The free culture movement is abuzz today over news that ASCAP has requested their members to fight organizations like Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation over what it claims as an effort to undermine copyright.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89494/ascap-declares-war-on-free-culture/
ASCAP raising money to fight Free Culture
(http://craphound.com/images/119742854.png.jpg)
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/23/ascap-raising-money.html
http://twitpic.com/1zai6e
http://twitpic.com/1zai66
editor's comment - me thinks they just want to fleece what they consider to be stupid people (i.e. clients and public) of $5+ checks...
Yeah. Well, let's see.
from slashdot
"As an experiment, composer Jason Robert Brown logged onto a site illegally offering his sheet music for download and contacted hundreds of users politely asking them to stop listing the material. Most complied, some were confused, and a few fought back. Brown chronicles a lengthy exchange he had with a teenage girl named Brenna which provides an interesting insight into the artists' perspective of the copyright debate. He also responds to several points raised in comments to the article and says, 'I don't wish to be the enemy; I'm just a guy trying to make a living.'"
http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php
My answer - if you make a reasonable living why not share the rest?
QuoteThe way I support myself and my family is through the sale of those songs, on CD's, in sheet music, in tickets. Sheet music represents almost half of my yearly income.
That's the problem. He relies on sheet music. In this age you cannot rely on selling printed copies of your work - technology took care of that. He can send out 400 letters, 4000 or 40000 - it doesn't matter. To be honest, this girl's arguments were not so strong, but the arguments of the composer were even weaker.
QuoteMy answer - if you make a reasonable living why not share the rest?
So he's not entitled to make more than a reasonable living?
QuoteIn this age you cannot rely on selling printed copies of your work - technology took care of that.
Just because technology gives the means to make stealing easier, doesn't make stealing right. And one shouldn't just give in, because then people lose sight that there is something wrong with it.
QuoteSo he's not entitled to make more than a reasonable living?
Why not? He is perfectly entitled. But if making more than a reasonable living means restricting the freedom of the whole planet, then no. Or else he is entitled to make more than a living using other methods, which would not declare millions of people "criminals".
QuoteJust because technology gives the means to make stealing easier, doesn't make stealing right. And one shouldn't just give in, because then people lose sight that there is something wrong with it.
Stealing in the digital age is stealing because the author and/or publisher ties real money to digital copies. It is their wrong, not the wrong of people who use technology a click away. If you seriously think that telling people that copying a file is wrong will actually some day make us all sit before a computer and go: "I can easily copy this movie with one click, but instead I will save up and when I have enough, spend a day hunting movie stores all over town to maybe find it" - then I think that you are being unrealistic.
Quote...if making more than a reasonable living means restricting the freedom of the whole planet, then no.
The freedom to steal?
QuoteOr else he is entitled to make more than a living using other methods, which would not declare millions of people "criminals".
If you steal you are a criminal. Unfortunately since so many people do it, you don't see it as theft, just as I said, people lose sight that something is wrong with it.
So let's continue with your line of thought...
Quote
Stealing in the digital age is stealing because the author and/or publisher ties real money to digital copies. It is their wrong, not the wrong of people who use technology a click away.
I presume that the author owns the work and has the right to allow or deny people to view/listen/use their works. I also presume that they are entitled to charge for that use.
But let's assume you are right and the author is not entitled such.
I would therefore be fully entitled to obtain your DNA from someone else and not only use it for whatever I want, but make copies of it and share it with everyone else for them to do what they like with it. We could have an army of Louigi clones.
Technology allows this. Whilst there are differences in the replication, the same logic applies. Do you not feel entitled to the right over how a product of your being is used?
Quote
If you seriously think that telling people that copying a file is wrong will actually some day make us all sit before a computer and go: "I can easily copy this movie with one click, but instead I will save up and when I have enough, spend a day hunting movie stores all over town to maybe find it" - then I think that you are being unrealistic.
More people copy, not because it's so easy, but because they don't view it as wrong. (I'm going to test this theory by asking as many people as I can if they view copying a movie or song as stealing.) You could easily mug a granny, but most wouldn't because they inherently know it's wrong.
No doubt the simplicity and chance of getting caught copying is a factor, but I re-iterate that one should not state that there is nothing wrong with it just because it's so easy.
