Maybe off topic but involves music

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

01-26-2003, 04:00 PM
Isezumi

1ct i think by quality of music he meant the bite rate at which MP3 are encoded at.

If you search for a song on a p2p program I would say that (depending on the song) a majority of your hits will be dominated by 128bps or less. Which I believe most of us agree is populates the okay to crappy section of the SQ spectrum.

Taking out p2p programs is sort of akin to using a multimegaton nuclear war head to clear off an enemy bunker. You are going to obliterate EVERYTHING including all those poor biterate MP3.
01-26-2003, 04:18 PM
serotone9

Quote:

Originally posted by Isezumi 1ct i think by quality of music he meant the bite rate at which MP3 are encoded at.

If you search for a song on a p2p program I would say that (depending on the song) a majority of your hits will be dominated by 128bps or less. Which I believe most of us agree is populates the okay to crappy section of the SQ spectrum.

precisely, which also means that it's not really "stealing," because it's not the same product at the same quality as on the physical CD. software is a different story, but regarding MP3s, i agree with what Crawling Eye said.
01-26-2003, 04:19 PM
1ctabor

Quote:

Originally posted by Isezumi
1ct i think by quality of music he meant the bite rate at which MP3 are encoded at.

If you search for a song on a p2p program I would say that (depending on the song) a majority of your hits will be dominated by 128bps or less. Which I believe most of us agree is populates the okay to crappy section of the SQ spectrum.

Taking out p2p programs is sort of akin to using a multimegaton nuclear war head to clear off an enemy bunker. You are going to obliterate EVERYTHING including all those poor biterate MP3.

I know there are many out there that are terrible reproductions but I don't think bitrate is the only thing to go buy. I've heard plenty of 128 bit mp3's that sound better than 192bit. Its more of how well it was ripped and what software was used. There is plenty of high quality stuff on p2p its just a matter of digging through all the garbage to find it. Kind of a pain but alls it takes is a full listen of the file. I do only get 192bit but I also download about four different files of the same song to get the best sounding one. But yeah you are right, most files are in the 128bit range and you are doing good to score a couple of 192's or 256's.
01-26-2003, 04:23 PM
1ctabor

About the original topic though. I don't see how individuals can be targeted. Its a copyright law which means its illegal to copy the disk and distribute it. If I download a file off of kazaa or wherever how can that be copyright infringement? I didn't copy the disk, I just downloaded a file from the internet. That isn't really any different than recording the song from the radio. They just don't like that its such a good quality. Maybe they should come out with something a little better quality to sell, I think that would start bringing their sales back up.
01-26-2003, 06:06 PM
Fig

Quote:

Originally posted by 1ctabor
How do you know?

Hehe

Anywho, I think that more music is stolen from CDs being copied than anything else. That is more likely to be where the music sales are taking a hit if any. I would have to agree that the quality of most MP3s suck so bad I have a hard time seeing it at stealing. I guess if stealing crap is still stealing, then...

Only thing I see those low-q MP3s useful for is to demo the group/album. If I like it I'll buy it, otherwise fuggettaboutit. I only listen to MP3s that I myself rip using ExactCopy and encoded with LAME <= 256, with any regularity.
01-26-2003, 09:31 PM
Isezumi

Quote:

Originally posted by 1ctabor
About the original topic though. I don't see how individuals can be targeted. Its a copyright law which means its illegal to copy the disk and distribute it. If I download a file off of kazaa or wherever how can that be copyright infringement? I didn't copy the disk, I just downloaded a file from the internet. That isn't really any different than recording the song from the radio. They just don't like that its such a good quality. Maybe they should come out with something a little better quality to sell, I think that would start bringing their sales back up.

Its copyright infringement because you never payed for the right (a license) to posses the music in the first place. Which is how they think the world should work...and most of the business world is fine with this. Honestly they coud give a F less whether its an MP3, CD, Cassete Tape, VHS tape, Beta max, vinyl or eight track. The point is that you HAVE it and didnt pay for it. I mean, listening to it is something they cant do jack about. If you pay for a brand new copy of...Frank Sinatra's Greatest Hits, and play it in your home stereo as loud as you can (with out getting a visit from the police) and all your neighbors hear the entire album. They cant do anything to your neighbors cause they havent obtained the album without buying a license.
As for recording the song off the radio, to you its not any different. But to the radio station it is, they have to play for each song that they play and DJs have to do certain things when playing songs, like talking into the beginning and end of a song. Or the infamous radio cuts or edited versions and they are doing all this because the RIAA won in court to protect their copyright.

