What will Save Film?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Oct 4, 2005.

  1. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    As is often the case, you assume much but are totally wrong. I've
    never downloaded any of the music files you speak of even though I
    have several of Sony's coupons that allow for a few free downloads
    of their commercial audio. And if bootleg copies of their ATRAC
    audio files were downloadable from other sources, I wouldn't be able
    to use them All of the audio files I have were created entirely on
    my own using Sony's MiniDisc recorders and have had DRM applied by
    the hardware. This is with recent "Hi-MD" technology that allows
    discs to contain files of any type, and for them to be copied (via
    USB) to any computer. With one exception. Audio files created on
    the MiniDisc recorder must either be "played" to the computer
    through audio cables (suffering a bit of generation loss) or copied
    using Sony's software which enforces DRM rules. Older MiniDiscs
    (prior to Hi-MD) had to use audio transfer. USB was one-way only,
    from computer to MiniDisc, and the discs themselves can't be copied,
    at least with any hardware available to the public.

    For the same reason Sony has tried to enforce DRM on audio files
    that I've created myself. Sony has a large music catalog and they
    try to protect their music from being copied. Have you seen what
    they do to their latest audio CDs? They also sell video, and while
    today you can't store a 100% identical copy of one of their
    commercial DVDs on a flash card and play it back in high quality on
    your camera's 3 1/2" LDC or the monitor the camera is connected to,
    they sure would love to find a way to prevent it with tomorrow's
    higher quality hardware. Adding DRM to future cameras would be no
    more difficult than adding it to their MiniDiscs, and if it is
    built-in to protect video files, applying it to still images may
    piggyback as an unintentional(?) side effect. I think that (going
    back several years) audio content created on Sony's PDAs could only
    be played back on the computer it was first copied to. But the
    details I recall are very sketchy and others probably know more
    about it.
    ASAAR, Oct 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Maybe I wasn't clear.
    You are talking about Sony's music files, and I'm talking about *your*
    Those Sony music files aren't *yours*, they are Sony's. Sony licenses
    them to you. Any DRM they want to apply is their right.
    When you make your own music, *you* get to assign any DRM you want to.

    You didn't address how DRM will affect your own photo files.
    Bill Funk, Oct 10, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Roger Guest

    Probably, "if the equipment exists" and the CDs have not been abused
    and they are some of the better ones. The likelyhood of backward
    compatible equipment to read 70 year old disks is pretty slim.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    Roger, Oct 10, 2005
  4. Annika1980

    Paul Allen Guest

    I don't think you read what he wrote. The audio files he says Sony's
    DRM blocked were his own creative content. Not Sony's. His own.
    For another example of what's around the corner, have a look at
    this Seagate pitch:

    http://web.cs.missouri.edu/~zeng/CCNC05DRM/DRM Support in Secure Disk Drives.pdf

    The contents of your disk drive are encrypted with a key you don't
    control. If your disk doesn't like any hardware or software it finds
    on your system, it refuses to give you your files. If actually
    deployed, this stuff doesn't just throw fair use out the window.
    It means your computer and any other digital stuff you thought you
    owned is actually owned and controlled by the big content companies.
    If you want to put your photos on your disk and get them back later,
    you'd better use only their trusted hardware and software. They've
    got you by the short hairs, which is where they've wanted you all
    along in case you hadn't noticed.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Oct 10, 2005
  5. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    You're still confused. I was NEVER discussing any of Sony's or
    any other "downloaded" music files. You brought that up. From the
    beginning I was talking about files that I create using my own
    hardware. To save you the trouble of going back through the thread,
    here it is again:
    You specifically said "your own files" and somehow assumed that I
    wasn't talking about my own files, because you were unfamiliar with
    the hardware DRM built into Sony and other brands of MiniDisc
    recorders. To repeat - all of the audio files I've created using a
    stereo microphone, of myself and friends and family members have ALL
    been recorded with DRM, and I have no way to disable the DRM.

    You then replied:
    Do you see that? It was YOU that introduced the subject of
    downloaded music files. I specifically told you after that, that I
    never downloaded any of these. It should have been crystal clear to
    anyone following this thread that I had been talking about my own,
    personal audio files. Files that I personally created.

    True. I haven't disputed that. I did say that even though I have
    coupons to download several of these at no cost, I have chosen not
    to do so.

    Wrong again. As I've already said, whatever I record has DRM
    applied, whether I like it or not. Not being familiar with MiniDisc
    hardware doesn't absolve you of making obtuse statements. But I
    realize that you'll keep on doing that because . . . well, because
    you seem to have a skin thick enough to keep doing so where others
    would desist out of embarrassment.

