[Dave C]

Hi,
Please don’t call me stupid for asking this question; but what is the problem with DRM? Now, I can see why it is stupid applying DRM to CDs; basically I guess you can not then burn it onto your computer and hence an MP3 player and this is something I would not accept. But for something which you are downloading, unless I am missing something, what is wrong with someone (lets call them apple) not wanting to let you give all your mates a copy of the music you have downloaded. I am an i-pod user (my new 80 GB goes everywhere with me) and the reasons I do not use the i-tunes store are (1) I do not like the quality of their download (128 kbps is rubbish) and (2) The costs are way to high compared to a CD. If allofmp3 were to say; we are going to apply DRM now, as long as they kept everything else they do as good as it is now, I’m am not sure that I would really care. Now I am sure there is a good reason why I should care; anybody want to explain it to me (not being able to give all of your mates a copy of the music does not count as a good reason to me). Sure I am going to get some abuse here, but what the hell,
Cheers,
Dave C

[solaris]

Originally Posted by Dave C

Hi,
Please don’t call me stupid for asking this question; but what is the problem with DRM? Now, I can see why it is stupid applying DRM to CDs; basically I guess you can not then burn it onto your computer and hence an MP3 player and this is something I would not accept. But for something which you are downloading, unless I am missing something, what is wrong with someone (lets call them apple) not wanting to let you give all your mates a copy of the music you have downloaded. I am an i-pod user (my new 80 GB goes everywhere with me) and the reasons I do not use the i-tunes store are (1) I do not like the quality of their download (128 kbps is rubbish) and (2) The costs are way to high compared to a CD. If allofmp3 were to say; we are going to apply DRM now, as long as they kept everything else they do as good as it is now, I’m am not sure that I would really care. Now I am sure there is a good reason why I should care; anybody want to explain it to me (not being able to give all of your mates a copy of the music does not count as a good reason to me). Sure I am going to get some abuse here, but what the hell,
Cheers,
Dave C

This is AllOfMP3 saying: "We will apply DRM from now on."
This is the second later: solaris saying: "Goodbye, AllOfMP3!"

In one of the very first posts, I made in this forum, I explained what make AllOFMP3 unique. Actually I made a top ten:

1.NO DRM
2.NO DRM
3.NO DRM
4.NO DRM
5.NO DRM
6.NO DRM
7.NO DRM
8.NO DRM
9.NO DRM
10.Optional fileformat/bitrate

25.Price


I want to be able to put my music onto whatever device I prefer to - not having to speculate whatever device, I will have to stick to for the rest of my life - IF the company will exist in 5 years time.

I buy a new computer every 2-3 years. Now there's a fun thing to do: Getting new licenses for 18,000 tracks... 25,000 the next...

Licenses that mysteriously cease to work - having to explain to some 16 years old in support that really doesn't give a crap - he gets all his music using Bittorrent anyway.

Not being able to burn each song to CD's more than 3 times or 7 times or whatever.

And so on and so on...


I HATE DRM!!!!!!!!!!


solaris

[Dave C]

I am getting a vibe that you do not like DRM!!
Good points about the licences cocking up (not thought of that but seems obvious when you say it) and I was thinking that allowing something to be used on five cmputers seemed okay. Stupidly I interpreted this to mean that it would be switched over if you bought a new computer, but of course that it not going to happen, it is impossible to trace. Okay, you've got me convinced; DOWN WITH DRM,
Cheers,
Dave C

[brandorf]

The whole point of DRM is that you don't decide what you can do with your music, someone else does. Apple decided that iTunes music will only play on iPods or computers. So me, with my creative Zen, can't play any music I buy from iTunes. But I can buy music from say, the new Napster. However, if, in a few years my Zen dies, I can't buy a shiny new iPod, as any songs I bought won't work.

I CAN however, get music from AllofMP3, and those files will work on any player that supports that format. I download in plain MP3, and I have yet to see a device that they won't play on.

DRM doesn't stop piracy, what it stops is fair use.

[Mellifluous]

Yeah, I dislike DRM too. It's constricting and puts me off buying music, if anything. The internet is a great tool for music because it gives people what they want - immediate gratification. I find it far more attractive to be able to get my hands on the latest album immediately rather than having to trudge down to the record store. But DRM ruins this. If you have a certain kind of portable music player, you're constricted by what music you can buy - I own a Zune and I can't play the majority of iTunes or PlaysForSure either. For that reason, I did my very first DRM stripping yesterday, removing the DRM from a TV epsiode I bought from Amazon. I'm not going to pirate it, I just want to be able to put it on my Zune.

I hate being tied to a company and having to connect to their server very time I reinstall operating systems, music etc. I go out of my way to avoid DRM when buying albums. Recently, an album I was trying to buy was DRMd in most of the online stores I checked. I didn't give up searching and eventually found a store that sold it in both wma DRM and mp3 NON-DRM versions. They were the same price as all the other shops. I have bought albums in the past from iTunes and Audible, but lost the licenses/passwords for those so gave up on them. It's just too much hassle. If every piece of music in my library was DRMd I wouldn't own any of it within 2 years through losing passwords and formatting my PC.

