Posted by Zonk on Tuesday January 23, @12:38PM
- from the cue-the-gunfight-music dept.

seriouslywtf writes

"Europe is upping the pressure on Apple to open up its restrictive DRM that ties iTunes to the iPod. Norway ruled last year that the iPod-iTunes tie-in was unreasonable and gave Apple a deadline to make a change to its policies, but was unsatisfied with the response they got. Now France and Germany have joined forces with Norway, making it a lot harder for Apple to just walk away from those markets.

From the article: 'France's consumer lobby group, UFC-Que Choisir, and Germany's Verbraucherzentrale are now part of the European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system, with more countries considering joining the group. However, the company has been under some fire over the last year due to those restrictions, first with France and then Denmark looking to open up restrictive DRM schemes (including, but not limited to iTunes) ... Norwegian consumer groups were unimpressed by Apple's response. Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies, and the pressure on Apple will likely grow in the months leading up to the deadline.'"

1/22/2007 2:54:05 PM, by Jacqui Cheng

Apple is being challenged once again to open up its DRM by consumer groups in Europe. This time, Germany and France have joined the slowly-growing number of countries who are asking Apple to allow the protected songs purchased from the iTunes Store to be played on other music players besides the iPod. Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman Bjoern Erik Thon told the Associated Press that France's consumer lobby group, UFC-Que Choisir, and Germany's Verbraucherzentrale are now part of the European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system, with more countries considering joining the group.

By now, everyone who owns a digital music player of any sort is painfully aware that buying music from a particular online store locks them into that platform. Apple, the current market leader in both online music and digital music player sales, has been particularly stubborn about allowing its protected AAC files to be played on anything but iPods.

However, the company has been under some fire over the last year due to those restrictions, first with France and then Denmark looking to open up restrictive DRM schemes (including, but not limited to iTunes). Neither of those forced Apple to open up their FairPlay DRM, but last June, Norway ruled that the iTunes-iPod tie-in was unreasonable. Norway's Consumer Ombudsman gave Apple a deadline of June 21, 2006 to come up with a solution, but the deadline then got pushed back to August 1, 2006. Norwegian consumer groups were unimpressed by Apple's response.

Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies, and the pressure on Apple will likely grow in the months leading up to the deadline. "This is important because Germany and France are European giants. Germany, in particular, is a big market for digital music," Thon said to the AP. Who will be next to join the group and how will Apple respond to the growing pressure?

Original URL: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070122-8676.html

Steve Jobs

February 6, 2007

With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.

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.

The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.

Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be able to play on a downloader’s computer or portable music device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.

The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free (and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that, so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple’s DRM system is called FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have been able to successfully repair them through updating the iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music.

With this background, let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.

The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.

Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.

Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full.  This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats.  Its hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future.  And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.

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. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free  and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.

Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries.  Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free.  For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard.  The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company.  EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company.  Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace.  Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

Original URL: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic

Below are readings and articles related to the ongoing format wars, copyright debate, and digital signature technologies for music.

This assignment is in three parts.  First, record several sources using both the dynamic and condenser microphones in the studios.  Second, upload your sounds to an account on Freesound.  Finally, using these sounds, those available in the CEMC sflib directory, and any others you find on the Freesound site as material, design a physical mapping of these sounds onto a keyboard or other MIDI device.  Use the resulting "instrument" to create a short piece, around 1 minute.

Please turn in a zip archive of a folder containing the following:

1. The sounds themselves, within their own folder.  You can organize them however it is useful to your work but I recommend names which make them easy to access and use.  See sflib for suggestions.

• please include "unused" sounds as well, sounds which did not make it into your piece either because they seem to server another purpose or did not fit with the musical idea.

2. The Reason or Live file containing your MIDI mappings. 

3. Your short piece as a WAVE of AIFF audio file.  Be as creative as you like but think of this as a real piece, something musical or informative or documentary, etc.  Some ideas:

A collage piece ala musique concrete
A documentary or commentary
A poem with accompanimental sounds/music

You may have other ideas, the point is to stretch out and be creative.

