New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Upcoming downloads - proprietary Windows Media Player format? PeePee9 said: The MP3 days are long gone. Like most download stores that r popular 2day, we will be selling licensed downloads. 2 unlock the licensed file, u must purchase a license from the NPGMC. The files will only be playable in Windows Media Player 9 on ur computer, but they will be burnable 2 a music CD so u can take the music with u wherever u go.
So....how does that work? Can you burn it to a music CD from your computer unlimited times? Or can you only burn it once, or what? I've never used WMP because Bill Gates has enough money....what do y'all think? I understand piracy is a tough issue for the music providers (and I believe an overhyped issue in Prince's head)...but it just means you gotta provide value that you can't get from an illegal download...right? And give it to us in the most easy format for us? Ohhh SHIT Rhonda's bass solo on Leno was tight.... No confusion, no tears. No enemies, no fear. No sorrow, no pain. No ball, no chain.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Putting words in other people's mouths will only get you elected. Need more sleep than coke or methamphetamine. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
The license allows the tracks to be burned to cd once. After that burn you can only play the songs on your pc. Apparently the burned disc is protected and will not play in cd/dvd rom drives, only regular cd players. I have it on good authority that you can already get plugins that enable you to convert these licensed wma files, though. (I asked the same Q somewhere else.)
If the music will be available on disc as well, I'll just wait for it. I object to the principle of drm. Guarantee you that within 24 hours of the first pay downloads they'll be de-crypted and converted and available on your favourite p2p network. All orgnotes and emails requesting trades or how to acquire bootleggage will be ignored. - The ThreadKiller - | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
gsh said: Apparently the burned disc is protected and will not play in cd/dvd rom drives, only regular cd players.
Are you sure about this? I didn't think ordinary cd burners would be able to write discs like that. I'd assume that a cd burner is able to read everything it can write. I may well be wrong on that. Are there any links you could share about this feature in MS DRM? [This message was edited Sat Feb 28 17:09:45 2004 by m3taverse] "this especially prepared potato is called pomme de terre" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
gsh said: The license allows the tracks to be burned to cd once. After that burn you can only play the songs on your pc. Apparently the burned disc is protected and will not play in cd/dvd rom drives, only regular cd players. I have it on good authority that you can already get plugins that enable you to convert these licensed wma files, though. (I asked the same Q somewhere else.)
If the music will be available on disc as well, I'll just wait for it. I object to the principle of drm. Guarantee you that within 24 hours of the first pay downloads they'll be de-crypted and converted and available on your favourite p2p network. Well, just to see if it can be done, I've just turned a licensed wma file (officially downloaded) that I burned onto a CD, into an mp3 file with no trouble at all. Kind of makes a mockery of the whole licensing thing. And if it's true that you can only burn those tracks onto a CD once, that's not very fair on anybody who accidentally makes an error whilst they burn that CD for the first time. It's happened to me (and I'm reasonably computer literate) on a few occasions. I can see a few disgruntled customers in the near future if this is going to be the case. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ok, i looked into it...
from this page http://www.microsoft.com/...#Business7 comes this quote: Q. Does Windows Media DRM support creating CD-ROM copies of media content? A. Yes. Windows Media DRM has the ability to set the appropriate license right to "burn-to-CD." To copy a packaged Windows Media file onto a CD-ROM, the consumer must have a license that includes the right to do so. CD-ROM-copying applications are required to honor the rights set by the content owner and distributor. Once content is copied to a CD-ROM, it is no longer packaged. So Mediaplayer is not able to burn copyprotected cd's. The PPs have already stated that we'll be able to burn cd's from the files we download from NPGMC (this is something that they specifically have to "switch on" in the MS copyprotection mechanism). You can burn to cd, and then rip that cd back to mp3, but there will be loss of quality in the process. "this especially prepared potato is called pomme de terre" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
m3taverse said: You can burn to cd, and then rip that cd back to mp3, but there will be loss of quality in the process.