QuoteI would therefore be fully entitled to obtain your DNA from someone else and not only use it for whatever I want, but make copies of it and share it with everyone else for them to do what they like with it. We could have an army of Louigi clones.
We were speaking about copying music, not DNA. Do not try to make your argument stronger by coming up with weird examples which have nothing in common with the current discussion.
You can copy my music and use it in your movie or make a remix and you are not obliged to ask permission from me.
The natural right of the author is the right to first publication. This has always been so. When the work is in the public, the author has no right to control anyone who sees his work and now has a chance to use it or just get it.
You say "steal, steal, steal". There have been so many discussions pointing out that copying isn't stealing that I really don't see a point of even starting it here. Let's just agree that we seem to have a very different point of view on said matter. It is curious, though, to see that someone agrees with ASCAP and RIAA.
I don't know if I agree with ASCAP or RIAA because I haven't seen what they have to say. Once the war breaks out both sides will be spewing exaggerations. I use my own common sense on the piracy conflict.
My interest in the thread really stemmed from the debate between the composer and the teenager. My thoughts being, if this is the mentality that the youth are instilled with, we are setting ourselves up for a greater fall in the long run.
Is it such a leap to compare the results of music "sharing" to DNA?
When you donate your blood or tissue (enter it into the public), it can be transferred anywhere and used for whatever research any company wants. Do you have a say? No.
It's easy to see the wrongness of it since the example is extreme, which is exactly why I presented it. The mentality however is the same.
It is also for that reason that I call it stealing. Because once you start calling a murderer a gunman, your mentality of the murderer changes.
All this really shows though is that the matter has become entangled and complicated. Hopefully when I have time, I can present my own article that deals with the issue in it's entirely.
Until then we do indeed have very different points of view.
As always I do present my argument with respect and in the search for what is right.
Respect and search for what is right (or at least, as close to right as is possible at a given time) is a good goal for the discussion, but then it has to be a more careful one.
The debate between the teenager and the composer is a bad starting point because both have levelled really bad, inconsistent arguments and the whole thing is filled with emotion rather than reason. Any story can be compelling when presented emotionally and when both sides have a face - some would favour the girl since they associate them with her more, some with the composer. But none would pay attention to the issue at hand. Fortunately or not, copyright and ideas as property are complex questions which cannot be won by one argument "it's plain stealing. period" nor lost by one "copying is not stealing".
At the moment on linux audio mailing lists we are having a more than 100 letter conversation on the topic. To this date it is the most intelligent and useful conversation I have had on the subject as everyone manages to stay on topic, avoid insults and all seem to be sincerely interested to read other people's opinions and comment. The exploration of the subject has been immense.
Results of this conversation for me personally are enormous as I have received very valuable critique of my article on intellectual property and that allowed me to expand my understanding of the question significantly. If you are interested, please refer to "Authorship" section on my website which has my original articles and the review: http://www.louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=authorship
Hopefully, those articles manage to pass the message that the subject is much more complex than it seems and show how positive a debate can be.
I would not mind having such a useful conversation here.
And to start off (in case you want it) I would say that DNA is a bad example because it is physical matter and music are abstract ideas which have key differences. Any analogy between a physical object and an abstract idea will always be extremely harmful to a discussion. In fact, this is the main error we all make and critique I received came out of me making such analogies, though at a very low, almost subconscious level.
Second, copying is not stealing. These two events are inherently different, since stealing deprives one person of an object and the other gets the benefit, while copying leaves the copied object with the original owner.
However, it is understandable why that argument would be brought up.
As I pointed out above, copying can be stealing only indirectly, in the event of someone linking physical property to copies of a file, which by nature is just an array of numbers. (linking physical property to physical copies which can trivially be turned into an array of numbers is the same thing).
At that point it is very difficult to judge the act of copying. One can say that it is "stealing", thus judging the act of copying as a negative act from ethical standpoint. But on the other hand the act of linking physical property to copies of an abstract idea, such as an array of numbers, can also be judged negatively, referred to as "unpracticality" or even "stupidity". Further, it might even be considered an unethical act, since places the public into a position of a moral choice - to copy or not to copy? When the error is on the side of someone who decided to place his entire livelihood on an unpractical business model. When the law places heavy burden on the public in case of not complying with laws that enable people to make a livelihood, such unpractical behaviour can without much stretch be called "parasitism".
