What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
62 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41It's funny how all legitimate digg submissions today have to include the "not a joke" clause.
- bar10dr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36If they drop the DRM I'm going to buy some music online for the first time in my life.
- Sun.Surfin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30The BBC has picked up the story. I'd say it's very likely to be true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm - NewChar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Agreed.
-=|Why the hell are we doing this? - Snyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@ astrosmash
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. It is rather simple for me and many others I know to hear the difference between 128Kbps AAC iTunes tracks and LAME encoded 192Kbps MP3’s. Even Fhg encoded 192Kbps MP3’s sound miles better. The two issues that I have found most people able to notice between 128Kbps AAC's and higher bitrate AAC’s or MP3’s is… 1) the low-pass filter and 2) the crappy bass and treble reproduction. The bass/ treble generally gets hit pretty bad in 128Kbps AAC’s and sounds altered, loose, muddy, or wobbly… but the low-pass filter is what most people seem to notice first.
A low-pass filter removes high frequencies in order to leave more Kbps (Kilobits per second) for use by the rest of the frequencies in the song. It’s the less of two evils, basically. Drop out treble to keep the rest of the song from sounding like a puddle of mud.
Human hearing generally can hear frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. 20Hz being bass so deep it rattles your body and 20kHz being treble so high that it puts that ringing in your ears to shame. Even though we can hear up to 20kHz, a low pass of 17.5kHz is perfectly acceptable for music listening. If you made a copy of a CD and low-passed it at 17.5kHz it’s nearly impossible to hear the difference between it and the original CD. Take that low-pass down to a little bellow 17kHz and many people can start to hear the difference. Take the low-pass down to 16kHz and even without any comparison to the original, there is a noticeable loss of treble. Go down to 15kHz and you have FM radio. Blech.
At 128Kbps, AAC’s uses a 16kHz low-pass filter. At 160Kbps, AAC raises the low-pass filter to 17kHz and has better bass and teble reproduction. AAC at 192Kbps raises the low-pass filter to 17.75kHz and has fantastic reproduction all across the board. So un-DRMing the iTunes catalog is just one issue. A bitrate increase is desperately needed. 128Kbps was great when iPod’s had 10GB hard drives, but now it’s just a joke. Give me 160Kbps and I’ll buy some songs on iTunes. Give me 192Kbps and I’ll buy most albums on iTunes. Give me unDRM’d ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) encoded files for perfect CD quality downloads and iTunes will get ever album purchase I make. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Why would you want them to encode at a lower rate than they currently have?"
That isn't lower. iTunes songs are 128kbps fixed bit rate. 192kbps VBR is a lot better. That said, I can't distinguish between 128 AAC and AIFF, personally.
If EMI drops DRM, I may consider excluding them from my RIAA boycott. - t.toe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Well, according to the BBC story that sun.surfin linked to, it's more likely the press conference will announce the release of The Beatles' music to the iTunes Store. Thanks, MacRumors, for getting our hopes up.
- Gogogo111, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Hmm.
-=| This is really stupid. - nick2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10We want Leopard!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6http://www.emigroup.com/About/Music/Default.htm
List of artists under EMI. - mikev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7the first step is admitting it
the second step is not making all mac users look like idiots by saying you're slave to jobs just because you own a mac. - jklyon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's hard to believe anything, especially this on April 1st. But I definitely hope this is true.
- kelly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This news is sending flag into a tailspin.
- alernon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Depending on your musical tastes - you should check out emusic (www.emusic.com). It doesn't have the major labels, but if you like indie music/jazz/classical/etc. It's great. Flat fee per month for a set amount of downloads. Note that this is NOT a subscription service. For instance, I pay 15 bucks a month and get 65 mp3's. If I ever quit, I get to keep everything I've downloaded. I love iTunes, and I'm a machead, but I never will use the store until two things happen - I get free and clear MP3's with no DRM, and I can redownload any songs I've bought. Emusic gives me both these features.
