×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New "MP3 100% Compatible" Logo For DRM-Free Music

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the plays-for-sure-this-time-we-really-mean-it dept.

Music 263

Sockatume writes "A coalition of seven UK digital music stores have created a logo for DRM-free, MP3 music. The 'MP3: 100% Compatible' logo allows the stores to emphasize the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device and won't keel over and die as DRM-laden files are wont to. The BPI — the UK equivalent of the RIAA — is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

263 comments

Jews did 9/11. (-1, Troll)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636323)

I have a mp3 recording that proves it.

Re:Jews did 9/11. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636515)

The CIA and FBI are run by Jews?

Re:Jews did 9/11. (-1, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636631)

That can't be right because the FBI are run by the Catholics.

Re:Jews did 9/11. (-1, Offtopic)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636869)

Ah, but who runs the Catholics?

Re:Jews did 9/11. (2, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636899)

Ah, but who runs the Catholics?

the old dude with the tall hat isn't it?

Re:Jews did 9/11. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25637077)

Ah, but who runs the Catholics?

the old dude with the tall hat isn't it?

Holy crap, Abraham Lincoln's still alive and he's the secret head of the Vatican? More Kool-Aid please!

Re:Jews did 9/11. (1, Interesting)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637081)

Catholicism is a derivative of the Christian faiths, which is a derivative of Judaism. So in a diluted method, the Jews do run the Catholics.

In other news, why isn't jews picked up in the right-click list of options as a spelling correction in my UK-dictionary in Firefox. Yeah, so jews corrects to Jews, but why is the correction not on the list (sews news dews mews pews ...)

Re:Jews did 9/11. (1, Funny)

kv9 (697238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637341)

So in a diluted method, the Jews do run the Catholics.

don't the jews run everything?

Re:Jews did 9/11. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636643)

I didn't know you could post as an AC and then mod yourself up. I'll have to remember that the next time I want to try to make factless BS seem slightly legitimate with an insightful mod.

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636689)

It's clear that you do not know what you are trying to criticize. Please fully read and understand posts before you reply to them.

The post in question sent a chilling, informative message to those involved -- Americans whose corrupt Gestapos known as the FBI, CIA, NSA, and ICE are trashing the common man's freedom while the Greedy, hooknosed Jew who orchestrated it all rubs his hands together as a fly on a fat steaming shit would in anticipation of his meal -- dead babies in the Jew's case.

Sweet (4, Interesting)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636329)

The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

About frigging time.

Re:Sweet (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636615)

1996 called, it wants AOL back. It was difficult enough to logon before you stole it from it.

Re:Sweet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636647)

The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

No kidding.

A non-geek friend of mine bitched about this last week. He's nearing 40, doing well, and is a big metal fan. He was trolling memory lane on YouTube, and decided to go get some more albums of one of his old favorites. The store had a deal on the band's full boxed set -- sweet! -- then he noticed the DRM tag. He took it to the till and asked the clerks if he'd be able to play the tunes on his iPod. Clerk 1: "I dunno." Clerk 2: "Probably not."

Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

This new "100% Compatible" logo is /exactly/ what he (and the store clerks) needs. It's due. Regular customers are fed up with this shit now, not just geeks.

Re:Sweet (5, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636977)

Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

Speaking of which: did you email him links to .torrents with instructions?

Re:Sweet (5, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637061)

having worked in the music industry i'd tend agree with you. i think this initiative, especially the fact that it's backed by a powerful trade group, will send a strong message to record labels and artists.

while i'm hoping my boss learned his lesson after receiving a bunch of complaints and product returns on music CDs using standards-breaking DRM (i think a rep from Megaforce, our distributor, sold him the idea originally), i suspect the notion of DRMing future releases is still in the back of his mind. and, honestly, even without the product liability issues that come with CD DRM technology, it's still a huge waste of money that alienates customers/fans.

