Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doof]

I'm moving these two posts out of the WMP9 vs. MJ thread and into here in an effort to keep the other thread orderly.

I screwed up on the copy\paste, so I lost the header for this first post and I can't remember who said it. If it's you, I apologize!

[doof, I think it was JimHus, but I'm not certain. -- JimH]

Mirko,
Are you really sure about that licensing? It seems a stretch to me that Germany requires any company doing business to change their license agreements to read "You can copy our commerical work and give it to family/friends." But, I've never even gotten the chance to visit Germany - so I am clueless.

Regardless, copy protection for digital media will arrive sooner or later. We can only hope it doesn't degrade the quality or make the files huge, etc.

Ultimately, I think I'll be happier for it.

I am tired of paying for manufacture of CD, mastering the audio CD, transport to warehouse, distribute/transport to retail outlets as needed, pay for shelf space/wages of someone behind the counter to sell, and on-n-on-on when I all ultimately want is the digital media.

I personally would love to be able to get 20 MP3's I want, say at 320 bitrate, all MP3 tags filled out, Album image, full synchronized Lyrics, and Liner notes for the price of what a standard audio CD runs today. The overhead on this type of digital collection is far lower than with an audio CD today.

Once Labels can release digital media without being concerned for theft, I think this is what we will see. At the very least, losing all the overhead and theft-loss will lower the price to us.

Maybe I'm just looking on the bright side of the inevitable. But it is inevitable. If DRM has a flaw, then hopefully a better approach will come out.

The really painful part of secure music will come when they start releasing audio CD's that require a secure player. People will not be happy about having to replace their stereo components.


 HOST/IP: 64.217.227.18




zevele 09-10-2002 03:10:12 P.M.

Any copy protection would be hack.
And ,it is to late,people will use p2p for ever.
They just have to sell music not protected at a price who make the p2p not worth.
But they have lost the war,despite all the stupid lawsuits.

Look like movies industry is learning from the music debacle:they will start to sell DVD to download at around $3-4 a movie

[Mirko]

Are you really sure about that licensing? It seems a stretch to me that Germany requires any company doing business to change their license agreements to read "You can copy our commerical work and give it to family/friends."

Maybe there is a misunderstand in principle here. In germany, and maybe in many other countries, the license agreements aren't allowed to exclude things the law includes. So if the law says, that you might copy music for private use, a company doesn't have to explicit allow it. The license agreements typical include such paragraphs as "you are not allowed to copy, hire, lend etc.". But they are against the law this way (and you can watch processes here about that). But it seems that this will change soon. German companies, or: companies that sell in germany, can't exclude this (but they try to). There are exceptions (e.g. commercial only license (from dealer to dealer, no final customer concerned).

But, I've never even gotten the chance to visit Germany - so I am clueless.

If you live in an anglo-american country you are used to a slighty different juridical system. As far as I know companies there _can_ include such paragraphs.

Regardless, copy protection for digital media will arrive sooner or later. We can only hope it doesn't degrade the quality or make the files huge, etc.

Ultimately, I think I'll be happier for it.

You mean you would be happy with copy protection? May I ask why? I see a lot of problems, that are not, yet, covered by DRM. It begins where I can use a purchased song (maybe bound to a single PC or licensed to use on a portable player and no PC and so on) or what I should do, if I loose that machine (which may happen quite frequently, e.g. whole new setup).

I am tired of paying for manufacture of CD, mastering the audio CD, transport to warehouse, distribute/transport to retail outlets as needed, pay for shelf space/wages of someone behind the counter to sell, and on-n-on-on when I all ultimately want is the digital media.

I agree. Prince err... TAFKAP... whatever, tries that a few years ago. And nearly nobody realised, that there was a new album (even fans didn't).

I personally would love to be able to get 20 MP3's I want, say at 320 bitrate, all MP3 tags filled out, Album image, full synchronized Lyrics, and Liner notes for the price of what a standard audio CD runs today. The overhead on this type of digital collection is far lower than with an audio CD today.

