View Full Forums : Yahoo to sell un-DRM'd music?


Teaenea
07-20-2006, 02:53 PM
http://ymusicblog.com/blog/2006/07/19/buy-a-customized-jessica-simpson-mp3-at-yahoo-music/&www.dailytech.com

They are currently testing it out. The first thing that strikes me is that it's EXPENSIVE. $1.99 a song. iTunes costs 99 cents and Rhapsody charges me 79. But the idea of content not crippled with DRM is a good one. I don't think I'd bite at two bucks a song, but drop it to $1.25 or even as much as $1.50 depending on the artist and I'd strongly consider it.

Being able to buy music without worrying about what player or service I'll be using in the future is really appealing.

Tudamorf
07-20-2006, 04:39 PM
The record labels and RIAA are probably too paranoid to allow this, after all the money they spent trying to protect their product. They wish they could protect CDs, but all of their efforts have failed, and they can't just pull CDs from the market since they are the standard.

They also have little to gain by offering a "premium" unprotected song. The people who are likely to buy these would also be likely to make illegal copies, which means potential lost revenue. As for the people like you, who are just DRM-averse, the record companies figure you'll buy the protected song anyway, and if you lose it, you'll probably just buy another, which means even more profit for them.

Panamah
07-20-2006, 04:44 PM
What does DRM stand for?

Teaenea
07-20-2006, 04:53 PM
What does DRM stand for?

Digital Rights Management. It's the annoying software that doesn't let you run iTunes songs on anything but iPods. It also limits the amount of computers you can play the songs on. edit: It's not only Apple that does this. They are just the biggest users of it.
The record labels and RIAA are probably too paranoid to allow this, after all the money they spent trying to protect their product. They wish they could protect CDs, but all of their efforts have failed, and they can't just pull CDs from the market since they are the standard.

We'll find out I guess. But, I doubt yahoo would try to do this without their consent. I think that's really what they are testing out.


They also have little to gain by offering a "premium" unprotected song. The people who are likely to buy these would also be likely to make illegal copies, which means potential lost revenue. As for the people like you, who are just DRM-averse, the record companies figure you'll buy the protected song anyway, and if you lose it, you'll probably just buy another, which means even more profit for them.

It's not so much that I am DRM adverse, but DRM is really anti-consumer. At least in it's current form. In the Apple/iTunes case it forces consumers to stay with one product/service or risk losing the ability to utilize the other fully.

Tudamorf
07-20-2006, 05:29 PM
It's not so much that I am DRM adverse, but DRM is really anti-consumer. At least in it's current form. In the Apple/iTunes case it forces consumers to stay with one product/service or risk losing the ability to utilize the other fully.But that's the point. They make more profit that way, and less profit your way. They don't care about the consumer or the artist, and each label has a practical monopoly with respect to their affiliated artists. If the industry had their way, they'd charge you every time you even try to hum one of their songs.

In the case of Apple specifically, they <i>lose</i> money on the iTunes; it's basically a promotional site to force people to buy their crappy, overpriced iPods. So Apple will certainly not unprotect their media, because then their iPod would be in direct competition with other brands.

Palarran
07-20-2006, 05:50 PM
Err...Apple _loses_ money on iTunes? How is that possible?

Tudamorf
07-20-2006, 05:57 PM
Err...Apple _loses_ money on iTunes? How is that possible?Well, since opening iTunes has turned a profit some quarters, but Apple always expected it operate at a loss. The real profit is in the iPods, and to promote those, they need the iTunes.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/your_99c_belong/

Aldarion_Shard
07-20-2006, 07:06 PM
emusic.com.

This business has been selling non-DRM music legally in the united states since before Itunes, Napster, or Yahoo. Its far cheaper, as well (~23 cents a song). The only downside is the selection -- they have a very eclectic selection, so you wont find everything you're looking for there.

But I point this site out to people all the time, and have bought dozens of albums from them, because I want to support non-DRM music as much as possible. Emusic gives you straight-up MP3s, no strings attached.

If your taste is the least bit eclectic, I recommend you check it out. You can get a free account witha couple downloads attached to it, which allows you to browse their whole selection and decide if its worth signing up and buying more.

And again -- this is 100% legal and USA based, its not some grey-area Russian site type thing.

Aldarion_Shard
07-20-2006, 07:09 PM
By the way, its extraordinarily easy to strip DRM from Itunes-purchased songs. Google a little bit and you'll have your whole collection fixed within 10 minutes.

