MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Wonder if Steve had access to this, or if he sees the future?

Lie, obfuscate, get a mani-peti. -- S

Great Thomas Paine quote, MDN.

Gettin' classy!

DRM is going to be HISTORY )))

I've got about a 20 percent of my music (6000 songs) bought at iTunes and the rest just loaded from my own CD's and a few single tracks catche'd from Limewire.

Wish: Better quality - AAC-160 kBit/s

Well at least some seem open to the idea. It could be that they are thinking the future will go sour on them unless they start playing ball.

if apple drops DRM, they probably won't adopt MP3

That'll tick off some folks even more because their PlaysForMaybe players STILL won't play the songs.

iPod users won't notice the difference.

- gws

So Microsuck infuses Vi$ta with DRM and lots of cumbersome security to appease Hollywood and music companies. Once Vi$ta comes out, Steve Jobs writes a single letter and we are on the path to remove it all. Ha. This shit gets better every day. Windblows users can say what they want about Steve Jobs, but when DRM is gone and iTunes and OS X are free of DRM, will that finally be the nail in Windblows coffin? Will we see millions switch immediately? I can't wait for Leopard because you know it will be DRM free when it ships.

So MDN has now dropped its anti-Apple propaganda against the BBC?

Yes, eliminate the DRM…

AND up the sampling rate to…

Ideally, Apple Lossless Encoder

or 320 bit, variable bit rate, high quality.

Anything less? I'll stick with CDs.

My feeling is that Apple's iTS sells 128 bit music as some kind of a compromise to the music industry.

We are on the right track!

78% of my problems can be attributed to 32% of the 62% of music execs. Of course, I'm just estimating...

Here's what needs to happen:

1. Eliminate DRM
2. Offer music in a lossless format (preferably FLAC rather than Apple's lossless since FLAC is open and can be used by anyone
3. Provide cover art and liner notes in pdf
4. Price below existing CD's.

DRM is going to be HISTORY )))

I've got about a 20 percent of my music (6000 songs) bought at iTunes and the rest just loaded from my own CD's and a few single tracks catche'd from Limewire.

Wish: Better quality - AAC-160 kBit/s

--

128 is fine. And you sir have no interest in any of this, cuz almost all your music is legal. So why do you care?

how convenient to leave out the percent of music execs questioned who thought dropping DRM would be a boost for the whole market. seems like the most relevant data.

The only way I will download music is if there is a full, non lossy music file....i have said this many times....lossy, mp3/aac files basically suck....

Are you ready to pay the extra money for all the extra bandwidth it will take to transmit these considerably larger lossless files?

You want to pay less and get more. No surprise there. But it's going to cost 2 to 3 times more to store and transmit these files. No one is going to sell them to you at a loss. The Labels are not going to take a smaller cut.

Are you going to pay $1.50 per tune or is 128 kbps good enough?

Maybe DRM free CD's are still the answer.

> lossy, mp3/aac files basically suck....

I personally do not have good enough audio equipment (or maybe good enough ears) to notice any difference. I appreciate the fact that AAC files take up so little space compared to the "lossless" versions. Buying CD's is a pain, now that I've experienced buying songs from the iTunes Store. So I like the current "compromise." I think Apple may want to up the bit rate to 160 AAC, then, regarding AAC versus MP3, Apple can simply make that an option in the iTunes preferences. The buyer can have either 160 kBit/s in AAC or MP3 format.

I'll tell you what'll make 'more people buy the tracks' - decent bloody tunes!

With the crepe on offer masquerading as both 'new' and 'music' these days, DRM is a convenient screen to hide talentless morons (check last night's BRIT Awards winners) behind.

*puts iPod on*

*plays Yes*

Peterson:
"78% of my problems can be attributed to 32% of the 62% of music execs. Of course, I'm just estimating..."

..you forgot the =/- 3% margin of error.

Well if most want it gone, let's get rid of it.

If you get rid of DRMs, then the record labels will be selling the same file formats as independent artists. That begs the question: What purpose do record labels serve? Sure, they promote their artists, but where does that money come from? Why, the artists of course!

DRM isn't there to protect artists. It's there to delay the day that the record labels become irrelevant, and artists sell directly online through the iTunes store and others. That's why the labels fight so hard to keep it.

