PDA

View Full Version : Play for Sure songs



duhaas
2005-05-11, 08:47
Anyone have an idea if the Squeezebox 2 will support napster/yahoo any of these music services soon? I see that the ROKU soundbridge now supports the play for sure media types. Anyone have any thoughts???

Jack Coates
2005-05-11, 09:34
duhaas wrote:
> Anyone have an idea if the Squeezebox 2 will support napster/yahoo any
> of these music services soon? I see that the ROKU soundbridge now
> supports the play for sure media types. Anyone have any thoughts???
>
>

Slim's focus is on free formats; anything DRM'ed is not likely to be
supported unless it's by an external developer as a plugin. If you're
willing/able to break the DMCA law and de-DRM the files you receive from
those services, you can play the results through Slimserver.

But, you may be asking, how come Roku can support it? Because they pay
license fees to the DRM owners to do so, receiving in turn binary-only
decoders.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

seanadams
2005-05-11, 09:40
> Slim's focus is on free formats; anything DRM'ed is not likely to
> be supported unless it's by an external developer as a plugin.

This isn't really our position or our goal (see roadmap: http://
wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?SoftwareRoadmap ) . We are working to
support the formats that are feasible and interesting to support, and
that includes DRM formats. Unfortunately, right now the most
interesting ones are not available to license to anyone. If you're
using one of those formats you should really take up the issue with
them - it's not a matter of whether Slim is willing/able.

Jack Coates
2005-05-11, 10:10
Sean Adams wrote:
>
>> Slim's focus is on free formats; anything DRM'ed is not likely to be
>> supported unless it's by an external developer as a plugin.
>
>
> This isn't really our position or our goal (see roadmap: http://
> wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?SoftwareRoadmap ) . We are working to
> support the formats that are feasible and interesting to support, and
> that includes DRM formats. Unfortunately, right now the most
> interesting ones are not available to license to anyone. If you're
> using one of those formats you should really take up the issue with
> them - it's not a matter of whether Slim is willing/able.
>
>

sorry for the misrepresentation,

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-11, 14:28
> This isn't really our position or our goal (see roadmap: http://
> wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?SoftwareRoadmap ) . We are working to
> support the formats that are feasible and interesting to support, and
> that includes DRM formats. Unfortunately, right now the most
> interesting ones are not available to license to anyone. If you're
> using one of those formats you should really take up the issue with
> them - it's not a matter of whether Slim is willing/able.

I'd consider the rhapsody/napster/yahoo model very "interesting" :). Would
love some official slim support for these. Perhaps this would mean more
work on the perl UPnP project that Vidur had going.

kdf
2005-05-11, 14:48
all realslim or the upnp project needs is some new resources to pick up on it
and get it going. It is clear that, should anyone decide to take on the
challenge, that they would be greatly appreciated by the users. Contribution
on that scale does have the odd perk.

-kdf

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-11, 15:38
> Anyone have an idea if the Squeezebox 2 will support napster/yahoo any
> of these music services soon? I see that the ROKU soundbridge now
> supports the play for sure media types. Anyone have any thoughts???

Since you asked for any thoughts - it makes me really sad when someone
actually uses (wants to use) these restrictive formats instead of
boycotting them. I really do not look forward to a world of low
quality lossy music that I have to lease instead of own.

C.

markmun
2005-05-11, 16:13
Boycotting a feature that let's me take whatever music I want...where I want for the price ranging from 4.99 (Yahoo) to $15 dollars a month? Not me.

DRM format is more than interesting to me...it is required (until there is an alternative). After using Rhapsody for a while I could never go back to place where I could not hear what I want when I want...without an incremental cost.

Before Rhaposody...money was the big issue when it came to exploring the music I want. Now the only issue is time.

Would I like it to be lossless - sure. But 192kbps sounds pretty good to me. And I still buy some CDs as well, if I really like it and want to own it.

mherger
2005-05-11, 22:54
[..]
> Would I like it to be lossless - sure. But 192kbps sounds pretty good
> to me. And I still buy some CDs as well, if I really like it and want
> to own it.

That's my main concern about that DRMed music: I'll never "own" it. I'll
never be sure whether it will still play on one of my devices in a few
years. CDs will, or at least I'll have a lossless original to copy to some
new media standard.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Jim
2005-05-12, 01:07
Boycotting a feature that let's me take whatever music I want...where I want for the price ranging from 4.99 (Yahoo) to $15 dollars a month? Not me.

Well, you cannot take this "music" to your Squeezebox. And I'm pretty sure it won't be willing to go to a iPod either.

Yeah, it's easy to blame Apple, or even Slim as to why it isn't supported. We might as well Bill Gates too, just to be sure and because he gets blamed for everything.

But it's really the whole industry that is to blame, but of course the industry is only doing this because people actually buy into this crap.

I have no problems with DRM as such, provided there was ONE standard that would work across all players.

But my big problem with 99% of online music stores I have seen is that they are selling inferior sounding music compared to the CD.

But whilst there's consumers stupid/ill-informed/rich enough to pay for lossy non-standard DRM music that will last until who knows when, and in a quality inferior to a CD then what hope is there?

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-12, 02:55
> Boycotting a feature that let's me take whatever music I want...where I
> want for the price ranging from 4.99 (Yahoo) to $15 dollars a month?
> Not me.

You most certainly can't take this music (every)where you want it.

Although I can see merit in streaming on-demand streaming services, as
a replacement for radio, NOT instead of CDs. Maybe even DRMed, if
there was a single standard.

The problem is "owning" copies of music. If the record companies can
get away with just leasing content, they'll do that. And if they can
sell us music of worse-than-CD quality, they will. After all, with
remasters selling so well, reencodes are bound to be a cash cow.

These days I'm having a bit of fun going through my granduncle's
(there might not be such a word) record collection - this will not be
possible for the next generation. Devices and formats will become
incompatible (c. f. MS Word), companies will go out of business,
licenses will expire or be non-transferable.

> DRM format is more than interesting to me...it is required

Required for what? Required by whom? Maybe it isn't, really.
The main role of the music industry has been the manufacturing and
distribution of _copies_ of music. With "the internet in every home"
everyone can make and distribute their own copies at cost, makin that
part of the record companies' business obsolete.

OTOH you have to realize that even people who peruse file sharing
methods exclusively _pay_ for the privilege. If it hadn't been for
Napster and friends no private households would have broadband now.
You have to pay for download bandwidth that makes downloading music
bearable, you have to pay per GB of data transferred. The most common
internet connections here are 768/256 with a 1 GB traffic limit for
$30-$40. That's not all that much music, especially if it is above
radio quality. Better connections cost more.
Notice how the money is once again going to the distribution channel?
It's just not the same companies.

DRM is a desperate attempt to keep alive and prosperous corporations
society no longer needs. It's a bit like coal miners striking in the
face of layoffs and closing mines (because coal was no longer the best
way to produce heat or energy).
BUT we still need the record companies - for running recording studios
and advertising for example. Running a recording studio does not
require globally operating corporations, really, it's quite localized,
favouring multiple smaller companies. While advertising might benefit
from global infrastructure, the internet gives a lot of visibility to
smaller players.
It's just the music cartel that needs some breaking up.

On compensation of artists see
http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html ,
which is quite the best essay I've seen on the subject, if a little
radical.

> Before Rhaposody...money was the big issue when it came to exploring
> the music I want. Now the only issue is time.

When it comes to just exploring music there are *other means*, which I
liberally avail myself of. Since I got my sb I've been buying 5 CDs
per week (before it was maybe 2 / year). Most of these are either
"replacements" for mp3 I've had a long time or bought directly after
I've listened to a downloaded album a few times. All because the sb2
and the ability to convert CDs into files have given me the
opportunity to actually _listen_ to music again.

> Would I like it to be lossless - sure. But 192kbps sounds pretty good to me.

Why would you put up with quality that's wore than what we had for years (CDs)?

I'd like to buy music online (I even buy my jeans online) provided the
following criteria are met:

1) The music is in a lossless format of CD quality or better
2) The music is in a format unrestricted in any way.
3) The music has been "mastered" to this digital music format
(i. e. is not just a sanctioned CD rip done in a sweatshop)
4) This music format is a de-facto standard
(One company offering flac tracks, one an ape image, one flac with
embedded cue and
one wma lossless - no thanks)
5) The music is priced right, say <= $10 / hour of music

See, that's why I stick to CDs :)

C.

JimB
2005-05-12, 04:22
You could always roll back to ss 5.4.1 and rhapsody 2 and you would be fine with real slim.

Aaron, sorry buddy, I give up.

markmun
2005-05-12, 07:56
[..][color=blue]


That's my main concern about that DRMed music: I'll never "own" it. I'll
never be sure whether it will still play on one of my devices in a few
years. CDs will, or at least I'll have a lossless original to copy to some
new media standard.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)


But the thing is...you can still buy and own music for the things you want to own. For the price of 2-4 cappuccino's a month (depending on your music service and your cappuccino provider) - I can listen to almost whatever music I want...music I have missed over the years...explore styles and genres that I would have never touched. I still buy plenty of music but I could never afford all the music I would like to own...so otherwise I would just miss it.

Let me give you an example. I have one Billie Holiday CD. I love it...but in 20 years I have never got around to buying another. So last weekend I decided to check out what is on Rhapsody....all of her works is there to explore...all of it. This weekend Bill Frisell is on my list.

Buying compressed music to own - I would never do that. Unlimited access to streaming, downloads and moving to portables (and being able to play it in my car when I can) for a miniscule price...no question there for me. And then you can still buy CDs (which I still do).

Mark

markmun
2005-05-12, 08:17
Well, you cannot take this "music" to your Squeezebox. And I'm pretty sure it won't be willing to go to a iPod either.


Wow...you talk about people being stupid and ill-informed and you have this statement in the same post! Well let me inform you:

1. With 5.4 I can stream Rhapsody to my Squeezebox. If I can't get Squeezebox to work with the latest version of Rhapsody (which has higher quality downloads)...there are other options as well.
2. This may be a shock to you, but there happen to be other players besides iPod.

And streaming Rhapsody, digital out into my Newform Research Ribbon speakers sounds damn good. I had a friend over for a sound test and he has a 20K system and he was as impressed as me and bought a Squeezebox the next day. I did extensive testing and have been more than please with the sound. And I have bought the CDs to own the music I want to have always.

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-12, 09:27
> Aaron, sorry buddy, I give up.
>
>
> --
> JimB

Haha...thanks for your efforts, Jim. Hope you got everything back up an
running with v2 and 5.4....

Jim
2005-05-12, 09:34
The iPod was just an example - as I full well know that the only DRM'd stuff you can play on the iPod is "bought" from the iTunes store. Rhapsody did work...then it didn't....then it did..now it doesn't. I myself own an iPod but have music encoded on it how I want sourced from my FLAC files. Nice bit of kit on it's own, and I'm sure if it wasn't for idiots buying into iTunes that the iPod probably wouldn't have been made, or certainly would be more expensive - thanks :D

You cannot bring any of this music anywhere - you can only lease it and use it on devices THEY sanction. <Sarcasm> The really nice record company bosses (maybe they powdered their nose a bit too much on decision day) even let you record your DRM "music" to CD's a few times. Of course you can then rip the CD and have a DRM free super-dooper-hey-it-really-is-folks-CD-quality CD.</sarcasm>

But hey, you are probably right, I am a bit behind when it comes to DRM. Generally I complete ignore that area of music, as to me once you start losing things with shitty lossy compression the music kind of stops.

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-12, 10:52
Reading some of these disparaging posts makes me wonder if some of these
folks even know what Rhapsody is. The compelling aspect of Rhapsody is
*not* the ability to "buy" and burn music from it at $.79/track. What I
find compelling is that I sit in front of a computer almost all day and can
listen to almost anything I want to listen to at home or at work, and when
I'm not in front of a computer I'm often in my living room and can listen to
almost anything I want whenever I want via the
rhapsody->realslim->squeezebox conduit. When people come over we frequently
spend hours exploring new music that they're familiar with but I've never
heard. I can do this from my couch, and can listen to full albums and
tracks in fairly high-fidelity.

Is this a complete replacement for buying cd's? No. But I can't afford to
spend $50-$70/week on buying CD's as another poster mentioned he does. Mark
said it well earlier: It used to be that money kept me from being able to
explore new music, now it's just time. And I want to explore and enjoy new
music. I want to have any music that I might feel like listening to at the
ready. I like the ability to have some italian dinner music at the ready
when the rare moment presents itself that I'd want that, even though I'd
never want to spend any money on putting together a collection of that
music. I love it when a visitor says "I'm in the mood for...xyz" and I can
pull it up immediately. Rhapsody allows me to do this. I'm not being duped
or swindled. I know I'm not buying the music and I know that if the company
closes or changes policies then I won't own the music. I understand that
and I still love the service. I pay for cable tv and it's quality is
questionable and I don't own the programming for it (can't even choose the
programming). Rhapsody (and napster and yahoo) are charging what I consider
a nominal fee for a service that really enhances my life. And I believe
that their streaming quality will only go up as money/technology allows. I
still buy cd's. I'm not sure why some of the posters here seem so
threatened by this business model. I'm not saying that you have to
subscribe to this model, but please don't insult those of us who do by
accusing us of being stupid or unable to appreciate good sound quality. I
can hear the difference between Rhapsody and any lossless format. The
difference is undeniable, but the fact is that I can still enjoy the music
in spite of the (slightly) lower quality. And the music that I really care
to keep around I'll buy (on CD). There's room in the market for more than
one way of consuming music.

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-12, 11:19
> Reading some of these disparaging posts makes me wonder if some of these
> folks even know what Rhapsody is. The compelling aspect of Rhapsody is
> *not* the ability to "buy" and burn music from it at $.79/track.

All-you-can-eat _streaming_ subscriptions are fine, I was talking
about buying music. AFAIK the original poster was talking about Pay
For Sure.