Tudamorf
07-20-2006, 08:38 PM
By the way, its extraordinarily easy to strip DRM from Itunes-purchased songs. Google a little bit and you'll have your whole collection fixed within 10 minutes.And then the RIAA will subpoena Google's records, find out you've been searching for it, and sue you. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

oddjob1244
07-21-2006, 12:42 AM
lol, yea right. That'll be the day when you're not even allowed to see the results of illegal stuff. No doubt they'll try though.

Itunes comes with built in DRM removal too if you're really desperate.... the burn a CD button, audiophiles might scream bloody murder about the quality of your song though.

Tudamorf
07-21-2006, 12:58 AM
audiophiles might scream bloody murder about the quality of your song though.Does it degrade the quality when you burn to CD? Or just decompress it?

Sildan
07-21-2006, 02:17 AM
My way might be a bit more expensive but it works and while I'm sure those who boast of having bionic ears can hear the degredation of quality ( even though those people shouldn't be buying digital music and should own a tube amp with an all vinyl collection )I sure can't and it gives me a hard copy backup of my music.

Simply use iTunes to burn an audio CD and then turn around and use iTunes to rip that audio CD to mp3 format. Bye Bye DRM and you did it all using iTunes so Apple can't complain that you used illegal software.

Sildan
07-21-2006, 02:20 AM
Whoops,

My idea was so genious that oddjob1244 read my mind and posted it 24 hours ago. His kung fu is strong!!

cladari
07-21-2006, 02:24 AM
Ipod is the key to profit since the device itself has a non replacable battery ( for the average consumer its non replacable ) with a life time of between 12 and 18 months.

Cladari

Kitty Ember
07-22-2006, 04:02 PM
My way might be a bit more expensive but it works and while I'm sure those who boast of having bionic ears can hear the degredation of quality ( even though those people shouldn't be buying digital music and should own a tube amp with an all vinyl collection )I sure can't and it gives me a hard copy backup of my music.

Simply use iTunes to burn an audio CD and then turn around and use iTunes to rip that audio CD to mp3 format. Bye Bye DRM and you did it all using iTunes so Apple can't complain that you used illegal software.

I agree. Maybe Im just not a hardcore audiophile, but I can't see any difference. I'm sure it exists, but it's negligible to me. This is a simple-yet-effective solution to those who want the music their way and aren't concerned with a difference most people won't even notice.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
07-23-2006, 11:45 PM
( even though those people shouldn't be buying digital music and should own a tube amp with an all vinyl collection )
Back in the day,,,,

Audiophiles would buy the master LPs, then move them to reel to reel. And would only use the vinyl to reproduce the tape when it no longer met their needs.

If there are any old real audiophiles amongst our readers here, and I am incorrect, please correct me.

Every play of a vinyl disc degrades it. Even moreso with the diamond needles of yore. Do they still use diamond needles, even?

Tudamorf
07-24-2006, 12:40 AM
Do they still use diamond needles, even?Yes, all the high end LP cartridges do, and they cause little wear if you set the counterbalance property. Though, in the old days, the cheap cartridges used inferior elements which really did wear the vinyl down. It's still better than magnetic tape, which gets slightly scrambled with each play.

I still don't understand the quality issue. Assuming iTunes just decompresses the MP3 and records the PCM (uncompressed) audio onto the CD, you're left with the exact same quality as the MP3, just in a decompressed format. I've yet to hear quality differences in MP3 <i>decompressors</i> (though compressors do vary in quality).

alyn cross
07-24-2006, 01:44 AM
mmmm vinyl.... you guys don't really know what you're missing. that old stuff's *supposed* to have the cracks and pops in it.... it's like... 3D. and the newer vinyl? yes, on a good turntable, that sounds more full than CD. thats right, better than CD.

/cackle

tuda, i think to understand the degredation you have to consider it another way.... if your video card plays a game at 75fps but mine does at 60fps... and the human eye cannot percieve above 35fps... what's the point? (generalization of numbers there, don't call me out on it....)

i beileve the audio degridation is the same, it's minute, but it does exist, as far as i understand it. most people cannot percieve it. machines, i suppose can.

Tudamorf
07-24-2006, 04:04 AM
tuda, i think to understand the degredation you have to consider it another way.... if your video card plays a game at 75fps but mine does at 60fps... and the human eye cannot percieve above 35fps... what's the point?Generalizations such as "humans can only perceive a quality level of X" are typically false.

