From IDG (via Yahoo!):
Apple has accused France of “state-sponsored piracy” in reaction to a proposed law that would allow iTunes users to play their music on devices other than iPods.
Apple’s harsh words follow the initial passage of legislation in France on Tuesday that, if passed by a second legislative body, would ultimately force companies to sell digital music that is compatible with any music player. Currently, songs bought on Apple’s popular iTunes online music store can only be played on Apple’s iPod music players.
If the law passes, “legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers,” the company said. Free movies would follow close behind, the company asserted, “in what will rapidly become a state-sponsored culture of piracy.”
Apple also predicted that iPod sales would increase, because customers could load their players with music that can’t be protected, including music from illegal sources.
There is really almost no limit to the number of different ways that you can be wrong about digital rights management. France’s approach puts them on the road to being wrong in a whole new way - insisting on a remedy that is usually reserved for monopolistic antitrust cases with the unfortunate side effect of blowing apart the first security scheme that has come even remotely close to making artists and consumers and media companies happy.
So - nicely done, France! Over here, we have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other fun provisions that give all the rights to record companies, studios and other intellectual landlords. That’s swell in a whole different way, because it allows media companies to sell you, for example, unplayable CD’s without proper warning. [You might remember my adventures with that, earlier this year…]
See? There you have both sides of the issue, both ways a government could go at this stuff, and they both hit me as intuitively wrong. There are other flavors, too. There’s the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who believe that your only real intellectual property is your brain itself (and even that should be made available for consumers’ and for any other artist who might, for instance, want to place your cerebrum at the center of an installation…). There the Recording Industry Association of America, unsleeping in their quest to put toddlers behind bars and meter the number of times a song is allowed to run through your head.
What does every approach to managing digital media have in common? Two thing as far as I can tell.
1) The musicians get screwed.
- This, at least, is something you can count on. Whether you’re talking about the recording industry’s rich history of exploitative contracts that ensure that new artists will take all the risks and earn nothing unless they become superstars… or the consumer advocates who believe that the song you just wrote wants to be free… either way, musicians are gonna get screwed. That’s oddly comforting, in a way, isn’t it?
2) It’s wrong!
- As I’ve said above, there are no solutions that feel right in all situations. We all think schoolchildren should be allowed to hum tunes without being immediately tackled and pinned by an FCC assault team. We all think that any actual peg-legged, parrot-and-eyepatch-wearing, schooner-skippering, “aarrrg!”-yelling pirates who board shipping vessels, steal new CDs and sell ‘em at illicit West Indies retail outfits ought to be stopped. But between those extremes… nothing seems quite right.
Please feel free to suggest any solutions in the Comments below. The world will thank you. Just make sure that your idea doesn’t involve paying musicians for their work, okay? We all need some continuity in our lives.





59 comments
Ann
March 22, 2006 at 7:28 pm
1Sure, call me a troublemaker—but I got Adam to post again! Whoohoo!
Murray
March 22, 2006 at 7:54 pm
2I demand that the sun rise in the morning!
Let’s see if I can pull it off.
Adam, I’m glad that you’re riled but this is a bit out of my field. Uh… I got nothing here.
Sharon
March 22, 2006 at 8:02 pm
3This is not a simple topic, and I sure don’t have a simple answer, but I know something has gone horribly wrong when the RIAA doesn’t want me to copy my CDs to my MP3 player (if I had an MP3 player).
Likewise, the recent raid on some bars here in Fairfield Cty that hire bands that play “covers” of classic rock, blues, etc., is going to have a very chilling effect on the nightlife (such as it is) around here.
Hanna
March 22, 2006 at 8:17 pm
4I think anyone who has dated a musician can agree with me that they deserve every bad thing that can happen to them and more.
Love,
Hanna
George C.
March 22, 2006 at 8:33 pm
5For some insight into this subject, I recommend this free book: “Free Culture” by Lawrence Lessig.
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
Very interesting read and very relevant to Adam’s topic as well as our own “freedoms” (such as they are) in our country today considering how legislation can be bought.
Skerlnik
March 22, 2006 at 8:35 pm
6There is no joy in Muddville, anymore. All the fun seems to have gone out of an industry, which once prided itself on being defiantly independent.
The way I see it, what’s the point of having the ability to download 10,000 songs to an iPod, when there are only about 4 songs that are worth a crap on the radio? Nobody knows how to write a good hook or melody anymore, every band looks exactly the same (like rich frat trendies who just rolled out of bed, and make whiny, formulaic one-hit “wonders”), and are completely interchangeable. Ye gods, rock and roll is in a coma.
I am sticking to CDs, which I can burn and mix on my own, and avoid all that iTunes hassle. My friend had some sort of malfunction with whatever poorly tested iPod version POS he had, and lost over 2,700 songs he had downloaded at $1 apiece. And, we have to worry about the RIAA, too?
They can get back to me when the music’s good enough to bother, again.
/end grumpy rant
Matt
March 22, 2006 at 9:03 pm
7The Ipod is elegant, cool, and you can download the songs for 99cents easily, reliably and avoid paying for the worthless songs that populate the rest of disc. Want to save em permanently? Burn em to a CD. Back em up to a hard drive (like any computer data!!)
There are cheaper MP3 players. There are other ways to download music. You can buy CDs at KMart. You can digitize your old vinyl so you don’t have to pay twice for that Donna Summer Disco tune.
I like the ipod, but then I like most things Apple.
Forgive me if I don’t see a problem in need of a solution.
If the french government persists, ITunes francais etre ferme. Then les grenouilles can enjoy the music-playing equivalent of the engineering genius behind le Citroen.
Ann
March 22, 2006 at 9:16 pm
8Murray, if Adam’s posting reliability resembled the reliability of the sun’s rising in the morning, then your little piece of snark might be valid. You just don’t want to acknowledge my influence with Adam. Hmmph.
And, um, I got nothin’ too. I did buy a couple of bootleg tapes in Bangkok years ago, but then I bought the CD versions legitimately in an attempt to make amends. I have a measly little Shuffle that I like, but I just put music from my CDs on it. “Les grenouilles” indeed—more fun to say than it is to eat!
Gordon
March 22, 2006 at 10:22 pm
9Here’s the solution: steal the music and mail the artist a check for $20. That way, the artist gets theirs and you get yours. The only person that’s getting screwed is the RIAA, and they probably deserve it, those assholes.
dee
March 22, 2006 at 10:33 pm
10I might have a little more sympathy for Apple if I hadn’t read this in the NYTimes last month (edited and exerpted to skirt around TimesSelect)
Good Luck With That Broken iPod
By JOE NOCERA
Published: February 4, 2006
MY iPod died.
