Moderator: Thanas
And will most likely again a hit wall made by piracy that will reverse engineer even the most complicated technology for free, just to shove it up the corporate types ass.It has begun.
Part of it is undoubtedly a power play - it's a way of reminding everyone "We're still in control of distribution" regardless of the truth of such a statement. It also adds one more crime they can nail you for if you ever get caught.Uraniun235 wrote:It seems so futile to me. The format's already been cracked. What do they gain out of it?
Access to content they wouldn't be able to license if they didn't include it, because the rights holders refuse to allow it on an unprotected system?Uraniun235 wrote:It seems so futile to me. The format's already been cracked. What do they gain out of it?
They have that already.Shogoki wrote:I wonder if they're basically going to come up with an adapter what will basically pretend to be HDCP compatible on one side and let you hook up anything on the other side.
Uh ... no Macs before this supported HDCP. It's a hardware feature.Dominus Atheos wrote:This clearly isn't an issue with the Studios pushing this on poor Apple because if it was then it would be affecting all Macs and even files you try to play under windows instead of just this one macbook model.
Apple was one of the first major online stores to offer DRM-free music, and they made a public call for the labels to license them their music DRM-free. EMI responded. No one else has. The labels clearly want to put Apple at a competitive disadvantage because they're unhappy with Apple's ability to dictate pricing because of its dominance in the music market.The music studios have already let several other services distribute un-DRMed music, but Apple doesn't show any signs of moving over to this, at least not in the past year and a half.
2007 models had GMA X3100 graphics, which is hdcp compliant. The macbook pros have the 8600gt which is also hdcp compliant. iMacs have the Radeon HD 2400 which is also hdcp compliant. So if this is poor Apple being forced to bow to industry pressure against their will, why haven't they been forced to activate this on their previous models?Durandal wrote:Uh ... no Macs before this supported HDCP. It's a hardware feature.Dominus Atheos wrote:This clearly isn't an issue with the Studios pushing this on poor Apple because if it was then it would be affecting all Macs and even files you try to play under windows instead of just this one macbook model.
Amazon Mp3 has drm-free songs for $.99 from Warner and even Sony. Why do they allow Amazon to distribute those songs in that format but not Apple? Do you think if Apple asked them they'd say no? What exactly do you think would happen if tomorrow Apple announced that effective 1/1/09, iTunes would only distribute music as unrestricted .aac format? EMI would obviously be fine with that, so do you think the other labels would drop iTunes and let them just distribute EMI's songs and let their quarterly estimates crash like its 1929?Apple was one of the first major online stores to offer DRM-free music, and they made a public call for the labels to license them their music DRM-free. EMI responded. No one else has. The labels clearly want to put Apple at a competitive disadvantage because they're unhappy with Apple's ability to dictate pricing because of its dominance in the music market.The music studios have already let several other services distribute un-DRMed music, but Apple doesn't show any signs of moving over to this, at least not in the past year and a half.
They're $.99, and they may be DRM free, but they're in an Apple-created proprietary format called M4A. You have to convert them before you an play them back on most non-appple devices.JLTucker wrote:Aren't there $1.99 DRM-free songs that can be purchased on iTunes?
They're $.99, and they may be DRM free, but they're in an Apple-created proprietary format called M4A. You have to convert them before you an play them back on most non-appple devices.
Totally agree, hence why I posted the thread.Thirdly, does anyone remember the huge shitstorm that erupted when is was revealed that Windows Vista would support HDCP? It was like a huge shitstorm, with people lining up to shout from on high how much "Micro$ux was teh sux0r". When do you think that's going to happen to Apple? How long until Peter Gutmann releases a paper explaining how the HDCP support in OSX significantly slows down the entire OS even when protected content isn't being played? Tomorrow? Next week? I mean, I realize it may take a few days to type it up, but surely it's going to happen. It would be hugely hypocritical for someone to do it to Microsoft and and give a free pass to Apple.
Yes, but converting them reduces the quality. It would be a whole lot easier if they were in AAC to begin with. I really can't figure out why Apple even insists in putting it's DRM free in that format.Praxis wrote:They're $.99, and they may be DRM free, but they're in an Apple-created proprietary format called M4A. You have to convert them before you an play them back on most non-appple devices.
Can't you convert them within iTunes?
