PDA

View Full Version : More reasons to love DRM



tyler_durden
2008-04-22, 22:19
and M$.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080422-drm-sucks-redux-microsoft-to-nuke-msn-music-drm-keys.html

First Apple did it, now M$.

When will people ever learn?

TD

SuperQ
2008-04-22, 23:22
This is why I prefer my bits on stone tablets.

I'm glad this stuff is happening. The more files go un-playable because of DRM things like this, the more consumers will think twice before spending money on content they may not be able to keep using.

Google did this too with videos.. although Google had the decency to give everyone their money back, doubled.

ralphpnj
2008-04-23, 00:39
and M$.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080422-drm-sucks-redux-microsoft-to-nuke-msn-music-drm-keys.html

First Apple did it, now M$.

When will people ever learn?

TD

It's the record companies that need to "learn" so that the people don't get "burned".

pippin
2008-04-23, 01:40
and M$.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080422-drm-sucks-redux-microsoft-to-nuke-msn-music-drm-keys.html

First Apple did it, now M$.

When will people ever learn?

TD

When people stop buying the shit...

Fred
2008-04-23, 08:05
First Apple did it, now M$.

What did Apple do of a similar vein ? AFAIK iTunes stuff never stopped working ?

Fred, curious

pippin
2008-04-23, 10:03
What did Apple do of a similar vein ? AFAIK iTunes stuff never stopped working ?

Fred, curious

Got to pay $0.39 per song to get your old purchases converted into DRM free version when songs become available as "+" songs now. Even though they cost the same today.

tyler_durden
2008-04-23, 12:39
A few years ago Apple decided to reduce the number of devices on which people could play their music and unilaterally made the change without prior notification.

When you buy proprietary stuff, you are at the mercy of the seller. They can modify the terms of the purchase contract at any time (read the contract- it's in there!). That means they can change the number and/or types of devices the files can be played on, or they can even turn them off completely by no longer providing access to keys to unlock files (as was done by MLB).

As long as people are dumb enough to pay money for this sort of crap, companies will sell it.

As for Apple- they have a "lossless" compression format that is proprietary. Why would they develop their own when open source compression formats exist? Because they want control. If the format is proprietary you don't know what else they put in there. Maybe ability to gather stats, maybe an ability to turn files on and off. Who knows... Why trust them?

One thing everyone should know about every company that exists is that they are NOT there to serve their customer's interests. They are there to serve the interests of the shareholders and the only thing that matters is money. No matter what PR a company puts out about not being evil, don't trust them. They exist to separate you from your money and in some cases, they will stop at nothing to do so.

TD

bwaldron
2008-04-23, 13:24
One thing everyone should know about every company that exists is that they are NOT there to serve their customer's interests. They are there to serve the interests of the shareholders and the only thing that matters is money.

I'm actually fine with that -- although ultimately a company that fails to serve its customers won't thrive.

Problem is that people buy this DRM'd crap, many not thinking about the implications or even really knowing what they're doing. But things are slowly changing (cf. Amazon's mp3 store).

Of course Amazon is looking to imitate Apple in the ebook arena with its Kindle and its DRM'd eBooks.

The optimist in me believes that such customer-unfriendly moves will ultimately fail. My pessimistic side is not as sure.

Timothy Stockman
2008-04-23, 13:47
The problem with Apple iTunes: the latest version does not install on W2000. It's likely I'll never use a version past W2000; I've been moving to Ubuntu linux! In reality, Micro$oft DEPENDS on the fact that they can use incompatibility to FORCE you to upgrade, so they are definitely full of it when they do something like stop supporting DRM servers and tell you that you have to authorize a computer "forever".

SuperQ
2008-04-24, 00:01
Re: ALAC

The other one I heard (from a reputable portable mp3 player developer at empeg/rio) was that ALAC has a lower decoding overhead which would allow it to be played back on the low powered CPU in the iPod. Where as the RIO Karma had the next level up in CPU, which had enough power to decode FLAC.

Also, Apple suffers badly from Not Invented Here syndrome.

pippin
2008-04-24, 00:11
Wouldn't exactly call it "suffering" ;-)

peter
2008-04-24, 00:22
Eric Seaberg wrote:
> tyler_durden;294822 Wrote:
>
>> As for Apple- they have a "lossless" compression format that is
>> proprietary. Why would they develop their own when open source
>> compression formats exist? Because they want control.
>>
>
> This isn't totally accurate... Apple's lossless CODEC was co-authored
> with Dolby Labs and others, and is capable of carrying up to 8-channels
> of interleved audio. I don't think FLAC can do that.
>

Don't think, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac#Technical_details

FLAC allows for Rice parameter between 0-16, and up to 8 channels of
audio and a wide range of sampling rates up to 192 kHz, in various
bits-per-sample width.

