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

vbimport

#41

~Crabby–Yeah, I’ll have my surgery with no anesthesia please! :bigsmile:

Thanks for mentioning the news on the main page–it’s not a shameless plug since it is in context of our thread here :wink:

One thing I forgot to mention earlier is that when I first heard about the RIAA’s campaign I thought that this might actually be good for P2P–that it was really a great advertisement and will get more people to try it out!

Regarding the latest news:

QUOTE:
“After it was ruled that Internet service providers don’t have to identify suspected music pirates to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). ISPs are showing zero cooperation with Mitch Brainwol and his lackeys in their latest effort to enlist aid in the fight against music piracy.”

The new story is funny because the RIAA appears so NAIVE. However the fact that the ISPs are ignoring this is not surprising at all:

  1. Minor reason: Since when have you heard of any business doing anything out of “good will” if there is no profit to be made? And here there is only expense–it costs money to employ people to send out letters and such. Also there is a potential loss of business (more on that later).

  2. Major reason: The ISPs have always claimed that they are simply the “pipeline” that carries information and have absolutely no responsibility over the content and they do not monitor it. This would be the equivalent of asking the phone company to tap customer lines and listen for people discussing crime–such as drug deals etc. It’s idiotic. By cooperating with the RIAA letter, ISPs would ruin their claim of irresponsibility setting a precedent which could be used against them in future litigation!!! ISPs have very smart lawyers advising them.

  3. Possible reason: ISPs are pushing high-speed access such as DSL and cable touting the idea that customers will be able to download music at high speed. You keep hearing those TV ads where they praise how quickly little Johnny can download his music vs. a slow dialup connection. Getting people to pay from $30 to $50 a month for internet service is a new huge source of revenue for ISPs–telcos and cable companies. If there is nothing to download, there is no reason for most people to get such high speed connections and they might as well use a cheap $6/mo to $10/mo dialup service. If everything you download online cost money, the download costs would be higher than the ISP’s fee and a lot of people would just cut it off. So it’s in the ISP’s interest that people have free stuff to download online–that’s what sells the service for godsake!

So it’s not really in the ISP’s interest to harrass their customers about downloading some pop songs online! Sheesh!!! :bow:

The deCSS story was also good–another thing that sells computers, DVD burners and copy software. :cool:


#42

Crabbyappleton
Why do ppl continue to DL lossy crap and risk litigation? I’ll tell you why, but before I need to comment on that PCWORLD article

1.First IMO PCWORLD is lame, it writes very unobjective articles that draw conclusions from thin air, it was really funny to read how GF2PRO had better 3D picture than GF3. lol This article is not an exception.
2.For one, even if Creative Live was a high-end sound card in 2001, Sony 7506 never were. They are practically the same as lower priced Sony V6 which are best characterized as a “really good value for the money” but in no way they are high-end where you can easily distinguish 320Kbps from CD-Audio. Yes, Sony 7506 are fairly good, but not that good.
3.In your post you wondered if equipment had some impact on the testing results and it did because even if SB live was a high end consumer card in 2001 it certainly wasn’t an audiophile card. There are and there always were lots of cards that are much better suited for music than creative. Just take a look at these two reviews of SB Audigy (sounds very similar to SB Live) and AudioTrak Prodigy 7.1 tested at digit-life.com (aka as ixbt.com) with RMAA. While the figures may not differ too much, I assure you that SB live sounds like crap compared to Prodigy7.1 which partly may explain why so few ppl could tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed sound.
4.Test results. I cannot believe such test results. I simply cannot believe that ppl cannot tell the difference between 64Kbps and uncompressed audio quality. One must be deaf not to hear the difference.
4.Such tests are very subjective and depend on a person. Personally I can feel the difference between 320Kbps and uncompressed audio. The difference is on perception level, i.e. I may not be able to tell you how I could tell them apart, but I will tell them apart.

