"That has nothing to do with the DRM. My Alpine unit support WMA and MP3, but not AAC. I can rip un-DRMd files from my own CDs, and the unit still won't play them."
Which sounds a lot like, "I can use iTunes to rip un-DRMd tracks from CDs I own and end up with files that my car stereo won't play."
Then you turn around and say you're referring to stuff in iTMS. So which is it?
Anytime you buy DRMd music online you can expect to jump through some hoops to get a file that's free-as-in-speech. Please tell me you don't think that's unique to iTMS.
Anyway, just puzzled as to which it is we're talking about.
Just FYI, you can set up iTunes to rip your CDs as mp3s instead AAC files. (Edit --> Preferences --> Importing) Those should play just fine in your Alpine.
Do you buy lots of your CDs used? Usually, full albums are $10 at iTunes. Even at the cheapest shops that's tough to beat.
In fact, I just bought a Secret Machines album from iTunes that cost me $9.00. It came with 5 bonus tracks from other artists that I wouldn't have gotten had I bought the CD itself.
Generally, though, if you want the whole album it's worth it to pay a little more to get the CD. But, if you are comparing the price of full albums, I find that iTunes is cheaper almost all of the time.
Perhaps I have not been clear. At this moment, people are sharing copies of movies over p2p networks. We all know this is happening. And I agree that the impact this has on their profits is hardly what they claim it is. But the point you have still failed to address is that in my little fantasy scenario all sharing of movies over p2p networks would stop. All of it. (Hey, I did call it fantasy.)
At this point the MPAA would no longer be able to complain that, "sharing over p2p networks is killing our industry," because there would be no trading over p2p networks. None. Any lawsuits based on p2p activity would be thrown out of court due to a complete lack of proof that such activity is even going on.
The incentives to claim p2p is responsible are simply too great. It allows arguments for legislation for unparallelled content control. It clears failed execs of wrongdoing, being a perfect scapegoat when bad decisions reduce sales.
This is exactly why we ought to deny them the ability to blame it all on p2p. If they try to revive it themselves, one would hope some resourceful folks could prove where it was all coming from and it'd blow up in their faces. Or are they smarter than the geeks after all?
The TV and movie industries huge problem is their region system for distribution. While people are willing to pay, they're to a far lesser extent willing to wait. And as people are exposed to advertisements on the internet, and know they wont have a local release for months, or even years, if ever, they will resort to obtaining the material in the only way they are able to.
Hmm. That sounds like people are selfish and impatient. In my book that's hardly justification helping the MPAA blame everything on p2p. For myself, I have been waiting for years for something to come out on DVD but I haven't gone running to the p2p networks to get it. It just isn't that important.
DVD regioning is a PITA, I agree with that. Mostly in cases where different regions get different versions of a movie and the one that is "better" won't play/isn't available in my region. My solution to that is to just not buy/rent the movie at all. Too bad for them.
How's that? If there's no piracy occurring on p2p networks they're still going to blame their decreased profits on the piracy happening on p2p networks? Please remember that the post I replied to said that any loss in profits will be blamed on p2p.
So, again, let's take the p2p argument away from them. Wouldn't it be a fun spectator sport to see them all befuddled when p2p trading stops and their profits keep going down?
They can try to blame it on piracy all they want, but they'll have to find a new scapegoat if we take p2p networks away from them. In this regard it's a bit like fighting the Black Knight. You have to keep chopping limbs off until it's just a stump on the ground babbling to itself.
That people are so unwilling to do an actual boycott of Hollywood movies is the main reason I believe that p2p trading of said movies is not about any sort of protest or civil disobedience. It, mostly, is about people being cheap and wanting free entertainment.
By the way, don't you lose/. cred by accepting the term piracy?
they will contine to push this crap at us, and then blame p2p for loss of profits as usual.
That's because the p2p networks are an easy target. Face it, there are a lot of things which are illegally traded on p2p networks. As long as this goes on, they're going to blame their "troubles" on p2p.
To make the point that their product is unacceptable you have to give it up all together. No trading. No buying DVDs. No going to the theater.
True civil disobedience involves sacrifice. P2P networks provide this comfort level where people can pretend they are sticking it to the man, but really it's a cop out.
