What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
161 Comments
- BryanG831, on 01/08/2009, -18/+105Dear Apple,
Please let me upgrade my library of music, I already paid for, to DRM free, for free. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Future Pirate. - judicar, on 01/08/2009, -3/+67>While Apple could argue that its AAC format provides better sound quality (and it does, at low bit rates), the fact that it uses this encryption by default ...
AAC has nothing to do with Apple. You can always spot someone who doesn't know what the ***** they are talking about when they assume AAC is an Apple product. Another name for AAC is MPEG-4 AAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
"Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) is a standardized, lossy compression and encoding scheme for digital audio. Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format, AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at many bit rates.
AAC has been standardized by ISO and IEC, as part of the MPEG-2 & MPEG-4 specifications .. " - inkswamp, on 01/08/2009, -10/+47Dear Apple,
I bought these music tracks back when I knew they were DRM-protected but still felt it was worth the price, but now I feel justified in demanding a free update. Don't make me throw a hissy fit across several Internet discussion forums.
Sincerely,
Future Hissy Fit Thrower - benologist, on 01/08/2009, -17/+52Name 5 things you buy that cost less than $0.69.
Artists are much better off with the RIAA labels then they are pandering to ***** cheapskate internet kiddies who will scream about any price at all. - S2000, on 01/08/2009, -7/+37@Barackalypse: Yeah, they're also non-durable goods: things that have absolutely no value once used, or not used soon enough (with maybe the exception of the newspaper, but they also make most of their $$$ of advertising). No comparison.
- monkeyrun, on 01/08/2009, -4/+32That's a dead give away. He spent a whole article telling you he is clueless.
And did he call AAC an encryption format? I used to think popular mechanics' reputable. - judicar, on 01/08/2009, -3/+24You can upgrade it for free, it only costs 30 cents per song!
- archer75, on 01/08/2009, -2/+23It's a ripoff when one factors in the costs involved of creating a physical CD. The materials, the employees, the shipping, the profit margin for the stores selling it.
You cut alot of that out when selling digitally. So one would hope for lower prices as a result. - gamelord12, on 01/08/2009, -2/+23Definitely not the same thing.
- Altotus, on 01/08/2009, -3/+22You don't need a label to sell your music on iTunes.
- MrSkills, on 01/08/2009, -0/+19The fact that you would consider a great song to be the same value as a Snickers bar speaks volumes about your taste.
- skellener, on 01/08/2009, -1/+19Even Zune supports AAC as does the XBOX 360.
- archer75, on 01/08/2009, -0/+17It's available now(converting to plus and 8million songs). You have to pay to upgrade your library to itunes plus. You can't pick and choose which songs either. You pay to upgrade your entire library or not at all.
- archer75, on 01/08/2009, -0/+15You take a hit in quality that way. You are taking a lossy format, making a CD with it and then ripping back into a lossy format. You lose bits twice here.
- jeffyjones, on 01/08/2009, -4/+17The reason I call nonsense on this particular article is because various studies indicate 90% or more of the music on iPods came from someplace other than iTunes, probably ripped CD's. I can say for me personally that the iTunes songs account for 3% at best of my total library. I bought an iPod, iPhone and even AppleTV because I liked the product, not because I was "stuck" in Apple's ecosystem.
- OrangeSoda31, on 01/08/2009, -0/+13Free!
- Mosersaurus, on 01/07/2009, -0/+12Honestly, the DRM did always annoy me even though I never really ran into trouble with it. It's about ownership -- when you bought something w/ DRM, you didn't own the tracks in the same way you did if you bought them on CD. There were always strings attached. Although, according to the article, there are still strings attached with the file format business.
As usual, XKCD explains things better than I do: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/13/xkcd-strip-ex ... - archer75, on 01/08/2009, -3/+15I have songs I purchased form itunes a couple of years ago. I've formatted computers, moved it from here to there. And now the songs I bought no longer play.
I even had a helluva time with an ebook that I bought from amazon.
I will NEVER purchase downloadable content that has DRM again. - MrChunks, on 01/08/2009, -1/+13Because the band wouldn't have been popular without the promotional assistance of a major label. And then the major label will more than likely have suckered the band or artist into some contract which doesn't let them leave.
- dalkor, on 01/07/2009, -3/+15I hope so, with no DRM and per song pricing, that is the model I like for buying music online.
- suprememilo, on 01/08/2009, -0/+11My ears started bleeding just thinking about what this does to the sound quality.
- archer75, on 01/08/2009, -0/+11And I would agree with you. Digital downloads of games are also a ripoff.
If it's going to cost me the same i'll just go to the store and buy it. - Barackalypse, on 01/08/2009, -16/+2712 oz Coke, Snickers bar, donut, bagel, daily newspaper. These are all physical things that require extensive processing and transportation.