It happened right after Christmas — a Christmas, I hasten to add, in which I gave my wife the new video iPod, making it the latest of the half-dozen iPods my family has bought since Apple began selling them in October 2001. We also own five Apple computers, and have become pathetically loyal because of our reliance on the iPod. To the extent that Apple is using the iPod to drive sales of other Apple products, the Nocera family is proof that the strategy works; we’ve probably spent more than $10,000 on Apple hardware since the iPod first came out. Alas, at least three of the iPods were replacements for ones that broke.
This time, though, I decided to get my iPod fixed. After all, it wasn’t even two years old and had cost around $300. Like all iPods, it came with a one-year warranty. Although Apple sells an additional year of protection for $59, I declined the extended warranty because the cost struck me as awfully high — a fifth of the purchase price of the device itself.
Anecdotal evidence — like chat boards filled with outraged howls from owners of dead iPods — strongly suggests that you can write the rest of this story yourself. You start by thinking: ‘’I'll just call Apple!'’ But it’s so hard to find the customer support number on Apple’s Web site that you suspect the company has purposely hidden it.
Eventually, you find the number and make the call. Although the tech support guy quickly diagnoses your problem — a hard drive gone bad — he really has only one suggestion: buy a new iPod. ‘’Since it is out of warranty,'’ he says, ‘’there’s nothing we can do.'’ You’re a little stunned. But you’re not ready to give up. On the Apple site, there’s a form you can fill out to send the iPod back to Apple and get it fixed. But you do a double-take when you see the price. Apple is going to charge you $250, plus tax, to fix your iPod. There is no mistaking the message: Apple has zero interest in fixing a machine it was quite happy to sell you not so long ago.
…snip…
Steven Williams, a lawyer who brought a class-action suit against Apple a few years ago over the failed battery problem, told me that he was amazed to discover, as the litigation began, that Apple seemed to feel, as he put it, ‘’that everyone knew iPods were only good for a year or two.'’ Thanks in part to the lawsuit, the battery issue is one of the few Apple will now deal with: if your iPod dies because of the battery you can send it back and get a new one for a mere $65.95, plus tax. Of course, you then lose all your music.
——————–
My solution? CD’s and satellite radio.
SeattleDan
March 23, 2006 at 1:03 am
11I’m stumped.Hey,Ann,what was your lottery number again?
Musicians,hmm. My son, the promising animator,”sold” some poster art to a band in Dayton about a month ago. He’s 17 and was very happy about this turn at the time.First sale and all..Except he’s still waiting for the check. They keep telling him that it’s in the mail.Where have I heard that before?
Psylence
March 23, 2006 at 3:02 am
12Personally, I would just like to be able to buy stuff from the French iTunes store in the first place. Or the UK, Australian, Canadian, Japanese, German etc. stores. I *want* to buy Crazy by Gnarls Barkley and No Tomorrow by Orson, but because I happen to live in Utah, I am not allowed. Sure I could get a physical disk imported off Amazon, but the time and cost of that just are not justifiable for impulse buying. And impulse buying is what iTunes is all about.
And while I am at it, I will wish for DVD region encoding to have never happened.
Enjoy Azerbaijan
March 23, 2006 at 4:32 am
13Good to buy thru ebay. But paypal not popular in Azerbaijan.
cooper
March 23, 2006 at 8:38 am
14Ok, Ann. I must admit that was amazing! You can come out of the corner - for a little while.
I don’t even have a Shuffle yet, though I did buy one for my son, which he quickly ran through the washing machine, twice. They can build things too small. I wonder if 007 (the Sean Connery one) ever had that problem. So, life as a Luddite goes on. I have been intrigued by the MP3 technology, but because of NPR podcasts. Any suggestions on which are best - cheap, but reliable? Sorry, Adam, I’ve got nothing here either.
Enjoy Azerbaijan, I would, if I could read it. Nice young lady on the home page, though.
Mary
March 23, 2006 at 10:11 am
15Now wait a sec, Hanna. I married a musician and… oh, wait. Never mind ;-D
A copyright law, the reason I wanted to go to law school (but didn’t) It is a real miasma. iTunes has a good idea but it makes the consumer wars even nastier- like beta vs VHS. Thus France only got it half wrong. MP3 needs to find a way to encode their music, then iTunes could sell two versions- Apple and MS- and the consumer could get the version s/he needs.
Unfortunately, that still leave musicians screwed. Am I the only one upset aboout that?
Murray
March 23, 2006 at 10:32 am
16Well Ann. I see that I made the sun rise this morning. So who has more power?
(Probably a toss up)
I know that the RIAA can be a bitch, which is why on my DVD “The Smart Person’s Guide To Mountain Biking” I used only copyright free, and classical music. (RIAA doesn’t give a damn about music they don’t control).
ice weasel
March 23, 2006 at 12:13 pm
17The solution? There is one. But it’s not easy.
The solution is simple, people should be taught, from early childhood to respect artists and that what they create has value and that those artists should get paid for it. People should believe that if they want something, they should pay for it.
All the rest of this debate is bullshit to protect someone’s financial interests, someone’s business model or someone’s distribution network. And all of the damage that has been done to that concept (that artists deserve to be paid for what they create) is mainly the product of the parasites that make records, the retailers and the distributors of such media.
Oh yes, the artists have some complicity in the destruction this “value” too. They’re the ones who eagerly sign up with large record companies in hopes of “making it big” and thereby make themselves the prostitutes they claim they don’t want to be.
The record companies own policies and criminal behavior only exacerbate this feeling on the part of the public. Sure, it’s ok for a record company to give away free copies of music to radio stations but it’s not ok for you to copy the CD you just bought to play in your car, or on your iPod. Wonder where the cognitive dissonance comes from? Or try this one on, something is out of print, people want it, the artist who created the out of print thing wants it to be available but the people who “own” it (the labels) will release whenever they wish.
In the end, it all comes down to a complete breakdown of respect.
I think, no, I know most people want to buy their music and movies. Maybe they don’t want to pay what they think are horrific prices for it. That’s a valid opinion. But most people are honest. The problem has become, the system is so polluted and fraught with parasites that now we have to institute all these bizarre and draconian measures to (the biggest lie in the industry) “protect the artist”.
Though Adam and I may differ on a few of the smaller points, he’s really summed it up quite well. France is doing the right thing, the wrong way. And even my beloved Apple is being much less than honest with their response (“state sponsored piracy” indeed, what blowhards).
Ok, maybe there aren’t any solutions after all.
waterfowler
March 23, 2006 at 1:12 pm
18Ice, I bet you don’t think it’s B.S. to protect YOUR financial interests.
Jim
March 23, 2006 at 2:07 pm
19From the article:
“Currently, songs bought on Apple’s popular iTunes online music store can only be played on Apple’s iPod music players.”
