would a subscription service make any difference at all? - Spuy767, on 11/20/2008, -1/+9There is really no reason to try and woo users of other music players using the more ubiquitous MP3 format, and AAC is higher quality to boot. I would consider the MP3 claim spurious at best.
- pixelrunner, on 11/20/2008, -2/+9I disagree, that statement is a cop out. You are taking money from those who should have received it for their ideas or services. Because something is not physical/tangible does not make it any less valuable. You take that whatever without paying for it that is theft.
- KSUdesigner, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7What happens when the digital store goes out of business though?
- miriv365, on 11/20/2008, -3/+9Of course, everyone on digg would say that paying 99 cents for a 128 kbps version of an MP3 (or whatever bitrate they are going to offer) would be wayyyyyy too much, and they would stop pirating if they would drop it down to a more reasonable 25 cents a song.
- deshabble, on 11/20/2008, -0/+6Buying CD's has become cheaper now, at least in England. Like The Cures 'Wish' album downloaded costs £7.99, but the CD costs £5, besides, it's nice to have a tangible copy of the music, rather than something that could be potentially lost altogether.
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -1/+7But who put those restrictions on in the first place? Apple can only sell whatever media they are allowed to and with whatever restrictions are demanded by the copyright holders. If Sony or any other music group went to Amazon tomorrow and said that they could no longer sell non-DRMed tracks what do you think Amazon would do? Do you honestly believe they would stop selling those tracks or would they knuckle under and create or use DRM?
Contrary to what you might want to believe, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft all sell content at the whim of the copyright holders and those same holders can rescind or demand DRM at a moments notice and all three either would have to cave or stop selling content. As a company that's trying to make as much money as they can, which do you honestly believe they'd do? - pixelrunner, on 11/20/2008, -11/+16And have also heard it is stealing...
If they sell it..you did not pay for it.. did not receive it as a gift.. then yes it is stolen. No matter if the RIAA is right or not it is morally wrong.
Yep..digg me down. - CraigReed, on 11/20/2008, -15/+20Catch up? What are you smoking exactly? Apple is the number one music retailer and that includes physical media.
Unless your talking about the size of their unprotected music library Apple doesn't need to catch up to anyone. - so1omon, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5That depends... That's really only true If you went to a Kansas SHOW, and bought that shirt.
- secrity, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5I don't mind paying 89¢ or 99¢ for an MP3 from Amazon. I generally prefer to buy a CD and rip it, but I also buy MP3s; especially if I want it RIGHT now.
89¢ or 99¢ is actually cheaper than 45 singles used to be. - DemDude, on 11/20/2008, -3/+8Many, many nice people just like you are making their living from working in the music industry.
There's no doubt, the means the RIAA are using are absolutely wrong, but the idea behind it is not.
Stealing music is stealing, and doing so destroys the jobs of people like me, who are working in the industry because they love music, and who don't condone the actions of the RIAA.
I don't steal the product of your work, so please don't steal the product of mine =(
edit: Oh, but please don't buy it if it's DRM'ed. The Bosses need to learn that DRM is *****. - MonkeyFit, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Codec?
- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5I agree. I only buy a song on iTunes if it is in the Plus format (they do sound better), otherwise I get it from Amazon.
It's funny because I'll see a suggestion or new release in the iTMS, see it's not Plus, and get it on Amazon instead. Apple just doesn't have much incentive right now to beg the record labels for a deal to switch their entire catalog over the the higher quality because most people using iTunes don't really care they have DRM in the first place. - CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Most of the songs are still not in the Plus format, apparently you're just lucky that all of the artists you like have their stuff in the Plus format.
I have a ton of songs from the iTMS, mostly from gift certificates, and I've only been able to upgrade a portion of them to the Plus format. - MonkeyFit, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5"If you want Mp3, you can convert it within iTunes. (as long as it's plus format)"
lossy->lossy
fail - bagofbeef, on 11/20/2008, -1/+5Amazon.com DRM-Free tracks FTW
- KSUdesigner, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4since
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4@deadmoo
And who do you think pays the salaries of people like DemDude? The artists? No, the very people you claim to have no problem ripping off - CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -5/+9What is the point of this article? I don't get it. Apple already sells DRM-free music in the iTunes Plus format, which is 256kbps unprotected AAC. If the other labels are thinking of hopping on-board with EMI with DRM-free tracks (like they do with Amazon), I'm sure they would stay with the AAC format Apple uses considering there's no reason to switch to an inferior format.
- unitedkronos, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4http://www.bleep.com Digg needs more than five minutes to edit comments.
- papavb, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Good thing Apple is at least talking about this, and after Job's open letter a while back it would be a good move for the entire music industry to get on board, again. Microsoft is ahead of Cupertino in this aspect, a nice change in the ongoing "rivalry", but the winners are us consumers who get to take our music wherever the ***** we want.
- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Not going to happen with the RIAA members obviously, but I'm a bit surprised they don't even have the option for Apple Lossless for any labels that actually want to use it.
