Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with what Bob is doing, as long as he is removing the audio files after he has returned the CD.

Here's my theory, for what it's worth: When you borrow the CD from the Library, you are also borrowing the Library's "Fair Use rights." When you return the CD, you also return those "Fair Use rights" to the Library. Thus, if you borrow the CD, rip it, and return it immediately, you have no right to the material.

Damn. Too late.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Damn. Too late.

Is there anything in particular you noticed, or is it just easier to be a smartass?

Bryan
Editor
TMO

"...men would make public speculations about Bob's linage..."

"Linage" should be "lineage".
_______

"...my elation slammed on the breaks so hard..."

"Breaks" should be "brakes".
_______

"...I can look pass Bob's ongoing transgressions..."

"Pass" should be "past".
_______

"...he deletes the files of any copied audio book once he done listening..."

"He" should be "he's".
_______

"...iPods plugged into ears of its patron that any other digital music device..."

"Patron" should be "patrons" and "that " should be "than".

I'd like to publicly apologize for any offense I may cause by this post, but time is limited and I haven't had time to be as polite as I'd like (seriously).

Audible's files work on iPod, and they're protected. The audiobooks off the iTunes Music Store come from Audible, too, but I think they have another protective "wrapper".

Whoops, didn't log in. That "Paging Dr. Editor..." post was me (but not the "stat" one).

I've seen errors like this from the use of dictation software, whose output I imagine must be hell to sort though for all of the things that a spell/grammar checker won't catch.

As I say, no offense meant, I really thought you wanted to know.

I don't see how the abbility of protected WMA files to delete themselves makes the format better in any way then protected AAC. I'd think most people would like to have their audio files still be there when they wake up.

"Is there anything in particular you noticed, or is it just easier to be a smartass? "

Did you even look at the article, or is it just easier ask someone if they're a smartass, Mr.Editor?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Did you even look at the article, or is it just easier ask someone if they're a smartass, Mr.Editor?

Well what good does it do to say "I saw mistakes" but then not say what those mistakes were? That's not much help. Why even bother posting that if they're not going to say what you saw wrong?

OK boys, play nice!

We already know the brain chip in the ipod is capable of handling WMA formatted play. The question is, when will it be advantageous for Apple to turn the feature on? And by turning it on, do you lose Fairplay, or do they co-exist?

With 60% marketshare there isn't a reason to turn it on anytime soon.

WMA is a more wdely used proprietary format, but is not a standard. Too many people are confused by this. Audio books should be downloadable as MP3s or AAC files that can play on anything. That is an open standard.

Quote

choard wrote:
OK boys, play nice!

We already know the brain chip in the ipod is capable of handling WMA formatted play. The question is, when will it be advantageous for Apple to turn the feature on? And by turning it on, do you lose Fairplay, or do they co-exist?

With 60% marketshare there isn't a reason to turn it on anytime soon.

I think Apple needs Microsoft's permission to do any of that. The question is, will they agree? Since Microsoft doesn't actually make a player themselves, it will be interesting to see if they say yes or not.

Their main goal is to get the Windows Media format as popular as possible. So I'd think they would. But you never know, they could have made deals with other player companies that would keep them from doing that. We'll have to wait and see.

"Well what good does it do to say "I saw mistakes" but then not say what those mistakes were?"

He's the editor. He's not supposed to ask other people to show him things that need editing.

The column says you could play the audiobook's on your Mac, but unfortunately, that is not likely the case.

If the library's audiobook files are encoded with WMA DRM, you won't be able to play them on Windows Media Player for Mac OS X (what an unfortunate name, but I digress). WMP for Mac OS X only supports unprotected files, not those with DRM.

"WMA is a more wdely used proprietary format"

Uh, more widely used than AAC? It's not.

and it's stuck inside pretty well.

The title of this headline is pretty simple to answer. "No. If Bob wants to violate copyright law, that's his choice, and Apple didn't make him do it - just like the company that built my crappy Neon isn't forcing me to drive without a valid inspection sticker."

Whether or not this is actually a copyright validation seems like it could be held up for debate, but what cannot be debated is the simple truth that this situation points out:

Right now, Microsoft's DRM is better suited to loaning content to the users than Apple's DRM.

This is absolutely true at the moment.

