Comments on: Dear Cory Doctorow…

By: Blain

Blain — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:08:59 +0000

@Biff: It probably could be even easier than that. If I recall, these are AAC, not MP3. The downloaded AAC could have an account tag in them added on download, like Fairplay was added. And when iTunes finds the new AAC that you ‘appropriated’, it could phone home.

It’s technically doable. Whether or not Apple’s actually going to do this is another story. In the mean time, pass the tinfoil.

By: Dai Jones

Dai Jones — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:28:06 +0000

If Doctorow is serious about a thank you gift for Jobs, he could do a lot worse than apologise for casting aspersions on Jobs’ sincerity previously. Dick.

By: Biff Whammy

Biff Whammy — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:21:57 +0000

The whole 256 kbps thing is a trojan horse. This way, it’s easy to spot DRM-free files that might have been “shared”. If they were 128 kbps like other iTMS downloads, they’d just blend in.

Wait — that’s what SCOPI was getting at, wasn’t it? We’re on to you!

I’ll take my tinfoil hat off now, okay?

By: Scopi

Scopi — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:45:22 +0000

Will I lose anything if I convert the 256kbps tracks to 128kbps? My whole library is in 128kbps, and I’ve never had a problem with that. I doubt on my iPod with my $10 headphones I could tell the difference.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:34:12 +0000

Mac: Well, some of us don’t value just-buying-one-track very much (as we either want the whole album to try out, or like the whole thing, or like the ability to have tracks grow on us over time).

And while downloadsd have immediate convenience, many people prefer having something physical, with notes and a cover, and the ability to encode it any way they want.

Different strokes, and all. Features that are compelling to you or to him may be valueless to someone else.

(Heck, I’ve never bought a track from iTMS. I prefer buying CDs and encoding them to MP3 myself. [AAC is not bad, but MP3 is just as good for my needs and much more portable; my car stereo doesn't do AAC/MP4, but it'll do MP3 just fine.]

Part of it is also that I can get many CDs used for $8.50, which makes them $1.50 cheaper than iTMS. And also lots of the things I like (sadly, usually not used for $8.50) aren’t available at ALL on iTMS.)

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:31:32 +0000

And if I buy an album DRM free at 256 kbps and burn it, then I have the CD and the downloaded album in my computer, without leaving my ass-indented chair…

By: The Macalope

The Macalope — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:08:03 +0000

I can’t see there’s any compelling reason for me to prefer downloads to CDs, so I shall probably stick with them.

Wow, really? Convenience? The ability to buy just one track?

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:35:05 +0000

Cory Doctorow? Oh, who cares what the self-promoting idiot thinks about anything at all? It’s a shame we have to pay any attention to the Enderles, Thurrotts, Ous, and Doctorows of this world at all.

And that’s a weaselly comment about independent stores. As if he cares a fig for them. Wasn’t Doctorow attempting to grandstand on a demand that Apple drop DRM on material from independent artists that was *already* *available* free from DRM elsewhere from independent stores? That would hardly have been likely not to damage those independent stores business.

But Jobs cracking EMI is another matter. I think the news is very welcome.

However, I don’t know it will affect me much. As Jobs said at the press conference, this *isn’t* something new, because 90% of the product in the industry is already being sold in DRM-free form in the form of CDs. I can’t see there’s any compelling reason for me to prefer downloads to CDs, so I shall probably stick with them. But this is great for those who want to buy in this way. Well done, EMI.

By: Blain

Blain — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:31:30 +0000

And I honestly thought the cape and goggles thing referred to here was a joke!

That said, it’s two tiered, but I still bet Apple holds the cards. Note that it’s not two-teired in the way the labels were wanting. If it was ‘big name’ vs ’small name’, the label could exert some pressure on the musicians. Now, it’s ‘Everyone at 99 cents AND 129 cents’ as opposed to ‘Push this group at 99 cents and punish this group by going 129 cents.’ Instead, we have a battle of DRM vs Non-DRM.

You can probably bet Apple was the one who suggested the non-DRM at a higher quality. This tilts the scales even more so. Very awesome.

By: Kordan

Kordan — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:05:17 +0000

Everyone has been saying that they wish that it was lossless. I just can’t see Apple justifying that bandwidth for the tiny amount of people who can a) tell the difference or b) have equipment on which it is going to make any difference. Besides archiving which I’m going to argue that if you want to do that, buy a CD.

This is obviously a way for Apple to give EMI the price increase that they’ve been wanting, although it’s a benefit to us because of the increase in bitrate. It’s going to be confusing for some for a while, well, relatively, but when the other music labels come around it’ll all be one happy homogenous DRM-free world on iTunes.

Hats off to Apple and EMI.