Minimum of 196kbs before I even consider buying music online. DRM is the least of my concerns (too easy to bypass).

Even then it is unlikely. I like having a physical disc and its packaging. It is worth the extra money.

The 128kbs shit currently sold by Apple and others isn't worth $.05/song. And I may be overestimating.

There's something cool about having a physical CD (or tape or record) in your hands. The look. The feel. The texture. The scent. The moment you put the thing into your player. The relaxing in the chair. The quiet around you. Then the music hits. Now that's audio bliss. I have lots of MP3s that I listen to at my computer and in the car, but it's just not the same, you know?

I'm not saying you're mis-Informed but a 128kbs AAC file sounds better than an MP3 128kbs file. It's a better encoder and sounds closer to a 160kbs file. Compare any AAC 128kbs encoded song with an MP3 version encoded at 128kbs and you'll hear quite a difference.

I no longer have the golden ears that I can the big difference between a 160kbs song and higher, but I'm not saying you can't, all I'm saying is AAC 128 is much better than MP3 128 if that's what you're complaining about.

As for liking the physical disc and packaging...I do agree with you. I need the pics and the liner notes and info on songwriters. I love all that stuff but lately the newer iTunes release have pdf booklets so that's helping.

But the extra money sometimes to get the disc is just way too much. I can't see paying $17.99 instead of $9.99 for disc just for the booklet, and with stuff that's a little harder to find it's not out of control to have the difference be between $23.99 for a hard to find disc or $9.99 for iTunes version. That's a bit of a no-brainer.

AAC at the same bit rate seems to sound better than MP3 due to its advanced perceptual manipulations. That's all fine.

And beside the point. I am buying a product and I intend to own it. Long ago I decided that I would buy the best products I can afford (i.e. Honda cars, hardwood floors, quality plumbing hardware, Macintosh computers, etc.).

128kbs is less than half the bitrate of a Dolby digital DVD track and utterly feeble compared to a DTS track. If I'm going to buy and own something, I want better, not worse.

CDs, Audio DVDs, and the like are worth the money because they will still sound good when I rip them for other uses. An audio file that starts out as compromised and lossy as a 128kbs file won't. Comparing the relative 'level of crappines' between MP3 and AAC is irrelevant to the decision.

And I can't remember the last time I paid full retail for a CD. Shop around, my friend.

We need a new paradigm for rewarding the artists. DRM works reasonably well in the Apple environment - it protects the rights of the copyright holder while providing for just about anything a user might reasonably want to do. But, as SJ point out in his letter, it depends on being able to keep one step ahead of the hackers.

A new paradigm would need to:

- ensure a return to the artist which is matched to the relative popularity of their art
- allow music to be circulated and shared freely without constraint
- ensure all music users make a fair contribution

Perhaps SJ is working on this as we speak? Lets hope so. The DRM wars are going to hamper this industry, along with the video industry, for years to come. To see how look at what the BBC is doing by ensuring that their content will only be available to Windows users. Its madness.

The first point is relatively easy - the iTunes store could allow direct uploads by an artist, bypassing the entire music publishing industry. Thats something of a pants-dirtying scenario if you work for a record label...

The second point makes the first point more practical - a totally free market for music will change the way we think about music, and the way we use it. Music will become an even greater part of our lives when it can be freely incorporated into anything we do. If you "discover" a great new piece of music, you can introduce it to all your friends, link it to your personal website, add it to your "what am i listening to now" playlist etc etc.

So the challenge is in the third point. Some people will happily pay for anything they use - others will always find a way to justify not paying...

Here is one suggestion. It will be full of holes probably, but that just shows how tough it will be to crack this nut. But here goes:

Lets see what Apple could do all by themselves:

Say a portion of every iPod sale was set aside for the artists. Every iPod recorded the number of times a piece of music was played, and reported this back to iTunes every time you connected. The total pool of money was then distributed directly to the artist in direct proportion to the number of times the track was played. There would be no incentive to cheat because you have already paid your contribution when you bought your iPod.

