Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Movie industry is destroying the physical format
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Movie industry is destroying the physical format - Page 4

post #46 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadlylover View Post

 

Yeah I like having something to hold too, it's kind of like a token for showing your support for the artist.

 

I personally view music as being 'free', and I only buy music to support the artists, not to 'own' anything. That's why I don't like buying used CD's, it doesn't really help the artist one bit, and it only supports the profiteering seller.

 

I don't think piracy is such a bad thing, and I wouldn't call it 'stealing' from the artists because you can't really say that one pirated album led to one lost sale.

 

lol at the direction the thread is going, I guess murder and piracy go hand in hand? tongue.gif

 

Yes, this is the mother of all off-topicness. We went from CDs disappearing to philosophy and geopolitics.

It's funny, most of the music I buy is actually from dead artists, mostly Jazz. I have a lot of Nirvana albums I bought a few years ago when I could afford it. I know they're not going to benefit, and in the best chance their family does.

The part in bold I'm used to reading, but in the opposite sense: piracy advocates saying piracy doesn't have any impact on sales because those people wouldn't buy the content anyway. As in not a single one, which I feel is a failed attempt of rationalizing. Of course 800 people leeching a movie torrent doesn't mean that that movie just lost 800 buyers either, it's this middle ground people seem to avoid.

post #47 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

I know I should have put this in bold

In the examples you mentioned, it's not a law at all. Again, I'm talking about laws as a concept. I'm not saying they're absolutes for what's right or wrong, neither that they don't change over time. I don't believe in a direct correlation between what's legal and what's not. Simply, if there is a law stating something is illegal, defining what that something is and where it starts being something else is much easier (what I meant by more absolute) than defining if that something is ethical or not (less absolute). I'm not saying it's right or wrong because it's legal or not.

I think we all got our points across and we're not even disagreeing, just seeing different sides of the same thing.

 

You appear to be using a definition of law I'm unfamiliar with.  Would you mind elaborating?

post #48 of 60
All of the studies I've read about illegally downloaded compressed music is that it actually increases the sales of the legal, physical, hi-res format. Neil Young uses the analogy of cassette-taping off of FM radio back in the day; if you like it enough, you will pony up the $ for a higher-quality copy (the actual record/CD).
post #49 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

You appear to be using a definition of law I'm unfamiliar with.  Would you mind elaborating?

 

 

Really? A boundary in human behaviour created and enforced by the country you live in. I don't know how many definitions there are.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by grokit View Post

All of the studies I've read about illegally downloaded compressed music is that it actually increases the sales of the legal, physical, hi-res format. Neil Young uses the analogy of cassette-taping off of FM radio back in the day; if you like it enough, you will pony up the $ for a higher-quality copy (the actual record/CD).

 

That's not the reality anymore. You can download 24-bit FLAC nowadays, so if that increase effect still happens - and from what people have been saying, it does - , it won't be due to people trying to get better quality.

post #50 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

Really? A boundary in human behaviour created and enforced by the country you live in. I don't know how many definitions there are.

 

Well that sure changes a lot over time so I'm now confused...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

That's not the reality anymore. You can download 24-bit FLAC nowadays, so if that increase effect still happens - and from what people have been saying, it does - , it won't be due to people trying to get better quality.

 

Only for a select few albums.  Hi-rez is very nearly a scam anyway so many purchased downloads are either lossy from some stupid company can't leave well enough alone with the LAME encoder defaults and has to muck things up or as an overpriced hi-rez FLAC which leaves those of us who understand Nyquist-Shannon and have no need for spinning plastic disc out in the cold...

post #51 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Well that sure changes a lot over time so I'm now confused...

