• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Do you steal music???

Status
Not open for further replies.
#81
DigMe said:
...is it counterfeiting? You're making unauthorized copies. Isn't that what counterfeiting is?
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you know anything about physics, you know there is an old axiom "...no free lunch." Everything must be paid for in some way. Everything...always. Unless of course you just wanna cheat and have someone else do it for you. It was still paid for, just by someone else.

I mean jeez, slavery was a great system economically as long as you were one of the slave owners. Extreme example? Sure, but sometimes extreme examples illustrate the logical conclusion of an idea. Why should somone else foot the bill to make it exist, but not you?
 
#82
Man, I can't stop myself on this one :eek:

c-ba55 said:
Physical goods have a substantial marginal cost, and my posessing it means somebody else does not posess it.
Click to expand...

In my sig line there is a link (OK, a bit of self-promotion here, but it works out for this point) to an MP3. I spent MANY hours making this track. What was the cost? Well, monetarily nothing. I had the gear anyway, perhaps the cost of the electricity to run the gear, but that's it. But the TIME. That is the most expensive thing there is to spend, you can NEVER get it back...I can always make more money. I give it away for free, but that's my choice. If I put in that time and you just took it without even asking me? I don't give a rats-ass if you're just making a copy or not, that was MY time and it's MY creation. You are entitled to it only if you pay me what I ask, or I decide to give it to you...the decision is mine, not yours.
 
#83
c-ba55 said:
I don't consider mp3 copies even remotely comparable in worth to WAV files. So to say you "get" an album for $10 is just wrong to me. You get a crappy, noisy copy of an album that you can only use in certain limited ways.
Click to expand...

iTunes doesn't use .mp3, it uses a newer more advanced codec called .aac which is a derivative of the .mp4 spec. It produces higher quality files at roughly the same filesizes.

That said, it is virtually impossible to hear the difference between a 128-190 kbps .aac or .mp3 vs. a .wav or .aif when you are using consumer grade audio gear. The difference that is there, typically never seriously detracts from the music. I have heard some things on iTunes that I would never buy because the type of music doesn't lead itself well to compression, but the vast majority of pop, rock, world, electronic..etc. stuff you really aren't going to notice anything that suddenly ruins the song.

Maybe If I was sporting $5000 speakers I would have a different opinion, but I'm not, so for me, compression is just fine.

Does listening to compressed music seriously ruin the experience for you? you can't enjoy it at all? Do you enjoy listening to the radio? talkbass clips online? do you enjoy listening to vinyl and tape?(which offer far lower quality than CD) heck, music on TV even... you don't get anything out of any of that? ****, even putting a CD into a crappy system you will be losing a lot of potential audio bliss, do you not let friends put on music if their system is subpar? I dunno, I think it's a pretty silly argument against the online distro thing.

Could iTunes offer lossless or .wav/.aif files for a premium charge to satiate all the 'audiophiles' out there? sure, that wouldn't hurt. But I wouldn't buy them.

Also, I wonder what the limited ways for the album use you refer to are. I can burn a CD, I can put it in my iPod, I can listen on my computer, my home stereo, I can listen in my car, or at a friends house... I don't see how that's any more limited than buying a CD. *shrug*
 
#86
Wrong Robot said:
...it is virtually impossible to hear the difference between a 128-190 kbps .aac or .mp3 vs. a .wav or .aif when you are using consumer grade audio gear.
Click to expand...
Gonna hafta disagree. I tried an experiment with a friend of mine and we could both tell (on repeated listenings, and without any prompting from the other) on a car stereo of medicore quality the diff between 128 MP's, 320 MP3's and 192 WMA's. Big difference? Nah, but it's there.

Wrong Robot said:
It's copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
OK, technically, legally accurate. It's also legally accurate to say that a land mine is a firearm, and that a person is (can be) a corporation. In law, words can be defined however lawmakers wish as long as terms are defined (check out the defintions in 26USC if you wanna have your mind blown). So while your statement is technically true, my question is, OK then what? Making a copy without permssion is OK, because legally it's not stealing?

GottarunofftoworknowwhereI'llbeplayingsongthatthecompanymustpayroyaltiestouseeventhothere'snolosstothecreatorssincethepeoplewatchingeitheralreadyhavethediscsorwouldneverbuy'emanywaysowhydoweevenhaveroyaltiesorresiduals....ah poop...
 