(ok maybe I'd buy some stuff that's not on emusic if it's DRM free, regardless of the redownload feature.) - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Because we're sheep.
-=|It's a signature! - plattopus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't see why #2 needs to involve EMI at all. They can publish music on their own (in iTunes and in stores) without ANY label involvement.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Other possibilities include the Beatles entrance into digital music distribution"
strange . . i've been distributing them for years :) - quazywabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3except Im not sure bout Apple, Inc buying out a record label. Apple Corps might sue them again even though Apple Record hasn't signed a new band in what seems like forever (im thkinking at least 15 years)
- judsond, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"If EMI drops DRM, I may consider excluding them from my RIAA boycott."
Absolutely, I hope it's that and not just the Beatles... - robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.medialoper.com/hot-topics/music/could-microsoft-or-apple-be-the-future-of-emi/
"At some point companies like Apple and Microsoft are going to realize it might actually be easier and cheaper to buyout the major labels than it is to continue negotiating with them every time a new product or service is launched."
You have to wonder. - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ Snyder - thanks (and dugg up) for that eloquent response to astrosmash's naivete ("No one can tell the difference").
With my ears and my equipment, I can certainly tell the difference. Though transparency for me is attained around the 192 kbps mark with AAC. But there's still the "perceived" loss of quality, plus the fear that better equipment down the road will leave me unsatisfied with my iTunes purchases, even if they were offered at 192 kbps. After all, I can get much better quality from a CD, which costs little more than the downloadable version.
But give me lossless in iTunes and I'll go on a music-buying spree that even my wife won't be able to stop! :) - pats1237, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How great will it be if it's both!
DRM free Beatles tracks on iTunes. - Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well I'm assuming if the Beatles fall to Itunes that means Zeppelin is not far behind.. Then maybe AC/DC! woot!
- generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"
How could they? They would basically be giving crackers a massive leg-up to release some mechanism where already DRM-protected tracks can be unlocked. If all iTunes music went DRM-free tomorrow, then sure, who cares, but if only one company drops the DRM, they can't allow people to unlock already-purchased tracks without risking that tool being misused.
"
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm but....the DRM has been broken for a long time. (and a little off topic, but I'm pretty sure that even though this is true, most Defective by Design people will still not buy itunes drm'd music because then you financially support DRM in the process) - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know if you read the MacRumors update, but the Wall Street Journal -- the actual news part, not the wacko editorials -- says that it's DRM is about to be dropped by EMI.
- LordMaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, that's not older than digg itself or anything. Braaaand new, front-page worthy all the way.
..... not. - robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How could they? They would basically be giving crackers a massive leg-up to release some mechanism where already DRM-protected tracks can be unlocked. If all iTunes music went DRM-free tomorrow, then sure, who cares, but if only one company drops the DRM, they can't allow people to unlock already-purchased tracks without risking that tool being misused.
Clearly, the only way to go would be to allow people to re-download DRM-free tracks. - winnch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Apple has about $11 billion in the bank and $80 billion+ in market capitalization.
- lachcorp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I also like the "and therefore become the YouTube of music and podcasting" link... there's probably a few more steps required there.
- generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"
DRM or not, i don't' think it'll make too much difference to the mainstream world. 90% of people that aren't tech (ex. don't read digg) don't particularly care about DRM. They have their ipod, and they buy stuff from iTunes (or rip from CD). They figure that the whole "can't share between friends" thing as an inconvenience and just leave it at that.
Personally I'd love if Apple dropped DRM, but for right now its not a big show-stopper for me.
"
...and when their hard drive crashes or they get a virus and the license is lost, the re-downloads don't work, the gradual loss of fair use, etc....? What exactly is wrong with sharing a song with your friend? Plus, we can already DO this with unprotected CDs or downloaded music from non-drm sources, so you're getting less for your money with iTunes, and in the process supporting more DRM in the world.