And while it doesn't, it's more absolute than your other 2 concepts. I don't think I can make it any more clear, but I'll try:

You mentioned 3 distinct ideas, which were "Illegal", "Civil Tort" and "Imoral"

I mentioned how only the first one (illegal) is an absolute. A law is what defines wether something is legal or illegal. What I meant was, when a law is created, and up to the moment it's revoked or changed, it is what sets the boundary between legal or illegal, and that boundary is much more defined than the other two, thus in my opinion, more of an absolute. What constitutes tort and moral changes from person to person, from one day to the other, sometimes we change our views on something in a moment. We might even say a single person doesn't have a very defined morality, it's always shifting within a certain space. However, while a law isn't changed (I can't stress this enough), the concept it defines as legal or illegal, and the definition itself, is supposed to have a universal interpretation, we don't have as much doubts about the meaning of a law as we do about human opinions on what's right or wrong. Thus while not a complete absolute (lawyers work their way around laws, after all, proving their interpretation has some subjectvity to it), it's definitely more absolute than the swirling concept that is our ethics.

TL;DR I can change my mind about the morality of jaywalking, but the law stating wether it's legal or not to jaywalk is much clearer, not something susceptible to mood-shifts.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Only for a select few albums.  Hi-rez is very nearly a scam anyway so many purchased downloads are either lossy from some stupid company can't leave well enough alone with the LAME encoder defaults and has to muck things up or as an overpriced hi-rez FLAC which leaves those of us who understand Nyquist-Shannon and have no need for spinning plastic disc out in the cold...

Yes, I read about hi-resolution usually having a lower dynamic range than the first issues of an abum. Still, for the gross majority of music that you can buy in a store, you can download the exact same album in a lossless codec. So appealing to consumers by offering "better quality" worked with analog tapes, not with digital content.

post #52 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

TL;DR I can change my mind about the morality of jaywalking, but the law stating wether it's legal or not to jaywalk is much clearer, not something susceptible to mood-shifts.

 

So the only difference is that it usually takes more people to change their minds about what's illegal and what isn't???

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

 

Still, for the gross majority of music that you can buy in a store, you can download the exact same album in a lossless codec. So appealing to consumers by offering "better quality" worked with analog tapes, not with digital content.

 

I would like to directed to this magical site as as my google-ing for "buy %artist% %album% FLAC" only ever seems to turn up ads on torrent sites...

post #53 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

So the only difference is that it usually takes more people to change their minds about what's illegal and what isn't???

No, it's the nature of the change. I can say "this law says this specifically", but I can't say "my moral guidelines are these" with as much conviction because opinions are not that defined. A law is something until it changes into something else, an opinion is ever-shifting, it doesn't just change, it's always changing.

Think of a law as a rock, it's in a crystalline state, and then one day it breaks. While it's intact you can very clearly understand what it is, where it starts and ends, and when it breaks you can very much tell the difference from the original rock. To me moral is more like a liquid, it's always shifting its form. It's hard to say when it stopped being one way and started being some other.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

I would like to directed to this magical site as as my google-ing for "buy %artist% %album% FLAC" only ever seems to turn up ads on torrent sites...

I don't understand the hostility, especially considering the websites do exist and you simply didn't find them. Even so I meant illegal downloads, which, as you can imagine, I won't post website sources. My point was that you can't attract a market looking for music and expect them to pay based on quality, since you can get the exact same thing from a torrent. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy music, simply I doubt people would do so to get better quality. So a distributor or producer needs to convince people to buy his music, instead of leeching it, by boasting something else.

 

As for lossless to purchase online, even though my point did not revolve around it, here we go:

http://bandcamp.com/ - bought a friend of mine's album through this recently

http://www.beatport.com/ - this one is for electronic music

I'm sure there are more, but these are the 2 I know of. They are used by artists to sell their music directly, eliminating the need for a payed middleman.


Edited by LizardKing1 - 5/31/12 at 4:59pm
post #54 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

No, it's the nature of the change. I can say "this law says this specifically", but I can't say "my moral guidelines are these" with as much conviction because opinions are not that defined. A law is something until it changes into something else, an opinion is ever-shifting, it doesn't just change, it's always changing.

Think of a law as a rock, it's in a crystalline state, and then one day it breaks. While it's intact you can very clearly understand what it is, where it starts and ends, and when it breaks you can very much tell the difference from the original rock. To me moral is more like a liquid, it's always shifting its form. It's hard to say when it stopped being one way and started being some other.