So you see that whether copying is stealing or not, is in itself a complex issue, but certainly you cannot say that it is, since directly it is not. And in fact, many real life cases tend to turn it around as I showed above.
Lastly, when discussing copyright law, we should differentiate personal relationships and what the law should say. A lot of the things which we have to respect in personal relations should not be enforced by law, that includes the above example with the teenager and the composer.
My view on that exact situation is complex. I cannot take any one side. The composer has taken time to contact people personally and I do not think that it is a bad thing in itself. If your friend asks you not to distribute his stuff, it would be good to comply if you value and respect your friend. If a person asks you personally, it might be good to comply if you like this person and respect him contacting you personally and ASKING rather than ordering.
At the same time I do not share this composer's sentiment that the author has some natural right to control what other unrelated people do with his creations. If it were true, any composer would gain almost infinite control over the whole planet by releasing his works. And this is what the law is trying to do, although in real life it is not the authors who gain power.
what I am saying is that if we all want a better world then we all should contribute.
perhaps a composer wishes to maximize every cent they can make.
In that case I would suggest that one avoids such a composer's work. If he considers it stealing then fine, I won't take his sheet music and by extension add to his fame. The girl tangentially tried to say this.
I think if one is talented enough people will support you to continue your work even if they can have your labor for free. Its just like the guy in the subway or street corner - you hear the music for free and its your choice to throw some money into the instrument case. You are not forced to throw in the money to hear the music at any time.
What has, in my opinion, ruined the record companies, is greed pure and simple. Instead of producing a worthy product they enforce a law that they at one point were against - yes... it was posted here - I posted it - record companies wanted to record music and the people selling sheet music to be performed and recorded didn't want to let them "violate their copyright".
What is worse is when individuals are seduced by the greed - such as famously Lars of Metallica going crazy over internet sharing.
Artists, IMHO, should respect their audience more than to stifle the growth of the artform they claim to love. Those that don't make me sad.
Yes, I agree. I read Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture". In it he tells what copyright law was before. Truly, if they did not make any changes to it, the case would've been closed. I thought "if things were like that, I would spend no time even thinking about it". It would not be a serious problem everybody is talking about. But they go over the top and start a war.
The war has no purpose as it's not really affecting copyright, at least that's what I am seeing.
It just looks like one company suing another for having a better or more popular product.
@ Uncloned. I might even be able to accept an answer that if people like your stuff, they will support you.
So go and ask people listening on their Ipods, how many songs they paid for?
Most will say none. Yet they do like and benefit from the music.
people have paid for *my* music even though they could download for free.
and I have gone out of my way to pay INDEPENDENT artists I feel deserving my support. I paid for In Rainbows - $5 I thought was fair. Did you?
And I like Amazon mp3 downloads. I get my classical music there.
Of course I've shared music both ways with friends - you should have seen the collection of cassette tapes I have recently pitched - made from blank cassette tapes that were *taxed* by the RIAA who assumed I'd make copies and made me pay. Even if I used them to record my own music. And remember - taping was suppose to kill artistic music. Actually in a way it did. There has been fewer and fewer good artists on record labels since the time of cassettes. But don't over look the thousands of dollars of music I have bought in my lifetime.
Perhaps I'm too old for your argument - my daughter pays for little of the music she listens to. She gets what she wants from youtube. And its nearly all independent artists. Like Gregory and the Hawk - or Pomplamoose.
Incidentally I bought pomplamoose. And quite independently so did my son. Even though we could get it for free. Interesting.
so... what was your argument again?
(http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2006/10/if_you_cant_beat_em_join_em/taping-killing.jpg)
Like I said... Go out and ask. Don't count on your own example being the approach of others.
One of the question I ask usually people is, what was the last CD or mp3 you bought. I'm no longer surprised to hear "never" anymore.
95% of downloaded music is illegal (unpaid for, in your terms). That's a statistic.
So yes. What is my argument indeed?
People don't value music like they used to. Certainly not like you and me.
Tell you what... I'll ask the first 100 people I see listening to music on Ipods how many of the songs they paid for. And the sincere truth is that, I hope that I'm proved wrong.
Quote95% of downloaded music is illegal (unpaid for, in your terms). That's a statistic.
