Yahoo switches off the DRM servers
Ian McCall
Does
continue to make me nervous about iTunes. I still have some music DRM'd
from there, but I try hard to avoid it and if getting an album I'll buy
a CD for ripping if it's not available on iTunes+. I will never buy a
film from iTunes for the same reason, though I will rent as I don't see
a problem there.
Not good though. At least with iTunes there's the CD-burn workaround,
though with some associated transcoding quality loss.
Cheers,
Ian
Gary
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/9To5Mac-MacAllDay/~3/345585153/yahoo_d...>
>
> Does
>
> continue to make me nervous about iTunes. I still have some music DRM'd
> from there, but I try hard to avoid it and if getting an album I'll buy
> a CD for ripping if it's not available on iTunes+. I will never buy a
> film from iTunes for the same reason, though I will rent as I don't see
> a problem there.
>
> Not good though. At least with iTunes there's the CD-burn workaround,
> though with some associated transcoding quality loss.
>
> Cheers,
> Ian
You don't get any quality loss when burning a CD from your iTMS
purchases.
Ian McCall
> On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
>> ...At least with iTunes there's the CD-burn workaround,
>> though with some associated transcoding quality loss.
>>
>
> You don't get any quality loss when burning a CD from your iTMS
> purchases.
Yes, you do. By necessity. You're transcoding from one format to
another - it's not possible to be bit for bit. Also, should you then
re-encode to be DRM free AAC or MP3 or whatever, you will magnify those
errors and lose quality there too - that's in addition to the quality
you would have lost by going to a lossy format anyway.
Cheers,
Ian
Richard Tobin
Gary <gary....@gmail.com> wrote:
>You don't get any quality loss when burning a CD from your iTMS
>purchases.
Probably not, but if you then re-encode it as, say, MP3 you will.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Woody
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
You can avoid loss by going DRM -> CD -> Apple Lossless. You should
end up with exactly the same digital waveform as the original DRM file
outputs.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I went to a planet where the dominant lifeform had no bilateral symmetry,
and all I got was this stupid F-Shirt." -- Eric Pivnik
Woody
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:30:30 +0100, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
> >Gary <gary....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote: >
> >> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/9To5Mac-MacAllDay/~3/345585153/yahoo_d.
> >> ..> > > Does >
> >> > continue to make me nervous about iTunes. I still have some music DRM'd
> >> > from there, but I try hard to avoid it and if getting an album I'll buy
> >> > a CD for ripping if it's not available on iTunes+. I will never buy a
> >> > film from iTunes for the same reason, though I will rent as I don't see
> >> > a problem there.
> >> >
> >> > Not good though. At least with iTunes there's the CD-burn workaround,
> >> > though with some associated transcoding quality loss.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Ian
> >>
> >> You don't get any quality loss when burning a CD from your iTMS
> >> purchases.
> >
> >You do if you want to get it back into your iTunes folder.
>
> You can avoid loss by going DRM -> CD -> Apple Lossless. You should
> end up with exactly the same digital waveform as the original DRM file
> outputs.
Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
all the disadvantages of lossless.
A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
underneath unmollested.
Or not buy DRM in the first place.
--
Woody
Ian Robinson
(in article <1ikn2l1.ijjywwp9xqvmN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
> Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
> all the disadvantages of lossless.
>
> A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> underneath unmollested.
>
> Or not buy DRM in the first place.
Isn't life too short to worry about stuff like this?
Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<ju...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:52:45 +0100, Woody wrote
>(in article <1ikn2l1.ijjywwp9xqvmN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
>> Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
>> all the disadvantages of lossless.
>>
>> A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
>> underneath unmollested.
>>
>> Or not buy DRM in the first place.
>
>Isn't life too short to worry about stuff like this?
By the looks of things, life is instead long enough for the DRM fad to
be beginning to burn out as pointless.
It still sucks to be someone who bought Yahoo encrypted tunes though.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Once I drove so fast that my friend, who was pregnant, started having
Lorentz contractions.
"Ahah," you might ask, "but how far apart were they?" - Adam Fineman, rgrn
Ian McCall
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:52:45 +0100, Woody wrote
> (in article <1ikn2l1.ijjywwp9xqvmN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
>> Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
>> all the disadvantages of lossless.
>>
>> A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
>> underneath unmollested.
>>
>> Or not buy DRM in the first place.
>
> Isn't life too short to worry about stuff like this?
No - quite the reverse. My > 20 year old CDs are fine. In fact, should
I be troubled to buy a record player again, my vinyl LPs would be fine.
Even my 20 year old games are fine (yes, I have original C64 floppy
disks that work no problem). This DRM'd nonsense though - dead in a
short period of years.
Have really gone off things because of that. DRM drastically reduces my
interest in things these days - as I say, rented films are fine.
Purchased ones not, DRM'd music high on the avoidance list. Who knows
whether iTunes will exist in 2028, or still sit here chucking out its
licenses?
Cheers,
Ian
zoara
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:59:41 +0100, Ian Robinson
> <ju...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:52:45 +0100, Woody wrote
> >(in article <1ikn2l1.ijjywwp9xqvmN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
> >
> >> Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
> >> all the disadvantages of lossless.
> >>
> >> A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> >> underneath unmollested.
> >>
> >> Or not buy DRM in the first place.
> >
> >Isn't life too short to worry about stuff like this?
>
> By the looks of things, life is instead long enough for the DRM fad to
> be beginning to burn out as pointless.
Yeah; Microsoft, Yahoo... wasn't there another music store that dropped
people in it by stopping supporting their own DRM?
-z-
--
am forget my password of mac,did you give me
password on new email marko.[redacted]@yahoo.com
Woody
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:52:45 +0100, Woody wrote
> (in article <1ikn2l1.ijjywwp9xqvmN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
> > Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
> > all the disadvantages of lossless.
> >
> > A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> > underneath unmollested.
> >
> > Or not buy DRM in the first place.
>
> Isn't life too short to worry about stuff like this?
Buying stuff that stops working intentionally after a few years? Maybe
to you.
There is a large amount of music that I have had for 30 years. What is
the point of buying music that only lasts a couple of years. Fine if it
is cheap, but at full price?
The only DRMd music I have is the stuff I bought when I got the apple
£100 card for £22. That seems reasonable.
--
Woody
Ian Robinson
(in article <1iknium.1qv6zmxdcq743N%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
> Buying stuff that stops working intentionally after a few years? Maybe
> to you.
> There is a large amount of music that I have had for 30 years. What is
> the point of buying music that only lasts a couple of years. Fine if it
> is cheap, but at full price?
Still not something I worry about. Either buy it or don't.
Woody
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:47:31 +0100, Woody wrote
> (in article <1iknium.1qv6zmxdcq743N%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
> > Buying stuff that stops working intentionally after a few years? Maybe
> > to you.
> > There is a large amount of music that I have had for 30 years. What is
> > the point of buying music that only lasts a couple of years. Fine if it
> > is cheap, but at full price?
>
> Still not something I worry about. Either buy it or don't.
Well, clearly I wouldn't as DRM on anything is flawed, like software
with dongles, so it would need to be very cheap to be worth it, but it
is a bit of a con if you are promised something and then they change
their mind.
So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
stopped working?
--
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd
Ian Robinson
(in article <1iknm8v.eej5iw1i7slovN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
> So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
> stopped working?
Not really.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<ju...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:58:03 +0100, Woody wrote
>(in article <1iknm8v.eej5iw1i7slovN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
>> So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
>> stopped working?
>
>Not really.
Blimey. Do you never re-read books?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
Woody
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:58:03 +0100, Woody wrote
> (in article <1iknm8v.eej5iw1i7slovN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
> > So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
> > stopped working?
>
> Not really.
Fair enough. I am going for the old fashioned POV of if I buy something
I expect it to work for a reasonable time. The money is fairly
irrelivant, just the principle of it.
David Kennedy
>
> The only DRMd music I have is the stuff I bought when I got the apple
> £100 card for £22. That seems reasonable.
I'm coming to the end of mine; any more bargains about?
Woody
<davidk...@nospamformethanksverymuchyoubastards.invalid> wrote:
Sab used a lot of mine for talking books. I haven't seen anything as
good as that for a while
Ian Robinson
(in article <lmhk84tfrrdp3h4qp...@newsposting.sessile.org>):
>>> So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
>>> stopped working?
>>
>> Not really.
>
> Blimey. Do you never re-read books?
All the time. There is no point worrying about "the DRM Servers" going away
(ignoring the fact that the Sony BBeB books don't have to contact DRM
servers), when you can convert the books to other formats, or get them in
other formats. I use the Sony Store, and iTunes for music, because it is
simple. The DRM doesn't bother me. It's never stopped me using music on a
device I own. With the Sony store books I can have them on multiple devices
if I want. Do I buy iTunes+ tracks when available? Yes. Do I buy DRM tracks
in iTunes? Yes. Do I buy non-DRM eBooks? Yes.
I buy content that I want to enjoy now from easy sources. DRM isn't really on
my radar as it doesn't impinge on my use of the content.
David Kennedy
I got a couple and the sprog is just coming to the end of the credit at
the moment so I'd like to find another one. All I can find are American
ones at around half price on ebay.
Woody
But you said you wouldn't mind if it did iminge on the use of the
content.
I don't generally get the DRM music as it does impinge on the use of the
content on my devices, and it is quite expensive (if it was a lot
cheaper to make up for the fact it is partially crippled it would be
ok).
On the other hand i have bought a few albums direct from the artists
without DRM on it, and that is ok.
Woody
<davidk...@nospamformethanksverymuchyoubastards.invalid> wrote:
Half american price? That would be not so bad - I have an american and
UK iTunes account.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Gotcha. The "not really" was a deceptive answer!
I do the same, as I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Remember, "persistence" is just a euphemism for "serial failure"
-- Tim Dawson
David Kennedy
>
> But you said you wouldn't mind if it did iminge on the use of the
> content.
>
i thought for a second there that I'd stumbled on the new secret Apple
product - The iMinge
Woody
<davidk...@nospamformethanksverymuchyoubastards.invalid> wrote:
It would sell
Woody
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:47:52 +0100, Ian Robinson
> <ju...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:34:50 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote
> >(in article <lmhk84tfrrdp3h4qp...@newsposting.sessile.org>):
> >
> >>>> So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
> >>>> stopped working?
> >>>
> >>> Not really.
> >>
> >> Blimey. Do you never re-read books?
> >
> >All the time. There is no point worrying about "the DRM Servers" going away
> >(ignoring the fact that the Sony BBeB books don't have to contact DRM
> >servers), when you can convert the books to other formats, or get them in
> >other formats. I use the Sony Store, and iTunes for music, because it is
> >simple. The DRM doesn't bother me. It's never stopped me using music on a
> >device I own. With the Sony store books I can have them on multiple devices
> >if I want. Do I buy iTunes+ tracks when available? Yes. Do I buy DRM tracks
> >in iTunes? Yes. Do I buy non-DRM eBooks? Yes.