    I shouldn't need to as I already provided hints that should be
    obvious to anyone reading and not skimming. Can you guess why I
    mentioned XP's forced registration? But if it's anything like the
    way audio DRM works, you'd get to create up to three copies and
    could do with them as you wish. But none of these copies (of the
    audio files) could have 100% identical copies made of them. As I've
    already said, you could create as many copies as you want if you
    don't mind doing it with audio cables, but then each analog
    generation would lose a bit of fidelity compared with the original
    and the (up to) 3 digital DRM'd copies. As applied to image files,
    If the same process was followed by camera manufacturers as Sony
    does with their MiniDiscs, to transfer the images to a computer you
    would have to use the manufacturer's proprietary software. And then
    the files would be saved in a database only accessible by that same
    software. It could allow you to edit the images, print as many
    copies as you wish, and even save as many JPEG copies. But the
    highest quality originals (corresponding to RAW files) would be

    Personally It wouldn't bother me very much, as I don't yet deal
    with RAW files, and I'm already losing a bit of "fidelity" by
    working with JPEG image files. But it could be a real annoyance to
    anyone needing to distribute multiple original copies for business
    purposes, where only the highest quality is acceptable. DRM could
    also be extended to the JPEG files, not so much to limit the number
    of copies made, but to prevent certain types of embedded
    information, such as EXIF data, and other identifying data, from
    being removed.
    ASAAR, Oct 10, 2005
  6. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    WHy do you use minidiscs that do that? Why not use non-Sony hardware?
    Then, again, why do you use Sony hardware?
    Bill Funk, Oct 10, 2005
  7. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    There are non-Sony MiniDisc player/recorders, but they all have
    the same DRM built-in. Even with the limitations of DRM, MiniDisc
    recorders are far superior to tape recorders, and generally much
    smaller. They use inexpensive media that's not only far more
    durable than CDs, but capable of recording at far higher fidelity
    than tape, and up to 33 hours per disc. Tape recorders don't have
    DRM built in, but then you can't transfer the contents of a taped
    recording at high speed through a USB connection to a computer
    either, which is essentially DRM's biggest limitation with MD

    Answered above. Even with DRM, the non-DRM alternatives are far
    worse, from my POV anyway. DAT recorders are much more expensive,
    and has a much shorter useful life (heads wear out at an alarmingly
    high rate). Its fidelity can be very slightly higher than MD, but
    most people couldn't tell the difference using the finest headphones
    or speakers. And DAT tapes are relatively expensive, fragile and
    hard to find compared with MiniDiscs. There are also some recent
    recorders that use CF cards for media, but they are also more
    expensive, not as compact and portable, and CF is far too expensive
    to be used for archival purposes, as is routinely done using tape or
    discs. Along with their excellent fidelity, MD recorders easily fit
    in a shirt pocket, and can operate many, many hours, either from a
    single AA battery, or from Sony's much slimmer "gumstick" NiMH and
    Li-Ion batteries.
    ASAAR, Oct 10, 2005
  8. Annika1980

    bob Guest

    You can buy "studio" MD decks that will strip the SCMS bits, if that's what
    you're talking about.

    I always just use the line out jacks and record wav. No DRM there. There
    are hypothetical losses in MD > .wav, but they're trivial compared to the
    original lossy MD compression.

    bob, Oct 10, 2005
  9. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    That can help, and there are boxes you can buy that will also
    strip those bits. But those decks are expensive (if you can find
    them) and I don't think that any of them support Hi-MD, which is
    needed to produce the only MD formats that I use.

    Have you heard the better compression (ATRAC3 Plus) used by Hi-MD
    recorders? Even the highest compression doesn't have the noticeable
    artifacts produced by standard MD recorders. (This is mentioned in
    Sony's manuals). And Hi-MD recorders can make PCM recordings that
    don't use compression. That said, I agree that using line out jacks
    produces sufficiently high quality that's enough to satisfy *me*.
    But when I make my own recordings (up to 33 hours per disc, over 10
    hours using standard discs) it would be nice to be able to copy
    these at high speed to a computer in minutes, instead of taking 33
    or 10 hours to "play" them into the computer.
    ASAAR, Oct 10, 2005
  10. Annika1980

    bob Guest

    No -- My Sharp is an MD-LP unit. If I do A/B comparisons I can hear the
    artifacts, but for what I record, the way I record it, I'm just not
    bothered by whatever artifacts may exist.
    Good point. My recordings are only 160 minutes (LP-2), but it's still
    inconvenient. I usually set it up and do yardwork. For 33 hours you'd
    almost need an extra computer.