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -1/+11They actually refer to the AAC file format as "encrypted". That's like calling MP3 "encrypted/DRM" because it won't play back in a player that only supports WAV. Bury as inaccurate.
- DemDude, on 01/08/2009, -0/+10Punctuation is free, you know...
- troub, on 01/08/2009, -1/+11Emusic has some great stuff that averages to about $.33 per track. I've been a subscriber for over a year, after a long time maintaining that I would never buy music online. I still buy physical CDs on the rare occasion I get major label stuff (new Tool and The Mars Volta albums are always must-buys), because if I'm paying $1 a track I'll go ahead and get the one that is much more likely to last me decades, and can be converted into whatever electronic format I want it to be.
Emusic also keeps what you've downloaded in your account, and lets you re-download it at any time in the future, as many times as you want/need, on as many computers, etc (except on the rare occasion someone's back catalog gets bought by an RIAA label, or otherwise gets pulled from the site). . . Last I checked, if you lost or deleted your iTunes, you're SOL. - MacHarborGuy, on 01/08/2009, -0/+10oh yeah, send the hacking tool directly to the end user, now that is a gaping hole in the system. the music has no DRM anymore, not the movies, and sending the data for a local iTunes to rip out the DRM would open the door for abuse.
plus you have to redownload anyway because the songs are now 256Kbps.
Honestly, some people are just never happy. - Morky, on 01/08/2009, -6/+15Here is the most appropriate response to this pathetic article:
"Thoughts on Music
Steve Jobs
February 6, 2007
With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.
To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats.
The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.
Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.
To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be able to play on a downloader’s computer or portable music device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.
The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free (and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that, so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple’s DRM system is called FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have been able to successfully repair them through updating the iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music.
With this background, let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.
The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.
Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.
Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.
The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.
So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly. - inkswamp, on 01/08/2009, -8/+17Wow, grasping for straws in what appears to be a totally unsourced piece of speculation that contradicts the more reliable sources about iTunes DRM. And wow... dismissing iTunes Plus because it doesn't fit into your theory by saying that all other players don't support AAC format? That's just weak.
Gee, how did those devilish bastards at Apple force other players not to support AAC? Guess Steve's RDF affects CEOs at other companies. Wow. This conspiracy is huge! - roebeet, on 01/08/2009, -3/+12Badly written article. AAC without DRM is not a major obstacle in the DAP world - many non-Apple players already support it, and others could probably add the codec for a small royalty fee to VIA licensing. Given that iTunes is going 100% DRM free, I have a feeling that all the major DAP companies will start licensing AAC, as it makes good marketing sense.
As for Apple's media player future, they probably have nothing to worry about (at least in the short term). Consumers are not going to run out and buy Zunes, overnight. Apple's new media player "lock-in" is going to be their App Store, imo. - jbella, on 01/08/2009, -0/+8Yesterday..
Apple had DRM on it's tracks. They ***** suck!
Today...
Apple removed all DRM from it's tracks. It's a money grubbing trick. They ***** suck!
Well.. I guess you can't please some of the people any of the time. - luke255, on 01/08/2009, -5/+13So will we still be using MP3 in 2020 just because the majority of devices only support it? No. That would be ***** ridiculous. Sounds like the logic of an Internet Explorer user. If Apple wanted DRM then they would have it - it's their ***** store. It's thinking like this which keeps PC makers using BIOS instead of EFI: It's what the majority use so we can't change it. I am an Apple fan, but an unbiased one. I will jump to Microsoft's defense where applicable and I don't mind pointing out Apple's flaws but Apple have been slated in the press for having DRM but has finally negotiated to remove it and the online community says: "Yeah but they didn't want to really and they're using this advanced codec which isn't understood by less capable devices". ***** ridiculous.
- HonoredMule, on 01/08/2009, -5/+13A very coherent and compelling anti-Apple argument could have been made (particularly regarding Apple's fierce, anti-competitive protection of the iTunes + iPod exclusive marriage). This article, however, failed miserably, even stooping so low as to mistakenly equate the AAC format--without DRM--to "encryption."
- bigdoof, on 01/08/2009, -1/+9"most likely top 10 songs will be $1.29 but the average song will be $.99 or $.69 which is awesome."
Fanboyism at it's finest: explain away the higher price, and fully believe the new price point will be the lower one. Most songs will be $0.99 or $0.69, and only Top 10 songs will be $1.29? Really? Do you honestly think record labels thought iTunes prices were too *high* and wanted to lower them? You're a moron.
And iTunes Plus is free? Perhaps you didn't see the $0.30 / song "upgrade" fee?
