bakker_be wrote:
If you think Sweden is too small, what about Belgium, with it's 3
different language communities :D That said, I can easily see an EC-wide
service being viable, especially as I look at the different
nationalities present in the audience at Belgian music festivals.
I'm in
Borders are even more outdated than ipv4. But they're going to take much
longer to replace.
Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
SNIP ...
The greatest problem as I see it is the market lock in in small
sub-markets with different copyrigths holders .
If one could create a global lossless download system with global
pricing etc ,the market share would be big enough for real business. The
US itself is just
We all like to think of record companies as idiots, and indeed they have
shown themselves to be so many times in the past.
But I think there is a more rational reason why they only offer lossy
downloads:
1). To offer lossless would require them to pay for more bandwidth.
2). To cover the cost of
cliveb wrote:
We all like to think of record companies as idiots, and indeed they have
shown themselves to be so many times in the past.
But I think there is a more rational reason why they only offer lossy
downloads:
1). To offer lossless would require them to pay for more bandwidth.
I agree that the very limited availability of lossless content is an
issue that the industry seems unwilling to address - to their own
detriment. Additionally, as a music loving consumer today I'm faced
with:
- very few (if any) record stores with decent depth and breadth of
catalogue beyond the
audiomuze wrote:
i'd not be at all surprised if it was found that the overwhelming
majority of music piracy is carried out by teens and people in their
20's and the pirated content is the mindless drivel/ disposable crap i
refer to above - it is after all stuff that has little to no artistic
So what are the reasons why record companies usually won't make lossless
downloads available alongside the lossy? They must have their reasons -
anyone know?
HeadBanger's Profile:
HeadBanger wrote:
So what are the reasons why record companies usually won't make lossless
downloads available alongside the lossy? They must have their reasons -
anyone know?
Three reasons that I can think of:
1) The record companies are afraid that making lossless files available
will
ralphpnj wrote:
Three reasons that I can think of:
1) The record companies are afraid that making lossless files available
will somehow increase piracy even though CDs can be easily ripped into
lossless files and made available for illegal download through all the
usual methods.
2) The
Mnyb wrote:
I Go for nr 3 , there are examples of content aviable as lossles and
iTunes so 2 can not be valid...
iTunes has true lossless (and not simply high bit rate lossy) content
available for purchase and download? Surely you must be joking. I need
solid proof. It's not that I doubt you,
ralphpnj wrote:
iTunes has true lossless (and not simply high bit rate lossy) content
available for purchase and download? Surely you must be joking. I need
solid proof. It's not that I doubt you, rather I simply think that you
are mistaken.
Not iTunes ,music can be aviable as lossles
Mnyb wrote:
Not iTunes ,music can be aviable as lossles someplace else AND as lossy
on iTunes at the same time .
Sure there are various websites where lossless music can be legally
purchased, such as HDTracks, Bandcamp and sites run by various artists
and record labels, but I believe that the
RussellMrgn wrote:
At the moment I'm being forced to obtain Hi Res files by other means by
the very people who complain about me doing it go figure.
The record companies are indeed part of their own problem. If they are
unhappy with people downloading lossless music from dubious sources
Fozzy wrote:
For me, morally as well as legally, one
should obtain music in a way that at least has the potential to provide
the writers and performers of the music with money unless they
specifically choose to give the music away.
In the olden days, before mass copying technology became
pippin wrote:
Depends.
For studio albums I couldn't care less about lossless since they are all
mixed for mp3 these days anyway, so there's no difference.
Live recordings, however, are a different issue.
As a jazz and classical music fan and listener I beg to differ. You are
referring
magiccarpetride wrote:
Why music industry chose to go with a different model, whereby they
would mass produce and distribute copies of the recorded performance, is
a curious fact that remains kind of difficult to explain.
Actually, it is quite easy to explain. The recorded music industry
mlsstl wrote:
Actually, it is quite easy to explain. The recorded music industry came
directly from the music publishing industry. It wasn't until the 1940s
that records started outselling sheet music.
It's impossible to use the movie model you describe to monetize sheet
music. People
bakker_be wrote:
as a european music lover, i mostly object to the so-called
convenience of itunes or any other service: It's almost impossible for
me to get good music legally + lossless. Quite a lot of the stuff on
hdtracks for instance is interesting to me, but strictly speaking i'm
As a European music lover, I mostly object to the so-called
convenience of iTunes or any other service: it's almost impossible for
me to get good music legally + lossless. Quite a lot of the stuff on
hdtracks for instance is interesting to me, but strictly speaking I'm
forbidden to buy it, as I'm
bakker_be wrote:
As a European music lover, I mostly object to the so-called
convenience of iTunes or any other service: it's almost impossible for
me to get good music legally + lossless. Quite a lot of the stuff on
hdtracks for instance is interesting to me, but strictly speaking I'm
Depends.
