Last week, a music site called BlueBeat made headlines by offering Beatles songs as free streams and 25 cent downloads. The Beatles are known for not making their songs legally available on iTunes or any other online forum, so observers rightly asked "how are they doing this legally?"
EMI, the record label that owns The Beatles' recordings, has a simple response: they're not doing this legally. But here's where the story gets very strange.
The legal reasoning in this case is straight out of "Alice in Wonderland."
(Credit: Wikimedia Commons (public domain illustration))BlueBeat is owned by a company called Media Rights Technologies, which specializes in digital rights management technology. DRM is supposed to be used to prevent copyright infringement. But according to a 2007 blog post on HuffingtonPost.com by the company's founder, Hank Risan, MRT backed into this business after being--get this--targeted by the RIAA for copyright infringement.
As Risan explains in his post, he and a partner had posted a bunch of streaming-audio files to a Web site about the history of music. The RIAA issued a takedown notice, and the site took the streams down.
The streams had been protected by Windows Media DRM, but according to Risan, an update to the Media Player broke the DRM. In response to this flaw, Risan created MRT and built his own DRM system, which he claimed would be far more robust than the systems on the market at that time. Then, in 2007, MRT sent cease-and-desist letters to Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and RealNetworks, ordering them to use MRT's DRM technology instead of their own, on threat of legal action.
The legal reasoning was twisted--basically, MRT argued that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act should force these companies to use the most robust DRM technology available, even if that technology was created by somebody else. Predictably, nothing ever came of this demand.
MRT's legal reasoning is equally funny this time around, as Ars Technica reports. According to the report, MRT claims that it didn't post the exact Beatles recordings. Instead, it posted "psychoacoustic simulations," then added simple video content to them. This constitutes a new audiovisual work, and isn't covered by the existing copyrights, MRT argues. In fact, MRT even went so far as to apply for copyrights on the "new" works!
Perhaps this is all some kind of metacommentary on the frustrating inconsistency of U.S. copyright law, but I predict that MRT is going to be laughed out of court. In the meantime, if you want your Beatles music online, it's still available on BlueBeat as of the time I posted this. I didn't want to give the company a credit card to test the whether the downloads work, but the streams sound pretty close to perfect...especially considering that they're only psychoacoustic simulations.
Most of the audio engineers I've met--both home and professional--are Mac people, and Avid's ProTools running on a Mac is often cited as the industry standard. But there are Windows loyalists out there.
In late 2007 I took an introductory audio production class taught by David Huber (who wrote one of the bibles on the subject, "Modern Recording Techniques") and Scott Colburn (who has produced albums by The Arcade Fire, Animal Collective, and Sun City Girls, among many others). Both of them used Nuendo from Steinberg (which is basically the upmarket version of Cubase) as their primary digital audio workstation (DAW), and they ran it on a Windows PC.
Windows 7 should offer better performance for digital audio than Vista.
A Windows XP PC, that is. Both were very diplomatic when discussing software and other gear, but they expressed pretty serious reservations about Vista. Microsoft made a ton of changes in Vista that were supposed to improve performance, including moving certain audio capabilities out of the kernel, but these experts--whose livelihood depends on having a high-performing DAW--thought it was too untested and unknown.
Although they didn't say so, I imagine that the driver incompatibilities reported with other hardware could have been an absolute nightmare with all the gear in a professional recording rig. There were also reports of unstable MIDI timing, drop-outs, latency, and other problems (many of which were addressed by Service Pack 1). They weren't alone: the general advice for audio engineers on Windows was stick with XP. (If anybody had a success story using Vista to build a DAW, I'd love to hear about it in comments.)
In case you haven't heard, Microsoft releases a new version of Windows next week. I've been using the RTM version for a few weeks now and find it far more stable and inviting than Vista was at launch. (Although a colleague did uncover a gnarly power-management problem in Media Center related to a faulty audio driver.) Now, some of the audio experts are starting to weigh in, and it looks like the work Microsoft did to improve performance and compatibility with Windows 7 are paying off in the world of audio production.
