What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
86 Comments
- canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+36what i'm missing here is 'where' this targeted advertising will come from. does this mean i have to listen to an ad before i can play the song? *****, i'd rather have drm. does this mean my mp3 player will display a relevant ad while the track plays? will my laptop run an ad while playing the track? i need some clarification here.
- h4mx0r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31The way it tracks itself is kinda creepy.
Although honestly I was expecting spontaneous advertisements in the middle of my song. Last thing you want is playing your mp3s on the loudspeakers and suddenly... "PENIS ENLARGEMENT NOW!!!!11 CALL ###-#### TODAY!" That would kill a party. - str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28watermarking on audio? I'm betting you get the actual music, but all the lyrics are sung by Bill Gates.
- igknighted, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Watermarking in and of itself is OK by me... as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights to playback the song in any way I desire. But if I buy a song from a content provider and it winds up on the p2p networks, I deserve to get sued because I broke the law. If theres a tag in there that says that's my file, then its perfectly OK by me. Advertising in media on the other hand? No. Just no.
- darkervisions, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Kill a party with laughter.
- peterjmag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I can't stand it when advertising companies try to offer me "additional services" that are hardly ever actually useful to me (or at least useful enough to pull me away from what I'm doing). I just want to listen to my goddamn music, so I think I'll just stick to BitTorrent.
- refreshers, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Umm....no. Give me my music free of greedy corporation *****. Plain and simple. When you fear your consumer enough to have to put this in it, you fail as a business.
- Timmmm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11It's not your music.
- Ronnie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14A watermarked file is not free!
WAKE UP AND BUY INDEPENDENT MUSIC!
http://www.ronnierecords.com - fyrehart, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Or Randy Newman.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7From my understanding of it, the watermark will be used as an ID (whether by song or by purchaser, but likely by-song at least to start out) which can be read by a media player to deliver targeted ads. Seems iffy. Certainly the ad itself it not in the audio, noone would buy tracks like that. And all you have to do is play the audio in a non-sponsored media player and you won't get ads. I'm not sure where they're trying to go with this, but I am very doubtful of its success given their apparent love of "additional services."
- heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Like all DRM'd music can be easily detected and removed with the correct tools , when will they ever learn ?
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6A big reason I stopped listening to radio is that I got tired of all the ***** ads every two songs.
- heavyd14, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Sounds good in principle, but if you give the song to 1 friend of yours (legal under fair use) but then they put it on the internet, you would still get boned. Doesn't sound fun to me.
- smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5read the article. the water-marking technology doesn't deliver any ads. it's just to track how the individual copies of the track are disseminated. i suggested this before during a discussion about itunes embedding user data in the DRM-free tracks they purchased. it could potentially be used for market research without encroaching on user privacy.
for instance, you release free tracks for download on itunes with certain watermarks, and then you upload the same tracks to a bittorrent hub using a different watermark. then after a few months, through supported players, you see where those two different versions of the file ended up. then you can ask questions like--did users downloading the track off of bittorrent purchase any songs/albums by the artist on itunes? or did people downloading the free track off of itunes purchase more songs? this can help you decide which type of advertising/promotion method you should focus on.
i was also thinking that it'd be useful for labels to give free tracks to their street team members and give each member a track with a different watermark. then you can track the performance of the different members and see who promoted the artist to the most people. this would of course require end-users to use supported players, but if the technology catches on, there could be a lot of potential uses for it. - Ahnteis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This isn't DRM. There's a huge difference between tracking and preventing playback.
- Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11NO compromises. This is as useless as any other DRM product.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5no problem. i have audacity.
- wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't understand why people don't just use the 'embedded personal info' way of drm as apple once did...It seems so much more logical and if people truly don't plan on sharing their purchased music, this could work..
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Buy DRM free music.
Or lobby for the very reasonable expectation that fair use should include being able to listen to a cd on whatever devices you own.
Fair use is what needs to be attacked but all too often on digg it's the price tag that gets focused on with the unreasonable expectation that it should all just be free. - Mysk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3obvious spam. web based game invite URL.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not necessarily; digital watermarks embedded in signals is not a trivial thing, and is the focus of many a PhD student's thesis. You can try to introduce noise to make a watermark unreadable, but arguably to get a low enouhg signal-to-noise ratio you'd be introducing audible artifacts (the watermark is embedded within the audio itself, and done in a way that is immune (more or less) from downsampling, encoding, D/A and A/D conversion, etc. For an example, see http://www.cmlab.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~dynamic/AWM/index.html
- nzhamstar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3well.... this is going to be crap. I'll keep downloading my music from elsewhere - never had drm music, never will have any kind of restriction. And what if I convert to ogg huh? What then?! Lets see you watermark that *****!