> >
> >I buy content that I want to enjoy now from easy sources. DRM isn't really on
> >my radar as it doesn't impinge on my use of the content.
>
> Gotcha. The "not really" was a deceptive answer!
Was it?
He said he wouldn't really mind if all his books stopped working, so I
have to assume he wouldn't. I didn't say whether it was likely, or even
possible, just that if it happened and all his books no longer worked he
wouldnt' mind, and he didn't.
I would, quite a lot, so it seems odd to me that he wouldn't but people
are odd things.
Rowland McDonnell
> Gary <gary....@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
> >> ...At least with iTunes there's the CD-burn workaround,
> >> though with some associated transcoding quality loss.
> >
> > You don't get any quality loss when burning a CD from your iTMS
> > purchases.
>
> Yes, you do. By necessity. You're transcoding from one format to
> another - it's not possible to be bit for bit.
A bit for bit copy of the data file is exactly not what's required if
transcoding from one representational format to another. What is
required is that the new data file can be used to re-create the data
that it represents.
That is, the contents of the file don't matter in this case: all that
matters is the relationship of the /final/ output compared to the
/original/ input.
Okay, so we don't get the original input: the original musical
performance was made in the past and is gone.
All we have is a lossily compressed music file in this case - designed
to be used to *re-create an audio waveform in the air for people to
listen to*.
If a new data file derived from this original data file can be used to
re-create the original data (sound in this example) - and that turns out
to be identical to the data (sound) that can be re-created from the old
data file (bits), then you've got a `no quality loss' situation.
Take, for example, transcoding from ASCII to Unicode: anyone can see
that perfect fidelity can be assured (although not the other way round).
It's possible to transcode between most mutually compatible *lossless*
data formats of any description without loss (exceptions involve data
formats that use binary on one side and decimal on the other and things
like that).
There should be no - NONE AT ALL - loss of quality in this particular
case of a lossily compressed audio file being turned into either music,
or a lossless audio file (one way of viewing the contents of a CD).
There should be no difference at all between the CD version and the
directly outputted version - aside from those relating to the quality of
the electronic signal handling in the output stages (i.e., a cheap CD
player ought to sound worse than a PC doing the D-A conversion in this
case. Check out the time axis...).
There was data loss involved in creating the lossily compressed audio
file and there will be data loss involved in turning the digital output
stream from the file decoder into an audio wavefront at your eardrum -
but:
The lossless audio file will recreate exactly the same audio bitstream
to feed to the D-A converter as was created by the lossy audio file.
Therefore, you lose no data converting from a lossy audio format to a
lossless audio format.
How come?
Because to turn the lossily compressed audio data into an audio
waveform, a required intermediate step is to create a digital bitstream
representation of the waveform.
This can be turned into audio now - or it can be squirted onto a CD or
into a file and turned into audio later.
Yes, the bitstream that's fed to the D-A converter can in fact be shoved
straight on to a CD - sort of the point of CDs is that the digital data
is meant to be squirted into a D-A converter, so the feed to a D-A
converter is exactly what a CD's looking for in terms of data[1].
And it can be stuffed straight into an AIFF file, IIRC.
The fact that the digital bitstream generated from the lossily
compressed file might have been dumped to CD /before/ being D to A'd and
then amplified and transduced has nothing to do with the quality you
hear.
Surely you can see that it's not any sort of loss in quality to delay a
signal, if the signal undergoes absolutely no changes at all?
And `no changes at all' is what you get if you shove that bitstream -
the one generated from the original lossily compressed file - on to a
CD.
> Also, should you then
> re-encode to be DRM free AAC or MP3 or whatever, you will magnify those
> errors
No, because they don't exist.
> and lose quality there too - that's in addition to the quality
> you would have lost by going to a lossy format anyway.
So what's wrong with using ALC and losing no quality at all?
Rowland.
[1] If anyone mentions sum-difference D-A conversion, I shall sulk;
especially since if you know about that way of doing things, you're just
being awkward, aren't you?
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Rowland McDonnell
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> > use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
> >
> > >Gary <gary....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote: >
> > >> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/9To5Mac-MacAllDay/~3/345585153/yahoo_d.
> > >> ..> > > Does >
> > >> > continue to make me nervous about iTunes. I still have some music DRM'd
> > >> > from there, but I try hard to avoid it and if getting an album I'll buy
> > >> > a CD for ripping if it's not available on iTunes+. I will never buy a
> > >> > film from iTunes for the same reason, though I will rent as I don't see
> > >> > a problem there.
> > >> >
> > >> > Not good though. At least with iTunes there's the CD-burn workaround,
> > >> > though with some associated transcoding quality loss.
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers,
> > >> > Ian
> > >>
> > >> You don't get any quality loss when burning a CD from your iTMS
> > >> purchases.
> > >
> > >You do if you want to get it back into your iTunes folder.
> >
> > You can avoid loss by going DRM -> CD -> Apple Lossless. You should
> > end up with exactly the same digital waveform as the original DRM file
> > outputs.
>
> Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
> all the disadvantages of lossless.
No problems with compressed audio in itself that I know of - I think
it's a huge advantage to be able to store 2-4 times as much music in a
given amount of space than one would otherwise be able to manage.
What do you think are the disadvantages of compressed audio?
And what problems are there with `lossless'? Lossless strikes me as
entirely unproblematic and not something that anyone could complain
about who didn't want to lose things.
Of course, `lossless' is a problem if you *want* to lose stuff - I don't
wish to do so.
> A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> underneath unmollested.
Except that isn't it criminal behaviour to do that?
> Or not buy DRM in the first place.
And not to fall for the Newspeak, either.
What the copyright owners call `DRM' is more honestly called consumer
control technology, or consumer rights limitation technology.
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
> Woody wrote:
>
> > Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
> > all the disadvantages of lossless.
> >
> > A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> > underneath unmollested.
> >
> > Or not buy DRM in the first place.
>
> Isn't life too short to worry about stuff like this?
Erm, no?
Life's too short[1] to hire music from dodgy dealers like Apple.
Life's too short to let myself get ripped off by fraudsters selling
music discs as CDs when they're not.
Life's too short to want to have to piss about with non-standard shite
that doesn't work properly, is of poor quality, and might well be
switched off at some point in the future by some foreign firm whose only
interest in me is as a foreign provider of profit to its shareholders.
Life is, in fact, too short to buy music in any format other than the
highest practical quality and greatest possible freedom.
Let's call that a standard CD, shall we?
Rowland.
[1] But Diana tells me it doesn't have to be.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/bbc7_aod.shtml?bbc7/troublewithlichen_mo
n>
From:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc7/programmes/#t>
Woody
I was refering to lossy compressed audio, which is what it already is.
A loss of quality over the original.
> What do you think are the disadvantages of compressed audio?
>
> And what problems are there with `lossless'? Lossless strikes me as
> entirely unproblematic and not something that anyone could complain
> about who didn't want to lose things.
Lossless is much bigger than lossy.
Not a problem if you didn't want to lose things, but seeing as you
already have, you have the loss of quality in a large file size.
> Of course, `lossless' is a problem if you *want* to lose stuff - I don't
> wish to do so.
In this specific instance it has already been lost.
> > A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> > underneath unmollested.
>
> Except that isn't it criminal behaviour to do that?
As far as I know it is certainly something that there are laws about - I
don't know what those laws are, but I assume they are not favouring the
consumers.
Although if apple give you permission to burn to a CD so you can use it
elsewhere I don't know what precedent that sets for removing the DRM.
I would however like to think there were laws about selling people DRMd
music and then switching the authentication servers off as well. I don't
know if there are but it seems like there should be
Although maybe it is good to show people how it is not something they
should buy.
--
Woody
zoara
...which just goes to show how pointless DRM really is; if it can be
cracked (and most can, very easily), then the content will get out onto
the torrent sites (and from there, passed between friends).
So what purpose does DRM actually serve, other than causing problems for
the honest but technically illiterate?
It was doomed to failure from the start. BTW, I'm not saying that it's a
good thing; nor am I condoning piracy. Just that DRM as a solution
simply cannot work as it is currently implemented.
Ian Robinson
(in article <1iknoxy.g56nl910t68h7N%me...@privacy.net>):
> ...which just goes to show how pointless DRM really is; if it can be
> cracked (and most can, very easily), then the content will get out onto
> the torrent sites (and from there, passed between friends).
Which brings me back to where I came in. Life's too short to worry about it.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:47:52 +0100, Ian Robinson
>> <ju...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:34:50 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote
>> >(in article <lmhk84tfrrdp3h4qp...@newsposting.sessile.org>):
>> >
>> >>>> So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
>> >>>> stopped working?
>> >>>
>> >>> Not really.
>> >>
>> >> Blimey. Do you never re-read books?
>> >
>> >All the time. There is no point worrying about "the DRM Servers" going away
>> >(ignoring the fact that the Sony BBeB books don't have to contact DRM
>> >servers), when you can convert the books to other formats, or get them in
>> >other formats. I use the Sony Store, and iTunes for music, because it is
>> >simple. The DRM doesn't bother me. It's never stopped me using music on a
>> >device I own. With the Sony store books I can have them on multiple devices
>> >if I want. Do I buy iTunes+ tracks when available? Yes. Do I buy DRM tracks
>> >in iTunes? Yes. Do I buy non-DRM eBooks? Yes.
>> >
>> >I buy content that I want to enjoy now from easy sources. DRM isn't really on
>> >my radar as it doesn't impinge on my use of the content.
>>
>> Gotcha. The "not really" was a deceptive answer!
>
>Was it?
>
>He said he wouldn't really mind if all his books stopped working, so I
>have to assume he wouldn't.
But the explanation clears that up - it wouldn't matter because Ian
would already have ripped the content out of its DRM wrapper. So if
the DRM servers die, he still has the content he paid for.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
human /mia'ow/ n.: Combination can-opener and heated chair-cover
Peter Ceresole
> So what purpose does DRM actually serve, other than causing problems for
> the honest but technically illiterate?
It doesn't have to stop *everybody* ripping off the copyright holders,
just stop enough people doing it so that the publishers survive.
I think it probably achieves that, for now.
--
Peter
Richard Tobin
Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>There should be no - NONE AT ALL - loss of quality in this particular
>case of a lossily compressed audio file being turned into either music,
>or a lossless audio file (one way of viewing the contents of a CD).
But CD encoding is not lossless.
It doesn't have losses due to compression, but it does have losses
inherent in the digital encoding. Unless the decoded bitstream has
the same sampling rate and resolution (or a submultiple) as the CD
encoding, there will be some loss.
