New "MP3 100% Compatible" Logo For DRM-Free Music 263
Sockatume writes "A coalition of seven UK digital music stores have created a logo for DRM-free, MP3 music. The 'MP3: 100% Compatible' logo allows the stores to emphasize the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device and won't keel over and die as DRM-laden files are wont to. The BPI — the UK equivalent of the RIAA — is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores."
Sweet (Score:5, Interesting)
About frigging time.
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding.
A non-geek friend of mine bitched about this last week. He's nearing 40, doing well, and is a big metal fan. He was trolling memory lane on YouTube, and decided to go get some more albums of one of his old favorites. The store had a deal on the band's full boxed set -- sweet! -- then he noticed the DRM tag. He took it to the till and asked the clerks if he'd be able to play the tunes on his iPod. Clerk 1: "I dunno." Clerk 2: "Probably not."
Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.
This new "100% Compatible" logo is /exactly/ what he (and the store clerks) needs. It's due. Regular customers are fed up with this shit now, not just geeks.
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.
Speaking of which: did you email him links to .torrents with instructions?
Re: (Score:2)
Buying the CD, then "cracking" the DRM, may land you a lawsuit, however may be un-winnable for the RIAA or copyright holders.
Downloading off a torrent, and landing yourself a lawsuit is a sure win for the copyright holders.
The former is "unauthorised removal of CopyProtection mechanism, in order to play your purchased item" (note this is different to "Unauthorised removal of copyright protection to copy and re-distribute")
The latter is "Copyright Infringement".
Both are illegal, but one has a chance of being
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
having worked in the music industry i'd tend agree with you. i think this initiative, especially the fact that it's backed by a powerful trade group, will send a strong message to record labels and artists.
while i'm hoping my boss learned his lesson after receiving a bunch of complaints and product returns on music CDs using standards-breaking DRM (i think a rep from Megaforce, our distributor, sold him the idea originally), i suspect the notion of DRMing future releases is still in the back of his mind. and, honestly, even without the product liability issues that come with CD DRM technology, it's still a huge waste of money that alienates customers/fans.
resources wasted combating "piracy" and on anti-consumer policies/tactics like DRM, or any other means of restricting consumer freedom, would be better used on music promotion. record labels can't dictate to consumers how they can or can't use the music they've purchased. online file sharing, like swapping cassettes or CDs, is an timeless constant. the smart labels will use this to their advantage rather than try to fight human nature.
record labels spend millions of dollars each year on promotion, whether it's buying spins on the radio, paying for TV/radio commercials, taking out ads in magazines & one-stops, printing fliers, putting your tracks on listening booths, co-op promotions, etc. it's all about getting the music out there, getting the band's name out there. you let people listen to your music for free on the radio, and you grow your fan base. in fact, the more plays you get on the radio, the more albums you sell. the industry understands the value of this kind of _paid_ promotion, but when it comes to free promotion, they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. so they actually waste money to try to stop it.
instead of worrying about the music "pirates" who don't pay for music, which is really a relatively small percentage of the population that you're never going to reach anyway, why not exploit the marketing value of the internet. viral marketing the most effective, and simultaneously cheapest, means of increasing your fan base, and subsequently your customer base. so it makes much more sense to distribute DRM-free MP3s that people can share with their friends and let file sharing work for you through viral marketing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"don't know how I'll get well-written, well-performed, well-produced music in large enough amounts to satisfy me without my money becoming they money."
Then you're not a music "sharer".
You pay for it, make your money their money. The point is you're not going to stop people sharing it, thats pretty much impossible, but you can stop punishing legitimate users and learn to live with a level of piracy that's not going to go away.
