Why do people still continue to DL lossy crap and risk litigation?

vbimport

#1

I have read a lot of the threads in here and we all seem to be in agreement. MP3 ain’t worth buying. Then when in the hell are people going to quit sharing this crap?

It just boggles my mind that if you want this worthless material so bad that you will risk bancruptcy, why not pay 99 cents for it!

This is too hard to decipher with my weak freakin mind! Stop feeding the bears (RIAA) for crying out loud. One minute folks are crying that there is nothing worth buying, the next minute they are going to court. The sad part is the stuff they are being busted for has no value. Yet they are forced to settle for 2500 to 7500 plus erase their worthless “collection”. Not to mention legal fees which I have no idea what they are. It’s weird.

I’m all for fighting “the man” but this strategy is suicidal. Just stop buying period.

Thanks for reading my rant. hee hee :stuck_out_tongue:


#2

IMHO, MP3 is “lossy crap” to an audiophile or just one of those unfortunate newbies coughloserscough who don’t check the bitrate of their downloads. Ogg files sound great at 96kbps compared to MP3 at the same bitrate. Aw well, MP3 is universal…


#3

MP3 is “lossy crap” to an audiophile or just one of those unfortunate newbies coughloserscough who don’t check the bitrate of their downloads

eac+lame -alt --preset extreme for newbies??? and losers?
It is damn hard to hear the difference from a cd with those settings.
These discussion are very hard to do (see these formums or the hydrogen ones)

ogg = lossy compresser too by the way, but agree sounds very good

The lossless compressors use way to big files for many people.

But if i can buy a cd full of mp3 at good bitrates (NO 128kb), i would pay for it. I have no probs with that. But it must be a full cd. Not 30 minutes of music you get nowadays on a cd.


#4

I download the old stuff, that either has no samples or is no longer available, or new stuff I want to try out. I’ve never bought more albums than the number I have bought because of free Peer2Peer services. I think record companies are just misinterpreting sales losses - economy is in recession and they’re running out of old hits to reissue on CD. It was inevitable IMO. I think there will always be legal ways to get things, and there will always be illegal ways.


#5

it is amazing that people still download from kazaa when only with the latest version thay they removed the 128 bit mp3 restriction from the ‘legal’ version. all the other networks had no such restriction that i am aware of (winmx, gneutella, ed2k, overnet, any other kazaa client -grokster)


#6

Crabbyappleton I could not agree with more. I am a total newbie at this download thing and would like to ask your recommendations for websites which provide quality downloads for music. Of course I would be willing to pay for quality as I am not like many others who are looking for a “free ride”. Any input or advice you can give this newbie would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.


#7

Hi golfnut. Welcome to the forum. :bigsmile:

I must say that I agree with damiandimitri as well though. In that a high quality file is hard to distiguish between a cd quality file. Maybe that is why you are searching for such a product. MusicMatch is the highest you will find I believe at 160kbps WMA for 99 cents.

In addition, WMA arguably is superior to MP3 when comparing two files of the same bitrate. But MusicMatch may not have what you want, their catalog is aprox 250,000 tracks. You will just have to see.

If you have access to a bookstore there is an excellent article in MaximumPC Mag this month (January). I love that mag and have been a subscriber since it was called Boot. They do a head to head comparison of iTunes, MusicMatch Downloads, Rhapsody and Napster in the issue. They spell out the cost, advantages and disadvantages of each service.

I say use what fits your needs. Hell, I will buy the higher quality track if I find it on MusicMatch (no fee). Why not, if it is 99 cents at Napster (no fee) at a lower bitrate?

HTH and great to have you join us! :slight_smile:


#8

Originally posted by Crabbyappleton
[B]I have read a lot of the threads in here and we all seem to be in agreement. MP3 ain’t worth buying. Then when in the hell are people going to quit sharing this crap?

It just boggles my mind that if you want this worthless material so bad that you will risk bancruptcy, why not pay 99 cents for it!

