[Sunday Business Post] Irish music industry hit by downloading (1 Viewer)

[coast to coast]

on the issue of sound quality...

It always reminds me of those people who try to impress you with their surround sound home cinema system extravaganza - WHO GIVES A FUCK. you'll be dead soon - spend your time fretting about something important.

spend your time giving a fuck about what ever you want to give a fuck about more like it.

 

[avernus]

on the issue of sound quality...

It always reminds me of those people who try to impress you with their surround sound home cinema system extravaganza - WHO GIVES A FUCK. you'll be dead soon - spend your time fretting about something important.

but it's the aural equivalent to youtube's video compression. it's not right dammit. it's just not right!

 

[Vinnie]

on the issue of sound quality...

It always reminds me of those people who try to impress you with their surround sound home cinema system extravaganza - WHO GIVES A FUCK. you'll be dead soon - spend your time fretting about something important.

I wont be dead soon. I have weeks left. Cop on Simon.

 

[broken arm]

but it's the aural equivalent to youtube's video compression. it's not right dammit. it's just not right!

but there are high quality MP3s. I buy stuff of Bleep and http://www.calabashmusic.com/ etc etc and they all sound fine to me. depending on what i am listening to them on.

I also convert CDs i buy into mp3.


actually - i can understand if you are a producer/musician - most listeners just don't have the aural obsession.

 

[broken arm]

I wont be dead soon. I have weeks left. Cop on Simon.

dog weeks?

 

[broken arm]

i just rememered.....

I had a row in about 1996 with a guy when I was studying product design - MP3's were only hitting the technology news.

I was adamant that MP3's were shit and that vinyl/cd's were the only medium.

it almost came to blows in the studio

 

[Vinnie]

dog weeks?

Sol Weeks. He's the comptroller, Frank.

 

[aoboa]

but there are high quality MP3s. I buy stuff of Bleep and http://www.calabashmusic.com/ etc etc and they all sound fine to me. depending on what i am listening to them on.

I also convert CDs i buy into mp3.


actually - i can understand if you are a producer/musician - most listeners just don't have the aural obsession.

320Kb mp3s are okay.

 

[La La]

PS if you love that fucking study so much why dont you marry it?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

GREAT choon.

 

[broken arm]

320Kb mp3s are okay.

class dismissed.

 

[TenRabbits]

Here comes the compression argument again then.. when cds came in people moaned and moaned about how poor quality they were compared to vinyl, now mp3s are shite compared to cds (which must make them like listening to a vinyl record with your head dipped in a bucket of shit then?). I wonder if when vinyl came in people complained that the wax cylinder kicked the arse outta it?

As for the value of music, because lets face it this is crux of the argument - how people value music. The fact that music can be turned into a stream of 1s and 0s (copyright Pete) is unfortunately now fact, and whether or not anyone bitches about it, it's here to stay. This wouldn't have been so much of a problem if the record companies hadn't decided they could save a fortune with cds (and sell them at the same price as vinyl) by reducing the packaging and inlays to the cheapest 3 colour shite possible, thereby increasing profits by 5p a cd or something. It means that for anyone who grew up with these cds the only interesting thing is the actual music, not having a piece of art in your hands. I think it devalued the work that goes into making an album, and made people wonder why they chould shell out for such a basic package when they can get the album for free WITH the cover art of t'net.

 

[Unicron]

320Kb mp3s are okay.

I've had the latest Panda Bear album on 320 KBps MP3 for months and bought it on vinyl over the weekend. The difference in what you can hear is still quite significant.

 

[pete]

Pete - on the issue of copyright etc.
What if someone stole thumped?
And threw up a shitload of banner ads and started making a load of money from it?
Wouldn't that be wrong?

Well it'd be more stupid than wrong to be honest, but i see what you're getting at. For the purposes of this reply we'll leave aside the fact that the copyright* on posts / contributions remains with the poster.

Whether I like it or not, the words and ideas presented here are freely and infinitely redistributable with as close to a zero marginal cost as you can get. So the question then is how could it be "stolen"?

1. By physically taking the server, or perhaps by hacking it, copying the database, then deleting the original. Both are "theft", in that something I previously had sole "ownership" and benefit of has been misappropriated, and are Very Bad Things To Do.

2. If someone scrapes the content and passes it off either as their own work or as a "counterfeit" thumped.com, then that's copyright infringement. I still have the original, but its "value" is being diluted, and I could legally pursue them if i thought it was worth the effort.

3. If someone downloads a copy of every single page of the site for their own personal use... well, I don't really care. Should I? Ah, but what if they were to go on to distribute copies of it to all their millions of internet friends? I'll live, considering it's already freely available. Again, I still have the original, and the (static) copies would most likely be discarded or ignored entirely by people who would never have visited anyway. On the other hand, seeing a copy of the site might incentivise someone who otherwise hadn't heard of it to come visit. Who knows?

I'm very, very tired right now, and I have no idea what my point was originally meant to be, other than when you're talking about Imaginary Property with zero reproduction costs you shouldn't throw around words like "theft" and "stealing".

Understandably enough, The Industry would like to frame the discussion of digital media distribution in these very terms since if it's being stolen then it must have a physical value, so you won't think about why you're paying 99c for a reproduction of something that costs practically nothing to reproduce.

We'd be better served by a much wider discussion on copyright, artist rights and distribution models that don't involve what appear to be unnecessary middle men.



* and by logical extension, the blame

 

[Vinnie]

Is how I value milk relative to the means by which I procure it? Because I can take it from your doorstep if I dont believe the dairies are treating it with the respect I feel it deserves.

As for the value of music, because lets face it this is crux of the argument - how people value music. The fact that music can be turned into a stream of 1s and 0s (copyright Pete) is unfortunately now fact, and whether or not anyone bitches about it, it's here to stay. This wouldn't have been so much of a problem if the record companies hadn't decided they could save a fortune with cds (and sell them at the same price as vinyl) by reducing the packaging and inlays to the cheapest 3 colour shite possible, thereby increasing profits by 5p a cd or something. It means that for anyone who grew up with these cds the only interesting thing is the actual music, not having a piece of art in your hands. I think it devalued the work that goes into making an album, and made people wonder why they chould shell out for such a basic package when they can get the album for free WITH the cover art of t'net.

 

[broken arm]

Is how I value milk relative to the means by which I procure it? Because I can steal it from your doorstep if I dont believe the dairies are treating it with the respect I feel it deserves.

did you ever go nicking milk as a kid?

you haven't lived until you've got a baiting from a milkman

 

[pete]

I also convert CDs i buy into mp3.

currently illegal in the UK and Ireland.

 

[aoboa]

I've had the latest Panda Bear album on 320 KBps MP3 for months and bought it on vinyl over the weekend. The difference in what you can hear is still quite significant.

You can't compare mp3/cd and vinyl.
Completely different frequency responses.

 

[avernus]

did you ever go nicking milk as a kid?

you haven't lived until you've got a baiting from a milkman

I got chased by a milkman once. No.. I'm wrong.. it was a postman. He was real angry.

 

[Unicron]

You can't compare mp3/cd and vinyl.
Completely different frequency responses.

That's my point though. You said that 320 was OK. I think they're significantly worse still.

 

[Soultrader]

You can't compare mp3/cd and vinyl.
Completely different frequency responses.

True but everyone has gone deaf from listening to songs that are mastered excruciatingly loud on headphones on MP3 player and can no longer pick out a lot of the frequency differences you're on about.

Plus if MP3 is the only way you listen to music then it becomes your only reference point and becomes normalised.