Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > RIAA nails 1,000 music-lovers in 'new Prohibition' jihad

RIAA nails 1,000 music-lovers in 'new Prohibition' jihad (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 11:21 AM
 
I saw this ad on Versiontracker today...




I dunno, seems kind of wrong to be trying to profit from people "stealing" music.

-Owl
     
nvaughan3
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Joseph, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 11:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
seriously, listen on some nice klipsh's and you could most likely be able to tell the difference (depending on the music and recording quality of aforementioned music). you're right, double-blind testings are pointless on normal speakers, like computer speakers, and even most car speakers, but if you love your music and have invested in GOOD speakers, a blind test could set things apart. Audio compressed further than CD sounds flatter and other losses can be heard on a good system.

i also like to have the original packaging.

There are studies on 20,000 speakers showing that people can't tell. I've personally got a fairly nice set of polk speakers. No B&W's, but not junk either. I cannot tell the difference at 320.
"Americans love their country and fear their government. Liberals love their government and fear the people."

""Gun control is a band-aid, feeling good approach to the nation's crime problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a murderer to death or a robber to life in prison. In essence, 'gun control' is the coward's way out.""
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:06 PM
 
If you have to do a double-blind test to tell the difference, there is no real difference, in my opinion.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Audio compressed further than CD sounds flatter and other losses can be heard on a good system.

i also like to have the original packaging.
Every single blind test I've seen so far has had the same result: Above 256kbps it is impossible to hear the difference between the copy and the original.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:
Every single blind test I've seen so far has had the same result: Above 256kbps it is impossible to hear the difference between the copy and the original.
this means nothing unless you tell me the set-up you use
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
If you have to do a double-blind test to tell the difference, there is no real difference, in my opinion.
without a blind test, you'll just assume that the better one sounds better (the mind is a wonderful, easily-influenced thing like that)
     
macbarry
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:40 PM
 
Most who have commented here have not speculated on if the RIAA's new lawsuits against MP3 downloaders will work... While I may not necessarily subscribe to the RIAA's draconian tactics I actually think that they may have an effect.

It's analogous to speeding on the highway. Everyone knows it's illegal to speed however speeding is a very widespread activity - EXCEPT - when the police are present. In those communities or areas under constant surveilance by the law episodes of speeding are greatly diminished.

I believe that the RIAA has simply decided to begin to enforce the laws and assert an internet police presence. They will maintain and pay for that continued legal presence by fleecing the poor downloaders who get caught in the RIAA's "speed traps".

I'm sure that someone will probably attempt to invent RIAA "radar detectors" but the fact will probably remain that by simply keeping the threat of an expensivbe lawsuit out there the RIAA will probably begin to significantly thwart music swaping via the internet. Those students recently convicted by the RIAA of copious file sharing were convicted of theft and made to pay up to $75k each to the RIAA...

Needless to say as a parent I haved warned my offspring that speeding illegal. Now I will also be pointedly reminding them that so is downloading illegal music. Score one for the RIAA lawyers?
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:41 PM
 
