Real Launches Music Download Service 497
fupeg writes "Spurred on by Apple's success, as well as their own purchase of listen.com, Real Networks announced their own online music service, dubbed RealOne Rhapsody. Here is the press release. They're offering songs at $0.79 per song, but with a $9.99/month subscription. The first two months are free. The press release says that 2/3 of their 300,000 song catalog is available for CD burning, while everything is available for 'on-demand' listening."
The Real link....get it? (Score:5, Informative)
And yes, it requires a Windows PC and is only available in the United States. It looks they are having a 14 day trial, with the first three months at $4.98, months 4++ being $9.95 each. The free trial covers unlimited "on demand" music and Internet radio. CD burning costs are not covered by the free trial ($0.79 per song on each CD). It also sports a horrid image containing both Avril Lavigne and Fiddy Cent in close proximity to that David Bowie guy, who plain refuses to die and go away.
PS: fist post fools
Re:The Real link....get it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Copying Apple (Score:3, Funny)
After all, it is called Rhapsody.
*tee hee*
Re:The Real link....get it? (Score:3, Funny)
are we a linkin park fan?
.79 per song per CD? (Score:3, Interesting)
One CD I'm working on now thanks to the Apple store is a mix CD of Wierd Al songs next to the original counterparts - so I have Eminem's "Loose
Re:The Real link....get it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Real link....get it? (Score:2)
that's a little dramatic... (Score:4, Funny)
Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm..... (Score:5, Funny)
Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good thing. Whether or not RealNetworks can pull it off (and they might, being the first comparable option in the Windows market), competition will help. Perhaps this will lower Apple's per-song fee.
Bravo for taking a risk.
Not so awesome. (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Let's say you're an average, music-loving consumer... You might download say, 20 songs a month, right?
Apple cost: 20*$.99 = $20 (I'm rounding the penny)
Real cost: 20*$.79 = $16 (rounding the penny) plus $10 for monthly fee = $36 dollars.
So, why should Apple lower their fee? It's already cheaper. The only way the Real model gets cheaper is if you download more than 50 songs a month, every month you're subscribed.
-T
Re:Not so awesome. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not so awesome. (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, the Real model allows for more browsing than the Apple model. Your comparing apples to oranges here (oooh, I kill me...)
Apple cost 100*0.99=$99.00 (10 songs that you want to burn to CD - 90 that you downloaded but maybe didn't like...)
Real cost $10.00 + 0$ for 100 songs listened to + $7.90 for the ones you liked = $17.90
The models are quite different. One with the emphasis on getting songs you know the other on browsing for songs you might not know. Of course, the usefulness of being able to browse the library is highly dependant on the quality of each library.
Re:Not so awesome. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not bad, actually. It is, at the least, neat to be able to preview entire albums before I click "buy" or walk into the record store up the street.
Re:Not so awesome. (Score:3, Interesting)
You overlooked listening WITHOUT burning. Throw that in, and Real's prices look a lot better.
Re:Not so awesome. (Score:2)
Cost breakdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it's .20 cheaper than the Apple Music Store per song... However, due to that monthly fee, the only way it actually balances out is if you download more than 50 songs a month ($10/50=$.20 - download less than that and each song is correspondingly more expensive than the $.99 charge).
Plus, this doesn't include the Apple $9.95 for a full album pricing option.
-T
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at it in another way, you can sample the full song before commiting to buying it, not just short 30sec clips.
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:2)
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Theyt will fail because they refuse to supply what Apple is supplying... the ability for me to use the damn legal hardware I bought.
apple has it right.. I can load the songs to my portable listening gear.
this offering from real is a complete joke.
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:2)
Apple Tax? iTMS for Windows! (Score:2)
Re:Apple Tax? iTMS for Windows! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:2)
Remember, Mac users are the beta-testers for this service.
-T
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:2)
16 songs
$15.99/CD...
I don't see any improvement due to technology.
Now these guys charge 79 cents.
The next guys charge 59 cents.
And so on.
Eventually, they're giving the music away free to get you to look at the banner ads.
Napster's only mistake was not getting permission.