What on earth....
Do you think the only music downloaded comes from the RIAA's clients?
Or are you making the same argument as the RIAA that when I (and you!!) offer music for free we are "damaging" copyright?
In the short time I've hosted the modplug downloads - the old files... 106 gigs have gone out the door.
96 gigs of *microtonal* music from my subdomain micro.soonlabel.com have gone out the door in a year
1.2 terabytes of my conventional music have gone out the door in a year
In the short time Not Only Music has been open 25 gigs have gone out the door.
And this is not counting the traffic generated by my friends personal sites whom I host.
And let me add this - I am by no means a very popular independent artist. I get hundreds of hits on sites like TheSixtyOne when other independent artists get thousands or tens of thousands of hits or hundreds of thousands.
So you know....
I think you are dead wrong.
You have bought into the
Big Lie of the RIAA.
QuoteDo you think the only music downloaded comes from the RIAA's clients?
So are you saying that of those terrabytes of music, more than 5% supported you by paying for it?
Again you are using your own example as a case study. Go out and ask!
See the mentality people have instead of using your own as a comparison.
The point I'm making is this: Your concept that people are willing to support by paying for music they like is "dead wrong".
QuoteOr are you making the same argument as the RIAA that when I (and you!!) offer music for free we are "damaging" copyright?
RIAAs arguments don't interest me. Nonetheless I'll answer saying the artists copyright gives them the privilege to release it for free, or to charge for it.
QuoteYou have bought into the Big Lie of the RIAA.
I'm trying to be productive here. You are being insulting now. Let's keep this thread fruitful.
insulting?
let me see data to support your side.
I provided data for an obscure artist and it is not hard to extrapolate to other independent artists more popular than I.
you stated
Quote95% of downloaded music is illegal (unpaid for, in your terms). That's a statistic.
produce the data (from an source other than the RIAA to avoid bias)
lets see a tally of all RIAA music versus traffic from all independent artists.
more evidence of the reality - people ARE willing to support good artists.
* In Rainbows has sold three million copies thus far, a figure that includes downloads from Radiohead.com, physical CDs, a deluxe 2-CD/vinyl box set, as well as sales via iTunes and other digital retailers.
* The In Rainbows deluxe edition sold 100,000 copies via Radiohead fan service W.A.S.T.E.
* Radiohead made more money prior to In Rainbows' January 2008 physical release than its total take on 2003's Hail To the Thief.
(editor's note - more money when it was "pay as you like if you like or you can even have it free")
* The physical release of In Rainbows entered both the US and UK charts at #1 in January, despite having been freely available since October 2007.
* In Rainbows was the first Radiohead album available on iTunes, where it went in at #1 in January, selling 30,000 in its first week.
http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2008/10/radiohead_in_ra.html
Amazing how Radiohead are the #1 example of success, and all the failed sides are never presented.
RadioHead can release their music for free because they already have the fame and publicity as a direct result of the record companies prior sponsorship. There would be no chance they could achieve that result without that prior marketing.
As for the tally, traffic in downloads aren't going to tell you who paid for the music they love.
I would be glad to make a tally of people that pay vs people who don't.
its amazing how you agree with me - people will support artists they like - and still embed it in pro-RIAA propaganda.
and - you have no data to back your position.
all you are doing is repeating what the RIAA has told you to believe.
Another fact you seem to overlook is that more artists make a living from performance than from selling mp3 / physical media. And now the RIAA wants a cut of the revenue from live performances. Thus the cancer grows ever deeper.
The article that I pointed to when I started this thread should scare you. The RIAA wants to prevent you from posting your work on the internet for free and want use a perverted interpretation of the copyright law to do so. That would mean no more CTGmusic - no modplug - no traxinspace - no last fm - no soundclick - no jamendo - not even a modest home page for you to share your work.
And yet - you defend these bozo's.
I am amazed.
I make no distinction between the RIAA and ASCAP etc. there really isn't any in reality as this is a hydra conglomerate.
Let me tell you what really pissed me off.