I doubt this loss is very significant in practice, and I expect
the iTunes store uses a 44.1hKz sampling rate like CDs, though
I haven't checked.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Chris Ridd
> I doubt this loss is very significant in practice, and I expect
> the iTunes store uses a 44.1hKz sampling rate like CDs, though
> I haven't checked.
All the stuff I've bought/downloaded from iTMS has been 44.1kHz. Funny
how formats with significantly better sampling rates like SACD haven't
really taken off..
Cheers,
Chris
Woody
It doesn't matter - I didn't ask that question. I asked if he would
mind if all his books stopped working, he said no, not really. I didn't
say why they would.
> So if
> the DRM servers die, he still has the content he paid for.
I didn't ask about DRM servers, they are irrelivant to the question. The
question is "So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader
suddenly stopped working?", not "do you mind if some server is switched
off"
Ian Robinson
(in article <1ikon7m.dfvfjz4wxmviN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>> So if
>> the DRM servers die, he still has the content he paid for.
>
> I didn't ask about DRM servers, they are irrelivant to the question. The
> question is "So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader
> suddenly stopped working?", not "do you mind if some server is switched
> off"
The only way they would stop working is if the device itself broke. I'd still
have the books available in the desktop software. Which is why I wouldn't
mind. But anyway, DRM doesn't bother me so I'm nit going to worry about it.
Woody
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:22:55 +0100, Woody wrote
> (in article <1ikon7m.dfvfjz4wxmviN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
> >> So if
> >> the DRM servers die, he still has the content he paid for.
> >
> > I didn't ask about DRM servers, they are irrelivant to the question. The
> > question is "So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader
> > suddenly stopped working?", not "do you mind if some server is switched
> > off"
>
> The only way they would stop working is if the device itself broke.
It doesn't matter, I didn't ask why they would. I just asked if you
would mind if they did to which you said not really. It was a very
simple question.
> I'd still
> have the books available in the desktop software.
Not in my question you wouldn't - you wouldn't have them at all.
So are you saying you actually meant you would mind if they stopped
working?
> Which is why I wouldn't
> mind. But anyway, DRM doesn't bother me so I'm nit going to worry about it.
It doesn't bother me either as I don't use it, other than in DVDs where
it causes me no problem.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Nyquist theorem, innit. With the upper limit of human ear perception
being below 20kHz, and recording equipment and studio mixing generally
concentrating on the stuff below 16kHz, 44.1kHz is enough to catch
everything.
This is not an accident on the part of the CD Audio standard.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
haiku are easy
all you do is stop at the
seventeenth syllab
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Not really.
Even if a release is only available in DRM form, then someone will rip
it and it'll rapidly become available in non-DRM form to everyone
who's interested and spends five minutes discovering how to obtain the
ripped versions. Even if that availability is down the dodgy video
stall on the weekly market, let alone via the Internet.
The difference between that and a non-DRM release is negligable.
Which means that DRM/nonDRM is a false dichotomy that makes no
difference whatsoever to the availability of a pirated version.
Therefore DRM only inconveniences the people who own the original
encrypted version.
This is particularly visible with computer games, where the "you must
insert the CD to play" is a real pain in the arse, but also with CDs
that iTunes can't read.
With movies, every parent I know is incredibly grateful when they're
shown how to (a) rip the kid's disks to a DVDR that is easily replaced
when scratched to buggery by the little darlings, and (b) remove the
fifteen minutes of unskippable adverts before The Lion King.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"the average homeowner should expect to repair direct
meteor damage every hundred million years."
-- http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030506.html
Ian Robinson
(in article <1ikoobg.1krqdvqbos4axN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
> So are you saying you actually meant you would mind if they stopped
> working?
No.
Chris Ridd
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> said:
> With movies, every parent I know is incredibly grateful when they're
> shown how to (a) rip the kid's disks to a DVDR that is easily replaced
> when scratched to buggery by the little darlings, and (b) remove the
> fifteen minutes of unskippable adverts before The Lion King.
The parents might be grateful, but my youngest *likes* the ads before
the main film. I'm hoping it is just something to having with a short
attention span - he does tend to wander off while the film's playing :-)
Cheers,
Chris
Peter Ceresole
> The difference between that and a non-DRM release is negligable.
Do you really think so? Are there any figures to back that up?
It's just that for mainstream music releases, for example, I suspect
that a large proportion of downloaders will go for the convenience of an
iTunes download, even when paying for it, rather than faff about with
torrents. And that's all it takes to justify using DRM.
--
Peter
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Ceresole) wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> The difference between that and a non-DRM release is negligable.
>
>Do you really think so? Are there any figures to back that up?
I do, but I don't know if there are - or even if it's possible to
derive such figures. Which is a shame.
>It's just that for mainstream music releases, for example, I suspect
>that a large proportion of downloaders will go for the convenience of an
>iTunes download, even when paying for it, rather than faff about with
>torrents. And that's all it takes to justify using DRM.
It doesn't justify DRM at all - iTunes downloads are coming both with
and without DRM. The iTunes experience is identical either way.
And I don't know if you ever used ye old Kazaa or Limewire, but they
were even easier than iTunes. Current p2p *search* clients are
similar.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has
endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us
to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
Steve Firth
> With movies, every parent I know is incredibly grateful when they're
> shown how to (a) rip the kid's disks to a DVDR that is easily replaced
> when scratched to buggery by the little darlings, and (b) remove the
> fifteen minutes of unskippable adverts before The Lion King.
I've put as many DVDs as possible onto a media player just because I
don't want all the crap that the studios seem to feel I must have with
each disk. Extracting just the main feature so that the movie just
starts and plays is what I want. And no, I didn't want the kids
indoctrinating with all the consumermercials that they pack onto the
disk.
Stimpy
>
>> It's just that for mainstream music releases, for example, I suspect
>> that a large proportion of downloaders will go for the convenience of an
>> iTunes download, even when paying for it, rather than faff about with
>> torrents. And that's all it takes to justify using DRM.
>
> It doesn't justify DRM at all - iTunes downloads are coming both with
> and without DRM. The iTunes experience is identical either way.
>
> And I don't know if you ever used ye old Kazaa or Limewire, but they
> were even easier than iTunes. Current p2p *search* clients are
> similar.
...then, of course, there's the various Russian services such as mp3sparks
and millisong which offer the range and quality of iTunes without the DRM or
the uncertainty of quality associated with Kazaa et al.
As a (55 year old retired male) data point I don't know *anyone* who uses
iTunes for more than the odd individual track, yet I know many people who use
the various Russian services.
Andrew Stephenson
chri...@mac.com "Chris Ridd" writes:
> All the stuff I've bought/downloaded from iTMS has been 44.1kHz. Funny
> how formats with significantly better sampling rates like SACD haven't
> really taken off..
ISTR it being argued that high (>100KHz) sampling rates preserved
ultrasonic components, whose audible intermodulation products are
somehow necessary to decent sound reproduction. BDSTM (but don't
shoot the messenger).
--
Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson
net...@fastmail.fm "zoara" writes:
> So what purpose does DRM actually serve, other than causing
> problems for the honest but technically illiterate?
WAG: it gives the the more dictatorially minded folks a feeling
that Something Is Being Done To Prevent Illegality. Such folks
commonly don't have much of a grasp of real world complexities,
as those involve subtle thinking and grey areas and independent
thinking. They assume everyone is a crook, which seems tidier.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson
stimpy...@yahoo.com "Stimpy" writes:
> [...] yet I know many people who use the various Russian
> services.
Just curious: do those people then find themselves sharing their
credit card facilities with numerous strangers around the world?
(I know: nasty, devious, suspicious mind... *sigh*)
--
Andrew Stephenson
Stimpy
> In article <0001HW.C4B0E218...@news.eclipse.co.uk>
> stimpy...@yahoo.com "Stimpy" writes:
>
>> [...] yet I know many people who use the various Russian
>> services.
>
> Just curious: do those people then find themselves sharing their
> credit card facilities with numerous strangers around the world?
No more than with any other online purchase.
Peter Ceresole
> As a (55 year old retired male) data point I don't know *anyone* who uses
> iTunes for more than the odd individual track, yet I know many people who use
> the various Russian services.
Well, I am a 68 year old retired male and I use iTMS for just about all
my music purchases, and never used the Russian services because I didn't
want to reward thieves. And also becasue it's simple, and I have never
had any trouble with iTMS at all.
With the proviso that I don't download mainstream music (I like Swing
and 1940/50s pop) and I don't download that much music- maybe a hundred
tracks a year.
On a purely personal note (I don't expect much agreement here) I only
have a few hundred tracks stored, certainly less than a thousand, a
couple of gigs including odd sound files, and the thought of having many
gigabytes of music files induces the heaves, big time.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> it gives the the more dictatorially minded folks a feeling
> that Something Is Being Done To Prevent Illegality. Such folks
> commonly don't have much of a grasp of real world complexities
Interestingly, that's exactly what I feel about the anti-DRM Sparts.
--
Peter
Woody
In the years I used them, no trouble at all.
If only the music industry had spent half the money they did fighting
them in finding out what it was that was good.
And no, it wasn't specifically the cost, it is the convenience and
flexability.
--
Woody
Pd
> ...then, of course, there's the various Russian services such as mp3sparks
> and millisong which offer the range and quality of iTunes without the DRM or
> the uncertainty of quality associated with Kazaa et al.
>
> As a (55 year old retired male) data point I don't know *anyone* who uses
> iTunes for more than the odd individual track, yet I know many people who use
> the various Russian services.
Do they buy their batteries and razors from street traders too? And
iPods, cameras, mobile phones, televisions, car radios, handbags etc
from "some bloke down the pub?"
You seem to know many people who have scant regard for much beyond their
self-interest. Do you have any idea if these people are completely
clueless and think their money is actually supporting the artists, or if
they are just too lazy to steal the music themselves and would rather
pay the Russian underworld to do their ripping off for them?
I'm not trying to be all holier-than-thou, just frequently surprised by
how prevalent that level of integrity (or lack of it) turns out to be.
--
Pd
Pd
> Andrew Stephenson <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <0001HW.C4B0E218...@news.eclipse.co.uk>
> > stimpy...@yahoo.com "Stimpy" writes:
> >
> > > [...] yet I know many people who use the various Russian
> > > services.
> >
> > Just curious: do those people then find themselves sharing their
> > credit card facilities with numerous strangers around the world?
>
> In the years I used them, no trouble at all.
>
> If only the music industry had spent half the money they did fighting
> them in finding out what it was that was good.
> And no, it wasn't specifically the cost, it is the convenience and
> flexability.
Did it ever concern you that the artists who had produced the music you
bought from the Russians weren't benefitting from your purchase?