Music subscription services that offer low-quality files for next to
no money are definitely nice - for me they'll likely replace various
p2p apps or newsgroups where I sample new music. As they are now I'd
have to pay $ on top of the $$ for bandwidth to get something that
doesn't play in foobar2000 or anything else I use, though. Not quite
there yet, but close.
The way to beat so called "music piracy" is not to sue people into
oblivion. It's to pretend that p2p networks are a legal competitor.
True, you can't win on price, but you can win on convenience - p2p is
a hassle. $20 / month for unencumbered 128kbit/s VBR mp3s and maybe
some editorial content with recommendations? I'm in.

> Is this a complete replacement for buying cd's?

If the recording companies think it helps their revenue in any way CDs
will disappear fairly quickly.

> But I can't afford to spend $50-$70/week on buying CD's

I don't think I can keep it up, either :) Can't exactly afford it, but
hey, I don't smoke :)

C.

Spies
2005-05-12, 11:40
I'm curious if ANY of these services work on Mac OS X, Linux or any
other system besides Microsoft.

On 5/11/05, duhaas <duhaas.1ovjpb (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone have an idea if the Squeezebox 2 will support napster/yahoo any
> of these music services soon? I see that the ROKU soundbridge now
> supports the play for sure media types. Anyone have any thoughts???
>
> --
> duhaas
>

Jim
2005-05-12, 11:57
I'm curious if ANY of these services work on Mac OS X, Linux or any
other system besides Microsoft.


Internet Exploiter with crAptive X only too I suppose ;)

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-12, 14:19
> All-you-can-eat _streaming_ subscriptions are fine, I was talking
> about buying music. AFAIK the original poster was talking about Pay
> For Sure.

With Rhapsody you can't purchase music *files*. If you choose to purchase
music you create a playlist with the music you want to purchase which is
then burnt directly to CD *within the Rhapsody program itself*. The
resulting cd is lower than cd-quality, but free of DRM. So in purchasing
music from Rhapsody you never encounter DRM of any kind. If someone finds
it convenient to purchase music this way I won't argue, though I myself am
not willing to trade the quality for the convenience at this point.

The only way you'll run into DRM (in this case, Play For Sure) when using
Rhapsody is if you use their to-go service which should really just be
looked at as an extension of their streaming service rather than as "buying"
the music.

You mention having to pay for bandwidth...most folks I know here in the
states don't have quotas on how much they can download in a billing period.
Perhaps that's something that's more of a problem in other areas.


> If the recording companies think it helps their revenue in any way CDs
> will disappear fairly quickly.

Frankly, I hope CD's do disappear quickly. The idea of having to go and
purchase media and carry it around with you seems rather antiquated. When I
look to the future I don't see a bunch of consumers with individual little
copies of media that eventually become unplayable as devices become obselete
or hard to find (a la cassette, betamax, and even record players). Rather,
I see a model not unlike the Rhapsody/Napster/Yahoo model...the "celestial
jukebox" model. Devices will become more portable, bandwidth cheaper, and
soon all the music in the world will be available in high-quality (lossless
perhaps?) anywhere you want to be. And your example (or perhaps it was
someone else's) of finding your father's or grandfather's record collection
will be irrelevant: with how cheap storage is virtually all the music that
is made will be kept on professionally managed servers and much less music
will be lost over time than is currently lost.

Here's just a hypothetical: Imagine a "celestial jukebox" type model that
would deliver music to portable devices (say, like Rhapsody's supposedly
upcoming cell-phone service) in addition to fixed installations, and would
continually upgrade itself to offer the best quality music as new
compression and even multi-channel formats are developed so that I wouldn't
ever have to repurchase music. Maybe some service could even be developed
whereby you could "own" the music. I don't know exactly what that would look
like--I really wouldn't care that I didn't own the music but some folks
might. That would be my dream setup. I feel like the services are 75% of
the way to that goal right now.

The technology is here, and if there is demand and the solution is
economically viable, then record and other distribution companies will step
up to the plate and provide the services consumers want. I wouldn't be
nervous that you're going to be stuck with low sound-quality. Even in the
streaming-music area there are now 3 competitors who will certainly be
battling to deliver more artists and higher sound-quality at a lower price
to woo customers to their sides. People value quality, and the technology
to provide consumers with higher and higher sound-quality only continues to
improve. There is still plenty of economic incentive to provide high
sound-quality. The distribution model needn't be limited to CD, however.

With how easy it's become to copy and distribute CD's and other music
formats I don't blame the record companies for being nervous about piracy.
If they choose not to sell their music in an unfettered format then that's
certainly their right. I don't feel as though the consumer is "entitled" to
owning anything if a company doesn't want to sell it. Customers can use
their pocketbooks as leverage and as the technology evolves companies will
find ways to offer what the consumer wants but in a way that makes it
sufficiently difficult/disadvantageous for the bad guys to rip them off
because that's the only way they're going to make money. The current
generation of DRM will likely not catch on en masse as it's too limiting and
also too inconsistent across different music stores. But this will be
worked out in time.

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-12, 15:30
> *within the Rhapsody program itself*

See, that's what I'm objecting to. Having to use a particular piece of
software (or hardware) to access content. You could say I have to use
a CD player to access content on CDs, but I don't. I access content on
CDs exclusively with a CD-ROM, and only once, if I can help it. After
that it's just content and I can do whatever I like with it.

I haven't looked at Rhapsody but I had a look at the new Yahoo service
- apparently you need Windows Media Player and / or some Yahoo
frontend on top of that. Sorry, but no. Other than that it seems a
great deal. I think we pay more for the privilege of recieving radio
here. Shame, really. :(

Rule of thumb is, I don't touch content that I couldn't use with FOSS.

> You mention having to pay for bandwidth...most folks I know here in the
> states don't have quotas on how much they can download in a billing period.

I really can't imagine they'd let you saturate your DSL or cable line
for long. For comparision, my line's a dedicated ADSL 256/1024 with 30
GB / month traffic limit and costs $140 / month.

> Frankly, I hope CD's do disappear quickly. The idea of having to go and
> purchase media and carry it around with you seems rather antiquated.

I agree completely, but that's exactly why I like CDs. You have Amazon
deliver them to your doorstep, rip them, and store them in big boxes
in the attic. :)

> And your example of finding your father's or grandfather's record collection
> will be irrelevant: with how cheap storage is virtually all the music that
> is made will be kept on professionally managed servers and much less music
> will be lost over time than is currently lost.

Can't really argue that point since I can't see the future. I don't
think, however, that media companies will take care to preserve
everything and / or make it available to the public. An amendment to
copyright law is in order - one should only be allowed to retain
copyright on something if one keeps a copy of the work commercially
available via the same channels and for comparable prices as are used
for new works of the same type. If something goes out of print it
becomes public domain.

> offer the best quality music as new compression and even multi-channel formats are
> developed so that I wouldn't ever have to repurchase music.

As I said in an earlier post, first remasters, then reencodes. An
absolute cash cow. I just don't see free upgrades.

> I really wouldn't care that I didn't own the music but some folks might.

I like collecting stuff and I really do feel too old for trading cards
- go figure. :)

> Customers can use their pocketbooks as leverage

Not in a de-facto monopoly. There is no competition here. If two
independent record labels could record the same song with the same or
different artists, that would be competition. On another level I
expect Rhapsody, iTunes and Yahoo to stay pretty close to one another
price and feature-wise. They still get the music from the same source.
There's price fixing going on with CDs and why should it be different
with online services?

You know what, I wish I could view the future as brightly as you do ... :(

C.

Nick Silberstein
2005-05-12, 16:16
Christian Pernegger wrote:
> I haven't looked at Rhapsody but I had a look at the new Yahoo service
> - apparently you need Windows Media Player and / or some Yahoo
> frontend on top of that.

From what I understand, it's the Windows Media API that is required, to
allow the Yahoo player ("Yahoo Music Engine") to play .wma files, decode
the DRM on the music files, etc. There's no need to use Windows Media
Player, the application.

The Yahoo player is reasonably light-weight, and pretty nicely designed.
I'm playing around with using it as a replacement for iTunes/Windows
Media Player/Winamp at the moment. I like that it gives you a
personalized audio stream based on:

-songs by artists you like (you plug this info in),
-other songs by artists in the same genre, and
-songs by artists rated highly by people that like the same bands you do

You can then rate the song, artist, and album as each songs plays.

>>You mention having to pay for bandwidth...most folks I know here in the
>>states don't have quotas on how much they can download in a billing period.
>
> I really can't imagine they'd let you saturate your DSL or cable line
> for long. For comparision, my line's a dedicated ADSL 256/1024 with 30
> GB / month traffic limit and costs $140 / month.

It definitely depends on your provider. I have 6.0 Mbps down/768 kbps
up ADSL from Speakeasy.net for $100/month, with no bandwidth caps (or
restrictions on running servers). They also permit you to share your
connection with your roommates/neighbors using WiFi, and provide the
account/billing infrastructure for you to defray your costs by charging
the "freeloaders" a nominal fee:

http://www.speakeasy.net/netshare/

I can't say enough good things about Speakeasy.

Nick

--
Nick Silberstein
Senior Developer
Flying Machine Development, Inc.

--
---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------
From: nick (AT) flyingmachine (DOT) com signed email body (1495 characters)
Date: on 12 May 2005 at 23:16:16 UTC
To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.
: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines
: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.
----------------------------------------------------------------
00fAAAAAEAAADA44NC1wUAAMEDAAIAAgACACBRCuDHfCdm7ojb WrVhWB44/cegOe
DWtrFRCXrR09PKXAEAGuut/XGiY4yti+yDQ84APzXWLkDhVdPVVl1QhSpeVH0ixh
09p40JAnqVCGb7pe9HKWTqPc749uU4UzT3zSvPkw==
------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------

siegeld
2005-05-13, 06:58
While the debate on DRM issues is interesting - there are several points that I think few people could argue with:

1. The record companies have the right (and obligation to their shareholders) to protect the value of their assets.
2. Today, consumers have more choices than ever. You can still buy a CD, you can download unprotected music for a fee, you can stream music for a fee, you can download DRM-protected music for even less.
3. The SlimServer would be more useful to some people if it could play DRM-protected music like that available for download from the new Yahoo music service.

I suspect that add DRM-protected playback capability would generate substantial sales for SlimDevices. Right now, Roku has the big edge here.

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-13, 07:16
> The Yahoo player is reasonably light-weight, and pretty nicely designed.

It still doesn't work on my Linux boxes ... but nevermind, I had
another look and the service is US-only anyway.

C.

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-13, 07:26
> 1. The record companies have the right (and obligation to their
> shareholders) to protect the value of their assets.

That is a question that a society must decide. Are ideas or abstract
information assets worthy of legal protection or not? Regardless of
where one stands on this issue I would appreciate the US and its
lobbies staying out of other countries' law making process.

> 2. You can still buy a CD

The operative word her is 'still'

> you can download unprotected music for a fee,

"Legally"? Where?

> 3. The SlimServer would be more useful to some people if it could play
> DRM-protected music like that available for download from the new Yahoo
> music service.

Agreed. Notice I never said it wasn't useful functionality - IIRC I
said people requesting such features makes me sad. I'd rather the
market didn't accept DRM. That's all.

C.

Steve Bernard, Jr
2005-05-13, 07:57
On 5/13/05, Christian Pernegger <pernegger (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> > you can download unprotected music for a fee,
>
> "Legally"? Where?

eMusic sells downloads of non-DRMed MP3 files, though I dunno if
that's available from outside the US.

Also, more interestingly, there's http://www.audiolunchbox.com which
sells music (apparently worldwide) in unrestricted MP3 *and* Ogg
Vorbis formats. If they would start selling FLAC files, I might
actually start buying from them regularly, especially since I see they
have the new Magnolia Electric Company and Architecture in Helsinki
albums. I'm still too much of a sucker for the physical purchase of a
CD with its usage as a backup and its liner notes and whatnot, though.

I'm sure you could find other individual labels and whatnot that sell
their stuff in an unrestricted format. A decent number of UK labels
sell unrestricted MP3s through playloudershop.com

None of these are trying to live in that dodgy legal greyarea that one
certain Russian site is inhabiting.

If I were going to buy a lot of digital downloads, I'd definitely be
after a non-DRM solution just to make it as future-proof as possible.
I'd probably transcode a lossy file into FLAC just so that it's in a
completely open format (wouldn't change the sound quality) and put it
in my archive backups. But that's just me being anal.

But, like, philosphically speaking, it's whatever floats your boat. I
did a trial of Raphsody when I got my cable modem, and I just didn't
find that there was enough music that I liked for me to keep paying
them month after month. But if people like Christian would like for
the market to reject DRM, then I guess the best way is to turn as many
people onto the the *legal* DRM-free purchase sites, that way everyone
votes with their wallet.

-Steve

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-13, 09:10
It's clear that different people have different priorities when it comes to
how they pay for and consume music. I trust that the market will have
different approaches that will meet the needs of different types of
consumers. I'm sure each of us will continue to consume music in the way we
feel serves us best.

However, notice the discrepency:

> where one stands on this issue I would appreciate the US and its
> lobbies staying out of other countries' law making process.

You would like the US to stay out of influencing how you choose to consume
music in your country. Similarly I would appreciate it if you didn't take
on a condescending attitude and would "stay out" of how I choose to consume
my music.

> Agreed. Notice I never said it wasn't useful functionality - IIRC I
> said people requesting such features makes me sad. I'd rather the
> market didn't accept DRM. That's all.

Your take on it is that DRM is necessarily at odds with the rights of the
consumer. I don't necessarily agree that that's the case (though I would
hasten to add that I *don't* find the current generation of DRM to be
acceptable, and thus don't purchase DRM'd music at this point) and it's my
business, as an educated consumer, to choose the method of music consumption
that serves me best and that I want to support. While I didn't author the
original post, I certainly support it's sentiment. As someone who's
carefully considered the options and has purposefully chosen a method of
music consumption, it's a bit insulting to have this very valid feature
enhancement burdened by the weight of naysayers such as yourself calling my
decision to use these services "sad". When on a product's mailing list
asking for features I don't feel as though I ought to have to defend the way
I choose to consume music.