For studio albums I couldn't care less about lossless since they are all
mixed for mp3 these days anyway, so there's no difference.
Live recordings, however, are a different issue.
pippin's Profile:
Mnyb wrote:
+1
Same same and add that I have to mail order everything , the town I live
in does not have decent record store.
+1
So far as I know, decent music stores do not exist here either. Even
back when stock was deep, employees were shallow.
bfl
Interesting article.
For me, morally as well as legally, one
should obtain music in a way that at least has the potential to provide
the writers and performers of the music with money unless they
specifically choose to give the music away. That could be through
direct payment for the music or
magiccarpetride wrote:
Same as the death of telegram industry had no negative effect on
people's ability to communicate long distance.
Not necessarily true - most of the telegraph industries morphed into
telephone companies - and are now looking at multiple communication
media. There are
JonWill wrote:
despite the rise of social media a media company acts as an arbiter of
quality
Perhaps, but as long as social media does that job way better than the
media companies themselves do it (which IMO is the case), what does it
matter?
JonWill wrote:
I think the piracy debate is different when it comes to the exploitation
of musicians - and that is where the original article is great...
J
The public, acting as pirates, would have to illegally upload/download
every song ever recorded millions of times to come anywhere
JonWill wrote:
a media company acts as an arbiter of quality - filtering out the good
from the dross for the mainstream
That's funny, I always got the impression that the music industry's
primary focus was to convince the mainstream that the dross is worth
buying. Since the dross always
Trust me there's a whole lot more dross out there that they don't touch
- MySpace and Soundcloud are now letting people have an outlet! It's
analgous to publishing. There are a lot of novels under people's beds.
Publishers chose the best (or those they can make money out of...).
Historically
mlsstl wrote:
Pippin, guess we'll just have to agree to mostly disagree regarding the
impact of piracy on the music business. You seem to want to
substantially discount the impact, preferring to assign blame to various
aspects of corporate greed.
No. That was absolutely not my point.
I
To me, the word combination music industry is an oxymoron. It can die
for all I care, I wouldn't piss on it if it was on fire. I am convinced
that the death of music industry will have no negative effect on music
whatsoever, probably the opposite.
Soulkeeper wrote:
To me, the word combination music industry is an oxymoron. It can die
for all I care, I wouldn't piss on it if it was on fire. I am convinced
that the death of music industry will have no negative effect on music
whatsoever, probably the opposite.
Same as the death of
The modern media industries, which includes music, movies, video, books,
magazines, etc., are all trying, rather unsuccessfully, to live with the
fact current digital media has pretty much sacrificed content protection
for user convenience. For me the 5,000 pound elephant in the room
whenever the
It's not piracy vs. convenience, it's also go f... yourself, there's
other things I can do vs. convenience.
I don't pirate stuff, but if I can't get it easily and convenient, I've
got enough other things to do. And the same thing is true of others.
There are more media available yet the day still
pippin wrote:
It's not piracy vs. convenience, it's also go f... yourself, there's
other things I can do vs. convenience.
I don't pirate stuff, but if I can't get it easily and convenient, I've
got enough other things to do. And the same thing is true of others.
There are more media
I beg to differ.
It's not a good article. It's actually a very bad article. I agree with
the general direction making clear that a free culture is bad for
musicians and that they have to make money and that it's not OK to just
pirate music but the article is full of stereotypes, false claims and
pippin wrote:
I beg to differ.
It's not a good article. It's actually a very bad article. I agree with
the general direction making clear that a free culture is bad for
musicians and that they have to make money and that it's not OK to just
pirate music but the article is full of
mlsstl wrote:
I'm rather confused. You slam the specific Sparklehorse example and then
admit the article's author probably knows much more than you about the
details. I don't understand the logic of claiming this is a bad example
while at the same time admitting the author almost certainly
Pippin, guess we'll just have to agree to mostly disagree regarding the
impact of piracy on the music business. You seem to want to
substantially discount the impact, preferring to assign blame to various
aspects of corporate greed.
However, big corporations have always been greedy, and the
Yes piracy is a rampant problem .
And so is the music bussiness refusal to actually adapt , why can't I
simply buy lossles files of any artist 2012 and why could I not a decade
ago and how come that it was apple that actualy took any kind of file
sale to the masses ? and why did it took so long
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/
TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700
View this thread:
Excellent article. I don't know if society is already so far into the
entitlement mentality that things are beyond repair, but it is nice to
see someone point out that these people are already spending a lot of
money in support of their music habit. It's just going to the already
big corporate
Or google et al and all the fake dl sites makes money too. just try to
find the legal alternative in some cases .
There many legal sites for downloading FLAC or similar these days (
octavist pushed a bundle in another post ) .
Search [ any artist ] flac and see ;) the first 20 pages of google
43 matches
Mail list logo