resources wasted combating "piracy" and on anti-consumer policies/tactics like DRM, or any other means of restricting consumer freedom, would be better used on music promotion. record labels can't dictate to consumers how they can or can't use the music they've purchased. online file sharing, like swapping cassettes or CDs, is an timeless constant. the smart labels will use this to their advantage rather than try to fight human nature.

record labels spend millions of dollars each year on promotion, whether it's buying spins on the radio, paying for TV/radio commercials, taking out ads in magazines & one-stops, printing fliers, putting your tracks on listening booths, co-op promotions, etc. it's all about getting the music out there, getting the band's name out there. you let people listen to your music for free on the radio, and you grow your fan base. in fact, the more plays you get on the radio, the more albums you sell. the industry understands the value of this kind of _paid_ promotion, but when it comes to free promotion, they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. so they actually waste money to try to stop it.

instead of worrying about the music "pirates" who don't pay for music, which is really a relatively small percentage of the population that you're never going to reach anyway, why not exploit the marketing value of the internet. viral marketing the most effective, and simultaneously cheapest, means of increasing your fan base, and subsequently your customer base. so it makes much more sense to distribute DRM-free MP3s that people can share with their friends and let file sharing work for you through viral marketing.

firehose (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636337)

Too bad I can't vote this one down for being an obvious slashvert.

WHAT? THE ICON IS FOR THE GNU/PLAYS4SHURE????

yes but... (3, Funny)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636339)

Will it run on linux? :?

Re:yes but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636479)

Depends. Do you live in a country which allows software patents? Do you actually pay attention to legal issues and refuse to use software that violates patents?

If so to both, then no, it doesn't run on Linux. No on either one, and sure, why not?

Not so (5, Informative)

Craig Ringer (302899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636797)

Actually, there's a legal, licensed MP3 decoder available for Linux. http://www.fluendo.com/resources/fluendo_mp3.php [fluendo.com] It's open source (MIT) with binaries approved by Fraunhofer available. So you're OK even if you do stick strictly to all patent law, live in a country where such law applies to software, and require source to all code running on your system (above BIOS/firmware level).

Re:Not so (1)

Varun Soundararajan (744929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636949)

I always thought Fraunhofer licensed decoders for free. Only the encoders needed to pay royalt to Fraunhofer. Am I right?

Re:Not so (4, Insightful)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637071)

As I understand it they don't approve of all decoders, but allow them. As I understand it they will fight arm and leg for encoders though, as they see that as their money maker. I may be talking out of my ass though, so mod me accordingly.

Time until TPB updates their search logo? (5, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636341)

New logo on top of the Pirate Bays search logo in 5, 4, 3, ... ? :D

Re:Time until TPB updates their search logo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25637381)

this doesn't have anything to do with anything but i actually have seen albums that have an m4p (itunes DRM'd AAC) file in them on TBP... how stupid can you get...

MP3 != 100% compatible (0, Troll)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636353)

MP3 is still a closed-source, proprietary format. To call it 100% compatible is a slap in the face of truly compatible formats, like .ogg.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (5, Funny)

darkhitman (939662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636389)

Yeah, but '73.38% compatible'* just doesn't have the same ring to it, you know?

*Number pulled out of ass, just so y'know.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636393)

You are mistaking "compatible" with "open". .ogg is open, but is compatible with significantly fewer devices and computers at the moment. I don't think my computer will play it (though I could download a codec for it if I cared), and I know my phone, portable music player (aka MP3 player), and car stereo can't play it.