> I do use FLAC for some things, but ALAC handles 95% of my music rips
> because I know that, even though it may be 'proprietary', it will
> ALWAYS work and be backwards compatible.
>
> BTW, I was at the NAB Convention in Las Vegas last week and walked by
> the Fraunhofer booth. They have come up with a lossless AAC CODEC,
> capable of carrying 6-channels of audio at a data rate of 192kbps.
>

6 channels lossLESS @192 kbps?
Call me a sceptic, but are you sure you read that correctly?

Regards,
Peter

Ben Sandee
2008-04-24, 08:09
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Eric Seaberg <
Eric.Seaberg.38dkmz1209046502 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> peter;294975 Wrote:
> >
> >
> > 6 channels lossLESS @192 kbps?
> > Call me a sceptic, but are you sure you read that correctly?
> >
> >
>
> You didn't read my entire post... the next line said:


Anyone reading your post over the mailing list never saw your edit. Better
to reply to yourself in the future.

Ben

Richie
2008-04-24, 09:24
On 24/04/2008, Eric Seaberg
<Eric.Seaberg.38dkmz1209046502 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> peter;294975 Wrote:
> >
> >
> > 6 channels lossLESS @192 kbps?
> > Call me a sceptic, but are you sure you read that correctly?
> >
> >
>
>
> You didn't read my entire post... the next line said:
> > __________________ E D I T ____________________
> >
> > Sorry guys I was incorrect!! The new AAC Codec is called HD AAC and is
> > only capable of 2-channels, but still lossless @ 192kbps.
>
> Still, lossless 2-channel at 192kbps. They call it HD AAC.
>

I'd still ask the question, did you read it correctly?

I've found this pdf:

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/fhg/Images/HD_AAC_200707low_tcm278-84155.pdf

which mentions support for sampling rates up to 192kHz but I can't
find any reference to a bit rate of 192kbps for lossless.

This is a quote from the pdf:

"At the latter stage HDAAC achieves an average compression ratio of
about 50 percent (2:1), comparable to those of current pure lossless
audio codecs."

Richard

ralphpnj
2008-04-24, 09:48
Regarding HD AAC:

The way I understand the explanation given on a few of the web sites with information about HD AAC is that it compresses an audio file into two parts - one part is a lossy and that is the one that is at 192kbps plus this bit rate is variable and can adjusted "on the fly"; the other part is the lossless part and that compresses the file by about 50%.

So if I'm understanding things correctly it would appear that an HD AAC file would be larger than a FLAC file of the same WAV file since it is really two files (a lossless and a lossy file). However, I could be wrong and therefore I appeal to someone with a better understanding of the technical aspects of this issue to review the material and give us wanna be techies a clear and (hopefully) accurate explanation of the HD AAC codec. Thanks in advance!

tyler_durden
2008-04-24, 13:06
I do use FLAC for some things, but ALAC handles 95% of my music rips because I know that, even though it may be 'proprietary', it will ALWAYS work and be backwards compatible.

You see, this is exactly my point. How do you know it will ALWAYS be backward compatible? You don't know what's in there besides the compression. Those poor slobs who bought DRM'd video of baseball games were sure they would ALWAYS be able to watch that video. The people who bought the DRM'd music from M$ were sure it would ALWAYS play for them. Look at them now.

Good luck to you. You're going to need it!

TD

Timothy Stockman
2008-04-24, 14:22
up to 8-channels of interleved audio. I don't think FLAC can do that.
I've only used FLAC for 1 and 2 channel applications so far, but it claims to handle up to 8 channels. I'll be interested if I pick up the Classic Records "Everest" 35 mm mastered 3.0 Bert Whyte recordings. Not sure which player is best for multi-channel FLAC.

I have used FLAC at sample rates of 44.1, 48, 96 and 192 KHz. The only problem I've encountered so far is that it can't calculate ReplayGain above 48 KHz. My work-around is encoding a down-sampled copy at 48 KHz and copying the ReplayGain tags to the 96 or 192 KHz original.

Phil Leigh
2008-04-24, 14:23
There's not any DRM applied... what are you talking about?

I'm certainly trusting Dolby and Apple's other partners in this.

Eric - I respect your posts/views...but how can you be so confident?

tyler_durden
2008-04-24, 21:49
I admire your ability to remain faithful in spite of evidence that indicates to do so is foolish. You remind me a lot of W.

You don't have to have DRM in the files. Just in the codec. Quicktime and/or Itunes are on almost every PC and Mac in existence. Both of them talk to Apple corp.