Like I said in another response, I don't want to sound all high and
mighty, I'm just interested in the rationalisation. I've downloaded some
music that I wanted quickly, or that hasn't been available on CD, and
subsequently bought on CD when it has become available, as well as some
that I still haven't bought on CD because I'm a lazy arse lacking in
moral fibre. But I have resisted buying stuff from mp3.com only because
I don't want to encourage organised intentional profitable theft of
other people's creative output.
--
Pd
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Stephenson <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <0001HW.C4B0E218...@news.eclipse.co.uk>
> > > stimpy...@yahoo.com "Stimpy" writes:
> > >
> > > > [...] yet I know many people who use the various Russian
> > > > services.
> > >
> > > Just curious: do those people then find themselves sharing their
> > > credit card facilities with numerous strangers around the world?
> >
> > In the years I used them, no trouble at all.
> >
> > If only the music industry had spent half the money they did fighting
> > them in finding out what it was that was good.
> > And no, it wasn't specifically the cost, it is the convenience and
> > flexability.
>
> Did it ever concern you that the artists who had produced the music you
> bought from the Russians weren't benefitting from your purchase?
No, because the artists who produced the music I bought had already
benefitted from my purchase. I used it to replace my album collection
after ripping it took too long.
It was a question of getting the music from there or not bothering
(apart from where I found it in second hand shops).
True, they didn't benifit from the format shift, but they weren't
anyway. Apart from my favourite albums, it was either that or nothing,
so no, I don't feel bad about it either.
> Like I said in another response, I don't want to sound all high and
> mighty, I'm just interested in the rationalisation.
There you have it.
I also downloaded some songs (or just used the preview which is the
whole track rather than iTunes) to listen to to see if I liked, but if I
liked it I bought the album (actually on CD rather than an online
store), or got rid of it.
> I've downloaded some
> music that I wanted quickly, or that hasn't been available on CD, and
> subsequently bought on CD when it has become available, as well as some
> that I still haven't bought on CD because I'm a lazy arse lacking in
> moral fibre. But I have resisted buying stuff from mp3.com only because
> I don't want to encourage organised intentional profitable theft of
> other people's creative output.
Given the choice I would not either.
There is obviously some music in the half way catagory of seeing if I
like it. If I do I will put it on my play.com or hmv.com list to pick up
when it becomes available at a reasonable price.
When I say some, there are currently 4 tracks of 3 albums that are in
the process of looking for.
--
Woody
Pd
> > Did it ever concern you that the artists who had produced the music you
> > bought from the Russians weren't benefitting from your purchase?
>
> No, because the artists who produced the music I bought had already
> benefitted from my purchase. I used it to replace my album collection
> after ripping it took too long.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. I have downloaded stuff that I own,
either on vinyl or CD, that's in storage in NZ. Well, it was in storage.
I think my brother's second ex-wife has appropriated all the stuff of
any value I left in his attic.
--
Pd
Rowland McDonnell
> ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) said:
>
> > I doubt this loss is very significant in practice, and I expect
> > the iTunes store uses a 44.1hKz sampling rate like CDs, though
> > I haven't checked.
>
> All the stuff I've bought/downloaded from iTMS has been 44.1kHz. Funny
> how formats with significantly better sampling rates like SACD haven't
> really taken off..
Not really - one of the reasons is that a faster sampling rate doesn't
result in higher quality, necessarily.
Rather more depends on the quality of the data conversion.
A really good CD player is really very good at recreating the original
waveform.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Rowland McDonnell
> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) said:
> >
> >> I doubt this loss is very significant in practice, and I expect
> >> the iTunes store uses a 44.1hKz sampling rate like CDs, though
> >> I haven't checked.
> >
> >All the stuff I've bought/downloaded from iTMS has been 44.1kHz. Funny
> >how formats with significantly better sampling rates like SACD haven't
> >really taken off..
>
> Nyquist theorem, innit.
Given that human hearing has a nominal lower limit, you want the
Hartley-Tuller-Shannon restricted sampling theorem, I'd say.
I hope I've got the spelling right - I'm recalling this from a long-ago
lecture. Nyquist's sampling theorem is a special case of HTS with a
lower limit of zero.
> With the upper limit of human ear perception
> being below 20kHz,
My right ear could detect 22kHz when I was in my early 20s (left ear
seemed to struggle at about 18kHz; it was damaged when I was young by me
playing in a school wind band. The brass was to my left). And I had
seen Motorhead more than once by then.
Not many domestic speakers kick out much sound at the very highest audio
frequencies.
> and recording equipment and studio mixing generally
> concentrating on the stuff below 16kHz, 44.1kHz is enough to catch
> everything.
Oh aye, but then you have to recreate it. That's easier with a higher
sampling rate. You need a really fiercely nasty low-pass filter to deal
with the CD sampling rate.
> This is not an accident on the part of the CD Audio standard.
Of course not.
From reading Roy Harper, it seems that he reckons 44.1kHz sampling and
24 bits resolution lets him do mastering with digital kit to the same
quality that he can manage with studio quality analogue tape. 16 bits
is not good enough for mastering in his opinion.
On the other hand, we can be pretty damned sure that *HE* can't hear at
20kHz any more.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> >There should be no - NONE AT ALL - loss of quality in this particular
> >case of a lossily compressed audio file being turned into either music,
> >or a lossless audio file (one way of viewing the contents of a CD).
>
> But CD encoding is not lossless.
>
> It doesn't have losses due to compression, but it does have losses
> inherent in the digital encoding.
Yes, that's all taken into account.
> Unless the decoded bitstream has
> the same sampling rate and resolution (or a submultiple) as the CD
> encoding, there will be some loss.
But it does, in the general case of this sort of thing, doesn't it? 16
bit, two channels, 44.1kHz: that seems to be what you get.
> I doubt this loss is very significant in practice, and I expect
> the iTunes store uses a 44.1hKz sampling rate like CDs, though
> I haven't checked.
It's always a CD-matching rate from what I've seen. Therefore, no
losses beyond the `turning it into the bitstream for the D-A converter'
- which afflicts the original lossily compressed file too, doesn't it?
The point is that that bitstream can be captured on CD without any
further loss. For sure there are losses prior to that point - but you
don't introduce any more by sticking the data on CD in the case of the
bitrate and resolution matching CDs, which is what we actually get from
what I've seen.
On top of that, I'm talking about the bitstream as sent to the D-A
converter - that's the output bitstream, and you can change that
independently of the input file in System Prefs. Sure you get losses
converting to that if the original doesn't match it, but you won't get
any further losses by sticking it on to CD.
Rowland McDonnell
> chri...@mac.com "Chris Ridd" writes:
>
> > All the stuff I've bought/downloaded from iTMS has been 44.1kHz. Funny
> > how formats with significantly better sampling rates like SACD haven't
> > really taken off..
>
> ISTR it being argued that high (>100KHz) sampling rates preserved
> ultrasonic components, whose audible intermodulation products are
> somehow necessary to decent sound reproduction. BDSTM (but don't
> shoot the messenger).
Pfft. Oh yeah? How do they get out, then? If it's above 20kHz, it's
pretty irrelevant as far as I can tell.
The big advantage of really high sampling rates is that you can use a
less steep low pass filter after the D-A converter, which results in
less phase distortion and less differential phase distortion (between L
and R channels) at the top end.
Or that's what I reckon, from what I've read and whatnot.
Woody
> From reading Roy Harper, it seems that he reckons 44.1kHz sampling and
> 24 bits resolution lets him do mastering with digital kit to the same
> quality that he can manage with studio quality analogue tape. 16 bits
> is not good enough for mastering in his opinion.
Most professional stuff [1] is 96KHz[2]/24 bit. Not because it needs to
be that sort of quality in the output but it gives you room to mangle it
a lot in the mixing stage
[1] in fact even the cheap digital mixers and effects are using that now
[2] no idea why it is always 96kHz. I know it is because it is twice
48kHz, which is the sampling frequency mostly used on video, but it
seems odd when mostly it would be going to CD at 41kHz rather than
48kHz.
Why audio on video has to be different from audio on umm.. audio, I
don't know. Probably more political than technical.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
>> From reading Roy Harper, it seems that he reckons 44.1kHz sampling and
>> 24 bits resolution lets him do mastering with digital kit to the same
>> quality that he can manage with studio quality analogue tape. 16 bits
>> is not good enough for mastering in his opinion.
>
>Most professional stuff [1] is 96KHz[2]/24 bit. Not because it needs to
>be that sort of quality in the output but it gives you room to mangle it
>a lot in the mixing stage
Sright. When you're mixing and molesting, you need the extra headroom.
The final output seems to be pretty much fine at 44.1kHz/16bit, though
I personally would welcome higher rates just on principle.
I do know that I can't discern the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit
and 48kHz or 96kHz at 24 bit on any of my domestic stereo setups, when
the higher rate outputs are recorded on mid-range studio gear and
output through a reasonable (though not studio quality) M-Audio
soundcard in a Windows box.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"It's only work when somebody makes you do it." - Calvin
Jaimie Vandenbergh
"Sparts"?
I'm fully aware of the economic pressures that generate the impulse to
protect a company's investment in IP. I've negotiated IP rights
myself.
However, I don't believe that encapsulating media in a DRM wrapper
changes the availability of the media in a non-DRM form, except in the
opinion of the ill-educated or wildly optimistic. It's far, far too
easy to rip any digital media, and there are enough people around with
the necessary skills/toolkits that it can basically be guaranteed to
happen to any DRM'ed media.
DRM media is *always* penetrable, because unless it is decrypted at
some point in order to be experienced by the end user it is worthless.
The current whole-path HDCP stuff, where an encrypted disk is
decrypted and recrypted in the player, travels encrypted along the
player's data bus, is sent encrypted along the HCMI cable, then
decrypted in the display - that is as high security as DRM can
currently get, and is easily defeated with a $40 box that takes the
HDCP signal, pretends to be a TV and outputs the decrypted signal as
HDMI.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Ambiguity Man Strikes Again! (...or /does/ he?)
-- Eric Schwartz, asr
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Gary <gary....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote: >
[snip]
> > > Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
> > > all the disadvantages of lossless.
> >
> > No problems with compressed audio in itself that I know of - I think
> > it's a huge advantage to be able to store 2-4 times as much music in a
> > given amount of space than one would otherwise be able to manage.
>
> I was refering to lossy compressed audio,
Shame you didn't say so.
>which is what it already is.
> A loss of quality over the original.
Indeed - but you don't have to lose more quality.
> > What do you think are the disadvantages of compressed audio?
> >
> > And what problems are there with `lossless'? Lossless strikes me as
> > entirely unproblematic and not something that anyone could complain
> > about who didn't want to lose things.
>
> Lossless is much bigger than lossy.
Typically two to three times the file size - or typically about 2/3 to
1/2 the size of uncompressed.
Lossless compression is plenty compressed enough to my mind - certainly
when you consider the size of modern HDDs.