For varying definitions of compatible? (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636395)

Proprietary or not, MP3 is THE audio format to play. Give an ogg file to most people, they are almost certainly not going to be able to play it without some hass.e Most audio devices don't play ogg files, while most audio file player devices can play MP3.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636467)

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I travel most of the year and offer to share music with a lot of people I meet. Most of my collection is in FLAC, and I'm amazed at how many people I come across with limited computing skills are still open to getting files in such a format, "Lossless, CD audio-identical? Free codecs? Cool." While the lack of support is a problem in portable devices like iPods, I'm not sure there's that much resistence to Vorbis/FLAC/what have you among people who play their music off a desktop or laptop.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636641)

I think that does make a good amount of sense, because computers can easily play just about any file format, given an easy installation of a driver or decoder program. Getting a typical phone, car audio head unit, iPod or ipod-like device to play them generally isn't going to be so easy. If you offer to install the player, I would bet the resistance would be low, but people without that kind of acquaintance would probably just forgo it.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636853)

While I am sure that is true for the older generation,for the younger they pretty much think music=MP3. A few weeks ago I went to pick up the oldest from school and all you saw was MP3 players everywhere. Some of his buddies were talking up how they had all gotten these cool speaker docks to play their iPods at home. They started to laugh at how my nephew plays his tunes at home on his PC until he said "Well my uncle gave me his huge super powerful '80s Pioneer home stereo which he wired into my PC so all my games and tunes ROCK!" Needless to say they were impressed,LOL

But the point is for the teens/early twenties crowds music=MP3 player. They just add all kinds of home/car adapters and carry the things wherever they go. So while I think having choices is great I doubt seriously when my nephew's generation grows up they are even going to know other formats exist. For them it is all whatever works on their iPod/Creative/Sandisk. And the only format you can be sure they will all play ATM is MP3.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (1)

zxsqkty (869685) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636933)

I travel most of the year and offer to share music with a lot of people I meet.

Terrorist!!1one

Won't somebody please think of the starving artists??''?

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (4, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636633)

well, MP3 is an ISO standard (approved in 1991). however, i agree that the licensing/patent issues are a huge drawback. to quote Wikipedia:

A large number of different organizations have claimed ownership of patents necessary to implement MP3 (decoding and/or encoding). These different claims have led to a number of legal threats and actions from a variety of sources, resulting in uncertainty about what is necessary to legally create products with MP3 support in countries where those patents are valid.

The various patents claimed to cover MP3 by different patent-holders have many different expiration dates, ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S. The initial near complete MPEG-1 standard (parts 1,2,3) was publicly available in December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. Since US patents must be filed by no later than a year after publication, some of the later patents are questionable, and MP3 may be patent free in the US by December of 2012.

sounds like typical patent-trolling to me. this is a prime example of how our IP laws hinder technological progress/innovation rather than encourage it. and a 20-year patent term for software algorithms is just plain insane. by the time the patent expires and finally goes into public domain the algorithm will likely be obsolete. technological progress is the result of open collaboration and collective efforts. these type of patent lawsuits are counter-productive and greatly hamper cultural symbiosis that every field of knowledge/research depends on to move forward.

so it's too bad that petty patent claims plague the dominant digital music format. maybe Ogg should be made into an ISO standard. perhaps then more hardware manufacturers (and downloadable music retailers) will adopt it alongside of MP3. frankly, MP3 is already a little outdated as it's fallen behind other compression formats over the years.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636785)

Since they're going for patented technology anyway, I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't push the AAC format. While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players. As a bonus, it's smaller, better quality, and a heck of a lot easier to license than the craziness behind the MP3 and MPEG formats.

Yeah, yeah. I know that MP3 has brand recognition. But nothing will ever change if no one pushes things forward. And besides, MP3 100% Compatible? That doesn't even sound cromulent!

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636887)

Umm...I don't think most of the Sandisk support AAC,just MP3 and WMA. I know that the 3 M-series my family has doesn't support AAC. I have also noticed most of the under $100 players that the kids at my youngest nephew's school carry online and most of those only support MP3 and WMA. So while AAC may be better bitrate wise,pretty much the only format that you can be sure that everything from the $25 Coby they sell at Walgreens to the $300 Cowon PMPs will play is MP3.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636947)

I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't push the AAC format. While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players.

AAC is not even close to half as "standard" as MP3 in newer (and existing) portable audio players, car stereos, DVD players, CD players. Did you miss the part of the summary that says: "... the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device"?