Could Fairplay be updated to add an expiration date to the content? I'm sure that could be done, but that still leaves the issue of the provider not being able to distribute protected content.

Could the library be sold the protected ACC files through Apple and given the right to authorize the loanee's iPod to play it for two weeks? Perhaps. However, I could see this as Apple involving themselves in monopolistic practices.

I guess it could be seen like this:

Fairplay was not created by Apple as a business model for media distribution beyond their music store. I really don't think Apple has the same goals that Microsoft does - "World Domination!" ... I mean, "Market dominance".

I have never heard Steve Jobs talk about the Fairplay system beyond the scope of purchased music and audiobooks. Maybe he's missing out on a whole world of business, but he also might have been told there was no real long-term business model in licensing a DRM that could easily be replaced by a cheaper one two years down the road.

This article brings up an important point quite clearly though.

I've been curious ... People often bring up the point that "WMA support on an iPod could be enabled with a firmware flip-of-the-switch."

But at the same time, as someone pointed out above, Macintosh Windows Media Player won't play DRM-encoded WMA files. Whether it's because of licensing issues, or Microsoft being stubborn, or what, I don't know. But I can't imagine, even if WMA support exists in iPods, that it could also handle the latest-and-greatest DRM Microsoft has wrapped around it ... More likely they'd only play unprotected WMA files, which seems to be a relatively valueless feature for an iPod to have anyway.

At any rate, theoretical concerns aside and practical considerations up front, I'd recommend serious audiobook listeners take a look at Audible.com (directly ... I haven't used them through iTMS). It's not free, but for a $20/month subscription you can select two audiobooks per month, download them from your personal library whenever you want at any of various compression rates, and although they're DRM protected to your account, they will play on Windows, Mac, iPod, and any number of other devices. I've found it worthwhile.

I am not an Audible subscriber (heck, I haven't even purchased an iPod yet), but I'm strong considering both an iPod and Audible. For others that are considering, remember that you can get $100 off an iPod with a 12-month subscription, and though this is a subscription service, you can keep the audiobooks your download indefinitely. So it's more like a magazine subscription (where you get to retain the issues) than something like Napster-to-go.

"...Window Media Player 9 or better..."

Wouldn't the "or better" include the iPod?

Quote

won wrote:
Whoops, didn't log in. That "Paging Dr. Editor..." post was me (but not the "stat" one).

I was the "Need an Editor - STAT" Guest poster. Not trying to insult anyone...I thought my comment was kinda humorous. Perhaps a little sarcastic, but to be frank, TMO has a LOT of editing issues. If you want to have a simple little Mac blog, that's fine, but I see this site as trying to be a little more professional and comprehensive than that.

You guys really need an editor. Grammar and style do count. It separates the amateurs from the pros. Perhaps most of your readers don't notice or care, but I do. That's what I do for a living. I'm sorry if i don't have the time or inclination to edit your stories for you, but I don't feel there's anything wrong with me pointing out "this needs to be edited."

I'm not trolling - just disappointed. TMO is my favorite Mac site. I check for updates numerous times daily. I'd like to see you guys do better.

WMA files account for ~ 19% of digital music files, AAC ~ 4%. 19 > 4

Quote

Guest wrote:
"WMA is a more wdely used proprietary format"

Uh, more widely used than AAC? It's not.

...and, of course, statistics.

Quote

Guest wrote:
WMA files account for ~ 19% of digital music files, AAC ~ 4%. 19 > 4

I won't argue with your math (19 really IS greater than 4), but I will question your statistics: Where did you get these figures? You may very well be right, but without citing a source, it appears that you might just be pulling this out of your...well, let's just say you'd look a lot more credible if you did have a reliable source.

Then again, 79.6% of statistics are made up anyway.

I keep reading and reading about WMA, Fairplay, DRM, AAC... It really makes my blood boil. Look, Fairplay is what the iTunes Music Store uses. A protected AAC file. All the other music stores use protected WMA. See there, it's very simple. Apple isn't licensing its DRM technology "Fairplay". Microsoft is licensing its DRM technology. Why not Apple? I don't have that answer. Apple believes its best interests are from NOT licensing Fairplay. It probably has to do with the fact that it owns the iTunes Music Store and makes iPods. That's the way I understand it. That makes sense to me. I get tired of hearing about what Apple will do to smite Microsoft. I don't think Apple worries about Microsoft. I doubt Steve wakes up in the morning to find out how many critical vulnerabilities have been found in Windows overnight. Apple is a smart company. They will tell you what you want and need and then change when it suits them. Look at the shuffle. Don't buy a flash based player. One year later, go and get our flash based player.
---
So, "Fairplay" is not open.