The thing is that P2P networks seem to do a lot for maximizing the benefit to the end consumer of the product (ie, get music for free) without doing much toward maximizing the reward to the creator of the content. That's why some of us see P2P users as leeches. Get the music you want and don't pay/reward anyone for it.
I am quite aware that many people use P2P to find stuff that they like and then buy it. Whether or not this is what most people are doing is unknown. Also, I fully agree that the middle man is getting a much bigger piece of the pie than they deserve.
Still, I don't think that alone justifies downloading a bunch of stuff and then not paying for it. The poster below you had a suggestion that may be the most morally correct, or at least is more justifiable from the perspective that P2P is civil disobedience. Download stuff then send the musician(s) $5. They'll probably get more than they would from a CD sale and you get the thrill of "sticking it to the man."
But really, how many people, Slashdotters in particular, do that?
Looking at the voting record is all fine and good so long as you remember this basic principle:
Voting for/against a specific bill != voting for/against the issue entirely
The law-writing process in the U.S. is hosed. Too many bills either inadequately address a issue or they have unnecessary nonsense tacked on so that a bill about taxes ends up including something about whether or not you can have an elephant as a pet. (Example not meant to be taken literally.)
So if a certain member of Congress votes against a specific tax cut bill you cannot draw the conclusion that they are against all tax cuts. The only way to know for sure is read the bill in question and try to figure out for yourself if their vote was correct.
Relying on the opposing candidate to properly cast light on someone's voting record is folly.
I probably shouldn't bother with this, but I have to ask. And please recall that this thread initially started around the topic of disabling the cut, copy, save and print features.
You said:
Copyright is, by intent, limited: It controls reproduction, public performance, and several other actions, and no more.
How are the cut/copy/save/print functions not reproduction? Aren't you taking a copy of said work and reproducing it in some other location/format/whatever? Presumably, you aren't the copyright holder, thus your ability to reproduce the work has been limited. (If you are the copyright holder you don't need to go to Google Print to reproduce your work, do you?)
In this case copyright is not abused.
The material presented is legitimately copyrighted. This form of copyright, apparently, does not allow for free duplication and distribution. We are all used to the idea that material presented on the web is available for free use. This doesn't mean that everything has to follow that model.
If you have a problem with Google Print then don't use it. More importantly, tell Google why.
Now, I'll give you that disabling right-click entirely is annoying and could be called a nuisance. But if there is no way to disable just the copy (and copy-esque elements) in the right-click menu then so be it. Besides, I use ALT + LEFT more often anyway.
Copying the latest Harry Potter book in its entirety (several hundred pages)
or
Hopping on a P2P network and downloading several (ie, more than 1) albums in their entirety
The physical constraints of copying a book fully are an effective deterrent from the act. Especially in a library where a librarian is sure to notice that someone has been standing at the copier for hours without changing the source material. I imagine they would approach the individual and ask, "good sir (or madam), what are you doing?" (If Madonna is doing a guest stint in the library this question may be phrased a little differently.)
On the other hand, creating mp3s and then sharing them is a pretty easy thing to do. Even easier would be downloading mp3s and then (re-)sharing them yourself.
Sorry, but your "more appropriate" analogy is not as good as you think it is. The other poster had it right, if you are sharing something which is not yours to share/distribute (read: you have the copyright, or permission from the copyright holder) then it is, in fact, your responsibility.
Some could argue that recorded music has a greater value than a live concert. Sound preposterous? Here's how it works:
The majority of music-listening I do is from recordings. It constitutes roughly 95-99% of the music I get to enjoy. Meanwhile, the concert, while good in its own right, is transitory and fleeting. Why should I pay more money for something I'll hear once (unless a bootleg is available later) than for something that will provide me hours and hours of enjoyment? Because they're doing actual work instead of recording? Hogwash. Recording is work too, just a different kind.
So you could say that CDs are under-priced and concerts are over-priced. I'll pay $20 for the CD if the concert is $5 or $10.
How's them apples? (pun intended)
Keep in mind that I am not afflicted by the filler-track syndrome. It happens to people, I know. But I manage to avoid it. That comes from being more selective and less impulse-y. If I only ever hear one song by a band that I like I'm not going to buy the CD since I can hear the song on the radio. It also helps to listen to KEXP.
I know they have to try to maximize their chances of turning a profit on the tour. And that these bands (more likely their management) made the decision to pass us by for whatever reasons.