I wouldn't call it proprietary. That implies that the specs of the format are secret. They're not. Anyone could make a player that plays M4As. Pretty much anything that can play MPEG-4 should be able to, considering it's just AAC. Apple is however, the largest maker of devices that do so. This should be unsurprising, considering it has a greater market share than pretty much the rest combined. AAC does have advantages over MP3 as well (better quality for a given bitrate), which is why Apple used it.Dominus Atheos wrote:They're $.99, and they may be DRM free, but they're in an Apple-created proprietary format called M4A. You have to convert them before you an play them back on most non-appple devices.
Right, they're just AAC files that Apple decided to stick in an mp4 container, but there's no reason they have to be called m4a files, AAC is just fine, or if Apple absolutely has to stick them in an mp4 container, they should leave them their extension as .mp4. There's no reason Apple had to make up a file extension for them. The only thing it does is make it so they can only be played back on devices that support .mp4. Which obviously most mp3 players don't.Beowulf wrote:I wouldn't call it proprietary. That implies that the specs of the format are secret. They're not. Anyone could make a player that plays M4As. Pretty much anything that can play MPEG-4 should be able to, considering it's just AAC. Apple is however, the largest maker of devices that do so. This should be unsurprising, considering it has a greater market share than pretty much the rest combined. AAC does have advantages over MP3 as well (better quality for a given bitrate), which is why Apple used it.Dominus Atheos wrote:They're $.99, and they may be DRM free, but they're in an Apple-created proprietary format called M4A. You have to convert them before you an play them back on most non-appple devices.
The hell are you talking about? AAC files can have tags. And even if they found it absolutely necessary to put the AAC files into a container, there's no reason they have to make up a new extension for them instead of leaving it as mp4.Beowulf wrote:Because a raw AAC file doesn't have any tag information? So they'd have to either hack in some tag information, like MP3s got. Or they could just use the specified container for MPEG-4 content, and leave out the video. You're ranting over nothing.
Sarevok wrote:Dominus dude where did you get this idea of m4a being super secret apple music format of evil ? That's just ridicules ! I listen to m4a music all the time on my ancient nokia phone and this is the first time I read anything about it being related to "proprietory". I always thought of m4a as being one of those crazy ass formats like 3gp that people use for some reason.
Oops. I thought HDCP required a different interface entirely. Guess I was wrong.Dominus Atheos wrote:2007 models had GMA X3100 graphics, which is hdcp compliant. The macbook pros have the 8600gt which is also hdcp compliant. iMacs have the Radeon HD 2400 which is also hdcp compliant.
Uh ... did I ever make that argument?So if this is poor Apple being forced to bow to industry pressure against their will, why haven't they been forced to activate this on their previous models?
Yes, and Amazon's music store came well after the first iTunes Plus songs appeared on iTunes.Amazon Mp3 has drm-free songs for $.99 from Warner and even Sony.
Didn't I go over this? The labels are unhappy with Apple's position in the market, so they want to bump up the competition by refusing to license DRM-free music. Either that, or their contracts with Apple weren't due to be renegotiated until recently.Why do they allow Amazon to distribute those songs in that format but not Apple?
Yes.Do you think if Apple asked them they'd say no?
They'd be in violation of their contracts with labels who want their music DRMed. I'm sure there'd be a series of penalties. See Steve Jobs' open letter about DRM.What exactly do you think would happen if tomorrow Apple announced that effective 1/1/09, iTunes would only distribute music as unrestricted .aac format?
They didn't drop iTunes. They simply have no allowed their songs to be distributed without DRM.EMI would obviously be fine with that, so do you think the other labels would drop iTunes and let them just distribute EMI's songs and let their quarterly estimates crash like its 1929?
.m4a is not a proprietary format. It's part of the MPEG-4 standard, specifically, Part 14. .m4a is an extension that Apple uses to indicate that the bog-standard MPEG-4 file contains only audio. Please educate yourself as to the differences between file formats and file name extensions.They're $.99, and they may be DRM free, but they're in an Apple-created proprietary format called M4A. You have to convert them before you an play them back on most non-appple devices.