Where am I leading with this? I just want to say that I’m very sensitive to audio quality and there are lot of ppl like me. My PC setup is geared towards high quality music reproduction - the above said AudioTrak Prodigy 7.1 soundcard, HD600, and if all goes well I’ll make a DIY headphone tube amp in a couple of months, anything to make it sound better. It doesn’t matter to me much with what bitrate the song is compressed, as long as it’s not a CD-AUDIO it’s not good enough. So 99 cents for a lossy song is a complete rip-off. Why in hell would I pay almost retail price (99 cents for a song) for a compressed song that sounds like crap compared to CD-AUDIO when I can get it completely for free from p2p? Nonsense, utter nonsense. The only reason I’m still listening to MP3s is that I’m still a student and I just don’t have money to buy original CDs. However after I graduate I WILL start buying all those CDs that I like. In the meantime there is no way I’d buy a lossy album or a lossy song for the same price as if I were to buy it from the store.

Not to mention that after all what I said above the recording industry potentially saves millions by selling those songs on the internet. However what about me? Yes, one might argue what am I complaining about - after all with internet downloads I can get my music cheaper than retail. Yes, I’ll probably save myself couple of bucks, but is it really worth it? Yes, on average album with ten songs I would save a couple of bucks compared to retail price, but instead my copy will be lossless, I will have to provide my own CD case along with a blank CD-R to burn it and I won’t get a fancy CD case with the booklet. Is it worth saving myself couple of bucks? No!

IMO this whole 99centsadownload thing is more of a publicity act to prove to the general public that RIAA and others ain’t so bad, that they too provide music via internet so that there is no reason to DL it via p2p and everybody who does that is a criminal. However no one seems to care that 99 cents for a lossy song is a rip-off, that recording industries make millions by charging same price for an inferior product. It stinks. May they all burn in hell… amen… :a


#43

Thyfleshconsumed

Thank you for the response,

I bet you are right about the blind test. Even the very dated article eludes to the same conclusion. Nowadays we have some awesome hardware for a PC and if you are blessed with good hearing as you no doubt are, there is a difference at least to you.

I will not purchase a 99 cennt download either if I can get it on CD or preferably DVD-A or SACD. I tell you what, the RIAA needs to drop this whole litigation thing and let people get on with their lives. These products are not the same as a CD and therefore are not ‘really’ worth suing people over. Also, they should leave the stereo behind and embrace the new tech. Let people play the darn MP3 on their iPods- for free! IMHO The record companies should put out a kick-ass product that makes a MP3 look lame, then they don’t have to worry that it is cannibalizing sales. But they just got to sqeeze every dime out of a 20 year old media before they move on and sell us all the same music again on yet another media.

Just for the record, I also think it is too much to pay for lossy tracks but our old buddies the labels won’t give anyone a break. It makes me sick. They pull down such a high royalty per track that at 99 cents iTunes is just breaking even. The labels ought to realise that they have a good horse and ride it. But they are consumed by greed and ignorance.

Thanks again for the post I enjoyed your thoughtful comments. You make a lot of sense.

Later,

~Crabby


#44

One user in this thread reffered to Audio Catalyst…I’d like to share my thoughts here…:slight_smile:

Hemi actually still uses the product…that and EAC, depending on his meed. Personally…My rlationship with converting .wav to .mp3 started when you had to do it in dos on a windows box.

I donot claim to be an audiophile, and I know alot of other formats such as .ape and ogg are out there…but MP3 at 192+ puts out pretty darn good music, mastered via audiocatalyst.

flipside…playback from other mp3 engines do really suck…same file played. Grocksters engine to play the same file played in winamp…you’d barely know it was the same file…:slight_smile:


#45

isnt p2p file sharing Like a fad any way?

when i was in England i had a “one 2 one mobil phone (hi guys from uk) it gave free calls from 7pm till 7 am …How long you think it takes any one to run out of people to call…things to say??
and my isp was billed by the min no fixed 24/7 rate:a i didnt have any mp3s etc on my h.d. even with napster.Now i am in the u sa with 24/7 cable modem i put my hand up to downloading a few"free song”
but i ownly downloaded what i wanted
which comming from a music lover wasnt that much.So with a 24/7 cable modem whats next but movies of course(truly wouldnt it be “better” to rip from your nearest blockbuster ):confused:
after some 6 months there isnt a "new mp3 or dvd drip on the internet i want .