If that statement is true, therein lies the problem. If I want to download and pay for an Itune song, I’m now forced to ALSO buy an Ipod in order to listen to the song I just bought.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but to me, if we had a comparative analogy from a couple of decades ago, it would be this:
(flashback to a small Oregon town circa 1980)…I just bought the new Journey Escape cassette to play on my Sony walkman. It really sucks that I can’t play the same cassette on my Pioneer home stereo system. The sound is just so much more awsome! The bastards!!!
I’m not so sure the French were wrong.
Ann
March 23, 2006 at 2:58 pm
20Except, Jim, iTunes isn’t the only way to acquire songs that you like. Or am I missing the point?
Jim
March 23, 2006 at 3:14 pm
21Anne,
My understanding is that the Itunes library is the single largest pay per song library available.
My point is that if I’ve already paid for the song, I should be able to play it on any MP3 player that I choose. That copy of the song is now my property. It’s fair market competition. In my opinion, restricting the brand of player for the purchased item gives Apple an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
The fact that the music is in digital format instead of analog, shouldn’t make a difference. If you want to go with the one song example, remember 45s?
Rob E.
March 23, 2006 at 3:54 pm
22“Apple also predicted that iPod sales would increase, because customers could load their players with music that can’t be protected, including music from illegal sources.”
I don’t have the covetted iPod, yet, but I do have a little Shuffle, and I’m pretty sure you can do this anyway. We’ve bought nothing from iTunes, but have made mp3 files from existing CDs or downloaded music directly from the artist’s site.
I don’t know that France is wrong, but maybe they’re not completely right, either. If Apple wants to sell musice in a protected, propriatary format, it seems like that’s their business. What there really needs to be is another source for this music. And, I’m not sure it’s appropriate for Apple to say, “Gimmee a buck, now here’s your song. By the way, even though I sold it to you, and it’s now yours, I still get to say how you can use it.” That’s one of the results of the copy-protection. I agree with Ice Weasel: most people are perfectly willing to pay for their music. The problem that we’ve run into is that the music industry spent way too much time trying to stop on-line trading when all they really needed to do was supply a legitamate venue for it. The success of iTunes seems to prove this. Apple seems to think that France’s actions will increase iPod sales but decrease iTunes sales. I think it will do the opposite. iTunes music will have more appeal because the music files will have more utility. The iPod, however, will have some competition when any mp3 player can be used for music you bought online.
So, I don’t think France’s decision will hurt the music industry. I don’t think it will increase piracy (there are already avenues for piracy — people using iTunes have already decided not to use them), but it may hurt Apple’s iPod sales when it levels the playing field by making it so anyone who wants to buy their music online can use it in whatever device they wish.
Jon
March 23, 2006 at 3:57 pm
23The Sony/Pioneer analogy doesn’t quite apply because Sony is a record label and not a music store. Sony has exclusive distribution rights of their artists. It would be monopolistic for them to require it be played in their walkmans as well.
Apple is different because they are not a record label; they are a music store. There was a point once when music stores sold tapes and CDs (remember the 80s?) When the first stores switched to exclusively CDs, no one said that it was illegal because they sold music that was incompatible with tape and record players. It was understood that the same music was available elsewhere in a playable format.
Also, no one tells Ford that they must make parts that are compatible with Chevy and Dodge cars.
I wish it were possible to listen to all digital music on all players, but legally, I can’t see why it would be required.
Ann
March 23, 2006 at 4:31 pm
24Thanks, Jon. The key phrase in Jim’s post is “If I’ve already paid for the song.” You weren’t forced to buy it from iTunes. I have all sorts of appliances for which there is only one brand of parts—my electric toothbrush only takes its own kind of replacement brush, and I can’t use that brush on another machine.
That’s not a perfect analogy–I’m just trying to understand all the issues here, and I’m happy to be edjumacated.
Also, I don’t know enough about iTunes. Can you download a song to your computer and then to your player? To an unlimited number of other iPod players?
Jim
March 23, 2006 at 4:43 pm
25Jon,
I concede that my analogy is somewhat flawed. Also, this is the standard operating procedure for MacIntosh, i.e. Mac operating systems are only compatible with Mac computers. Therefore, it stands to reason that music bought from the Itunes music store would only be compatible with Ipods.
The reason for this, however, is because the music is encrypted, not because of proprietary technology used to create the music files in the first place.
Wikipedia has an interesting entry for Itunes.
I suppose my concern is that in this mega-conglomerate corporate environment that we endure these days, I can see a definite possibility that music labels, such as Virgin Records, may end up granting exclusive licenses to Itunes for distribution of their music (for the right price). This shuts out any other music stores.
This is pure speculation, but with other industries being deregulated, how soon do you think it would take MacIntosh to develop and promote their own record label? Songs, compilations, and artists works would only be available through Itunes, and only playable on Ipods.
After the European Union’s anti-trust case with Microsoft, I would imagine France is just trying to be pre-emptive in keeping a monopoly from forming.
Jim
March 23, 2006 at 4:58 pm
26To put it in a nutshell,
My concern is the overlap between two completely different industries within one company.
Jon, you stated “Apple is different because they are not a record label; they are a music store.” Apple is also a computer store, an mp3 player store, et al. Thus my fears of monopolistic tendencies.
All in all, I’ve got more a a beef with Microsoft in terms of functionality of products and business methods, than I do with Apple, but I think that even good and well meaning companies can succumb to the promise of ever greater profit margins. That is why business methods of the above-mentioned type should be questioned.
Matt
March 23, 2006 at 5:36 pm
27If you buy something from ITunes, you can burn it to a CD and then do anything you want with it, including moving it to a cheaper MP3 player.
If you download the Wait, Wait! podcast, you can listen to it on your computer or burn it to a CD (my preferred method), as well as listening to it on an Ipod.
The only way Apple could get the record labels to agree to let them distribute music was to make it just a little difficult to pirate music.
It would seem that some people want to make electronic thievery even easier than it is. I’m not sure that morality or the Constitution requires this.
Tom in Santa Clara
March 23, 2006 at 5:54 pm
28All, I’ve got my little 30GB Video iPod and I love it, especially for things like travelling. I can remember taking a stack of tapes with me and my Walkman for planes, I can remember taking a CD player and a stack of CDs with me, now I’ve got 7 days worth of music (moved from CDs) and podcasts of WWDTM on the iPod and its completly portable…and its great!
I’ve not bought anything from iTunes, in fact the only thing that I loaded from there was a free NASCAR video that I got simply so I could see how the video looked….watched it once and then dumped it.
Sure seems to me that if you want to put music from iTunes onto an alternate MP3 player the way to do it would be download, then burn a CD, then move it….shouldn’t be all that hard!
Don’t know what the French are so upset about!