Absolut agreement from here.

Maybe I'm just looking on the bright side of the inevitable. But it is inevitable. If DRM has a flaw, then hopefully a better approach will come out.

I have posted a few critisism above. The most important one is: Privacy. I really don't want the record companies to get my personal information. Maybe I am paranoid, but I think we should not be easy on letting such personal information spread around the world.

The really painful part of secure music will come when they start releasing audio CD's that require a secure player. People will not be happy about having to replace their stereo components.

Today it is quite so. The most downloadable music is provided for a single use. Sometimes it includes transfer to portable players, only supported by proprietary protocols in some OSs, sometimes it doesn't. I don't think I like being patronized by companys.

Sorry for the long answer.

Mirko

[joe|PLS|mama]

JimHus wrote:

I am tired of paying for manufacture of CD, mastering the audio CD, transport to warehouse, distribute/transport to retail outlets as needed, pay for shelf space/wages of someone behind the counter to sell, and on-n-on-on when I all ultimately want is the digital media.

and then wrote:

I personally would love to be able to get 20 MP3's I want, say at 320 bitrate, all MP3 tags filled out, Album image, full synchronized Lyrics, and Liner notes for the price of what a standard audio CD runs today. The overhead on this type of digital collection is far lower than with an audio CD today.

In the first statement you say you are tired of paying for all of the overhead required to get a CD on a record store shelf.  However, in the second statement you say that you would be willing to pay the price of a standard CD to get it in MP3 format.  I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.  If you are willing to pay the price of a standard CD, why would you not prefer to buy the actual CD?  Yes, 320 MP3 might sound pretty good, but since you're willing to pay the price of a standard CD anyway, why not buy the CD and get actual CD quality sound?  You would (theoretically) be able to rip the CD to MP3 or any other format at any sound quality that you prefer.  Also, if you have the CD you also have an automatic back up of the music in case any disasters befall your computer.

I would also love to be able to (legally) download music and would be willing to pay to do it, but I certainly would not be willing to pay CD prices for cassette (or worse) quality sound.


Mirko wrote:

Prince err... TAFKAP... whatever, tries that a few years ago. And nearly nobody realised, that there was a new album (even fans didn't).

Actually, he has gone back to using Prince.

I think that even though, he sells far fewer CDs, he makes a higher profit for each one because he is selling them directly to the fans.  Also, he has the NPG Music Club.  I have no idea how many people subscribe to it, but it is $100.00 per year to join.  Members receive about 4-6 new or previously unreleased or live tracks in MP3 format per month.  I would imagine if it wasn't making money, he wouldn't keep doing it.

Rob


Listening to: '(Don't Fear) The Reaper' from 'www.mp3.com/Fancyboys' by 'Der Fancy Boys' on Media Jukebox

[JimHus]

It was me that wrote it.

joe mama,

The reason I prefer the second option (even if the cost is the same) is that I get the songs I want rather than whatever was bundled into an audio album. There's no need to "force package" a group of songs when you are dealing with digital media. They had an excuse with LP, cassettes, audio CDs - but it won't fly going forward. Labels will get huge advantages when they go to digital distribution - no need for us to continue to pay for 15-20 songs (an album) when we only like 3 of them.

I'd also get the MP3 (or whatever digital media) without ripping and all the additional information filled out. I also suspect that avoiding the digitial->audio CD->digital ripping process might improve the quality.

I spend a fair amount of time scanning Albums (or finding the cover image on the net) and entering the CDDB type information. Lyrics (which I am very fond of) is a significant amount of work. Synchronized Lyrics are usually more work than I am willing to put in.

If I can get the digital media, with all the "perks" I mentioned filled out with official/correct information - I would gladly play the same price I am now for an Audio CD. While it wouldn't save me money, it would save a lot of time - and probably be more accurate.

joe mama
I would also love to be able to (legally) download music and would be willing to pay to do it, but I certainly would not be willing to pay CD prices for cassette (or worse) quality sound.