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:5, Informative)
Good CD = $9.95
CD with 2 good songs = $1.98
One-hit wonder = $0.99
vs. Sam Goody pricing:
Good CD = $16.99
CD with 2 good songs = $16.99
One-hit wonder = $16.99
Sounds like a much better plan to me.
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:3, Interesting)
16 songs
$15.99/CD...
Yes/no... On the Apple store, if you want an album, it's only $9.95, not $.99/song - so a 20 song album costs the same as a 10 song album... and cheaper than that, it's cheaper.
-T
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yeah right.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure if this will take off. I'm betting on "no" because of two factors:
Subscription Fees are bad.
People like to own, not rent, music.
-- Funky
This ain't gonna fly (Score:3, Insightful)
on demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Must be on a Windows PC attached to a high-speed internet line in the United States. So that cuts out listening to your music on any sort of musical "appliance" like a radio or cd player... You can't listen in your car, or anywhere else.
Its much like watching re-runs of Friends on pay-per-view. Who would want that?
Did they already try this and fail miserably? (Score:4, Interesting)
It was called MusicNet. [siliconvalley.com]
From the link: "The original MusicNet that launched in December 2001 was a dismal failure...The subscriber numbers were so low that MusicNet has never been willing to state them in public."
In the right direction (Score:2, Insightful)
Pay money for music? (Score:4, Funny)
PS, Real Networks can burn in hell.
why do they keep trying subscription services (Score:2, Informative)
if anything, just copy apple and try to market it bett
Marketing drivel (Score:4, Funny)
"we believe this is a great offer to consumers who are now realizing the power of online music services"
That's it, the consumer is just now realizing the power of online music. Sheesh.
Back-end economics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Real has slightly crippled their service relative to Apple's, but they are, in return, able to offer a discount to those users who download 50 songs or more per month.
Of course, we have to ask - who is doing the returning here? I'd be interested in learning what sorts of costs are being placed on the supply-side upon these services. Is the record industry giving discounts to services depending on the level of crippledness they impose upon consumers? I'd be very curious to know what the terms of the contracts are that Apple and Real signed with the recording industry companies.
Did I miss something? (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
And for the people who are going to respond that it's not stealing because they're just 0s and 1s, or becuase it's just copyright, we've all heard it. As for me, I'm glad to see these services starting. They're coming late to the party, we all know that, but it's what I've been asking for...a legal way to browse new music without paying $14 bucks at Best Buy.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:2)
Distribution, my son. Now, you are capable of giving that mp3 to millions and millions, for free.
Previously, taping off the radio and 'sharing' with your friends was a mostly ignored, slight illegality. But if you were to tape an entire album off the radio, make a few million copies, and you and your buddies stand on street corners giving them out, you can be sure the RIAA would have come down on you.
The copying and distrib
Re:Did I miss something? Got you again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the day for muddy thinking, or is it just me?
Lossy compressed music files aren't first gen. And I don't see much song-length swapping going on in .wav files, which I would consider first gen copies. Yes the higher bit rate, compressed music files at higher rates are very listenable and capable of further distribution without additional losses, but not to be confused with the original CDs -- which themselves are often a notch or more below original studio tapes these days.
And I haven't been giving rationalizations for obtaining use of a product without providing compensation to the originators. I've only been pointing out how impercise and overblown these types of statements are.
If you can't argue precisely, why should I take you seriously?
Btw, who says you can't make a profit selling what the consumer can otherwise get for free? How else can you explain the success of bottled water?
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Although only 100 people have downloaded from you in that 24 hour space, multiply that by the distrobution rate and the result is staggering. (I'm not an opponent or proponent here, just attempting to explain part of the controversy.)
Plus, while tapes degrade and take a while to make a copy of, MP3's last indefinitely, for all intents and purposes, and can be copied from one storage medium to another in a matter of seconds. And entire album can be no more than 50MB, an easy download for anyone with broadband.
Hope that helps.
I pay because.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you don't have money, then I really don't see anything wrong with file sharing because you are not costing anyone anything.