Unlike Vorbis, FLAC, and other open formats, AAC requires a non-free-as-in-beer license.

As a bonus, it's smaller, better quality, and a heck of a lot easier to license than the craziness behind the MP3 and MPEG formats.

Only if you believe Apple's bullshit marketing. iTunes uses the shittiest MP3 encoder in existence (Fraunhofer's) and a very good AAC encoder (Quicktime). When using a good MP3 encoder (like LAME, which Amazon uses), the quality is equal to AAC at 128kbps+ bitrates except in a few rare musicical situations when listening on very good headphones or speakers.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25637105)

Only if you believe Apple's bullshit marketing ... except in a few rare musicical situations when listening on very good headphones or speakers.

so you just admitted he was right. aac is better.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637123)

Your alternative standard of choice (ogg, aac, wmv, flac) isn't the basic standard. It may be superior in many ways (size, sound quality, openness), but everyone has an MP3 player. As Sony proved several years back, you can't have a hardware player that doesn't play MP3's. It can play MP3's *and* another standard, but if it doesn't at least play MP3's it won't work with most people's equipment.

For those people who are aware enough to want AAC, get an AAC player. This branding is for those people who bought a car stereo which will play those newfangled computer disks or ipod thingies, and are confused by DRM about what will play on them.

BTW, MP3-only players are still cheaper to produce, as AAC, FLAC, and OGG require significantly more processing power.

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636943)

... was publicly available in December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. Since US patents must be filed by no later than a year after publication, some of the later patents are questionable, and MP3 may be patent free in the US by December of 2012.

December of 2012, why does that date sound familiar? 8^)

Re:For varying definitions of compatible? (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637265)

.. and MP3 may be patent free in the US by December of 2012.

Many esoteric sources interpret the completion of the thirteenth B'ak'tun cycle in the Long Count of the Maya calendar (which occurs on December 21 [2012] by the most widely held correlation) to mean there will be a major change in world order.

coincidence? i think not..

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (1)

dalurka (540445) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636433)

I think they mean that the file is 100% compatible with mp3-players. Ogg is not compatible with most portable music players.
But I think that the logo sucks if its purpose is to represent the absence of DRM in the songs..

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636435)

Try finding a media player that doesn't play mp3.
OK now compare that to the number of players that have no clue what an ogg file is.
100% is fine. Go bitch about open sores somewhere else.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636437)

I agree that mp3 is suboptimal, and I use flac or vorbis myself(rockbox ftw); but mp3 is pretty damn compatible. There exist several Free implementations of encoding and decoding, and Fluendo makes a binary version of their MIT licenced gstreamer plugin available, for free, with the mp3 licence fees paid. It isn't perfect; but it could be far, far worse. Also, mp3 is a fairly old format, all the relevant techniques and algorithms and whatnot are either unpatentable at this point, or already patented and on their way to expiration(I've seen estimates as optimistic as 2012 and as pessimistic as 2017).

I personally avoid mp3, and would encourage others to do the same, when they can; but I would argue that in the mass market, mp3 is by far the most Freedom friendly candidate(though, among demographics focused on audio quality, flac has strong potential).

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636579)

Its saying the file is 100% compatible with the MP3 format. As in, there's no additional DRM that has been tacked onto the MP3 file.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (2, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636931)

Proprietary and compatible do not have to be linked.

ogg is not closed source/proprietary, but despite this it only works on what, 60% of players? hardly "compatible". Being open source does not maketh compatible.

But then WMV9 is closed/proprietary, and only works in maybe 1/3 of the players. Probably an intersection of where "proprietary" marries "profit".

Then there's the third alternative, mp3. Proprietary, yet universally (100% for all practical purposes) supported.

Can you find an audio player that does NOT support MP3 but DOES support ogg? Maybe you can find one or two. But I bet I can find a heck of a lot more that do MP3 and not ogg.