Pete IVDL
March 23, 2006 at 6:29 pm
29wmmfha…(rustle, rustle) hrrf mmnns… (rustle, rustle). Ah. That’s better (head appears above reams of copyright legislation recycled as record company packing material).
As the provider of a legitimate music recovery/archive service, I guess I’m a bit biased. I’ve also been forced to become somewhat of a specialist in copyright laws here in Australia (although I’d prefer not to be - I smell like a lawyer now). Anyway.
Don’t confuse copyright (the protection allegedly given to an artist to prevent unauthorised use of their material) with business model protection. Encrypting, scrambling, and/or region coding are entirely business tools, they have nothing to do with artistic protection. Theoretically, an artist doesn’t get paid any different whether the product sold was in France, Japan, or South America. But the recording company (and for the sake of this argument, that’s exactly what Apple is) can and does charge different prices depending on the region, or may release the material at times to suit their business model (i.e. when it makes them the most profit).
What France has done is breathtaking, for sure - and I know it’s not really this clear-cut - but it’s essentially removed the monopoly of a single business model. Of course, as Jim suggested, if the artist has an agreement with the record company that they will only be paid on iPod encrypted sales, then that’s another kettle of fish entirely.
Please don’t get distracted by the Ford/GM interchange argument. Sorry, but it’s much more fundamental than that. It’s more like Ford or GM telling fuel companies that their models require a completely different fuel - with all the distribution, billing, and cost penalties to the consumer that that entails. To further the analogy, imagine having to drive around looking for Ford fuel stations!
As a lover of music and a technology weenie, I can’t begin to describe my disgust with this product delivery model that Apple is squealing like a stuck pig about. First, there’s MP3 encoding (shudder - but if someone likes listening to less than two thirds of the audio content of the original material, that’s their audio cognitive disability, not mine), then there’s encryption, then there’s the single distribution channel business model, then there’s the legal ramifications of distributing or further copying the unencrypted music.
Adam’s point about the RIAA is absolutely correct - they would if they could. Look, when the RIAA was an engineering body, contributing to musical standards, they were world leaders. But that was sixty years ago, and now they are just suits trying to make the most from the least.
The way I figure it, if you can’t tell the difference in quality between an original recording (analog[ue] or digital) and a commercial MP3 release of that recording, you deserve an iPod. So don’t argue about the business model that rips you and the artist off, you cloth-eared consumer of musical pap! (/end Monty Python-esque “Fronsh” accent)
Wow. I really got grumpy then. Maximum Bob, where did you buy your walking cane from again?
Smallberries
March 23, 2006 at 6:45 pm
30Could the price of downloaded entertainment be rolled into the fee we pay for internet access itself? I know it’s not as easy as that but I’d think it’s possible. Basically, you get access to the internet. You download however much music, movies, and other entertainment you want. The amount you have downloaded is kept track of by the ISP. Your monthly fee is reflective of the amount you have downloaded. Fees are based on what the market will bear. The “extra” fee (the part beyond what you pay just to have access to start with) gets chopped up and paid stright to the record labels, movie distributors, etc., based on market share. Of course the big companies will get the most, but in this scenario they deserve the most because their product is downloaded most often. The small/independent labels would get something, since at least a few people are downloading their stuff, but they’d be getting more than the nothing they get now.
Would something like this even work? I know it’s rough, and I’m by no means educated on the economics of the entertainment industry so maybe this is all just hopelessly naive. For one thing, I suppose “pirate” ISPs would start popping up, but I’d think a few large entities (like ISPs) would be easier to prosecute than a kajillion individuals.
Another problem I see with this scenario is that no distinction is made between material that a producer is expecting to be paid for, and material that is intended to be downloaded for free (such as a WWDTM episode). I’m not sure that could be overcome - if you come up with a way to mark a WWDTM episode as “free,” someone will come up with a way to forge that “free” credential onto a “pay” product.
And of course you’ll have groups of people where one person downloads and then burns the music onto CD for all his friends. But that’s been going on since the days of tape, so you’re not going to do much about that. I think this could also work against peer-to-peer file sharing, because you’re still downloading material, so it’s still getting tacked onto your bill, no matter where you got it from.
But this scenario does ensure that the producers get compensated for their product at least most of the time, which would hopefully make them less prone to the ridiculous draconian measures they have been taking
Steve Duffy
March 23, 2006 at 7:43 pm
31If I go into a music shop and buy a CD I can play it on any CD player I own, one in the loungroom (LG), one out the back (Panasonic) and one in the car (Blaupunkt) or my Discman (Sony) to name but four. If I go to Apple iTunes music store and buy a song or a CD why can I only play it on a single specified device? Where’s the balance and equity in that?
It’s the same with tapes and the old vinyl records I still own, DVDs and videos - why should digital music be any different?
Apple will still be paid, the artists will still be paid, I’m still buying the song after all. Why should I be restricted on how and where I play the song?
Good on France for trying to break the nexus between iTunes and iPods and giving people freedom to purchase whatever platform suits their needs and price range.
Ann
March 23, 2006 at 8:09 pm
32Wot a bunch of whingers! Pete IVDL, speaking as a cloth-eared person, your Ford analogy is flawed. I don’t know whether the fuel represents the music or the device, but an iPod is MUCH more of a luxury item than a car is, at least in America, where public transport isn’t so good (that’s another discussion). And there clearly isn’t a 1:1 relationship between the music and the device, because you can get music from anywhere (digitally) and put it on your device, and Steve, you can put the iTunes music on your computer and then put it anywhere else.
And there’s no use getting all snobby about people who can’t tell the difference in quality. When I’m listening to my cheap little Shuffle at the gym or whilst gardening, I don’t CARE about the quality. I just want some energizing music. During my actual garden party, of course, I have a live string quartet.
Adam Felber
March 23, 2006 at 9:38 pm
33This is simply great. thank you, everyone, for all the tremendously thoughtful discussion. Some quick points:
- As Matt said, Apple’s model doesn’t prevent you from burning a CD and THEN importing it to your other Mp3 player. What this DOES do is prevent mass copying.
- I love the iTunes Music Store. As Pete says, the “commercial Mp3″ (or in this case, “AAC” or Mp4) doesn’t measure up in sound quality to CDs or vinyl. But for the odd guilty-pleasure pop song, it’s perfect.
- But Pete: I must protest that the iPod offers no such limitations as far as ripping your own collection. I rip at pretty high quality (AACs approximately twice as good as Apple’s Music Store), and one has the option of even using the bulky “lossless” format, which seems to be truly lossless.
- There is no solution.
[more later, perhaps… ]
dAVE
March 23, 2006 at 10:19 pm
34I’m pretty sure Sony WASN’T a record label (at least, not in the USA) back when the Walkman first came out.