Similarly, in college I copied programs just like everyone else but now I buy pretty much anything I use regularly because I can afford to and like to support development of good programs (I also donate money to the EFF and FSF for the same reason).
So my personal line is that if I can pay for it, I do, and if I can't, then it's OK to copy (because they wouldn't have money from me anyway). Of course the trick is deciding what you can afford and it's easy to rationalize that many things are too expensive - you just have to try and be honest with yourself about what you can afford.
I did have two or three songs from P2P services that I liked and kept in my music library - but after the Apple service started up I bought them to help support the artists (and the originals I had were 160k MP3's so it wasn't to get better quality). I know they don't really see much money but the artists do also get the intangible benefit of perceived popularity, which might help them in dealings with the label...
Re:I pay because.. (Score:3, Interesting)
This what the industry is actually afraid of. Not "piracy." They fear a direct artist to consumer model, which is perfectly viable already in many different forms of media. The artists and consumers just need to wake up, some already are.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes - *ONCE* not over and over, THAT is amoral.
Yes, you did miss something (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, taping songs from the radio and giving them to friends is illegal, and always was; but no one really cared about music sharing before perfect digital copies became easily available.
I'm not going to try to defend the recording industry's fiscal practices or their despicable assault on music fans' real rights - but frankly it's wide-eyed disregard for the just-as-real rights of music publishers that is fucking it up for the rest of us.
How much cause would Sen. Hollings have if content companies weren't scared shitless by millions of pirates like yourself? Would we have the speech-destroying DMCA without music/movie piracy? I submit, possibly not. There's no point in debating the details of who gets what under copyright law if you're willing to flout that law for personal gain.
But don't be surprised when the entertainment industries cajole the government into flouting some rights that you might think are important.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) KaZaa, MX, &tc are full of hassles, including:
These are a pain in the ass that didn't used to exist to such a high degree in file "sharing" and they've spoiled the experience for a lot of people. Hunting for some of the really good obscure shit I like to listen to has become such a hassle that I far prefer Apple's music service.
2) The whole idea behind P2p was it was supposed to turn you on to new artists and broaden your horizons. In my experience, it's the web (forums, internet radio, weblogs, etc) that do a better job of that...so it makes sense that music downloading should be tied to it. Which message would you prefer:
You gotta check out this MC kris track, it's called booba fet or something, look for it on kazaa.
or
You gotta check out this mc Kris track, click here. [mcchris.com]
A pay-for-play music service allows that kind of ease of linking with music that is cheap, easy to find, always available, ships for free, has no clicks of pops, bears full id3 tags and album art, whatever. It's finally a new way to use music, and not just an extension of a CD culture.
And yeah, it's cool that the artists I like will get some cash, too. But then again, most of them have been on emusic for years...
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:2)
IT's Real!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is from the company hides their free player, tricks you into purchasing an upgrade, and has an install process which hijacks everything on your browser.
Even if this was a good bargin I would reject if becuase it is from Real.
Ted Tschopp
Re:IT's Real!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Apple, whos QuickTime for Windows product won't even do fullscreen and the installer for which doesn't just hijack your file settings, it hijacks the whole damn machine with a huge pointless window that will not disappear until the installer has finished. Oh yes, and because it downloads stuff as needed, it takes ages to finish. Installing QuickTime on a modem certainly used to be something you did while eating dinner,
Re:It's not Real, it's paying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Real has proven itself to be untrustworthy in the past, and they continue to do the very things which caused me to loose my trust in them. So until they offer something that is either so amazing that I don't mind a distrustful seller, or they repair the trust problem, how am I to enter into an financial agreement with them?
Ted
possible competition? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:possible competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus all the viruses, mislabeled files, and just plain crappy rips you can download, all for the same low low price!
Yes, Virginia, you can compete with "free" if what you're offering is actually worth money.
Re:possible competition? (Score:2)
Discounting the value of your time? (Score:2)
Better user experience is definitely a good place for the legit services to provide value.
