thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | reply to vinnie97
Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating
None of those sites had Dream Theater. Easily available off usenet, IRC, P2P, and local CD stores.
I'm right on the mark.. online buy services are complete trash. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to rds24a
said by rds24a  :There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal: 1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store. 2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK. As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can). Good points you make. You should check out the price breakdown that Wired had in a recent article. Reading that makes the cost of 75 cents a track sound more appropriate.
Full article is here:»www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.1···pic_set=
Still, I would personally rather buy whole (used) CD's rather than paying 99 cents a track. The sound quality and DRM are big issues to me, but if I find a one-hit-wonder that I simply don't want to buy the album of, I'll bite and cough up the buck. In that case I would be paying the unit cost of buying that one track as opposed to buying the whole album...but I'd still rather have the higher bitrate.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
Slaphappy1279
@216.135.x.x
| reply to DRM is legalized the
I think it's most important to remember that, originally, copyrights were designed to keep someone from PROFITING from the use of someone else's intellectual property. The protection was designed to stop illegal use by another business entity.
Now it's about trying to control the uses of the CONSUMER. Make no mistake, ultimately these initiatives are leading up to attempts by media giants to ram through per-use types of fees. Sound ridiculous? The Phone Company (I'm talking the AT&T monopoly here) tried for years to get measured-service rates (fortunately without success). The agenda of the media-interest groups are much larger than what is being talked about in the present. |
|
skipon11
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to N3OGH
Whew! Wacoyle. They sure have Braineashed you! |
|
rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Springboro, OH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to voyager6868
There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal:
1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store.
2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK.
As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can).
--
All hail JoePa |
|
voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA | reply to WirelessMajr
If a buck's worth nothing to you, how about sending everyone regsitered on this site a buck just to prove it? |
|
WirelessMajr
Premium
join:2005-08-03
College Place, WA
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :Way to Troll.. I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit. When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning? 1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores. 2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song. Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP. A short list of things that cost more than a buck... A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15 A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39 A gallon of gas $2.35 A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake. Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want... Just because you see fit to waste a dollar on a song you don't like, don't label all of creation a thief just because everyone else doesn't comply with your personal morals.
1) Computers are relatively cheap nowadays. You don't need the latest and greatest. My mom's PII 266 will download and burn songs quite fine. Something that you pick up for $100, then purchase a cheap DVD burner (DVD burners can be had for ~$40 today) will service you for that exact purpose perfectly. You just need to make sure you have ample RAM.
2) A BUCK as you call it isnt cheap. Maybe, just maybe a person feels they have something better to do with a buck than to waste it on a lossy formatted song. For this "BUCK," I want a lossless copy of the song, as there are lossless codecs out there. |
|
Atomic Fro
@comcast.net
|  reply to N3OGH
Never mind the tax on the blank CDs the RIAA gets to compensate for music piracy.
They already got their dues from that. If the RIAA wants to take students and old ladies to court over a hand full of songs the market deems as only worth .99, then the tax on the blank CDs needs to go. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to TKJunkMail
I'm sure Dave Grohl would laugh at this! Esp. this 1st comment here...
I heard him on the radio once (napster era) and he was very open about the arguments. He believes (as MANY artist do) that sharing is in our nature. That if somebody hears his stuff and likes it, that's one more fan even if they might not buy the album. It matters more that the exposure is happening so that when they TOUR those people show up. Of course many artists would not make it w/out distro/publishers/sharks of all types taking their cut along the way.
That's not the issue.
Surprise, foo sells foo! Does it matter one bit that it's also a top 'shared' song? Maybe, and it also shows from that article that they've sold a boatload of discs! That, IMO, is the fracking issue. Foo Fighters are proving to everybody that both worlds can exist... BBR is NOT saying hey everybody go find free Foo Fighters 'cause they're popular and stuff... Who taught you how to read, and between what lines???