Actually, Sony and Real use their own formats too. So it is Apple, Sony, Real, and Microsoft.

I think Bob is thinking in a very simple or one sided way. If a windows user wants to rip the audio he will whether he can play it or not on any device.
Just because you or I own an iPod doesn't make us any more liable or have more intent to rip off music than anyone else.

You're right, Bob is a criminal…

"WMA files account for ~ 19% of digital music files, AAC ~ 4%. 19 > 4 "

Are you sure? I thought AAC had at least a slight edge over WMA. Or maybe I was thinking about protected WMA versus AAC.

"All the other music stores use protected WMA. See there, it's very simple."

It'd be simple if all other music stores actually did use protected WMA, but no. Not all of them do.

"Microsoft is licensing its DRM technology. Why not Apple? I don't have that answer."

Apple won't license Fairplay because the one and only thing that it'd do is create competition for the iTMS. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

Quote

Guest wrote:
WMA is a more wdely used proprietary format, but is not a standard. Too many people are confused by this. Audio books should be downloadable as MP3s or AAC files that can play on anything. That is an open standard.

Actually the only file guaranteed to play on anything is an MP3 (which, of course, can't have DRM applied); both WMA and AAC are only playable on a subset of all players.

… any other player SHOULD offer it. Why they don't is a mystery, and an aberration …
If I'm not mistaken, AAC is the next standard after mp3 and should pretty much replace it …

Get "HiJack Audio Pro" for your Mac and the whole basis of this article is senseless. There are always workarounds, and good ones at that .

option 3 sounds like a workaround not a solution, recompressing compressed files is not a nice activity if you're interested in sound quality.

-F

Quote

Guest wrote:
Get "HiJack Audio Pro" for your Mac and the whole basis of this article is senseless. There are always workarounds, and good ones at that .

There is no workaround for a protected WMA file. You can't play it on a Mac or iPod.

That is the basis of the article. A format that doesn't work on OS X or an iPod could become the standard format used for loaned audio content. The only hope that this won't happen is the fact that most portable music players are iPods so any format that doesn't play on them will have limited market share - at the moment.

Quote

Guest wrote:
option 3 sounds like a workaround not a solution, recompressing compressed files is not a nice activity if you're interested in sound quality.

If you're interested in audio quality, you don't buy audiobooks.

I have to say I'm in agreement with the comments on editing. TMO is excellent in every area except this one. And unlike most cases, where the typos are quickly corrected, these have not been. I would second the notion that TMO can do better.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'd like to publicly apologize for any offense I may cause by this post, but time is limited and I haven't had time to be as polite as I'd like (seriously).

Are you kidding? I appreciate that kind of post more than I could possibly convey in writing.

I am a great editor for content, and a fair editor for copy (some of the time, at least), but I am the first person who will jump up and say I wish that our business model afforded us the ability to hire a real copy editor. It's the drive-by snipings that rile me, but I very much appreciate anyone who points out any specific mistake we (especially I) make.

Thanks for taking the time to offer these notes; the piece has been edited accordingly.

Bryan
Editor
TMO

Afforded you the abbility to hire a real copy editor? I caught every error in the article the first time I read it, not because I'm a "real editor", but because I simply read it. All that had to be done was to ask Vern Steward to proof-read his own article, or ask somebody else on the Mac Observer staff to read it once. That doesn't cost money. That's free.

This isn't just a battle over priopritary DRMs (Apple's Microsoft's, Real's, Sony's, etc.) it's a battle over innovation!!

Think about it. While there have been many digital audio players, who made it successful? Apple (the iPod was the first to put my music library in my pocket with a cool easy to use player). While there have been many digital audio music stores who made it successful? Apple again (the iTMS was the first to give me music at a fair price with all the rights I wanted). Numbers don't lie. That's in part why millions more people buy iPods than any other player. That's why millions more songs are downloaded with iTMS. Why should they invest so much time and energy to make this great? It obviously took a lot.