I'm reminded of what my dad always sa
Um, they dont seem to asay what format it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
what labels? (Score:2, Interesting)
emusic (Score:2, Informative)
Streaming with Realplayer, RIAA and Internet radio (Score:4, Insightful)
And I can listen to Internet radio on Shoutcast et al...No wonder the RIAA was so adamant about getting rid of free Internet radio. The puzzle pieces are coming together, aren't they?
What part of "bend over" don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kidding. They want to charge me for the use of MY CD burner and MY blank media? Gee, this plan is destined for success...
Re:What part of "bend over" don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment is like saying "$18 for the latest rap CD? You gotta be kidding me, they're charging $18 to let me use my own cd player!"
Marconi invents new music delivery system (Score:5, Funny)
The reduced functionality vs. Real's new system comes at a reduced price, FREE. And all songs are available for downloading and burning, all within a user's fair use rights.
User adoption is still up in the air, and Nikola Telsa is challening the patent.
Re:Marconi invents new music delivery system (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, your choices are:
ClearChannel Alterna-Rock songs 1 - 15
ClearChannel Alterna-Rock songs 5 - 20
Infinity Radio Alterna-Rock songs 3-8, 14-20
ClearChannel Pop songs 1-6
Infinity Radio Pop songs 1-6
ClearChannel Country songs 1 - 10
Infinity Country songs 1 - 10
The lack of being able to hear anythgin remotely different / interesting n the radio, along with $17.00 CDs of bands taht all sound the same that are overplayed to death is what is killing the RIAA. Oh wait, I forgot, it's piracy.
Subscriptions blow (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to buy my music and call it mine to play whereever and whenever I darn well please thank you. Can you imagine forgetting a month and -poof- CD collection gone! I'm probably missing something here since I can't imagine this appeals to anybody.
$.99 - $.79 - do I hear $.49??? (Score:2)
10 bucks a month to be allowed to buy from them?? (Score:2)
So they expect people to pay $9.99 a month for the privledge of being allowed to pay them per song for lossy compressed songs? I guess there are some fools who will.
Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just subscribed to a trial of Rhapsody from Best Buy. (Is this the same as Real Rhapsody? No name confusion there...) (another side note, it's scary how much info Best Bad had based on my phone number at the cash register, but that's a YRO topic...)
I've also been interested in iTunes, if they make a Windows version. This sounds interesting, too.
Problem is, the two Rhapsody's are subscription-based. Presumably, due to partnerships, etc... all these various services will have somewhat different catalogs. I can afford to buy as much as I can afford at $.99/pop or whatever the price is... but I can't afford $10/service/month to have access to all the different songs to buy them.
Hopefully they'll all figure out soon that the model should be $.xx/song with no membership fees. I think the only way this is going to work out is if consumers have unfettered access to buy all songs available regardless of who is offering them.
To be fair, the Rhapsody from Best Buy seems to let me just download as much as I can eat, and burn them to CD if I want. I haven't read through all the license stuff yet, but obviously practically speaking, I'm buying copies of the songs. At $10/mo, that's only 10 songs to break even (assuming $1/song is fair). That's attractive, if the song catalog is sufficient.
Too complaicated priceing plan (Score:5, Insightful)
There are simply way to many rules with this plan as stated. I pay a monthly fee, so I should be able to use any song right? No, I have to pay for each song [after the trial]. So why am I paying a monthly fee? Then I get the song, and realize I can use it but for my computer?
You try selling that to the guy on the street.
That's why the Apple plan works. $.99 a song. We'll give you a discount if you buy a full album (for most CDs). No monthly fee. Burn, iPod, play your songs you got. There are some restrictions, but transparent to the average user. That's easier to sell to the guy on the street.
Let's do the 5th grade math folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
10 tracks @ Apple - $9.90 + $0.00 = $09.90
25 tracks @ RealR - $19.75 + $9.95 = $29.70
25 tracks @ Apple - $24.75 + $0.00 = $24.75
50 tracks @ RealR - $39.50 + $9.95 = $49.45
50 tracks @ Apple - $49.50 + $0.00 = $49.50
So I have to buy fifty tracks per month before Real Rhapsody is even remotely competive, not to mention the fact that something like one-third of the tracks aren't burnable at all.