What I was really getting at is the notion that CDs are just ads for the concert and should therefore be free. If there is no concert the CD cannot be an ad. (In this case "concert" is defined as "a concert I can personally get to.") Unless you're in trapped in the Matrix you can't advertise something that does not exist.
Which is not to say you shouldn't support bands by seeing them in concert. Of course you should, if circumstances allow. There should just be other methods by which musicians can earn money. The problem with this idea is that it assumes there will be a show in a location at a time that one can get to for a price one can afford. People who proclaim this theory never address the fact that it's not always a done deal. There are a lot of variables that can prevent someone from getting to a show. What's a guy to do to support his favorite acts when seeing them in concert is not an option? From what I can tell, the "recorded music should be free and bands will make money on concerts" argument is flimsy and not well thought out. Heavy on the "we get music for free" and not so heavy on the "we want to support musicians."
But I tend to be cynical that way.
And, because I can't resist:
So it is likely a consequence of your neighbors' tastes in music.
"Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people"
CDs are basically just ads to come and see the show
Really? If that is true then why is it most of the bands who've released albums that I bought in the last 12 months haven't played in my city? (I live in a large city so, please, no recommendations that I move somewhere people have heard about.)
How is the CD an advertisement for the show when there is no show?!
Perhaps I wasn't clear. You and I very obviously have different goals in terms of the music listening experience. Starting from that foundation isn't it easy to see that you'd end up loving mp3s while I'd end up saying "CDs work fine for me" ?
I have no desire to convince you to stop using mp3s. I'm OK with both of us being right. What's with the need to convince me mp3s are better? Or worth my time?
Let me target a particular idea. You said, referring to the sound quality of mp3s, "on almost all sound systems, indistinguishable from CDs." I agree. Encoded properly, they sound pretty much the same. This I say from personal experience, not word of mouth tales. But for me to go through the trouble of making the CD to mp3 conversion I'm going to need them to sound distinguishably better than CDs. They don't.
All of your points, while true, still sound to me like I'd have to put in time, effort and money. For this, I get sound quality equivalent to CDs, but now I'm out said time, effort and money. As I said, I'd prefer to devote all of that to other things. For example, I'm trying to learn bass guitar. I definitely would rather be doing that than encoding mp3 files. Automated batch jobs or no, it's still pulling me away from what I'd rather be doing.
I promise this is the last time I will say this: for me to make the switch to mp3s they have to offer me enough of a payoff to make the work worthwhile. I saw the payoff when I moved from LPs to cassettes. I saw it again when I moved from cassettes to CDs. I don't, yet, see it with mp3s. That's my mileage on this topic. And it's the only mileage that matters to me.
So, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. Or that your points are invalid. I'm just going to say that they aren't applicable. What I object to is the implication (in your original post) that there is something wrong with me (or people) because I (we?) don't see it your way. Something may be wrong with me, yes, but it's not this.:)
A little background. Once upon a time, I did try the very thing you assumed I didn't. I tried making a conversion to mp3s. You know what I discovered? Not only was I not really taking advantage of what they offer over CDs, but I wasn't using them at all. Except for being at the computer (where I do the least amount of my music listening) I had no way to play them. I look at my life now and see that without taking on what I perceive as mispent time/money/effort this is still true. It's not that I've never tried using mp3s or don't understand that they do sound good. It's just that they don't fit into my life. I know people dig on the long playlists and random access. And that is pretty cool, from a conceptual standpoint. Honestly, it's just not very important to me.
A couple of other things, briefly: I do like mix CDs. I like making them. (I won't bore you with the details of how I approach making mixes but it does sound to me like what you do with yours is very different from what I do with mine.) Most of the CDs I make are for my wife, who travels for her job. She needs to be able to play them in rental cars or they're just not useful. I could ask, but I'm pretty sure built-in mp3 players aren't standard in cars yet. Nor will carrying extra gadgets make traveling easier. And, I also like listening to albums from start to finish. I don't buy many CDs. A result of this is that I am rarely burned by the "2 good songs, 8-10 filler tracks" syndrome so the entire album is worth listening to.