I don't really desire to take this conversation too much further, but I am
curious about one more thing:

> I haven't looked at Rhapsody but I had a look at the new Yahoo service
> - apparently you need Windows Media Player and / or some Yahoo
> frontend on top of that. Sorry, but no. Other than that it seems a
> great deal. I think we pay more for the privilege of recieving radio
> here. Shame, really. :(

Firstly, though this may have been just a loose use of the term, I'm not
sure why you say "we" in the last statement. "We're" not paying for
anything. "I'm" paying for it. I'm not asking for you to pay for it.
Secondly, you're not the first person I've heard who has mentioned that they
think it's like paying for radio. Perhaps you can help me understand this
because I really don't understand this argument. Have you tried one of
these services? It's nothing like radio. Granted you have to use the
service's client or Windows media player which I grant may bother some
people (and I hope that the companies will consider those people and
research ways to meet the needs of those people) but doesn't bother me--I
mean...I have to pick some media player to use and really, the Rhapsody
client suits my needs as well as any other. But aside from the media player
limitation the music behaves just like it's local. With the new version of
Rhapsody (I can't speak for the other services since I haven't used them)
you can even change tag info to organize your DB however you want. That's
hardly paying for the privilege of receiving radio. Trust me, I wouldn't
pay for the privilege of receiving radio. I want to reiterate that my
argument is not that you need to adopt this method of music consumption, but
rather that if you're really going to dismiss this as a "shame" then you
need to use reasonable and logical arguments.


Oh, and I just wanted to ask about your broadband prices--seems awfully
steep! Is it typical of your region? What country are you in? I guess we
have it pretty good here in the states: I get 4mbps/512kbps with a 40gB
downstream limit for $40/month from my cable provider (Cox communications).

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-13, 10:13
> However, notice the discrepency:
>
> You would like the US to stay out of influencing how you choose to consume
> music in your country. Similarly I would appreciate it if you didn't take
> on a condescending attitude and would "stay out" of how I choose to consume
> my music.

I did merely state my views, sorry if it felt like I was forcing them
on you - that was not my intention.
Also, even if I wanted to, I could not force them on you, whereas
current US foreign trade policy seems very intent on forcing US views
on "intellectual property" on EU countries, Canada and China, among
others.

> Your take on it is that DRM is necessarily at odds with the rights of the consumer.

Here in Austria there's a levy on blank media, scanners, printers,
photo copy machines, CD burners ... expressly for compensating content
producers for private non-profit copies of media. At the same time I'm
prohibited from circumventing DRM measures - I'd say the whole mess is
quite at odds with consumers' rights.

> I *don't* find the current generation of DRM to be acceptable,

Agreed. I might even change my point of view in the future.

> it's a bit insulting to have this very valid feature enhancement burdened by the weight of
> naysayers such as yourself calling my decision to use these services "sad".

Again, it wasn't meant to be insulting.

> When on a product's mailing list asking for features I don't feel as though I ought to have
> to defend the way I choose to consume music.

Slimserver itself is GPLed software, that just doesn't mix too well
with DRM-enabling plugins, which would necessarily have to be closed
source. But you're right of course in saying that this is off topic.

> > Other than that [the Yahoo music service] seems a great deal. I think we pay more for
> > the privilege of recieving radio here.
>
> Firstly, though this may have been just a loose use of the term, I'm not
> sure why you say "we" in the last statement. Secondly, you're not the first person I've
> heard who has mentioned that they think it's like paying for radio.

That's is a misunderstanding. In Austria "we" have to pay a certain
small amount quarterly if we own a device that could conceivably
receive the government funded radio (or TV) stations. So "we" are in
fact paying for radio, nothing wrong with it. :) I just wanted to make
the (positive) point that I thought the Yahoo service cheap.

> Oh, and I just wanted to ask about your broadband prices--seems awfully
> steep! Is it typical of your region?

I'd say yes. Actually I'm very happy with my ISP, I've tried them all
(literally) and some charge double the price for worse service. They
support running servers on the connection, reconfigured their router
to accommodate my firewall and don't give me blank looks when I
mention reverse DNS lookups.

C.

radish
2005-05-13, 10:50
"Legally"? Where?

Lots of places. For example, beatport.com. The music may or may not be to your taste, but it's 100% DRM free, 100% legal, and excellent value for money. I still buy CDs (lots of em) but my vinyl purchases have largely been replaced with downloads. Guess I skipped a generation - go figure :) The other reason I don't use services like Rhapsody or iTMS is simply that they don't carry the music I like. Another is that I need my music to be played on a variety of devices, often away from a network. For that I need plain vanilla non DRM files. I wrote more about all this on my site : http://www.adamreeve.com/2005/04/21/beatport/.


> I really can't imagine they'd let you saturate your DSL or cable line
> for long. For comparision, my line's a dedicated ADSL 256/1024 with 30
> GB / month traffic limit and costs $140 / month.

No bandwidth caps here, 10mb downstream for $30 / month.

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-13, 11:05
> Here in Austria there's a levy on blank media, scanners, printers,
> photo copy machines, CD burners ... expressly for compensating content
> producers for private non-profit copies of media. At the same time I'm
> prohibited from circumventing DRM measures - I'd say the whole mess is
> quite at odds with consumers' rights.

I would agree that such a system is rather convoluted. I hope that a
solution can be worked out that's fair to everyone.


> Slimserver itself is GPLed software, that just doesn't mix too well
> with DRM-enabling plugins, which would necessarily have to be closed
> source. But you're right of course in saying that this is off topic.

Yeah, you're right...there certainly would seem to be some technical
difficulties in accomplishing this. I have to think there's a way, however.
Perhaps a licensed add-in that's only available to actual SlimDevices
customers and is covered by the Squeezebox purchase price. Or maybe even
sold on the side to only those who care to add the feature to Slimserver. I
know nothing, however, about the licensing requirements/restrictions of the
various DRM technologies. Clearly Apple's not all that interested in
allowing others into their market, but other companies seem more amenable.


> That's is a misunderstanding. In Austria "we" have to pay a certain
> small amount quarterly if we own a device that could conceivably
> receive the government funded radio (or TV) stations. So "we" are in
> fact paying for radio, nothing wrong with it. :) I just wanted to make
> the (positive) point that I thought the Yahoo service cheap.

Ahh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


> I'd say yes. Actually I'm very happy with my ISP, I've tried them all
> (literally) and some charge double the price for worse service. They
> support running servers on the connection, reconfigured their router
> to accommodate my firewall and don't give me blank looks when I
> mention reverse DNS lookups.

Thanks for the info, glad to hear you've found a suitable ISP. I don't
think I could afford to live in Austria. You've a beautiful country,
though--loads nicer than my hot, flat, paved-over, strip-mall-overloaded
little town of Gainesville, FL.

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-13, 12:58
> Lots of places. For example, beatport.com. The music may or may not be
> to your taste, but it's 100% DRM free, 100% legal, and excellent value
> for money.

Nice site, even if I'm more of a BritPop / Celtic / Jazz guy. Maybe
someone should put up a portal site that lists DRM-free music shops -
there seem to be lots and all you ever hear about is iTunes and
Rhapsody.

> I wrote more about all this on my site :
> http://www.adamreeve.com/2005/04/21/beatport/.

First I saw your site, thinking it was the beatport homepage, thinking
simple and elegant, no loud colours for once ... and THEN I saw the
real beatport site. ;)

C.

Josh Coalson
2005-05-13, 13:03
--- Christian Pernegger <pernegger (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> > you can download unprotected music for a fee,
>
> "Legally"? Where?

stuff in FLAC:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#music

Josh




Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

mkozlows
2005-05-15, 07:29
Up until two days ago, I would have been exactly like the vocal anti-PlaysForSure people in this discussion. DRM is super-irritating and it means that you don't really own what you own, I'd've said. Anyone who buys music from the iTunes store or whatever else is doing a foolish thing by buying encumbered low-fi music, I'd've said.

And I'd still pretty much say that, but PlaysForSure now has a killer app that makes sense in a lot of ways: The subscription services. The way that these work (I've used the Yahoo one -- for $5 a month, why not? -- but I'm sure that Napster and Rhapsody On The Go work the same way) is that once you've paid the minimal entry fee (that $60 for a year of Yahoo is about the same as four CDs) you can browse through a reasonably large catalog of songs, and download whatever you like for free, legally.

This wouldn't be especially interesting if you were limited to only playing in one client, but you're not. The music you've downloaded is standard WMA that will play on any PlaysForSure device. If you have a new-ish MP3 player that's from one of the big non-Apple companies (iRiver, Dell, Creative), you can put the tracks on there and listen to them whenever you want. If you have a network media player that supports PlaysForSure and WMC (Roku, D-Link, and others have these available now), you can play the tracks on your main audio system just like any of your other music. The Xbox 360 will let you listen to the tracks, too, when it becomes available. So will Media Center Extenders. And newer Windows Mobile cellphones.

In other words, PlaysForSure is a license-able standard that allows protected content to be seamlessly played just about anywhere. And while protected content is fundamentally uninteresting for purchases, it's entirely understandable for subscription services. (Making a subscription service without DRM is totally unworkable, as everyone would subscribe for a month, download everything, and then quit.)

If a subscription service doesn't interest you, well, fine (though I'd recommend trying it before coming to that conclusion), but railing about how users of subscription services don't own the music is beside the point -- I don't own the DVDs I get from Netflix, either, but it doesn't bother me. If I want to buy a DVD or a CD (which I often do, even with Netflix and Yahoo Unlimited), I know where Amazon is.

To bring this back on topic, where does this leave the Squeezebox? Well, I've said before that there are three main media ecosystems out there -- Apple, Microsoft, and "other" -- and that's becoming more and more obviously true. The Squeezebox will never be a first-class member of the Apple ecosystem, because only devices that have an Apple logo are allowed to do that. The Squeezebox could become a first-class member of the Microsoft ecosystem by supporting Windows Media Connect and PlaysForSure (Roku was able to turn their Squeezebox-knockoff SoundBridge into a real WMC/PlaysForSure device, so I'm sure Slim could do the same), but that requires them to make a real commitment to those Microsoft standards. If not, that'll leave Slim firmly in the "other" category, where it really excels -- there's no other player whose open-source, Unix-based capabilities are nearly as developed or polished; from its Perl code base to native FLAC support, the Squeezebox 2 is an ideal product for Linux users. But, boy, that's really a small-ish niche...

stinkingpig
2005-05-15, 08:12
mkozlows wrote:
....
> In other words, PlaysForSure is a license-able standard that allows
> protected content to be seamlessly played just about anywhere. And
> while protected content is fundamentally uninteresting for purchases,
> it's entirely understandable for subscription services. (Making a
> subscription service without DRM is totally unworkable, as everyone
> would subscribe for a month, download everything, and then quit.)
>
....

Someone should go tell that to eMusic, they must not have heard and
would probably appreciate the tip.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-15, 08:16
> And while protected content is fundamentally uninteresting for purchases, it's entirely
> understandable for subscription services. (Making a subscription service without DRM is
> totally unworkable, as everyone would subscribe for a month, download everything, and
> then quit.)

Interestingly, it has worked out very well for the adult content industry. ;)

[Note that all that follows has nothing to do with DRM]

As it stands, I'm not interested in a subscription service for a
simple reason - I do not like lock ins at all. It might be that I like
a few artists that only Yahoo has, or some that only Real has, or some
Napster-only. Others may, heaven forbid, not partake in any of these
services. That means that either I might have to pay for, say two
different services and use two different pieces of software, or
everyone offers the same content in a different package anyway.

On the other hand, if everyone has this convenient access to the same
large catalog of music, that's the end for anyone who's not included
in this catalog. Independent labels lose even more visbility and
sales. Additionally, people will feel like "I'm already paying
flat-rate, I'll make do without music I'd have to pay extra for." I'd
hoped for widespread broadband to effect a de-centralisation in music
distribution - the opposite seems to be the case.

In any case the internet is still missing an open standard for the
distribution of paid content - I'd like to be able to go to the
Desperate Housewives web site, click on Episode Archive and just
download any or all episodes for $1 each. Then I'd like to go the
official Frank Sinatra web site and dowload a couple of albums for $10
each. And then I'd like to visit some obscure Russian researcher's web
site for a paper on European fairy tales' influence on Japanese
literature. $5.

And because visiting so many web sites is tedious, let them put their
for-sale content in special RSS-like feed, so it can be crawled,
indexed and semi-automatically purchased by whatever free or paid
indexing provider one might like to use. If someone can do without
bells and whistles, just use Google (+ squeezebox plugin), if you'd
like something fancy, use iTunes as your frontend, complete with
editorial content.

Yes, that is exactly like using .torrents, and torrent index sites -
people seem to like the concept, why not make money on it?

C.

AV_Guy
2005-05-15, 12:28
> Since you asked for any thoughts - it makes me really sad when someone
actually uses (wants to use) these restrictive formats instead of
boycotting them. I really do not look forward to a world of low
quality lossy music that I have to lease instead of own.
C.
You know, most people are totally OK with paying Netflix $20/month to watch lots of DVDs they don't own. Many also pay their local cable company lots of money to watch HBO, Showtime, pay-per-view, and other premium content that's also protected and they don't own. Why are you against paying $5/month for unlimited listening of high quality tracks from someone like Yahoo Music? The business model is no different than millions of people are used to for video, and it's significantly cheaper.

As for lossy music, I'll challenge anyone in a blind comparison to listen to Yahoo's 192k/bit dual pass encoded WMA tracks against the original CDs. I've done it on using the digital output of my Roku on a very high-end (>$5K) audio system and the results are surprising. When the testing isn't blind, people claim to hear a difference. When it IS blind, suddenly they cannot tell which is which.

I have both a Roku and a Squeezebox. I prefer the Squeezebox in many ways, but frankly the Roku gets more use now because it will play protected content like that from Yahoo.

I don't understand the CEO of SlimDevices at least partly dismissing the Yahoo/Rhapsody/Napster business model for music? Microsoft, for all their evils, at least has managed to promote a somewhat universal standard for protecting the downloadable/streamable property of artists yet allow it to be played on a much wider variety of hardware. That's certainly more than Apple has done with their tightly controlled protected AAC format that ONLY plays on Apple hardware.