Not enough (if any) for anybody to notice any difference. Don't get me wrong, I've no intention of turning anything into an mp3 for anybody else to illegally download, but I do think that using only licensed wma files makes no difference whatsoever, when it comes to fighting abuse of copyright. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Haystack said: m3taverse said: You can burn to cd, and then rip that cd back to mp3, but there will be loss of quality in the process.
Not enough (if any) for anybody to notice any difference. If the files offered by NPGMC are encoded with a certain amount of quality loss, which they probably will be, then converting these files to mp3, by whatever means, will always add a second generation of quality loss. How bothersome that is really depends on the listener and the equipment used to play the files. Haystack said: Don't get me wrong, I've no intention of turning anything into an mp3 for anybody else to illegally download, but I do think that using only licensed wma files makes no difference whatsoever, when it comes to fighting abuse of copyright.
For me the ability to play it anywhere i want is the most important thing. I will probably be making some mp3s for personal use, albeit with some quality loss. But for a small mp3 player that's not extremely important to me. "this especially prepared potato is called pomme de terre" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PeePee9 said: The MP3 days are long gone. Like most download stores that r popular 2day, we will be selling licensed downloads. 2 unlock the licensed file, u must purchase a license from the NPGMC. The files will only be playable in Windows Media Player 9 on ur computer, but they will be burnable 2 a music CD so u can take the music with u wherever u go.
I strongly object and will go on record as stating that I won't support the NPGMC this coming year due to this scheme (and for other reasons which I wont go into here). I principally object to "licensed downloads". Altho' I know that, due to the membership agreement's terms, current club members also don't own the copies they bought from the NPGMC, a "licensed download" means that the "content provider" still owns the copy I purchased a license for. In many of these licensed download schemes consumers basically only purchase a license to LISTEN to a song and nothing more. Therefore I do not own that copy, but only a license to listen. This means that I can't sell the copy I purchased, can't lend it, rent it, or otherwise do with it as I please as an owner of a copy normally would have. I wouldn't dream of paying for something like that. Plus I feel that the copyrightowner ("content provider") has no business whatsoever still owning the copies I purchased. If he thinks and wants to have control this way then he can go and freak his control on somebody else. Further I fundamentally object to "DRM" (Digital Rights Management) technology on the products I purchased because DRM usually restricts fair use rights under the law, invades consumer's privacy by checking their copying behaviour and possibly sending data concerning that behaviour to the "content owner" and usually comes with so many technical user restrictions that it's not even worth paying money for. Unless, the DRM scheme by the NPMC isn't like that, but leaves me my rights and freedom, I wouldn't even think of joining the NPMC (or any other so-called "popular download stores") So there, make another big mistake if you want to NPMC, but I'm not going along with it. -- [This message was edited Mon Mar 1 2:26:57 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
how can they possibly choose a format that is incompatible with the iPod? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Abrazo said: PeePee9 said: The MP3 days are long gone. Like most download stores that r popular 2day, we will be selling licensed downloads. 2 unlock the licensed file, u must purchase a license from the NPGMC. The files will only be playable in Windows Media Player 9 on ur computer, but they will be burnable 2 a music CD so u can take the music with u wherever u go.