Now, DRM-free music on bitorrent and emusic and allofmusic don't have these artifical limitations.
So you're right. DRM really is just an inconvenience for their customers. And then the music industry complains that people don't buy music (from them) anymore; boy, I wonder why... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or to make available some twiddly thing in iTunes that will strip out the DRM and save the files unencumbered by the DRM.
- lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3DRM or not, i don't' think it'll make too much difference to the mainstream world. 90% of people that aren't tech (ex. don't read digg) don't particularly care about DRM. They have their ipod, and they buy stuff from iTunes (or rip from CD). They figure that the whole "can't share between friends" thing as an inconvenience and just leave it at that.
Personally I'd love if Apple dropped DRM, but for right now its not a big show-stopper for me. - n8dawg87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Beastie Boys and Chemical Brothers FTW!
- davidrossiii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If this conference really happens, one of the following things will happen:
1. Apple will announce that they are going DRM-free on the iTunes store,
2. Apple will become a music publisher in partnership with EMI, (i.e. on iTunes there is a 'Publish your music' button), and therefore become the YouTube of music and podcasting
3. Apple will get the Beatles music exclusively,
4. Apple will buy EMI, and therefore become a music publisher, pointing back to #2.
5. EMI will buy Apple and Apple will be gone forever. :D - plucas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If this is true, it'll be interesting to see what they do for all the DRM music they've already sold. It's probably unlikely that they'll unlock it, but who knows.
- lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...and when their hard drive crashes or they get a virus and the license is lost, the re-downloads don't work, the gradual loss of fair use, etc....? What exactly is wrong with sharing a song with your friend? Plus, we can already DO this with unprotected CDs or downloaded music from non-drm sources, so you're getting less for your money with iTunes, and in the process supporting more DRM in the world.
Now, DRM-free music on bitorrent and emusic and allofmusic don't have these artifical limitations.
So you're right. DRM really is just an inconvenience for their customers. And then the music industry complains that people don't buy music (from them) anymore; boy, I wonder why..."
You back up your hard drive. If your CD broke in half or got scratched up, does the store owe you a new one? - cliffordmerkel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Apple rocks, I love it!
- schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Lossless playback would make iPod battery life even worse than it is now, as it has to cache more data more fequently for less tracks.
- artfuldodga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/01/apple-emi.html
- robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Same here. I have never bought anything for myself at iTunes for that very reason. I'd prefer to buy online, but I never will as long as there are DRM strings attached.
- joshpowell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6That'd be great. I'd actually consider buying music from iTunes again if they started encoding at 192kbps VBR or something.
- mdr3m, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0http://www.directory-world-languages.com/
thanks - mhmdkhamis, on 10/14/2007, -0/+0http://game.paramegsoft.com/
http://girls.paramegsoft.com/ - inactive, on 11/06/2007, -0/+0http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy bontril
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy ambien
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy adipex
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy xenical
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy tramadol
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy cialis
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy alprazolam
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy phentermine
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy vicodin
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy propecia
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy ultram
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy hydrocodone
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy levitra
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy plavix
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy lipitor
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy celexa
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy fioricet
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy carisoprodol
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy tenuate
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy diazepam
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy valium
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy xanax
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy viagra
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy paxil
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy zoloft
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy zyban
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy meridia
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy ephedra
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy soma
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/view_profile.php ... buy allegra - distortedloop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Does Apple have the cash to buy EMI? It's got $4-billion (US) in market cap on the London Stock exchange.
- eboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2here is the deal...Apple is buying EMI.
- kelemor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0damn what would happen if apple did buy emi, and announce they were going DRM free?
- brendangenius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Damn right!
Yeah, I don't know whether to trust...but I hope this is true. Not that it matters. Purchased iTunes music can be played with another new open source player http://songbirdnest.com/.
DRM sucks though. - pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I would probably bankrupt myself if they dropped DRM from their songs. Let's hope they don't. :D
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is