He's got this thing where he doesn't understand file formats and standards. He reads Doom9, and he thinks that makes him an expert. Feel free to do a board search for his last exchange with me about MPEG-4.Sarevok wrote:Dominus dude where did you get this idea of m4a being super secret apple music format of evil ? That's just ridicules ! I listen to m4a music all the time on my ancient nokia phone and this is the first time I read anything about it being related to "proprietory". I always thought of m4a as being one of those crazy ass formats like 3gp that people use for some reason.
You were disagreeing with my argument that:Durandal wrote:Uh ... did I ever make that argument?So if this is poor Apple being forced to bow to industry pressure against their will, why haven't they been forced to activate this on their previous models?
This clearly isn't an issue with the Studios pushing this on poor Apple because if it was then it would be affecting all Macs and even files you try to play under windows instead of just this one macbook model.
Which was still a year ago. Apple has had plenty of time to ask Sony, Universal, and Warner to let them distribute DRM-free music.Yes, and Amazon's music store came well after the first iTunes Plus songs appeared on iTunes.Amazon Mp3 has drm-free songs for $.99 from Warner and even Sony.
You do realize that's incredibly illegal, don't you? If Sony, Warner, and Universal actually decided together that they would try to drive the iTunes store out of business, it falls afoul of anti-trust and anti-anti-competitive statutes. Apple could sue them.Didn't I go over this? The labels are unhappy with Apple's position in the market, so they want to bump up the competition by refusing to license DRM-free music. Either that, or their contracts with Apple weren't due to be renegotiated until recently.Why do they allow Amazon to distribute those songs in that format but not Apple?
Yes.Do you think if Apple asked them they'd say no?
They'd be in violation of their contracts with labels who want their music DRMed. I'm sure there'd be a series of penalties. See Steve Jobs' open letter about DRM.What exactly do you think would happen if tomorrow Apple announced that effective 1/1/09, iTunes would only distribute music as unrestricted .aac format?
They didn't drop iTunes. They simply have no allowed their songs to be distributed without DRM.[/quote]EMI would obviously be fine with that, so do you think the other labels would drop iTunes and let them just distribute EMI's songs and let their quarterly estimates crash like its 1929?
No, m4a is not part of MPEG-4 Part 14. That only defines the .mp4 extension. You can tell by actually reading what you linked. Notice what it has under "Filename extension:"? Guess what happens if you change a file extension and then try to use the file with a program that uses the original extension?.m4a is not a proprietary format. It's part of the MPEG-4 standard, specifically, Part 14. .m4a is an extension that Apple uses to indicate that the bog-standard MPEG-4 file contains only audio. Please educate yourself as to the differences between file formats and file name extensions.They're $.99, and they may be DRM free, but they're in an Apple-created proprietary format called M4A. You have to convert them before you an play them back on most non-appple devices.
While we're asking people to go do things, I have a really fun thing you can do. Why don't you go take a mp3 file and rename it's extension to .gobbledygook, then try to open the file with iTunes. No really, it'll be fun. Go do that, and watch what happens when you change a file extension. Fun, wasn't it? Now use that experience try to guess what happens when you try to play a .m4a file with a program or mp3 player that actually follows the MPEG-4 standard and only supports .aac or .mp4. That's why I'm so disgusted that Apple decided they had to rename the files their files to some made up extension.He's got this thing where he doesn't understand file formats and standards. He reads Doom9, and he thinks that makes him an expert. Feel free to do a board search for his last exchange with me about MPEG-4.Sarevok wrote:Dominus dude where did you get this idea of m4a being super secret apple music format of evil ? That's just ridicules ! I listen to m4a music all the time on my ancient nokia phone and this is the first time I read anything about it being related to "proprietory". I always thought of m4a as being one of those crazy ass formats like 3gp that people use for some reason.
Are you being intentionally dense? I said nothing about label pressure in relation to HDCP. I said there was label pressure with respect to including DRM on iTunes.Dominus Atheos wrote:You were disagreeing with my argument that:Durandal wrote:Uh ... did I ever make that argument?So if this is poor Apple being forced to bow to industry pressure against their will, why haven't they been forced to activate this on their previous models?
This clearly isn't an issue with the Studios pushing this on poor Apple because if it was then it would be affecting all Macs and even files you try to play under windows instead of just this one macbook model.
