Music Industry Forcing WMA standard? 549
CtrlPhreak writes "Cnet news.com has a story up stating that the music industry is considering having cds that contain the un-rippable tracks as well as the windows media formatted files with limited uses ala Microsoft's digital rights management. Just one more brick in Microsoft's continuing monopoly..." And another format that I can't play back. Hope this one dies fast.
WMA .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Deal with it. (Score:2, Insightful)
By using Linux, you are exercising you're right to choose. And apparently, you choose not to want to play WMA. If it's that big a deal for you, you always have the right to choose again. Freedom does not mean that your "choice" has all the pros and none of the cons.
Re:Who'da thunk it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Monopoly? Not on talent (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you hadn't noticed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps you should wake up. This story ain't about this tech, it's about the industry considering putting WMA on the CD and then saying that it's "computer-compatible" (read: "Windows-compatible"), thus preventing CDs from working with free/open source software. That's news. And if it ain't, it sure is Stuff that Matters
Oh, and a couple more things:
If you don't use Windows at all, how the hell can you make such broad statements against it all the time??
He's not. He's criticising a company's monopolistic practices - and he, along with the rest of the Free Software crowd, has been victim enough of it to write freely about it.
Buy only indie and bootleg music. Boycott the crap (Score:2, Insightful)
If you buy music to listen to on your computer, and that requires ripping to mp3 or Ogg/Vorbis, then these new fangled MS crippled CD's are worthless to you. Don't trade your $15.00 for a worthless CD. Buy bootlegs instead. Buy old (used) CDs where you can.
If you think about it, how much archive quality music does the RIAA membership put out in a year? Most of it is one-hit-wonders and teeny-bopper crap. Hip-hop, electronic, and rock music all have big underground and indie (non-corporate) scenes. Musicians should all be producing their own discs for sale via pay-pal anyway.
Re:why not a standard?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the problem of making un-hackable music formats is so far unsolvable. So when they ask 'open standards groups' and their own programmers to do it the answer they get is 'We can't figure out how to do it.' Then Microsoft tells them 'we have a solution to all your problems. Just sign here...'
They are desperate to maintain tight control over every bit of content, and they see in Microsoft a similar philosophy and desire. So they sign...
While the technical community says 'but it doesn't work right... it stinks... it introduces more problems...'. But as I said, they are desperate and Microsoft is promising.
Re:Who'da thunk it? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you have a device that protects the IP rights at home and another such device in your car, what rights are you deprived of?
"I don't want to buy another device!". Too bad. Blame the pirates.
Re:why not a standard?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen some really STUPID business practices during the past ten years, but i SWEAR TO GOD there have been none more idiotic than those of the RIAA. They are literally shooting themselves in their feet OVER and OVER AGAIN, and they act like they don't even realize it!!!
Re:Who'da thunk it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes I do know that most people who have MP3s have collected them via the net. But that doesn't change the situation I'm in.
So sick of the attitude (Score:3, Insightful)
What new technologies (and the constantly increasing accessibility at any scale of technologies like burning CDs) present musicians and consumers alike with is the possibility of ditching the fat cat middlemen entirely, which would be fine since they do nothing for music but try to make everything a hit which turns 99.9% of everything they sell into indistinguishable, homogenized crap.
When you consider the global marketing potential that a little fearlessness when it comes to digital audio files and the internet presents the individual artist or band with, and the enormity of the cut that the parasitic media distribution conglomerates suck up between artists and consumers, it becomes clear that for artists and consumers alike copy protection is irrelevant.
All the industry frenzy over this issue has nothing to do with lost sales (which have been negligible) and everything to do with preventing independent concerns from commercializing and popularizing effective digital music distribution tools. Don't like this copy-impaired, we'll pick your compression format (and quality, natch) garbage? Write to your favorite INDIE record label or better yet your favorite unsigned, self- distributing or about-to-be-released-from-contract artists and tell THEM how you feel. They might actually give a rats ass and do something about it.
Will this severely weaken the industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it may be a huge double-barreled shot at their feet. Here's why: Ripping MP3s is already mainstream. When they ship these crippled CDs, and the word gets out that you can't rip them or you have to go through some user-hostile WMA download every time you want to add tunes to your jukebox, sales will drop.
And, as others have noted here, indie bands won't behave this way (why should they? MP3 trading will help spread the word about their tunes). So they will get a sales boost from users who may not give a shit about IP and fair use but certainly care about ease of use.
Don't believe me? Look at the commercial failure of Sony's Music Clip. It fell flat on its face because customers wanted the standard (MP3) not something else that required many extra steps to use it.