If you still think services like Yahoo Unlimited are evil, try reading this:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-FDuiCSg4eqinB8z.GGJ7TmAz?p=89

I honestly believe that unless Apple gets their head out of the sand and opens up their protected AAC format, protected WMA (via PlaysForSure) will have similar market share to Windows (i.e. > 90%) in the not too distant future. If SlimDevices chooses not to support PlaysForSure, they will very likely end up like TurtleBeach did with the Audiotron--an early leader that didn't adapt their offerings to what most customers want.

For those of you who believe all music should be free, I can only say you must not know any musicians trying to make a living at it. Paying $5/month--the price of one used CD--for access anytime I want to a personal library built from over a million tracks is a pretty sweet deal IMHO.

relen
2005-05-15, 14:24
In Austria "we" have to pay a certain small amount quarterly if we own a device that could conceivably receive the government funded radio (or TV) stations. So "we" are in fact paying for radio, nothing wrong with it. :)

In Britain we also pay a relatively small (a great deal less than a satellite, cable or newspaper subscription) 'licence fee' to have a TV in the house capable of broadcast reception. This is how the BBC (both radio and TV) is funded; the licence fee is not a tax, so it is not under direct government control, thus largely separating the funding of our public broadcaster - still one of the best in the world in my view - from political influence except when the BBC's Royal Charter comes up for review every several years.

There are problems with the mechanism, but nobody has come up with a better idea (that maintains the BBC's existence and independence, commercial-free) since its inception in the 1920s. In many people's view, including mine, it's worth the money.

--Richard E

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-15, 15:22
> Why are you against paying $5/month for unlimited listening of high quality tracks
> from someone like Yahoo Music?

I have repeatedly said in this thread that I think the music
subscription services are a good idea in principle. The only thing bad
thing to be said about them is that they lock you in to a particular
provider, which may or may not put independent producers at even more
of a disadvantage.

> You know, most people are totally OK with paying Netflix $20/month to
> watch lots of DVDs they don't own. Many also pay their local cable
> company lots of money to watch HBO, Showtime, pay-per-view, and other
> premium content that's also protected and they don't own.

We have no Netflix (I'd kill for it) here, no opportunity to get HBO
shows (other than torrents). That said, none of this content is
protected. I can rip the DVDs and record HBO with whatever device I
chose to.

> As for lossy music, I'll challenge anyone in a blind comparison to
> listen to Yahoo's 192k/bit dual pass encoded WMA tracks against the
> original CDs.

The point is, that you can't reencode losslessly whenever a new format
of choice comes along. Think the current flavour of .wma is going to
be around forever? Think again ... It's pretty hard to find the
Windows Media V2 codec nowadays. For subscription services, this does
not matter, naturally, as long as the streaming players can be
updated.

> protecting the downloadable/streamable property of artists

Since I still refuse to think of content in abstract form as
"property", let's just say "rights" instead. Even then, it's more
likely the studios that are protected, not the artists - but I got
what you mean :)

To clarify my viewpoints:

Leasing / renting DRMed content == good (There may be other problems
with this but the DRM isn't among those)

Selling DRMed content == bad.

> For those of you who believe all music should be free, I can only say you must not know
> any musicians trying to make a living at it.

Do you know any musicians that can make a living on selling copies of
their work? Do they have a big-5 contract?
If you want to make money as an independent artist, put some of your
tracks on p2p, the others sell on your web site via PayPal. Sign up
with emusic, post a story to Slashdot or something. People do not get
rich via record contracts these days.

C.

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-15, 15:35
> In Britain we also pay a relatively small (a great deal less than a
> satellite, cable or newspaper subscription) 'licence fee' to have a TV
> in the house capable of broadcast reception. This is how the BBC (both
> radio and TV) is funded; the licence fee is not a tax, so it is not
> under direct government control, thus largely separating the funding of
> our public broadcaster - still one of the best in the world in my view -
> from political influence except when the BBC's Royal Charter comes up
> for review.

[Completely and utterly OT now]

Same here, more or less. Would be nice if I could subscribe to the BBC
- I quite enjoyed their programming during my brief stays in Britain.

Which reminds me: I quite fancy the series "Coupling", which is, IIRC
a BBC production. It will most likely never be released in Austria.
Dubbed, maybe. I borrowed the DVDs of two seasons from a friend.
However, there's at least one other season I have not seen.

Should I -
have to buy the DVDs (for 19 pounds), just for watching it once?
just torrent it?
forget about it?

> There are problems with the mechanism,

As evident in Austria, where the ruling government has found a way
around the political independence and has lifted the "no commercials"
rule to fill the country's coffers. :)

C.

AV_Guy
2005-05-15, 18:09
The point is, that you can't reencode losslessly whenever a new format of choice comes along. Think the current flavour of .wma is going to be around forever? Think again ... It's pretty hard to find the Windows Media V2 codec nowadays.

That's yet one more reason why $5/month unlimited DRM makes a lot more sense than $0.99/song Apple DRM. Even if the format eventually becomes obsolete, it's hard to argue you didn't get your $5/month worth.

You're free at any time to pick the best deal going for a monthly music subscription. If someone has a hot new codec/format, and you want to switch, it's easy to do so as you have little investment in your own DRM music collection.

It's also very likely the hardware will become obsolete before the format does, so that's less of an issue when you look at the big picture. Besides, much of the hardware, and the PlaysForSure standard itself, will hopefully be able to support at least the next round of new formats as they become viable.

Eventually, it's safe to assume new formats will simply require more computing horsepower than current players have and/or will support multichannel (i.e. 5.1) audio. Those formats will require newer hardware than virtually everything shipping today.

But, in the meantime, I sincerely hope the Slim folks will enhance the SqueezeBox (or at least SB2) to play subscription based DRM WMA. If Roku can do it, I don't see why Slim cannot? I suspect Microsoft would love to add the Squeezebox to their list of compatible PlaysForSure hardware?

Spies
2005-05-15, 23:10
So is PlaysForSure available to systems other then Microsoft Windows
such as Linux and Mac OS X? From what I can tell it isn't and wont be
any time soon, but I hope I am wrong.

On 5/15/05, AV_Guy <AV_Guy.1p3oan (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> Christian Pernegger Wrote:
> >
> > The point is, that you can't reencode losslessly whenever a new format
> > of choice comes along. Think the current flavour of .wma is going to be
> > around forever? Think again ... It's pretty hard to find the Windows
> > Media V2 codec nowadays.
> >
> That's yet one more reason why $5/month unlimited DRM makes a lot more
> sense than $0.99/song Apple DRM. Even if the format eventually becomes
> obsolete, it's hard to argue you didn't get your $5/month worth.
>
> You're free at any time to pick the best deal going for a monthly music
> subscription. If someone has a hot new codec/format, and you want to
> switch, it's easy to do so as you have little investment in your own
> DRM music collection.
>
> It's also very likely the hardware will become obsolete before the
> format does, so that's less of an issue when you look at the big
> picture. Besides, much of the hardware, and the PlaysForSure standard
> itself, will hopefully be able to support at least the next round of
> new formats as they become viable.
>
> Eventually, it's safe to assume new formats will simply require more
> computing horsepower than current players have and/or will support
> multichannel (i.e. 5.1) audio. Those formats will require newer
> hardware than virtually everything shipping today.
>
> But, in the meantime, I sincerely hope the Slim folks will enhance the
> SqueezeBox (or at least SB2) to play subscription based DRM WMA. If
> Roku can do it, I don't see why Slim cannot? I suspect Microsoft would
> love to add the Squeezebox to their list of compatible PlaysForSure
> hardware?
>
> --
> AV_Guy
>

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-16, 02:32
> But, in the meantime, I sincerely hope the Slim folks will enhance the
> SqueezeBox (or at least SB2) to play subscription based DRM WMA. If
> Roku can do it, I don't see why Slim cannot? I suspect Microsoft would
> love to add the Squeezebox to their list of compatible PlaysForSure
> hardware?

This cannot be done on the slimserver, even via a legal plugin, since
that would mean to send the data unencrypted to the sb, which MSFT
won't allow. It'd have to be a new native format.
Seeing as how each of the music services requires their own
application - sure they could stream to the sb that way, but wouldn't
you have to switch between slimserver / subscription streaming mode?
How's the Roku do this?
Maybe you should just wait till someone cracks the encryption used -
then a regular plugin could appear out of thin air somewhere
absolutely not associated with slimdevices. Since you are paying for
the content, this wouldn't hurt anybody.

C.

radish
2005-05-16, 06:08
So is PlaysForSure available to systems other then Microsoft Windows
such as Linux and Mac OS X? From what I can tell it isn't and wont be
any time soon, but I hope I am wrong.
Well it's available on everything from flash players to cellphones. I don't think they're all running Windows. Whether they'd license to a Linux or OSX client I don't know - I'd suspect they would if you were paying.

AV_Guy
2005-05-16, 09:28
> This cannot be done on the slimserver, even via a legal plugin, since that would mean to send the data unencrypted to the sb, which MSFT won't allow. It'd have to be a new native format....

How's the Roku do this?

The Roku uses the Windows Media Connect (WMC) feature of XP SP2 as its "server". No third party software is required. This is the same way the D-Link media player and other PlaysForSure network devices work. Because WMC is an MS application, it's fully integrated with DRM WMA content. Any DRM WMA authorized content in shared folders is automatically available to all devices connected to WMC. As far as I know, WMC manages most of the DRM stuff on the PC so the device doesn't have to.

It's really very seamless with the Roku. When you first power up the Roku (even fresh out of the box) it finds your WMC PC and asks if you want to connect to it. You tell it to connect, and the protected (i.e. Yahoo) content is presented along with all your other MP3s, etc. From the Roku, you can't even tell it's DRM content.

For the Squeezebox to support DRM WMA, it would probably have to support Windows Media Connect in addition to SlimServer. I realize that's not a trivial thing, but it hardly seems impossible either. I think both the Roku and the SB2 use similar Blackfin processors? The Roku manages to support several different servers, including WMC.

I'm not sure about Linux and OS-X. Sadly, MS considers both competitors and may refuse to license PlaysForSure/Windows Media Connect to either platform? Keep in mind, however, Microsoft has at least been more "open" than Apple. Apple won't even let 3rd party devices or software play protected content with their own iTunes as the server.

No offense to you non-Windows folks, but I don't think lack of Linux and/or Mac support is a valid reason for Slim not to support DRM WMA. The other 95% of us would love to have it. Sorting out DRM with the protection issues, licensing, lawyers, music industry, etc. is a HUGE thing. It only makes sense to let companies like MS do the heavy lifting and use their dominant DRM standard. It's supported by FAR more music services, more tracks, and more devices than anything else.

To sit around and hope something better comes along seems foolish to me. Once people figure out how cool a million high quality tracks for $5/month is, they're going to be buying PlaysForSure devices in droves. Slim can either be part of that or be left behind.

Josef Shvejk
2005-05-16, 12:35
> For the Squeezebox to support DRM WMA, it would probably have to
> support Windows Media Connect in addition to SlimServer.

Perhaps SlimServer could connect to WMC PC?
The solution would be transparent for the Squeezebox then.
Just an idea.......

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-16, 12:50
> The Roku uses the Windows Media Connect (WMC) feature of XP SP2 as its
> "server". No third party software is required.

So that really means using either Slimserver or WMC, but not both at
the same time. Not very practical - for me, the features and
versatility of Slimserver are one of the main selling points for the
devices. (That, and the fact that I can run Slimserver directly on my
24/7 file server, which runs Linux.)

How could one go on about _integrating_ the two interfaces, that's the question.

> As far as I know, WMC manages all the DRM stuff on the PC so the device doesn't
> have to.

Really? - So I'd just have to put a sniffer on the network between the
two devices to get unencryted data? Unlikely, but worth a try. Is
there a network sniffer module for perl? :)

C.

kdf
2005-05-16, 12:50
Quoting Josef Shvejk <shvejk (AT) gmail (DOT) com>:

> > For the Squeezebox to support DRM WMA, it would probably have to
> > support Windows Media Connect in addition to SlimServer.
>
> Perhaps SlimServer could connect to WMC PC?
> The solution would be transparent for the Squeezebox then.
> Just an idea.......

one small problem...slimserver is open source, and WMC connection protocol is
proprietary and closed. Were it to be licensed, that part of the code would
have to be somehow blocked from prying eyes, and exempted from the GPL, which
covers the rest of slimserver.

why doesn't slimserver support it? ask the lawyers.
-kdf

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-16, 12:55
> why doesn't slimserver support it? ask the lawyers.

You'd have to do the DRM in the firmware, which is not open. The sb2s
platform seems versatile enough to be able to do that.

C.

Jim
2005-05-16, 13:38
> why doesn't slimserver support it? ask the lawyers.

You'd have to do the DRM in the firmware, which is not open. The sb2s
platform seems versatile enough to be able to do that.

C.

Or wait for DVD Jon (or whatever his name was) to break the encryption, and produce a cracked open-source decoder. Which of course wouldn't be "officially" supported :D

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-16, 13:52
> Really? - So I'd just have to put a sniffer on the network between the
> two devices to get unencryted data? Unlikely, but worth a try. Is
> there a network sniffer module for perl? :)


I'm not sure how the current realslim plugin works exactly, but it would
seem that however it works it's streaming unencrypted data. No matter what
you do there are products out there that could grab the stream once it's
being sent to the sound output device. I think the primary function of DRM
is to make it difficult to steal mass amounts of music. Seems to me that
forcing the potential pirate to capture the audio in "real-time" speed is
effectively accomplishing the DRM goal about as well as it can be
accomplished.

AV_Guy
2005-05-16, 13:53
> The Roku uses the Windows Media Connect (WMC) feature of XP SP2 as its
> "server". No third party software is required.

So that really means using either Slimserver or WMC, but not both at
the same time. Not very practical - for me, the features and
versatility of Slimserver are one of the main selling points for the
devices. (That, and the fact that I can run Slimserver directly on my
24/7 file server, which runs Linux.)