[julesverne]

Selection of bitrate/format makes allofmp3. my #1 Choice. There are a few independent online stores offering the choice of bitrates up to 320kbps, but their prices are increasingly above $1.00 /per track. Which is not a good deal.
So, will allofmp3 be able to sustain their enterprise? I really hope so. If they need to increase prices, i would still remain a loyal customer. Why is Allofmp3 always being referred to as a criminal organization? Recall the history of the most innovative, enterprising business models and you will find the term 'Robber barons'.

[film_girl]

Selection of bitrate and format is what really made AllofMP3 attractive to me too. I mean, don't get me wrong, the new Apple Plus DRM-free AAC files (though they still have your username in the meta value - that doesn't bother me at all, I would never be dumb enough to torrent iTunes stuff, but it's still an irk) are really, really nice quality - 256 kbps AAC is like 320 MP3, easy...and for most purposes, you don't need more than that (and I'm one of those idiots that spends cockloads on her home theater system just so I can listen to an SACD remastered copy of Cowboy Junkies or the Beatles Love DVD-A...I know there is a difference, I just accept that it is minute and really only applicable for certain situations) - so that's pretty cool, but my issue with DRM is this:

I am an early adopter for a lot of technolgy products. I got an iPod in September of 2002, the day the Windows version was released. Not many 19 year olds are willing to drop $500 on a music player, but I did - and I would do it again. And while the iPod was the first high-line MP3 player I ever bought (it was the first one that I could see fitting my needs - early flash players were useless to me because I wasn't going to pay $200 for a 128 MB card - which is what they were even 5 years ago), it's not the only audio device I've ever owned or will own.

Even after I upgraded my iPod in 2003, someone gave me a flash MP3 player (a Nike Rio I think) for free, and I used to use it when working out really hard or in areas where I didn't want to risk damaging my iPod. But not being able to listen to music I purchased legally on that device, even if it was ONE TIME - was and is infuriating. De-DRMing files, burning them and then re-converting them to something else (so that the quality suffers), doing all this stuff just so I can play something I bought on something that isn't Apple is insane. And then Apple isn't the only one. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since 2003...and I've even bought a few CDs via them, the reason I don't buy more is because I don't like only having two options - burn to CD instantly and the re-rip into AAC or MP3 or get a player compatible with that format (because despite their hacks, they don't work on your iPod). If I buy something, I should be able to listen to it easily. It shouldn't be a disaster. I shouldn't have to buy The Postal Service on Rhapsody and then end up getting it on iTunes out of frustration. You know?

[solaris]

Originally Posted by film_girl

Selection of bitrate and format is what really made AllofMP3 attractive to me too. I mean, don't get me wrong, the new Apple Plus DRM-free AAC files (though they still have your username in the meta value - that doesn't bother me at all, I would never be dumb enough to torrent iTunes stuff, but it's still an irk) are really, really nice quality - 256 kbps AAC is like 320 MP3, easy...and for most purposes, you don't need more than that (and I'm one of those idiots that spends cockloads on her home theater system just so I can listen to an SACD remastered copy of Cowboy Junkies or the Beatles Love DVD-A...I know there is a difference, I just accept that it is minute and really only applicable for certain situations) - so that's pretty cool, but my issue with DRM is this:

I am an early adopter for a lot of technolgy products. I got an iPod in September of 2002, the day the Windows version was released. Not many 19 year olds are willing to drop $500 on a music player, but I did - and I would do it again. And while the iPod was the first high-line MP3 player I ever bought (it was the first one that I could see fitting my needs - early flash players were useless to me because I wasn't going to pay $200 for a 128 MB card - which is what they were even 5 years ago), it's not the only audio device I've ever owned or will own.

Even after I upgraded my iPod in 2003, someone gave me a flash MP3 player (a Nike Rio I think) for free, and I used to use it when working out really hard or in areas where I didn't want to risk damaging my iPod. But not being able to listen to music I purchased legally on that device, even if it was ONE TIME - was and is infuriating. De-DRMing files, burning them and then re-converting them to something else (so that the quality suffers), doing all this stuff just so I can play something I bought on something that isn't Apple is insane. And then Apple isn't the only one. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since 2003...and I've even bought a few CDs via them, the reason I don't buy more is because I don't like only having two options - burn to CD instantly and the re-rip into AAC or MP3 or get a player compatible with that format (because despite their hacks, they don't work on your iPod). If I buy something, I should be able to listen to it easily. It shouldn't be a disaster. I shouldn't have to buy The Postal Service on Rhapsody and then end up getting it on iTunes out of frustration. You know?

Hi film_girl.

Let me start by saying that I couldn't agree with you more. Both this and the post on how you found AllOfMP3 should be read by the music industry and their only option would be to nod and think about what could have been.