 

OK.  That kind of makes sense but laws still evolve either way, even if it's usually rather abrupt in a modern society with codified laws.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

I don't understand the hostility, especially considering the websites do exist and you simply didn't find them. Even so I meant illegal downloads, which, as you can imagine, I won't post website sources. My point was that you can't attract a market looking for music and expect them to pay based on quality, since you can get the exact same thing from a torrent. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy music, simply I doubt people would do so to get better quality. So a distributor or producer needs to convince people to buy his music, instead of leeching it, by boasting something else.

 

As for lossless to purchase online, even though my point did not revolve around it, here we go:

http://bandcamp.com/ - bought a friend of mine's album through this recently

http://www.beatport.com/ - this one is for electronic music

I'm sure there are more, but these are the 2 I know of. They are used by artists to sell their music directly, eliminating the need for a payed middleman.

 

What hostility?  I was actually hoping you found a place that sold a decent selection of lossless downloads that was just obscure for some reason.  I know about those two but I very rarely find anything I'm looking for there.

 

I think that a lot of people wouldn't be averse to paying for stuff if they could just find it easily in the format they want.  The labels just need to start selling convenience.

post #55 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

OK.  That kind of makes sense but laws still evolve either way, even if it's usually rather abrupt in a modern society with codified laws.

Rocks have a nasty tendency to break =)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

What hostility?  I was actually hoping you found a place that sold a decent selection of lossless downloads that was just obscure for some reason.  I know about those two but I very rarely find anything I'm looking for there.

 

I think that a lot of people wouldn't be averse to paying for stuff if they could just find it easily in the format they want.  The labels just need to start selling convenience.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your tone. By format you mean the codec, the file type? I would assume most people would be looking for the easiest possible way, in detriment of quality. In fact a lot of people I know are happy with youtube rips. I'd think accessibility would matter more, as in: "how many clicks does it take for this to be on my desktop?" This kind of website is pretty good at that, but those depend on artists. Then comes along iTunes which gets a lot of non-indie music, but in MP3. So if I want a Grateful Dead album in lossless at 3am, the most convenient way to get it, not to say the only, is through a torrent.
post #56 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

Sorry, I misinterpreted your tone. By format you mean the codec, the file type? I would assume most people would be looking for the easiest possible way, in detriment of quality. In fact a lot of people I know are happy with youtube rips. I'd think accessibility would matter more, as in: "how many clicks does it take for this to be on my desktop?" This kind of website is pretty good at that, but those depend on artists. Then comes along iTunes which gets a lot of non-indie music, but in MP3. So if I want a Grateful Dead album in lossless at 3am, the most convenient way to get it, not to say the only, is through a torrent.

 

By format I mean how the content is "packaged".  Codec, bit rate, bit depth, sample rate, medium, file container, DRM restrictions, etc.

 

That's what this whole thread is about.  Most content is sold in crappy formats and paying customers receive an inferior experience.  Back in the day some companies "rented" special video tapes that could only be rewound by their special rewinding machines as a form of "analog rights management".  They mailed it to you, you got to watch it once, and then had to mail it back if you wanted to watch it again.  That memory has faded into the mists of history and hopefully this current crop of infective and bothersome "security" precautions will fade away as well.

 

Also, a place that had the variety of the itunes store in lossless without having to instal the itunes program would indeed be magical with rainbows, unicorns, rainbow unicorns, and the whole 9 yards.


Edited by maverickronin - 5/31/12 at 6:25pm
post #57 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

So if I want a Grateful Dead album in lossless at 3am, the most convenient way to get it, not to say the only, is through a torrent.

Or you could go to dead.net/store/music and click on the "downloads" tab.
post #58 of 60

I love music hence I purchase physical CDs. Same goes for knowledge and literature, and paper books. The moment they stop making either of these, I will stop paying for the "content" as well.

 

Movies and TV I don't greatly value, so whatever I can download of it for free suffices. I only pay for things I value, and downloads are fleeting, disposable and close to worthless.

post #59 of 60

I like music but I don't have much use stacks of little plastic discs.

post #60 of 60

Don't we love how this all revolve around a microphone capturing sound, a camera capturing images, then a way of storing them, and finally playing them back to our senses? (plus processing and engineering of the material etc. creativity, musicianship, another etc.)