Yeah, this is a great step forward for Apple. An opportunity to sell people the same thing twice, and enabling record labels to charge even more for their product. I guess I should stop bitching now. - bigdoof, on 01/08/2009, -1/+8That's a moronic outlook. iTunes DRM essentially locks you down to iTunes and iPods. God forbid you ever want to use something other than those two, either now or in the future, you will be completely unable to unless you either do a sloppy transcode using burned CDs, or an equally messy rip from an output jack.
Think of it this way: Sony Discman CD players used to be king. If they had used iTunes-like DRM back in the day, all of your CDs would be utterly useless, lest you stay within the Sony kingdom. Can you imagine buying a PMP today, and only being able to buy Sony?
Apple fanboys, like the ones that wrote your article up there, fully expect to use Apple products for the rest of their lives (and would be buried with them if they could). Normal people are a little more realistic. - UNCCEJ1010, on 01/08/2009, -1/+8Hell, my ***** cellphone supports AAC.
- ErifNeerg, on 01/08/2009, -3/+10I could understand that mistake at some newspapers but not PopMech. They're tech magazine.
- iChopPryde, on 01/08/2009, -3/+10Seriously are you actually serious about complaining and saying paying $0.69 for a Song or under $10 for an album is to much money how much should a song cost then because theres not really any cheaper they can go without just giving it away for free.
- macslut, on 01/08/2009, -0/+7Ya, screw Apple for heading in a direction with their new digital media strategy that no longer includes selling music with DRM...
Oh wait...what the ***** are you upset about? - kreatre2007, on 01/08/2009, -4/+11I don't believe this. People have bitched and whined about Apple's DRM for almost 6 years (despite iTunes being the top selling digital music download service). Now that Apple has worked out a deal to remove DRM, people are still bitching. Would anyone like cheese with that whine? This is ridiculous. I have NEVER been harmed by the DRM since I have zero interest in using other music players that are not iPods. Apple created the best platform for digital music and people bitch and whine. Now that Apple is taking DRM off and creating a variable pricing scheme, people are still bitching. I really don't think the "outrage" over DRM was really as big as the bloggers make it seem. Since I have always used my music for my own purposes, DRM has never been a problem. If a friend wanted some of my iTunes purchased songs, I would just burn them onto an audio CD -- problem solved. In the end, iTunes was never about making huge profits from sale of digital media. It has been and probably will always be about selling iPods, iPhones, Apple TV's and, whatever other gadgets Apple releases in the future.
- robzthird, on 01/08/2009, -2/+8What the hell is wrong with AAC? What cheap music player are you using?
- phill, on 01/08/2009, -1/+7It's so awesome that people actually think that Apple is the reason why iTunes has DRM.
- HonoredMule, on 01/08/2009, -0/+6My Sansa Clip beats the pants off iPod Shuffles.
My music collection is entirely MP3, which is still the defacto standard--why would I adopt a less widely supported format for data I expect to keep forever but use on ever-changing hardware?
AAC is still a lossy format...you can view it as having higher quality, but you're really just (maybe) getting lower bitrates/smaller files for equivalent quality, which isn't nearly as compelling or valuable.
Music is easily transcoded from AAC to more widely supported formats anyway.
So why should I give a ***** about AAC support? - archer75, on 01/08/2009, -1/+7"Well, hosting 10 million songs and videos on a line capable of covering the thousands of people downloading those files every day isn't directly free either."
Of course it's not free. But the fees are smaller. - Radan, on 01/08/2009, -4/+10Well, hosting 10 million songs and videos on a line capable of covering the thousands of people downloading those files every day isn't directly free either.
- djpray2k, on 01/08/2009, -0/+6I think some people need to stop using double standards with this. Those claiming it would cost thousands to upgrade their libary should be honest and mention that only a few percent of libary is legaly bought from iTunes. We get pissed off the same when the labels claim for millions lost from music we 'apparently' would have bought anyway.
However, the whole paying for the upgrade is bull. - supermanKD, on 01/08/2009, -1/+7DIGG is awesome it is the haters,trolls and morons that suck. Believe it or not the discussions on DIGG were actually good back in the day so do the DIGG community a favor and go to Reddit
- jasmus, on 01/08/2009, -3/+9What should the price be then? While I don't disagree completely, it's hard to put a dollar value on the time it took to write / perform / record and market a song. Plus the conversion to a digital format, and the bandwidth for downloading it.
Artists will ditch RIAA labels when non-RIAA labels can afford the same level of marketing and promotion. - emt1451, on 01/08/2009, -2/+7You are truly an idiot.
- burden555, on 01/08/2009, -2/+7"to keep your music collection tied down to the iPod product line. Sure, there are ways to get around it, but inconvenience is Apple's best hope for keeping iPod-weary consumers from jumping to less expensive MP3 players. —S.E. Kramer"
Yarr!!! Ther be alaways away around tis an it be far mor cheper too! Yar harhar!! -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is