> Not a problem if you didn't want to lose things, but seeing as you
> already have, you have the loss of quality in a large file size.
Huh? The point is to give you no further loss of quality while removing
the consumer rights denial limitations of tracks hired via the iTunes
music store. If you burn to CD, you've got something which could count
as a purchase; if you leave the so-called DRM (consumer rights denial)
tech in place, you're completely at Apple's mercy.
> > Of course, `lossless' is a problem if you *want* to lose stuff - I don't
> > wish to do so.
>
> In this specific instance it has already been lost.
But you don't have to lose /more/ - which is what you'd do if you `took
yer fascist bully boy afflicted AAC track from iTunes, burnt it to CD,
and then ripped to any lossy format'.
> > > A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> > > underneath unmollested.
> >
> > Except that isn't it criminal behaviour to do that?
>
> As far as I know it is certainly something that there are laws about - I
> don't know what those laws are, but I assume they are not favouring the
> consumers.
>
> Although if apple give you permission to burn to a CD so you can use it
> elsewhere I don't know what precedent that sets for removing the DRM.
That's not doing anything to subvert or get round the technology which
Apple's put in: Apple has designed iTunes to allow that behaviour, so
it's legal as far as the consumer rights denial technology goes.
Copyright law is a different matter - but it's not a *crime* to break
copyright.
> I would however like to think there were laws about selling people DRMd
> music and then switching the authentication servers off as well. I don't
> know if there are but it seems like there should be
About the only thing you could get 'em for is `unfair consumer
contract'.
> Although maybe it is good to show people how it is not something they
> should buy.
It's not purchase; it's rental. You get permission to play the music
for as long as Apple wants to let you play it, on the equipment that
Apple wants you to use - unless you burn to CD.
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> > > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Gary <gary....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote: >
> [snip]
>
> > > > Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed audio, with
> > > > all the disadvantages of lossless.
> > >
> > > No problems with compressed audio in itself that I know of - I think
> > > it's a huge advantage to be able to store 2-4 times as much music in a
> > > given amount of space than one would otherwise be able to manage.
> >
> > I was refering to lossy compressed audio,
>
> Shame you didn't say so.
I know, sometimes people say things slightly wrong.
> >which is what it already is.
> > A loss of quality over the original.
>
> Indeed - but you don't have to lose more quality.
I know.
> > > What do you think are the disadvantages of compressed audio?
> > >
> > > And what problems are there with `lossless'? Lossless strikes me as
> > > entirely unproblematic and not something that anyone could complain
> > > about who didn't want to lose things.
> >
> > Lossless is much bigger than lossy.
>
> Typically two to three times the file size - or typically about 2/3 to
> 1/2 the size of uncompressed.
I don't think there is a typical, as there are too many variables
> Lossless compression is plenty compressed enough to my mind - certainly
> when you consider the size of modern HDDs.
Yes probably ok if you are keeping it on a hdd, and you don't have too
much of it.
> > Not a problem if you didn't want to lose things, but seeing as you
> > already have, you have the loss of quality in a large file size.
>
> Huh? The point is to give you no further loss of quality while removing
> the consumer rights denial limitations of tracks hired via the iTunes
> music store.
Which both lossless and whatever lossy format you have already minus the
DRM would give you. Lossy would be smaller and no less of a quality than
lossless that would be a lot bigger.
Which is what I was saying. The disadvantage of the extra size, without
the advantage of any extra quality.
> If you burn to CD, you've got something which could count
> as a purchase; if you leave the so-called DRM (consumer rights denial)
> tech in place, you're completely at Apple's mercy.
I am not reffering to leaving the DRM in, that is doing nothing. I am
talking of taking it out.
> > > Of course, `lossless' is a problem if you *want* to lose stuff - I don't
> > > wish to do so.
> >
> > In this specific instance it has already been lost.
>
> But you don't have to lose /more/ - which is what you'd do if you `took
> yer fascist bully boy afflicted AAC track from iTunes, burnt it to CD,
> and then ripped to any lossy format'.
Of course you would, no argument. Which is why I don't think that is a
good idea to do that.
> > > > A better thing would be to strip out the DRM, leaving the AAC bits
> > > > underneath unmollested.
> > >
> > > Except that isn't it criminal behaviour to do that?
> >
> > As far as I know it is certainly something that there are laws about - I
> > don't know what those laws are, but I assume they are not favouring the
> > consumers.
> >
> > Although if apple give you permission to burn to a CD so you can use it
> > elsewhere I don't know what precedent that sets for removing the DRM.
>
> That's not doing anything to subvert or get round the technology which
> Apple's put in: Apple has designed iTunes to allow that behaviour, so
> it's legal as far as the consumer rights denial technology goes.
> Copyright law is a different matter - but it's not a *crime* to break
> copyright.
>
> > I would however like to think there were laws about selling people DRMd
> > music and then switching the authentication servers off as well. I don't
> > know if there are but it seems like there should be
>
> About the only thing you could get 'em for is `unfair consumer
> contract'.
>
> > Although maybe it is good to show people how it is not something they
> > should buy.
>
> It's not purchase; it's rental. You get permission to play the music
> for as long as Apple wants to let you play it, on the equipment that
> Apple wants you to use - unless you burn to CD.
It is not advertised as a rental though, so their could be something
said about that.
Having said that, they haven't stopped you from playing it, so i doubt
anything could be said until they did.
Peter Ceresole
> However, I don't believe that encapsulating media in a DRM wrapper
> changes the availability of the media in a non-DRM form, except in the
> opinion of the ill-educated or wildly optimistic.
Or the majority.
Anti-DRM evangelists seem to feel that unless it works in every case,
it's useless. But it's not; all it has to do is tilt a balance- and also
make it impossible to infer that making something freely available means
that it is free to steal it for nothing.
It's like leaving something on the pavement in an open box compared to
keeping it secured behind a Yale lock; although 'everybody' knows haw to
get through a Yale (of course 'everybody' doesn't, but it's the same
kind of 'everybody' who knows how to strip a DRM wrapper) in practice
the lock makes the intention clear, and makesit much more
straightforward to pursue the thieves in law.
--
Peter
Rowland McDonnell
> use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
>
> >Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> >> From reading Roy Harper, it seems that he reckons 44.1kHz sampling and
> >> 24 bits resolution lets him do mastering with digital kit to the same
> >> quality that he can manage with studio quality analogue tape. 16 bits
> >> is not good enough for mastering in his opinion.
> >
> >Most professional stuff [1] is 96KHz[2]/24 bit. Not because it needs to
> >be that sort of quality in the output but it gives you room to mangle it
> >a lot in the mixing stage
>
> Sright. When you're mixing and molesting, you need the extra headroom.
Which is what the 24 bits are for. But what's the 96kHz for? It's a
lousy sampling rate if you're mastering a CD.
> The final output seems to be pretty much fine at 44.1kHz/16bit, though
> I personally would welcome higher rates just on principle.
I'd like much higher bit rates to permit the use of a different sort of
low-pass filter in the D-A stage for the specific technical reason that
it'd reduce the pass band amplitude ripple and phase distortion.
I'd also like more amplitude bits `just on principle' without really
having any good reason for thinking it'd be useful on a final version.
> I do know that I can't discern the difference between 44.1kHz/16bit
> and 48kHz or 96kHz at 24 bit on any of my domestic stereo setups, when
> the higher rate outputs are recorded on mid-range studio gear and
> output through a reasonable (though not studio quality) M-Audio
> soundcard in a Windows box.
That could just as easily be down to the quality of the D-A conversion
as much as anything else. The higher the bitrate, the easier that is
from various points of view.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > From reading Roy Harper, it seems that he reckons 44.1kHz sampling and
> > 24 bits resolution lets him do mastering with digital kit to the same
> > quality that he can manage with studio quality analogue tape. 16 bits
> > is not good enough for mastering in his opinion.
>
> Most professional stuff [1] is 96KHz[2]/24 bit.
Roy Harper has a proper professional mixing desk at home that will let
him use various sampling rates and amplitude resolutions like all proper
professional gear.
I've read his account of him having trouble because he wasn't using
44.1kHz (a matter that his son sorted out, being a bit more /modern/
techno-savvy than his old fart of a dad - who'd obviously never bothered
to sit down and spend the time needed to learn about the special issues
relating to digital audio work).
I've got some of the results of his remastering using that rig - I can't
fault it, and I can fault a lot of things.
(Roy Harper's working on remastering all his recordings but he's got a
lot of things he wants to do before it's too late. He's been living on
borrowed time for some decades now, and it can't last forever.)
>Not because it needs to
> be that sort of quality in the output but it gives you room to mangle it
> a lot in the mixing stage
So how do you get from 96kHz to 44.1kHz without having aliasing
problems? 88.2kHz might make sense (x2), as might 132.3kHz (x3) - you'd
/certainly/ want an integer multiple. But 96kHz? That's a factor of
2.1768... - bloody awkward to deal with when it comes to putting it on
CD, I'd've thought. The process involves losses and errors - hardly the
way you'd want to do it.
And I can't see any particular advantage to be gained that way.
(who knows? Maybe that's why so many modern CDs are so poor quality; I
always put it down to a lack of sound engineers on the job)
What advantage could the higher sampling rate provide, given that
44.1kHz is more than you need to capture all the time domain data that's
needed for the job, and that you can process digital data with (for all
practical purposes) no errors or losses?
There's no upper limit to the amplitude resolution that might be helpful
- but sampling rate?
When it comes to reproduction, you need as much amplitude resolution as
you can get - but for re-creating the audio from a digital signal,
what's needed is *enough* time domain resolution, plus a D-A stage
that's very very precisely timed. It doesn't need ultra-high time
resolution, but it does need to be bang on the tick, and that tick had
better turn up at *exactly* the right time (two problems with some
cheaper CD players and one reason why some of the expensive ones are
expensive).
High resolution ain't what you need here: high precision (bang on the
tick) and high accuracy (tick at the right time) are what you need.
> [1] in fact even the cheap digital mixers and effects are using that now
> [2] no idea why it is always 96kHz. I know it is because it is twice
> 48kHz, which is the sampling frequency mostly used on video, but it
> seems odd when mostly it would be going to CD at 41kHz rather than
> 48kHz.
Quite. Erm: 44.1kHz - 44kHz would be even nastier to get on to a CD
than 96kHz.
> Why audio on video has to be different from audio on umm.. audio, I
> don't know. Probably more political than technical.
Highly likely to be technical. 48kHz takes less of a nasty sharp
low-pass filter when you want to turn it into yer actual real sound
(just don't ask about the *detailled* detail - you'd get really bored),
but it takes more bandwidth. But when you're chucking a blasted video
signal onto yer recording medium alongside audio, using an extra 9%
(ish) audio bandwidth really doesn't matter and your audio circuitry can
easily be designed to use filters that mess up the pass-band phase and
amplitude a bit less than the usual really steep ones they use in CD
players (assuming that they're all using one of the standard second
order filters, that is).