So, as for the music industry: fuck 'em. If they want to sell useless drink coasters for $15, and wonder where a big segment the buyers went, let them take the financial hit. Just don't invest in any of the big five, and you won't personally pay the price. Maybe now is the time to short Vivendi-Universal, for example.
WMA playable under Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, you can play wma files under Linux using the avifile tool. avifile is a brilliant piece of software engineering that works directly with the Windows DLL (a-la-Wine). It will play back DivX avi and most Windows Media Player formats.
Having said this, it will only work for x86 Linux, and still leaves a lot of people stranded with their systems. It's definitely another way to strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. Really disgusting.
DZM
This is not a "right" (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure they can do that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why not a standard?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they figured that with 650M of data on a CD, that CDs would never by "copyable".
Because when CD-ROM drives came out, hard drives that could hold 650M cost thousands of dollars.
Because when CD-R came out, it cost thousands of dollars, and they figured we'd continue to listen (or dub) music on shiny black boxes with twirly knobs on 'em called "audio equipment", not PCs.
Because when MP3 came out, it took all night to encode a CD-ROM at 128. And most hard drives were only a couple of gigs. And CD-R discs still cost a few bucks apiece, so it was still usually cheaper to buy the album at the store.
Because they never imagined that we'd do anything with MP3s other than burn them to CD-DA. The notion of an MP3 "player" (whether based on CD-R, flash ROM, or hard drive) was just preposterous.
Because when people started trading MP3s, it was over 56K modem links, and it took all night to download an album.
Because SDMI always was, currently is, and will forever be, a WOMBAT - Waste Of Money Brains And Time.
Because they view us as nothing more than sheep for the shearing.
Because open formats like Red Book allowed the sheep to escape the fold.
Because they're damned if they'll ever make that mistake again.
Why can't they just make their product desirable? (Score:2, Insightful)
The bottom line is that the current product is so undesirable that people will waste their time trying to find pirate versions with questionable encoding quality rather than buy it.
They should be putting their efforts into:
* Making the packaging worth owning
* Making the music worth buying
* Adding other features that are worth owning
Anyone with an ounce of business sense would realize that its cheaper to simply provide enough value to make piracy a non-issue.
jonathan
Is it just me... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Federal law allows people to make personal copies of songs but does not require record companies to stand aside so consumers can do so."
Now, IANAL and all, but it seems to me that if there is a Federal law allowing me to make a personal copy of a song, and the Record companies do something to prevent me from doing that, that they are breaking the law. I mean, that's like saying "You have the right to walk through this door, but we don't require the doorman to actually unlock it for you." And THEN, if you pick the lock (because the doorman is being obstinate) they throw you in jail for violating the DMCA!! Boy, I sure love living in a country owned by corporations. You always have something to talk about on a weekday.
Re:In my view, this boils down to "PR" (Score:2, Insightful)
Digital copying is perfect though. It doesn't matter if the copy is 1st generation or 100th generation - it sounds EXACTLY the same. So as far as the music and film execs are concerned this is a FAR, FAR bigger threat.
This is why Disney didn't release on DVD at first (and instead tried to support DivX). This is part of the reason that HDTV is going nowhere fast. It's why talks of HD DVD are going nowhere and why DVD-Audio and SACD only have analog outputs on the players. The RIAA and MPAA are all totally and utterly freaked by the idea that they will lose control of distribution. And distribution is something the two groups have a pretty ironclad grasp over right now.
Funny though... most of the artists don't seem quite so freaked. At least for musicians. Actors, directors, etc. seem more concerned though, but they generally make more money off films than musicians do off albums.
Let's get something straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
What did you think they would use.. mp3?
What I can do... is fight things like the DMCA that make it illegal to rip tracks to my computer for my own convenience.
They think they "get it" but they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not meet both sides' needs. People don't want to play compressed audio on their computers, specifically. They want to listen to the music they buy at their convenience, in whatever format that entails. Right now, MP3 is popular, and home computers are a prevalent playback platform. Next year, it might be Ogg Vorbis, or something that hasn't yet been invented. People most decidedly do NOT want to be told how and when they may listen to music they have bought. They just want to listen. The details of formats and platforms are unimportant in the long run. If the music can be coded into any digital format, then it can and will be transcoded into whatever format the listener needs at the moment for his convenience, either by resampling from the analog signal jack, or directly transcoding a digital music file.
I'll respect IP when IP holders respect me (Score:5, Insightful)
I can go to my local music store and pick up a tape for $9.00, but I have to pay $15.00 if I want it on a CD, why?