Which was still a year ago. Apple has had plenty of time to ask Sony, Universal, and Warner to let them distribute DRM-free music.Yes, and Amazon's music store came well after the first iTunes Plus songs appeared on iTunes.Amazon Mp3 has drm-free songs for $.99 from Warner and even Sony.
Um. Dude. This is a group of companies that constitutes a cartel and runs an extortion racket. Do you really think they give a fuck about "legal"? They were found guilty of price fixing, for Christ's sake.You do realize that's incredibly illegal, don't you? If Sony, Warner, and Universal actually decided together that they would try to drive the iTunes store out of business, it falls afoul of anti-trust and anti-anti-competitive statutes. Apple could sue them.
It's a balancing act. I don't pretend to know what's going on at the negotiating table, but it's obvious that the labels aren't happy with Apple's power to dictate the $0.99 pricing model for music.What I meant was the iTunes Store drops all songs from labels that don't agree to that. EMI stays, but the other Big 4 would be at risk of losing a huge revenue stream. There's no way they would allow their songs not to be sold on iTunes.
That behavior depends on the program in question. Hell, on the classic Mac OS, for example, filename extensions were incredibly uncommon, and things were identified with type and creator codes. Were you someone with actual experience in writing software, you might know that it's possible to parse a file without worrying about its file system name.No, m4a is not part of MPEG-4 Part 14. That only defines the .mp4 extension. You can tell by actually reading what you linked. Notice what it has under "Filename extension:"? Guess what happens if you change a file extension and then try to use the file with a program that uses the original extension?
The MPEG-4 standard does not say "Do not read files with the '.m4a' extension." Making up an extension does not equate to changing the bits contained in the file. According to your argument, all I have to do is rename an MPEG-4 file and omit the extension, and I've suddenly created my very own, proprietary format. Apple may have broken the standard by inventing a filename extension, but they didn't create a proprietary format.While we're asking people to go do things, I have a really fun thing you can do. Why don't you go take a mp3 file and rename it's extension to .gobbledygook, then try to open the file with iTunes. No really, it'll be fun. Go do that, and watch what happens when you change a file extension. Fun, wasn't it? Now use that experience try to guess what happens when you try to play a .m4a file with a program or mp3 player that actually follows the MPEG-4 standard and only supports .aac or .mp4. That's why I'm so disgusted that Apple decided they had to rename the files their files to some made up extension.
Let's recap:Durandal wrote:Are you being intentionally dense? I said nothing about label pressure in relation to HDCP. I said there was label pressure with respect to including DRM on iTunes.
First I said this probably isn't caused by industry pressure, not because anyone in this thread said that was the reason, but because that is the most common theory I've heard on other places on the net. Then you tried to argue with that statement.Durandal wrote:Uh ... no Macs before this supported HDCP. It's a hardware feature.Dominus Atheos wrote:This clearly isn't an issue with the Studios pushing this on poor Apple because if it was then it would be affecting all Macs and even files you try to play under windows instead of just this one macbook model.
So then Apple should sue them. If they can force the studios to negotiate with them individually, they should be able to get much better terms. And EMI is a member of the RIAA, how come they aren't in on this action?Um. Dude. This is a group of companies that constitutes a cartel and runs an extortion racket. Do you really think they give a fuck about "legal"? They were found guilty of price fixing, for Christ's sake.You do realize that's incredibly illegal, don't you? If Sony, Warner, and Universal actually decided together that they would try to drive the iTunes store out of business, it falls afoul of anti-trust and anti-anti-competitive statutes. Apple could sue them.
Or an alternate explanation: Apple likes being able to sell music that will only play on their hardware. I would imagine that they have made quite a bit of money off of iPod sales that they wouldn't have made if the iTunes store sold music that could be played on any device. Let's face it, for quite a while the iTunes store was the only (legal) game in town, so if you wanted to legally buy your music and take it with you, you had to buy an iPod.It's a balancing act. I don't pretend to know what's going on at the negotiating table, but it's obvious that the labels aren't happy with Apple's power to dictate the $0.99 pricing model for music.What I meant was the iTunes Store drops all songs from labels that don't agree to that. EMI stays, but the other Big 4 would be at risk of losing a huge revenue stream. There's no way they would allow their songs not to be sold on iTunes.
