[austonia]

The government isn't right by default - think for yourself! Prohibition was once the law but people didn't feel bad for drinking, and everyone did it, and eventually the laws were changed.

 

[blessingx]

Another test for this whole VBR question (issue #18 of this thread). I just recorded 5:32 of silence to a wav/aiff, burned to a CD-RW, then encoded to 224 kps mp4. Byte count is 9,382,203, nearly identical to both earlier tracks. I don't see how this is VBR.

 

[williamgoody]

Quote:

Originally posted by FrostyMMB The customers have proven that they will do something illegal with it, so there's nothing irrational in assuming that they will. Why? Because they will. Perhaps you or I or someone else you know won't, but that says nothing for the number of people who will rip copies for all of their friends and distribute them in MP3 format to anyone on the net. If people have a history of repeatedly doing something that they shouldn't, despite illegalities and possible consequences, it's reasonable to assume that they will do it again.

So are we saying the Majority of the people will steal? If not how much of a percentage?

Record sales are down amongst the majors, what, 10%? Give or take?

Everyone needs to be "restricted" for that almighty 10%?

Bulls***. If they really wanted to curb this pirating, just make it that the file is a type that can't be passed on a P2P network. Or eliminate the P2P networks.

Sure, they're always be that niche of people who will steal. I agree. But they will always find a way, and it's IMO a smaller percentage of people then that's being portrayed in this discussion. And I do not want to be typecast like that in a general way by someone who is trying to sell me something.

 

[FrostyMMB]

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody So are we saying the Majority of the people will steal? If not how much of a percentage? Record sales are down amongst the majors, what, 10%? Give or take? Everyone needs to be "restricted" for that almighty 10%? Bulls***. If they really wanted to curb this pirating, just make it that the file is a type that can't be passed on a P2P network. Or eliminate the P2P networks. Sure, they're always be that niche of people who will steal. I agree. But they will always find a way, and it's IMO a smaller percentage of people then that's being portrayed in this discussion. And I do not want to be typecast like that in a general way by someone who is trying to sell me something.

The percentage is large enough for them to feel the need to do something. Even if it was 1% they might do something.

'They' don't have control over the file type that is passed over P2P.

It's not ********, man. I don't like the corruption of the music industry, but as much as they suck, they have rights that they are trying to protect. If you wanted to protect your rights and someone disagreed, would you be yelling ********?

In your opinion it's a small percentage, but how would you know that. You need only to browse around the dozens of file sharing protocols to see millions upon millions of people doing it at one specific slice in time. If something isn't done, that percentage will rise, you can bet on that.

I'm afraid you don't have much of a choice to be typecast as one of them. You might whine that Apple is doing that now, but so does any other company that places copy protection and limited licensing on the things that they sell. Movies, music, software, books, magazines, photographs, ideas. Anywhere you go you will see it. People have things to offer and with that comes a desire to protect it as their own. It's a fact of life that you're so angry about.

People ARE out there to take things as they please with disregard to whom it originated from, and that's why limitations exist on the things you *think* are completely under your ownership, do with as you please. Perhaps if you had something original and wished to get something from it, you'd see things from the other side of the argument.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia The government isn't right by default - think for yourself! Prohibition was once the law but people didn't feel bad for drinking, and everyone did it, and eventually the laws were changed.

I am thinking for myself. Just because I agree with the concept of intellectual property rights doesn't mean I'm parroting the government line. In fact, I contend it's just the opposite -- those who think "sharing" music is OK are the ones who aren't thinking.

Under capitalism, if intellectual property rights aren't enforced, the production of intellectual property will gradually decrease. I.e., in plain English, if artists don't get paid for their work, they'll stop producing it.

Unfortunately, because of the way music production and distrubution works, when it comes to music, "artists" = "music companies."

And williamgoody, the thing you're missing is that it isn't just "10%" of people who were stealing music at the height of the file sharing services -- I had 50-year-old co-workers who weren't exactly computer experts who were stealing music... because they could. The easier you make sharing/stealing music, the more people will do it. Conversely, the easier you make it for "otherwise honest" people to legally and inexpensively purchase music, the less piracy they will be. The reasonable DMR restrictions being put on these AAC tracks will only harm those who are consciously pirating music.