I bought sheet music of two of Carl Ruggles' pieces. On the site where this sheet music (not a recording mind you!) there were NO notices on the restrictions attached to the use of the sheet music. However when I received what I paid for and opened to the first page there was a very large notice. And this notice said that not only couldn't I make copies of the sheet music (not unreasonable) it also said I couldn't perform the sheet music. Well.... that struck me as... this is ludicrous - surely they mean something different like if I make lots of money or something. So.... I called them up. And the lady informed me that of course I can perform the music in my own home. So I asked - what if I recorded my performance? And she asked - what would you do with the performance - I said - I dunno - say put it up on youtube for free. She said I'd have to pay royalties and connected me to the "revenue" department of the firm.
Now... what the f*ck?
This composer is long dead - and this company is even worse than the composer who had a debate with the teen girl. I wonder... if the teen (and that composer) read the restrictions on the sheet music they debated about they might have to pay royalties too.
And the sad thing is this. In this day and age it costs next to nothing to print sheet music. Must be a 100% or greater mark up. And yet they are so greedy as to want more and more.
Quite frankly I'm disgusted in your approach. I don't mind you attacking my arguments, but you have chosen to attack me.
You continue to be insulting to me and ignore my argument that is simply PEOPLE DO NOT PAY FOR MUSIC THEY LOVE. ASK THEM!
All you do to avoid that is post RIAA sentiments and claim that those are what I am saying.
Please read what I am saying and not what you want me to be saying.
It just sounds like you are annoyed and are lashing out.
Look were both getting upset by this. How's about cooling off, and coming back to it.
Quote from: "KrazyKatz"
You continue to be insulting to me and ignore my argument that is simply PEOPLE DO NOT PAY FOR MUSIC THEY LOVE. ASK THEM!
.
My own personal experience, and radiohead's experience, and my wife's experience, my son's experience, my older daughter's experience say yes. They pay for music - and *especially* they all pay for live shows.
My younger daughter is a bit of an exception since she largely listens to independent artists on youtube and being too young to make any large amount of money she tends to a few live shows a year. Even so she has received quite a few physical Cds as a gift or bought them from gift money.
And if no one was paying for music how come iTunes, Cdbaby, amazon, etc. etc. are still in business?
You just seem to be unable to accept evidence to the contrary of your position and your argument doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.
And I'm not insulting you. That's your perception not my intent. I suspect the only way I could avoid insulting you is by agreeing with you.
The facts are the RIAA / ASCAP / MPAA all are making lots of money still. Look at the lawyers they can afford to array to sue private citizens. The advertisements all over the web and TV and movies etc.
The real problem here is that the RIAA / ASCAP / MPAA all think they should be making
MORE money.
And that is
greed, plain and simple.
Quote from: "uncloned"you stated Quote95% of downloaded music is illegal (unpaid for, in your terms). That's a statistic.
produce the data (from an source other than the RIAA to avoid bias)
lets see a tally of all RIAA music versus traffic from all independent artists.
Itunes alone had somewhere around 2 billion downloads in 2008 (the year IFPI claims 95% of downloads are illegal), so I'm pretty sure traffic generated by songs made available freely by independent artists is pretty negligable. Piratebay alone had 25 million simultaneous connections in November 2008, so combined with other trackers and p2p-software I don't think the 40 billion songs IFPI claim were illegally downloaded is that unbelievable.
As for copyright, I'm all for it. But the market is flooded with music, so in a way it has lost a lot of value. Sure, I could support an artist I think is great, but honestly if he quit there would be 10 others waiting to take his place.
Btw, apparantly Prince has decided not to release his music online anymore... well good luck with that mr Prince!
One of my key interests when I go to someones place is looking through their bookshelf and their music shelf.
It's become a rarer experience to see discs after the 90s era. I also ask people I meet the last mp3 or disk they bought (more so to get to know them). My experience indicates that people still listen to music, however they invest very little if anything into it.
I even go to CD shops and get told that certain discs I'm looking for won't be imported due to limited demand.
True CD shops still exist, and Itune and there are people that pay. However I believe that people largely don't appreciate music as much as previous generations did. Live shows are still ever popular, but you can't copy those digitally. Yet...
I'm going to investigate more into it as I said earlier, but so far my experience has proved unfortunate.
Quote from: "g"
Itunes alone had somewhere around 2 billion downloads in 2008 (the year IFPI claims 95% of downloads are illegal), so I'm pretty sure traffic generated by songs made available freely by independent artists is pretty negligable.