iTunes won't load a .gobbledygook file that's actually in an MPEG-1 Layer 3 format, so I guess that it must not be a very well written program. But that's a whole other debate, for now just take a wild guess as to whether or not an mp3 player is one of those devices that cares about file extensions.That behavior depends on the program in question. Hell, on the classic Mac OS, for example, filename extensions were incredibly uncommon, and things were identified with type and creator codes. Were you someone with actual experience in writing software, you might know that it's possible to parse a file without worrying about its file system name.No, m4a is not part of MPEG-4 Part 14. That only defines the .mp4 extension. You can tell by actually reading what you linked. Notice what it has under "Filename extension:"? Guess what happens if you change a file extension and then try to use the file with a program that uses the original extension?
Semantics. The fact is there was no reason Apple had to name them that when .aac or even .mp4 was just fine.The MPEG-4 standard does not say "Do not read files with the '.m4a' extension." Making up an extension does not equate to changing the bits contained in the file. According to your argument, all I have to do is rename an MPEG-4 file and omit the extension, and I've suddenly created my very own, proprietary format. Apple may have broken the standard by inventing a filename extension, but they didn't create a proprietary format.While we're asking people to go do things, I have a really fun thing you can do. Why don't you go take a mp3 file and rename it's extension to .gobbledygook, then try to open the file with iTunes. No really, it'll be fun. Go do that, and watch what happens when you change a file extension. Fun, wasn't it? Now use that experience try to guess what happens when you try to play a .m4a file with a program or mp3 player that actually follows the MPEG-4 standard and only supports .aac or .mp4. That's why I'm so disgusted that Apple decided they had to rename the files their files to some made up extension.
No, I was correcting your facts. I turned out to be wrong, but I wasn't arguing what you think I was arguing.Dominus Atheos wrote:First I said this probably isn't caused by industry pressure, not because anyone in this thread said that was the reason, but because that is the most common theory I've heard on other places on the net. Then you tried to argue with that statement.
And what happens while this case drags on in court, possibly for years? The labels pull their music from the iTunes store, and revenue dries up, giving a competitor ample opportunity to come in and take over. The revenue Apple would lose by suing the labels over anti-competitive practices far outstrips what they'd gain and the risk they'd take. It'd be a total waste of money, and the shareholders would shit a brick and demand Steve Jobs' head on a pike.So then Apple should sue them. If they can force the studios to negotiate with them individually, they should be able to get much better terms. And EMI is a member of the RIAA, how come they aren't in on this action?
Your theory does not explain why Apple offers DRM-free music from labels willing to license it to them. Implementing DRM is a burden in the music space, and it doesn't really make money. It takes engineering time and effort to maintain for questionable returns. Apple doesn't need an iTunes lock-in to sell iPods. They've said as much publicly.Or an alternate explanation: Apple likes being able to sell music that will only play on their hardware. I would imagine that they have made quite a bit of money off of iPod sales that they wouldn't have made if the iTunes store sold music that could be played on any device. Let's face it, for quite a while the iTunes store was the only (legal) game in town, so if you wanted to legally buy your music and take it with you, you had to buy an iPod.
So what? A filename extension is a filesystem construct; the bits of the file are independent, and the layout and arrangement of those bits is what defines a format.iTunes won't load a .gobbledygook file that's actually in an MPEG-1 Layer 3 format, so I guess that it must not be a very well written program. But that's a whole other debate, for now just take a wild guess as to whether or not an mp3 player is one of those devices that cares about file extensions.
Sounds like a slightly more verbose way of saying, "I'm wrong." The reason they made up .m4a could have been due to performance considerations. Since .mp4 files can contain an arbitrary number of stream types, the parser stands to be more complex. Using .m4a is a hint to the parser saying "Hey, there's only audio in here, so don't bother initializing the video parser." But that's just speculation.Semantics. The fact is there was no reason Apple had to name them that when .aac or even .mp4 was just fine.The MPEG-4 standard does not say "Do not read files with the '.m4a' extension." Making up an extension does not equate to changing the bits contained in the file. According to your argument, all I have to do is rename an MPEG-4 file and omit the extension, and I've suddenly created my very own, proprietary format. Apple may have broken the standard by inventing a filename extension, but they didn't create a proprietary format.