 

[williamgoody]

Quote:

In your opinion it's a small percentage, but how would you know that. You need only to browse around the dozens of file sharing protocols to see millions upon millions of people doing it at one specific slice in time. If something isn't done, that percentage will rise, you can bet on that.

Quote:

And williamgoody, the thing you're missing is that it isn't just "10%" of people who were stealing music at the height of the file sharing services -- I had 50-year-old co-workers who weren't exactly computer experts who were stealing music... because they could.

And you guys can't estimate the amount of people in the first quote above that may or may not be buying the CD after they get the file, or buy more CD's as a result. Nor can you substantiate that the 50 year olds are downloading stuff that they would never buy anyway, even without downloading them.

Slice it and dice it all you want. The result is still the same, and it's still profiling the customer as a thief. I'd be willing to bet the RIAA has lost more money via used cd availability than there has been with this MP3 sharing craze

And isn't selling CD's after you've bought them illegal, as the RIAA sees it?

We are an "innocent until proven guilty" society, and for me, I prefer to be treated as such.

 

[FrostyMMB]

Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx Another test for this whole VBR question (issue #18 of this thread). I just recorded 5:32 of silence to a wav/aiff, burned to a CD-RW, then encoded to 224 kps mp4. Byte count is 9,382,203, nearly identical to both earlier tracks. I don't see how this is VBR.

It still can be. Again, don't judge VBR vs. CBR on file size. I took a minute of silence, encoded it at 160kbps CBR MP3, 160kbps VBR MP3, and 160kbs AAC. All three were approx 1.1mb. The two MP3 files had exactly the same byte count.

 

[paulj]

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody Nor can you substantiate that the 50 year olds are downloading stuff that they would never buy anyway, even without downloading them.

Are you saying that if you have no intention of ever buying a product, it's OK to take it without paying? Interesting philosophy!

Quote:

And isn't selling CD's after you've bought them illegal, as the RIAA sees it?

No, because you transfer all rights along with the original media.

 

[williamgoody]

Quote:

Are you saying that if you have no intention of ever buying a product, it's OK to take it without paying? Interesting philosophy!

No I'm not. But if they weren't buying the CD regardless of whether they download the file or not is it really lost money?

Thanks for the clarification concerning the used CD's. It still amounts to lost money for the record companies though.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody So are we saying the Majority of the people will steal? If not how much of a percentage? Record sales are down amongst the majors, what, 10%? Give or take? Everyone needs to be "restricted" for that almighty 10%? Bulls***. If they really wanted to curb this pirating, just make it that the file is a type that can't be passed on a P2P network. Or eliminate the P2P networks.

I would completely agree with you if you weren't standing on your head.

Here's the problem: going after the P2P networks *does* punish innocent people trying to legitimately share things. I have many friends who record and share their own music and artwork, and they should be able to use these networks to do this for their own promotional purposes. Unfortunately, those who share illegal things have taken over the P2P networks (many of which were created for illegal purposes to begin with), and the government has decided to get involved in order to protect the recording industry. I think the government should keep its dirty little hands *away* from P2P networks, so as to not punish the innocent.

Making use of new technology that prevents theft in the first place allows the industries who invest (and yes, the MPEG does and did receive investment money from the recording industry -- most notably Sony -- for the creation of MP3, AAC, and other digital formats) to police their property rights without having to rely on Big Brother for a solution.

This is *precisely* why I applaud Apple's new model -- because it moves us away from more government regulation. It simplifies the legal copyright issues while still providing a huge amount of utility to the consumer. The only people "punished" or "restricted" are those who have unreasonably large expectations about what they should be able to do with someone else's property rights.

Let's be clear here: copyrights are good things, and they protect all of us -- academics/writers (like me), software developers, musicians, visual artists, moviemakers, inventors. Hell, it's written into the US Constitution! And just because Sony Music makes billions off music copyrights and I only make a pittance for my articles, we both equally deserve that protection. That is what free markets and limited government is all about -- equal *access* to the protections that the law affords.