Picking on specific people who are engaging in this act its kinda like arresting all the drunk people in a bar in a time of prohibition. Yes there is no one drinking anymore, but the bar is still there.
01-27-2003, 03:16 AM
1ctabor

Ok, say you found an original cd somewhere, would it be illegal to keep it since you didn't pay for it? Couldn't the same be said about mp3's, "I found them on the web"? I just think that there are too many issues still before they will be able to start nabbing individuals. If they get one then they should have to arrest everyone thats ever copied a movie, recorded a cd, copied computer games, etc.
01-27-2003, 01:54 PM
Isezumi

Quote:

Originally posted by 1ctabor
Ok, say you found an original cd somewhere, would it be illegal to keep it since you didn't pay for it? Couldn't the same be said about mp3's, "I found them on the web"? I just think that there are too many issues still before they will be able to start nabbing individuals. If they get one then they should have to arrest everyone thats ever copied a movie, recorded a cd, copied computer games, etc.

Yes if you just find a CD, you are not entitled to be in possession of the media (the songs). Cause you never payed for that privledge.

There are a million ways to debate this but it doesnt really matter what picture you paint, its still wrong.

The only thing that i can think of that is similar to this is drug possesion. The law doesnt really care whether you bought it, stole it, inherited it from your Dead Grandfather, or someone slipped it in your pocket on the subway. The point is that you have it, and you shouldnt.
01-27-2003, 08:17 PM
Jay20016

Quote:

Originally posted by Isezumi

Yes if you just find a CD, you are not entitled to be in possession of the media (the songs). Cause you never payed for that privledge.

There are a million ways to debate this but it doesnt really matter what picture you paint, its still wrong.

The only thing that i can think of that is similar to this is drug possesion. The law doesnt really care whether you bought it, stole it, inherited it from your Dead Grandfather, or someone slipped it in your pocket on the subway. The point is that you have it, and you shouldnt.

Good analogy. And some good points. :D

I find it funny how many hypocrites there are in this world, as if you were the one who was losing record sales because the album you just released can be freely downloaded on the internet, I am sure you would be a little pissed as well.
01-27-2003, 10:18 PM
Fig

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay20016

Good analogy. And some good points. :D

I find it funny how many hypocrites there are in this world, as if you were the one who was losing record sales because the album you just released can be freely downloaded on the internet, I am sure you would be a little pissed as well.

I am SOOOO relieved to hear that you have never done anything that is againts the law or morally wrong.

Seriously, have you EVER gone over the speed limit? Have you EVER j-walked? Talk about hypocrisy. https://www.sharkyforums.com/
01-27-2003, 10:48 PM
Idiot356

Quote:

Originally posted by Fig

I am SOOOO relieved to hear that you have never done anything that is againts the law or morally wrong.

Seriously, have you EVER gone over the speed limit? Have you EVER j-walked? Talk about hypocrisy. https://www.sharkyforums.com/

Comparing J-Walking and going over the speed limit to stealing music is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

If you had a lemonade stand, and sold homade lemonade to people for 25 cents a class, and you were making good money doing it. Then what if someone stole picthers of lemonade from behind your back, and gave it away for free...you would be pissed.

See ignorance is bliss, his point was...you put time into it to make money, you dont want it getting stolen. Because in the end the artist loose, not the record company.
01-27-2003, 11:37 PM
Fig

Quote:

Originally posted by Idiot356

Comparing J-Walking and going over the speed limit to stealing music is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Blah blah blah

Yeah yeah i got all that stuff about intellectual property etc. My point was that we have all done something wrong somehow some way that is related to the law. It all boils down to laws. If there were no copyright laws then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Should I break down it little for you?

*remmebers what his name is and decides to proceed*

The comparison is based on breaking the law. Read a little farther back and you will find that 1ctabor was asking what is/isn't illegal.
Laws are made to keep people safe, protect a persons rights, uphold some kind of 'moral code' etc etc etc. It all boils down to 'the law' in my ever so frickin humble opinion and stuff.https://www.sharkyforums.com/
01-27-2003, 11:41 PM
audioqueso

This might offend some very patriotic people, but don't get me wrong.

Should mp3s be illegal, no? I don't think so. I think it would be fair if all p2p charged a service fee for their systems. That's my opinion. But the deal is, the US is money greedy.