Whereas in the case of a standard original CD, that 9% extra bandwidth
adds up to a reduction in total recording time of about 9% - losing 6
minutes and 32.4s using a more exact factor from a CD's playing time,
from 74 minutes total playing time. That matters; turns out to be about
the gain in playing time obtained by upping disc diameter from 115mm
(original Philips) to 120mm (what we got).
The story is:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD#Storage_capacity_and_playing_time>
"Sony vice-president Norio Ohga suggested extending the capacity to 74
minutes to accommodate Wilhelm Furtwängler's 1951 performance of
Beethoven's 9th Symphony at the Bayreuth Festival."[1]
I've read that before. Thing is, since the last time I read that it
seems that I hit upon the same performance as being `/the/ bloody good
version of Beethoven's 9th that you really want to get, really' and I've
got a copy of it - a very fine performance (the choral bit's done
properly, which it usually isn't), and a damned good technical recording
too. I've heard recordings from recent times that are of poorer
quality.
Rowland.
[1] The full tale is a bit more interesting than that simple quotation.
Rowland McDonnell
> Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>
> >>> So you wouldn't mind if all the books on your sony ereader suddenly
> >>> stopped working?
> >>
> >> Not really.
> >
> > Blimey. Do you never re-read books?
>
> All the time. There is no point worrying about "the DRM Servers" going away
> (ignoring the fact that the Sony BBeB books don't have to contact DRM
> servers), when you can convert the books to other formats, or get them in
> other formats. I use the Sony Store, and iTunes for music, because it is
> simple. The DRM doesn't bother me. It's never stopped me using music on a
> device I own.
`Vesuvius hasn't exploded yet, so it's fine to keep on living in
Pompeii'
Which worked fine up to a point - but most Romans had changed their mind
come October in 79 AD[1].
I don't see how anyone can use the `It's not gone wrong yet' argument to
justify engaging in risky behaviour.
[snip]
> I buy content that I want to enjoy now from easy sources. DRM isn't really on
> my radar as it doesn't impinge on my use of the content.
I find it hard to understand why you refuse to think about the fact that
you can be switched off at any time, totally beyond your control. Why
ignore the risk when it's there?
I've not yet been hit by a bus and killed by it. I still use my eyes to
ensure that it doesn't happen in future.
Rowland.
[1] News travelled slowly in those days. Give 'em a month or two to
spread the word, I thought. It blew up in August.
Chris Ridd
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) said:
>>>
>>>> I doubt this loss is very significant in practice, and I expect
>>>> the iTunes store uses a 44.1hKz sampling rate like CDs, though
>>>> I haven't checked.
>>> All the stuff I've bought/downloaded from iTMS has been 44.1kHz. Funny
>>> how formats with significantly better sampling rates like SACD haven't
>>> really taken off..
>> Nyquist theorem, innit.
>
> Given that human hearing has a nominal lower limit, you want the
> Hartley-Tuller-Shannon restricted sampling theorem, I'd say.
Nyquist was the one I was thinking of too. But given all that, why did
people bother *developing* things like SACD with higher bitrates? Or is
the main benefit to SACD in the increased bits/sample?
> From reading Roy Harper, it seems that he reckons 44.1kHz sampling and
> 24 bits resolution lets him do mastering with digital kit to the same
> quality that he can manage with studio quality analogue tape. 16 bits
> is not good enough for mastering in his opinion.
Isn't most mastering done at 48kHz? Dunno about the bits/sample.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Ridd
> The current whole-path HDCP stuff, where an encrypted disk is
> decrypted and recrypted in the player, travels encrypted along the
> player's data bus, is sent encrypted along the HCMI cable, then
> decrypted in the display - that is as high security as DRM can
> currently get, and is easily defeated with a $40 box that takes the
> HDCP signal, pretends to be a TV and outputs the decrypted signal as
> HDMI.
I thought the industry's defence against those sort of boxes was to not
allow them to be made? Box makers have to jump through licensing hoops
to use certain bits and if they're not playing by all the DRM rules they
simply don't get to use the bits.
Cheers,
Chris
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Gary <gary....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote: >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > Although you end up with all the disadvantages of compressed
> > > > > audio, with all the disadvantages of lossless.
> > > >
> > > > No problems with compressed audio in itself that I know of - I think
> > > > it's a huge advantage to be able to store 2-4 times as much music in a
> > > > given amount of space than one would otherwise be able to manage.
> > >
> > > I was refering to lossy compressed audio,
> >
> > Shame you didn't say so.
>
> I know, sometimes people say things slightly wrong.
I write things wildly wrong quite often, I do. And I'm often
deliberately ungrammatical. Sometimes I even deliberately mis-spell
words - rather than all mis-spellings being the usual typing error or
blind spot regarding a particular word.
(some words, I always seem to spell wrongly no matter how many times I
look up the right spelling)
[snip]
> > > > What do you think are the disadvantages of compressed audio?
> > > >
> > > > And what problems are there with `lossless'? Lossless strikes me as
> > > > entirely unproblematic and not something that anyone could complain
> > > > about who didn't want to lose things.
> > >
> > > Lossless is much bigger than lossy.
> >
> > Typically two to three times the file size - or typically about 2/3 to
> > 1/2 the size of uncompressed.
>
> I don't think there is a typical, as there are too many variables
<shrug> Check out the range I'm specifying - I didn't specify I was
comparing to 320kbit/s, but it you take that into account, I'm bang on
right.
What I report is accurate based on looking at my music library, which is
in fact representative of most types of music as far as information
content goes. You won't find much with more information than my most
information rich tracks, and you won't find much with less than the most
information poor tracks.
Fast harpsichord music often requires a surprisingly high bit-rate.
> > Lossless compression is plenty compressed enough to my mind - certainly
> > when you consider the size of modern HDDs.
>
> Yes probably ok if you are keeping it on a hdd, and you don't have too
> much of it.
<shrug> Say 400MB per CD on average (it'd be more if you're only in to
thrash metal, for example; less if you only like quiet chamber music).
A single 1TB HDD has space for more than 2000 CDs.
Not many people have that much music.
> > > Not a problem if you didn't want to lose things, but seeing as you
> > > already have, you have the loss of quality in a large file size.
> >
> > Huh? The point is to give you no further loss of quality while removing
> > the consumer rights denial limitations of tracks hired via the iTunes
> > music store.
>
> Which both lossless and whatever lossy format you have already minus the
> DRM would give you. Lossy would be smaller and no less of a quality than
> lossless that would be a lot bigger.
No, the process of converting the lossless CD to lossy compression would
lose you quality. If you kept the original lossless CD data, you would
not.
> Which is what I was saying. The disadvantage of the extra size, without
> the advantage of any extra quality.
And you're wrong, is what I was saying.
> > If you burn to CD, you've got something which could count
> > as a purchase; if you leave the so-called DRM (consumer rights denial)
> > tech in place, you're completely at Apple's mercy.
>
> I am not reffering to leaving the DRM in, that is doing nothing. I am
> talking of taking it out.
Me too - and you can't do that with a lossily compressed end point from
an iTMS purchase unless you commit a criminal act and strip out the
consumer rights denial tech from the original lossily compressed track.
If you put such a track onto CD and then rip to AAC as you seem to be
suggesting, you will lose quality and that's that. If you rip to ALC
and then convert to AAC, you will lose quality doing that.
> > > > Of course, `lossless' is a problem if you *want* to lose stuff - I don't
> > > > wish to do so.
> > >
> > > In this specific instance it has already been lost.
> >
> > But you don't have to lose /more/ - which is what you'd do if you `took
> > yer fascist bully boy afflicted AAC track from iTunes, burnt it to CD,
> > and then ripped to any lossy format'.
>
> Of course you would, no argument. Which is why I don't think that is a
> good idea to do that.
But it is exactly what you are suggesting! (as far as I can tell)
[snip]
> > > Although maybe it is good to show people how it is not something they
> > > should buy.
> >
> > It's not purchase; it's rental. You get permission to play the music
> > for as long as Apple wants to let you play it, on the equipment that
> > Apple wants you to use - unless you burn to CD.
>
> It is not advertised as a rental though, so their could be something
> said about that.
<shrug> It's /effectively/ rental - in principle, if not yet in
practice.
> Having said that, they haven't stopped you from playing it, so i doubt
> anything could be said until they did.
Indeed.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
So folks buy cheap TVs and strip the necessary chip out.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to use
the Net, and he won't bother you for weeks." - Phil Proctor
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Ceresole) wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> However, I don't believe that encapsulating media in a DRM wrapper
>> changes the availability of the media in a non-DRM form, except in the
>> opinion of the ill-educated or wildly optimistic.
>
>Or the majority.
>
>Anti-DRM evangelists seem to feel that unless it works in every case,
>it's useless.
Your model of an anti-DRM evangelist needs some work... Note that
(appearances in this thread aside) I'm not an evangelist, I just think
DRM is pointless expense and will go the way of the dodo in short
order as the costs involved outweigh the benefits to the organisations
that use it.
It doesn't need to work in every case, because we're talking about
individual items of IP. Once *someone* has penetrated the DRM on a
given item *and* made that available, thanks to the wonders of the
Internet (and strange social networks that cause a number of people to
basically collect *everything* and continue to make it available) it
is suddenly totally available worldwide to anyone who knows how to get
it.
This applies on a per item basis. Someone has to choose to crack the
DRM wrapper on Metallica's latest album, and for popular works that is
pretty much guaranteed to happen given the number of people playing
the game.
Every media DRM scheme is penetrable, as I've mentioned before.
> But it's not; all it has to do is tilt a balance- and also
>make it impossible to infer that making something freely available means
>that it is free to steal it for nothing.
No one except serious psychopaths who really don't know wrong from
right think that stolen music isn't stolen. Most of them don't care,
or balance off cost vs damage done (at least in their own mind), or
already own the bloody thing on vinyl or copy-protected CD or DVD and
want it on their iTunes/iPod too so they can access their media on the
move, or just pack the CD/DVDs into the attic.
The serious pirates, the folks make actual money and run off thousands
of copies of the latest movies and shift them on street markets and
the 'Net, are even less inconvenienced. They already have all the
tools and hardware necessary to rip into all current media. *All*.
**DRM only inconveniences the casual user. Only. No-one else. This is
my primary point, and is why I believe it'll pretty much die out.**
Please go ahead and argue that point if you like.
Non-DRM iTunes store recordings are a fine example that you brought
up.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
'Rings! Rings! Wherever they may be
I am the Lord of the Rings,' said he
'And I'll find them all, wherever they may be
And I'll bind them all in the dark,' said he -- Kevin Ahearn
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> > > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > What do you think are the disadvantages of compressed audio?