How could one go on about _integrating_ the two interfaces, that's the question.

> As far as I know, WMC manages all the DRM stuff on the PC so the device doesn't
> have to.

Really? - So I'd just have to put a sniffer on the network between the
two devices to get unencryted data? Unlikely, but worth a try. Is
there a network sniffer module for perl? :)

I agree Slimserver has some cool features. And if you're not willing to use an XP box as your music server, then Windows Media Connect (for the time being at least) is not an option. I also agree it would be ideal to have Slim support both servers online at once, or at the least, be able to flip between them easily from the SB interface.

The above suggestion to let Slimserver (rather than the SB) get the tracks from WMC is also an interesting idea. If that can be done, Slim might not have to even touch the firmware?

As for the data format between the Roku and the WMC PC, I'm not sure if it's encrypted or not? A DRM WMA PC is capable of authenticating the DRM tracks and exporting them to a portable device where they play without any internet connection. After some period of time (several weeks with Yahoo) you have to reconnect the portable device to your PC to verify you still have a valid subscription and the music is re-authenticated. In the interest of preventing illegal ripping of the DRM content, I suspect they encrypt the stream to local devices on your network as well as the tracks on your portable device?

At these prices, it is hardly worth it for most people to worry about trying to break the DRM? It's also not likely Yahoo, one of the top 3 portals on the internet, is going to pull out anytime soon leaving you with a dead music collection. At worst, they might raise their prices but there's likely to be some healthy competition among music subscription services which should keep prices down.

If Yahoo makes a wrong turn, or something vastly better comes along, I have a folder of all my Yahoo music to use as a guide to download what I want from a new service. With my cable modem, I've been getting download speeds from Yahoo of 350 - 450 KB/sec (3+ Mb/sec) so it's only about 10 seconds per track. And it's SO much easier than ripping CDs! You can tag dozens of albums for download and just let it run.

stinkingpig
2005-05-16, 14:58
Christian Pernegger wrote:
>>The Roku uses the Windows Media Connect (WMC) feature of XP SP2 as its
>>"server". No third party software is required.
>
>
> So that really means using either Slimserver or WMC, but not both at
> the same time. Not very practical - for me, the features and
> versatility of Slimserver are one of the main selling points for the
> devices. (That, and the fact that I can run Slimserver directly on my
> 24/7 file server, which runs Linux.)
>
> How could one go on about _integrating_ the two interfaces, that's the question.
>
>
>>As far as I know, WMC manages all the DRM stuff on the PC so the device doesn't
>>have to.
>
>
> Really? - So I'd just have to put a sniffer on the network between the
> two devices to get unencryted data? Unlikely, but worth a try. Is
> there a network sniffer module for perl? :)
>
> C.

Yes :) But as I'm sure you know and are attempting to point out, it is
rather unlikely that the data is an unencrypted stream.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-16, 15:45
> On the other hand, if everyone has this convenient access to the same
> large catalog of music, that's the end for anyone who's not included
> in this catalog. Independent labels lose even more visbility and
> sales. Additionally, people will feel like "I'm already paying
> flat-rate, I'll make do without music I'd have to pay extra for." I'd
> hoped for widespread broadband to effect a de-centralisation in music
> distribution - the opposite seems to be the case.

I just wanted to mention that since using Rhapsody (I've been subscribed
about 1 year now) I've actually been exposed to far more independent
labels/groups than I ever was before Rhapsody. This medium isn't limited in
any way (i.e., radio is time-limited) so there's no downside to adding
artists. It's in Rhapsody's (and other subscription-type services) interest
to add any and all interested artists to their catalog so that they may draw
in more subscribers. And the existence of more than one service provides
competition in the marketplace that keeps the royalties paid to small
artists from being unfairly low. I don't know how their licensing deals
work but I would have to think that the subscription services compensate
artists an amount that's somehow correlated to the # of plays their music
receives. Indeed, (haha, this is all speculation, but bear with me) they
probably have "cheaper" contracts with the smaller labels so it may very
well be that subscription services would prefer that you listen to
independent artists. Whatever the case may be, services like Rhapsody offer
links to artists that are similar to, influenced by, forerunners of, and
collaborators with any given artist in their catalog. Rhapsody also
monitors my listening and suggests artists, albums, and tracks I might like
(I believe this is a feature of Napster and Yahoo as well). Often these are
from artists and groups I'd never have heard of otherwise. There are tons
of artists out there that are getting royalties from me listening to them on
Rhapsody that would never have seen a penny from me otherwise. Plus I still
buy CD's.

Unless the subscription services are somehow (totally illogically) banning
artists from their catalog, it seems like your "losing visibility" argument
is akin to saying "it's so unfair that we adopted the CD player because all
those artists that only want to sell cassette tapes will just not be
included and it'll be the end of them".

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-16, 16:38
> Unless the subscription services are somehow (totally illogically) banning
> artists from their catalog, [...]

If this isn't the case now, it soon might be. In a business where
exclusive contracts are the norm, why shouldn't one or more big labels
base their licenses on exclusive relationships with subscription
services? Or maybe they devise some sort of discount, where a
subscription provider has to pay less in fees if they sell more of a
big label's music?

Excluding competing artists / labels from a subscription service's
catalog makes perfect sense for a (association of) record labels.
There'll be incentives so that it makes sense from a service's point
of view as well.

On a lightly related notes, dividing the world up into zones (DVDs) is
illogical, as is refusing to sell content to anyone outside a
designated area in general. Notice how all (Real, Yahoo, Napster) of
these new suscription services are US only? From Yahoo's point of view
it's illogical to prevent me from spending my money there - they still
(have to) do it.

C.

Philip Downer
2005-05-17, 02:11
> Notice how all (Real, Yahoo, Napster) of these new suscription
> services are US only?

Napster's subscription service is available in the UK, not that I use
it. However after all of the talk on this list I have been very tempted
to try it (in fact I hadn't even heard of the service before the
discussion started on this list) but none of my computers runs Microsoft
Windows and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Phil

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-17, 08:51
> If this isn't the case now, it soon might be. In a business where
> exclusive contracts are the norm, why shouldn't one or more big labels
> base their licenses on exclusive relationships with subscription
> services? Or maybe they devise some sort of discount, where a
> subscription provider has to pay less in fees if they sell more of a
> big label's music?

> Excluding competing artists / labels from a subscription service's
> catalog makes perfect sense for a (association of) record labels.
> There'll be incentives so that it makes sense from a service's point
> of view as well.

You make some interesting points that I hadn't considered and may very well
be accurate. However, there will always be room for potential abuse and it
would seem that the same abuse argument could be levied against any new
technology. Seems lousy to retract support from a company based upon the
sins that it might possibly be able to commit in the future. In fact, by
supporting Rhapsody I'm supporting their current business model that seems
to value the independent labels. If they start dropping the small artists I
may consider switching to another provider (thank goodness for the current
competition in the market, I hope it remains) or dropping the service
altogether.

siegeld
2005-05-18, 18:42
Just wondering. It would seem to me that if there was some sort of loop-back audio device driver for Windows that this could be used to support DRM-protected music playing to a Squeezbox. The idea would be that you could control Windows Media Player to play the DRM-protected music, capture the audio output from the virtual audio driver, and send it back out to the Squeezbox.

relen
2005-05-19, 01:36
...you could control Windows Media Player to play the DRM-protected music, capture the audio output from the virtual audio driver, and send it back out to the Squeezbox.

The Audigy systems have an option in their recorder that lets you record "What I hear", ie anything that comes out of the main outputs. It enables you to capture all kinds of things you wouldn't otherwise manage. So that side of things is obviously possible and I would imagine it's a software capability, not a hardware one.

--Richard E

Steve Baumgarten
2005-05-19, 06:21
> Just wondering. It would seem to me that if there was some sort of
> loop-back audio device driver for Windows that this could be used to
> support DRM-protected music playing to a Squeezbox. The idea would be
> that you could control Windows Media Player to play the DRM-protected
> music, capture the audio output from the virtual audio driver, and send
> it back out to the Squeezbox.

High Criteria (the Total Recorder people) have an SDK version of their
product that I imagine would enable someone to code up something like
this. It would be a huge plus on Windows; basically, it would allow us
to get around all the BS involved with proprietary DRM-based music
clients and let us fairly easily redirect streams from those clients to
the SlimServer via the Total Recorder virtual sound card driver.

http://www.highcriteria.com/productfr_trDEV.htm

"Total Recorder Developer Edition brings all of the recording
features and controls of Total Recorder Professional Edition, to
programmers and their applications. Total Recorder DE includes OLE
Automation support that provides a programming interface to Total
Recorder functions. It features a dual interface and is a convenient
way for any programming or scripting language that supports OLE
Automation, to invoke Total Recorder functionality to record
streaming audio or sound input on any of your sound card's input
jacks."

I'm fairly certain that if such an app were developed it could then be
given away for free, i.e., no restrictions, even though the Total
Recorder SDK itself is commercial software.

For anyone interested in simply seeing what they give you in the SDK and
trying it out, note:

"Evaluation copies of Total Recorder Developer Edition are available
for download with the following links. The evaluation copies are
fully functional versions of the program, with the exception that an
audible noise will be inserted about every 60 seconds throughout the
recording. For unlimited recording without the insertion of an
audible noise, you must purchase a Total Recorder license."

Pretty reasonable terms for an eval, just to see if anything might come
of it. The license costs $99, and I'm sure any number of people here
(myself included) would be happy to chip in should someone develop
something workable with the eval copy.

If I knew more about Windows programming, I'd give it a try myself.

SBB




Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.

Damon Riley
2005-05-19, 08:30
Steve Baumgarten wrote:
>> Just wondering. It would seem to me that if there was some sort of
>> loop-back audio device driver for Windows that this could be used to
>> support DRM-protected music playing to a Squeezbox. The idea would be
>> that you could control Windows Media Player to play the DRM-protected
>> music, capture the audio output from the virtual audio driver, and send
>> it back out to the Squeezbox.
>
>
> High Criteria (the Total Recorder people) have an SDK version of their
> product that I imagine would enable someone to code up something like
> this. It would be a huge plus on Windows; basically, it would allow us
> to get around all the BS involved with proprietary DRM-based music
> clients and let us fairly easily redirect streams from those clients to
> the SlimServer via the Total Recorder virtual sound card driver.
>
> http://www.highcriteria.com/productfr_trDEV.htm
>
> "Total Recorder Developer Edition brings all of the recording
> features and controls of Total Recorder Professional Edition, to
> programmers and their applications. Total Recorder DE includes OLE
> Automation support that provides a programming interface to Total
> Recorder functions. It features a dual interface and is a convenient
> way for any programming or scripting language that supports OLE
> Automation, to invoke Total Recorder functionality to record
> streaming audio or sound input on any of your sound card's input
> jacks."
>
It's funny, but getting around DRM *without* breaking it is legal, under
the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act. What you do with the content
afterwards would need to fall within the Fair Use doctrine, of course.
I am not a lawyer, but this looks like a good approach. Such a stupid,
stupid law, that DMCA.

-- Damon

fuzzyT
2005-05-19, 08:49
Steve Baumgarten wrote:

> I'm fairly certain that if such an app were developed it could then be
> given away for free, i.e., no restrictions, even though the Total
> Recorder SDK itself is commercial software.

a good first step might be to confirm that their redistribution
licensing is indeed unrestricted. it may be that the client user of an
application developed with the TR-SDK might need a licensed copy of the
TR component.

maybe not a deal killer for those looking for this functionality, but
good to know.

question: is TR windows-only?

--rt

Steve Baumgarten
2005-05-19, 09:11
> a good first step might be to confirm that their redistribution
> licensing is indeed unrestricted. it may be that the client user of an
> application developed with the TR-SDK might need a licensed copy of the
> TR component.

Could be. Though given that the application itself sells for $11.95
(that's basic functionality, not the SDK or "Pro" version that features
scheduling, etc.), I can't imagine the virtual driver alone (which is,
after all, a component of the full application) would cost any more than
that. So even if it wasn't something you could bundle in with the app
you wrote using their SDK, you could still write the app and make it
available, subject to people then purchasing TR themselves so they have
the necessary DLLs on their system. If that were the case, I assume
people would still be thrilled with the solution: a one-time $11.95 cost
that allows you to listen to Napster streams, Rhapsody streams, Yahoo
Music streams, etc., on your SqueezeBox is not a hard call to make.

> maybe not a deal killer for those looking for this functionality, but
> good to know.
>
> question: is TR windows-only?

Yes. But of course, so are all these DRM-wrapped subscription music
services; as far as I know, none have versions that run on OS X, let
alone Linux.

SBB





Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.

fuzzyT
2005-05-19, 09:21
Steve Baumgarten wrote:

> [...] you could still write the app and make it available, subject to
> people then purchasing TR themselves so they have the necessary DLLs
> on their system. If that were the case, I assume people would still
> be thrilled with the solution: a one-time $11.95 cost that allows you
> to listen to Napster streams, Rhapsody streams, Yahoo Music streams,
> etc., on your SqueezeBox is not a hard call to make.

agreed that it seems a good deal for the functionality provided, it
would just be nice to know that this is what were looking at.

>> question: is TR windows-only?
>
> Yes. But of course, so are all these DRM-wrapped subscription music
> services; as far as I know, none have versions that run on OS X, let
> alone Linux.

for subscription services, yes. but i'd guess that at least some of
them will eventually get around to supporting MacOS.

and there may be applications of this concept to DRM wrapped
downloadable music files as well. i can think of at least one popular
download service that does support MacOS =).

--rt

dean
2005-05-19, 09:43
On May 19, 2005, at 9:21 AM, ron thigpen wrote:
>>> question: is TR windows-only?
>>>
>> Yes. But of course, so are all these DRM-wrapped subscription
>> music services; as far as I know, none have versions that run on
>> OS X, let alone Linux.
>>
>
> for subscription services, yes. but i'd guess that at least some
> of them will eventually get around to supporting MacOS.
>
> and there may be applications of this concept to DRM wrapped
> downloadable music files as well. i can think of at least one
> popular download service that does support MacOS =).