People use p2p to get mp3s, the RIAA claims the artists and business are losing money. I've been and lived in many parts of the world. And I tell you this from being in other countries. What other country can a person get a record deal, make ONE single, and be set for life? Some countries yes, but not nowhere as much as the US. The RIAA has taken for granted that it's so easy to get rich of the music business. They are not LOSING money, they're just not making as much. If an artists REALLY loved their music, I don't think they would care if they only gained $1 million instead of $3, especially if that $2 million lost gain that artist 300% interest from fans.

There are some ridiculously good artists outside the US. Some are loaded. And a lot have money, but not as much as they would in the states, yet they seem more true to their music. Does everyone agree?

So how about just making a p2p service something like ISPs. Just charge a monthly service fee. They will make money, and it can go back into the music industry. I download mp3s every now and then. To be honest, I don't really like downloading mp3s because I hate the quality they are ripped. I'll usually get something that is out and new. If I like it, I will probably buy it and rip it myself. I have about 15Gigs of music, all from my CDs. Probably 500MB of internet mp3s, but they're usually temporary until I buy it or rip it myself. I know not everyone does that. Some keep them for good. So just make something like a $20 service charge per month. You can't really charge more knowing how bad some of those mp3s are ripped.

I don't know. I think it's fair to charge a small fair, but knowing the money greedy RIAA, they'll try to sue the world. I'll tell you what though, don't let me become Trump. I'll buy them out and fire their asses for being such *** holes.
01-27-2003, 11:44 PM
Idiot356

Quote:

Originally posted by Fig

Yeah yeah i got all that stuff about intellectual property etc. My point was that we have all done something wrong somehow some way that is related to the law. It all boils down to laws. If there were no copyright laws then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Should I break down it little for you?

*remmebers what his name is and decides to proceed*

The comparison is based on breaking the law. Read a little farther back and you will find that 1ctabor was asking what is/isn't illegal.
Laws are made to keep people safe, protect a persons rights, uphold some kind of 'moral code' etc etc etc. It all boils down to 'the law' in my ever so frickin humble opinion and stuff.http://www.dslextreme.com/users/figg...bootyshake.gif

Ok, so Im not sure what your argument is, I thought you were saying that downloading albums, is no worse than going over the speed limit, because we all have done it? In the end it doesn't make it right, exspecially since going over the speed limit, doesn't effect if someone gets paid or not.

Also, yes idiot356 is my real name!:p
01-28-2003, 12:23 AM
Isezumi

Quote:

Originally posted by audioqueso
This might offend some very patriotic people, but don't get me wrong.

Should mp3s be illegal, no? I don't think so. I think it would be fair if all p2p charged a service fee for their systems. That's my opinion. But the deal is, the US is money greedy.

People use p2p to get mp3s, the RIAA claims the artists and business are losing money. I've been and lived in many parts of the world. And I tell you this from being in other countries. What other country can a person get a record deal, make ONE single, and be set for life? Some countries yes, but not nowhere as much as the US. The RIAA has taken for granted that it's so easy to get rich of the music business. They are not LOSING money, they're just not making as much. If an artists REALLY loved their music, I don't think they would care if they only gained $1 million instead of $3, especially if that $2 million lost gain that artist 300% interest from fans.

There are some ridiculously good artists outside the US. Some are loaded. And a lot have money, but not as much as they would in the states, yet they seem more true to their music. Does everyone agree?

So how about just making a p2p service something like ISPs. Just charge a monthly service fee. They will make money, and it can go back into the music industry. I download mp3s every now and then. To be honest, I don't really like downloading mp3s because I hate the quality they are ripped. I'll usually get something that is out and new. If I like it, I will probably buy it and rip it myself. I have about 15Gigs of music, all from my CDs. Probably 500MB of internet mp3s, but they're usually temporary until I buy it or rip it myself. I know not everyone does that. Some keep them for good. So just make something like a $20 service charge per month. You can't really charge more knowing how bad some of those mp3s are ripped.

I don't know. I think it's fair to charge a small fair, but knowing the money greedy RIAA, they'll try to sue the world. I'll tell you what though, don't let me become Trump. I'll buy them out and fire their asses for being such *** holes.

Artists do not make wads of cash, for being one hit wonders. Your average musician that goes Gold, will maybe see $100k (assuming they are solo) you take a 4 person band (vocal, Drummer, Bass, Guitar) thats $25k each. 25000 / 52 / 40= 12, Thats a year at a job workin $12/hour, thats around the wage that a person working Telephone Support makes here in San Diego.

As for a fair charge, that wont work any more...Programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and WinMX are nebulous, lack a true central server. Trying to charge for that service would be futile.

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page