Meanwhile, you and I are paying for our music because we like it and want more. Act
Re:Sweet (Score:4, Insightful)
"Cool. So everybody... "
Right at the word 'everybody' is where you indicate that you missed the point entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
http://xkcd.com/488/ [xkcd.com]
Never a more appropriate illustration.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
eeeeh! The "september that never ended" is about to transcend into music! aaargh! my ears!!! [youtube.com]
Inevitable Tagging (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Tag this: notsosuddenbreakoutofgroupthink
yes but... (Score:3, Funny)
Will it run on linux? :?
Not so (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not so (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not so (Score:5, Insightful)
Time until TPB updates their search logo? (Score:5, Interesting)
New logo on top of the Pirate Bays search logo in 5, 4, 3, ... ? :D
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a file is using AAC doesn't mean that it is using some kind of DRM, I frequently rip movies I buy to h.264+AAC in an mp4 container, no DRM in there but excellent quality and I can play it back in places other than VLC and Mplayer (.mkv, I'm looking at you!).
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
Read again _carefully_ what the Grandparent wrote.
i actually have seen albums that have an m4p (itunes DRM'd AAC) file
the m4p (as opposed to mp4) is the DRM version of a file. Standard (non DRM) AACs have an .mp4 ext (or a slightly incorrect .m4a if bought as iTunes Plus non DRM file)
regards.
'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (Score:4, Insightful)
How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.
Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is? They could tell me they have the cure for cancer and I, aware that I am on a freaking torrent site, will take that pronouncement with the required grains of salt.
Whole point's moot anyway. With Sony's rootkit et. al, do as Mulder did: Trust No One.
Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you use the logo and don't provide MP3 files to your customer, I'm pretty sure you've just gone and opened yourself up to a false advertising lawsuit.
Doesn't address piracy issues, but then again I don't tend to associate piracy issues with retail stores or well-known online sellers like Amazon.
Easier solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easier solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Then tilt it 45 degrees. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well said...
Although I am a Hindu, I have lived in the UK all my life, and I see the swastika as an "evil" symbol because of the actions of a madman in Berlin over 60 years ago.
In India though, the symbol is revered, as it is a Symbol of peace, tolerance, and welcoming.
Its really sad, as some countries such as Germany and France ban the Swastika. They do allow exception to Hindus as a religious symbol, but its very difficult to use it still. A hindu would offer the symbol as a welcome to all, but if it stil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Easier solution (Score:4, Funny)
Final...Easier...whatever.
Could have used a better name (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, what a mouthful. 12 syllables. "MP3 100% Compatible" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. They should have gone with something shorter, catchier, but with the same meaning... like "plays for sure!" or something.
Re: (Score:2)
like "plays for sure!" or something.
Why do I think of Irish folk music when I read that one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Plays Damn Well!"
Great for heavy metal, but might seem a bit strange on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's latest release.
I'm a bit suspicious ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The BPI â" the UK equivalent of the RIAA â" is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores.
I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones. Makes me think that as soon as they have people aware that MP3 is different than whatever it is they're offering, they'll start spending billions vilifying MP3 files. These guys are sneaky and not to be trusted under any circumstances.
Re:I'm a bit suspicious ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones.
I disagree. It is not odd at all.
They are trying to break the back of iTunes and preventing anything like it from ever arising again.
It drives them insane that a 3rd party has the kind of market power that lets it set pricing on their product.
Re:I'm a bit suspicious ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And iTunes is the monster they created. "Hey, let's insist on DRM for all online music stores! Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?" The irony makes me feel all warm inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost! Just a little more thought needed (Score:2, Redundant)
If they'd only thought it through a bit more, they could've come up with a catchy, easily-remembered name.
Like, for example, PlaysForSure.
Plays for sure... (Score:2)
Em Pee What? Dee Are Who? (Score:2)
Like MP3 or DRM matters anymore.... let's stop deluding ourselves. Beyond us no one even realizes what format music is in...
-S
Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (Score:5, Funny)
*Number pulled out of ass, just so y'know.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is slashdot. We know.
Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
You are mistaking "compatible" with "open". .ogg is open, but is compatible with significantly fewer devices and computers at the moment. I don't think my computer will play it (though I could download a codec for it if I cared), and I know my phone, portable music player (aka MP3 player), and car stereo can't play it.
Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (Score:4, Informative)
Flac, then. Turns into mp3 or ogg easily enough, and is open and unpatented.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also fully lossless. I'm not sure people need or want that, considering the ballooning size of digital music libraries even with lossy compression.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard disks are up to 1.5TB. That's maybe a hundred times what they were when Napster first became popular. FLAC is typically, what, ten times the size of an MP3? Seems to me the time for lossless compression is here.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard disks are up to 1.5TB. That's maybe a hundred times what they were when Napster first became popular. FLAC is typically, what, ten times the size of an MP3? Seems to me the time for lossless compression is here.
The problem is that it is only about half the sized of the raw uncompressed track.
So by the same kind of logic as above, and as has been apparent ever since the performance of lossless audio compression stabilized many years ago:
The point at which lossless compression (of music) becomes useful, is about ten minutes before it becomes pointless.
It might make a difference for slow transfers like torrents, but as for storage: If you can spend that much space, just double it and get rid of the whole encoding and
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but is that really the best use of those bits? I mean, sure, if you're starting with CD audio files, lossless from that is the best you can do.
But presuming the songs are actually recorded in something with much more fidelity than CD, I'd think that 30 megs of a careful lossy format taken from that would be better than 30 megs of pefect "CD" sampled from that.
After all, in this example, CD is basically a naive lossy compression format from the "original" higher quality master.
Re: (Score:2)
High end and jukebox (Score:4, Insightful)
Are there even any unhacked non-PC devices that play FLAC? Nothing against FLAC
FLAC is currently the most popular Lossless compressed format for hardware players.
High end living-room digital players usually support it. Some offer services where you send your CDs and when you receive your player it's pre-loaded with FLACs of your music (like Olive [olive.us] for example)
Several Jukebox also exist with support for FLAC, like in car systems from PhatNoise [phatnoise.com]'s.
Logitech's latest Squeezbox supports it too, for a more recent example.
For more detailed and longer list see FLAC's own list [sourceforge.net].
In addition to all these branded software, don't forget also about all the countless of no-name "multimedia-harddisk-case" (small box usually centered around some miniITX board running a small embed linux-based mediaplayer. Sold pre assembled in store and buy-your-own-harddisk in computer shops). Granted most of them DO use Linux and PC-like hardware. But they are sold as ready-to-use appliance, like your DSL/Cable modem and Wifi router (which is most likely to run Linux, too).
In short the fact the iPod doesn't play it, and Microsoft's "Play-for-Sure" logo forbids it in the USA, doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't already using it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people want to share their files between all of their devices without any hassle at all. Buying specific hardware for compatibility reasons is acceptable for the average Linux user but most people expect things to Just Work. When a format is not supported by all device
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed. The .ogg format would need a new label. "100% incompatible", perhaps?
Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (Score:5, Informative)
I could download a codec for [.ogg] if I cared
Hi. I'm mister pedantic.
Ogg is a container format, meaning you can stick audio and video data inside ogg files much the same way you can files into a zip file. Except that zip has features to enable corruption detection and ogg has features to enable corruption handling (find next magic number, continue from there). Also, Ogg is streaming friendly, zip puts the data first and all the inode-like data last.
The ogg container format is most typically used with Vorbis sound and Theora video. There's also a Speex audio codec optimized for human voices (as opposed to "all sound").
Similarly, AVI is a container format [AVI = Audio Video Interlace], often storing mpeg data I'm told. Other container formats include Matroska (.mkv).
