4 ms·
We forget that the labels also consider that piracy. For a while there were attempts to make CDs un-rippable. Streaming (which pays labels and artists much les
by pjc50 3mo ago
We forget that the labels also consider that piracy. For a while there were attempts to make CDs un-rippable.
Streaming (which pays labels and artists much less) only exists because it's the compromise that solves the "service problem" side of piracy.
- xaitv 3mo ago> We forget that the labels also consider that piracy. For a while there were attempts to make CDs un-rippable. One of these attempts that I assume most people are familiar with but is an interesting read for those that aren't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- MilkLizard 3mo agoAnd of course Sony was involved
- fridder 3mo agoSony has so often footgunned itself it is comical. Occasionally great engineering hobbled by terrible business choices
- qingcharles 3mo agoThe irony was that Sony wanted all those CDs on streaming, so they sent them to me to rip because they didn't have any other proper digital copy for ingestion at the time. (It wasn't just the rootkit ones, either, they tried a bunch of other really ugly methods across their catalogue to stop the CDs being useable in a CD-ROM drive)
- carlosjobim 3mo agoApple and Steve Jobs were always taking about ripping your CDs to have your music on the iPod in their presentations to the public.
- carlosjobim 3mo agoDown voters might want to read this open letter posted by Steve Jobs: https://web.archive.org/web/20070207234839/http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ https://web.archive.org/web/20070207234839/http://www.apple.... "To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats." And this part might be interesting in the context of the article: "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music. Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy."
- fy20 3mo agoI'd say Steve was actually wrong here. The move to streaming (which Apple had a big part in pushing, directly or indirectly), is actually what halted music privacy. Giving access to all music (I remember the big deal Apple made when they were finally able to sell The Beatles on iTunes), and making it easier than privacy is what stopped it. He's right that DRM alone didn't stop it, but at the same time you can't really say it didn't help. If we could just download Spotify playlists and share DRM free files with out friends, there would be no reason to subscribe to Spotify on an ongoing basis. Hollywood still hasn't figured that out, but given how little artists get paid, maybe that's what they haven't push for the same.
- account42 3mo ago> For a while there were attempts to make CDs un-rippable. The movie industry unfortunately never gave up no matter how vain the attempts are.
- mghackerlady 3mo agoStill why I like DVDs. Smaller in size, easy to rip, and 480p is good enough that I don't mind the quality loss. Blu-ray is great, but if I'm buying something I'm not sure about or just want to have because it's worth having, DVD all the way
- shawnhermans 3mo agoI recently started collecting Blu-ray because of thrift and second hand stores. In a few cases, I was able to purchase some of my all time favorite movies unopened in the original retail packaging for a dollar. Not to mention my local library has a larger Blu-ray selection than my local video rental place did before they closed.
- dyauspitr 3mo agoI have never heard the phrase 480p is good enough. 480p is not good enough, 720p might be good enough.
- mghackerlady 3mo agoOn a small display that I usually want to watch digital movies on, it's fine. 720p is the minimum for anything I actually want to watch/enjoy watching. Like I said, a lot of stuff I have on DVD is stuff that is good to have that I'll probably never watch regularly
- account42 3mo agoI like 4K UHD HDR Blu Rays very much and have a big TV to take advantage of them but I agree with gp that 480p is good enough in the sense that a good movie will still be enjoyable in 480p. And if you are engrossed in what you are watching you won't even notice the reduced detail. There are some DVDs with atrocious encode quality with a much lower effective resolution due to low bitrate (i.e. multiple full length flicks squeezed onto one DVD) or unfortunate processing (NTSC master -> PAL DVD release or the inverse is to be avoided) but that's thankfully rare. Now, 480i is something I'd rather leave behind but even that is a lesser concern than the content of the film.