I'm the first to say that in a few years I might not be using CDs anymore. Then again, some cars still come with only a cassette player as standard. You have to add the CD player. How long will it be before mp3 players come built-in the low-end models? Quite awhile, I'd imagine. And as you said, mp3s might now be the wave of the future's future. So why switch, just to switch again? As new technologies come out, I evaluate them and see how they fit into my life. When I find stuff that works, I use it. When I find stuff that doesn't, I think, "that's nice. But not for me." What I refuse to do is change my life around for the sake of some new file format/technology.
That's just how I go about it.
ps - the Rome mp3 player is cool, but since my car only has a cd player, it's not really worth picking one up.
Your judgment has been clouded by an all too common/. illness. It's the one where people can't see beyond their own nose and realize that what works for them doesn't necessarily work for all. More on that in a bit.
First up: cars and horses. Planes and trains. Email and snail. (You left out how the airplane industry is hurting the auto industry since people fly across the country instead of drive.) These are not very good examples. Why? Cars offer (environmental issues aside) a better service than the horse-drawn cart arrangement. The same can be said for planes vs. trains and email vs. snail mail. The reason people are not restricting themselves to the old technology is that the new stuff is better. That is capitalism at its best. Somebody came out with a better product and won over the customers.
I have yet to be convinced that listening to mp3s is significantly better than listening to CDs. As far as I can tell mp3s and audio discs are pretty evenly matched. They are good at different things and have different things going against them. MP3s let you bring a lot more music with you. Good thing. The trade-off there is sound quality. More quantity, lower quality. Bad thing. Audio discs don't let you diminish the quality of the tracks. Good thing. But you have to bring more of them along. Bad thing. (Although, one might argue that hunting through hundreds of mp3s is harder than hunting through a few extra CDs.)
These are the two main reasons I'm not switching:
1. Players. There is one place I can listen to mp3s. One. As in one whole number larger than zero. I listen to music in lots of places. At work, in the car (or a plane or a train), in the kitchen, in the living room and at the computer at home. That last one is the sole mp3 friendly spot I have. And, it turns out that this place garners the lowest amount of music listening time. I have CD players already at work, in the car (and one I bring on planes and trains), in the kitchen, in the living room and at my computer at home. For me to adopt mp3 as a format I'd need to be able to play mp3s everywhere I can play CDs.
That's money I have to spend on mp3 players. Money I feel should be spent on other things. Not to mention that the players will probably break soon after the warranty ends. Thus replacements are necessary. More money. Blech.
I can already play CDs anywhere I want to. I like how they sound. And you want me to give that up?
2. Time. I'd have to spend time converting everything to mp3, or looking around online for good quality rips. Then, I have to get the mp3s onto something the player will read. Admittedly, that's a small factor, but it's there. Either way, that's time I'd rather spend doing something else. Especially since I don't think the benefits of using mp3s are all that impressive.
So there's the problem. In your examples the new technology provided very obvious and distinct advantages over existing technology. I progressed from LP to cassette to CD because each time I felt I was getting something out of the move. That made the work worth it. Cassettes are more portable than LPs - big advantage. CDs sound better than cassettes, don't lose the portability, and make songs easier to get to - big advantages again. I've evaluated the mp3 vs. CD issue. I don't see a big advantage to mp3s. Certainly not one that worthy of the time and effort it would take to switch. So why should I bother? Because you say so? Some argument.
The "technology has moved on" bit is a nice sound byte, but it's hardly convincing. I'm glad mp3s work for you. That's great. CDs work for me. Your insistence that "there's no need for records (or CDs?) anymore" comes from the fact that you have no use for them anymore. It's a common refrain around here, "my way is bettter than your way because it's my way so listen to me." Saying it a lot, and loudly, doesn't make it true.
But whoever said the record labels act or think logically? Bit of devil's advocate here...
Current copyright law doesn't allow the consumer the right to distribute recorded works. Only the person with distribution rights can legally do that.
That's their quibble. Your mp3s are allowable through fair use for you to use, not others. (Thank goodness they lost that battle.) Legally you can't distribute copies of your mp3s to other people, even if they have a copy of the exact same CD you used to make the mp3s.
Absolutely Stupid.
The law's just outdated and should be changed. The problem is the old fuddy-duddies who can't wrap their brain around the fact that once you and I both buy the CD we're not going to give them any more money for that title. W(ho)TF cares if I make copies of your mp3s? They already got their money from me. It's not like they've jumped at the opportunity to sell music in that format...