Originally posted by nvaughan3:
There are studies on 20,000 speakers showing that people can't tell. I've personally got a fairly nice set of polk speakers. No B&W's, but not junk either. I cannot tell the difference at 320.
i guess it just depends on the person, and on the quality and type of the music used in the test. there are a lot of recordings out there that are fairly poor and/or not very dynamic and you probably couldn't tell a difference between that and a CD. But sometimes, there will be quite a clear difference (a well-recorded piano, etc). I agree the difference is not HUGE, but it is definitely noticeable with certain recordings. The difference between 320kbps mp3 and a regular CD is definitely less than the difference between a regular CD and the new SACDs and DVDAs coming out on the market, but that doesn't mean you're still taking a step down. Again, it's a personal choice, I LIKE having the original packaging and CD, I don't listen to top 40 music outside of commercials and the radio (which I barely listen to). A number of wonderful CDs are out there, many imports, and have little to do with the RIAA. Those labels are smaller and could definitely use the money. If it is your preference to download all your music with no intention of ever purchasing, then that's your preference. And once more back on the blind-test issue. MOST people do this on computer speakers and 10-dollar headphones, and listen people, you CAN'T tell the difference on those. I can barely tell the difference on my lower-end Grados with some music, sometimes i can't tell any difference at all, but the difference can be very noticeable with certain music on a high-end system. Buy McIntosh speakers and say it again. (edit...) I'm not against listening to compressed music, I compress AAC audio for my iPod all the time, and it's fine for on the road, but the original is nice for the hi-fi system.
( Last edited by Stradlater; Jul 22, 2003 at 12:51 PM. )
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
this means nothing unless you tell me the set-up you use
I don't. I don't have the equipment, I don't have the intention. I've seen (read) the results though.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 12:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:
I don't. I don't have the equipment, I don't have the intention. I've seen (read) the results though.
well what's the equipment of the test, and who are the listeners? all i've seen are tests that computer magazines do themselves with their staff on not-the-highest-quality speakers.
     
nvaughan3
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Joseph, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 01:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
well what's the equipment of the test, and who are the listeners? all i've seen are tests that computer magazines do themselves with their staff on not-the-highest-quality speakers.
I think the more important question is, who is encoding the music and what was it encoded with? With a good rip you wont be able to tell the difference. Perhaps on existing crappy rips you can, fine, I wont deny that.
"Americans love their country and fear their government. Liberals love their government and fear the people."

""Gun control is a band-aid, feeling good approach to the nation's crime problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a murderer to death or a robber to life in prison. In essence, 'gun control' is the coward's way out.""
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 02:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
well what's the equipment of the test, and who are the listeners? all i've seen are tests that computer magazines do themselves with their staff on not-the-highest-quality speakers.
Here's a blind test that is often cited and is plenty good enough for me (I've been following audio for 35 years):

http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

These were professional audio engineers and musicians listening through an extremely high-resolution system. Even then, they had to listen hard to distinguish the original CD from 128 (in some cases preferring 128), and there was no statistically meaningful difference at 256.

Everybody thinks they have golden ears until they undergo a blind test.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 02:47 PM
 
Originally posted by macbarry:
Most who have commented here have not speculated on if the RIAA's new lawsuits against MP3 downloaders will work... While I may not necessarily subscribe to the RIAA's draconian tactics I actually think that they may have an effect.

It's analogous to speeding on the highway. Everyone knows it's illegal to speed however speeding is a very widespread activity - EXCEPT - when the police are present. In those communities or areas under constant surveilance by the law episodes of speeding are greatly diminished.

I believe that the RIAA has simply decided to begin to enforce the laws and assert an internet police presence. They will maintain and pay for that continued legal presence by fleecing the poor downloaders who get caught in the RIAA's "speed traps".

I'm sure that someone will probably attempt to invent RIAA "radar detectors" but the fact will probably remain that by simply keeping the threat of an expensivbe lawsuit out there the RIAA will probably begin to significantly thwart music swaping via the internet. Those students recently convicted by the RIAA of copious file sharing were convicted of theft and made to pay up to $75k each to the RIAA...

Needless to say as a parent I haved warned my offspring that speeding illegal. Now I will also be pointedly reminding them that so is downloading illegal music. Score one for the RIAA lawyers?
Exactly right. The RIAA hardly expects to recover damages from every file sharer - they're just trying to make people think twice.

Hell, I like to have free music, and I wish the record companies would adapt to new technologies and put out better product, but neither can I blame them for trying to protect their turf.
     
mishap  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 02:53 PM
 
Originally posted by macbarry:
Most who have commented here have not speculated on if the RIAA's new lawsuits against MP3 downloaders will work... While I may not necessarily subscribe to the RIAA's draconian tactics I actually think that they may have an effect.