> > > > >
> > > > > And what problems are there with `lossless'? Lossless strikes me as
> > > > > entirely unproblematic and not something that anyone could complain
> > > > > about who didn't want to lose things.
> > > >
> > > > Lossless is much bigger than lossy.
> > >
> > > Typically two to three times the file size - or typically about 2/3 to
> > > 1/2 the size of uncompressed.
> >
> > I don't think there is a typical, as there are too many variables
>
> <shrug> Check out the range I'm specifying - I didn't specify I was
> comparing to 320kbit/s, but it you take that into account, I'm bang on
> right.
I was refering to DRM music from the iTunes store or the yahoo music
store, which I believe is either 120 or 160kbit/s
> > > Lossless compression is plenty compressed enough to my mind - certainly
> > > when you consider the size of modern HDDs.
> >
> > Yes probably ok if you are keeping it on a hdd, and you don't have too
> > much of it.
>
> <shrug> Say 400MB per CD on average (it'd be more if you're only in to
> thrash metal, for example; less if you only like quiet chamber music).
> A single 1TB HDD has space for more than 2000 CDs.
>
> Not many people have that much music.
And I was refering to a 16GB iPod when I say 'depends if you are keeping
it on a hdd'
> > > > Not a problem if you didn't want to lose things, but seeing as you
> > > > already have, you have the loss of quality in a large file size.
> > >
> > > Huh? The point is to give you no further loss of quality while removing
> > > the consumer rights denial limitations of tracks hired via the iTunes
> > > music store.
> >
> > Which both lossless and whatever lossy format you have already minus the
> > DRM would give you. Lossy would be smaller and no less of a quality than
> > lossless that would be a lot bigger.
>
> No, the process of converting the lossless CD to lossy compression would
> lose you quality. If you kept the original lossless CD data, you would
> not.
Correct if anyone was talking about converting a losless CD to lossy
compression.
I am still refering about converting a lossy compressed iTunes DRM audio
track to a non DRM audio track. I have no argument with the fact that
lossy compression loses data, nor am I refering to that anywhere in any
of my points.
> > Which is what I was saying. The disadvantage of the extra size, without
> > the advantage of any extra quality.
>
> And you're wrong, is what I was saying.
<sigh>
There is no extra quality as it is already a lossy audio file. All you
have done is taken the lossy file, put it on a CD and losslessly
compressed it. You have not gained any quality doing that.
> > > If you burn to CD, you've got something which could count
> > > as a purchase; if you leave the so-called DRM (consumer rights denial)
> > > tech in place, you're completely at Apple's mercy.
> >
> > I am not reffering to leaving the DRM in, that is doing nothing. I am
> > talking of taking it out.
>
> Me too - and you can't do that with a lossily compressed end point from
> an iTMS purchase unless you commit a criminal act and strip out the
> consumer rights denial tech from the original lossily compressed track.
And I don't care about the 'criminal act' part. I was refering to the
technology of doing it. In fact, beyond that, I still don't care about
the criminal act bit.
> If you put such a track onto CD and then rip to AAC as you seem to be
> suggesting, you will lose quality and that's that. If you rip to ALC
> and then convert to AAC, you will lose quality doing that.
obviously. again, no argument.
> > > > > Of course, `lossless' is a problem if you *want* to lose stuff - I
> > > > > don't wish to do so.
> > > >
> > > > In this specific instance it has already been lost.
> > >
> > > But you don't have to lose /more/ - which is what you'd do if you `took
> > > yer fascist bully boy afflicted AAC track from iTunes, burnt it to CD,
> > > and then ripped to any lossy format'.
> >
> > Of course you would, no argument. Which is why I don't think that is a
> > good idea to do that.
>
> But it is exactly what you are suggesting! (as far as I can tell)
Even though I keep explaining that is not what I am suggesting.
--
Woody
Peter Ceresole
> **DRM only inconveniences the casual user. Only. No-one else. This is
> my primary point, and is why I believe it'll pretty much die out.**
I think that's right, but in the mean time it's there and it works for a
large part of the potential buying public, so it serves its purpose.
That's the point I'm making. It's temporary, but in the mean time it
enables people to make a living who might otherwise not do do.
And sure, a great many people are dishonest. It's why we have (fallible)
locks on our doors and why we secure our windows. Or don't, in which
case we are robbed...
There's nothing new in any of this. Crooks would rip off tapes and
reproduce them by the thousand, selling them on street corners and in
fairgrounds. It's just cheaper and much easier to do now. The remedy
then was for the police to crack down on cowboy sellers; it wasn't
remotely anything like 100% effective, but attempted to do the right
thing. At some time there will be a better way; as it is, the letters
that are said to be going out from ISPs to large torrent users are the
next best thing. I can't imagien what the effect might be, but I think
something of the sort is the right thing to do and I wish them luck.
--
Peter
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Ceresole) wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> **DRM only inconveniences the casual user. Only. No-one else. This is
>> my primary point, and is why I believe it'll pretty much die out.**
>
>I think that's right, but in the mean time it's there and it works for a
>large part of the potential buying public, so it serves its purpose.
>
>That's the point I'm making. It's temporary, but in the mean time it
>enables people to make a living who might otherwise not do do.
Apart from me not being convinced that it makes any difference to
folks making a living(*), we seem to be in close agreement. And I
agree with the points snipped too, btw.
* To possibly explain the differences in our outlook there, I'm
suspecting its all rather different in the TV world, because that
seems to be more concentrated on limited-rights-to-replay contracts. I
imagine protecting those rights is vital since (outside series boxed
DVD sets) that's the only income. It's a B2B model, rather than a
standard consumer model. Unrestricted distribution to the potential
audience can presumably stop the purchase of replay rights by another
broadcast business, thus leading to a big drop in revenue. Am I in the
right lines there?
I'm more famiiliar with books, software, movies and audio, where
people buy original, full-price media by the ton. For audio, almost
all of the money goes to everyone involved who is not the artist, who
is still paying back their advance and has no rights to what should be
their own IP while a standard recording contract is in place. For
movies, the actors+crew have already been paid (apart from top-billing
% of the gross contracts) so all extra money goes to theatres,
distribution agents and the production house. Software similar,
swapping devs and artists/etc for actors and crew. Books are pretty
sensible, with the author tending towards 10% of the cover price and
getting their right to sell back again in a fixed time or if the
publisher lapses.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
If ignorance is bliss, why are so many people unhappy?
Peter Ceresole
> Apart from me not being convinced that it makes any difference to
> folks making a living(*), we seem to be in close agreement.
I suspect that maybe we are. However, the business of 'making a
living'... Even in music (certainly in books) a great deal of the money
(however much or little that might be) is exchanged in advances, so
subsequent sales may make little direct difference to the artist.
However it will certainly make a difference to the publisher, and as a
result to their readiness to do deals with the artists, and to advance
money and facilities, including PR, to them. It's a whole system that's
involved, however skewed and unfair it might be. And it used to be far
worse; until people like Jagger got wise and brought in killer agents
from the US, UK record companies treated musicians with about the same
respect that they gave their dustbin men.
However the publishers run considerable financial risks too; a good
friend of mine was a lead guitarist in a 1970s group that had a couple
of successful issues and got a fantastic deal from (now) Sony. Money
beyond the dreams of avarice, in those days. Stoned for ever. Then
within months the group imploded, one wanted for attempted murder in the
USA (tried to run down a parking attendant in an LA garage) and the
others scattered back to England.
They survived at a basic level, their CDs still sell in very small
numbers and every cent the group makes goes towards paying off Sony's
advance, although basically Sony will recover nothing. Okay, the
publishers know the risks, but they'd be much less ready to advance
money if they thought that if they guessed right, all the profits would
disappear becasue of torrents.
As to TV, you are right, the amounts involved in making the stuff are
simply huge- for films it's an order of magnitude greater still. There
*is* no more awkward or expensive way of telling a story, and in that
field copy protection is an absolutely essential fact of life. The
producers and their associations like the RIAA are completely justified
in being paranoid. Whether on not they are going about it the right way
is another question, but just like governments they will get it wrong
from time to time and invade Iraq. Still, they have to try. At least
they don't kill so many people.
--
Peter
Stimpy
> Stimpy <stimpy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ...then, of course, there's the various Russian services such as mp3sparks
>> and millisong which offer the range and quality of iTunes without the DRM or
>> the uncertainty of quality associated with Kazaa et al.
>
> Do they buy their batteries and razors from street traders too? And
> iPods, cameras, mobile phones, televisions, car radios, handbags etc
> from "some bloke down the pub?"
No, because there's a quality issue there and the local Waitrose don't try
and restrict what I can do with the batteries I buy.
> You seem to know many people who have scant regard for much beyond their
> self-interest. Do you have any idea if these people are completely
> clueless and think their money is actually supporting the artists, or if
> they are just too lazy to steal the music themselves and would rather
> pay the Russian underworld to do their ripping off for them?
I can only speak for me when I say, I genuinely don't care. There's a
service out there that's a lot cheaper and easier to use than another
service, whilst providing a better product - I'll use the cheaper and easier
one everytime and end up with the better product.
When iTunes offers DRM free 320kbps albums on a fixed-price 'per megabyte'
pricing model, with discounts for regular purchasers, then I'll use them.
Having said that, much of the music I get these days comes from Bittorrent
rather than *any* online store.
Peter Ceresole
> Having said that, much of the music I get these days comes from Bittorrent
> rather than *any* online store.
Yes.
What PeterD said...
--
Peter
Pd
> * To possibly explain the differences in our outlook there, I'm
> suspecting its all rather different in the TV world, because that
> seems to be more concentrated on limited-rights-to-replay contracts. I
> imagine protecting those rights is vital since (outside series boxed
> DVD sets) that's the only income. It's a B2B model, rather than a
> standard consumer model. Unrestricted distribution to the potential
> audience can presumably stop the purchase of replay rights by another
> broadcast business, thus leading to a big drop in revenue. Am I in the
> right lines there?
Yup. You might be surprised by the sums involved. I certainly was,
especially by the amount of money that is paid to produce and to pay for
licences to transmit stuff that is complete and utter tosh. I'm not
going to name specific programmes, but think of a pile of shite the size
of the worst daytime television you can possibly think of, double it,
and then try and imagine paying four million pounds for the rights to
transmit one series of that crap. I couldn't get my head around it.
A lot of licence fees are paid on the basis of audience figures, so a
film might cost a million to screen, and then a further payment of
between say, 200k and a million depending on the audience it draws.
If everybody's already seen the film because their nephew downloaded it
last week and burned it on a DVD for the rest of the family, that might
cost somebody a million pounds. Not insignificant. Stupid money, but
real money.