See wikipedia if you lack something to nerd out over :)
For varying definitions of compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Proprietary or not, MP3 is THE audio format to play. Give an ogg file to most people, they are almost certainly not going to be able to play it without some hass.e Most audio devices don't play ogg files, while most audio file player devices can play MP3.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that does make a good amount of sense, because computers can easily play just about any file format, given an easy installation of a driver or decoder program. Getting a typical phone, car audio head unit, iPod or ipod-like device to play them generally isn't going to be so easy. If you offer to install the player, I would bet the resistance would be low, but people without that kind of acquaintance would probably just forgo it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure there's that much resistence to Vorbis/FLAC/what have you among people who play their music off a desktop or laptop.
I'm fairly resistant even though my Rockboxed Sansa can play both just fine. My situations is that I ripped a few hundred of my CDs to high-quality MP3 and it takes up about 30GB of storage. With an 8GB portable player, that means I can take along about a fourth of my collection. This works out pretty well because a lot of it is my wife's stuff that I'm not into, and I don't like every single song from even my favorite artists.
Now, suppose I were starting from scratch and considering FLAC. I'm going to
Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (Score:5, Insightful)
well, MP3 is an ISO standard (approved in 1991). however, i agree that the licensing/patent issues are a huge drawback. to quote Wikipedia:
sounds like typical patent-trolling to me. this is a prime example of how our IP laws hinder technological progress/innovation rather than encourage it. and a 20-year patent term for software algorithms is just plain insane. by the time the patent expires and finally goes into public domain the algorithm will likely be obsolete. technological progress is the result of open collaboration and collective efforts. these type of patent lawsuits are counter-productive and greatly hamper cultural symbiosis that every field of knowledge/research depends on to move forward.
so it's too bad that petty patent claims plague the dominant digital music format. maybe Ogg should be made into an ISO standard. perhaps then more hardware manufacturers (and downloadable music retailers) will adopt it alongside of MP3. frankly, MP3 is already a little outdated as it's fallen behind other compression formats over the years.
Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since they're going for patented technology anyway, I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't push the AAC format. While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players. As a bonus, it's smaller, better quality, and a heck of a lot easier to license than the craziness behind the MP3 and MPEG formats.
Yeah, yeah. I know that MP3 has brand recognition. But nothing will ever change if no one pushes things forward. And besides, MP3 100% Compatible? That doesn't even sound cromulent!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your alternative standard of choice (ogg, aac, wmv, flac) isn't the basic standard. It may be superior in many ways (size, sound quality, openness), but everyone has an MP3 player. As Sony proved several years back, you can't have a hardware player that doesn't play MP3's. It can play MP3's *and* another standard, but if it doesn't at least play MP3's it won't work with most people's equipment.
For those people who are aware enough to want AAC, get an AAC player. This branding is for those people who bou
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the difference:
If you provide an mp3 download, everyone knows what it is, and they don't have to be bothered with learning anything.
But that doesn't stop you from providing alternatives. Throw up an AAC as "best for iPod", and FLAC, because then geeks can either keep it in full lossless glory, or transcode it to what we want.
Re: (Score:2)
Bonus: AAC should properly be known as audio MPEG-4, meaning that it's both MPEG and ISO (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43345). AAC was designed to be the technical superior to mp3 (and it really is in potential) and is part of the next generation MPEG-4 standard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean Apple iPod or iPhone players? My two Creative mp3 players and my Krazor cell phone can not play .aac files. And the only thing on my computer that can play those files is the VLC player, and VLC can pretty much play anything -- anyway. .aac files are some of the most finicky media files I have. Almost all the other medias I have can be pretty much played on several of the players I have inst
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked pretty much all mp4 audio (AAC) files were named .m4a or simply .mp4, not .aac. This repeated mistake makes me wonder just how much exposure you've had to the format.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if it's called .aac, .mp4, .m4a, or .m4b; these files are a real bitch to get to play (and if they're called .m4p you might as well head off to TPB). VLC is OK if you play through start to finish, but if you're trying to skim through a book, it's pretty flaky. Winamp is all right at playing AAC, but it's only a small step better than iTunes.