I'm guessing the reason they're reluctant to offer Lossless has to do with bandwidth costs, although when you exclude RIAA labels you're not talking about a lot of downloads. - yellowbean1, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Man I can't believe how defensive people get. What wisedude is so accurately pointing out is that, even though itunes is the biggest and most popular retailer of digital music, it is relatively late to the table with non-DRMed tracks. I've been stuck with a balance on last Christmas' iTunes gift card because I don't want to buy DRMed music and the iTunes Plus library is woefully understocked. Compared to Amazon and Lala, iTunes does have some catching up to do, both in non-DRM content and in price.
- Barackalypse, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3On review apparently more players decode AAC than I thought, so I editted my comment. I still like FLAC better though.
- weareglass, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4I'm a DJ, and I use MP3s (through Serato) in my gigs. I can tell you based on playing my MP3 collection through a large number of sound systems what the difference is. If you're utilizing normal consumer-grade speakers or headphones (like Apple's earbuds) you will not notice a difference, and when there are studies, they test on these devices.
The problem arises when you bring in better speakers or good pairs of headphones, which have a higher dynamic range. Limiting a song's bitrate mostly just compresses its dynamic range, cutting out the highest highs and lowest lows. On a good system, 128kbit files sound closer or stuffy and less compressed tracks sound fuller. Because nothing sucks more than playing one of your favorite songs to a big room of people and realizing it sounds like ass. Try getting a pair of good headphones and listening closely, I find the difference to be obvious, although once you get to 256ish I can't tell the difference between that and 320 or CD.
http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb/index.html
(top Google result, note the conclusion, 128 sounds identical FOR COMPUTER USE. A.k.a. ***** speakers. Stick to 256.) - icecoldtrashcan, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3And a good deal of smaller labels, or self-produced artists, sell in the non-DRM higher bit-rate iTunes plus anyway. I've been surprised how much mainstream stuff is now available in iT+ recently.
I think what the article is pointing out is that the big labels have cottoned on to the fact that they will still sell a good deal of non-DRM music without losing sales to people downloading illegally - and that they can actually use that as a selling point. I expect piracy rates are going to stay pretty constant. It's nice that they're finally deciding to accept that no matter what they do, somebody somewhere is going to pirate it - and in a way, slapping DRM all over stuff is just going to make people pirate more. - Shakermaker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Don't they already offer this with EMI music?
- enclaved, on 11/20/2008, -4/+6Physical objects can be lost just as easily.
- Elvaanish, on 11/23/2008, -0/+2Thats the problem people have with the iTunes store DirtyDiggDog; most of what you buy ISNT yours forever. Purchasing DRMed music, be it subscription or not, is renting. Ask all those urge, yahoo music and msn music customers how they're feeling about their DRM purchases.
If you cant authorize your computer (discontinued service? legal issues? apple going bankrupt in the great depression of 2020?) then the music really isn't yours.
iTunes is a rental service as it is. - daridave, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Pwnage approved. But you really download mp3s there? I honestly never did. Frostwire [crappy, I know] or some mp3-centric torrent sites... but then again, I got lazy, "searching for music" is now in my "boring things to do" dept... which is why for 99 cents w/o DRM, Apple is actually going to win me over! Cuz so far, my iTunes music expenses are at $0.00 ...
- fishbulb95, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2" I'd buy that for a dollar! "
- HolyChimp, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Since when does iTunes allow this with music? It's one of the few things that pisses me off with iTunes. Buy anything off Steam, Xbox Live or even the iTunes App Store and you can redownload for life. Buy a song from iTunes and once you download it once then you'd best back it up!
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Whether or not such tracks (if it ever happens) is MP3 or AAC is a moot point. Most of the better players will also play AAC files as long as they have no DRM
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -2/+4I'm not sure how you mean it could be 'lost' if you have a digital copy.
If you bought it legally you can just download it again from the digital store for free
If you lose a CD its lost for good. - LoganT, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Apple does not own AAC.
- se7en11, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2I think it's saying that Apple is already doing well, but by adding non-DRM tracks, it would push them well ahead of everyone else.
- se7en11, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Save your money and get an "I love New Mexico" shirt...
- ibeetle, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2I have got to stop posting at 7 in the morning before I finish the coffee.
- Macintoshreader, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2These DRM-free songs should be of 256kbps AAC quality.
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2That's very true. I do much the same with iTunes and Amazon, but what a lot of people forget is that the iPod isn't to complement iTunes but that iTunes is to complement the iPod. Apple DOES make a profit per download (even after all the administration costs), but it isn't nearly what they make off the sale of iPods.
I doubt Apple really cares where you get your content just as long as you listen to it via their player. Remember that iTunes allowed you to rip your CDs into it from almost the very beginning. If buying content was a major source of income, they would have restricted that when iTMS was opened. They didn't because iTMS was just one more reason to buy an iPod over something else. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is