This is too hard to decipher with my weak freakin mind! Stop feeding the bears (RIAA) for crying out loud. One minute folks are crying that there is nothing worth buying, the next minute they are going to court. The sad part is the stuff they are being busted for has no value. Yet they are forced to settle for 2500 to 7500 plus erase their worthless “collection”. Not to mention legal fees which I have no idea what they are. It’s weird.

I’m all for fighting “the man” but this strategy is suicidal. Just stop buying period.

Thanks for reading my rant. hee hee :stuck_out_tongue: [/B]

All you achieve by posting this crap is to show how ignorant you are - as others have stated, a good lame 192/256 or above encode is extremely close to that of the original CD - if you audition with a good hi-fi, or better still, great quality headphones, it is very hard to tell any difference. Yes, I can here way above 16Khz, yes, I can here things in audio signals that others are not bothered about, and yes, many commercial chart CD’s have awful production values - the original cd audio has moments of noise / distortion / etc. Basically, you did not engage your brain before posting such sh*t - either that, or you work for the music industry.


#9

All you achieve by posting this crap is to show how ignorant you are - as others have stated, a good lame 192/256 or above encode is extremely close to that of the original CD - if you audition with a good hi-fi, or better still, great quality headphones, it is very hard to tell any difference. Yes, I can here way above 16Khz, yes, I can here things in audio signals that others are not bothered about, and yes, many commercial chart CD’s have awful production values - the original cd audio has moments of noise / distortion / etc. Basically, you did not engage your brain before posting such sh*t - either that, or you work for the music industry

you could have said this in a nicer way though. This is not the way we talk to eachother on here.


#10

Crabbyappleton thank you for the reply and info. Could you possibly direct me to an area or site where I may read up and learn about this bitrate subject, sounds interesting and since I know nothing about it I would like to learn. Thank you again for your help.


#11

icey If you take a minute and read the reply I gave to golfnut, it says about the same thing as what you just wrote. But unfortunately, that wasn’t my main point.

The point I am trying to make is I don’t understand why people continue to risk litigation to create a portfolio of lossy product that is available for 99 cents a track. I just don’t get it. Sorry.

The common excuse is it isn’t worth buying. Fine I agree. Then stick to your guns and don’t buy it. But, if you feel the need to download said product, wouldn’t it be smarter to just buy the tracks for 99 cents? It can’t be shared on the Net no worries. You obviously have money for a computer with an Internet connection and even money for an attorney.

Wait till you see the next round of folks sued that have been served after the RIAA gets their identity via a judges blessing. There ain’t gonna be no 2500 dollar plea to avoid a court hearing. Cary Sherman already said that.

My guess is they are going to nail these morons to the wall. There is no other way to make the Internet safe for their precious content…and maximise profit. The courts have seen to that. Filesharing programs -legal. Verizon made supoenas possible only with a judges consent. Uploading-illegal. Solution. Crucify uploaders or those with files available for uploading via a shared file folder. Set an example. A horrific example. It’s been all over the news and Internet.

Yet, I can invoke Kazaa lite to this day and see aprox 3 million users sharing 4 million gigs of files. Real smart.

I used to feel bad for folks that got sued and threatened with bankruptcy for the sharing of an MP3 with another on the Internet. You know, like the 12 year old honor student that lived in the housing project with her mom. It damn near gave the little girl a nervous breakdown.

But not any more. You have to be living in a spider hole to be ignorant of the consequences of such actions. Now, I feel as though somehow these scofflaws are part of the problem of getting the Music Industry to listen to us, the consumer and provide us with a quality product at a decent price. It provides them with an excuse, the Internet is killing them. Also, it causes more focus on annoying copyright protection schemes that cost both parties money and make our legal right to back up our investment more difficult. But guess who pays?

I do not work for the Music Industry-that I can verify by a glance at my paycheck and with a quick search on Google I can find no affiliation with the labels.