If you are using Mac OS X, check out Audio Hijack <http://
yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/014230&from=rss>

Aaron Zinck
2005-05-19, 10:03
I believe it may be unnecessary to use Total Recorder--I'm fairly confident
that Vidur's RealSlim plugin already does essentially the very same thing.
It just needs to be updated to support the new version of Rhapsody and
SlimServer. Perhaps Vidur could correct me if I'm wrong?

danco
2005-05-19, 14:43
On 19/5/05 at 9:43 am -0700, dean blackketter wrote
>>
>
>If you are using Mac OS X, check out Audio Hijack
><http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/014230&from=rss>

Possibly even better than Audio Hijack, and from the same makers, is Nicecast.

Audio Hijack (the Pro version is better than the basic) takes sound
from any application and records it, whereas Nicecast broadcasts the
sound. So AH(P) is better if one has sound that one would like to
keep - for instance, a BBC program, and Nicecast is better for sound
one already has that the Slimserver/Squeezebox cannot deal with
directly.

Both have free downloads that, each time they are started, work for
around fifteen minutes and then start degrading the sound. Long
enough for a decent try-out.
--
Daniel Cohen

Chris Wood
2005-05-23, 18:50
A change in the firmware is what's needed from what I can figure out. [disclaimer - I am clueless so feel free to correct me as necessary]. Whether it's technically or financially possible for Slim Devices to do this with the current hardware I am unsure.

Imagine a menu on the Squeezebox that lets you choose between Slimserver or Rhapsody or Musicmatch or Napster or Yahoo.

The Rhapsody software itself can stream via upnp to a upnp enabled device that supports protected wma. No need for slimserver.

The Windows Media Connect server software would stream the other subscription services to the Squeezebox. No need for Slimserver.

All we would need, and again I have no idea how feasible it is to do this, is firmware that supports protected wma and is Windows Media Connect compatible. If you haven't seen it check out the demo movie here...

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=13002

IMHO making Squeezebox 'Windows Media Connect' compatible would be the "killer app".

All of this could be done without losing any of the existing Squeezebox/Slimserver features we currently enjoy.

Slimserver would be used as it is today.

As you say, if Roku can do it...



But, in the meantime, I sincerely hope the Slim folks will enhance the SqueezeBox (or at least SB2) to play subscription based DRM WMA. If Roku can do it, I don't see why Slim cannot? I suspect Microsoft would love to add the Squeezebox to their list of compatible PlaysForSure hardware?

Christian Pernegger
2005-05-24, 02:20
> The Rhapsody software itself can stream via upnp to a upnp enabled
> device that supports protected wma. No need for slimserver.
>
> The Windows Media Connect server software would stream the other
> subscription services to the Squeezebox. No need for Slimserver.

That's the only technical reason against implementing it. I don't
really want to leave a Windows machine running just for the streaming
service. I don't know if there's any chance for the sb2 to do this
stand alone, and how practical it would be as a user interface. Also
I'd like to have better integration between slimserver and whatever
else there is - not just an either / or switch.

A nice solution would be to make the catalog data available from
within slimserver, but still decode the .wmas on the sb2. That in turn
would require one or more of these services to open the "protocol"
their client uses for communicating.

C.

alexwinsberg
2005-05-31, 15:30
I've read all 7 pages of this thread, I understand the arguements for and against using an Unlimited Service like Yahoo, etc., and I'd like to get to the bottom line of a question I have:

Understanding that a SB canot currently stream a Yahoo Unlimited Music account from my computer to my receiver, is this ability something that is contemplated in the future? I don't have a SB yet, but used a friend's extensively and loved it. However, there are competitor DMR's (such as Roku), and right now I'd like to use the one that gets my Yahoo music from the computer to the receiver, lost of sound quality and all. Seems like Roku doesn't yet do it either, but with their connection to MusicMatch (now a Yahoo product), this can't be far off for them. What about for a SB?

NHGuy
2005-06-02, 15:35
PULEAZE, Look at the list of Rhapsody supprted wireless devices. Everybody that likes that service is now unable to use the $300 dollar device you sold us. You should also take a look at your marketing dept's literature. It specifically states that Realslim is alive and able to stream realnetworks/Rhapsody.
By the way, I've sent two emails asking about rhapsody support to your tech support and I have yet to have the courtesy of a reply. You need to get your development act together or there are going to a whole lot of slim devices on EBAY while your competition eats your lunch.


> Slim's focus is on free formats; anything DRM'ed is not likely to
> be supported unless it's by an external developer as a plugin.

This isn't really our position or our goal (see roadmap: http://
wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?SoftwareRoadmap ) . We are working to
support the formats that are feasible and interesting to support, and
that includes DRM formats. Unfortunately, right now the most
interesting ones are not available to license to anyone. If you're
using one of those formats you should really take up the issue with
them - it's not a matter of whether Slim is willing/able.

kevin
2005-06-02, 16:30
PULEAZE, Look at the list of Rhapsody supprted wireless devices. Everybody that likes that service is now unable to use the $300 dollar device you sold us. You should also take a look at your marketing dept's literature. It specifically states that Realslim is alive and able to stream realnetworks/Rhapsody.
By the way, I've sent two emails asking about rhapsody support to your tech support and I have yet to have the courtesy of a reply. You need to get your development act together or there are going to a whole lot of slim devices on EBAY while your competition eats your lunch.

I actually only ever received one e-mail from you (Tuesday night this week), which I replied to on Wednesday morning stating that Rhapsody is unfortunately not supported.

Could the message perhaps have been filtered in to your spam folder?

NHGuy
2005-06-02, 18:07
If Slimdevices doesn't get it's picture on the Rhapsody website along w/ it's competition you can bet that Slimdevices will have a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. So you can talk about big bad corporations all you want but as a music consumer and user of Rhapsody, I want to be able to use the $300 wireless device that specifically advertised itself as being able to stream realnetworks

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 07:58
While I'd love to see support for Rhapsody, I don't recall ever seeing this
featured advertised for the SqueezeBox 2.

gorstk
2005-06-03, 08:39
Aaron Zinck wrote:
> While I'd love to see support for Rhapsody, I don't recall ever seeing this
> featured advertised for the SqueezeBox 2.

There is a 3rd party plugin to link slimserver and rhapsody?

I tried to sign up to rhapsody only to find that it isnt available in
the UK - and I assume they /know/ I am in the UK. Anyone fancy signing
me up from the US and sending me the login details so I can get the 25
free tracks a month?

Cheers

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 09:35
> There is a 3rd party plugin to link slimserver and rhapsody?

Yes, realslim.sourceforge.net

but it only really works with SB1 or Slimp3, slimserver 5.4.0, and Rhapsody
v2

kevin
2005-06-03, 09:50
If Slimdevices doesn't get it's picture on the Rhapsody website along w/ it's competition you can bet that Slimdevices will have a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. So you can talk about big bad corporations all you want but as a music consumer and user of Rhapsody, I want to be able to use the $300 wireless device that specifically advertised itself as being able to stream realnetworks

I don't think we've ever advertized anything having to do with Rhapsody.

If you're thinking of a specific page on our web site, could you please tell me which one so I can fix it? (Or if it's a third party, I can contact them to have it updated?)

gsamsa
2005-06-03, 09:52
> There is a 3rd party plugin to link slimserver and rhapsody?

Yes, realslim.sourceforge.net

but it only really works with SB1 or Slimp3, slimserver 5.4.0, and Rhapsody
v2

I was actually able to get realslim running with SS 6.1, with a few minor modifications. There was a thread in the developers forum a couple weeks ago. There still appear to be occasional problems, and I was planning on trying to resolve these before making this more well known -- but then I got really busy at work. You might give it a shot.

(It still only works with Rhapsody v2, unfortunately. Getting it working with v3 is probably a lot more involved, though I might try at some point.)

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 09:56
www.slimdevices.com/marketing/resellers-guide.pdf
This is the link





I don't think we've ever advertized anything having to do with Rhapsody.

If you're thinking of a specific page on our web site, could you please tell me which one so I can fix it? (Or if it's a third party, I can contact them to have it updated?)

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 11:52
> I was actually able to get realslim running with SS 6.1, with a few
> minor modifications. There was a thread in the developers forum a
> couple weeks ago. There still appear to be occasional problems, and I
> was planning on trying to resolve these before making this more well
> known -- but then I got really busy at work. You might give it a shot.

Great work!...keep us posted. If this were to work reliably I might
seriously consider a Squeezebox 2. Until then my Squeezebox 1 is more than
meeting my needs....

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 12:15
I realize I'm becoming boring, but you guys at Slim Devices ought to read the reviews you post on your website. The one from Maximum PC that you flaunt has as it's last word, "Rhapsody". Do you think you would have gotten that good a review if you didn't have that capability?
Soooo, my question is how do I get my money back for a product that does not perform as advertised. Please post on the forum so others who share the same feeling can partake.

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 12:23
> I realize I'm becoming boring, but you guys at Slim Devices ought to
> read the reviews you post on your website. The one from Maximum PC that
> you flaunt has as it's last word, "Rhapsody". Do you think you would
> have gotten that good a review if you didn't have that capability?
> Soooo, my question is how do I get my money back for a product that
> does not perform as advertised. Please post on the forum so others who
> share the same feeling can partake.
>
>
> --
> NHGuy

The issue seems to be that you're inaccurate with your information. The
SB2 has never been advertised as having these features. The Squeezebox 1,
however, does have an unsupported 3rd-party plugin that provides this
functionality. The promotional material you linked to refers to the
Squeezebox 1.

Don't forget that Slimdevices offers a 30-day money-back guarantee. If the
device doesn't meet your needs then return it.

Christian Pernegger
2005-06-03, 12:35
> The one from Maximum PC that you flaunt has as it's last word, "Rhapsody"..
> Do you think you would have gotten that good a review if you didn't have that capability?

Maybe, maybe not.

> Soooo, my question is how do I get my money back for a product that
> does not perform as advertised. Please post on the forum so others who
> share the same feeling can partake.

I'm not so sure if you can hold wrong information in an independent
review against Slim Devices ... AFAIK there's still the 30-day money
back offer, though. What more could you want?

An update for RealSlim is in the works, there'll be a way to stream
stuff in that vein to an sb2 - sooner or later. Aside from that, this
"Rhapsody" is only available within the US Empire anyway - somehow I
don't hear the iTMS users whine too much.

Please do try to be a bit less agressive in the future - it might get
you farther.

C.

Richie
2005-06-03, 12:38
> The issue seems to be that you're inaccurate with your information. The
> SB2 has never been advertised as having these features. The Squeezebox 1,
> however, does have an unsupported 3rd-party plugin that provides this
> functionality. The promotional material you linked to refers to the
> Squeezebox 1.

To be fair, if you were new to the Slim Devices website there's no
easy way of telling that a review is of an older model. Since all the
squeezebox variations have looked very similar and there is little
historical information on the website of the capabilities of the
different models, I can understand some people getting the wrong idea.

I say this as someone who is extremely happy with the performance of 1
x SB1 & 2 x SB2.

Richard

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 12:41
Aaron,
I'm not a bad person, but when the company implies through the posting of reviews that tout it's ability to stream Rhapsody and when it's marketing literature specially states it supports real player I as a reasonable person expect to be able to use it for the stated purpose. When I read the CEO of the company imply he's got better things to do than live up to his promises, I think I have a right to my money back, 30 day guarantee or not.

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 12:47
I would agree if that independant review was not so prominently displayed on their website as a reason to buy their product.





> The one from Maximum PC that you flaunt has as it's last word, "Rhapsody"..
> Do you think you would have gotten that good a review if you didn't have that capability?

Maybe, maybe not.

> Soooo, my question is how do I get my money back for a product that
> does not perform as advertised. Please post on the forum so others who
> share the same feeling can partake.

I'm not so sure if you can hold wrong information in an independent
review against Slim Devices ... AFAIK there's still the 30-day money
back offer, though. What more could you want?

An update for RealSlim is in the works, there'll be a way to stream
stuff in that vein to an sb2 - sooner or later. Aside from that, this
"Rhapsody" is only available within the US Empire anyway - somehow I
don't hear the iTMS users whine too much.

Please do try to be a bit less agressive in the future - it might get
you farther.

C.

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 12:55
> Aaron,
> I'm not a bad person, but when the company implies through the posting
> of reviews that tout it's ability to stream Rhapsody and when it's
> marketing literature specially states it supports real player I as a
> reasonable person expect to be able to use it for the stated purpose.
> When I read the CEO of the company imply he's got better things to do
> than live up to his promises, I think I have a right to my money back,
> 30 day guarantee or not.
>

I don't understand...have you contacted Slimdevices to make a return? are
they unwilling to take the unit back?

By the way...even if you misunderstood SlimDevice's support for Rhapsody
(believe me, they've never promised Rhapsody support even for the SB1--and
certainly not for the SB2) that has nothing whatsoever to do with
Realplayer. Real audio streaming can be configured via the 3rd party
AlienBBC plugin but Rhapsody itself uses WMA format (though, I believe when
using Realslim the WMA decoding is done by the Rhapsody application itself
and the audio is then "broadcast" to slimserver).

Jacob Potter
2005-06-03, 12:58
On 6/3/05, NHGuy <NHGuy.1q2fwz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> Aaron,
> I'm not a bad person, but when the company implies through the posting
> of reviews that tout it's ability to stream Rhapsody and when it's
> marketing literature specially states it supports real player I as a
> reasonable person expect to be able to use it for the stated purpose.

"Third Party Projects, Plug-ins, and Contributions" in the reseller's
guide. I don't think that counts as advertising support for Rhapsody.

> When I read the CEO of the company imply he's got better things to do
> than live up to his promises, I think I have a right to my money back,
> 30 day guarantee or not.

There's a big difference between "imply" and "promise."

- Jacob

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 13:10
Jacob,
Go up a few messages and read the marketing blurb from their maketing manager talking about how great the realslim plugin works in Squeezebox. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I expect to have to parse the the reviews posted on a website to ensure the 100% accuracy of each statement. I do know that the $300 I spent on Squeezebox would have been much better spent on a ROKU.