It's analogous to speeding on the highway. Everyone knows it's illegal to speed however speeding is a very widespread activity - EXCEPT - when the police are present. In those communities or areas under constant surveilance by the law episodes of speeding are greatly diminished.

I believe that the RIAA has simply decided to begin to enforce the laws and assert an internet police presence. They will maintain and pay for that continued legal presence by fleecing the poor downloaders who get caught in the RIAA's "speed traps".

I'm sure that someone will probably attempt to invent RIAA "radar detectors" but the fact will probably remain that by simply keeping the threat of an expensivbe lawsuit out there the RIAA will probably begin to significantly thwart music swaping via the internet. Those students recently convicted by the RIAA of copious file sharing were convicted of theft and made to pay up to $75k each to the RIAA...

Needless to say as a parent I haved warned my offspring that speeding illegal. Now I will also be pointedly reminding them that so is downloading illegal music. Score one for the RIAA lawyers?
Good point. I believe it is mostly scare tactics to make people believe they could just as easily get caught and to make sure they know it is illegal

reminds me of that Eminem song "Guilty Conscience"..... eh...nevermind.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 03:15 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
Here's a blind test that is often cited and is plenty good enough for me (I've been following audio for 35 years):

http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

These were professional audio engineers and musicians listening through an extremely high-resolution system. Even then, they had to listen hard to distinguish the original CD from 128 (in some cases preferring 128), and there was no statistically meaningful difference at 256.

Everybody thinks they have golden ears until they undergo a blind test.
thanks for the link, it's nice to see a test that actually goes through such trouble for answers...but that's not going to stop me from buying the CDs I enjoy. it also doesn't change the fact that most MP3s out there are 128kbps and not encoded with the best encoders, and that the difference in those files is noticeable.
     
mishap  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 03:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
it also doesn't change the fact that most MP3s out there are 128kbps and not encoded with the best encoders, and that the difference in those files is noticeable.
Well, if you download the file from a 12 year old on KaZaa, you're probably right.
     
Beewee
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 03:44 PM
 
Originally posted by ringo:
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but the fact is that piracy removes some of the incentive that artists have to make music. Is this harsh? Yes. Are the penalties reasonable? Probably not. Does that make people who are distributing music for free innocent of any wrongdoing? No.

The industry tried asking people to stop, that didn't help. So why shouldn't they hold people accountable for their actions? If someone stole your work and gave it away to your customers, you would be angry too and you would probably want to get paid for what was stolen.

Are the lawsuits and the penalty amounts ridiculous? Sure they are. But so is thinking that no one is hurt when you take something that doesn't belong to you.
Not necessarily. Artists have always been about "the music" more than "the money" - excluding Metallica. The RIAA doesn't care about the rights of the artist being trampled they only care about their share of the profits.

I'm sure that some artists are pissed but piracy is a fact of life. If someone is determined enough to "not pay" for something then they won't.

Should we punish these individuals? In my opinion, no. (And here comes the barrage of accusations that I pirate music.) Now here is why:

1. There are far too many people out there to punish. It is a waste of time and tax payers money to hold trial after trial against individuals. That is unless the RIAA is going to go for one big class action. RIAA v. Everyone in the USA.

2. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) There is no legal agreement that the buyer of the CD has to follow. When I put my music CD in my computer there is no "agree to these terms or you don't get to listen to the music" message. The RIAA would say that a customer automatically agrees to some contract when he/she buys the CD...B*llsh*t. Show me the contract and let me talk to my lawyer then you might have something to complain about.

3. What they are doing is going to hurt them in the long run. If they start prosecuting individuals its going to hurt their sales even more; these "criminals" are their customers. Only a small minority pirate EVERY song they own and it will only serve to alienate other ligitimate buyers.

"Hey Tom, did you hear that Joe got arrested?"

"No, really?!" "What for?"

"He was uploading 'Oops I did it again' to a buddy of his."