Then why are they trying to block (truly) free (and independent) music /art / software ? Why are they saying EFF is eroding their "profits" oops - I mean "rights"
i.e. the article that starts this thread?
The fact that ASCAP wants money from its member to fight against free music is just amazing, very mafia-esque.
The french equivalent of ASCAP is called SACEM and it's a known fact that it collects a lot of money and very few of it is send back to the authors. A recent governmental report has been released, exposing this association and other as a very corrupted system (2nd biggest annual salary is around 300000€, 1st one is said to be +143% of the former).
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-medias/2010-04-10/revenus-comment-la-sacem-se-goinfre/1253/0/442942&prev=_t
Quote from: "KrazyKatz"
I even go to CD shops and get told that certain discs I'm looking for won't be imported due to limited demand.
True CD shops still exist, and Itune and there are people that pay.
However I believe that people largely don't appreciate music as much as previous generations did. Live shows are still ever popular, but you can't copy those digitally. Yet...
I'm going to investigate more into it as I said earlier, but so far my experience has proved unfortunate.
Well, CDs *should* go away. While I miss the big vinyl album covers mp3's are *so* much more convenient.
It is possible that people don't appreciate music as much. Or its possible the music the RIAA members put out is, in general, unmemorable and meaningless. I mean ask yourself why do today's kids know so much of the music of my youth in the 70;s and even 60's? Its not because that music is worse than today's music....
My daughter *loves* music - but mostly for the lyrics and the independent artists she listens to have tapped into that. Of the commercial "acts" she pays attention to it is not at all for the music. Its for the glitz like Lady Gaga videos. The RIAA membership have made music more about sex and theater of the absurd than music. It no longer *has* meaning - so why are you surprised no one likes it as much?
I am hoping some young groups goes totally viral on the internet ala Beatles famous and tells the record companies to go to hell.
Quote from: "uncloned"The RIAA membership have made music more about sex and theater of the absurd than music
Recent Guardian article on this topic (Lady Gaga and the New World Order) :evil:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jul/01/lady-gaga-vigilant-citizen-illuminati
quoting this blog article http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3979
I will agree she's a puppet.
no doubt about that.
I think though much more likely a puppet for whatever gets her more money and fame.
I sometimes wonder if it really is the drag it seems to me to be when all is left of your career is singing the few hits you sang when you were 20-ish for the 9 billionth time on a Los Vegas stage in your 60's.
That is to me the sum of pop music for the artist.
QuoteWell, CDs *should* go away. While I miss the big vinyl album covers mp3's are *so* much more convenient.
I far prefer having the physical object. It's just more personal and real. Sort of like the difference between receiving an email and a letter from a friend.
Ridiculous the speed that times are moving that I could be considered old fashioned for this.
The other aspect though and this also touches on appreciation, is mp3 quality doesn't cut it for me.
My qualm with CDs are that they are only 16bit and a I believe the commercial standard should be 24bit.
Quote from: "KrazyKatz"The other aspect though and this also touches on appreciation, is mp3 quality doesn't cut it for me.
My qualm with CDs are that they are only 16bit and a I believe the commercial standard should be 24bit.
Do you claim that you would be able hear the difference between a 24-bit "CD" and a 16-bit CD?
Quote from: "KrazyKatz"QuoteWell, CDs *should* go away. While I miss the big vinyl album covers mp3's are *so* much more convenient.
I far prefer having the physical object.
I agree with you, it's a bit like saying books shoud go since you can read their electronic versions.
Also mp3 is not a HiFi format, I would certainly never buy mp3 files, for me it would be like giving money for a loose cassette tape copy.
Back in 1999-2000 the Super Audio CD looked like the ultimate HiFi enthusiast's dream, but as very few records were produced, I never bought the SACD player.
Then the virtual world got in the way I guess, and like you I've become old fashioned in the blink of an eye.
QuoteDo you claim that you would be able hear the difference between a 24-bit "CD" and a 16-bit CD?
Undoubtedly Jojo. When mastering a song and performing the final dither to 16bit, it always sounds somewhat "thinner".
Quote from: "KrazyKatz"QuoteDo you claim that you would be able hear the difference between a 24-bit "CD" and a 16-bit CD?
Undoubtedly Jojo. When mastering a song and performing the final dither to 16bit, it always sounds somewhat "thinner".
