willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > yea i know everyone is against drm but thats because drm today sucks > today, and because when you buy protected audio content the quality is > less than you get from ripping a cd yourself, and the added tags are > simple and no better than existing mp3 tags. but with the right > software + hardware development all these concerns can go away. DRM will still suck in the future, since it requires that I'm tied to hardware that I can't completely control (or it won't work).
willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > a sim card drm so that when you buy music you can download a version > encrypted against a couple of sim cards that you own... and when your > srm is visible on the network any device can use it to play your > protected files... so maybe that sim sits in your pc or your squeezebox > or ipod it doesn't matter.. So the unprotected data is sent over the network? DRM defeated. Or the network itself now needs to be encrypted? That's more hardware required, so that my existing hardware can use it. I realise you're not claiming to be an expert in the technical details, but I just can't see something like that working without it being unfair to me, the listener. willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > i am saying this is the holy grail that would cause an explosion of > music sales and solve the problem of distributing intellectual > property. It didn't work for SACD: that's very well protected, but it's a niche product. HDCP will only take off because it's going to be in all HDTVs and players in the future -- anybody buying into HD from now on will also get HDCP. (And many people who have already bought HD will find that, without HDCP, some content in the future will not be available to them.) There's no compelling reason to make such a wholesale replacement of an audio system for most people (high audio fidelity doesn't seem to be as noticeable as high-resolution video, and even that isn't obvious to many). willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > it's the vision the record companies need to work towards but dont have > the skills to implement today they are hostage to one self interested > company - Apple. solving these problems are critical to the future. Note that Apple is expected to finally allow record labels to sell music without DRM through ITMS: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/30/2225246 willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > todays it's cd piracy, tomorrow it's films, one day it will be books. Interestingly, one publisher has found he's better off releasing books for free (no DRM) online: http://www.baen.com/library/ willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > these issues can't always be solved by hoping t-shirt sales and live gig > money makes up the difference. Note that this financial issue is exacerbated by the fact that any band is paying back a record company for the money spent in producing and promoting the record. Of course, somebody needs to pay for that. But if the record companies weren't focussing on spending huge amounts on relatively few sure-to-chart hit artists, perhaps the amount to be spent would be reduced and the shortfall easier to manage. willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > so i am saying yea people would buy more music because the record > companies will have the confidence to create and distribute better > content. There's already a lot of great content being produced, but it's not being marketed to a fragmented audience where most of the revenue is in playing top-40 on the main radio stations. Where I think the record companies could do better, content-wise, is to take more chances and spend less money on the blockbuster artists -- I'm not saying those artists aren't worth listening to, but there's an awful lot spent on them and they've become "product". They're the ones who are bringing in the money. If adding DRM really did guarantee an income stream, why would the record companies bother to look for something different? willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > And from the users point of view he can't copy his friends collection > but all the ripping and tagging and messing about will vanish. Again, anecdotally: I don't find that people generally copy entire collections just like that. Rather, a friend will recommend an album and if I like it, I'll buy it, and probably buy the follow-up and go to the concert. I recognise that not everybody will pay having got a copy, but a lot of those people will now be fans and be more interested in buying the next record. willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > then the squeezebox will no longer be a niche product but something > anyone with any level of computer knowledge will be able to put into > their living room. Sounds like what's needed are open standards and protocols for music storage, serving and playback, not tighter restrictions. And if it's open, it won't just be the SqueezeBox but anybody's hardware which can use it. willyhoops;198878 Wrote: > anyone with the vast skills required to build a real sophisticated drm > that makes everyone happy would make a fortune. roll on slimTunes > instead of iTunes... They won't be making that fortune from me. And they won't care, of course. -- smst ------------------------------------------------------------------------ smst's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=752 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