Unfortunately, copyright opponents would threaten both Sony *and* me, and that's unfair to the little guys like me. At the same time, if Sony had its way, little guys wouldn't have technologies like P2P for distribution. But what the Apple model provides is a win-win situation for both of us.

Will people still steal? Heck yeah! But people are within their rights to try to stop it. Protective technologies just provide a better solution than government intervention or long legal battles to the problem of theft.

--Chris

PS - This is not to say people who adopt alternatives to copyrights are wrong. I am a big supporter of independent music recording, GPL software/Linux, etc. I wish there were more of that kind of thing. But when people or corporations need copyrights to protect their investments or get investors to begin with, we need to be supportive.

I highly reccomend Prof. Lawrence Lessig's book, "The Future of Ideas" for a great discussion of the wrongs of copyright absolutism (on both sides -- those who say we shouldn't have copyrights or protective schemes, and those who think we shouldn't have any fair use).

We need balance here, folks! AppleMusic might not be perfect, but it's a gigantic leap in the right direction.

 

[williamgoody]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the copyright laws and such, but it seems hypocritical to me to go after Joe Consumer and restrict him and typcast him a thief, and yet say the gov't should stay away from the P2P's, so as to "protect the innocent".

Maybe the Gov't needs to protect the innocent form the RIAA altogether.

You can't have it both ways. People are people, whether they're buying music, or sharing legal file on a P2P.

Again, I agree with you Chris on copywriting and the rights that are ensued. Maybe Apple's AAC files should only be available on a rental basis. Maybe not. All I know is if I'm a customer I don't want to be protrayed as a thief, that's all.

 

[paulj]

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia Anyone know how to load AAC files onto a Windows iPod?

If you figure this out, please let me know. I did see a thread over at HydrogenAudio in which 'Tarod' mentioned he had succeeded. Unfortunately he didn't give any further details.

 

[Ruahrc]

About the CBR vs VBR: from the results it looks like AAC is using ABR. Also note that some mp3 encoding software uses ABR as its VBR scheme as well. "True" VBR is the codec analyzing each frame of the sound and determining a suitable bitrate to encode that frame at. If you read the LAME readme you will see that their standard VBR setting used to be ABR until recently when they were able to refine their real VBR encoding algorithm into something useable.

Here's something you might want to try: Try to stress the encoder by making a wav file that has both extremely data-intensive parts, and then some very quiet simple passages. What will hopefully happen is that the heavy parts will require so much bitrate that the quieter parts will be compressed down at a low bitrate, so low that you will be able to hear some compression artifaacts. It might be very difficult to tell and would need a good set of cans/ears, but it might shed more light on the issue of cbr/abr/vbr?

Now a theory on how to upload AAC's to the iPod in Windows...
I don't know where the hangup is but if EphPod (or whatever software) is not letting you copy the file because it doesnt have an mp3 extension, then try renaming the AAC file so that it does have an mp3 extension, THEN loading it onto the iPod. It might work? The hardware on the iPod should be able to tell that it is an AAC file and use the appropriate decompression algorthms. ::i claim no responsibility for broken iPods although I don't see how this can hurt anything

::

Ruahrc

 

[blessingx]

That would be extremely accurate ABR to get nearly exactly the overall bitrate (thus file size) in a Velvets rock track, Chet Baker jazz track, and the same length in silence. I know I keep saying it's CBR, but do you think ABR has gotten that exact? The few bytes difference could be explained in different tag info and hundreds of a second difference in song time length. These files could potentially be exactly the same file size.

Also Windows users may be interested on how to play the mp4 (+m4a) files through Windows Media Player. See this thread.

 

[Ruahrc]

Well I believe that for ABR encoded files, the codec will adjust the quality of the music in order to hit XX bitrate (hit it exactly). For VBR the codec will adjust the filesize in order to keep XX quality. So yes I think that ABR was designed to encode to a final overall bitrate of XX kbps, and is pretty accurate in doing so too. But of course this is just my theory, I have no data to prove it

Ruahrc