I can go to the video store and pick up a movie for $13.00, but I have to pay $20-35 for the DVD, why?
So we all know that CD's are better than tapes, but we don't want to pay an extra six bucks to listen to music on a medium that is actually cheaper to produce. So what do we do? We push back. We make MP3's, we share them on Napster, Gnutella, Audio Galaxy, etc. We screw them back.
If you could get that brand new CD you wanted for $9.00 you'd be less likely to rip it from a friend. But you can't. So you push back.
As for the WMP format being used as the "standard" on new CDs, that is just bullshit. MS and the recording industry are just scratching each others backs on this one.
This IS a blatant misuse of Microsofts monopoly. Oh but they will get away w/it. If lawsuits are filed, MS will just release WMP for Mac and everyone will just look the other way. I for one will not. I don't have a problem w/IP, be it Microsoft's or the recording industry's. But I am sick and tired of hearing the word "standard" thrown around as if it actually meant something. Something that only works on Windows is not a "Standard" -- it is a lock-in mechanism. MS wants to lock us into windows.
I think companies should be required to implement new technology on all platforms -- or if they claim that is too difficult -- open up the specs so that it can be implemented by others. That can be a "Standard". And if they refuse to, they should lose their right to bitch and moan when someone circumvents it.
Re:Been Screwed (Score:4, Insightful)
To play WMA files, I must be using M$ Windows, or at least an M$ licensed WMA player (are there any WMA players for other platforms?). We have here a 3rd party (the music makers) dictating which computer OS I must use. We have a 3rd party that is dictating which software vendor I must deal with. _That_ is the problem.
My car dealer does not stipulate which mechanic I must got to, my barber does not stipulate which shampoo I must use, my dentist (ignoring the ORAL-B/Crest monopoly) does not dictate which toothpaste or toothbrush I must use, and my herbalist does not specify where I must buy my weed
I don't use illegal MP3s, or go beyond my 'fair use' rights, but preventing me from exercising my fair use rights via such controls is in direct contrevention of copyright laws.
Go ahead and introduce copyright protection mechanisms, but those controls must function entirely within the realm of copyright law, and they must be cross platform and based on open standards that everyone has free and unrestricted access to.
- Mark
Re:Could someone at the DOJ please look at this? (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't a Good Thing, it is a Bad Thing (obviously).
They have eliminated the free use clause here by saying you can only do it on MS computers. This is a violation of my right as a consumer to do what the fuck I wish w/a product.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. Do NOT take away my rights as a consumer to do w/a product as I please. I bought the CD, I am allowed to make backup copies, resell it, or use it as a frisbee.
Who the fuck is the RIAA to decide that the Free Use clause is a bunch of shit? Who the fuck are they to decide that MS is the one that is going to have exclusive rights to distribute music on the computer? And who the fuck isn't going to buy this shit when it comes out?
In the past several weeks we have seen plenty of proprietary systems for blocking people from copying demo CDs. We get pissed about it but it is their right to block that (as they are promos). No one really cared b/c it was a small group of companies, poor choices of music, etc. Now they want to do this to all of us.
I seriously think that we are going to get screwed over here. If you are going to want music, you aren't going to have a choice but to buy this crap .
I am glad I listen to music that is freely distributable but I do enjoy some music that isn't. I rarely buy CDs now b/c of the insanely high cost but I am seriously reconsidering not buying them at all.
Fuck the RIAA, fuck MS, and fuck whoever is going to let this happen.
-end of rant-
More talk (Score:2, Insightful)
my 2 cents plus 2 more
Re:Could someone at the DOJ please look at this? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it doesn't satisfy Linux users, but the RIAA couldn't care less about that. Do you expect them to come up with their own secure cross-platform restriction scheme, wait for it to be implemented on hardware devices, wait for those devices to become popular, and then start restricting their music? They tried that. It was called SDMI. It failed miserably. So now they're trying the next best thing.
Microsoft thought ahead and created a product they knew there would be a demand for. How they got it supported on everything from Winamp to the Rio on up, I have no idea, but I might assume that everyone else saw a potential for a restricted music format as well, and wanted to make sure it would work on their equipment. You cannot fault them for creating a product they knew there would be a demand for. Unless Microsoft was holding a gun to someone's head saying, "you'll implement WMA in your MP3 player or we won't sign your driver," it's simply smart business.
There is a monopoly issue in this story, but I would look in the other direction. The music industry is trying to force restricted digital music on the market in order to preserve their stranglehold on music distrubution. If you want digital music, you're going to get it in a format that is provided by the RIAA, with the permissions set in whatever manner the RIAA sees fit. If any company other than Microsoft had a restricted music technology that was available on the vast majority of heardware devices, I'm sure the RIAA would have gone with it.