No matter what Gestapo tactics they use their problem will never go away. And them boasting, smiling, and patting eachother on the back after they put some guy away for sharing Mp3s only shows everyone else just how tyrannical and controlling the music industry has become.
In my opinion this DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD!
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 03:54 PM
 
Originally posted by mishap:
Well, if you download the file from a 12 year old on KaZaa, you're probably right.
The thing I don't understand is, how the hell can you screw up encoding an MP3? I mean, don't most programs just have presets for you to use? Or am I totally spoiled by iTunes? Sure, there are bitrate choice issues, but from what I understand the quality problems are a lot more than just that.
     
mishap  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 04:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
The thing I don't understand is, how the hell can you screw up encoding an MP3? I mean, don't most programs just have presets for you to use? Or am I totally spoiled by iTunes? Sure, there are bitrate choice issues, but from what I understand the quality problems are a lot more than just that.
No clue... but i'm sure some ppl compress the hell out of songs just to get the smallest file size and not really know what it does to the song.... or maybe it sounds the same coming out of their crappy little computer speakers at high and low bitrates?
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 05:31 PM
 
Originally posted by mishap:
Well, if you download the file from a 12 year old on KaZaa, you're probably right.
i'm saying the majority of files, i'm not saying the only files. and yes, a lot of people use kazaa, and are ignorant about bitrate, et cetera. i do know of where to get 192kbps+ for most of my needs, and i also know where i can get AAC for a lot of them. i still like owning a copy if i like the music. downloading is just a good way of previewing music for me to decide whether or not it's worth buying later.
     
ambush
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 05:36 PM
 
Originally posted by OwlBoy:
I saw this ad on Versiontracker today...




I dunno, seems kind of wrong to be trying to profit from people "stealing" music.

-Owl
This guy's clearly trying to sell his thing before Poisoned gets more popular.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2003, 05:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Beewee:
Not necessarily. Artists have always been about "the music" more than "the money" - excluding Metallica. The RIAA doesn't care about the rights of the artist being trampled they only care about their share of the profits.
A lot of musicians are about the money as well as the music, or they wouldn't sign contracts with the major labels that the RIAA represents. Some are just more honest about it than others.

Granted, many would not employ the RIAA's tactics, but many are privately glad that the RIAA is fighting piracy, even if the RIAA doesn't care about them individually.

I'm sure that some artists are pissed but piracy is a fact of life. If someone is determined enough to "not pay" for something then they won't.
True, but digital technology makes it infinitely easier. And they've always fought piracy even though they know they can't prevent it completely.

Should we punish these individuals? In my opinion, no. (And here comes the barrage of accusations that I pirate music.) Now here is why:

1. There are far too many people out there to punish. It is a waste of time and tax payers money to hold trial after trial against individuals. That is unless the RIAA is going to go for one big class action. RIAA v. Everyone in the USA.
That's not really the RIAA's goal - they just want to bring enough suits to make everyone else think twice. Time will tell whether it works.

2. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) There is no legal agreement that the buyer of the CD has to follow. When I put my music CD in my computer there is no "agree to these terms or you don't get to listen to the music" message. The RIAA would say that a customer automatically agrees to some contract when he/she buys the CD...B*llsh*t. Show me the contract and let me talk to my lawyer then you might have something to complain about.
It's not a matter of contract - it's a matter of copyright law. Other than making personal copies, you can be held liable for copying/distributing other people's music without their permission.

3. What they are doing is going to hurt them in the long run. If they start prosecuting individuals its going to hurt their sales even more; these "criminals" are their customers. Only a small minority pirate EVERY song they own and it will only serve to alienate other ligitimate buyers.

No matter what Gestapo tactics they use their problem will never go away. And them boasting, smiling, and patting eachother on the back after they put some guy away for sharing Mp3s only shows everyone else just how tyrannical and controlling the music industry has become.
In my opinion this DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD!
This is a question of business strategy and I agree with it to a point. But that doesn't mean that they aren't within their legal rights.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,