David
March 24, 2006 at 12:29 am
35Since what I know about the current topic wouldn’t fill a gnat’s ass, I’ll have to let it go at reminding you all to make sure your i-pods will still work when we’re up to our nether regions in what used to be the Greenland ice cap.
cooper
March 24, 2006 at 8:29 am
36David, I just finished reading about a new climate projection where the sea level will rise up to 3 feet by the end of this century. Best to build your next house on stilts, Bubba.
cooper
March 24, 2006 at 8:45 am
37Adam, come on! Sixty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong. Well - they were right about Iraq, you gotta admit!
Sharon
March 24, 2006 at 11:03 am
38It’s interesting that all these new 100-year projections about melting ice and rising sea levels still assume some kind of smooth, steady, linear progression, giving humans living on the coastlines plenty of time to adjust. We can only hope! But the butterfly effect suggests otherwise.
Rob E.
March 24, 2006 at 11:37 am
39“As Matt said, Apple’s model doesn’t prevent you from burning a CD and THEN importing it to your other Mp3 player. What this DOES do is prevent mass copying.”
I could be wrong, and usually am, but while it’s true that Apple’s model doesn’t prevent you from doing that, I believe its Terms of Use does not allow you to go that route. Apple isn’t suggesting that as an option, but rather it’s a loophole they haven’t been able to close yet. And I think there are also programs out there that will strip the copy protection from iTunes files en masse, but I think these are not largely used for piracy, but instead are used to get iTunes files on to a non-Apple mp3 player.
It seems to me that piracy of music was rampant on the internet long before there was a legitmate source for the same music. iTunes has done well because people want to pay for their music, or are at least willing to pay for the convenience of not having to hunt for a decent pirated copy. The copy protection they include may make the recording industry feel more at ease, but from a consumer standpoint is takes away from the utility of the product. Not because the average consumer wants to get into the piracy business, but because the consumer wants to have the freedom to use the song they purchased in the way that best suits their needs. If you want to have a song that plays in multiple formats, at the moment you have to: buy the CD and rip it yourself; buy the file from iTunes and jump through the copy-protecting removal hoops; or find a pirated copy. To make the last option less atractive, you have to make the first two more attractive.
People are already paying for songs on iTunes that they previously were illegally downloading. Why then, does Apple think that making those file easier to use will make fewer people buy them? I don’t believe that Apple really buys into that, but knows anything that threatens Apple’s proprietary copy-protection, also threatens Apple’s current near-monopoly on the on-line music business. Apple isn’t worried that money won’t go to the recording industry or that money won’t go to the artist. Apple is worried that money will go to those places without Apple getting a cut.
I don’t know that France has the right idea, only because I don’t know that it’s their place to force Apple to do business that way, but I do think what France is doing is what the music industry should already be doing: finding a way to facilitate legitimate on-line music sales rather than tieing the business into one product. Then people will be encouraged to pay for their music even if they don’t have an iPod.
Sorry for the lenghth. This is why I never comment. Once I start, I don’t stop.
waterfowler
March 24, 2006 at 12:40 pm
40Prov. 27, 1. It doesn’t seem that long ago that we were supposed to be worried about an ice age.
Cooper, the French were getting PAID by Saddam and his murderous regime, that is the only reason they opposed……..you old #!X%!
Who wants ice cream? I have to buy.
Chuggo
March 24, 2006 at 4:38 pm
41Take a nice big bowl of vanilla ice cream, with spoon, go in the backyard. Slurp it up while listening to the birds (not Byrds). Cheap fun.
Mr. WF, you won’t have to worry about an ice age, but your lineage will, since you, me, and everyone isn’t doing enough about it. Stir the ice cream a little, it goes down better that way.
Richard
March 24, 2006 at 6:05 pm
42The iPod is a tremendous invention. Unfortunately, Apple have chosen to R&D it by selling it to people for $399 (or considerably more for an inferior model in the UK) and waiting for it to go breasts skywards. I bought one in November and already the headphone socket needs a service. Fortunately, I know someone who can fix virtually any problem with it, so I won’t be tied to visiting my local “genius” bar or sending it away for a replacement. But, you know, four hundred bucks for something with a two dollar headphone socket? Come on…
iTunes, however, is just pathetic as far as music downloads are concerned - 99c (or considerably more in the UK) for a burbling 128kbps download. If you are satisfied with this kind of service for music, you probably deserve to be ripped off - good luck to you and I hope your hearing improves before you die.
For those of you who want to know, there is at least one MP3 site operating legally out of Latvia that will allow you to download albums for little more than one of your US dollars. There are even albums that you will not find on iTunes because major labels have chosen to shelve them. This site is by no means as comprehensive as iTunes as far as back catalogue, but if you’re after a Top 40 album (or an individual track) it ticks all the boxes.
The quality is amazing too - 160kbps as standard, with most albums being encoded at 192, 256 or even a variable bit rate. I cannot accept that Apple are not in a position to do this themselves with iTunes - perhaps the RIAA is not willing to let them encode tracks any higher - but if it continues, both Apple and the record industry are going to have a very rude awakening in the not too distant future.
And the great thing is, you can keep your original high bit rate MP3 for the PC and convert it to a 128kbps AAC file to maximize space on your iPod with virtually no drop in quality.
As someone who will be releasing a CD in a few weeks’ time, hopefully to make a little bit of money to cover considerable debts amassed during its making, I obviously don’t subscribe to the opinion that music should be free. But I also don’t subscribe to music lovers being told that they can’t copy a CD they’ve purchased onto their PC, a CDR or any other format they see fit. I certainly can’t abide by companies that feel they must restrict this digitally at source. Whoever came up with that Sony BMG scam should be hung - that alone has probably been responsible for tens of thousands of people giving up with legitimate downloads and going back to illegal file-sharers. And that will hit a lot of musicians, good and bad, rich and poor, in the years to come.
Not that I don’t think Kazaa, Limewire and the like haven’t had their uses - there are certainly a lot of deleted titles that have received a considerable boost from having been made available by collectors, which has resulted in some major labels digitizing parts of their archives they would not otherwise have considered worthy, and that can only be a good thing.
All artists attempting to get publicity have to give their music away at the start. I have, and I will continue to do so - but my CDs will always be better quality. And yes, they will be available via iTunes, because iTunes is so big that it has to be. But they will also be available from 30 other download sites. You as consumers have a choice: exercise it.
From a rights point of view, I flirted with Creative Commons - their “Some Rights Reserved” a la carte choice of licence seemed to be a good idea at first. However, not a lot of people downloaded and copied my tracks - even though they were encouraged to do so by the terms of the licence - and I quickly found out that it can be difficult to subsequently assert all rights to a piece of music one has made available on a Creative Commons licence. So now I just toe the line.
