Comments on: Circumventing Anti-Circumvention: A Beginner’s Guide http://ipinthedigitalage.com/circumventing-anti-circumvention-a-beginners-guide/ CPSC 182 at Yale College Mon, 18 May 2009 01:26:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Evin M http://ipinthedigitalage.com/circumventing-anti-circumvention-a-beginners-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-795 Evin M Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:33:21 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=275#comment-795 PS...if you were wondering, here's the patent http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=darian&OS=darian&RS=darian PS…if you were wondering, here’s the patent
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=darian&OS=darian&RS=darian

]]> By: Evin M http://ipinthedigitalage.com/circumventing-anti-circumvention-a-beginners-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-794 Evin M Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:33:03 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=275#comment-794 It seems SO unfair that Apple is charging $.30 a pop to "upgrade" to DRM-free tracks. I mean, I understand that it's an upgrade in music quality from 128 Kbps AAC encoded files to 256 Kbps AAC encoded files, but I'm just a casual listener. I would wager that most people are as well. That is, I am not overbearingly concerned with the difference of twice the kbps of my workout playlist when I'm running on a treadmill. It seems like Apple/the big 4 are scrambling for alternative methods of using download technology to make more money. If they were to pull in 30 cents for six billion downloads, they're playing with $1.8 billion. Not bad. A crazy new idea for incentivizing legal (purchased) music downloads was filed in the patent office in October. In short, "A user can buy ownership shares or the bundled offering and then own the rights to dividends in the future sales of the product. Further, the user may trade the shares on the trading exchange." Basically, it gives you a stake in the future revenue of the track you're buying when you purchase it. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I think that this method would further attempt to justify Apple's charges for DRM-free tracks. I don't think an increase in kb per second is sufficient cause for this outrageous charge. It seems SO unfair that Apple is charging $.30 a pop to “upgrade” to DRM-free tracks. I mean, I understand that it’s an upgrade in music quality from 128 Kbps AAC encoded files to 256 Kbps AAC encoded files, but I’m just a casual listener. I would wager that most people are as well. That is, I am not overbearingly concerned with the difference of twice the kbps of my workout playlist when I’m running on a treadmill.

It seems like Apple/the big 4 are scrambling for alternative methods of using download technology to make more money. If they were to pull in 30 cents for six billion downloads, they’re playing with $1.8 billion. Not bad. A crazy new idea for incentivizing legal (purchased) music downloads was filed in the patent office in October. In short, “A user can buy ownership shares or the bundled offering and then own the rights to dividends in the future sales of the product. Further, the user may trade the shares on the trading exchange.” Basically, it gives you a stake in the future revenue of the track you’re buying when you purchase it. I’m not sure how I feel about it, but I think that this method would further attempt to justify Apple’s charges for DRM-free tracks. I don’t think an increase in kb per second is sufficient cause for this outrageous charge.

]]>