[Edwood]

Quote:

Music becoming available only through download only and no option to buy as a physical CD also means we have less rights to use and resell the music or even give away as a gift or pass on to our heirs.  When you buy a digital download you get a license that is more restrictive than the rights you have if you purchase the same music as a CD.  A CD you can resell at a garage sale and easily give away as a gift.  A digital download you cannot.
 
With a physical CD you get certain rights from copyright law like the right of first sale and other rights.  Those rights are stripped away in the license agreement that comes with a digital download.  The copyright holders want all of the benefits of copyright protection but then strip away the rights we have as consumers under copyright law.  Copyright protection is becoming completely one sided.  It is supposed to be a two way street with society granting the copyright owners certain rights for a certain number of years while also giving society certain rights to use and resell that content.  That two way street is now a one way street.
 
Read a recent article from law.com titled "Do You Own Your Software of Just License It?"
The same issues apply to downloaded music from iTunes, Amazon MP3, HD Tracks, and any other digital download.
 
So even if you don't like being forced to get a lossy version as the only available version of the music, there are still reasons to avoid digital downloads and complain about digital download exclusives.
 
I'm waiting for the day that physical CDs and books come in shrink wrap with a license attached taking away all of our rights. 

Excellent point as well.
 
I'm noticing a trend in video games trying to discourage reselling games.  They are putting activation codes for special features in the game.  They currently cannot limit the game license to single use only, since it still uses physical medium and does not have that type of DRM implemented yet.  But still does not stop greedy companies like Electronics Arts from pushing the envelope. 
 
-Ed

 

[krmathis]

Listen to him!
Lossless is the way to go.
 
..but until then I live happily with 320kbps Ogg Vorbis files though Spotify.

 

[Deep Funk]

I stay true to my CDs. I am now eying a Japanese pressing of a well known band, how exiting...

 

[pez]

I still actually like buying CD's.  I highly prefer it over a digital download from iTunes.  Though, there are some things that I'll just buy on iTunes, but it's usually only if a CD copy isn't available of it.  I do have to say that a 256kbps AAC iTunes track sounds better than a 256 or 320kbps MP3 track.  Either way, I use ALAC because of it's convenience for me with using my iPod.  I actually really like iTunes, but I might go to the store once or twice a month at most. 
 
Also, you have to give them credit for at least taking a step in the right direction.  At least they got rid of the DRM.  They also gave us a higher quality audio track.  The difference between a 128kbps track and a 256kbps track is night and day, so I appreciated that.  I just have to get all my stuff upgraded now that I did buy before.  Everything that they don't offer for my upgrade, or because a different version came out and replaced the one I had, I'll just re-buy it as an actual CD.

 

[feverfive]

Quote:

If the iTunes store offered Apple Lossless downloads, I would happily back the Brinks Truck right up to Steve Jobs' house.  No problem.
 
As it is, I agree with Edwood.

Exactly my sentiment...

 

[Bastido]

Firstly, MP3s sold at Itunes have no DRM, secondly, you won't hear the differnce between  a good quality MP3 from a lossless audio track. End of story.
 
I dfon't use iTunes anymore anyway because they are less than half the price at eMusic.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

 I don't hear the differnce between  a good quality MP3 from a lossless audio track. 

FTFY. 

 
I'm with Edwood.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Firstly, MP3s sold at Itunes have no DRM, secondly, you won't hear the differnce between  a good quality MP3 from a lossless audio track. End of story.

iTunes have never sold MP3 files! 

Second of all you can not state that we won't hear the differnce between  a good quality MP3 from a lossless audio track. You may not, but there sure are people out there who can...
 
Depends on a LOT of factors.

 

[Skylab]

I've said this before, but MP3 and all lossy codecs are a flash in the pan, and will be as dead as the 8-track tape in a few years.  They were a temporary requirement when both bandwidth and storage space were expensive.  In the era of 15 mbps for $50/month, and of 1 Terabyte hard drives for $75, there is no purpose for lossy codecs.  As we get larger flash drives, and even more ubiquitous inexpensive broadband, the use of lossy codecs will be restricted to streaming.  The only reason we don't have more lossless files for sale even now is only because of the Record Company lawyers not wanting it - not because lossy has any real technical purpose anymore.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I've said this before, but MP3 and all lossy codecs are a flash in the pan, and will be as dead as the 8-track tape in a few years.  They were a temporary requirement when both bandwidth and storage space were expensive.  In the era of 15 mbps for $50/month, and of 1 Terabyte hard drives for $75, there is no purpose for lossy codecs.  As we get larger flash drives, and even more ubiquitous inexpensive broadband, the use of lossy codecs will be restricted to streaming.  The only reason we don't have more lossless files for sale even now is only because of the Record Company lawyers not wanting it - not because lossy has any real technical purpose anymore.

We can hope. But unless accessible stores like Amazon and iTunes decide that lossless is more profitable (meaning they'll charge more) then no matter how easy it is to do it won't be done. The masses don't care, and no matter how fast internet gets it'll still save the seller some bandwidth to sell lossy.
 
And what is going to make the record company lawyers turn right around and give it the okay? DRM?

 

[Skylab]

I actually think the masses do care.  But what should cause it to happen is competition.  If I offer lossless downloads for the same price as your lossy ones, then I should be able to steal your business.  Capitalism at its finest.
 
The Record Companies I think will eventually try it in order to try to spur more sales.

 

[mckinetic]

^^ I do not think the masses care at all. This forum, and site is really dedicated to a hobby, one which most people either don't understand or see as a tremendous waste of money. Most of my friends wouldn't know a FLAC if it flew into their window and called them Charlie, and moreover, if you told them what it was I think the majority would still care less. Even if the bandwith is there I see true high grade file transfer as a niche, though I do think it will come.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I actually think the masses do care.  But what should cause it to happen is competition.  If I offer lossless downloads for the same price as your lossy ones, then I should be able to steal your business.  Capitalism at its finest.
 
The Record Companies I think will eventually try it in order to try to spur more sales.

Only if you're able to supply everything that consumers buy from iTunes. With an interface and purchasing experience that equals or betters it. And even if internet gets faster, lossless downloads will be slower and some people won't like that.
 
I personally don't think they care about lossless, barely bitrate at all. Just a belief, I have no proof. Though my brother does listen almost exclusively to YouTube. And if you try searching torrent sites for some obscure foreign band that no one's heard of, 99 times out of 100 the only download available is going to be in a bitrate at or under 192kbps.
 
However, and this really surprised me, all of the music my dad ripped on our old media PC was in lossless WMA. I was proud of him, didn't even know he knew what lossless was. Actually, he probably doesn't, just read somewhere that the lossless setting is the best 

 

[melomaniac]

well, since edwood in his OP salvo referred specifically to game soundtracks, and the last few posts were about codecs, let's remember that Dolby Stereo had its first success in 1976 with star wars, and dolby digital was first heard in batman returns in 1992 and became the digital TV standard, while multichannel mpeg-2 is the european DVD standard. I'm not as confident as others here that lossy compression, or inferior tech of any kind, is going to be obsolete anytime soon. jurassic park already had a better solution in DTS in 1993, and yet very few DVDs or bluray discs will use DTS, using the space instead for alternate languages, voiceovers, out-takes, etc. certainly transcoding has come a long way since mathews' wager with pierce in 1956 at bell labs, or since shannon's surmise that sample rates of 2B times a second would suffice (where bandwidth = 0 to 22,050 Hz gives you 44.1 encoding). but still, what most game titles have been using is actually ogg vorbis (from doom 3 to GTA and from UT 2004 to america's army).
 

 

[leeperry]

paying for lossy music, what a joke