Re:Unrippable != Unlistenable (Score:5, Insightful)
For those that do mind the longer rip - what they're doing is ineffective. Basically, they're stepping on the heads of people (like myself) who buy CDs and rip them for their own use.
Here's the brilliant bit - if I expect that I can't buy CDs and store the tunes on my home and work boxen without much work, my path of least resistance becomes to just start downloading tunes instead.
Re:I'll respect IP when IP holders respect me (Score:2, Insightful)
No it isn't. Not in any way, shape, or form.
If MS was the publisher of the music, then maybe. But in this case, all they are doing is selling their technology to music publishers. The publishers are deciding what technology to use, and they are choosing WMP. The publishers are choosing MS because they have the greatest market share. MS has done nothing wrong here.
I know you want to blame Microsoft for everything, but it's just not the case here. If you want to fault the publishers for choosing a technology that only runs on one platform, then do so. Again, not Microsoft.
Gee... could there be another reason? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why does everything you people don't like have to be attributed to the Evil Empire?
WMA offers the same, if not better quality than mp3s. It allows relative security of copyrighted material. And, most importantly, it plays on 90%+ of all desktops out there.
THAT is why the music industry is pushing it.
Re:You can put the store out of business (Score:2, Insightful)
The CD-Digital Audio logo is put on the product package to indicate that the CD enclosed is encoded using the Red Book standard. Drives that carry this logo are capable of reading CDs encoded using the Red Book standard. Unless and until they remove the CD-Digital Audio logo from the disc's packaging, they are claiming that the disc was encoded using the Red Book standard and that the disc will play in *any* player that is capable of reading discs encoded using that standard. The CD-ROM drive on my computer carries the CD-DA logo. Which of the two products is lying about its compatibility with the Red Book standard?
By your logic, they could put *only* WMA on the disc, so that it would only play in a CD player that had the WMA codecs built-in. Then the record store buys one of these CD players, and tells the irate customers that they are out of luck unless they too buy one of these CD players.
The thing that's got people so upset is that the designation that implies adherence to a standard is now appearing on products that are do not adhere to the standard. If the record companies would remove the CD-DA logo from discs that cannot be played in *any* CD-DA capable player, most of the people in this forum would gladly leave those CDs on the shelf and not buy them. It's the duplicity of these companies and their cynical attempts to redefine an existing standard to fit their own needs and give unsuspecting customers the shaft that is enraging to most on this forum.
Re:I'll respect IP when IP holders respect me (Score:3, Insightful)
No, your brain is still in "old economony" mode. This is a new economony now. If people stop buying CDs at $18, the media companies will (and have) complain to Congress to pass more laws mandating control. Capitalism doesn't work when the money flows to the government and creates non-free markets (like the music industry, for example)
Case in point, GM is now offering 0% financing on all the autos for a month. That includes Cadillac and SAAB... Why? Because NOBODY is buying new cars.
Imagine that. GM actually has competition; the media monopolies do not.
Not true. Americans are notoriously cheap and self minded (Yes I am an American). If I can get the tracks from a friend, I would get high quality MP3's and rip them to CD using free music match.
Please spare me the sob story. If it were more convenient (to use your logic) to get a CD, we wouldn't need to do this, now would we? Personally, I never do this (and I am an American--- so much for your generalizations) but it is such a pain in the ass to have to drive to the store, buy the CD, take it home, rip it and then file it away to possibly never be used again. If the music industry would just sell to us directly over the web, it'd be mighty convenient...
Again, capitalism. If you don't like it, don't buy it. In fact more importantly -- join the fan list for your favorite bands. If 1000 people all tell a band that they won't buy their music, you "may" have a chance.
Again, for capitalism to work there must be a free market. I don't understand your point.
America is a nation of excess. We live and breath for every new toy. It is that way of life that causes corporations to have power. WE HAVE TO HAVE IT, GIMME GIMME GIMME
Fuck you too. I'm not standing in the corporate welfare line like a good boy to patiently wait for them to notice my lack of purchase. I'm going to be vocal about it and rant and rave like an American lunatic. I'm sick of sitting down and pretending that monopolies are free markets that will eventually correct themselves. You, well, you are a huge part of the problem. Get off your ass and start complaining; we need the government to break these monopolies up. We need to elect officals that are not beholden to them and that aren't afraid of "hurting the economy". We need to yank the soapboxes out from under folks like you that preach the same, tired old lies disguised as facts.
GIMMIE GIMME GIMME, after all, makes the world go 'round.