Dithering has to be performed in any case, and there are smart ways and not-so-smart ways to do it. And yes, I wholeheartedly doubt that you would pass an ABX test on this issue.
There is no longer any contest on the 16bit vs 24bit argument. Many engineers hear the difference. Doubt all you want. I've already had my fun blind testing the bypass button.
44100 vs 96000 is still up for debate though.
Also if you mix at 24bits and keep it at 24bits you wouldn't necessarily need to add dithering. Unless you have processing at a higher rate in the mix.
I would be interested in knowing more about the 'smart' vs 'not so smart' ways of dithering. I personally just use my ears.
Thread is derailed. Want to start a new one?
Quote from: "KrazyKatz"I would be interested in knowing more about the 'smart' vs 'not so smart' ways of dithering. I personally just use my ears.
You use your ears to dither PCM data? :lol:
Of course the result of dithering heavily depends on the algorithm used, just have a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither#Digital_audio). The chapter about image dithering probably gives some better "visual" examples.
Quote
44100 vs 96000 is still up for debate though.
88.2KHz or 96KHz preserves harmonics better, often improving the upper end of the audio spectrum, especially during production. I noticed that clearly when playing around with a very high square sound, there was a lot of aliasing noise at 44KHz playback, but it sounded a lot better at 96KHz.
It is proven that the human ears (and eyes) focus on frequency rather than amplitude, and thus the missing harmonics
do make a difference (of course not always, but that's the same as with 16/24bit).
24/32bit is nice to have during production (MPT uses 32bit mixing precision), but on a final mix, 16bit vs 24bit does not make much of a difference, unless you need maximum headroom for a piece with extreme dynamics. With 16bit, you get about -96dB headroom - my 24-bit soundcard has a noise level of about -100dB when recording, so I only use a few dB when recording at 16bit, but I cannot make much use of the theoretically improved headroom with 24bit recording.
QuoteThread is derailed. Want to start a new one?
I do not need to debate about this, but if you really want to, go a head. I have made up my opinion.
Quote from: "uncloned"Then why are they trying to block (truly) free (and independent) music /art / software ? Why are they saying EFF is eroding their "profits" oops - I mean "rights"
i.e. the article that starts this thread?
They fear change and the future? Who the hell know what they want, their logic doesn't make any sense at all.
Personally I think there will always be money to make in making things people like; they don't need to worry - they just need to adapt.
Quote from: "g"
Personally I think there will always be money to make in making things people like; they don't need to worry - they just need to adapt.
I agree 100%
QuoteKrazyKatz: People don't value music like they used to. Certainly not like you and me.
I don't get this. I put out serious arguments, some in-depths analysis and you are telling me that because people don't pay for music that means they don't value music?
I hope you were joking. Really. Otherwise I don't think any fruitful discussion is possible here.
There are plenty of bands that I downloaded that I later bought physical albums of when I actually had the money. I usually don't have it though. Been next to broke my entire life.
Quote from: "residentgrey"Been next to broke my entire life.
+1...
To the topic:
i've read up most of the linked articles and comments over time, my opinion is, that the old record selling system may be falling (and that is why the labels are afraid), but the online one is actually rising. More and more people are buying from various stores, because the system is easy to handle and finally accessible worldwide.
Perhaps one day, we could fully bypass the labels, and everybody could sell their music from larger, collector webshops, or directly from their websites. We need to have focused search engines for this case, the present ones are not really handy. Maybe a lucky company will pick this case up in the future, im not sure, but if the users would search for their favored genres with a global service, and would have all the related artists available on the net to listen and check afterward, that would be totally cool for everyone. We could definitely save unnecessary money from unnecessary pockets, it would be a more direct and cleaner way.
...
maybe the mp3 quality isnt enough for some people, but i am sure that for most of the people even the poorer quality stuff is more than enough. They are using cheap home stereo and pocket players, or they cannot really tell the difference anyway... or dont even care at all. The beauty of the digital distribution makes available any type of format to release, so if someone would need wav or flac formats, that could be arranged too. They are definitely a lot more cost and space (and eco) effective than constructing and shipping the physical formats.
Someone still rather likes to hold a physical copy of the material? No problem, just need to buy an empty media and write it out, on any desired quality rate. The cost of this will be surely much less, than buying the CD/DVD from a label, with shipment, storing and additional unnecessary costs.