#87
Marcus Willett said:
Gonna hafta disagree. I tried an experiment with a friend of mine and we could both tell (on repeated listenings, and without any prompting from the other) on a car stereo of medicore quality the diff between 128 MP's, 320 MP3's and 192 WMA's. Big difference? Nah, but it's there.
Click to expand...

to be fair, of all consumerish stereos the car stereo is usually on top and a great place to listen to things for such reasons. And yes, there is a difference, but to say that it ruins the music... you'd have to have some pretty strong expectations for your music. *shrug*

I too often encounter people that 'hear' the difference, on a mental level, not a physical one. Where, they simply trust their knowledge that 320 is a higher number and therefore better, so therefore the difference they just 'heard' must be there, despite if they could actually tell or not. if that makes any sense :p Again, to be fair, many repeat experiences with pseudo audiophiles, and music snobs have made this argument pretty lame for me. I apologize if I come off sounding snobbish myself heh

Like a friend of mine, the definition of tin ear(the guy can't keep a pitch to save his life, and definitely can't discern many of the subtleties that some of my other friends can pick up), but he will not accept anything below 190 kbps for his .mp3 collection, can he HEAR the difference... most likely not(he even has a pretty nice home stereo), but his mentality prevents him from accepting that.
 
#88
Wrong Robot said:
I too often encounter people that 'hear' the difference, on a mental level, not a physical one. Where, they simply trust their knowledge that 320 is a higher number and therefore better, so therefore the difference they just 'heard' must be there, despite if they could actually tell or not.
Click to expand...

I've heard that you can only hear the difference if hook up your stereo with Tara Labs cables.

brad cook
 
#90
I'm strictly legit now. CDs and iTunes. (Yeah, I'm an old guy.) I've burned copies of borrowed CDs in the past. I understand how it doesn't feel wrong to people. It's so close to legal acts like taping a TV show for later viewing. But it's really not right if you think about it for a few minutes. To me, the funniest rationalization is the old "I'm just stickin' it to the suits" line. In fact, most of the downloads are of mainstream music where the "suits" had more artistic input than the fashion models who lipsync the songs (and I'm not just talking about the girls). It's nice to think you are supporting the "artists," but if they were recorded in a multimillion dollar studio, have a music video, and put on a stage show that has to be hauled by tractor tailer, then the "art" is more a product of a big corporation than anything else. There is plenty of free, legal music out there by bands who record in their basement and take their gear to gigs in the back seats of their cars. If all you really care about is music you can find it. But if you really want to download the bands on MTV then you need the suits more than the bands.
 
#91
Wrong Robot said:
I too often encounter people that 'hear' the difference, on a mental level, not a physical one. Where, they simply trust their knowledge that 320 is a higher number and therefore better, so therefore the difference they just 'heard' must be there, despite if they could actually tell or not.
Click to expand...
Except that neither one of us told the other which it was we were hearing. We plugged the iRiver into the car stereo and said OK, listen to this one, then this one (same track, same converter to MP3/WMA)and asked which one do you like any why?

We both nailed it every time. You can dimiss if you wish, but I was there. We could both tell. Again, it didn't riun anything at all, but if I'm gonna get something I really like, I want the best possible quality.

DigMe said:
I don't think he was saying that at all!
Click to expand...
True, but I didn't accuse him of that either, I just wanted to understand what he thought the ramifications of his statement were...it's legally not X and so therefore what?

Crap...now I REALLY hafta go play that $%#@* show!! :mad:
 
#92
DigMe said:
I've heard that you can only hear the difference if hook up your stereo with Tara Labs cables.

brad cook
Click to expand...

Damn, foiled again, I was going to give the pitch NEXT post but you beat me too it. So, everyone now that the jig is up, go buy tara labs cables.
 
#93
Marcus Willett said:
That is a rationalization. Someone else did the work to make it a reality, and you didn't, but you still get it. the fact that it's a copy, or that the original is still extant doesn't escape this fact.
Click to expand...

Well, in my specific case, I download songs that I absolutely would not have bought, but am marginally interested in hearing. If the option to get them for free did not exist, I would just go without. Other people would have different judgments of that work and would buy it. I have not cost anybody anything. There is statistically, some chance of them actually making money off me now, since maybe I'll like it so much, I'll get into the band and end up supporting them.

I have bought >1000 CDs in my lifetime, btw, and I still buy a lot regularly. I don't download much anymore because it's such a hassle. The amount of MY time that would have to be spent acquiring a correct file is larger than what the songs are worth to me.
 