Re:MP3 != 100% compatible (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637197)

Ogg is Open and Free As In Speech, but it's compatible with almost nothing. Yes, devices could be MADE compatible with it with no licensing costs, but good luck convincing Apple, who alone controls over two thirds of the mp3 player market with the iPod. I doubt the Zune supports ogg right now either, though I'm sure many of the less-popular players that are trying to nail as many features as possible in the hopes of taking a couple of Apple's customers support the format.

That's not knocking ogg - it's hardly the format's fault. But I don't think there's a portable player in existence that doesn't support mp3, and that's what consumers care about. And from that standpoint, mp3 is as close to 100% compatible as any format ever will be.

Ogg is fantastic for some things (game audio comes to mind, with zero licensing costs), but portable media player compatibility is unfortunately not one of them. Likewise for FLAC.

Wow! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636385)

A whole f*cking logo and your cuntry is deciding its next non-racist leader. GET A FUCKING LIFE.

Re:Wow! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636447)

I voted already and mindlessly gazing at the results as they come in or are speculated upon is not going to change the results.

Non-racist? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636497)

Where do you get that from? Why would the Messiah attend the church of a man who hates whites fr 20 years if he didn't agree with him?

Re:Wow! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636519)

You're right. Anything not related to the presidential election should grind to a halt. I stopped my clock so I would not look at it but watch the election instead.

Re:Wow! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636531)

You're right. Why not wind up your coding c(l)ocks as we speak

Re:Wow! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636707)

non-racist? no, i assure you, obama is a racist and those who support him were hoodwinked by his playing of the race card.

'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (3, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636399)

How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (5, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636547)

Of course they won't. Unauthorized use of that logo would be copyright infringement... oh, f-

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25637369)

No, it would probably be trademark infringement unless they didn't trademark the logo.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636585)

How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.

And your point is? They could tell me they have the cure for cancer and I, aware that I am on a freaking torrent site, will take that pronouncement with the required grains of salt.

Whole point's moot anyway. With Sony's rootkit et. al, do as Mulder did: Trust No One.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636909)

Use of this logo doesn't imply that you're legit, only that you're MP3-compatible.

Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit (3, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637247)

Well, if you use the logo and don't provide MP3 files to your customer, I'm pretty sure you've just gone and opened yourself up to a false advertising lawsuit.

Doesn't address piracy issues, but then again I don't tend to associate piracy issues with retail stores or well-known online sellers like Amazon.

mp3 is nice, but... (-1, Redundant)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636411)

"The 'MP3: 100% Compatible' logo allows the stores to emphasize the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device and won't keel over and die as DRM-laden files are wont to."

What about AAC? Ogg? Flac? I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (4, Insightful)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636469)

Because it's hard, if not impossible to find a player that doesn't support MP3. You actually have to look for OGG or FLAC support while buying. This is about making it easy for consumers, not forwarding the agenda of open source/format nazis. Maybe, just maybe, something not completely open is actually...good?

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (1, Troll)

amazon10x (737466) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636517)

mp3 is nice, but... (by rampant_mac)

Haha, a mac user complaining about proprietary formats.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (4, Informative)

phatvw (996438) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636563)

MP3 is supported on more handheld players and integrated chipsets that's why. It may not be the best compression scheme as there have been some great developments in psychoacoustics in the last 15 years, but MP3 just works.

Also, don't worry about Fraunhofer/Thomson. The patents are gonna expire in a couple years and none of the big companies have sued anyone for using LAME yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 [wikipedia.org]

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (1)

Politas (1535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636637)

Car stereos, DVD players, etc, etc. Ogg's a solution to a non-existent problem.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637295)

Solution to a non-existent problem? The gaming world seems to disagree, since Ogg is used in plenty of games [xiph.org] .

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636583)

I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

You don't seem to have a problem using it on proprietary devices.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (2, Informative)

Si-UCP (1359205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636733)

I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

You don't seem to have a problem using it on proprietary devices.