Robin Bowes
2005-06-03, 13:20
NHGuy wrote:
> I would agree if that independant review was not so prominently
> displayed on their website as a reason to buy their product.

The link you gave was www.slimdevices.com/marketing/resellers-guide.pdf

This is buried in the Resellers page - hardly what I would call
"prominently displayed".

The review also clearly states that it is of the Squeezebox, not the
Squeezebox2.

Regardless, if you bought it from the website you've got a 30-day
satisfaction guarantee. If you don't like it, return it for your money back.

Now, please stop whining or go away.

R.
--
http://robinbowes.com

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 13:23
The review from Maximum PC is the one that's prominently displayed.
Since when does a product upgrade mean that functionality is taken away?

Robin Bowes
2005-06-03, 13:56
NHGuy wrote:
> Jacob,
> Go up a few messages and read the marketing blurb from their maketing
> manager talking about how great the realslim plugin works in
> Squeezebox.

Post a link.

> I'm not a lawyer, nor do I expect to have to parse the the
> reviews posted on a website to ensure the 100% accuracy of each
> statement. I do know that the $300 I spent on Squeezebox would have
> been much better spent on a ROKU.

So return it for your money back and buy a Roku.

R.

--
http://robinbowes.com

shaboyi
2005-06-03, 13:59
give him a pony.

On 6/3/05, Robin Bowes <robin-lists (AT) robinbowes (DOT) com> wrote:
> NHGuy wrote:
> > Jacob,
> > Go up a few messages and read the marketing blurb from their maketing
> > manager talking about how great the realslim plugin works in
> > Squeezebox.
>
> Post a link.
>
> > I'm not a lawyer, nor do I expect to have to parse the the
> > reviews posted on a website to ensure the 100% accuracy of each
> > statement. I do know that the $300 I spent on Squeezebox would have
> > been much better spent on a ROKU.
>
> So return it for your money back and buy a Roku.
>
> R.
>
> --
> http://robinbowes.com
>
>

Robin Bowes
2005-06-03, 13:59
NHGuy wrote:
> The review from Maximum PC is the one that's prominently displayed.

So why did you post a link to the resellers' guide when asked to show
where this claim is "prominently displayed"?

> Since when does a product upgrade mean that functionality is taken
> away?

So, you've *assumed* something that has turned out not to be the case.

Aren't you lucky to have a 30-day satisfaction guarantee so you can
return this awful, useless Squeezebox and get your money back.

R.
--
http://robinbowes.com

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 14:00
> The review from Maximum PC is the one that's prominently displayed.
> Since when does a product upgrade mean that functionality is taken
> away?
>

It sometimes happens.

But aside from that...a 3rd-party plugin is not a "product feature".
SlimDevices cannot be expected to support every 3rd party plugin for all
time.

In my eyes you're the one who's suspect here: you claim you sent 2 emails to
slimdevices but didn't receive any replies. Their genial response on this
mailing list was that they had only received 1 email and that they'd
responded to it promptly. You never denied this which leads me to believe
that their version of the truth is accurate. And I still haven't seen the
"marketing blurb from their marketing manager talking about how great the
realslim plugin works" that you mentioned. What are you trying to get from
SlimDevices? It sounds like you just misunderstood what the product is
capable of. There's no need for any animosity. Just return the unit and
buy something that meets your needs.

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 14:58
Folks,
I do apologize if I appear to whine and have animosity to any individual or group of people. This was not and is not my intent.
What I wanted and thought I was getting, based on what I read on Slim devices website was a device that would stream both protected and unprotected music. I obviously was incorrect.
I do like the the product for what it can do.
What was aggravating to me was the response from the CEO stating, and I paraphrase, that they were working on more interesting things( this is way up at the beginning of this thread). This guy is responsible for the future of this company and the people who work there. Like it or not, the services like Rhapsody are the future for the majority of folks, like myself. These people will NOT buy a squeezebox.
They far outnumber the folks who enjoy programming in opensource, linux, etc. So sooner than later, you'll see a note on fuckedcompany.com about Slimdevices closing it's doors. It's all about business and the money.
I've been making an ass of myself to try to get a response from them stating what their plans actually are. If they have no intention of supporting a means to use squeezebox for streaming Rhapsody or any other DRM service, they should have the stones to put that on the website.
People like me, again the vast majority of the consumers, are looking for an appliance.
I admire your affection for the product and your ability to tailor it to your individual needs, but,like or not you are in the minority and you are too few in number to keep the company afloat unless it changes it's ways.

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 15:21
> I've been making an ass of myself to try to get a response from them
> stating what their plans actually are. If they have no intention of
> supporting a means to use squeezebox for streaming Rhapsody or any
> other DRM service, they should have the stones to put that on the
> website.


I believe that they'd like to support it sometime in the future but can't
commit to it (they're a small company, after all). Seems like they'd be in
worse shape if they publicly said they plan to support it eventually. Then
folks wouldn't quit bugging them asking them when it'll be ready and there'd
be people like yourself up in arms demanding their money back if the support
weren't added in the timeframe they required. So SlimDevices is just quiet
about it and folks who like the product's featureset will buy it. And if
Rhapsody support is added in the future then all the better. I know that in
the time I've had my squeezebox I've had tons of functionality added to what
was already an amazing device--something I can say about few other products
I've ever owned in my lifetime.

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 15:45
Aaron,
I admire the technical achievement and envy the ability of the people who can utilize it's full capabilities and functionality. But it's what it can't do that will put it out of business. The longer they wait to get in bed w/ real networks et al, the fainter their heartbeat will become.

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 16:29
How's your Sony betamax working these days?

Robin Bowes
2005-06-03, 16:32
NHGuy wrote:
#> What was aggravating to me was the response from the CEO stating, and I
> paraphrase, that they were working on more interesting things( this is
> way up at the beginning of this thread).

Sean Adams said:

"This isn't really our position or our goal (see roadmap: http://
wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?SoftwareRoadmap ) . We are working to
support the formats that are feasible and interesting to support, and
that includes DRM formats. Unfortunately, right now the most
interesting ones are not available to license to anyone. If you're
using one of those formats you should really take up the issue with
them - it's not a matter of whether Slim is willing/able."

How you can interpret this as aggravating is beyond me.

> This guy is responsible for
> the future of this company and the people who work there. Like it or
> not, the services like Rhapsody are the future for the majority of
> folks, like myself. These people will NOT buy a squeezebox.
> They far outnumber the folks who enjoy programming in opensource,
> linux, etc. So sooner than later, you'll see a note on
> fuckedcompany.com about Slimdevices closing it's doors. It's all about
> business and the money.
> I've been making an ass of myself to try to get a response from them
> stating what their plans actually are. If they have no intention of
> supporting a means to use squeezebox for streaming Rhapsody or any
> other DRM service, they should have the stones to put that on the
> website.

I'll quote Sean again:

"We are working to support the formats that are feasible and
interesting to support, and that includes DRM formats."

This does not mean that you will get access to the DRM service of your
choice, either now or in the future. It means that Slim Devices are
working to support any format they can.

> People like me, again the vast majority of the consumers, are looking
> for an appliance.
> I admire your affection for the product and your ability to tailor it
> to your individual needs, but,like or not you are in the minority and
> you are too few in number to keep the company afloat unless it changes
> it's ways.

This isn't a policy decision by Slim Devices not to give you just what
you want. If they could do it they would, but it's out of their hands.

The responses you are getting are not fuelled by any cliquey loyalty to
the product - it's just that the rest of us seem to understand the
situation a little more than you, and you can bitch about it all you
like but it won't change anything.

R.
--
http://robinbowes.com

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 16:49
The Sony betamax, (I'm revealing my age now) was a much superior product to the VHS tape, but for whatever reason got completly overtaken by VHS. This is going to happen to Simdevices.
The market will buy ROKU, Pinnacle systems, etc. because it's on the Rhapsody website and has "playforsure" on the packaging.
It will be a shame for the superior product(slimdevice)to go bellyup.
If the CEO would say "we are working our butts off to get compatible because the future of the company is at stake", you wouldn't heard peep out of me.

Christian Pernegger
2005-06-03, 16:50
> give him a pony.

No, but a bloody donkey should do the trick ...

C.

Robin Bowes
2005-06-03, 16:53
NHGuy wrote:
> How's your Sony betamax working these days?

???

The VHS/Betamax issue has no relevance to the issues we're discussing here.

No-one's saying the stuff you want to see is not a good idea and that
"our way" is better.

You appear to have a particular bee in your bonnet and are blinkered to
all other perspectives on the situation.

R.
--
http://robinbowes.com

Christian Pernegger
2005-06-03, 16:57
> I do apologize if I appear to whine and have animosity to any
> individual or group of people. This was not and is not my intent.

> This guy is responsible for the future of this company and the people who work there.
> Like it or not, the services like Rhapsody are the future for the majority of
> folks, like myself.

> [...] you are too few in number to keep the company afloat unless it changes
> it's ways.

>From troll to financial analyst to street preacher in one single post :)

C.

stinkingpig
2005-06-03, 16:58
Christian Pernegger wrote:
>>give him a pony.
>
>
> No, but a bloody donkey should do the trick ...
>
> C.


yeah, this thread is getting as annoying as the forums vs. mailing lists
one.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-03, 17:14
> How's your Sony betamax working these days?

If owning a squeezebox is as dumb as buying a betamax player then what are
you doing wasting your time on this mailing list? Go return that thing!
Get rid of it while you can still get your money back!

You have failed to address any of the very rational questions or arguments
that have been offered to you. You have made several unfounded and suspect
accusations in this thread. Just because you, NHGuy, in your incredible
wisdom and foresight, have declared Slim's business choices to be
ill-advised means very little to this community. People will buy what works
for them and time will tell what wins out. Your feedback as to what you
value in a product is certainly welcome, but you can leave it at that, at
that point you can buy a device or not buy it. SlimDevices has done more
than most in offering a 30-day money back guarantee, responding to their
users, adding features, and in having open-source software that allows for
the easy expansion of the software by its user-base. No need to make
accusations of false advertising when you can't point to a single instance
of it.

The betamax comparison is completely false. Slim has designed the
architecture of their units to be much more flexible and upgradable than any
other networked media player I've seen. Even if slimdevices were to go
under *today* you'd still have this user-base improving the product. As a
comparison, I doubt you can find any networked media player from circa 2001
besides the Slimp3 that is still seeing active development and improvements
on a daily basis. And while we're all looking into our crystal balls, I'll
bet that in a few years your squeezebox will still be relevant and
functional while other similar devices will have become irrelevant. Maybe
you still don't agree with me--that's ok too, no one's twisting your arm and
making you keep your squeezebox.

NHGuy
2005-06-03, 17:31
Aaron,
the two examples I gave were the review from Maximum PC and the PDF document from the marketing manager.
I know I'm just a dumb nontechie, but as I said all I wanted was an appliance, wireless that is.
Yes there is a very loyal base of support and as I said earlier I admire you all for that, but how many squeezeboxes can you buy before your collective garages, basements and attics get full.
I really wish Sean Adams would dive in here and tell me how wrong I am.

matt@ripesensor.net
2005-06-03, 17:55
dear frustrated user,

i'd love to take the squeezebox2 off of your hands. i will give it
loving home where DRM has no meaning. i have no idea what the hell play
for sure is either, so it will be safe with me. you can use the money
on products that are in bed with real networks and are in it for the
money, etc. sounds rad to me, yo.

if the NH in your name is the state, then i'll even pick it up from ya.

take care, and keep in touch. i'd love to know if you can still listen
to your DRMed music in 10 years.

-matt

Danny Rego
2005-06-03, 21:53
Do you feel like Bruce Willis in Harlem at the beginning of Die Hard 3 yet?
Try mentioning Microsoft, or a web forum now. (heehee)

I would like to see some sort of DRM service support. Not because I use it,
but because it's a growing part of life on the net. I believe slim devices
will start introducing support for it...if a year from now they still don't,
it's their loss, and I'm sure people will be forced to move on. I'm
guessing the move to the SB2 was in part to facilitate these kind of
additions though. Time will tell...

Danny Rego


----- Original Message -----
From: "NHGuy" <NHGuy.1q2tcb (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
To: <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:31 PM
Subject: [slim] Re: Play for Sure songs


>
> Aaron,
> the two examples I gave were the review from Maximum PC and the PDF
> document from the marketing manager.
> I know I'm just a dumb nontechie, but as I said all I wanted was an
> appliance, wireless that is.
> Yes there is a very loyal base of support and as I said earlier I
> admire you all for that, but how many squeezeboxes can you buy before
> your collective garages, basements and attics get full.
> I really wish Sean Adams would dive in here and tell me how wrong I am.
>
>
> --
> NHGuy
>

danco
2005-06-04, 00:44
On 3/6/05 at 4:49 pm -0700, NHGuy wrote
>The Sony betamax, (I'm revealing my age now) was a much superior product
>to the VHS tape, but for whatever reason got completly overtaken by VHS.
>This is going to happen to Simdevices.
>The market will buy ROKU, Pinnacle systems, etc. because it's on the
>Rhapsody website and has "playforsure" on the packaging.
>It will be a shame for the superior product(slimdevice)to go bellyup.
>If the CEO would say "we are working our butts off to get compatible
>because the future of the company is at stake", you wouldn't heard peep
>out of me.

Mac and Linux are minority offerings, but they haven't been pushed
out of the market, and I doubt if they ever will.

If all one wants is to play MP3s on a Windows machine, which may well
be the majority need, I suspect that some of the other devices are
more suitable than the Squeezebox. But Rhapsody, PlayforSure, etc.,
aren't, as far as I am aware, even available on Mac OS or Linux, so
they aren't relevant to a good number of people.

Is Roku really a big company? Can they afford so much more
advertising than Slimdevices? I know it annoys me to see so many ads
(and mentions by dealers) for Roku in the Mac magazines.