#94
Marcus Willett said:
True, but I didn't accuse him of that either, I just wanted to understand what he thought the ramifications of his statement were...it's legally not X and so therefore what?

Crap...now I REALLY hafta go play that $%#@* show!! :mad:
Click to expand...

It seemed like he was just pointing out the correct legal term. He was saying technically it's not counterfeiting, it's copyright infringement. Both are illegal. I don't think the implication was anything other than to correct.

brad cook
 
#95
Wrong Robot said:
iTunes doesn't use .mp3, it uses a newer more advanced codec called .aac which is a derivative of the .mp4 spec. It produces higher quality files at roughly the same filesizes.

That said, it is virtually impossible to hear the difference between a 128-190 kbps .aac or .mp3 vs. a .wav or .aif when you are using consumer grade audio gear. The difference that is there, typically never seriously detracts from the music. I have heard some things on iTunes that I would never buy because the type of music doesn't lead itself well to compression, but the vast majority of pop, rock, world, electronic..etc. stuff you really aren't going to notice anything that suddenly ruins the song.
Click to expand...
For some music, low quality is fine. Particularly as bass players though, we should be upset about the damage to that end of the spectrum. If I'm going to buy some album that I know they spent a lot of time getting a sound on, I want to really hear it.



Wrong Robot said:
Could iTunes offer lossless or .wav/.aif files for a premium charge to satiate all the 'audiophiles' out there? sure, that wouldn't hurt. But I wouldn't buy them.
Click to expand...
To my way of thinking, they are offering low quality files for a premium price already. I would be willing to pay $3 for the aac files of a new album.
Wrong Robot said:
Does listening to compressed music seriously ruin the experience for you? you can't enjoy it at all? Do you enjoy listening to the radio? talkbass clips online? do you enjoy listening to vinyl and tape?(which offer far lower quality than CD) heck, music on TV even... you don't get anything out of any of that? ****, even putting a CD into a crappy system you will be losing a lot of potential audio bliss, do you not let friends put on music if their system is subpar? I dunno, I think it's a pretty silly argument against the online distro thing.
Click to expand...

I vaguely enjoy listening to compressed music files over tiny speakers. That is why I would pay as much as $3 for the privelege. I really enjoy listening to certain CDs. That is why I would pay $15+ for the privelege.


Wrong Robot said:
Also, I wonder what the limited ways for the album use you refer to are. I can burn a CD, I can put it in my iPod, I can listen on my computer, my home stereo, I can listen in my car, or at a friends house... I don't see how that's any more limited than buying a CD. *shrug*
Click to expand...

The main thing I think is that you can only transfer the file to some small number of devices in your lifetime. Seven, last I heard.
 
#97
You can burn 10 CDs of the same playlist, but you can burn unlimited different playlists of the same files. 5 computers can be authorized to use the music(once they are authorized they can be deauthorized whenever you want). There is no restriction for putting it as many iPods as you want.

Once you Burn a CD, then reimport it, the DRM is removed, so then you are left with unprotected files that you can do whatever the hell you want with.

The main reason I support iTunes so much is because I really think that the more popular it gets, the more the record companies will have to spruce up their compensation of artists. Additionally, the more widespread it gets, the better it will get because more people will be complaining about whatever they can find something to complain about. In the meanwhile, it's enabled me to get hip to so much new music that I would have never heard of otherwise, and that ain't not bad.
 
#98
Back to the original topic, i dont steal music. In the past i downloaded music when it was the craze and i got it from friends and stuff who owned the cd's. As soon as peopple got mad about it i stopped, and now i do buy the cd's, and rip them to my computer to then put on my iPod.
 
#99
Yes, it's a fact - the "industry" is doomed. Record companies will be a thing of the past in the near future. I never download albums, but I download live music all the time. The bands that I download support taping and trading of their shows (what reasonable band wouldn't?). These wonderful tapers are doing more to distribute music than any record company could ever dream of. If downloading live music is a crime, what's next?

Support the tapers :)
 
#100
Muzique Fann said:
Yes, it's a fact - the "industry" is doomed.
Click to expand...

Actually for the first half of 2004 the "industry" sales were up 10% over the first half of 2003 and I've heard overall that last year was a great year financially for the music industry. Doesn't sound too doomed to me.

brad cook
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back