Let's say Apple gets a letter from the RIAA that says Apple will soon be named in a suit because the RIAA has evidence that Apple's lossless compression codec has been used to pirate billions of dollars worth of music. Let's say then that Apple decides to cave-in and flip the switch in Itunes and Quicktime that will look for Apple lossless codec compressed files on computers and render them unplayable.

Sure it is far-fetched and seems unlikely, but so are all the other scenarios that have resulted in people losing access to music/video they have paid for under the assumption that the M$, Apple, MLB, etc., will take care of them.

You have very strong faith in a system that sees you only as a source of money and doesn't care about you. Up until now you and others like you have been viewed as a source of income. The minute that changes, either due to threat of law suits, changes in tax law, etc., they will drop you all in trash without blinking an eye.

TD

tyler_durden
2008-04-24, 22:59
And there were lots of WMD in Iraq, too! W said so, so it MUST be true.

TD

peter
2008-04-25, 00:20
tyler_durden wrote:
> You don't have to have DRM in the files. Just in the codec. Quicktime
> and/or Itunes are on almost every PC and Mac in existence. Both of
> them talk to Apple corp.
>
> Let's say Apple gets a letter from the RIAA that says Apple will soon
> be named in a suit because the RIAA has evidence that Apple's lossless
> compression codec has been used to pirate billions of dollars worth of
> music. Let's say then that Apple decides to cave-in and flip the
> switch in Itunes and Quicktime that will look for Apple lossless codec
> compressed files on computers and render them unplayable.
>
> Sure it is far-fetched and seems unlikely, but so are all the other
> scenarios that have resulted in people losing access to music/video
> they have paid for under the assumption that the M$, Apple, MLB, etc.,
> will take care of them.
>
> You have very strong faith in a system that sees you only as a source
> of money and doesn't care about you. Up until now you and others like
> you have been viewed as a source of income. The minute that changes,
> either due to threat of law suits, changes in tax law, etc., they will
> drop you all in trash without blinking an eye.
>

There's no DRM in ALAC files. There are open source ALAC decoders (like
the one Squeezebox uses) that can be used to convert ALAC back to WAV
and then WAV back to FLAC. All conversions are lossless so you lose
nothing. With lossy codecs you're more or less trapped because any
conversion makes you lose quality.

Regards,
Peter

peter
2008-04-25, 00:24
Eric Seaberg wrote:
> tyler_durden;295330 Wrote:
>
>> I admire your ability to remain faithful in spite of evidence that
>> indicates to do so is foolish. You remind me a lot of W.
>>
>
> WOW!! Thanks for waking me up before I fell into some hellish Apple
> trap! I'm sure I'll be much safer in the arms of Microsoft, et al.....
>

No, silly boy. You Apple-heads should realize that Apple is just as bad
as MS, they just have a smaller market share. Use open formats like MP3,
OGG and FLAC instead and free you music.

Why the *** should every company reinvent the wheel and start pushing
their own formats? Why not just use what everyone else uses? Open
standards are what the web's built on. Open standards *not* defined by
Apple or Microsoft, if they have their way they hide everything from the
competition.

Regards,
Peter

peter
2008-04-25, 00:29
Oops, sorry 'bout the silly boy stuff, I guess I got carried away ;)

Regards,
Peter

egd
2008-04-25, 00:41
The problem with Apple iTunes: the latest version does not install on W2000. It's likely I'll never use a version past W2000; I've been moving to Ubuntu linux! Ubuntu 8.04 was released yesterday, anyone looking for a painless transition should seriously consider it. I've now reached a point with Linux that I cannot see any reason to use any flavour of Windows as a desktop or server OS (unless of course you're a sucker for punishment) - it's been relegated to a VMWare session that only gets fired up when I want to work with mp3tag.

tyler_durden
2008-04-25, 07:01
tyler_durden wrote:[color=blue]
There's no DRM in ALAC files. There are open source ALAC decoders (like
the one Squeezebox uses) that can be used to convert ALAC back to WAV
and then WAV back to FLAC. All conversions are lossless so you lose
nothing. With lossy codecs you're more or less trapped because any
conversion makes you lose quality.

There may be open source decoders, but that only means someone has figured out how to extract the audio from the files. It doesn't tell you what Apple has put into them. I may be paranoid but my experience and the experience of others convinces me that it is better to be a little paranoid than to trust corporations to take care of you.

TD

bobkoure
2008-04-25, 07:52
IMHO, MS turning off those servers is a *good* thing.
It will help "educate" folks about what's wrong with DRM.