...
Some people will never pay for music, some will do sometimes, others will do most of the time. I think, that its up to the individual to decide, not the artist (we can think this way, because easy copying technology enables us, not to loose any physical unit or any extra cash, when people do that). If enough people will find the artist worthwhile, they will surely support him, so he/she can continue to make (very nice) living. This way the "piracy", "stealing" question question could be solved too, since everyone could freely copy music without worrying about copyright trouble, but a natural monetary support should be considered from his/hers case, if their artist are favored. Since lesser pockets are need to be filled on the way till it reaches the artist, considerably much lesser amount of gathered money will be sufficient to balance up his living needs.
This can really work with art works like music, because they are not like big software product from companies, where you must consider the continuous support, patches, the high cost of the development, the payments to the many number of employees, and possible the limited interest. You can really just throw out your music and tell people to do whatever they want with it, without worrying much, and expect to have enough support to balance you out, because the whole procedure its considerably fairly low cost, also good music can be expected to have higher interest from good amount of people.
Server costs can be cut down to minimal also with p2p distribution, and with letting people to do the file multiplications on their own chosen way.
One of the biggest problem is (between the additional ones), that with the present system some artist get too much attention because of the hype and constant media exposure, and huge amount of them arent getting any. With an unbiased global search service, the attention could be more distributed.
So am i saying with this that some people should not pay for music and still get it for free, while others are paying? Definitely yes. I think, we should not exclude people who cannot afford to do so, technology enables us to let this, without any losses. This is actually happening right at this moment also, they are finding their way to get it, but its considered "illegal". And in the other hand, we can certainly expect to have fair amount of support when people can afford it. It can be considered as a two way trust-deal with the listener and the artist, because in theory, the listener demands the good artist to make more good stuffs, and the artist demands, at least sufficient amount of support to continue with his work.
Reducing every given expense as much as possible, and avoiding unnecessary pockets is a win-win situation for both artist (much cheaper distribution) and listener (much cheaper prices).
QuoteI don't get this. I put out serious arguments, some in-depths analysis and you are telling me that because people don't pay for music that means they don't value music?
I hope you were joking. Really. Otherwise I don't think any fruitful discussion is possible here.
I said people don't value music like they used to.
Go to the older generations houses and have a look at their old LP collections. You'll see stacks of em. They'll have a story to tell about each one. They will look at them and smile with memories. Music was a big part of everyone's life.
Nowadays people don't even know the names of the titles or even artists they have on their Ipods. Without doubt people do not appreciate music like they used to.
The simplicity to copy and lack of requirement to make a financial commitment devalues music in more ways then we think.
I don't know why everyone looks at themselves as the prime example of how everyone behaves. This is a music forum. Obviously we all appreciates music here. Instead look at your average teenager.
KrazyKatz, not everyone back then was a music enthusiast (there sure were a lot of people who didn't value music at all), and also not everyone today listens to their music on an iPod on the go. It's rather that listening to music is much more common these days, and there's technology that leads to changes in the way people listen to music. Not everyone is an audiophile and that was the same "back in the days". Generalization is the wrong way to argue about something like this.
another reason to get rid of the record companies and self release
(http://www.theroot.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large-image/greatDivide.jpg)
http://www.theroot.com/views/how-much-do-you-musicians-really-make?GT1=38002
and then a deeper analysis
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
QuoteA word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn't mean Warner "lost" nearly $400,000 on the band. That's how much they spent on us, and we don't see any royalty checks until it's paid back, but it doesn't get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band's share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let's say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.
You know, Chris, looking at how intellectual property works, I was astonished to see that when it is brought up, it never is used for its proposed purpose, it is always used as a cover up of something else. It's never about intellectual property, its always used to defend some other property.
An example is Irish dance competitions. Recently I've been on one and they caught someone filming the dances (they did not caught me, hehe). And they started a big hassle out of it, saying that you cannot film dances because they are copyrighted intellectual property.
In reality I was told they don't want dances filmed because judges might be compromised - they don't want people to analyse dances relative to their decisions afterwards and conclude that they made a misjudgement of a good dance.
As usual, the covering up was done with IP.
Same in music. It is never about "defending the artist". Never.