Don't forget Magic Albums! (Score:3, Insightful)
10 Tracks @Real = $7.90 + $9.95 = $17.85
10 Singles @Apple = $9.90 + $0.00 = $9.90
1 Album @Apple = $9.99+ $0.00 = $9.99
25 Tracks @Real = $19.75 + $9.95 = $29.70
25 Singles @Apple = $24.75 + $0.00 = $24.75
1 Album + 13 Singles @Apple = $9.99 + $12.87 +$0.00 = $22.86
50 Tracks @Real = $39.50 + $9.95 = $49.95
50 Singles @Apple = $49.50 + $0.00 = $49.50
2 Albums + 25 Singles @Apple = $19.98 + $24.75 + $0.00
Re:Don't forget Magic Albums! (Score:5, Informative)
iTunes does let you take 30 second samples of each and every track available for download. It says so on the iTunes Music Store webpage [apple.com].
Re:Let's do the 5th grade math folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Being able to stream a whole song on-demand makes the service cheaper because you dont have to cough up a dollar for the privelege of listening to and keeping the entire song.
Dodge this RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, then what's to stop somoene from uploading it to kazaa.
But the fact remains, as long as I can share amongst all of MY computers and MP3 Players I have no real desire to share with the universe if the price is fair.
Back when we had to buy a cd, rip, encode, and upload for 3 days on a crappy modem there was a cost that made it worth trading with others. I'll waste days of my life on "artist A" if you waste equal time on "artist B" and we'll swap. With quick high quality legal downloads for a fair price I'd rather say "go buy it yourself, here's the link".
If they can tap into that me-first (leachers abound) mentality and call it honest consumerism, they'll be loving life again. They can do so without limiting our civil liberties and suing the fuck out of everyone too.
Unfortunately, until a record company actually does something to repeal the evil fuckin dmca, I ain't buying shit from them, ever again. And I haven't since that piece of shit communist legislation was passed.
_O__-._O__
_|\___\|__ Dodge this RIAA!!!
_|_____|__
_/\____/\_
SOS (Same Old Shit) (Score:5, Interesting)
For a music service to be great it needs to have some or all of the following characteristics.
Re:SOS (Same Old Shit) (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows alternative to Realplayer (Score:3, Informative)
http://sn.hardnet.ro/realalt090.exe [hardnet.ro]
(Windows only). Comes with the Real codecs and MediaPlayerClassic (no relation to the proper windows one - it's a very good bit of software) so you can play Real files without needing Realplayer.
Separating the Reasonable from the Hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
For years, Slashdot readers have demanded an online music distribution service that was both affordable and convenient. Until then, many would proclaim, their only alternative was to illegally download copyrighted music.
With Apple first, and now Real, our wish has been granted... or has it? We are now able to download hundreds of songs for pennies per track, but there are those who are still unsatisfied.
There lie the true hypocrites. I am convinced they will use ANY argument to justify not having to pay for music, while trying to maintain some sence of moral propriety.
I only wish they would drop the bullshit pretenses, stop bitching about the little details about these services they don't like, and just come out and say they don't want to pay for music and never intend to. At least be honest about it.
I'm sorry.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rhapsody has been around for some time, I've been a subscriber for about 6 months now. There are many different Rhapsody partners, Real is only the most recent. List of Other companies that have been selling this same stuff for a while. [listen.com]
Sure, real is offering cd burning at
Meh...
I know they are trying but... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I go to the store and buy a CD I like. But because of copy protection I will not be able to make a mix CD to take with me. Instead, if I want a mix CD, I must purchase the songs again through a service like this. Or, I could just purchase all the songs from a service like this and burn my own CDs however I like. But then I don't get the cool cover art or the feeling that goes along with owning something original.
I know they are trying but somehow I still don't feel any better.