For the artist, uploading your new music would be easy and free. Digital music "broadcasters" would scan the new music on iTunes and create playlists much as a radio station does. If the music was popular the artist would be well paid. And the cost of this would be much less because the distribution system is so efficient. The revenue pool would eventually come from every sale of every player. There would be no DRM and the market would explode with choices. You would be able to listen to your music on a huge array of devices, and every time you bought a new player of any sort, you would be contributing to the pool of income for the artists. The artists could still engage marketing companies if they chose to, so there is still a role for the recording studios - only they would play more of a nurturing and marketing role.

What do you think?

SydneyStephen:

I appreciate that you set about to propose a new way of thinking. Your proposal seems somewhat less than ideal, however.

A) I, for one, don't want my listening habits broadcast or collected.
B) Your proposal does nothing for computer-less, iPod-less people and would utterly destroy the physical disc manufacturers.
C) Physical discs are demonstratively better values than digital downloads for reasons listed in comments above.
D) The future of music lies in 24bit, high-sample-rate, surround sound. The crappy stereo files Apple is selling now will seem as low-rent as cassette tapes in the future.
E) For the good of the consumer, the good of the artform, and the good of mankind, it is better to have device makers sell devices and leave the creation/recording/publishing business a completely separate entity (need proof? Take a look at Sony).
F) Your proposal is not new. In various places throughout the world -and in the U.S.- there have been "fees" on the sales of video tapes, DAT tapes, and blank CDs. These amount to taxes for use that may or may not infringe copyrights or even be subject to royalties. These fees/taxes are wrongheaded and backwards. No other industry enjoys such special treatment.
G) Your proposal is more complicated and intrusive than the existing situation.
H) See 'A'

It seems to me that the music industry is doing allright without the entire world bending over to kiss their asses.

@informed

A. There is no reason for your iPods play history to be connected to anything that could identify you.
B. You can buy a CD (which includes a $ amount for the artist in the price now) and play it on your CD player. if you rip a track and play it on your iPod, the artist would receive a share of the additional amount you paid when you bought your iPod
C. I agree. I have never bought an mp3 track -nearly all of the music on my iPod is from my CD's, ripped to AAC format. But for a lot of people the convenience would outweigh the quality issues. After all a lot of people have mp3 players.
D. Yes. I read that Apple is not allowed to sell high sample rate tracks at present. But they could do so for DRM-free music in my scenario.
E. Its not clear what you mean. Sony has done both and has been successful in both markets. Apple will offer artists a DRM-free distribution system for their music and a royalty based on play frequency. you would enjoy cheaper music, the artist would get paid a larger share of what you pay.
F. Yes, similar to what I am suggested but not the same.
G. No I dont think so. Apple can do something all by themselves very easily. They could set aside a small amount of the price of an iPod and offers new artists a share of that depending on iPod playlist history for DRM-free tracks. Very easy to administer, and completely transparent to the user. What's complicated about that? At the moment the iPod has so much market share that the risk to the artist of their music being played on non-Apple devices is so small that they may decide it is worth the risk if it means they get paid directly by Apple with no record company to siphon off the bulk of the revenue.

If Apple did something like I am suggesting it would mean high fidelity AAC-encoded or lossless tracks would begin to appear on iTunes. You would pay the normal iTunes price.

SydneyStephen:
"E. Its not clear what you mean. Sony has done both and has been successful in both markets. Apple will offer artists a DRM-free distribution system for their music and a royalty based on play frequency. you would enjoy cheaper music, the artist would get paid a larger share of what you pay. "

Successful in what way?

Their reputation for making world class electronics has been slipping and sliding steadily.

Their paranoia and greed with regard for "protecting their content" has led them to such embarassing fiascos as the "root kit" viasco with copy protected psuedo CDs..

SONY is no longer the company it used to be, it makes money but its not the leader that it once was. The combination of Content creation and device manufacturing has harmed the company, I think irrevocably.