Of course, it's possible that MS is being Machiavellian(1) and trying to persuade folks who currently own (or at least think they own as MS's legal dept would disagree) Windows/Office that, "well, they can turn it off anyway, why not just get the subscription version...?" - but I'm likely over-analyzing

(1) I mean Machiavellian in the generally accepted sense; Machiavelli got a bum rap for The Prince which was a reaction to the French conquest of the Italian states and not his usual tone at all...

peter
2008-04-25, 08:54
tyler_durden wrote:
> peter;295375 Wrote:
>
>> tyler_durden wrote:[color=blue]
>> There's no DRM in ALAC files. There are open source ALAC decoders (like
>>
>> the one Squeezebox uses) that can be used to convert ALAC back to WAV
>> and then WAV back to FLAC. All conversions are lossless so you lose
>> nothing. With lossy codecs you're more or less trapped because any
>> conversion makes you lose quality.
>>
>
> There may be open source decoders, but that only means someone has
> figured out how to extract the audio from the files. It doesn't tell
> you what Apple has put into them. I may be paranoid but my experience
> and the experience of others convinces me that it is better to be a
> little paranoid than to trust corporations to take care of you.
>

If you have a file and an open source decoder today there is no way that
Apple, MS or the KGB or the Illuminati can ever remotely change things
so that that decoder can no longer decode the file, short of breaking
into your system and deleting your stuff. That's the advantage of open
source. You're being a little too paranoid here. ;)

Regards,
Peter

tyler_durden
2008-04-25, 12:16
If you have a file and an open source decoder today there is no way that
Apple, MS or the KGB or the Illuminati can ever remotely change things
so that that decoder can no longer decode the file, short of breaking
into your system and deleting your stuff. That's the advantage of open
source. You're being a little too paranoid here. ;)

You and I know where to find and how to use such a decoder, but the vast majority do not. File access in windoze is anything but secure and changing a checksum or a bit in the file would render it useless for almost everyone.

The point of all this is, why take a chance and trust companies when there is no need to do so?

TD

Josh Coalson
2008-04-29, 19:22
Eric Seaberg wrote:
> tyler_durden;294822 Wrote:
>
>> As for Apple- they have a "lossless" compression format that is
>> proprietary. Why would they develop their own when open source
>> compression formats exist? Because they want control.
>>
>
> This isn't totally accurate... Apple's lossless CODEC was co-authored
> with Dolby Labs and others, and is capable of carrying up to 8-channels
> of interleved audio. I don't think FLAC can do that.
>

Don't think, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac#Technical_details

FLAC allows for Rice parameter between 0-16, and up to 8 channels of
audio and a wide range of sampling rates up to 192 kHz, in various
bits-per-sample width.more correctly, FLAC supports up to 8 chanels and sample rates over 600kHz. FLAC in some other container like Ogg can support more than 8 channels but nobody has needed that.


The other one I heard (from a reputable portable mp3 player developer at empeg/rio) was that ALAC has a lower decoding overhead which would allow it to be played back on the low powered CPU in the iPod. Where as the RIO Karma had the next level up in CPU, which had enough power to decode FLAC.that is worse than just false, it's backwards, but this rumor will probably never die. FLAC decoding has lower complexity than ALAC and was running on ipods since the beginning of 2005 if not earlier.

peter
2008-04-30, 11:48
Josh Coalson wrote:
> peter;294975 Wrote:
>
>> Eric Seaberg wrote:
>>
>>> tyler_durden;294822 Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As for Apple- they have a "lossless" compression format that is
>>>> proprietary. Why would they develop their own when open source
>>>> compression formats exist? Because they want control.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This isn't totally accurate... Apple's lossless CODEC was
>>>
>> co-authored
>>
>>> with Dolby Labs and others, and is capable of carrying up to
>>>
>> 8-channels
>>
>>> of interleved audio. I don't think FLAC can do that.
>>>
>>>
>> Don't think, check:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac#Technical_details
>>
>> FLAC allows for Rice parameter between 0-16, and up to 8 channels of
>> audio and a wide range of sampling rates up to 192 kHz, in various
>> bits-per-sample width.more correctly, FLAC supports up to 8 chanels and sample rates over
>>
> 600kHz. FLAC in some other container like Ogg can support more than 8
> channels but nobody has needed that.
>
> SuperQ;294970 Wrote:
>
>> The other one I heard (from a reputable portable mp3 player developer at
>> empeg/rio) was that ALAC has a lower decoding overhead which would allow
>> it to be played back on the low powered CPU in the iPod. Where as the
>> RIO Karma had the next level up in CPU, which had enough power to
>> decode FLAC.that is worse than just false, it's backwards, but this rumor will
>>
> probably never die. FLAC decoding has lower complexity than ALAC and
> was running on ipods since the beginning of 2005 if not earlier.

True. I have an iRiver H140 that I bought in early 2004. It plays FLAC
files without problems with the free Rockbox firmware, so it can't be
that hard. Truth is, Apple doesn't like open standards, just like MS.
They only put mp3 support on the iPod because nobody would've bought one
otherwise.

Regards,
Peter