Noel Borthwick, the chief technical officer for Cakewalk--which makes a wide variety of audio software for Windows, including the Sonar DAW line--has posted a blog entry describing how the new OS should dramatically reduce latency, particularly on x64 multicore processors. (Borthwick also went into more obsessive detail on Peter Kirn's Create Digital Music blog.) His conclusion: "I will be building a new DAW soon and Windows 7 X64 will be my OS of choice."
The long and short of it? If you're building a new recording system, Windows 7 sounds like a more reasonable choice than Vista. But if you've got a system that's already working well, don't mess with it--there still might be driver incompatibilities with older gear, and upgrades from Windows XP require a clean install, meaning your old settings will be lost and you'll have to reinstall your apps.
Correction, 2:34 PDT: This post incorrectly characterized the audio-related changes that Microsoft made in Windows Vista. Microsoft moved certain audio functions out of the kernel and into the user stack.
Microsoft is banking on multitouch support as one selling point for Windows 7, and HP--traditionally a loyal supporter of Microsoft's consumer strategy--is helping the push by releasing an update to its TouchScreen PCs.
The touch-enabled version of Rhapsody for HP's TouchSmart PCs lets you search by writing an artist's name on the screen.
HP has worked with several partners to create touch-enabled versions of various consumer entertainment apps, including Hulu, Netflix, and Pandora Internet Radio, but hard-core music fans will probably be most interested in the touch-enabled version of Rhapsody.
Among the cool features: you'll be able to write the name of an artist directly on the screen, and Rhapsody will take you to that artist's page so you can begin listening to their songs. (Check out the video demo on RealNetworks' blog.)
More generally, Rhapsody remains one of my favorite subscription-based services, with a great selection and strong editorial content. While my other favorite, Microsoft's Zune Pass, offers a slightly better deal with 10 free downloads per month in addition to unlimited streaming, Rhapsody works with Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch. The Zune Pass does not.
Unfortunately, the TouchScreen only comes with a 14-day free trial, which seems a bit paltry: earlier this month Dell announced it would ship some new consumer laptops with a one-year free subscription to Napster, which includes the right to download 60 permanent files over the course of the year.
The more time I spend with my Zune HD, the more I like it. Sound quality aside--and I know opinions differ dramatically here, but I'm stuck with my ears and my preferences--there are a bunch of features that make Apple's products seem like they've fallen behind the curve. Here are five things in particular that I miss when I use my iPhone or one of my iPods:
Zune Pass Apple has long maintained that people want to own rather than rent their music. I counter that a subscription-based music service, combined with a state-of-the-art player, is one of those features that you have to try before you realize how fantastic it is. It reminds me of the first time I beta-tested the Xbox Live gaming service back in 2002--I didn't understand how addictive online console gaming could be until I spent eight hours playing Moto GP without even looking at the clock.
Here are a couple of real-world examples from yesterday. First, a friend came over for brunch and we began talking about Gram Parsons, one of those towering influences whose music is sorely lacking in my collection. In the past, we might have talked for a minute, maybe gone online to hunt down some ancient YouTube videos, and then forgotten about it. But with the Zune Pass, we were able to walk over to the Zune HD (which I have plugged into a first-generation AV dock and connected to a Bose Wave player in my living room), connect to the Marketplace through my home Wi-Fi network, and sample a bunch of Gram Parsons songs while we ate.
A Zune Pass makes the Smart DJ function into a great music-discovery tool.
Later, I ripped the nervously funky Can LP "Ege Bamyasi" to my hard drive. Curious to discover some similar music, I used the Zune software's Smart DJ function, then listened as it drew music from the Marketplace that I don't know very well, like Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, Gong, and my favorite discovery, Faust. Trying the same thing with iTunes' Genius function suggested plenty of new music from the iTunes Store but to hear it, I'd have to buy each song as a download. (Note: you can't create a Smart DJ playlist on the Zune HD device itself, although I expect that feature to be added later. Instead, you have to use the Zune software, then save it as a playlist.)