A good gamer can perceive up to 200 fps, as there is no hard limit on your eye's frame rate. I'm not a hardcore FPS gamer, but even to me it doesn't begin to look truly smooth until it reaches around 100-120 fps. If you showed me a motion scene at 30, 60, and 100 fps, I would be able to label each one with 100% accuracy.

As for MP3s, even with the best compressors, they are obviously degraded at 128 Kbps, and subtly degraded at 192 Kbps. You have to get up to around 256 Kbps (about half the bitrate of lossless compression, and 1/3 of the original) for an attentive listener to be unable to consistently pick out the differences. If, on a quality stereo system, you can't clearly hear the difference between a 128 Kbps MP3 and the PCM original, you must have some hearing loss.

That's kind of off-topic, though. Obviously you're already buying the compressed, degraded version, so you're happy with it. If you can just burn it onto a CD and decompress it, with no data loss, you've eliminated the copy protection without reducing quality (even though the starting quality is less than that of the CD).

Palarran
07-24-2006, 04:51 AM
With proper motion blur, I think you'd have trouble distinguishing between 60 fps and 100 fps. Most games do not use motion blur (yet).

Tudamorf
07-24-2006, 02:03 PM
With proper motion blur, I think you'd have trouble distinguishing between 60 fps and 100 fps. Most games do not use motion blur (yet).I can easily see motion blur in ~60Hz video, so I seriously doubt that. As for games incorporating motion blur, the amount of computation nececssary would be so high, you'd be better off just upgrading the processing speed to reach 100+ fps.

Motion blur is a just a crutch to make up for the poor bandwidth film and early video had in the early 20th century. Today, we can make 100 fps high definition films, but we still stick to that outdated standard. Not to mention the mess with the archaic standards for video and interlacing.

Sildan
07-25-2006, 07:11 AM
It's probably also worth mention in the conversation that ( and yes I'm theorizing and generalizing ) that the average MP3 listener is more likely to be listening via Labtec computer speakers and earbuds than 1400 dollar kef speakers which are the only ones, of the three I mention, likely to reflect the audio difference that the finely trained ear can hear.

Teaenea
07-25-2006, 11:00 AM
It's probably also worth mention in the conversation that ( and yes I'm theorizing and generalizing ) that the average MP3 listener is more likely to be listening via Labtec computer speakers and earbuds than 1400 dollar kef speakers which are the only ones, of the three I mention, likely to reflect the audio difference that the finely trained ear can hear.

Foamies have gotten really popular these days. And they aren't much more than standard ear-buds. It's much easier to hear quality differences with them than standard buds or headphones.

If you're not familiar, the ear piece is made of a foam(same type used for disposable ear plugs) that you pinch and insert directly into the ear cannal. It then expands and fills the space. It seriously blocks out extraneous noises and they sound great. I used a pair last time I flew. With normal headphones I had to turn the volume to full and I still couldn't hear some of the dialog of the movie I was watching on my laptop. I switched to the foamies and I had to turn the volume down, significantly.

Panamah
07-25-2006, 11:41 AM
I wonder if having something like that might be more damaging to hearing though.

Teaenea
07-25-2006, 01:14 PM
I wonder if having something like that might be more damaging to hearing though.

Potentially. But it's for the same reasons as any other set of headphones. Volume. They still sound better at safe decible levels than buds and such because they block out a large portion of background noise.

Sildan
07-25-2006, 10:54 PM
They still have extremely poor frequency range compared to that of a full range cabinet speaker and the extreme ends of the frequency spectrum that are lost in compresson and reproduction are the areas those small speakers/ear buds foamies etc are missing. I am not saying they are not quality sounding. I am simply stating that those types of speakers are not the top technology in high fidelity and will be less likely to reflect the losses in quality. They are also most likely not the top choice of equipment for the audionuts who would/should complain over quality degredation. MP3s by nature are a lower quality level of music to begin with.

Your sterotypical ( UGH horrible pun ) audionut listens to music the way the guy in the classic Maxell commercial( the one blasting ride of the valkyries ) does.

Tudamorf
07-25-2006, 11:32 PM
Foamies have gotten really popular these days. And they aren't much more than standard ear-buds. It's much easier to hear quality differences with them than standard buds or headphones.They may block out more external noise, but the actual driver inside them is still very low quality, with high levels of distortion that mask more subtle errors in the source.

Teaenea
07-26-2006, 11:12 AM
/shrug. They let me hear the difference between an MP3 recored at 128 vs 190.