my burner gets its use from importing my c.ds and then burning 10 tracks from 10cds onto one cd. that and learning how to put home made movies to both pal and ntsc formated discs.Which is what bring me to this wonderful web site:bow:

yes im a risk taker any one who steps out side is taking a risk from…
yet i feel like im just like the avage english /u sa person i am <i think;) >

Dont most people download mp3s run out of files to download thus start movies/dvd rips etc .if you was Truly a fan of say friends wouldnt you go out and by the series in nice box etc?

as a side point if p2p file sharing was no more (dont ask me how or why but lets just say its no more) woudnt the very same people that do downdload lots of files just plug the hi-fi into cool pro and burn from radio that way ,sure long and harder but still “free song” (got you thinking <Grin>)?

so yes crabby appleton im with you the riaa should stop what they are doing and just let us kids get bored with our latest toys before we move onto what ever the next fad is.
if people wanted to be safe woudnt they use blockbuster/coolpro ?? and leave the p2p stuff for the fat cats with big wallets?? ???or is this newbie mising the boat completly?

Just cause you have a gun doent mean you have to go deer hunting every day!


#46

Hi christines_heart, Welcome to the US and especially welcome to the Cd Freaks site!!! :bigsmile:

“my burner gets its use from importing my c.ds and then burning 10 tracks from 10cds onto one cd. that and learning how to put home made movies to both pal and ntsc formated discs.”

Hey- I resemble that remark. :cool:

~Crabby


#47

I think the what the RIAA still forgets is that fileshareing exist regardless of format for the simple reason that they put out a sh*t product.

Granted, there are alot of new and old cd’s out there…regardless of your favorite genre…but you plop down 15 bucks here in the states, to pluck 2-3 jewels out of 12+ tracks you did’nt expect to suffer through…LOL

As far as file sharing goes…not sure I’d call it a fad…perhaps peer to peer file sharing is “kinda new” as a delivery method…but um…IRC, FTP, and Usergroups been around alot longer then contemorary peer to peer, and we’ve been “file sharing” on those all along…:slight_smile:

Granted…this is all a lil off topic…personally, I like mp3 just fine, but open to other formats…anybody know anything about .ape?


#48

I think the what the RIAA still forgets is that fileshareing exist regardless of format for the simple reason that they put out a sh*t product

their shit products are downloaded a lott also on every p2p network, so i don’t think that is a reason.


#49

I dunno Hoss,

I guess there will always be those who want to d’l just for the sake of doing it…but think most downloading music are not going for the entire cd. Just for those 1 or 2 songs they really wanted instead of buying the whole cd. :slight_smile:

And I’m sorry, going to the local music store to buy a single for $3.95 is not an alternative…any more than d’loading an mp3 for .99.

If the RIAA wants me to buy more cd’s and d’load less…(for the record…I do buy cd’s now and then) they need to put eithr more songs worth listening to on 1 disc, or drop the price to something more reasonable.

I have no problem with the RIAA making money…think the artists need a bigger slice…but thats for a different thread…:slight_smile:

I just think that if they reduced the cost to say…300-400% markup, so I could buy a cd around 5 bucks…LOL


#50

i agree with you,

but we can’t say modern days music scks, because our parents (most of them) thought our music scked also .

The kids like the stuff that is in the top 40, else it wouldn’t be there i guess


#51

:slight_smile: Please dont get me wrong.

It’s not my position that modern music sucks, an amazing amount of talent out there…much of which I like. I just think there is so much pressure now on the artist to burp out another cd, for the money machine, that 1-2 good tunes is best you can hope for on a an overpriced cd nowadays. To me thats sad…and it contributes more to piracy than the RIAA will even consider.

If a buy a brand new car, I expect it to have 4 good wheels, why not expect the same from RIAA?

Guess thats the point I was trying to make…:slight_smile:


#52

For the record, I rarely p2p for mp3’s anymore. I am in the US and while the legal concerns are in the back of my mind…it’s more over a quality issue. Atleast my experience using kazaa and grokster…handful of quality rips in a sea of junk…and I don’t blame it on the mp3 format.

