Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 122906 2012-01-19 20:48:00 Megaupload gone nedkelly (9059) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1255150 2012-01-21 09:57:00 That's right, but they only buy one and so the author is only paid once, but it is lent for free many times. The author misses out. It is the same with CDs and DVDs that they lend. As I said, it is similar to piracy, but it's respectable.

There is a scheme that pays authors for books in libraries.
www.authors.org.nz 		martynz (5445)
1255151 2012-01-21 09:58:00 How does the artist put food on the table from that? Charge you a hundred bucks to see them perform live like they do now Twelvevolts (5457)
1255152 2012-01-21 10:05:00 The ultimate thing would be an online store that sold music like this:

1) High quality files, with no distinction between say FLAC and MP3 for prices. When you pay for a song you get the highest quality by default which you can recode to any other format you want if you need to for putting on a portable player etc.

2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

4) No software installation required, like iTunes.

5) Sells ALL music, including the stuff you actually want, not just random dance music - several places fit the bill of the first 4 points pretty well, but unfortunately not point 5 :(


This I would personally love for one-off songs and things. However I still like to purchase full phsyical CDs depending on the artist.

Sounds a bit like bandit.fm, however I don't know what the quality is like compared to FLAC or whatever and in regards too #5 it depends on personal taste, I feel bandit however is lacking.


Thats cool, sounds like the music store of the very near future.

So what happens when I copy tracks which I've paid for, and pass them on to friends for nothing? And maybe put them up on my webpage for others to copy for free purely to spread the enjoyment of particular artists. And I do the same for movies which I have paid for and give away copies. How does the artist put food on the table from that?

Well its a trust thing isn't it. That's generally how things with no DRM work and even normal DRM. Because is there really any form of copy protection that hasn't been cracked? All it does is get in the way of the end user who actually paid for it and slows the pirates down by a few days. What you have described there is your average joe pirating things. It's no different to how it is now. 		icow (15313)
1255153 2012-01-21 15:53:00 This may be the case if you paid for it, but to try it, it is more than sufficient.



Bullshit. You have posted, time and again, music from 50s and 60s that by modern standards have atrocious quality. So, I take it you wouldn't buy that?

You obviously have no education on music. Many music from the 50's and 60's, when mastered properly, can far surpass the sound quality of today's music. It's all finding the right mastering. And no, a 96kbps mp3 is unlistenable, too much digital compression artifacts to even enjoy what i'm hearing.

Finding old music with great sound is easy, as i'm on this forum: www.stevehoffman.tv 		goodiesguy (15316)
1255154 2012-01-21 17:25:00 The ultimate thing would be an online store that sold music like this:

1) High quality files, with no distinction between say FLAC and MP3 for prices. When you pay for a song you get the highest quality by default which you can recode to any other format you want if you need to for putting on a portable player etc.

2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

4) No software installation required, like iTunes.

5) Sells ALL music, including the stuff you actually want, not just random dance music - several places fit the bill of the first 4 points pretty well, but unfortunately not point 5 :(


This I would personally love for one-off songs and things. However I still like to purchase full physical CDs depending on the artist.

Yes that store sounds great.

But as Winston001 said how would they stop people sharing the songs they have bought ?
There is NO way to stop that, which is why the record industry has always been against selling music online.
They are not as stupid as people make them out to be. 		Digby (677)
1255155 2012-01-21 17:53:00 Yes that store sounds great.

But as Winston001 said how would they stop people sharing the songs they have bought ?
There is NO way to stop that, which is why the record industry has always been against selling music online.
They are not as stupid as people make them out to be.

The exact same way they stopped people sharing cd's, they can't, and measures to try are futhering ruining their product and customer base.

Which is exactly why they are as stupid as people make them out to be. 		Metla (12)
1255156 2012-01-21 18:34:00 2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.


3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

And that won't happen because they can't trust people not to share it. 		pctek (84)
1255157 2012-01-21 19:25:00 2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.


3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

And that won't happen because they can't trust people not to share it.
iTunes is both 2 and 3 		plod (107)
1255158 2012-01-21 19:59:00 2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.


3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

And that won't happen because they can't trust people not to share it.

Hopefully, we are not taking the tape or disk system as an ideal to aim at? (Tapes, vinyl and even sheet music wear measurably each time they are played, should we preserve that feature too?)


It is in the nature of things that corporates want to boost their greed factor and monumental overheads. Consumers want better, faster and more economic delivery. Performers and composers (mostly) want to perform and get paid, although some expect to get obscenely overpaid.

Nothing much has changed in people's motivation since recording first started whether on perforated paper rolls or wax cylinders (arguably, printed music was the initiator in a more genteel fashion). The formula is take some talent no matter how small, throw some marketing (okay, a lot) and a bit of production at it, aiming the whole process at potential buyers who wish to get lots for little.

Each party averages out to be most strongly characterised by greed, which they only see in others. Alas, the distributors are the largest party as well as the most expensive bit, so they also have the strongest greed. New systems of doing the distribution and the promotion threaten to take away some part of their chances to profit from the arrangement, as a result they fight like cornered rats. This brings in another layer of greed to siphon off money while adding nothing to the product - the huge legal teams of parasites all paid for by the consumer. To protect their position, the legal teams side with the industry associations to pop up targets that must be destroyed. The targets are huge "losses" that only they can prevent. If these nebulous "losses" are eliminated, it will not result in all that money going to the performers or the distributors, it will almost entirely go to the legal systems that have made themselves out to be an essential part of the chain. The performers will do what they did, as will the distributors, the consumers will vote with their wallets so reducing sales volume a bit. The overheads remain the same, so costs rise again, forcing a price rise - - - .

What? It has already happened? Surely we can't all be that stupid? 		R2x1 (4628)
1255159 2012-01-21 20:21:00 Personally it's not an issue for me because I still buy CD's. I like CD's. I like the physical item, the cover art, the liner notes, having a CD player hooked up to a proper stereo system and being able to listen to uncompressed audio.

And I still think that 400 or so CD's on a CD rack looks cool.

I wait until I hit Auckland for a concert every 6 months or so and blow out my spending budget at JB HiFi with a $400-$1000 spend up on all things music, movie and gaming.

I rip the CD's to FLAC for my PC and there you go - sorted. I convert songs that I want to put on my phone for running to MP3. Maybe that's seen as questionable but I bought the CD, I've still got the physical item sitting in my CD rack. 		Tukapa (62)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16