So that's what it is.
Of course, the trick with filesharing is how to validate that both the person making the mp3s and the one downloading them actually have the CD.
It doesn't matter if I have web pages open in browser windows or browser tabs. I'm not going to be able to look at more than one page at a time anyway. My monitor isn't big enough to support two browser windows side-by-side (or stacked one above the other) and have either page be readable. And I'm not going to bother with the effort or money to set up a multi-monitor environment.
Given that I am not ever going to be able to see two web pages at the same time, I have to do some sort of switching. I'm fine with this. I find it is more beneficial to have one browser with 6-10 tabs than it is to have 6-10 browser windows open. All that ALT + TAB-ing gets really old. And I like being able see what webpages I have open just by looking at one window. This is not the One True Way(tm). It is what works for me.
When I'm doing editing with a text editor I generally keep several files open at once. (How many websites are comprised of just one file?) I don't want to have 20 text editor windows open. I want one text editor with 20 files open. This saves me from having to do save/open operations every time I change the file I'm working on. And it saves me from have to ALT + TAB through 20 application windows to find the file I'm looking for. CTRL + S and it's on to the next file.
Tabbed interfaces that employ good design are extremely useful for me.
"One document, one window" is the sort of narrow, view-the-world-with-blinders type of thinking that leads to a 16-ton weight being dropped on you.:)
Slashdot Mirror
doesn't pink floyd get the blame for this?
all in all it's just a
nother brick in the wall
(funny line break to emphasize how it's sung)
yeah, i know, now this thread is even further off-topic.
-r
Color me confused, then. You said:
"That has nothing to do with the DRM. My Alpine unit support WMA and MP3, but not AAC. I can rip un-DRMd files from my own CDs, and the unit still won't play them."
Which sounds a lot like, "I can use iTunes to rip un-DRMd tracks from CDs I own and end up with files that my car stereo won't play."
Then you turn around and say you're referring to stuff in iTMS. So which is it?
Anytime you buy DRMd music online you can expect to jump through some hoops to get a file that's free-as-in-speech. Please tell me you don't think that's unique to iTMS.
Anyway, just puzzled as to which it is we're talking about.
-r
Just FYI, you can set up iTunes to rip your CDs as mp3s instead AAC files. (Edit --> Preferences --> Importing) Those should play just fine in your Alpine.
r
Do you buy lots of your CDs used? Usually, full albums are $10 at iTunes. Even at the cheapest shops that's tough to beat.
In fact, I just bought a Secret Machines album from iTunes that cost me $9.00. It came with 5 bonus tracks from other artists that I wouldn't have gotten had I bought the CD itself.
Generally, though, if you want the whole album it's worth it to pay a little more to get the CD. But, if you are comparing the price of full albums, I find that iTunes is cheaper almost all of the time.
-r
Perhaps I have not been clear. At this moment, people are sharing copies of movies over p2p networks. We all know this is happening. And I agree that the impact this has on their profits is hardly what they claim it is. But the point you have still failed to address is that in my little fantasy scenario all sharing of movies over p2p networks would stop. All of it. (Hey, I did call it fantasy.)
At this point the MPAA would no longer be able to complain that, "sharing over p2p networks is killing our industry," because there would be no trading over p2p networks. None. Any lawsuits based on p2p activity would be thrown out of court due to a complete lack of proof that such activity is even going on.
The incentives to claim p2p is responsible are simply too great. It allows arguments for legislation for unparallelled content control. It clears failed execs of wrongdoing, being a perfect scapegoat when bad decisions reduce sales.
This is exactly why we ought to deny them the ability to blame it all on p2p. If they try to revive it themselves, one would hope some resourceful folks could prove where it was all coming from and it'd blow up in their faces. Or are they smarter than the geeks after all?
The TV and movie industries huge problem is their region system for distribution. While people are willing to pay, they're to a far lesser extent willing to wait. And as people are exposed to advertisements on the internet, and know they wont have a local release for months, or even years, if ever, they will resort to obtaining the material in the only way they are able to.
Hmm. That sounds like people are selfish and impatient. In my book that's hardly justification helping the MPAA blame everything on p2p. For myself, I have been waiting for years for something to come out on DVD but I haven't gone running to the p2p networks to get it. It just isn't that important.
