DescentBB

What is it about \"Digital Restriction Management\" that the vast majority of people don't seem to \"get\"? Why would ANYONE buy a product where the things you purchase for it you do not own, and can not do with what you please?

Why would you actuially pay good money for a system which limits what you can do with your music - when there are countless ways to use music, and many which have not even been thought of yet?

Why would you risk the DRM rules changing to your disadvantage, such that your music is essentially locked into a single device, or can not be played on other PCs?

I simply can not understand it. If you simply refuse to buy such stupid products, then manufacturers will stop making them.

If you tell sales people that you will not purchase a device with any kind of built in DRM, and purchase a DRM-free player, then very quickly, the DRM-infected players will stop being sold.

I really can't understand it.

It doesn't matter that an iPod is cool (Frankly, I think they're junk - but that's just me.) because cool doesn't cut it when you can't do what you want with your music. Having the theoretical ability to get the DRM off your music is NOT the point. Only Hackers and Criminals do that and by doing so you are a felon, and can be imprisoned under the DMCA act.

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A GOOD IDEA?

No, not only does the DMCA suck gorilla testicles, but it turns any legitimate attempt to control YOUR OWN MUSIC into a crime punishable by years in jail. Good one.

Hence why I buy cd's instead of downloading music. (Plus, the art of making a complete album is being lost in this age of only downloading singles.)

snoopy wrote:Hence why I buy cd's instead of downloading music. (Plus, the art of making a complete album is being lost in this age of only downloading singles.)

True but the art of creating a complete album has been destroyed by the practice of publishing the works of one-hit-wonders taking their royalties and sending them back to the garage with nothing but a debt owed to the record company.

Back in the day (I'm an old dude so think early to late seventies) there were thousands of bands playing clubs that never were good enough to get a deal yet they were still better than almost every band signed today!
Kids today don't seem to aspire to be the next great song writer/performer so much as they try to fit themselves into the corporate mold so they can be next.

I've never had a problem with DRM. It doesn't exist to me.

iPODs *are* crap. Cheap American crap probably made in Taiwan.

Does it really matter? I mean, music died in the mid 80's if not before then.

... so bye, bye, miss american pie ....

snoopy wrote:Hence why I buy cd's instead of downloading music. (Plus, the art of making a complete album is being lost in this age of only downloading singles.)

The art of making a complete album was only ever really understood by the Alan Parsons' Project, Pink Floyd, and in one case, The Who. Most bands simply had a collection of songs on an album. While these were still good, I wouldn't call them complete albums.

ccb056 wrote:Does it really matter? I mean, music died in the mid 80's if not before then.

Assuming that you are counting from when bands began, and not whether they still exist, then I agree.

Isaac wrote:80's ruled

I've wanted to put stuff in Jennifer Connelly since I saw her in "Career Opportunities."

re: the Ipod, I have one but I refuse to touch Itunes. Frack Itunes. I use my Ipod to play all my old CDs in the car, at the gym, at home, and at parties.

DRM is teh stupid.

Genghis wrote: ...put stuff in Jennifer Connelly...

x2!

I don't know how anyone can say the iPod is crap. It's by far the best portable player I've ever used, Apple knows how to design great hardware with a great human interface.

snoopy wrote:the art of making a complete album is being lost in this age of only downloading singles.

Yep, the art of making a complete album has certainly been lost. They just don't do them like Beethoven's 9th Symphony anymore. <sigh>

Shadowfury333 wrote:The art of making a complete album was only ever really understood by the Alan Parsons' Project, Pink Floyd, and in one case, The Who. Most bands simply had a collection of songs on an album. While these were still good, I wouldn't call them complete albums.

Amen brother. Personally, I would include a few Rush albums in there, but I completely get your point.

Shadowfury33 wrote:The art of making a complete album was only ever really understood by the Alan Parsons' Project, Pink Floyd, and in one case, The Who. Most bands simply had a collection of songs on an album. While these were still good, I wouldn't call them complete albums.

...and The Mars Volta, and Coheed & Cambria, and Metallica, and Dream Theater, and The Flaming Lips, and Radiohead, and countless others.

And that's only "concept albums". A good album doesn't require a narrative thread through every track.

Take, for example, Pretend You're Alive by Lovedrug. Or Beck's new album (The Information). Just to name two recent ones.