I strongly object and will go on record as stating that I won't support the NPGMC this coming year due to this scheme (and for other reasons which I wont go into here). I principally object to "licensed downloads". Altho' I know that, due to the membership agreement's terms, current club members also don't own the copies they bought from the NPGMC, a "licensed download" means that the "content provider" still owns the copy I purchased a license for. In many of these licensed download schemes consumers basically only purchase a license to LISTEN to a song and nothing more. Therefore I do not own that copy, but only a license to listen. This means that I can't sell the copy I purchased, can't lend it, rent it, or otherwise do with it as I please as an owner of a copy normally would have. I wouldn't dream of paying for something like that. Plus I feel that the copyrightowner ("content provider") has no business whatsoever still owning the copies I purchased. If he thinks and wants to have control this way then he can go and freak his control on somebody else. Further I fundamentally object to "DRM" (Digital Rights Management) technology on the products I purchased because DRM usually restricts fair use rights under the law, invades consumer's privacy by checking their copying behaviour and possibly sending data concerning that behaviour to the "content owner" and usually comes with so many technical user restrictions that it's not even worth paying money for. Unless, the DRM scheme by the NPMC isn't like that, but leaves me my rights and freedom, I wouldn't even think of joining the NPMC (or any other so-called "popular download stores") So there, make another big mistake if you want to NPMC, but I'm not going along with it. -- [This message was edited Mon Mar 1 2:26:57 2004 by Abrazo] Not to be contrary, but the use of licensed downloads is not a a radical concept. The concept is very much like purchasing software for which you are granted a usage license. It's legal for you to install the software on one or two computers, but any more is unlawful. So yes, the content provider (NPGMC) will still own the copy you purchased a license for, much like Microsoft still owns your copy of Microsoft Word and monitors your use of their software by serial numbers, registration, etc. It's not all that different. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's my observation. [This message was edited Mon Mar 1 10:51:47 2004 by Doozer] Check out The Mountains and the Sea, a Prince podcast by yours truly and my wife. More info at https://www.facebook.com/TMATSPodcast/ |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Doozer said: Abrazo said: PeePee9 said:
I strongly object and will go on record as stating that I won't support the NPGMC this coming year due to this scheme (and for other reasons which I wont go into here). I principally object to "licensed downloads". Altho' I know that, due to the membership agreement's terms, current club members also don't own the copies they bought from the NPGMC, a "licensed download" means that the "content provider" still owns the copy I purchased a license for. In many of these licensed download schemes consumers basically only purchase a license to LISTEN to a song and nothing more. Therefore I do not own that copy, but only a license to listen. This means that I can't sell the copy I purchased, can't lend it, rent it, or otherwise do with it as I please as an owner of a copy normally would have. I wouldn't dream of paying for something like that. Plus I feel that the copyrightowner ("content provider") has no business whatsoever still owning the copies I purchased. If he thinks and wants to have control this way then he can go and freak his control on somebody else. Further I fundamentally object to "DRM" (Digital Rights Management) technology on the products I purchased because DRM usually restricts fair use rights under the law, invades consumer's privacy by checking their copying behaviour and possibly sending data concerning that behaviour to the "content owner" and usually comes with so many technical user restrictions that it's not even worth paying money for. Unless, the DRM scheme by the NPMC isn't like that, but leaves me my rights and freedom, I wouldn't even think of joining the NPMC (or any other so-called "popular download stores") So there, make another big mistake if you want to NPMC, but I'm not going along with it. -- [This message was edited Mon Mar 1 2:26:57 2004 by Abrazo] Not to be contrary, but the use of licensed downloads is not a a radical concept. The concept is very much like purchasing software for which you are granted a usage license. It's legal for you to install the software on one or two computers, but any more is unlawful. So yes, the content provider (NPGMC) will still own the copy you purchased a license for, much like Microsoft still owns your copy of Microsoft Word and monitors your use of their software by serial numbers, registration, etc. It's not all that different. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's my observation. [This message was edited Mon Mar 1 10:51:47 2004 by Doozer] Plus the restrictions on copying, lending, etc. apply to CD's & DVD's too. Remember all the copyright notices you have to sit through before you can watch a DVD? Have you checked what it says in the small print on your CD collection? It says "Unauthorised copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and boadcasting prohibited". Your legal rights over your CD collection are very limited too. "You know, you're the classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Doozer said: Not to be contrary, but the use of licensed downloads is not a a radical concept. The concept is very much like purchasing software for which you are granted a usage license. It's legal for you to install the software on one or two computers, but any more is unlawful. So yes, the content provider (NPGMC) will still own the copy you purchased a license for, much like Microsoft still owns your copy of Microsoft Word and monitors your use of their software by serial numbers, registration, etc. It's not all that different. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's my observation. [This message was edited Mon Mar 1 10:51:47 2004 by Doozer] Music is not the same as software. I do not buy the right to listen when I buy a CD. I buy the property right to the CD I bought. And never before the current technology has music been sold like that. Plus these software licenses are usually so restricted that even with software it becomes a ridiculous matter to pay for it. If Prince wants to be so stupid to sell licenses to listen to his fans then he will make another huge mistake. You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
daned said: Plus the restrictions on copying, lending, etc. apply to CD's & DVD's too. Remember all the copyright notices you have to sit through before you can watch a DVD?