    bob, Oct 10, 2005
  11. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    Fair enough.
    I am presuming, then, that you don' tmake your music in a studio?
    Bill Funk, Oct 10, 2005
  12. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    Though recently I've improved considerably, my "music" is not
    worthy of being recorded. I may not have caught all instances, but
    I've tried to use the term "audio" rather than "music". Most of
    what I've recorded is speech, sometimes using a microphone,
    sometimes capturing broadcasts. The few music uses have been to
    make more convienient copies of purchased CDs. Fortunately, Sony's
    CDs (at least one that I hook up to the MD recorder with an optical
    cable) doesn't impose DRM. And unlike if I had made copies to tape,
    it doesn't produce a single, long copy. The copy maintains all of
    the individual tracks. Using A/B comparisons between the original
    CD and the copies made using Hi-MD's greatest compression, I can
    only rarely spot any differences, and they have been so subtle as to
    be not worth worrying about. It's nice to be able to have 35 or
    more CDs copied onto a single MD disc, smaller than a 3 1/4" floppy.
    And while it's a bit larger than most of the tiny mp3 players, it's
    a good deal smaller than most hard drive based mp3 players, easily
    fits in a shirt pocket, and doesn't require an expensive proprietary
    battery which might have to be replaced every year or two as with
    Apple's iPod. Playback time using one AA battery is far longer too.
    I don't have any of Sony's latest line of Hi-MD recorders, but I
    hear that they've slightly loosened the DRM imposed restrictions,
    and now allow not only their superior ATRAC format, but mp3 files to
    be copied to disc and played back as well.
    ASAAR, Oct 11, 2005
  13. Clueless about photography...clueless about MP3 players. At least
    you're consistent.

    The iPod does not require a yearly battery change. The simplicity and
    elegance of the device far outshines any competitor. (Maybe that's why
    Apple has 85% of the MP3 player market?)
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 11, 2005
  14. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    That's amusing, coming from you. <g>

    I never said it "requires" a yearly battery change. With a single
    statement you've made two stupid errors. Take a peek:

    You ignored the clearly stated "or two". I also said that they
    the iPod's batteries "might" have to be replaced, not that everyone
    WOULD HAVE TO replace the batteries yearly. Are you a doofus or are
    you a doofus? No need to answer that, as it would prove that you're
    a doofus. In fact, Apple got tons of bad publicity for initially
    refusing to replace their expensive iPod batteries which in many
    cases DID fail early, a good number in less than a year. Many iPod
    owners use them extensively, and Li-ion batteries have considerably
    fewer recharge cycles than NiMH batteries, so it would be expected
    that many would begin to fail after only a year if they were used
    daily. Such are the habits of many Pod people.

    Apple specifically said in mail sent to unhappy owners that when
    the battery died, it was time for the user to replace the entire
    iPod. The bad publicity that this generated eventually forced them
    to change their policy. I don't know what it is now, but initially
    it amounted to them replacing the battery if the user subscribed to
    a yearly warranty costing $100. If they elected to forego the
    warranty, they could get Apple to replace the battery for a higher
    charge, which I think was about $150.

    McDonalds may have a giant share of their market, but it's for a
    different reason, one which is shared by Apple - the simplicity and
    elegance of their ad campaigns. The iPod isn't a bad device, but
    some of the newer ones (that use random playlists) have even more
    simplicity, but they're targeted more towards simpletons. Do you
    own one? <g>
    ASAAR, Oct 11, 2005
  15. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    How often, calendarwise, an iPod requires a new battery would depend on
    how it was used, but reports do seem to indicate that the batteries have
    a limited use life, and aren't easy to replace.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 11, 2005
  16. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Randall is just a Macfanatic. He deserves some sympathy.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 11, 2005
  17. Annika1980

    Howard Roark Guest


    You can get a replacement battery for $29.95. Replacing your old one
    with it takes 15 minutes. Anybody can do it. Even grumpy old men like

    Howard Roark, Oct 11, 2005
  18. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    Grumps like Randall may well be able to change the batteries, but
    I'd be willing to bet that millions of iPod owners would be
    unwilling to try. Unless I'm mistaken, the original iPods had
    batteries that required a soldering iron to replace them. Perhaps
    that has changed with newer versions? A very large number of VCR
    owners can't set them in advance to record programs and are
    unwilling to try. Such folk would also be unlikely battery
    replacers, and probably wouldn't know that they could be replaced.
    If bundled Apple literature tells them that they must send the iPods
    back to Apple to replace the batteries they may take that as the
    final word. You may know where to get $29.95 replacements (did
    yours require a soldering iron?), but a lot of people wouldn't be
    aware enough to even search the internet for them, especially if
    they've never before ordered products via the internet. Don't
    forget that Apple has designed their products and ad campaigns to
    appeal to people that appreciate simplicity and probably aren't
    computer hackers that are familiar with electronic tools and
    techniques. If I had an iPod, I'd replace the batteries myself,
    just as you did, but I wouldn't think that the majority of iPod
    owners would give it serious consideration.
    ASAAR, Oct 11, 2005
  19. Annika1980

    Howard Roark Guest

    It's easier than programming a VCR. Take a look:


    A trained monkey could do that.

    Howard Roark, Oct 11, 2005
  20. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    No thanks. It would have been quicker for you to give a brief
    description. I have no desire to waste bandwidth reading how to do
    something I'll never do, and could do if forced to (most likely for
    someone else) without needing instructions. :)

    You evidently missed my point. Many iPod owners have had no such
    training and would refuse to replace their batteries even if you
    offered a banana as an inducement.
    ASAAR, Oct 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.