These are the kinds of music-discovery features that make the Zune Pass a great deal at $14.99 a month. And on top of that, each month you get 10 MP3 downloads to keep.
Quickplay This feature lets you "pin" favorite songs, albums, playlists, or other types of content to the front menu of the Zune HD. It also has a "New" section that automatically displays the six items you've most recently added to your collection, a "History" section that displays the last six things you've played, and a spot to access any currently playing song that you've paused. I miss this instant gratification, particularly quick access to recently added music, on the iPod.
Background art Remember how cool it seemed when you could first look at album covers as you played songs on your MP3 player? The Zune HD makes this seem hopelessly obsolete--instead, it scrolls through album art and pictures of the artist as each song plays. No purchase is required--it works even with the LPs I ripped. It's similar to how the Zune software (and iTunes) can populate your music collection with album art from a database in the cloud, only more sophisticated. (You can see this feature in action starting around 2:00 into this video demo.)
Wireless sync This feature has been part of the Zune experience since 2007, and once you get used to it, you'll hate dragging your iPod to your computer every time you want to load new music. Microsoft seems to have improved the sync experience in the Zune HD and Zune 4.0 software--all you have to do is leave the Zune HD's wireless connection on, and it will periodically sync automatically with your PC, even if you don't have the Zune app open.
See what my friends are playing Zune's social-networking functions haven't been very useful because of the relatively small number of people who own a Zune. I'm hoping this changes with the Zune HD. Already, the Gram Parsons fan says he's going to buy one. Once we connect to one another, I'll be able to see his playlists as he runs through Gram Parsons, the Flying Burrito Brothers, and all their musical neighbors. With a Zune Pass, I'll even be able to play any song that he's played, immediately, on my device, as long as it's available in the Marketplace. Again, this is an absolutely amazing tool for music discovery.
Apple's still riding high with the iPod, particularly the Touch, but the Zune HD is clearly moving ahead in terms of innovation. Now if Microsoft can open the Marketplace to third-party apps and fix the browser, Apple might have reason to worry.
Zune HD
(Credit: Microsoft)I find it hard to evaluate an MP3 player until I've lived with it for a little while. Specifications, demos, and even quick hands-on tests don't tell you the most important thing: how does it sound? Can you listen to it for an hour? A week? The rest of your life?
On Tuesday, I spent a few hours with the 32GB versions of Microsoft's new Zune HD and Apple's latest-generation iPod Touch. To me, these are the top-of-the-line competitors in the MP3 player market--if you're a serious music listener with nearly $300 to spend, these are your two choices.
On a straight specifications basis, each of them has clear advantages.
The iPod Touch excels as a portable multifunction computer, with tens of thousands of available applications, and it's the only choice for Mac users. The Zune HD has superior music-discovery features, particularly when used with a Zune Pass subscription. Plus, it has an HD Radio and a sophisticated desktop PC client that makes iTunes look stale.
On industrial design, I think they're about even--a commendable feat for Microsoft given how far behind the previous Zunes were. On user interface, the iPod Touch may be more intuitive at first, but the Zune HD is way cooler--I love the way artist images and words scroll across the background as you play a song--and gives you far more customization over the music-playing experience. (I'm amazed that the iPod Touch still doesn't have an easy way to add songs to a now-playing queue, for instance.)
But what about the actual sound? To try them out, I ran them into the audio input jack in my car, which is how I most often listen to portable music. I turned each device up to just below maximum volume (I've heard my iPhone distort at its max), and made sure the EQ settings were completely flat.
iPod Touch
(Credit: CNET)The Zune HD sounded very crisp and clean, with clear separation in the bass, but the midrange--guitar, vocals--didn't seem full or loud enough. When I turned it up to try and get a fuller sound, the treble became overwhelming.
The iPod Touch was noticeably louder at the same volume setting on the car stereo. The trebly parts--cymbals, high-hat, the squeak of a saxophone reed--were still distinct, but the bass sounded rounder and warmer, and the midrange (the most important spectrum when choosing audio gear) shone through. It made me realize how much sound was missing when I listened to the Zune HD.