--
Pd
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> * To possibly explain the differences in our outlook there, I'm
>> suspecting its all rather different in the TV world, because that
>> seems to be more concentrated on limited-rights-to-replay contracts.
[snips]
>A lot of licence fees are paid on the basis of audience figures, so a
>film might cost a million to screen, and then a further payment of
>between say, 200k and a million depending on the audience it draws.
>If everybody's already seen the film because their nephew downloaded it
>last week and burned it on a DVD for the rest of the family, that might
>cost somebody a million pounds. Not insignificant. Stupid money, but
>real money.
Thanks to you and Peter C for the info - it was only while typing the
post up above that I clicked into why PC was quite so scathing about
anti-DRM arguments.
I'd love to see some evidence either way on TV viewing vs personal
piracy, as in your example above. I still think it has little effect
on viewing habits.
Speaking from only personal experience, I'm no less likely to watch a
decent movie/series when it's broadcast after seeing it on ripped
download vs bought DVD or previous broadcast. Unfortunately my
experience is surely not standard since I rarely watch broadcast telly
at all, and never in "couch potato watch whatever's on" mode. I'm
several standard deviations away from the average TV product
consumer...
However, I'm *more* likely to buy music having downloaded it from
t'Net. I make a point of buying stuff I like.
Cehers - Jaimie
Pd
> However, I'm *more* likely to buy music having downloaded it from
> t'Net. I make a point of buying stuff I like.
Moi aussi, especially since downloads aren't CD quality, yet.
I still prefer to have the music on a little circle of iridescent
plastic, thinking that one day (and that day is getting closer) I'll rip
it all again at full CD quality and have my whole music collection on
HD, thus solving the problem of CDs possibly deteriorating over time.
--
Pd
Chris Ridd
What would you use to encode it all - FLAC or AppleLossless? There are
pros and cons of both.
Cheers,
Chris
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>On 2008-07-27 18:24:30 +0100, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd) said:
What are the cons? I'd go AL for ease of iTunesing. FLAC doesn't seem
to have much support on a Mac.
What I actually do is encode MP3 variable rate up to 320kbps, top
quality. Seems good enough.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity.
-- Dorothy Parker
Stimpy
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> However, I'm *more* likely to buy music having downloaded it from
>> t'Net. I make a point of buying stuff I like.
>
> Moi aussi, especially since downloads aren't CD quality, yet.
ITMS ones aren't anyway
>
> I still prefer to have the music on a little circle of iridescent
> plastic, thinking that one day (and that day is getting closer) I'll rip
> it all again at full CD quality and have my whole music collection on
> HD, thus solving the problem of CDs possibly deteriorating over time.
I did mine at 320kbps about 3 years ago after a lot of testing when I
established I couldn't tell the difference between 320 and 1411kbps.
I'm not *sure* I could tell the difference between 256 and 1411 to be honest
but anything less than 256 was very obvious to me
Stimpy
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:48:35 +0100, Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-27 18:24:30 +0100, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd) said:
>>
>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I'm *more* likely to buy music having downloaded it from
>>>> t'Net. I make a point of buying stuff I like.
>>>
>>> Moi aussi, especially since downloads aren't CD quality, yet.
>>>
>>> I still prefer to have the music on a little circle of iridescent
>>> plastic, thinking that one day (and that day is getting closer) I'll rip
>>> it all again at full CD quality and have my whole music collection on
>>> HD, thus solving the problem of CDs possibly deteriorating over time.
>>
>> What would you use to encode it all - FLAC or AppleLossless? There are
>> pros and cons of both.
>
> What are the cons? I'd go AL for ease of iTunesing. FLAC doesn't seem
> to have much support on a Mac.
Mmm.. FLAC is a good format for torrenting but it's not easy to listen to in
iTunes :-)
Many commercial download services now offer FLAC's of 1411kbps WAVs as an
option
Chris Ridd
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:52:47 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:48:35 +0100, Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-07-27 18:24:30 +0100, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd) said:
>>>
>>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, I'm *more* likely to buy music having downloaded it from
>>>>> t'Net. I make a point of buying stuff I like.
>>>>
>>>> Moi aussi, especially since downloads aren't CD quality, yet.
>>>>
>>>> I still prefer to have the music on a little circle of iridescent
>>>> plastic, thinking that one day (and that day is getting closer) I'll rip
>>>> it all again at full CD quality and have my whole music collection on
>>>> HD, thus solving the problem of CDs possibly deteriorating over time.
>>>
>>> What would you use to encode it all - FLAC or AppleLossless? There are
>>> pros and cons of both.
>>
>> What are the cons? I'd go AL for ease of iTunesing. FLAC doesn't seem
>> to have much support on a Mac.
FLAC works as well as on any other Unix machine. I haven't bothered
looking for any GUI wrappers, so those may well exist in spades for
other platforms...
> Mmm.. FLAC is a good format for torrenting but it's not easy to listen to in
> iTunes :-)
That is the major downside. On the upside, the format's open (which
appeals if you're using it for archiving) and the decoder's reasonably
straightforward and open source.
> Many commercial download services now offer FLAC's of 1411kbps WAVs as an
> option
1411kbps, are you sure about that? Or are you just saying CD quality?
Cheers,
Chris
Woody
So as they are both lossless, is there a way of saying 'convert that
folder of AL to FLAC' or vice versa?
Chris Ridd
> So as they are both lossless, is there a way of saying 'convert that
> folder of AL to FLAC' or vice versa?
Theoretically yes, though it would be likely be via some uncompressed
format like AIFF.
Cheers,
Chris
Matthew Sylvester
AudialHub (sibling of VisualHub) will do this.
Chris Ridd
Sylvester) said:
Ta. Does it just call some open-source programs under the hood, like
iSquint does, and I assume VideoHub does?
Cheers,
Chris
Matthew Sylvester
> Ta. Does it just call some open-source programs under the hood, like
> iSquint does, and I assume VideoHub does?
I believe so
Woody
Just downloaded to have a look.
It installs and then asks to download the support files (so they don't
have to be connected to the GPL I guess)
It uses customised versions of
ffmpeg, oggenc, flac and lame
and it can convert batches of flac<->al, as well as lossy formats.
Pd
Weeeeellll, dunno. Probably AIFF, given that my entire CD collection
would probably fit onto a 1 TB drive as uncompressed. I've just finished
a bottle of Californian Cab Sav. so I'm not really in any posiition to
make serious comment, but that's my vague right brain feeling at the
momoment.
--
Pd
zoara
> I think my brother's second ex-wife has appropriated all the stuff of
> any value I left in his attic.
A shame, but at least you know your music will still be there.
-z-
--
am forget my password of mac,did you give me
password on new email marko.[redacted]@yahoo.com
zoara
> It's like leaving something on the pavement in an open box compared to
> keeping it secured behind a Yale lock; although 'everybody' knows haw to
> get through a Yale (of course 'everybody' doesn't, but it's the same
> kind of 'everybody' who knows how to strip a DRM wrapper) in practice
> the lock makes the intention clear, and makesit much more
> straightforward to pursue the thieves in law.
Your analogy is flawed, since it is possible to make flawless copies of
audio files.
To adjust your analogy to be more accurate, let's say that you made
jelly beans, and so did I. Because people all have access to magic
duplicating machines, you decide to 'protect' your jelly beans whilst I
do not. The protection means people can't put their jelly beans in their
magic duplicating machine, but they can still can eat jelly beans at
home, or at work. Problem is, they can't eat them when they're visiting
friends, and they definitely can't share them with friends unless the
friends come over to the jelly-bean owner's house.
Now, how do my jelly beans fare? Well, some people are honest and pay
for them. Other people are dishonest, and get their magic duplicating
machines to make copies of them from beans that people have made
available for duplicating.
Your jelly beans do better, right? Because not all dishonest people know
how to chemically analyse a jelly bean and work out the ingredients and
the recipe, and make copies of your jelly bean. So those people are kept
more honest; some of the dishonest people can make copies, but most
can't, so you drastically reduce the number of copies. Right?
Not quite.
All it takes is one person to know how to work out your recipe and
produce a duplicate without the 'protection', and they can make it
available for duplicating. People start duplicating that 'unprotected'
copy and making their duplicates available for duplication, and you end
up in exactly the same situation as me; some people are honest and pay
for your beans. Other people are dishonest, and get their magic
duplicating machines to make copies of them from beans that people have
made available for duplicating.
What's the difference? I come out with a new sardine and peanut flavour
jelly bean, and you come out with a new truffle and marmite flavour.
Once someone has analysed your recipe and copied it - and it won't take
long, I promise you that (it might even happen before you officially
announce your new flavour) then the experience for a dishonest person is
exactly the same; look for jelly beans that people have made available,
and there under "new flavours" are "sardine and peanut" and "truffle and
marmite". No difference - your dishonest person may not even realise
that you originally 'protected' your bean and I didn't.
Well, actually, there is a difference; not from the prespective of
someone dishonest, but from the perspective of your honest, paying
customers and even, potentially, for your own bottom line. See, my
customers can eat their sardine and peanut flavour jelly beans wherever
they want, and if their friends like them, they can make a copy for
them. I'd rather they didn't, but I realise that this may mean that the
friend ends up liking my jelly beans and buying some. Sure, they might
just use their duplicating machine to copy the ones people have offered
up, but then that puts them in the 'dishonest' category above; I'd never
have got any sales from them anyway.
What about your customers? Well, they can't let a friend have a try of
their new truffle and marmite jelly beans; the friend has to pay for
their own. And they can't eat them anywhere except home and work. But
those are side-effects of the protection, right? They are downsides to a
scheme that at least protects your profits by ensuring that people don't
make copies. Hmm, only problem there is that the dishonest people get
copies anyway, as I outlined above. And the honest people might just
become customers if they had a friend recommend a new flavour and make
them a few copies.
Net effect?
- you have zero effect on the people who are dishonest.
- you lose out on potential 'recommended by a friend' sales.
- you potentially irritate your customers, potentially to the extent
that they come to me instead, or (if I don't have any flavours they
like) they just become 'dishonest' by getting copies from those made
available, just so they can eat them where they want. They might just
pay for the first few bags of jellybeans, bin them and get the
'unprotected' copies which suit them better. But I doubt it will be long
before they just get the illicit copies.
So it fails. Again, I'm not saying I condone piracy; the problem is that
it will happen with or without DRM. All DRM does is inconvenience your
legitimate customers. There must be a better way (though I'm not saying
I have the answer) both for the copyright holders and for the customers.
Ironically, right now Hannah is organising a party, and is browsing
iTunes to get some music. She may end up pirating stuff just because it
would be easier than the faff that the DRM creates when trying to play
the music in the venue. Multiply that by however many other people find
themselves in similar situations to Han, and the DRM-vendors will have
lost a fair bit of potential cash there....