--
Daniel Cohen

NHGuy
2005-06-04, 05:28
Daniel,
When it's the first device listed on the Rhapsody website w/ a "buy it now" link and new reviews are using adjectives like "premiere" how much advertising do you need?
By the way, for all you squeezebox loyalists, make me an offer for mine.

danco
2005-06-04, 06:00
On 4/6/05 at 5:28 am -0700, NHGuy wrote
>Daniel,
>When it's the first device listed on the Rhapsody website w/ a "buy it
>now" link and new reviews are using adjectives like "premiere" how much
>advertising do you need?

And you think Roku are not paying for this? Maybe I'm just more
cynical than you.
--
Daniel Cohen

danco
2005-06-04, 06:00
On 4/6/05 at 5:28 am -0700, NHGuy wrote
>Daniel,
>When it's the first device listed on the Rhapsody website w/ a "buy it
>now" link and new reviews are using adjectives like "premiere" how much
>advertising do you need?

And you think Roku are not paying for this? Maybe I'm just more
cynical than you.
--
Daniel Cohen

Christian Pernegger
2005-06-04, 06:40
> When it's the first device listed on the Rhapsody website w/ a "buy it
> now" link [...] how much advertising do you need?

Not here: http://www.listen.com/devices/homeaudio.html

What are you talking about?

C.

kdf
2005-06-04, 06:55
Quoting NHGuy <NHGuy.1q3qfz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> By the way, for all you squeezebox loyalists, make me an offer for
> mine.

do you offer a return policy?

NHGuy
2005-06-04, 07:39
Its the long cigar shaped thing that says Roku soundbridge



> When it's the first device listed on the Rhapsody website w/ a "buy it
> now" link [...] how much advertising do you need?

Not here: http://www.listen.com/devices/homeaudio.html

What are you talking about?

C.

NHGuy
2005-06-04, 07:42
No I don't. Unfortunately I'm past the 30 day period and obviously a philistine who doesn't deserve to own a squeezebox. Do you think Sean will make an exception in my case?




Quoting NHGuy <NHGuy.1q3qfz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> By the way, for all you squeezebox loyalists, make me an offer for
> mine.

do you offer a return policy?

Marc Sherman
2005-06-04, 08:31
NHGuy wrote:
>
> I really wish Sean Adams would dive in here and tell me how wrong I
> am.

Why on earth should he? You're neither a shareholder nor a paid
consultant, so I fail to understand why you'd expect to be included in
any discussions of Slim Devices' business plans. Just because the code
is open source doesn't mean that the company is.

I really feel for people who start companies around open-source
codebases having to put up with crap like this.

- Marc

Aaron Zinck
2005-06-04, 08:32
> No I don't. Unfortunstly I'm past the 30 day period. Do you think Sean
> will make an exception in my case?


I've found SlimDevices to be a very accomodating company, so perhaps they
will take it back. But why should they? You had *30 days* to figure out
that this wasn't the unit for you. I'm not going to take my chest freezer
back to Maytag after 2 months and tell them "you know, what I really wanted
was a refrigerator, would you take this back?"

Marc Sherman
2005-06-04, 08:37
Aaron Zinck wrote:
>
> I've found SlimDevices to be a very accomodating company, so perhaps they
> will take it back. But why should they? You had *30 days* to figure out
> that this wasn't the unit for you. I'm not going to take my chest freezer
> back to Maytag after 2 months and tell them "you know, what I really wanted
> was a refrigerator, would you take this back?"

B-b-but you advertised that an older model of this chest freezer had 3rd
party support for temperature adjustment! Who ever heard of a new chest
freezer having fewer features than an older one did!?

- Marc

markmun
2005-06-04, 09:08
Well...I just picked up one of the those Roku's. I do miss some of the those great plugins on the Squeezebox. I also find the UI more intuitive on the Squeezebox. And the Roku remote is poor.

That being said, I am sticking with the Roku and the Squeezebox is going on Ebay. Why? It's all about the music. I have downloaded about 100 CDs from Yahoo and can now play those 1000 or so songs on my stereo as well as transfer then to my Zen. I love exploring new music and right now I can't get that music from my PC to my Stereo with the Squeezebox (kind of a serious problem for a streaming device).

Mark

Robin Bowes
2005-06-04, 10:24
NHGuy wrote:

> By the way, for all you squeezebox loyalists, make me an offer for
> mine.

Which model have you got (case colour, wired/wireless?) and where are you ?

R.

--
http://robinbowes.com

NHGuy
2005-06-04, 10:31
It's an SB2
color is black
mode is wireless
I live in NH

NHGuy
2005-06-04, 10:34
I'm sure they are paying, but look at the incremental sales they're getting, and Slim devices is losing.


On 4/6/05 at 5:28 am -0700, NHGuy wrote
>Daniel,
>When it's the first device listed on the Rhapsody website w/ a "buy it
>now" link and new reviews are using adjectives like "premiere" how much
>advertising do you need?

And you think Roku are not paying for this? Maybe I'm just more
cynical than you.
--
Daniel Cohen

Steve Burling
2005-06-04, 12:25
--On June 4, 2005 7:42:22 AM -0700 NHGuy
<NHGuy.1q3woz (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

> No I don't. Unfortunstly I'm past the 30 day period. Do you think Sean
> will make an exception in my case?

To which I reply:

Gee, I hope not. As any parent knows, you don't reward whining.

--
Steve Burling <mailto:srb (AT) umich (DOT) edu>
University of Michigan, ICPSR Voice: +1 734 615.3779
330 Packard Street FAX: +1 734 647.8700
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2910

Jim
2005-06-04, 16:23
No I don't. Unfortunately I'm past the 30 day period and obviously a philistine who doesn't deserve to own a squeezebox. Do you think Sean will make an exception in my case?

I think especially for you, to stop you whining Slim should make you an offer you can't refuse. How about a upgrade for example? http://www.slimdevices.com/au_press_dorku.html

You'd be happy with that wouldn't you? :p

NHGuy
2005-06-04, 17:09
Somebody with a sense of humor!!

kdf
2005-06-04, 17:09
Quoting NHGuy <NHGuy.1q44kc (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> I'm sure they are paying, but look at the incremental sales they're
> getting, and Slim devices is losing.

oh, do you have marketing/sales data that the rest of us don't know about?
or are you just continuing to prove yourself the arse we all thing you are?

NHGuy
2005-06-04, 17:57
Getting a little testy, aren't we? Something tells me actual vs forecasted sales isn't a pleasant topic in Slim Device land.

stinkingpig
2005-06-04, 19:57
NHGuy wrote:
> Getting a little testy, aren't we? Something tells me actual vs
> forecasted sales isn't a pleasant topic in Slim Device land.
>
>

kdf is not a Slim Devices employee and has no access to that
information. He's just annoyed because you're being annoying. Cause,
effect. Sort of like rain leading to wet. You've made your point, all
you're doing by continuing this discussion is creating animosity against
yourself. If that's what you want, you should change your handle to
TROLL. If that's not what you want, please drop this thread and go do
something constructive.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

Jim
2005-06-04, 23:21
Getting a little testy, aren't we? Something tells me actual vs forecasted sales isn't a pleasant topic in Slim Device land.

Get back to your own forum. You know the one that has a laughable thread I saw today where people had to wait for 4 months for a fix because their stereo channels kept swapping around and the engineers kept telling them "It's coming....it's coming"....for 4 months !!!

Now if Slim treated me like that I'd demand my money back or sue them. But of course they wouldn't because some people here in the Open Source community actually write code themselves and would have fixed things in a day.

But if you've got the sort of loyalty to a crappy product to let them take 4 months to fix an error, I hate to think how many months your loyalty to that crap is going to keep you in these forums trolling us.

Can we somehow attach this guy to the SlimServer GPL licence and maybe they'll just take him off our hands? ;)

kdf
2005-06-05, 06:46
NHGuy wrote:
> Getting a little testy, aren't we?

at least I have testies.

at least I'm here to actually help people with their questions. what is your
excuse at this point?

-kdf
ps...before you try to tell me I am not allowed to speak my mind, I am not
employed by Slim Devices.

NHGuy
2005-06-05, 09:43
I'm done speaking mine. There are enough posts on this and other threads in the forum that indicate I'm not the only "whiner" about the lack of functionality, perhaps just a bit more thorny.

Mike in IL
2005-06-13, 15:35
I think we need to clarify just a bit on the Yahoo Service Launchcast; The subscription service allows you to download the DRM protected music that will only work if you keep your subscription, but along with the subscription service you can listen to their Internet Streaming music stations called Launchcast Radio Plus. I do not see how the Launchcast Radio Plus is any different than shoutcast, 365 that have subscription services and free streams. Sounds like a great opportunity for a third party developer to write a plugin!!

GreenMan
2005-09-26, 20:09
I see a lot of tit for tat in this forum, but in the 14 pages or so I've lost a crucial piece of information: what subscriptions other than live365 are supported through Slimserver plugins?

radish
2005-09-27, 06:34
The ones I know of are RadioIO, live365 and lastfm. There may be others.

eq72521
2005-09-27, 08:32
>People value quality, and the technology
to provide consumers with higher and higher sound-quality only continues to
improve. There is still plenty of economic incentive to provide high
sound-quality.

Unfortunately, my experience causes me to disagree with this. I have a number of friends that are really into music, but somehow are unable to hear anything wrong with 64kbps WMA. Yes, 64. They burn me CDs of stuff to listen to that has been ripped and burned with WMP, and I have to just throw them away. I cringe when I go to their houses or ride in their cars and listen to music, because at this point they've ripped everything in that format. It sounds awful to me and I imagine most people here, but somehow it's OK to them, even on music that they have known and loved for years. They don't have a chance at hearing the difference for new music with which they are not already familiar. I do intend to set up some listening tests for them, but they're just a few people. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of music listeners out there are more like my friends than they are like the people on these forums. The industry has tricked the great masses into accepting marginal quality rips as "CD quality", and we're all worse off for it.

I do believe that eventually these "celestial jukebox" services (which I also look forward to) will eventually move to better quality (hopefully lossless) encodings, but I think it will be later rather than sooner, because of this chicanery that has gone on in the last eight years.

stinkingpig
2005-09-27, 20:57
eq72521 wrote:
> Aaron Zinck Wrote:
>
>>>People value quality, and the technology
>>
>>to provide consumers with higher and higher sound-quality only
>>continues to
>>improve. There is still plenty of economic incentive to provide high
>>sound-quality.
>
>
> Unfortunately, my experience causes me to disagree with this. I have a
> number of friends that are really into music, but somehow are unable to
> hear anything wrong with 64kbps WMA. Yes, 64. They burn me CDs of
> stuff to listen to that has been ripped and burned with WMP, and I have
> to just throw them away. I cringe when I go to their houses or ride in
....

To be fair, this one may not be a case of the evil corporations gulling
the impressionable consumer... a lot of us have blown our hearing out
with years of live music, headphones, &c. Spend a few evenings pogo-ing
in front of a stack of amps turned up so loud that you have trouble
breathing through the sympathetic vibration and 64 kbps WMA will
probably sound good to you too :)

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
"If this is Paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." -- The Talking Heads

eq72521
2005-09-28, 09:03
eq72521 wrote:
> Aaron Zinck Wrote:
>
>>>People value quality, and the technology
>>
>>to provide consumers with higher and higher sound-quality only
>>continues to
>>improve. There is still plenty of economic incentive to provide high
>>sound-quality.
>
>
> Unfortunately, my experience causes me to disagree with this. I have a
> number of friends that are really into music, but somehow are unable to
> hear anything wrong with 64kbps WMA. Yes, 64. They burn me CDs of
> stuff to listen to that has been ripped and burned with WMP, and I have
> to just throw them away. I cringe when I go to their houses or ride in
....

To be fair, this one may not be a case of the evil corporations gulling
the impressionable consumer... a lot of us have blown our hearing out
with years of live music, headphones, &c. Spend a few evenings pogo-ing
in front of a stack of amps turned up so loud that you have trouble
breathing through the sympathetic vibration and 64 kbps WMA will
probably sound good to you too :)

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
"If this is Paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." -- The Talking Heads

Agreed. Actually, shortly after posting yesterday I thought about this and meant to follow-up post and rescind the malignance I was implicitely attributing to the industry. If anything, there is an implicit malignance in the system as a whole, of which we are all a part. "We are all a part of the malaise", as Bono once said. Although I know better now, I have certainly made my share of bad encodings. Hopefully my current round of CD ripping will be my last.

I also unfortunately have to agree about hearing issues. Thinking back, it seems like I took fairly good care of my ears. I can count on both hands the number of concerts to which I've been; for most of the loud shows, I wore earplugs (Loreena McKennitt, Chicago Theater '98 is an example of not loud enough to warrant protection). I don't use headphones much. My working environment (computers) is certainly not amongst the loudest. Despite all this, I have of late noticed an increasingly bad case of permanant tinnitus, about which I am not happy at all. I fear for my future ability to enjoy music. Even with the constant ringing though, I cringe at the sound of WMA; I must have it pretty good.

MrC
2005-09-28, 09:34
Agreed. Actually, shortly after posting yesterday I thought about this and meant to follow-up post and rescind the malignance I was implicitely attributing to the industry. If anything, there is an implicit malignance in the system as a whole, of which we are all a part.

There is a very strong tendency for humans to believe that "all other humans are just like me". Each person perceives the world in very different ways, and each person places and gains enormously different values on/from various experiences in life. In this music case, many simply enjoy that basic structure of a song (its melody, beat, lyrics), while others desire to hear every instrument in perfect pitch and clarity (and perhaps don't know or care about the lyrics).

It is a mistake to think that if others were simply enlightened, they would change their views and see the light, so to speak. This leads to the "let me show you the *right* way to live" syndrome, and the corollary to that, and message received by others, is "you don't know how to live correctly".

Any entity focusing their efforts on mass appeal will provide only what the masses require, and typically no more. Those on the fringe (ie. all those not considering themselves part of the masses) need to find alternate means to satisfy their requirements. Trying to change the masses regarding things they don't care about is futile and, frankly, more selfish than selfless.