DVD regioning is a PITA, I agree with that. Mostly in cases where different regions get different versions of a movie and the one that is "better" won't play/isn't available in my region. My solution to that is to just not buy/rent the movie at all. Too bad for them.
-r
How's that? If there's no piracy occurring on p2p networks they're still going to blame their decreased profits on the piracy happening on p2p networks? Please remember that the post I replied to said that any loss in profits will be blamed on p2p.
So, again, let's take the p2p argument away from them. Wouldn't it be a fun spectator sport to see them all befuddled when p2p trading stops and their profits keep going down?
They can try to blame it on piracy all they want, but they'll have to find a new scapegoat if we take p2p networks away from them. In this regard it's a bit like fighting the Black Knight. You have to keep chopping limbs off until it's just a stump on the ground babbling to itself.
That people are so unwilling to do an actual boycott of Hollywood movies is the main reason I believe that p2p trading of said movies is not about any sort of protest or civil disobedience. It, mostly, is about people being cheap and wanting free entertainment.
By the way, don't you lose
-r
they will contine to push this crap at us, and then blame p2p for loss of profits as usual.
That's because the p2p networks are an easy target. Face it, there are a lot of things which are illegally traded on p2p networks. As long as this goes on, they're going to blame their "troubles" on p2p.
To make the point that their product is unacceptable you have to give it up all together. No trading. No buying DVDs. No going to the theater.
True civil disobedience involves sacrifice. P2P networks provide this comfort level where people can pretend they are sticking it to the man, but really it's a cop out.
-r
The thing is that P2P networks seem to do a lot for maximizing the benefit to the end consumer of the product (ie, get music for free) without doing much toward maximizing the reward to the creator of the content. That's why some of us see P2P users as leeches. Get the music you want and don't pay/reward anyone for it.
I am quite aware that many people use P2P to find stuff that they like and then buy it. Whether or not this is what most people are doing is unknown. Also, I fully agree that the middle man is getting a much bigger piece of the pie than they deserve.
Still, I don't think that alone justifies downloading a bunch of stuff and then not paying for it. The poster below you had a suggestion that may be the most morally correct, or at least is more justifiable from the perspective that P2P is civil disobedience. Download stuff then send the musician(s) $5. They'll probably get more than they would from a CD sale and you get the thrill of "sticking it to the man."
But really, how many people, Slashdotters in particular, do that?
-r
The current movie rating system used by the MPAA was first introduced in 1968. Episode IV has always been rated PG.
Just FYI.
-r
I think he meant it's the new FOOL'S gold."
-r
Looking at the voting record is all fine and good so long as you remember this basic principle:
Voting for/against a specific bill != voting for/against the issue entirely
The law-writing process in the U.S. is hosed. Too many bills either inadequately address a issue or they have unnecessary nonsense tacked on so that a bill about taxes ends up including something about whether or not you can have an elephant as a pet. (Example not meant to be taken literally.)
So if a certain member of Congress votes against a specific tax cut bill you cannot draw the conclusion that they are against all tax cuts. The only way to know for sure is read the bill in question and try to figure out for yourself if their vote was correct.
Relying on the opposing candidate to properly cast light on someone's voting record is folly.
-r
I probably shouldn't bother with this, but I have to ask. And please recall that this thread initially started around the topic of disabling the cut, copy, save and print features.
You said:
Copyright is, by intent, limited: It controls reproduction, public performance, and several other actions, and no more.
How are the cut/copy/save/print functions not reproduction? Aren't you taking a copy of said work and reproducing it in some other location/format/whatever? Presumably, you aren't the copyright holder, thus your ability to reproduce the work has been limited. (If you are the copyright holder you don't need to go to Google Print to reproduce your work, do you?)
In this case copyright is not abused.
The material presented is legitimately copyrighted. This form of copyright, apparently, does not allow for free duplication and distribution. We are all used to the idea that material presented on the web is available for free use. This doesn't mean that everything has to follow that model.
If you have a problem with Google Print then don't use it. More importantly, tell Google why.
Now, I'll give you that disabling right-click entirely is annoying and could be called a nuisance. But if there is no way to disable just the copy (and copy-esque elements) in the right-click menu then so be it. Besides, I use ALT + LEFT more often anyway.