Cro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I support your suggestion of people pushing the AAC format. After all, the number of iPods out there is HUGE, and many newer non-Apple portable music players can decode unprotected AAC files, too.
Re: (Score:2)
While this is a great idea, I still think with server storage being so cheap nowadays they should also offer it in non-DRM'd WMA and AAC formats, too. The reason is simple: most non-Apple portable music players can play unprotected WMA files, and many newer portable music players can play unprotected AAC files, too.
Re: (Score:2)
> most audio file player devices can play MP3
More or less. Some players choke on oddball frequencies and bitrates and things like VBR; the 8 year old player in my truck being a good example, but I've even seen it on other cheap players in the last couple of years. Then there's meta-data support (ID3) and niceties like replay gain.
It's fair to say that MP3 is the best supported format, but 100%? Not so much.
c.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its saying the file is 100% compatible with the MP3 format. As in, there's no additional DRM that has been tacked onto the MP3 file.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Proprietary and compatible do not have to be linked.
ogg is not closed source/proprietary, but despite this it only works on what, 60% of players? hardly "compatible". Being open source does not maketh compatible.
But then WMV9 is closed/proprietary, and only works in maybe 1/3 of the players. Probably an intersection of where "proprietary" marries "profit".
Then there's the third alternative, mp3. Proprietary, yet universally (100% for all practical purposes) supported.
Can you find an audio player that do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ogg is Open and Free As In Speech, but it's compatible with almost nothing. Yes, devices could be MADE compatible with it with no licensing costs, but good luck convincing Apple, who alone controls over two thirds of the mp3 player market with the iPod. I doubt the Zune supports ogg right now either, though I'm sure many of the less-popular players that are trying to nail as many features as possible in the hopes of taking a couple of Apple's customers support the format.
That's not knocking ogg - it's har
Re: (Score:2)
Re:mp3 is nice, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mp3 is nice, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, don't worry about Fraunhofer/Thomson. The patents are gonna expire in a couple years and none of the big companies have sued anyone for using LAME yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Car stereos, DVD players, etc, etc. Ogg's a solution to a non-existent problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution to a non-existent problem? The gaming world seems to disagree, since Ogg is used in plenty of games [xiph.org].
Why no lawsuits? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've wondered about why no one is sued for using LAME> My theory is that almost everyone has licensed rights to MP3 patents if they have ever:
*Bought windows
*Bought am MP3 player
*Bought a music playing software
*.. etc.
I think most of us have paid F/T multiple times for the rights to MP3.. thus they wouldnt really stand a chance in court in proving that a person used MP3 encoder without rights.
Of course, IANAL, and my understanding of this is very naive.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.
You don't seem to have a problem using it on proprietary devices.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.
You don't seem to have a problem using it on proprietary devices.
Rockbox [wikipedia.org] + your device with proprietary firmware (including iPods -- up to 5.5G) = your device with new, shiny open-source firmware, that, of course, supports .ogg.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be really curious to see if rampant_mac would sully his Apple goods (including his latest iMac) with free software, including a free operating system. And if he is, why is he bothering to pay for a Mac instead of buying a generic computer.
Re:mp3 is nice, but... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.
That's OK. The files will come pre-encoded.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, tell us all about that proprietary Apple audio format.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, but who runs the Catholics?
the old dude with the tall hat isn't it?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So in a diluted method, the Jews do run the Catholics.
don't the jews run everything?
Re: (Score:2)
Catholicism is a derivative of the Christian faiths
If I remember my history correctly, aren't the Christian faiths [wikipedia.org] derivatives of [wikipedia.org] Catholicism [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of them. The orthodox churches are older, and there are gnostic christians who claim to trace their faith even further back. That last claim may be dubious, but hey do not at any rate descend from catholicism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do. It probably cost a few hundred million.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I can explain this one (and burn karma)
1. People are idiots
2. Anonymous people are ignorant arseholes
3. See point #1
Signed
An anonymous Idiot.