 

People used to sing and play music to one another spontaneously and music existed only in the present moment. Now we have artists that dedicates themselves completely to it to "produce" themselves on scenes, and we have to pay all the time for whatever strings they strum, drums they hit, and notes they sing.

 

A CD, a jewel case and a booklet are all virtually worthless, they are fun to look at but they are not what you want when you buy a CD. What do you think is the value of the music you're paying for? I would be the first to propose that we make better music costlier, paying for creativity, for every single instruments used, and that we also pay for better mixing/production/mastering for it.

 

Although, my opinion is that the first day in history when we became able to record someone singing, print it on a tape or a vinyl thingy, and then sell it to someone for listening, it was worthless. You would have ask anyone on the street if they would pay to hear someone singing the same thing over and over, they would have found the idea absurd and would have refused to pay. They would demo the thing, have a good laugh, and then return to their homes... Personally, I love to listen to music, I can't imagine myself without it, yet, I still don't think it's an essential in the life of anybody. This is the kind of opposing reaction the people on the street would have had in that era, in reply to the offering of the salesman of a machinery playing back a recording of someone singing. Especially on that first moment, the thing sure wasn't that enjoyable in the long run (although impressing as a first sensation) and not affordable. A lot of things happened along the way and now everyone listen to music. Changing subject

 

Playing an instrument, writing a song, sorry but I would not call it work. It's not even a routine. The sound engineer and the scene technician, yes those two are doing work, but the musical artists they love to write music, jam together, and be in the studio. They are not building a bridge, or developing technological advancements, and will never be. So that's why I'm saying they are not doing work.

 

Of course world touring musicians gets hard times, sleep deprivation from both the jet lag and from not being able to sleep on a plane is momentarily atrocious and should not be endured, but most of them will tell you that their 2 hours of scene-time they get, that feels more like 30 minutes in their own perception, is entirely worth the trip.

 

 

Yes they give us enjoyable times, and even more when it's a social activity... (but on Head-Fi I like how we care only about the music and keep the social activity part for showing off our headphones ^^)

 

Maybe enjoyable times contribute in our increasing lifespan? but wasn't music just as healthy when it was done around the piano and with all the family every Sunday night?

 

Basically the biggest portion of humanity has lived finely and happily without the ability to playback recorded music, so that's why I'm having mad finding a purpose to (justifying) artistry (the one that can be recorded, but I'm mainly only thinking about the music) in our society. Personally I dislike all popular, fast-served, (kind of) ticket-booth style forms of entertainments, that are in way a reflection of how bored we are (paying and letting specialized others entertain us), and that make us look always less entertaining (because we're not the cinema screen projecting Avatar in 3D, kind of less-entertaining; we're shifting entertainment from human-born and pleasurable direct social interactions to stiff objects).

 

I also think medecine and quality of life is doing more to increase our lifespan than artists, but again I like to stand in the middle, shake up things, some people judge quality of the year before their quantity, suggesting that you wouldn't need to live that old really.

 

 

My personal favorite one-man artist is a Japanese dude (not ZUN) using a combination of real life instruments and microphones, synthesizers, and studio/computer effects to make music and distribute it for free as 192 kbps mp3s on his website since 1998. I've been listening and downloading since 2003-2004 [and right now I'm also listening to it, discovering new songs to put on my MP3 player, from his complete discography (coincidental)]. He opened himself a YouTube account two weeks ago and he posted a positive comment on my channel (and many others') to show his appreciation for having uploaded some of his songs. Right now he is working on uploading unreleased stuff, forgotten songs, and he provides mediafire.com links to them to anyone who asks him for it. Anyway, he's relatively popular, his fanbase loves his music to death, and it's a proof that you don't need to pay for the media to have enjoyment from it.

 

Also this guy is super creative, not being restricted to the CD format he has songs ranging in length from 27 seconds to 47 minutes, and 600+ of them (while most of them are 3-4-5 minutes long, a lot are 6-7 minutes long). And no joke song (well maybe 2-3), almost-completely blank bonus tracks at the end, Japanese(regional)/iTunes/website only extras, or pointless filler songs like you find in some CDs. That is a proof that you don't need to be paid to produce good music.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Movie industry is destroying the physical format