It all boils down to this: musicians, record companies and rights bodies have to be rational about how their music is used - the most prolific home tapers and file sharers I know all work in the music industry, so I don’t know why a lot of them support DRM.
Addtionally, consumers shouldn’t expect music for free, but they should receive a better quality product for less with no additional charge or royalty to be paid if they need to download a track a second time. Music and FX libraries for the media already operate remote systems, and - again - I cannot believe iTunes isn’t in a position to offer something similar.
And more money from the fat, rich guys needs to find its way to the grass roots, so that anyone who has music worth hearing can get it out into the marketplace with as little hassle as possible.
Maximum Bob
March 24, 2006 at 7:50 pm
43I first used a Mac II in the late ’80s and loved it, or at least I did until the hard drive went south just after the 90-day warranty expired. Apple wasn’t interested in talking about paying for a replacement, which cost $1,600 in those days.
I sure like the look and feel of many Apple products, but I can’t seem to forget that expensive hard drive replacement, even 20 years later. I’ve yet to buy anything else from Apple.
Hot Tub Tommy
March 24, 2006 at 8:06 pm
44Waterfowler, I’ll have a bowl of French Vanilla, since you’re buying. BTW, I know that France was ignoring the sanctions, had oil and gas contracts with Iraq and they were sweating bullets at the thought of losing them and that’s why they opposed the war - but they were right. We shouldn’t have gone to war with Iraq. It was a mistake and now we’re stuck with both fists and one foot imbedded in that tar baby for 20 - 30 years, I’ll bet.
BTW, Kevin Phillips has a new book out about the American theocracy. He was on the Diane Rhem today and it’s refreshing to see an old Reaganite throw hand grenades at Bush & Co.
hedera
March 25, 2006 at 1:27 am
45As a classical music singer, who hasn’t really liked any popular music since “Hotel California”, I don’t have a dog in this fight. The pieces I want to listen to aren’t available from iTunes (the Haydn Te Deum? Give me a break); well, the older rock may be, but why bother?
My husband has an MP3 player (NOT Apple) on which he’s recorded any number of classical CDs (and some LPs), all of which he bought first; but he only listens when he’s on airplanes, because it sounds so much better on the stereo.
My real objection to the iPod is what it has done to civility. Everyone you pass is plugged into those damn white earphones. You can’t wish someone a nice day on the street because they’re listening to whatever, locked into their little electronic world, ignoring the society of which they are notionally a part. If you need to ask someone a question, you have to wait for them to unplug.
Isn’t there something wrong with people who listen to music all the time on their headphones? Why can’t they stand to live inside their own heads? What is wrong, for the Lobster’s sake, with silence? My first husband had to have hard rock music playing continually while he was awake - he had a reel-to-reel tape deck on which he recorded every Dylan album he had, it played for about 6 hours. And Iron Butterfly and the Doors, etc. etc., always - before I married him I listened to classical music a lot, but after I left him it was over 6 years before I could bear to turn the radio on, or put on an LP; the silence was so wonderful. Thank Lobster I can listen to classical again, but not when I’m taking a walk; not when I’m exercising; not when I want to think. If you always have the iPod plugged in, how can you think? And, is that really the problem??
ice weasel
March 25, 2006 at 1:36 am
46Leave it my aquatic friend to grasp at a strawman. Waterfouler, for nearly all of my adult life, those “financial interests” were my interests. I’ve worked in music most of my life. Flaccid shot fouler, not unexpected, but still, weak.
Jim, re: #25. It’s funny, because of a lawsuit way back in the early days of Mac OS development, Apple was actually prevented from ever getting into the music business. I’ll to dig around to see what the language of the judgment was but as I recall, it was pretty damn broad. This was a lawsuit against Apple computer from Apple Records (yes, the Beatles label). Again, as I recall, the suit was basically settled by Apple agreeing that they would stay out of the music business. I have a feeling somebody would get pissy if they started their own label. Frankly, I’m surprised there hasn’t been more action against iTunes.
Matt, re: post #28, I think you’re parting shot there is wide of the mark. No one has the goal of making piracy easier. If you really feel that way I think you need to spend some time learning more about the issues. Do you feel the same way about VCRs (not that anyone uses those things anymore)?
Oh Pete, you’re so analog. You’re right on nearly everything. We could wrestle back and forth about the issues surrounding compression and the efficacy versus quality of MP3s but why? I see, and mostly agree with your point while also completely understanding that for most people, there’s nothing wrong at all with the MP3 format. Keep in mind Pete, most Americans were perfectly happy with 8-tracks and dreadful factory recorded cassettes a few short decades ago. MP3s aren’t a big step in any direction of quality compared to those and MP3s are an enormous leap forward in terms of portability, sound quality and durability. If your argument is simply that anything less than the best isn’t good enough for you, amen brother. But keep in mind, most folks are delighted to compromise if it means they can carry the equivilent of their record collection comfortably in a shirt pocket.
Steve Duffy, well, I guess the best answer to your question is, maybe it shouldn’t be but it is different. I must admit I’m somewhat surprised at the number of people in this thread that find it outrageous that something purchased from Apple may only be playable on Apple devices. This isn’t unusual in the history of recorded media by any means. And there are a number of other analogies as well. Suffice to say, I also think it would be best if there were an agreed upon standard that played everywhere but hell, look at the ridiculous pissing matches taking place on digital and HD standards.
Dave in post #34 is absolutely right. When the Walkman debuted, Sony was but a humble Japanese hardware manufacturer, they had not yet started their buying spree of American media companies yet. In fact, what’s ironic is that it was the cash from the Walkman sales that gave them the ability to start leveraging media companies.
Richard, as much as I disagree with most of your first few paragraphs, there are numerous pearls of wisdom throughout the rest of post #41.
Great thread. Thanks again everyone for the chance to geek on one of my favorite topics.
cooper
March 25, 2006 at 8:38 am
47Yo, Hot Tub Tommy! What’s with this - you made a post without pleading for money - and, at the same time, you make a pitch for subversive literature? There must be 2 of you and YOU are the lesser of the evil twins. Choose a new name (and new family). It’s too mind wrenching this way.
Murray
March 25, 2006 at 9:30 am
48Yea, Hot Tubber,
You must have left your alter-ego on the response signup by mistake. All of a sudden you’re not spewing fire, groveling for contributions and your’re making sense.
Shape up.
Maximum Bob
March 25, 2006 at 12:06 pm
49Is the Tomster undergoing some kind of conversion experience? Let the healing begin! Walk toward the light, Tommy, toward the light!
Hot Tub Tommy
March 25, 2006 at 12:17 pm
50Okay, I’m back. cooper & Murray, go suck an egg! My lawyer’s newphew, who’s supposed to be watering the plants while I’m out campaigning, took over one my spare laptops and began spewing limp wristed liberal pap. I smeared him right through the patio window and sicced the Rottweilers on his sorry butt. Gone!