Apple seems to think that keeping the iPod and iTMS as a tightly integrated solution, and thus not licensing FairPlay, is in the best interest of Apple's sales and customers' happiness. If Apple follow's your advice and either opens up licensing of FairPlay or plays protected WMA files on the iPod then other music stores besides the iTMS may become more viable options for iPod customers.

That may seem nice in the short run but what if Apple's share of music downloads then falls? What if people starting using Joe's El Cheapo Music Store more and then think, hey I can save some money and buy Yuan's El Cheapo WMA Player too (hey it has a radio!)? Now Apple's making less and less on iPods in this scenario and the iTMS is growing less and less. Maybe Apple should get into something else with a higher growth potential (like smart bottled water?) and then who keeps innovating for us in the music space? Microsoft? Samsung? LG? That sounds like Microsoft's plan to beat Apple and then what do we get? Microsoft screwing up something else once more and no one is happy (at least not me).

So what seems like a nice idea to get library books on an iPod might be one more in a long line of ideas of how to weaken Apple in digital music so the throng of EL Cheapo companies can get a foothold and make this like the PC market - market of lots of cheap crap.

I think the best idea, idea #4 is - get the libraries to support Apple's iTMS store as the format and method of choice for books. So what if it doesn't have the same features as Microsoft's DRM. Those are minor issues when it's the future of innovation in digital music we are talking about!

I'm not quite seeing how you are equating this being about innovation through market success.

Plenty of innovative products have ended up as monumental failures in the market. Apple is no stranger to that.

Plus, your description of "keeping the El Cheapos out of the loop" sounds a lot to me like using a monopoly to crush innovation.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Afforded you the abbility to hire a real copy editor? I caught every error in the article the first time I read it, not because I'm a "real editor", but because I simply read it. All that had to be done was to ask Vern Steward to proof-read his own article, or ask somebody else on the Mac Observer staff to read it once. That doesn't cost money. That's free.

You are absolutely right, it doesn't cost any money to have me read through what I write. You make the assumption, however, that I don't already read through what I write.

You'd be wrong, of course.

I do read my work, several times. But, as any writer will tell you, it is often hard to spot what to others seem like simple errors because the author is so close to the work: He knows what he wants to say, and when he reads what he has written, his mind sees what he wants to see, and continually overlooks errors.

Don't believe me? Read your post. I bet you read it several times before hitting the 'Submit' button.

Did you find the errors?

I'll point out one, only because it is extremely obvious, to me at least: My name is SEWARD, not STEWARD.

You offered a suggestion or two, now let me offer one to you: You might want to take your own advice to heart before posting next time.

Just a thought.

Vern Seward

" But, as any writer will tell you, it is often hard to spot what to
others seem like simple errors because the author is so close to the work: He knows what he wants
to say, and when he reads what he has written, his mind sees what he wants to see, and continually
overlooks errors. "

Uh. I write things, too. And when I read what I've written, I don't see what I want to see, I see what's actually there. So I seriously don't relate to what you're saying.

"Don't believe me? Read your post. I bet you read it several times before hitting the 'Submit' button.

Did you find the errors?

I'll point out one, only because it is extremely obvious, to me at least: My name is SEWARD, not
STEWARD. "

Hahah, whoops. Sorry about that. You did bet wrong, though, I didn't proof-read my post before submitting it. I usually don't. That's why most of my posts have an error or two in them, and if I considered it important that they didn't, they wouldn't. But then again, it's not a writer's job to make sure their piece has flawless spelling and grammar if there happens to be an editor who runs through their work.

However, in three years of getting my Mac news from this site, I've noticed that it has absolutely horrible editing, and it's gretting pretty annoying that instead of trying to fix this consistant problem, excuses just get made for Brian the Editor Who Does Not Edit. Catching errors doesn't mean hiring an expensive copy editor, it means Brian reading articles before they're posted while paying enough attention that the words actually soak into his brain. Or perhaps if the workload is too much for him, then the Mac Observer could ask for some volunteer editors. Either way, this site has a long running problem that the staff seems to have no interest in fixing. That's why they keep catching flak about it, and I think think they deserve to until it moves them to finally get off their asses and do something.