Two points to keep in mind (Score:5, Interesting)
The second point I want to make is that RealPlayer sucks butt on the Mac platform so Real stands to make zero inroads into the Mac market. I don't know what Real is like on Windows or elsewhere, but the Mac software is mediocrity in action. I wouldn't use Real's service at half that price unless they improved the lousy piece of dung that they pass off as their player. (Let's see, I close the main window and the application's menu bar disappears so I have to force-quit the damn thing. That's the hallmark of quality software.)
Never never never never. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, sign me up!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
You also have to debug the application too! (Score:5, Interesting)
"6. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
You shall promptly notify Listen in writing upon your discovery of any unauthorized use or infringement of the Subscription Services (or their contents) or any patent, copyright, trade secret, trademarks or other intellectual property rights of Listen or its licensors."
Great, we are paying to be Real's beta testers.
"5 (d) Stolen Account Information Your Responsibility
You are solely and entirely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password, and for any and all activities that occur under your account."
So if somebody hacked its site and downloaded user info en masse I am responsible as well?
Its not from RealPlayer (Score:3, Informative)
Oh God! Not another Real product! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Real Player! (Score:2)
Re:Real Player! (Score:5, Informative)
2) Set it up to not launch it's systray app.
3) Get Media Player Classic from www.doom9.org [doom9.org]
4) Listen to/View Real content without using Real's crappy player.
5) ???
6) Profit!
If you're using Linux on x86 just go get mplayer and quityerbitchin.
It's worse than that (Score:3, Insightful)
At least if it was in RA it would be cross platform. Apparently they are using some form of WMA? Idiotic.
Re:And will it use mp3?? (Score:2)
Misconceptions R Us (Score:5, Informative)
"It is a wonder that Apple et al do not support mp3"
iTunes supported mp3 format before it supported ACC.
"If their proprietary or licenced technology is so wonderful and superior, where is the harm of offering mp3 as well for backwards compatibility since it doesn't compete?"
Simple for Apple--They want to provide higher quality at a lower bitrate, all of the people downloading their music would be doing so through the iTMS, they didn't want to bother with the technical difficulties of ripping from the masters to both mp3 and AAC (doing a quality check, selecting 30 seconds out for streaming, getting the track information added, &c) and then deal with adding the (very mild) DRM to mp3s as well.
"why not watermark the songs as they fly off the server so they can be tracked?"
Apple does--your email address is in every AAC file.
" The net result is users will stick to free p2p services, grabbing their songs from Kazaa and the record companies will get NOTHING and the services will have a fraction of the customers. It doesn't make any business sense."
You must have flunked basic economics--either that or have been living under a rock.
Apple Sells 2 Million Songs in 16 Days [slashdot.org]
Re:Misconceptions R Us (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, so why doesn't the site sell in MP3 format?
Simple for Apple--They want to provide higher quality at a lower bitrate, all of the people downloading their music would be doing so through the iTMS, they didn't want to bother with the technical difficulties of ripping from the masters to both mp3 and AAC (doing a quality check, selecting 30 seconds out for streaming, getting the track information added, &c) and then deal with adding the (very
Imperceptible watermarking impossible (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern audio codecs use psychoacoustics, which encode the sounds the human ear and brain can hear over the ones that we can't.
Watermarking works by putting imperceptible sound in the signal that can't be heard, but can later be extractable by computer.
See the problem?
A codec at a "good enough" data rate (where no apparent artifacts are heard), won't be at high enough data rate to encode a robust wate
Re:Imperceptible watermarking impossible (Score:3, Interesting)
All this is quite feasible and there are numerous patents on the subject, software that watermarks other lossy formats such as jpeg, not to mention stego software such as mp3stego which can already accomplish this feat. There is nothing
Re:And will it use mp3?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it bloody won't! (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me: The big music companies will never ever release in a format that you can share freely. If they did, those files would be all over every P2P net as the "original" files. The fact that you can burn and reencode ensures one thing - that there'll be ten thousand ways to rip it to mp3/ogg, some good, some bad, but different.
Releasing them in mp3 format would be the greatest disaster in the record companies, because it would drastically improve the P2P networks reliability
Re:Of course it bloody won't! (Score:4, Insightful)
The big music companies will never ever release in a format that you can share freely.
You mean like CD?