I have even copy/pasted both your posts and put them in a special word document of mine, where I put all the excellent written stuff that describe why DRM is evil and that people "pirating" music isn't always a loss for the industry.

Finally let me compliment you on your written English, which seems almost impeccable both in how you put your words together and also in a grammatical sense. Having a non-English mother tongue, I guess I'm much more focused on how "correct" people write - especially when they are in fact raised in an English speaking and writing county. I truly enjoy your writing.

solaris

P.S. Wow, this was my post number 1000 in this forum

[film_girl]

Originally Posted by solaris

Hi film_girl.

Let me start by saying that I couldn't agree with you more. Both this and the post on how you found AllOfMP3 should be read by the music industry and their only option would be to nod and think about what could have been.

I have even copy/pasted both your posts and put them in a special word document of mine, where I put all the excellent written stuff that describe why DRM is evil and that people "pirating" music isn't always a loss for the industry.

Finally let me compliment you on your written English, which seems almost impeccable both in how you put your words together and also in a grammatical sense. Having a non-English mother tongue, I guess I'm much more focused on how "correct" people write - especially when they are in fact raised in an English speaking and writing county. I truly enjoy your writing.

solaris

P.S. Wow, this was my post number 1000 in this forum

Oh, thank you so much - that's so nice of you to say! I love that you notice proper usage; more native English speakers should follow your lead

I really wish the RIAA would seriously look at forums like this one - and read the messages about WHY people choose to get digital music from sources that are not co-opted by the RIAA. If you read their press statements, they seem to be of the belief that it is all about not wanting to pay for intellectual property - when it has never been about price, it has been about access. People downloaded digital files in the beginning because it was a way to get music that was out-of-print or almost impossible to find, and because it was instant. People would rather PAY for AllofMP3 rather than legal Napster or iTunes because they want full control over their files and they want to choose what format/bit-rate they can get that file. People are willing to pay a premium for highly-encoded files. I mean, if you buy an album from AOM3 in lossless, or even extreme LAME, the price is going to come close or exceed what iTunes would charge -- clearly it isn't just about money. But by characterizing all customers as thieves (and that is exactly what DRM says - which is why it has never succeeded - and it never will succeed) gives them more of an incentive to actually become thieves. Customers don't mind paying for a product, but they resent having the uses of that product dictated - especially if a limitless version exists.

DRM didn't work when VHS first tried it in the mid-80s (and that was an easy fix, transparent tape over the open hole) - it didn't work on DVDs (the encryption was cracked within a year) - and you know what, both of those industries THRIVED. And at least in those cases, you weren't told you couldn't play your VHS tape in a Sony VCR - as long as it had the VHS logo, it played - same with DVD (dis-regarding region encoding for a moment - which is another issue entirely - and a huge part of the reason Taiwan and Hong Kong are such rich centers for piracy - Region-0) - but with digital music DRM - you don't have that option. I'm just thankful the EU finally stood up and said, "no, customers have the right to have unrestricted access to their media" - because otherwise, there wouldn't be any incentive for companies like EMI to even offer DRM free files in the US.

[solaris]

Originally Posted by film_girl

Oh, thank you so much - that's so nice of you to say! I love that you notice proper usage; more native English speakers should follow your lead

I really wish the RIAA would seriously look at forums like this one - and read the messages about WHY people choose to get digital music from sources that are not co-opted by the RIAA. If you read their press statements, they seem to be of the belief that it is all about not wanting to pay for intellectual property - when it has never been about price, it has been about access. People downloaded digital files in the beginning because it was a way to get music that was out-of-print or almost impossible to find, and because it was instant. People would rather PAY for AllofMP3 rather than legal Napster or iTunes because they want full control over their files and they want to choose what format/bit-rate they can get that file. People are willing to pay a premium for highly-encoded files. I mean, if you buy an album from AOM3 in lossless, or even extreme LAME, the price is going to come close or exceed what iTunes would charge -- clearly it isn't just about money. But by characterizing all customers as thieves (and that is exactly what DRM says - which is why it has never succeeded - and it never will succeed) gives them more of an incentive to actually become thieves. Customers don't mind paying for a product, but they resent having the uses of that product dictated - especially if a limitless version exists.

DRM didn't work when VHS first tried it in the mid-80s (and that was an easy fix, transparent tape over the open hole) - it didn't work on DVDs (the encryption was cracked within a year) - and you know what, both of those industries THRIVED. And at least in those cases, you weren't told you couldn't play your VHS tape in a Sony VCR - as long as it had the VHS logo, it played - same with DVD (dis-regarding region encoding for a moment - which is another issue entirely - and a huge part of the reason Taiwan and Hong Kong are such rich centers for piracy - Region-0) - but with digital music DRM - you don't have that option. I'm just thankful the EU finally stood up and said, "no, customers have the right to have unrestricted access to their media" - because otherwise, there wouldn't be any incentive for companies like EMI to even offer DRM free files in the US.

Amen to that

film_girl, remember to keep me posted if you succeed in breaking the $300 barrier...

solaris