SydneyStephen:

A. Your faith in Apple and human nature is naive.
B. Again, free music downloads will destroy physical disc manufacturers. Your proposal REQUIRES a computer or MP3 player for the consumer to participate. No one will buy CDs when the music is free elsewhere. EVERYONE then suffers because downloaded digital music files are inferior to CDs.
C. See B.
D. See B
E. Sony has destroyed the quality and independence of every media company they have acquired. This is beyond debate.
F. Yes, your proposal is similar but not the same. Yours is more complicated. It requires massive data collection, accounting, and money distribution, etc.
G. No Apple couldn't. Free music in the wild will require that EVERYONE participate, not just Apple. Again, massive data collection, potential for fraud and abuse, easily bypassed reporting (an iPod loaded while offline reports nothing), etc. If you believe that Apple could simply start giving free music away without Walmart, Target, or Amazon involved, you are inhaling something powerful without offering to share.

Peace brother. Let go of this dream.

@informed

A: Please try to maintain a non-emotional stance. Your language is denigrating and has no place in an intellectual debate.

I have little or no faith in human nature, nor in the modern corporation. The solution to this issue must assume that people will lie and cheat if they are allowed to, and corporations will try to achieve and then exploit a monopoly position. Even were apple not inclined to do so today, management will change over time and apple culture will eventually reflect normal corporate behaviour. Until corporate america buys a dictionary in which the word "ethics" is not blotted out, this will always be a problem.

B: In the end this will certainly happen. New technology which offers advantages over old technology will always predominate. Just as Vinyl replaced wax cylinders, and CD's replaced vinyl, so will downloads replace CD's. When you are able to download music at the same audio quality as a CD for half the price, with no meaningful restrictions on its use, and simple and effective backup and portability - then you too will stop buying CDs.

C: D: - See above

E: Nothing is beyond debate. And to make a sweeping statement but offer no supporting material is a meaningless contribution to the debate anyway. What does it mean to "destroy the quality and independence of" a media company anyway? And why would anyone take such a statement at face value from an anonymous contributor to a site such as this? If you can supply examples, without using emotional language, I would be happy to debate this issue further.

F: The quantity of data collected is immaterial. Every copy of iTunes already collects this data from every iPod which is attached to it. If you check your most recently played playlist after connecting your iPod you will see this. Every copy of iTunes on a network-connected Mac or PC is already connected to Apple's servers and already capable of uploading this data. There is no technical obstacle to this and the volume of data is, in fact, quite small. Perhaps, in fact, it is already happening!

The distribution of funds is equally straightforward. Every day, every bank distributes interest on interest bearing accounts to every account holder. It is a simple math to divide the available funds by the total track plays and distribute the funds electronically by EFT.

G: If Apple launch this alone, they could retain DRM to prevent the playing of tracks on non-iPod (so non-reporting) mp3 players. But sujppose they decided to offer this to artists without the protection of a DRM? If you were a struggling musician looking for a market for your music, perhaps you would feel that it was worth the risk. Remember, Apple can control the application of DRM at download time. In the USA where apple have nearly 80% of the mp3 market, DRM-free music might be feasible - not everyone with a non-Apple device will download the music from a new band, so the potential loss to them may be quite small.

In other markets, Apple may retain DRM. And in other markets, say Norway, Apple might agree to drop DRM as long as the government legislated for a reporting mechanism, and an industry surcharge, on every player.

So you see, there is a lot of merit in this approach - and Apple is uniquely placed to be able to do it.

I understand your concern about CDs. But Apple will be under no constraint to provide low quality MP3 files for new bands who sign up for Apple's direct-to-market music label. And a high fidelity download, DRM free, and with inexpensive "backup by pointer" will be compelling.

I am always interested in a debate on any subject. But the rules of debate require that you refrain from personal attacks or emotional language; that you always provide detailed explanatory support for any position you wish to propose; and that your argument is well stated and logical.

Finally, the purpose of debate is to educate all parties. Which means you should encourage other ideas and welcome a critique of your own. Language such as "end of debate, period." serves to undermine the purpose of the debate and just raises the ire of those with a view contrary to your own.

In your first post you raised arguments which I found interesting and which I felt needed greater consideration. And I thank you for that. However in your second post you appear to be more concerned with supporting your view and discouraging real debate. Which suggests that you have an emotional attachment to an outcome.

True intellectual debate values the acquisition of new information over the imposition of one view on others. If you do not start out with an open mind, eager to be convinced that you may be wrong, then you are not engaging in debate - you are merely engaged in rhetoric.