Have you checked what it says in the small print on your CD collection? It says "Unauthorised copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and boadcasting prohibited". Your legal rights over your CD collection are very limited too. Do you believe everything printed on a CD or do you think that if the copyright owner of the CD prints that on the CD he can hold you to it? These standard legal notices are usually not accurate, not necessary, and sometime not even enforceable. It is a matter of what your legal rights by law are, not of what is printed on the back of a CD jewel case. Your legal rights by law are that you may make copies for your personal use, that you can resell a CD when you have lawfully purchased it, that you can lend it and hire it. All without permission or payment (except renting in the course of a business, then you usually need to pay compulsory licensing fees) . So the copyrightowner can NOT prohibit that and the legal notices on the back of CD's are largely bogus in that respect. The copyright owner can however always prohibit unauthorised public performances, broadcasts and distribution of copies, not made for personal use. However, public performances and broadcasts can take place without express permission, but with royalty payment, due to other compulsory licensing schemes for those acts. -- [This message was edited Tue Mar 2 6:08:45 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. [This message was edited Tue Mar 2 6:09:08 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. [This message was edited Tue Mar 2 6:09:18 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Abrazo said: Doozer said: Not to be contrary, but the use of licensed downloads is not a a radical concept. The concept is very much like purchasing software for which you are granted a usage license. It's legal for you to install the software on one or two computers, but any more is unlawful. So yes, the content provider (NPGMC) will still own the copy you purchased a license for, much like Microsoft still owns your copy of Microsoft Word and monitors your use of their software by serial numbers, registration, etc. It's not all that different. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's my observation. [This message was edited Mon Mar 1 10:51:47 2004 by Doozer] Music is not the same as software. I do not buy the right to listen when I buy a CD. I buy the property right to the CD I bought. And never before the current technology has music been sold like that. Plus these software licenses are usually so restricted that even with software it becomes a ridiculous matter to pay for it. If Prince wants to be so stupid to sell licenses to listen to his fans then he will make another huge mistake. it's still a license. You are limited to what you can do with the CD you bought. You can't legally make and sell or distribute copies of that CD for instance. You can't legally rip MP3s of that CD and distribute those either. The only real difference is that with a CD, you can legally sell the CD when you are done with it provided you didn't make and retain copies of the music. With a song download from iTunes or the WMA based stores, you can't sell the song file. You spend .99 on a song, you get to hear the preview before you buy it. If you can't get .99 worth of value from that song, something is wrong. How would you sell it anyways, anyone who is interested in it, can buy their own copy for .99. What bugs me with what I've heard is - they chose a format incompatible with the iPod - they are supporting Microsoft's efforts to dominate and monopolize yet another industry. Supporting the industry bully microsoft seems contrary to Prince's stance against the music industry bully tactics this past decade. There is no bigger bully in the world than microsoft, who makes it a pattern to run competitors out of business with unethical and illegal tactics. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alandail said: There is no bigger bully in the world than microsoft, who makes it a pattern to run competitors out of business with unethical and illegal tactics.
EXACTLY. Why do I get the feeling that, if given the chance, the NPGMC would love to be able to bully people around as much as Microsoft does? No confusion, no tears. No enemies, no fear. No sorrow, no pain. No ball, no chain.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Putting words in other people's mouths will only get you elected. Need more sleep than coke or methamphetamine. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
if you feel that it's important that NPGMC support the iPod in the songs they sell on their site, then let them know - there are a couple of threads on the You Tell Us forum specifically about this topic. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You know, at 77c per download, I don't care (Especially with the U.S. Dollar being worth jack shit at the moment and therefore making the downloads cost a pittance in pence). So long as I get the songs to listen to on a CD.