I definitely agree. The 2 problems I had with eMusic were Selection (I suspect everyone wants more) and Quality. I suppose they only supplied 128kbit for bandwidth purposes, but it wasn't their best decision. I looked around trying to find a place to alter the bitrate on the d'load, but never found it.

I don't think pay-for-music sites will work if they offer low-quality MP3s. They need to offer higher bitrates and something else for value added (like the tag info I mentioned).

[Cotton-Eyed Loo]

Howdy,

So I'm not a lawyer and do not have any legal advice to give.

In the US you will often find a clause that says "if some part of this contract is not legal then that part is void - but the rest of the contract is still in full force." This is mean to cover the case where an  contract entered by two or more parties is, or may be, or could someday be, in violation of the law and the players are aware of it and wish to both accomodate the law and maintain as much of the contract as possible.

For DRM to work it does not need to make files any larger. For example you could first compress (hopefully losslessly) and then apply protection. This is not how everyone would do it.

While in the US you have the right to make a backup of anything you bought. If a DRM system prevents you from making a backup copy it is in violation of the law.

It looks like there will not be an encoding for "fair use" in the successfull DRMs. Fair use is the part of the US code that discusses how much you can quote before you are stealing and codifies the right to make backups etc. I am simplifying quite a bit but you get the gist o fit.

There are multiple problems with encoding fair use. One problem is that  every nation has legal jurisdiction within their geography however constrained it may be by international law and agreements. It would not make sense to hard-wire one legal systems position into an international standard. I believe that having at least two or there viable and active standards will be best for everyone - well at least creative types and consumer types.

I believe it is likely that the content industry will continue to push hard in favor of their own interests - which is a good thing while the consumers will continue to push in favor of their interests. This competition or balance of wills is why I'm not worried about any one special interest group proscribing the future.

My own believe is that once it is possible to encode and associate licences and terms of use with creative content that the current model for content marketing and distribution will change as the rules of the game will have changed. The benefactors will be creative types and consumers. The losers will be the large studios and labels.

For some more insight into what's going on in the DRM world checkout http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/ .

[CL Gilbert]

A few things.

In michigan I believe all purchases must have 30 returns.  You will often see many stores with no refund prominently displayed in the window.  That is meaningless.  Their is no law preventing them from saying they wont accept returns.  But their is law preventing them from not accepting returns.  So for Germany, that seems similar to what I experience in Michigan on return policy.

Secondly, I dont mind paying for packaging, distribution, sales, stocking, etc.  Its better to pay people for work, no matter if it can be 'streamlined' away or not.  Either you pay em for work, or your tax dollars pay them for nothing.  People are more healthy mentally when they can work for their money.

just my 2 centz

[joe|PLS|mama]

JimHus, sorry about the misquote in my earlier post.

The reason I prefer the second option (even if the cost is the same) is that I get the songs I want rather than whatever was bundled into an audio album. There's no need to "force package" a group of songs when you are dealing with digital media. They had an excuse with LP, cassettes, audio CDs - but it won't fly going forward. Labels will get huge advantages when they go to digital distribution - no need for us to continue to pay for 15-20 songs (an album) when we only like 3 of them.

I agree with you completely here.  It seems I come across fewer and fewer albums these days where I would consider every song to be good.  My solution has been (for years) to buy most of my music from stores that sell used CDs.  If I only pay $6 or 7$, I don't feel ripped off when only half the album is good.  Also, I only buy from stores that let me preview the CDs, to see if I even want to spend $6 on it.  I probably have around 2000 CDs, and I would guess that maybe 80% were used.  I only buy new CDs when it is an artist that I really like.
 
I also think the music industry has taken a little step in that direction, though.  For example, look at the success of those "Now This Is Music" hit compilations.  They regularly go to #1 on the Billboard album chart.  There was a time when those kind of comps were only available via cheesy, mail-order TV.  I think the labels are slowly realizing that consumers are becoming more song-oriented (rather than album-oriented) in their music buying.  I notice that my music buying habits have changed in that direction.