Please name the resulting directory (before zip'ping it up):

220_assign1_netID_title

...where "netID" is your netID and "title" is the title (if any) of your short piece.

Music 220: Computers in Music Performance

Professor Kevin Ernste
kme32@cornell.edu
Office: B27 and 108 Lincoln Hall
Office Hours: Thursdays 1 – 2:30, Fridays 11 – 1
Office Phone: 255-5795 (CEMC)

Course website: http://digital.music.cornell.edu
  - please visit the website and register a username

Music 220 is an exploration of strategies and techniques for live performance with computers.  As such, a substantial portion of our time will be spent working with software directly, although “learning software” is not our explicit goal.  In developing our awareness of tools for live music we will explore several performance metaphors: DJ, interactivity, multimedia, installation, and several others.  We will engage a broad array of software and hardware combinations with a focus on their creative uses.

In addition to commercially available software, students will be introduced to a number of excellent free software tools, many with unique designs and functionality.  All tools are available for download on the website (see “free tools”).  I encourage students to use this course to begin imagining an individualized musical toolkit and free software is a great place to start.

Course requirements include three composition projects, one for each of the three parts of the course (see the semester schedule below).  The last of these pieces will be presented at the Sound Art Forum concert at the semester's end.  In addition, there will be weekly or bi-weekly assignments to be carried out on the student's own time.  Studios are available for this purpose and students may sign up for individual times online.  Visit the course website and follow the link to “studios”.

Grading for the semester is broken down as follows:

    10% Class participation (make yourself heard in class and online)
    30% Weekly/bi-weekly assignments
    30% Two mid-semester projects (15% each)
    30% Final project and performance

All work must be turned in on time.  Late work will be graded one letter grade lower and work turned in more than two weeks late will not be accepted.  The final performance is mandatory and non-participation will result in automatic failure (participation and final project grade lost).

Facilities: The Cornell Electroacoustic Music Center's studios B25B, C, and D will be our primary studios with more stations available in the new music library lab located on the 2nd floor of Lincoln.  In addition, some of the software used in Music 220 is available for use in the Uris Library CL3 (Creation Station) lab where there are 11 Windows machines as well as some hardware which you will come to know (Korg KONTROL49 keyboard, SM58 microphone, etc).

All assignments and project are to be handed in on the CEMC network drive, an online storage area where you can backup or relay data from one studio/system.  Details will be discussed.
Semester Schedule

PART I: Live Performance Fundamentals

< Week 1 – January 22nd and 24th
    Course introduction and logistics; website information; performance examples

< Week 2 – January 29th and January 31st
    Digital audio fundamentals, review

< Week 3 – February 5th and 7th
    Microphone types and placement, studio and remote recording

< Week 4 – February 12th and 14th
    Hardware and software configurations, signal path; MIDI and messaging

< Week 5 – February 19th and 21st
    Live audio: signal path and processing, sound reinforcement; Concert one, Thursday February 22nd

PART II: Connectivity and Interactivity

< Week 6 – February 26th and February 28th
    Live processing, real-time considerations for DSP; interactive technologies

< Week 7 – March 4th and 6th
    Introduction to graphical programming with PureData (PD)

< Week 8 – March 11th and 13th
    PD continued: control data, audio signals; designing user interfaces

< Week 9 – SPRING BREAK

< Week 10 – March 25th and 27th
    PD and JACK, MIDI, networking, and OSC (Open Sound Control)

< Week 11– April 1st and 3rd
    Collaborative/cooperative creative work; Concert two, Thursday April 3rd

PART III: Interfaces

< Week 12 – April 8th and 10th
    Multimedia; sound art, installations, and the web

< Week 13 – April 15th and 17th
    New and experimental interfaces for performance; DIY technologies

< Week 14 – April 22nd and 24th
    Modularity and software toolkits; DIY technologies continued

< Week 15 – April 29th and May 1st
    Final Concert planning: pieces, logistics, publicity

Final Concert: Sound Art Forum, Date, time, and place TBA

Handing in of weekly/bi-weekly assignments can be done from any of the 3 studios.  Look on the Desktop for the "assignments" disk.  Inside you will find folder for each assignment (assignment_1, assignment_2, etc).  In most cases you should be handing in a WAVE audio file (uncompressed format).  You must name the file with your netID for identification purposes.  I would recommend a more complete title such as:

1421_a2_kme32-my_latest_tune.wav

The above format says the course number, the assignement number (a2 for assignment 2), my netID, and the title of the track.  Note the use of underscores and hyphens rather than spaces.  This is CRITICAL for tracks which will end up online.  I highly recommend getting used to filenames without spaces.