I'm not even a big fan of the FOO, but dammit, Dave seems like an awesome guy. This story proves that 'sharing' aside, music still matters to people. Get over it. Pay for Rhapsody, go to iTunes and spend a buck or two, it's cheaper than gas and it lasts longer!!! |
|
voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them. I agree. He obviously has nothing better to do. You guys should lobby congress to pass a bill to put all these retirees back to work instead of them mooching off social security and causing a raucous. |
|
rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Springboro, OH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to stet
said by stet : and don't have to worry about DRM or other issues. I can, if I wanted to, convert it to any other format for any specific reason. And that is what the music industry wants to stop. And that I disagree with. My impression is that they want music to be like software...you buy only the right to hear the song on one device according to their terms and conditions. Little Jimmy wants the song on his MP3 player and his sister Little Suzy also wants it on hers. Why let Jimmy rip the song and give it to his sister when Mommy and Daddy will shell out $1.98 to download it twice?
--
All hail JoePa |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| reply to rds24a
There are some loss less forms of music compression, but they are not as popular as iTunes' AAC or MP3s are, mostly because the files are larger.
Personally I never want just 1 song (if an band only puts out 1 song that I'm interested in, then I'm just not interested in that band), so services like iTunes are not for me. Buying CDs is great because I get the best possible quality for most music (some music is now available on better media, but not much yet) and don't have to worry about DRM or other issues. I can, if I wanted to, convert it to any other format for any specific reason.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. |
|
rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Springboro, OH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to stet
A truck it probably not the best place to judge sound quality. Actually, headphones seem to cause flaws to show up the most. Particularly for quieter passages.
Realize, too, that all CD recordings are not the same. The original production quality and source method can impact audio quality.
Most of the music I listen to, the 128kbps ITunes AAC or 256kbps MP3 is fine, however I do hear loss on certain songs. There is NO compression method that will not affect the audio in some way. Unless the infrastructure becomes economically feasible to deliver 50 Mb music files online, then online music will have to sacrifice quality for convenience.
Then you add DRM in, which decides what level of convenience is appropriate. The jury is definitely still out on this one. Right now, I think ITunes has the best package. ITunes's restrictions are outweighed by the security, virus, moral, and legal issues of filesharing, but are still better than buying an overpriced CD worth of junk for 1 good song. CD's become even less desirable when they starting adding terms and conditions for personal use.
--
All hail JoePa |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :a 320k MP3 cant be seperated from a CD in quality. ive played Burned from MP3 and store bought CDs in my truck and cant tell the difference. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that there isn't one, because there is.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to TKJunkMail
a 320k MP3 cant be seperated from a CD in quality. ive played Burned from MP3 and store bought CDs in my truck and cant tell the difference.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
1 edit | reply to thender2
quote:
legal online downloads are all low quality, overcompressed trash.
»www.beatport.com
»www.edmdigital.com
»www.fiberlineaudio.com
»www.djdownload.com
Most of those offer lossless and/or WAV downloads along with 320 kbps mp3s, so you're a bit off the mark (and those are just off the top of my head). |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to 43193594
I can see where one not having a degree in Psych.One would simply be out standing in the field 
--
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window |
|
43193594
Chauncey Gardiner
join:2005-08-03
CX 747-400 | reply to N3OGH
Just because one doesn't feel a price is justified by a product doesn't mean they are a thief.
That doesn't make trading songs right. It also doesn't make trading them wrong. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to gheezer
Way to Troll..
I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit.
When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning?
1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores.
2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song.
With the advent and proliferation of single song download services (not just iTunes, but a myriad of services), there is no legitimate reason not to go to a legal source to download the music you want.
Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP.
I'm no friend of the RIAA, but since so many legal avenues to download music cheaply exist, it is getting harder and harder to fall on the side of folks who consistently bitch and moan about downloading music illegally on P2P services.
A short list of things that cost more than a buck...
A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15
A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39
A gallon of gas $2.35
A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake.
Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want...
Technology has caught up to this argument, and it has become totally moot. You can download almost any single song you might possibly want for a fair price, and the rights to it's use are, for the most part, pretty generous, as long as you're not trying to give it away for free.
I used to be a big advocate for the argument in favor of P2P, but not any more. If you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you might possibly want, I can't see where you were willing to pay anything for it in the first place... |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to unigamer
The third according to Linus on Halloween Night is "The Great Pumpkin". |
|