The difference became most obvious when I took a couple songs--Radiohead's "How to Disappear Completely" and Mr. Bungle's NSFW funk-bizarro song "Squeeze Me Macaroni"--and listened to them back to back on each player. On the Zune HD, the acoustic guitar in the Radiohead song sounded clinky and thin, and the percussion in the Bungle song was unbearably high-pitched. On the iPod Touch, the guitar sounded like guitar and the percussion was complementary rather than overwhelming.
A few hours later, I tried a similar test through the relatively cheap headphones that come with the Zune HD. Here, the Zune fared a bit better--it sounded louder, so I didn't need to turn it up so much that the over-boosted treble hurt my ears--but there simply wasn't as much audio information coming through, especially at the low end.
Hearing is subjective--apparently younger listeners are beginning to prefer the "sizzle" of highly compressed MP3s, and one listener's "crisp" is another's "harsh." And I'm an analog fan, with far more records than CDs in my home collection. But to me, the Zune HD sounded pretty good, while the new iPod Touch is the best-sounding MP3 player I've ever heard, comparing favorably with a decent CD player.
Your lesson? Don't just read the specs and look at the interface before you buy an MP3 player. Spend some serious time listening to it, at volume.
Microsoft is making a selling point of the fact that the new Zune HD and associated software update are optimized for Windows 7, which is due out on October 22. I've got a copy of the final release code of Windows 7 on my work PC, and there is some useful synchronization between the two. For instance, the Quickplay menu in the Zune software--which lets you get immediately to music you've recently added, your Smart DJ stations, and any other favorites you want to "pin" to the list--is propagated into the Windows 7 Start menu. So even if you don't have the Zune software open, you can simply navigate to the Zune icon in the Start menu and all your Quickplay selections will show up.
The Zune software adds Quickplay selections to the Windows 7 Start menu.
Of course, Microsoft's had access to final Windows 7 code for a long time. But what about Apple? The company kindly sent me a new-model iPod Touch and Nano to test out, and I noticed that the boxes say they're compatible with Windows XP and Vista (and Mac OS X 10.4.11). Windows 7 isn't mentioned. I downloaded and installed iTunes 9 on my Windows 7 PC anyway, and I'm now happily syncing my music library. I haven't noticed any bugs or errors. (Your mileage may vary--this isn't a review, just my personal experience.) But this underscores my general impression of Windows 7 as a solid upgrade to Vista--not a fundamentally new OS, like Vista was to XP. As Microsoft has said, if your apps work with Vista, they'll almost surely work with 7.
Reverse-sync, one of my favorite features of the Zune software.
The more interesting question is how did I get my music library onto my work computer in the first place? Simple--the Zune software has, from the very beginning, had a reverse-sync feature. You simply drag all the songs from the Zune icon to the PC icon, and they go happily traversing your USB cable down into your PC. iTunes has no such reverse-sync, and in fact is pretty strict about only allowing you to sync with one library at a time, although there are plenty of third-party apps that can do it for you.
We've known the specs for the Zune HD since May, and I've even gotten a couple brief hands-on demonstrations, but I discovered a few more surprises in the run-up to the retail release Tuesday.
(Credit:
Microsoft)
My favorite surprise on the device was a new feature called Quickplay. It solves one of the greatest problems with an MP3 player: as you add more music, it gets harder to find and immediately start playing the songs you're most excited about. Quickplay basically adds an alternate menu on the Zune home screen--it appears as collection of small album covers, offset slightly to the left of the main start menu--which automatically displays songs you've most recently played, as well as songs you've most recently added. You can also manually "pin" songs and albums to the menu. I also liked the way images (such as artist photos) drawn from the Zune Marketplace and cached to your device gradually scroll across the screen as you play a particular song, giving you more to look at than a static album cover.