Assignments involving multiple files should be compiled into a single .zip archive to be handed in.  This is accomplished on either Mac OS or Windows by moving all desired files into a folder, right-clicking on said folder, and choosing "create Archive of ..." or comparable option.

For this assignment, you must download PureData or use the version installed in the studios.  Installers for all operating systems can be found here:

http://puredata.info/downloads

Using PD, build a classical feedback delay effect. Make all settings variable/changeable either through direct input or through "send/receive" pairs. You may even wish to invent relationships between parameters such that everything is controlled from one value. This may or may not make musical sense. The goal is to build a working patch which makes sound. We will examine further methods of input soon looking toward a performance interface with PD.

Attached below is a working example from lecture (you may have to choose "Save link as..." to download!!).  You may wish to model your patch after this one or build upon it's logic.

Object to use:    
adc~ (audio input)
dac~ (audio output)
delwrite~ (must have matching delread~)
delread~ (must have matching delwrite~)
 *~ (audio multiplier for gain)
+~ (audio addition for mixing)

Optional (from "Put" menu):    
vslider or hslider (vertical or horizontal)

For the first project you will creating a short piece using the techniques and applications used in the course thus far. You should shoot for 2-3 minutes of music although slightly shorter or longer projects are possible. You must turn in the final project as a .wav or .aiff audio file. The key is to give me a final, uncompressed audio format suitable for listening and evaluating. I may look at the Cubase or Audacity project if you provide one, but I am primarily interested in the musical results. For those who prefer guidelines, here are a few suggested project types:

1. A "song" made from a multi-track recording and mixdown. Using the recording techniques from the course, record multiple layer/tracks to be processed and mixed. Ideally you would use Cubase for this as it is the most flexible environment for the kinds of non-destructive editing techniques you will likely be using.

2. A collage/pastiche piece using your own samples, those from the soundfile library (sflib), or sounds from other legal sources (freesound, etc). For examples of how this might work you can further explore Varese's "Poem Electronique" in the sflib folder "listening" or read about and listen to pieces by composers of musique concrete such as Pierre Henry and Pierre Shaffer. I recommend Symphony pour un homme seul ("Symphony for a Man Alone"), a piece created by both men in collaboration (Henry is attributed as the composer) or in the Cornell music library, Henry's Entite ("Entity"), call number Rec 175 E4 E31.

3. Some combination of the above two or any other interesting format you can dream up. Some have done audio diaries, audio documentaries, poems, DJ mashups, and on and on.  Please be in touch if you have any questions or need further guidance on your project.

Happy music making!

1. Select block or range you wish to export (doing "select all" and then "transport -->locators to selection" -- shortcut "p" -- will set the range selection to span the entire project.

2. Choose "File -->Export --> Audio Mixdown...".

3. In the export dialogue you should see the default settings, something like:

• Stereo interleaved
• 44100
• 16bit
• Stereo Master output

You can, of course, modify these dialog settings if you know that you want something specific. For example, you may wish to export an individual mono track by itself. Here you would choose "mono" instead of "stereo interleaved". Or you may be working in a higher sampling or bit rate and may wish to preserve this fidelity by exporting at the same high values.

---

NOTE: Please remember to always export audio or video TO THE LOCAL HARD DISK OR LOCAL SOUND DISK.  Do not attempt to export directly to the Network Drive, this will very likely cause problems or may not work at all. 

If you are exporting a file to be handed in for a CEMC course, please do:

1. Export file to local disk, ideally your personal folder on the Sound disk

2. THEN copy the resulting exported file to the Network Drive.