Rockbox [wikipedia.org] + your device with proprietary firmware (including iPods -- up to 5.5G) = your device with new, shiny open-source firmware, that, of course, supports .ogg.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (1)

runlevelfour (1329235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636795)

Nicely done. Sometimes you can almost hear the whip of whit come right back to crack the smartass. Fail + 2 Rockbox = good stuff.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636839)

whip of whit

I believe that the word you were looking for was "wit", not "whit". Not that I care a whit, mind you :)

HTH. HAND.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636961)

I'd be really curious to see if rampant_mac would sully his Apple goods (including his latest iMac) with free software, including a free operating system. And if he is, why is he bothering to pay for a Mac instead of buying a generic computer.

Re:mp3 is nice, but... (4, Funny)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636857)

I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

That's OK. The files will come pre-encoded.

EVIL PLAN! (1)

mrSteveBallmer (1345863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636413)

All of you cheap music stealing thieves out there make my skin crawl! You constantly come up with all types of stupid justifications for stealing other peoples content, intellectual property, music, .... Why don't you people use some of all that welfare money I send to the government for you and actually pay for your entertainment once in a while! Now you trailer people make up a logo! SHEESH! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Easier solution (5, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636415)

Swastika on all the DRM'ed files.

Re:Easier solution (5, Informative)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636441)

I'd imagine that would send the wrong message in India.

hm (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636417)

I don't understand this DRM stuff. I've never had a problem copying DRM music. and I've never tried, but I imagine I wouldn't have a problem copying DRM movies. and I'm not that smart, I know lots of people smarter than me. I guess it keeps the honest people honest.

Re:hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636505)

You must be new here.

A Good Idea Really (1)

ITEric (1392795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636533)

Let's face it, I'd probably never buy a song on-line if I had any doubts about whether I'd have to put up with DRMBS, and many others probably feel the same. The nifty little logo would make me much more likely to part with my cash because I would expect to actually get my moneys worth from DRM free files.

Re:A Good Idea Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636593)

Strictly speaking, wouldn't you be merely renting a DRM'd song? :)

A Great idea, really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636555)

Only if 100% Compatible means 100% Copyable

Could have used a better name (5, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636595)

Wow, what a mouthful. 12 syllables. "MP3 100% Compatible" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. They should have gone with something shorter, catchier, but with the same meaning... like "plays for sure!" or something.

I'm a bit suspicious ... (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636605)

The BPI â" the UK equivalent of the RIAA â" is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores.

I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones. Makes me think that as soon as they have people aware that MP3 is different than whatever it is they're offering, they'll start spending billions vilifying MP3 files. These guys are sneaky and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

Re:I'm a bit suspicious ... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25637351)

I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones.

I disagree. It is not odd at all.
They are trying to break the back of iTunes and preventing anything like it from ever arising again.

It drives them insane that a 3rd party has the kind of market power that lets it set pricing on their product.

WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636711)

how unique and profound of a logo. I could have come up with that in my sleep.

Almost! Just a little more thought needed (1, Redundant)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#25636743)

If they'd only thought it through a bit more, they could've come up with a catchy, easily-remembered name.

Like, for example, PlaysForSure.

what's with all the 'not' tags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636763)

sorry this is offtopic.

currently there is a !whataboutogg tag. 'not what about ogg'?? that doesn't make any sense!! the 'not' tags have gotten out of control.

can someone explain this to me?

Slashdot's priorities (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636835)

Obama has just won the election, and this is what Slashdot writes about. And no, the logo doesn't actually mention DRM. And yes, the logo only touts MP3, leaving Vorbis where? I mean it's nice to see some positive development on this front, but as the actual issues are muddied as ever.

Re:Slashdot's priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25636889)

Everyone already knows, do you think slashdot needs to post the same shit?

what does it mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25637285)

Is there something as "MP3 99% compatible"? Or "50% compatible"? I know what a non-CD is, does anything comparable (DRM-encumbered, will probably play but breaks the standard) exist for MP3? Or is "100% compatible" just blurb?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...