Hopefully as you stated, I just failed to engage my brain and am not truly ignorant. I pray that is the case. I did say I had a weak freakin’ mind. Thanks for concurring. :wink:


#12

@golfnut

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org

here live the audio gods…lol


#13

Hi golfnut. I finally got off my soapbox. :stuck_out_tongue: damiandimitri has given an excellent link already. However, I like this rather dated link from PCWorld. It is from 2001 and is using a dated version of WMA. I refer to it from time to time. You may find it interesting. It is entitled:

[I]Compressed Audio vs. CDs: Can You Tell the Difference?

Are you able to distinguish between the two? Our tests reveal some surprising results for those who love–or hate–listening to MP3s.
[/I]

http://www.amonline.net/Main/TipsResources/PCWorld_Audio.htm

The important thing here is, the test was done blind. This is critical IMHO. I don’t know what impact the equipment had on results. But, it is still a good comparison. Maybe it will help you decide what is a good bitrate for you. Look at the results on the second chart. WMA is especially interesting. Now we have WMA 9 so maybe it is better? It would be great to see this test method used with WMA 9 to see how it fares now. My guess is a WMA 9 at 160 kbps is pretty darn good.

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/wma9/

Keep your head down!
~Crabby


#14

crabbyappleton thank you. I will start the reading journey. By the way what format do you think personally is best for downloading music and what sight do you use most for your downloads if I may ask? Thank you.


#15

Hi golfnut,

I guess I like WMA. I do not have an iPod or I would probably like AAC. Much the same as BadreligionPR the only time I will DL a song is if I am “cherrypicking” or if it is rare. I am not into these type of formats except for casual listening.

To be honest, I feel that the stereo days are over. To me we have much superior ways to enjoy music. For instance surround sound, enhanced DVD, DVD-A, SACD etc. I am going to use all that is available to me though. I can listen to these lossy products in my car or at my desktop at work. etc. Thanks to optical burners.

But to answer your question. I will use MusicMatch, Napster and now Wal-Mart. Anything with no monthly fee. I have a love hate relationship with Wal-Mart as they are like being on oxygen. They are beneficial yet are toxic. :wink: They are able somehow to offer music at 88 cents through their website. It is easy and painless.

Hey, I see you are into Home Theater!!! I am in the process of finishing my basement and am going to throw something together. Maybe I can pick your brain soon.

Hope to see you around the site! Make sure to visit the main page frequently for the news. :wink:

~Crabby


#16

Thanks Crabby, yes I have been into home theater for about 20 years now, even during the early pioneer days when there was only pro logic and dolby surround. Have an extensive home theater set up and dedicated ht room with the works so to speak. I will be more than glad to try and help you when you need help or if you need help. Thanks again for your help and advice and have a happy and safe new year.

golfnut


#17

Holy Crap!!! I hit the Mother lode!! :bow: The basement project will be complete in 60 days and will be inspected by the city soon after.

Maybe we can start a new thread for Home theater then and see what we can devise. I am at a rather high altitude, 4900 ft so I think plasma is out but I am excited to create something cutting edge.

Thank you! :slight_smile:

~Crabby


#18

Crabby sounds like exciting times. Love the hobby. Let me know as things progress and I will try and help as much as possible. Good luck with the room. Couple of quick pieces of advice which you probably already know. Make sure all electrical is on a deciated grounded circuit for your ht room, also make sure you use hospital/audiophile electrical outlets throughout. Insulation and sound dampening extremely important to maximize your equipment and sound quality. CRT projectors are still the best for ht application, can’t beat an 8’ screeen set up properly with HD, 16.9, progressive scan, etc. Just a few initial comments for thought.


#19

All the bull shit aside!Downloading music that is copyrighted and marketed to be sold without paying for it is illeagle. Sound quality,bad music,cd prices are all just a crock of bullshit reasons.Millions of people
worldwide download music simply becouse it can be done.Those who get cought are part of the natural section of tech.So if you do
then just do.If you don’t ,don’t hate. and if you get cought don’t bitch!

                 Are you getting yours?

Free Your Mind!

    TekLords

#20

techlords you obviously can not read because if you could then you read in my very first post that “I am looking for quality download sites and am willing to pay for the downloads, not looking for a free ride”. I take great exception to your uncalled for language and attitude and people like you should be banned from this site. End of story.