Although for people for whom wma files won't work, then they should offer an alternative. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alandail said: Abrazo said: Music is not the same as software. I do not buy the right to listen when I buy a CD. I buy the property right to the CD I bought. And never before the current technology has music been sold like that. Plus these software licenses are usually so restricted that even with software it becomes a ridiculous matter to pay for it. If Prince wants to be so stupid to sell licenses to listen to his fans then he will make another huge mistake. it's still a license. No, it is NOT. You are limited to what you can do with the CD you bought. You can't legally make and sell or distribute copies of that CD for instance. You can't legally rip MP3s of that CD and distribute those either. You cán make a copy for personal use, also a copy on MP3. You cán resell a CD you lawfully bought. You cán lend a CD, even a copy for personal use. The copyright owner has no say in that, unless he forces you to agree to a license in which he takes away those rights from you. And that's what Prince will do: sign your name or be left out!
The other acts you mentioned (public distribution) are reserved for the copyrightowner by LAW, not by license. A "license to listen" broadens the scope of copyright the copyrightowner enjoys by law (which is already very broad) and takes away your legal rights UNDER THE LAW. The only real difference is that with a CD, you can legally sell the CD when you are done with it provided you didn't make and retain copies of the music.
There is NO such provision in the law and that is NOT the only difference. Music is NOT software. Don't treat it the same, or you will be treated like Microsoft is treated. Period. What bugs me with what I've heard is
- they chose a format incompatible with the iPod - they are supporting Microsoft's efforts to dominate and monopolize yet another industry. Supporting the industry bully microsoft seems contrary to Prince's stance against the music industry bully tactics this past decade. There is no bigger bully in the world than microsoft, who makes it a pattern to run competitors out of business with unethical and illegal tactics. Prince is a bully too when it comes to his intellectual property. I'm surprised you hadn't figured that out with all the frivolous lawsuits.... -- [This message was edited Wed Mar 3 2:13:04 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Haystack said: You know, at 77c per download, I don't care (Especially with the U.S. Dollar being worth jack shit at the moment and therefore making the downloads cost a pittance in pence). So long as I get the songs to listen to on a CD.
Although for people for whom wma files won't work, then they should offer an alternative. This is not a matter of price, but of principle. I am not going to pay money only to have a license to listen, not even a dime! That license may only be valid for a year, or even shorter, it may only be valid for one computer, it may only be valid in one country, it may only be valid for one person, etc. etc. But I bet you won't get the right to make copies for personal use and won't get the right to resell, or lend the copy you purchased. Even if the license would permit that, the copy protection won't. -- [This message was edited Wed Mar 3 2:09:06 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Is this licensed format special ?
Because, the wma files I know are no better than 160 kbps files.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
doriel1979 said: Is this licensed format special ?
Because, the wma files I know are no better than 160 kbps files. The licensing mechanism is unrelated to the bitrate of the music. NPGMC can offer these files in any bitrate they please (even losless compression, which they won't do). "this especially prepared potato is called pomme de terre" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What I'm currently finding amusing is the fact that Prince announces some vague comment at the Press Conference about people buying downloads for 77 cents on March 29 (did he even say it that straight-forward?) ... and then there are no more details. Because they like to surprise us.
Well, that's well and good, but I've just described the perfect formula for raising one's expectations....which is his purpose, to get us all fired up and frenzied before whatever product he's selling is available...but yet the club is CONSTANTLY telling us not to have any expectations, whatsoever. I wish that all the members of the club wouldn't let the PeePees get away with bullying people into PRETENDING that they don't have expectations. If we didn't have expectations, none of us would be here. Anyway, rant over.  No confusion, no tears. No enemies, no fear. No sorrow, no pain. No ball, no chain.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Putting words in other people's mouths will only get you elected. Need more sleep than coke or methamphetamine. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
__________________________________________________
+++SOME THINGS ARE BETTER LEFT UNSAID+++ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Okay. I am so confused by what you people are talking about. I have burned four copies of Musicology and three of the Chocolate Invasion.
What do you mean the liscense limits the copies you own? My understanding of the liscense is that if the tracks were found on a P2P site, they a) would not be playable by anyone else and b) it is a means to track the bootlegger. _________________________________________
You'll find the back of my hand displeasing. (Shake) The bun is in your mind. (Meatwad) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