- universal12, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't know about this.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Especially if it was the "I've Got Big Balls" song. :)
- ronin691, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yet another "Defective by Design" contraption from Redmond. Building on the towering success of DRM, now you the media advertiser can experience the same amount of hair pulling, WTF-ing and overall loss of productivity as your long suffering ad targets. Paid for 3,000 advertisments and expect the "audio finger printing" to ensure delivery? Ask about how well the Zune ensures file transfers to other Zunes first.
http://defectivebydesign.org/ - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2as long as we have CDs that are being ripped and put on file sharing, there's no reason or incentive to use any other technology that's more limiting.
- thefinger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2buried for: burying for petty reasons
- Plopfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sorry it is more like half the size of ITunes but other than The Beatles, I've yet to find an artist not on it.
http://www.ruckus.com - thefinger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We can think of it this way... We are wildlife. And the advertisers and the marketeers are going to put tags on us, the better to study our migration habits. We won't even know they're there. :)
- Plopfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2College students should check out Ruckus.com for free music.
You can DL and play tons of music, prob 75%, or more, of the size of ITunes library.
The catch is you must play it in its player (has small advertisements) and only on your computer. But there certainly are ways around the DRM to turn them into mp3s and put them onto any device. - swrlyhrly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2From what i've read about this about a week ago was that it's just a inaudible watermark sound or pattern somewhere in the actual sound of a music file so that it can be traced back to where it came from. For example it came from Itunes or some other source. Thats my understanding of it.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you want clean music
BUY clean music - ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"but I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for free music"
You do realize that makes no sense, right? - canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2get boned? what happened to just getting sued? are you saying we're now _literally_ getting bent over by the riaa?
- thetayloreffect, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It means every track will begin and end with the Windows XP startup and shutdown sounds.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2aaaaaaah! AAAAAAAAAAAH!
- weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -0/+2plead not guilty, for starters.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It isn't illegal if they paid for the rights to use the image.
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i'd absolutely love it if this watermarking was just an ad played. Audacity + Output of soundcard = free music.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Since the labels themselves are also considering using watermarking, it's possible and IMO likely that the audio on the CDs themselves will be watermarked. Obviously won't make a lot of audiophiles happy, but the industry's concern has never been with anyone but the average listener.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1NO compromises. This is as useless as any other DRM product.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have no use for targeted ads based on what music I buy or what other purchases I make. Unfortunately it's difficult to get around it in some cases.
Example: Both of the large supermarket chains in my area have what they call "Bonus cards". Essentially when you use the card, you get a price break on the items you purchase. The catch is that the chains are selling your buying information to whoever is willing to pay for it and you end up getting targeted advertisements in your mailbox. That in itself is no biggie since I can easily throw them away.
With music purchased online, the experience will likely be different. More emails to get rid of or ads you are forced to watch before the download can begin. Having cheaper music isn't worth that to me. I can't live without food, but if necessary I can do without music.
So far IMO, Apple has the formula right. You pay a little more for higher bitrate music that doesn't contain DRM. You can play it on any device that natively supports the AAC codec (which is most of them, not just the iPod) and your name is encoded into the file to prevent easy file-sharing. Since I don't share music over the internet (and have yet to have an iPod stolen, though that could be an issue in the future), I'm not worried about having my name attached to the file.
Content copyright holders are entitled to make money off the sales of their content. Making it difficult to obtain, or blindly going after people without proof of piracy (like what the RIAA and MPAA does) is just justifying the perception from many that it's ok to pirate as long as you don't get caught.
Make the process easy, charge a fair price, allow end-users to use the content on THEIR OWN personal devices, and digital downloads will explode. Keep doing what they're doing (ad generated, DRM, no rights beyond a very limited set of rules) and the vast majority will find other ways to entertain themselves. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That idiot is getting you fans chump
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its still DFD (defective by design)
- geehossiphats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1
I can't wait to use this new innovative teknology. Nothing makes me happier than advertisements and user-restricted content. It's a good thing Microstiff has it's customers best interests in mind. - Yage2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does anyone really care its watermarked ?
Seriously. And as a musician I can say I am glad they are going DRM free and I am happy it will be water marked just in case some idiot shares his collection online. - noblepaladin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3When will they get it? People prefer clean music: no DRM, no watermarks, no weird crap. The only way to get a clean MP3 is to rip it yourself (many people don't know how to do it, others find it too annoying) or to pirate it. Pay for something worst or pirate something better?
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Sigue Sigue Sputnik was the first to put ads in music - on their album Flaunt It, in 1986. They sold the space between tracks, and ads ended up on the album itself. Looks like they were seeing about 20 years into the future.
- yabos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't think they could have bought the images to use? That is the whole point of istockphoto you know.
-
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is