I like mp3, rip my own cd’s at 192, save and reburn for personal use as I see fit…to me, on my systems…this sounds good…:slight_smile:

While I know the RIAA and some artists have seeded p2p with junk files, I think users do more seeding than anything else. Having said that…I don’t see p2p going away…cats outta the bag…:slight_smile:


#53

damiandimitri-you have hit on a couple things that I wonder about sometimes. Does the music suck now or have I become like my parents? shudder To me it sucks-hard.

I swore that I never would be that way when I was younger and would always be able to appreciate whatever came along. That promise proved impossible to keep. I made it thru disco but when rap came along I quickly grew tired of it. In fact, I have turned further back and have begun to enjoy certain artists and standards from my parents generation! gulp

Having said that, we are talking about art so there really is no good or bad it is subjective. Like you say it is selling and being downloaded therefore, people like it.

I thought that rap would come and go quickly as well, but it has not. So I guess I am no longer able to keep my promise. Yet, there are many things I do like, such as remixes and some of the new stuff that comes along.

As an aside, mixing and scratching are now college courses. I listened to a PBS radio program the other day and a professor of music for a major university, trained in classical guitar is infatuated by it and is teaching a course. He is looking upon these techniques as a new musical instrument. Here is a link to a thread I just posted in the Living Room in case someone is interested.

Turntablism class at Berklee


#54

first of all anybody with good ears can tell 128k mp3 even with crappy desktop speakers, i encode at 192 k cbr using lame & cdex and i have a fairly good stereo system and i feel that 192 is perfect and its been proven by experts that @ 160-192 the only difference is the feel of the song rather than the sound and at 256 there is no difference at all and if you can hear a difference well then you should apply to be one of the audio scientist people because you obviously know more than they do. but remember its down to the encoder ive heard stuff at 160 that sounded like 96k mp3 on a good encoder because the encoder used was crap.


#55

damiandimitri-you have hit on a couple things that I wonder about sometimes. Does the music suck now or have I become like my parents? shudder To me it sucks-hard.

i think we become our parents. I really wouldn’t know. Perhaps we heard to much music and get more critical.

I hated techno and so on…but even the music i listen to gets influenced by it. And somehow i like it. Just needs so time. …but it adds something new to “older” music also.


#56

I think becoming a parent has alot to do with become you parents…It’s a lil different when watching a niece or nephew, but when it’s your kid…and your listening to what they are…you go…“hey now!!”

for my perspective…there really is good new music out there worth a listen…and not sound like an old ass…the newer stuff i don’t care for…is just to blunt of bland.

The music I grew up with…and the music my generations before me had just as much sex…rebellion…and anger, as what we have today…difference today, much of the music doesn’t know how to get it’s point across without actually saying…F*ck-you, now get nekkid…when were done…we’ll go kill something…

call me old fashion…I think it loses a lil in the translation…:slight_smile:

As for bland…I survived the 80’s…was a decade of rather un-remarkable music…LOL


#57

I wonder, why MP3 always dominated in first place. Followed by wide WMA support.
Not only XiPH is superior and open, but most DVD players in early ages (including SunPlus and DV-RW250) did not even support wavesound (PCM like CDDA) and .mpg (VCD/SVCD/DVD codec) files.


#58

And this 13 years later??? There comes point in threads where old is too OLD?


#59

Is it bad to discuss about old topics?
I have not realized the age of this thread.


#60

Hehe. There’s something about this that tickles an old nerve. We have our ears, then we have technology. Our ear can theoretically pick up 48KHz when we’re young. A 192KBit/44.1KHz would pretty much be adequate for most grown-up ears as they are (if encoded by any fairly recent LAME) quite on the mark.

For technology this is a whole other story. If you double the amount of reference points, you double the accuracy and I’m not even willing to discuss limitation in current technology as that is but a development away if we want it (unless it was all brought about by the sound electronics industry). If an analogue master is digitized @24Bit/192KHz why shouldn’t we be able to feed that exact master to our equipment for it to produce the best audible end result we can hear regardless of age?

This eagerness for limiting when it comes to sound kind of puzzles me in this age of ‘unlimited’ storage and vast silicon power. We soon have a standard of 8K TVs and that’s way beyond what we can see on a 60" Monitor, but it still goes on…Why not for sound?