Within the Zune PC software, my favorite surprise was the Smart DJ feature, which sets up an endlessly rotating playlist based on a particular song or artist. Like a lot of other Zune features, it works best if you've got a Zune Pass (which costs $14.99 a month)--in this case, it'll rotate not only through songs in your collection but also through the millions of songs in the Zune Marketplace, delivering the same kinds of surprises that Pandora fans have grown to love. If you don't have the Zune Pass, it simply draws songs from your collection, similar to how iTunes Genius works (in this case, Marketplace songs are greyed out but clickable if you want to buy them).
Zune's Smart DJ feature put together this playlist based on The Pixies. Here, it's playing a song from the Zune Marketplace--a cover of Jimi Hendrix's "Stone Free" by the group Belly.
There were also a couple of mild unfortunate surprises. First, Microsoft has removed the "squirting" feature, which let you send songs directly from one Zune to another. This feature was supposed to be a big selling point of the first Zune but was crippled by unreasonable rights restrictions that let you play songs only three times or within three days (whichever came first). Microsoft and content owners gradually loosened those restrictions, but the feature never made much difference--mainly because there were so few Zune users out there to exchange songs with. (The "first man with a telephone" problem.) Now it's gone. You can still share songs with your friends through the Zune's social-networking features--if you have a Zune Pass, then any song in any of your Zune contacts' library will be immediately playable on your machine--but that requires an active wireless connection and isn't quite as spontaneous as the Zune-to-Zune sharing. That said, I only used it a handful of times in the three years since I've had a Zune.
The other disappointment is the complete lack of a competitor to Apple's App Store for the iPhone and iPod Touch. There will be applications, including games, but Microsoft will release them directly to users through the Zune Marketplace or within software updates. There are no public APIs for developers, no distribution model, and more surprisingly, no immediate plans to connect to the Windows Marketplace for Mobile, Microsoft's app store for Windows Mobile phones, which launches on October 6. Why? Because Microsoft wants to build only one app store, and it can't be sure that apps built for Windows Mobile will work on the Zune HD.
There's plenty of other great stuff about the Zune HD, including a built-in HD Radio, bright touch screen, high-definition video output, and all the great wireless and social-networking features introduced in previous versions. It's the best Microsoft MP3 player yet and the first to pose a credible competitor to the iPod Touch, although it's still focused on digital audio and video, while the Touch (and iPhone) is more of a portable computer.
Be sure to check back later this week for the full updated review from CNET's Donald Bell, and we'll both be posting more personal impressions of the new device as we live and work with it throughout the coming weeks.
Today's Apple event contained a number of newsworthy announcements--a new digital-album format, precut ringtones at $1.29--but what's more striking is the way that the company really focused the improvements on the iPod Nano.
The Nano was the only Apple device that got a significant overhaul, with a video camera, FM radio, voice recorder, and pedometer. Somewhat surprisingly, the more expensive and higher-end iPod Touch isn't getting a refresh this time around. It still lacks a video camera and built-in FM radio.
Strategically, this makes sense: on stage, Steve Jobs claimed that the Nano has sold more than 100 million units, making it the most popular MP3 player in the world. It occupies the sweet spot in price, between $100 and $200 (the new 8GB version will be $149, while the new 16GB version will cost $179).
Last year, Apple hardly updated the Nano at all, besides introducing a few new colors. So to keep its firm hold on the midmarket, Apple was smart to add a few checklist features, particularly the video camera, which suddenly makes the Flip look overpriced.
At the low end, the Shuffle got a price cut to $59 for the 2GB version or $79 for the 4GB version, but this seems expensive, compared with SanDisk's Sansa Clip+, which costs $40 for a 2GB or $50 for 4GB, and includes an FM radio, small screen for navigating menus, and expandable memory via a microSD slot. Here, Apple seems to be relying on the iPod brand to carry it.
At the high end, the iPod Touch remains one of the most exciting devices on the market--it's basically redefining portable computing, thanks to its Wi-Fi connection and Apple's massive App Store. But as a pure MP3 player, I still think that there's room for competition.