DCrazy wrote:...and The Mars Volta, and Coheed & Cambria, and Metallica, and Dream Theater, and The Flaming Lips, and Radiohead, and countless others.

And that's only "concept albums". A good album doesn't require a narrative thread through every track.

Take, for example, Pretend You're Alive by Lovedrug. Or Beck's new album (The Information). Just to name two recent ones.

I knew that there were more bands that have made concept albums than I listed, but I wasn't aware of them. Thanks for enlightening me.

Mind you, APP and Pink Floyd focused quite a bit on concept albums, though I think PF made only about 3 or 4, whereas APP made all of their albums concept albums.

I get scared when I find myself agreeing with Mobi.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

DCrazy wrote:...and The Mars Volta, and Coheed & Cambria, and Metallica, and Dream Theater, and The Flaming Lips, and Radiohead, and countless others.

And that's only "concept albums". A good album doesn't require a narrative thread through every track.

Take, for example, Pretend You're Alive by Lovedrug. Or Beck's new album (The Information). Just to name two recent ones.

I knew that there were more bands that have made concept albums than I listed, but I wasn't aware of them. Thanks for enlightening me.

Mind you, APP and Pink Floyd focused quite a bit on concept albums, though I think PF made only about 3 or 4, whereas APP made all of their albums concept albums.

Don't forget Yes and Genesis.

On topic...How bout the Creative devices? I use a Zen V Plus and it's pretty sweet. Does it have this DRM of which you speak? Hell if I know.

Palzon wrote:On topic...How bout the Creative devices? I use a Zen V Plus and it's pretty sweet. Does it have this DRM of which you speak? Hell if I know.

Zen and others are fine, but I bought an Ipod for one reason only: because it had the largest capacity of any mp3 player. I wanted my entire collection on there, at a reasonably high quality.

Re: the DRM, Zen has support for MS's DRM format, meaning it can play songs protected by PlaysForSure. Ipod has support for Apple's DRM format, meaning it can play songs bought from Itunes. Both can play mp3s just fine. So what I do is keep my entire collection in mp3 format for maximum compatibility.

Shadowfury333 wrote:The art of making a complete album was only ever really understood by the Alan Parsons' Project, Pink Floyd, and in one case, The Who. Most bands simply had a collection of songs on an album. While these were still good, I wouldn't call them complete albums.

Now there is a thread-split if ever i've seen one. Far more interesting than the usuall crap.

Shadow... you are wrong.

Metallica had themed albums, though more musically than lyrically. (Of course now they're awful...N'tallica I call them)

My iPod is not formatted with iTunes so I can use regular MP3 files and there is no restriction on how I use them. I think it's J.River Media Center 10 that I'm using, 20 gig's holds almost the whole collection and it's rock solid dependable with good battery life. It goes from a cradle in my truck to the glove compartment in my car to the tank bag on my bike to...wherever, flawlessly!
My first 5 gig (first generation) iPod was also great I only sold it to get more storage space.

Flabby Chick wrote:...Shadow... you are wrong.

Word! Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars....or just about any Bowie record was definitely a complete album as were lots of stuff from the sixties and seventies! Most Bob Dylan recordings had a completeness to them, just because they weren't laid out in one easy to follow story like Rush's 2112 or the Who's Tommy doesn't mean they aren't of a singular theme or meant to live together and represent a singular line of thought/feelings/emotion/influence/whatever.
Look at Quadrophenia or Physical Graffitti....

I'd disagree with you there Mobi. I feel it's just part of the justice system.

Will Robinson wrote:

Flabby Chick wrote:...Shadow... you are wrong.

Word! Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars....or just about any Bowie record was definitely a complete album as were lots of stuff from the sixties and seventies! Most Bob Dylan recordings had a completeness to them, just because they weren't laid out in one easy to follow story like Rush's 2112 or the Who's Tommy doesn't mean they aren't of a singular theme or meant to live together and represent a singular line of thought/feelings/emotion/influence/whatever.
Look at Quadrophenia or Physical Graffitti....

Right, thanks for notifying me about these. but like I said, I hadn't mentioned a lot of bands that have made complete albums.

i got a DRM surprise yesterday trying to backup my brother's phone data. One of the midi files wouldn't let me copy it from the phone, the phone interface program kept saying \"this file is copyright protected\" or something.