Representative Thomas Delay (R, TX)
Still Saving America, One Dog Attack @ aTime
Adam Felber
March 25, 2006 at 7:08 pm
51Some more thoughts:
- Hedera, I hear you (although only barely because I’ve got my iPod on). But I walk for at least an hour a day, wave to people, pet dogs, and say hello to my neighbors, all while using my iPod nano. If I actually speak to someone, I turn the music off, a process which takes about 1-2 seconds. So I don’t think it’s the device - it’s the people using ‘em.
- Personally, I really like the AAC format. I usually rip my music at 196 kbps, which to me sounds about as good as a 256 kbps Mp3. In other words, pretty darn good for any On The Go listening.
- Richard, I’m not quite sure why you so vehemently criticize the iTunes store’s quality and then actually recommend people use 128 kbps AACs on their iPods. That is precisely the format the music store uses. While there are definitely ways to rip to that format better than the store does, the difference is not that huge to me. To me, 128 kbps AAC files are NEVER good enough for music that I really love. And the iTunes store’s quality isn’t bad enough to interfere with my enjoyment of a pop single that I think is worth hearing once or twice. But that’s just my opinion - I don’t think people who disagree “deserve to be ripped off.”
- Forgive me, but to me that brings up an important point for ALL audiophiles to hear (with high fidelity): You might not understand what other people get out of music. It’s not that people have “bad ears” if they’re fine with poor-fidelity music. It might be that they’re listening to the content rather than the contours of the music. It may be that their auditory imagination is stronger than yours. It may be that rhythm and melody (or text) fuels their enjoyment more than balance and fidelity.
Whatever their reasons for enjoying music that audiophiles find unlistenable, it is ridiculous to put them down for it. Let me offer an analogy:
I know bibliophiles who LOATHE paperback books, who rail against small typefaces, and who think that the idea of reading a novel on an electronic device is downright offensive. They will talk to you about paper quality and thickness, about bindings, about aging and preservation.
That’s great. But I don’t share their concern. For me, as long as I can read the words, I’ll enjoy the work. I prefer a hard-bound, large-type, well-set book. But I don’t require it. Not at all.
Similarly, those thousands of people who first heard blues or jazz or classical music over a scratchy monophonic tube-based radio in the early part of the 20th century and were inspired to learn an instrument or make a pilgrimage to New York or New Orleans or Chicago or even just developed a lifelong love of music… Those people were not rubes or dopes or yokels who “deserved” the sound quality they got, nor were they “ripped off.” They were people who heard the tinny sounds and colored in the rest of the picture for themselves and were enriched by something about music that has little to do with its “fidelity.”
That’s not to put down audiophilia. I personally care deeply about how my music sounds, and making it better is a wonderful hobby. But it’s only one part of music appreciation, and by my lights it’s not even the most important.
I’m not taking you to task, Richard (or anyone). I just want to make a case for low fidelity and ask that we ratchet down the snobbery against those who don’t demand better.
Some of the best music I ever heard I heard as a kid, listening on a crappy radio that I balanced on my shopping cart as I delivered newspapers. On some days I’d hear a new song that would introduce me to sounds or feelings or compositional styles that I didn’t know existed before, and I’d just stand there in the street, enjoying it, and then stay glued to the shopping cart until the DJ came on to tell me what I’d just heard. I would happily trade both of my iPods and my entire music collection for a few more moments of that kind of clarity.
Pete IVDL
March 25, 2006 at 8:47 pm
52Ann (and others!), I was wrong for unloading both barrels like that on the MP3 target (it is an easy target, though!)… In my defense - and I know I’m just whistling past the graveyard here - I spend tens of hours a day, every single day, doing my level best to recover and eliminate the effects of the ravages of time and fungus and dogs on people’s favourite recordings. It has (and, I hope, will always be) a labour of love.
Adam, unfortunately, you’re right (shuffles one foot in a circle, hands behind my back). The reason I got into this business is because I love music - all music - and I know we (that’s all of us) have an intimate connection with music at many levels. Hedera was right on the money - it’s a personal response to perceived themes, colours, shifts of emotion, drifts of thought and even fantasy. That’s the best reason to listen. There are obviously others.
In my real life, I have to look at a piece of music both subjectively and objectively. Objectively, because I need to be able to identify and remove entropy’s fingerprints (scratches, pops, clicks, jumps, stutters, warping, cracks, etc, etc) from a recording without getting into the details. Subjectively, because no matter how “efficient” I am at taking away the bad, if the result isn’t true to the original recording, all I’m doing is being a subcontractor of Mr. Entropy (hate him, he’s a bastard boss, he never, ever sleeps).
Low bitrate or not, lossy recordings to me are truly anathema. Unfortunately, it’s more of a professional horror of lossy formats wrapped up as a personal dislike of popularisers and apologists for the prevalence of that style of music presentation. I guess it comes down to arguing (however incoherently) against personal preference and convenience, and I’m never going to win that one, I know.
Hedera, you’re absolutely right: maybe the problem with some listeners/users if iPods is that they’re using a great little tool (I would if I could, just not in MP3 or AAC formats) as a barrier. Hey, don’t talk to me, I’ve got my white earplugs in! And yes Adam, it only takes a second or so to unplug, but that’s so reminiscent of walking in to someone’s office to tell them something important, but you have to wait for a second or two while they recognise you, stop telling their jokes to their colleagues, and turn their dazzling attention back to you. It’s annoying to feel intrusive all the time.
And, if I may make one last observation: most people I know with iPods (that’s around 30 people in my immediate circle of acquaintance) don’t put their favourite music on the device; they squeeze as much music as they can on, and that always comes at a massive price in terms of actual (not perceived) audio quality. So at least some of them are just listening to noise, not music! (There’s a whole nother argument about listening to anything rather than converse, and another one again about what “those young people these days…”, etc, but I’m not gonna do that!)
As a sufferer of severe tinnitus (courtesy of nearly 20 years of continuous opiates), you’d think I couldn’t tell the difference between a steamtrain and a viola. On a bad day, I can’t hear if the cicadas are singing in the trees around the house; so why do what I do? Probably because I love what I can hear. I guess I need to recognise that need in others. Mixing up my professional understanding with personal invective isn’t helping anyone.
Pete IVDL
March 25, 2006 at 8:54 pm
53I do have a suggestion in answer to Adam’s original post. It’s a doozie.
Recordings are sold with their own player! What a winner! Each album is sealed within an indestructible mechanism that can only be used to play that recording. That’s as close to orgasmic as the record companies need!