Microsoft's forthcoming Zune HD might grab some hard-core music fanatics, thanks to its built-in HD radio (more stations), all-you-can-play subscription service, and (in my opinion) better navigation scheme that lets you get to more of your music more quickly. The Zune HD also looks like a better deal on a straight-memory basis--the 16GB version will cost $220 (only $21 more than an 8GB iPod Touch), and the 32GB will cost $290, which is $9 less than the equivalent iPod Touch.
If I were shopping for an MP3 player today and had less than $100 to spend, I'd buy a Clip+. If I had between $100 and $200, the iPod Nano is the obvious choice. If I had more than that, I'd have to weigh whether I'm more interested in a broad range of apps (iPod Touch) or music (which might sway me to the Zune HD).
As first reported by Paul Thurott of SuperSite for Windows, Microsoft is discontinuing the current generation of Zunes.
So long, Zune 8, we hardly knew you.
(Credit: Microsoft)Leaving aside all the easy insults--yes, we all know Microsoft never sold many of the things--and the possibility that your candy-apple red Zune 80 may someday be a collector's item, this means Microsoft has basically ceded the low end of the MP3 player market.
While the current Zunes start at $80, the Zune HD, which becomes available on September 15, will run you at least $220. This is great news for competitors such as SanDisk, whose Sansa Clip+ suddenly looks like the best deal around for folks on limited budgets.
On the other end, eliminating the 80GB and 120GB models means that folks with huge digital collections and no interest in touch screens will probably just stick with the iPod Classic, which is pretty much what was happening anyway.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
I got a few minutes of hands-on time with Microsoft's forthcoming Zune HD at a Microsoft event on Thursday, and I came away thinking that Microsoft might finally have a contender.
Of course, it inherits all the benefits of the current Zune--a more visually interesting (if not always more useful) PC client than iTunes, and the ability to subscribe to all-you-can-eat music plus 10 permanent downloads for only $14.99 a month via the Zune Pass. New features like HD Radio and high-def video output also sounded attractive when they were first revealed.
Could this be a contender?
(Credit: Microsoft)But it's one thing to read about it, and another to actually use it. I was surprised and pretty impressed with its small size--without measuring, I'd guess it's maybe two-thirds the size of an iPod Touch, and quite a bit thinner. In my hands, it felt more like an iPod Nano or perhaps one of the flash-based Zunes, although it's obviously not that small. The OLED screen offered excellent color and brightness--great for album covers, anyway--although I honestly didn't think it was a quantum leap above the iPod Touch. Then again, I was using it in a fairly dim-lit room, not in sunlight.
But the real innovation seems to be going on in user interface--how do you make a touch screen workable on such a small device? Here, Microsoft has done a solid job, taking the mixture of horizontal and vertical menus used on the current Zunes and adding particular tweaks for the touch screen. You can scroll horizontally or vertically simply by swiping your finger along, and there are multiple "ways in" to and "ways out" of the various menus and screens, which encourages exploration. When a song's playing, you control the volume by touching the screen and hitting a little plus or minus button; numbers show you absolute volume. Clearly marked "exit" buttons are usually available to get you back to the previous menu, and a physical button below the screen (you can see the black trapezoid shape on the screenshots here) takes you back to the home menu page. There was a bit of a learning curve, but after a couple minutes I was impressed by how much functionality Microsoft was able to pack into such a small screen.
There was no public Wi-Fi when I tested it, so I didn't have a chance to test the browser, but based on what I've seen demonstrated for Windows Mobile 6.5, as well as some other very well-placed rumors, I think users will be impressed and surprised at some of its features. It's a solid addition to what's still essentially a music player--not a super-device.
The timeframe for the Zune HD is still this fall. I expect it to be priced quite a bit cheaper than the iPod Touch, as CNET's Donald Bell suggested in his preview a couple months ago, but Microsoft hasn't confirmed anything on that front. Whether you end up buying one or not, at least there will be something interesting to check out in Microsoft's upcoming retail stores.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