Alright, conceded. Maybe Apple not suing isn't an indicator this isn't RIAA pressure, but why does EMI let them distribute music without DRM?Durandal wrote:And what happens while this case drags on in court, possibly for years? The labels pull their music from the iTunes store, and revenue dries up, giving a competitor ample opportunity to come in and take over. The revenue Apple would lose by suing the labels over anti-competitive practices far outstrips what they'd gain and the risk they'd take. It'd be a total waste of money, and the shareholders would shit a brick and demand Steve Jobs' head on a pike.So then Apple should sue them. If they can force the studios to negotiate with them individually, they should be able to get much better terms. And EMI is a member of the RIAA, how come they aren't in on this action?
Because Apple put's that music in a non-standard format to try to make sure it will playback on as few 3rd party devices as possible. Have you even been paying attention to the bottom half of the debate?Your theory does not explain why Apple offers DRM-free music from labels willing to license it to them. Implementing DRM is a burden in the music space, and it doesn't really make money. It takes engineering time and effort to maintain for questionable returns. Apple doesn't need an iTunes lock-in to sell iPods. They've said as much publicly.Or an alternate explanation: Apple likes being able to sell music that will only play on their hardware. I would imagine that they have made quite a bit of money off of iPod sales that they wouldn't have made if the iTunes store sold music that could be played on any device. Let's face it, for quite a while the iTunes store was the only (legal) game in town, so if you wanted to legally buy your music and take it with you, you had to buy an iPod.
Thanks for the lesson, but what does that have to do with the debate? The point is that there are mp3 players out there that have hardware capable of decoding and playing back AAC or mp4 files that won't playback these files because they don't recognize the extension, and I suspect Apple did that deliberately.So what? A filename extension is a filesystem construct; the bits of the file are independent, and the layout and arrangement of those bits is what defines a format.iTunes won't load a .gobbledygook file that's actually in an MPEG-1 Layer 3 format, so I guess that it must not be a very well written program. But that's a whole other debate, for now just take a wild guess as to whether or not an mp3 player is one of those devices that cares about file extensions.
Don't give me that bullshit, we both know any media container will have file headers that will have information about the streams in it. If you actually had to parse the entire file before playback, it would take several minutes to load a several gig hi-def mp4, and I don't even want to think about how long it would take to load a blu-ray disk.Sounds like a slightly more verbose way of saying, "I'm wrong." The reason they made up .m4a could have been due to performance considerations. Since .mp4 files can contain an arbitrary number of stream types, the parser stands to be more complex. Using .m4a is a hint to the parser saying "Hey, there's only audio in here, so don't bother initializing the video parser." But that's just speculation.Semantics. The fact is there was no reason Apple had to name them that when .aac or even .mp4 was just fine.The MPEG-4 standard does not say "Do not read files with the '.m4a' extension." Making up an extension does not equate to changing the bits contained in the file. According to your argument, all I have to do is rename an MPEG-4 file and omit the extension, and I've suddenly created my very own, proprietary format. Apple may have broken the standard by inventing a filename extension, but they didn't create a proprietary format.
EMI suffered the worst of slumping music sales and hence were more open to breaking out of their traditional business model than the other labels.Dominus Atheos wrote:Alright, conceded. Maybe Apple not suing isn't an indicator this isn't RIAA pressure, but why does EMI let them distribute music without DRM?
Oooh yeah, they're really killing interoperability. Making programmers deal with a file extension. What a burden!Because Apple put's that music in a non-standard format to try to make sure it will playback on as few 3rd party devices as possible. Have you even been paying attention to the bottom half of the debate?
My point is that a filename extension is not part of a file format, and Apple has used the .m4a extension since well before it was offering DRM-free music on iTunes. If it was a move to kill interoperability, it wasn't very effective. Your argument that changing a filename extension constitutes changing a file format is nonsensical.Thanks for the lesson, but what does that have to do with the debate? The point is that there are mp3 players out there that have hardware capable of decoding and playing back AAC or mp4 files that won't playback these files because they don't recognize the extension, and I suspect Apple did that deliberately.
And what parses those file headers? Magic gnomes?Don't give me that bullshit, we both know any media container will have file headers that will have information about the streams in it. If you actually had to parse the entire file before playback, it would take several minutes to load a several gig hi-def mp4, and I don't even want to think about how long it would take to load a blu-ray disk.