Also, since it’s a given (after all, the recording industry grew on the back of distributing media that wore out the more you played it), the sealed recordings only play for as long as the batteries last. And they’re proprietary, sealed, unrechargable batteries. And they self-destruct when they go flat.
I thought about DNA-encoding, but that’s too expensive.
siobhan
March 25, 2006 at 9:01 pm
54Pete - you’re onto the solution. I think the technology can be adapted from novelty ties that play holiday music.
Scott Mercer
March 26, 2006 at 5:29 am
55Hey guess what! In the UK (and all of Europe, I believe, though someone might correct me on this), the copyright term on sound recordings is only 50 years. Reportedly, they have no inclination to raise this term to bring them in line with the United States anytime soon.
What this means is that a ton of early rock and roll is already out of copyright, and the first recordings by ELVIS have left the building (of copyright restrictions). As time goes on, more and more popular (read: profitable) recordings are going to enter the public domain in Europe.
As I said, right now, the governments in the EU seem to be digging in their heels on this point, and have no inclination to change the law. This is still in the background, but expect a ton more publicity in about six years, when THE BEATLES start going public domain. That’s right. You heard me.
Interestingly, the song publishing remains under copyright while the master recordings will go PD. So while in 2012 anyone will be able to release a Beatles CD, they will have to pay Michael Jackson a royalty for the right to do so legally. Oh joy.
Of course, once anyone can copy the music legally, nobody will able to sell it and make money since the market will be flooded with cheap legal copies. It all works out in the end, I guess.
David
March 26, 2006 at 12:03 pm
56Some of the best music I ever heard I heard as a kid, listening on a crappy radio…
Thanks for adding that to the conversation, Adam. I go all the way back to before hi-fi even existed, and the low fidelity music that filled our home meant as much to me as the higher fidelity I now enjoy. For fidelity, we found some way to take in some live perfomances when that was possible. You are absolutely right about what we did - we filled in the fidelity in our imaginations as the music did whatever in hell it so wonderfully does regardless of the fidelity. Case in point: Enrico Caruso on an old Wind-It-Up to which an old Italian my dad knew would treat us all. I’m sure mostly it was the fascination with the odd-looking Victrola for an 8-year-old, but it also helped set in motion a lifelong love for one more of the incredibly rich and diverse forms of music in any and all levels of fidelity.
Richard
March 30, 2006 at 6:47 pm
57Scott - you’re mostly correct. The copyright in sound recordings in the UK does indeed expire after 50 years, but this does not mean that just about everyone will be able to issue a Beatles compilation in 2012. Firstly, the complete catalogue won’t be available for exploitation by labels other than EMI until 2020 (and that doesn’t include Free As A Bird or Real Love or any of the alternate versions on Anthology, of course). Anyone who wishes to issue a Beatles CD will still have to obtain the necessary mechanical licences to actually press the CD. In order to obtain that licence, certain conditions must be fulfilled. So whilst more Beatles compilations will see the light of day, they won’t necessarily be cheaply manufactured or substandard in any way, although undoubtedly some will be better than others. However, it is unlikely that EMI will make the best quality masters available to Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, as they will still want to brand themselves as The Home of The Beatles. That is, of course, assuming EMI doesn’t go bust in the next six years, which is actually quite likely.
The way the four remaining major labels are attempting to get around the expiry of sound recording copyrights is by re-establishing copyright every time they issue a remastered version of a CD. That is to say that if an album originally issued in the 60s received a 24-bit spit and polish last year, it would actually be copyrighted as 2005, thus establishing a fresh 50 year term. The down side of this - and the reason why it has no legal basis at present - is that acts who sample another piece of music could claim that by mechanically creating the sample they are creating a new piece of work - even before they incorporate it into their composition. Not that it would change the current legal position on sampling - it would merely make suing someone for not obtaining the necessary permission virtually impossible. Or at least that’s what industry lawyers are saying.
Interestingly enough, the expiry of the early Elvis recordings proved to be a cash cow for RCA, who reissued 18 records in various formats on a weekly basis, which all charted and shifted a not inconsiderable amount of back catalogue.
Adam - With regard to the 128kbps AAC thing, there is a noticeable difference between downloading something at that bit rate straight from iTunes or any other online site and downloading something as a variable bit rate file or a wav and converting it back to a 128kbps AAC. It’s not perfect, but it’s a better compromise between available file space and file quality. I actually agree with you that 192kbps is the best starting point, but when you’ve a collection that’s big enough to fill four iPods and whittling the best stuff down to 55GB is difficult enough as it is, that compromise has to be made. Then again, if anyone had told me ten years ago I’d be able to carry as much as 30% of my record collection around with me in my inside jacket pocket, I would have had them sectioned. That’s the problem - give me a machine that’s everything I ever wanted from a music player and I’m still not happy.
I’m also no stranger to low-fi, as you well know - my forthcoming CD was recorded on a cassette Portastudio! Personally, I get as excited listening to a 1906 version of Maple Leaf Rag cut straight to disc as I do hearing the latest album by Donald Fagen. However, the people who engineered both those recordings will have attempted to preserve the sound as closely as they could at the time, given the recording equipment that was available to them. As listeners and consumers, we make allowances for recordings made with what is now considered to be inferior equipment - although, in many cases, 128-track digital recording and 5.1 surround has actually made the sound quality of the average 21st Century pop song a lot worse than these “inferior” recordings. Perhaps we’re heading back to mono, which will please Phil Spector no end - although he’s got more important things on his mind at the moment.
In the case of older recordings, engineers do their best to clean up the deficiencies of rapidly oxidizing master tapes and make a definitive digital master that will hopefully remind people of the first time they played their vinyl albums - some are more successful than others: The Byrds remasters are loved by many, yet the current batch of Hendrix remasters have been widely criticized by fans.
Individuals will go by what their own ears tell them, of course - but that doesn’t make it OK for iTunes to sell what I consider to be substandard quality downloads. Apple is a big company and it can do better in that respect. All it has to do is offer people a choice of bit rates for the same purchase price and I for one will be very happy indeed.
David
March 31, 2006 at 12:44 am
58Richard,
I agree with your concluding paragraph wholeheartedly. I also agree that the sound engineers at any point were trying to provide the best sound reproduction with available technology. The advent of high fidelity was a big deal in our house, at least for my older sister, who brought same into the house because she had begun teaching and could afford a hi-fi record player. Mother, of course, wondered about my sister spending the money.
And hearing a true note hit with authority does make the hair stand up (I’m thinking in particular of Nessum Dorma and some of the notes Kiri hits, along with the power of Hendrix’s definitive Star Spangled Banner). I was just glad that Adam paid respect to the whole broad range of love of music at any and all levels of fidelity.
David
April 1, 2006 at 12:22 am
59Nessun, dammit.