OK, ready for decimation.
-r
Wait. You want them to consult the creative "genius" behind Titanic on the Doom movie?!
Egads, man. Tell me you don't work in the movie business.
-r
So, do we start calling Ballmer, 'Duf-man' or what?
"Duf-man, not spreadin' FUD, ooh yeah!"
-r
So it's bound to be a bit, well, buggy.
Comic genius, I am.
-r
Which is more difficult:
Copying the latest Harry Potter book in its entirety (several hundred pages)
or
Hopping on a P2P network and downloading several (ie, more than 1) albums in their entirety
The physical constraints of copying a book fully are an effective deterrent from the act. Especially in a library where a librarian is sure to notice that someone has been standing at the copier for hours without changing the source material. I imagine they would approach the individual and ask, "good sir (or madam), what are you doing?" (If Madonna is doing a guest stint in the library this question may be phrased a little differently.)
On the other hand, creating mp3s and then sharing them is a pretty easy thing to do. Even easier would be downloading mp3s and then (re-)sharing them yourself.
Sorry, but your "more appropriate" analogy is not as good as you think it is. The other poster had it right, if you are sharing something which is not yours to share/distribute (read: you have the copyright, or permission from the copyright holder) then it is, in fact, your responsibility.
-r
Can't say it enough. KEXP is the best radio station in the country.
Listen to the live stream.
Listen to the streaming archives.
Love music again.
Sure, they can't save TV. But they are saving radio every day of the week.
-r
I actually wonder how many people RTFA in slashdot.
You have to wonder?
-r
Some could argue that recorded music has a greater value than a live concert. Sound preposterous? Here's how it works:
The majority of music-listening I do is from recordings. It constitutes roughly 95-99% of the music I get to enjoy. Meanwhile, the concert, while good in its own right, is transitory and fleeting. Why should I pay more money for something I'll hear once (unless a bootleg is available later) than for something that will provide me hours and hours of enjoyment? Because they're doing actual work instead of recording? Hogwash. Recording is work too, just a different kind.
So you could say that CDs are under-priced and concerts are over-priced. I'll pay $20 for the CD if the concert is $5 or $10.
How's them apples? (pun intended)
Keep in mind that I am not afflicted by the filler-track syndrome. It happens to people, I know. But I manage to avoid it. That comes from being more selective and less impulse-y. If I only ever hear one song by a band that I like I'm not going to buy the CD since I can hear the song on the radio. It also helps to listen to KEXP.
Cheers,
-r
I know they have to try to maximize their chances of turning a profit on the tour. And that these bands (more likely their management) made the decision to pass us by for whatever reasons.
What I was really getting at is the notion that CDs are just ads for the concert and should therefore be free. If there is no concert the CD cannot be an ad. (In this case "concert" is defined as "a concert I can personally get to.") Unless you're in trapped in the Matrix you can't advertise something that does not exist.
Which is not to say you shouldn't support bands by seeing them in concert. Of course you should, if circumstances allow. There should just be other methods by which musicians can earn money. The problem with this idea is that it assumes there will be a show in a location at a time that one can get to for a price one can afford. People who proclaim this theory never address the fact that it's not always a done deal. There are a lot of variables that can prevent someone from getting to a show. What's a guy to do to support his favorite acts when seeing them in concert is not an option? From what I can tell, the "recorded music should be free and bands will make money on concerts" argument is flimsy and not well thought out. Heavy on the "we get music for free" and not so heavy on the "we want to support musicians."
But I tend to be cynical that way.
And, because I can't resist:
So it is likely a consequence of your neighbors' tastes in music.
"Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people"
Sigh.
(quote from "Banditos" by The Refreshments)
-r
CDs are basically just ads to come and see the show
Really? If that is true then why is it most of the bands who've released albums that I bought in the last 12 months haven't played in my city? (I live in a large city so, please, no recommendations that I move somewhere people have heard about.)
How is the CD an advertisement for the show when there is no show?!
-r
Perhaps I wasn't clear. You and I very obviously have different goals in terms of the music listening experience. Starting from that foundation isn't it easy to see that you'd end up loving mp3s while I'd end up saying "CDs work fine for me" ?
I have no desire to convince you to stop using mp3s. I'm OK with both of us being right. What's with the need to convince me mp3s are better? Or worth my time?
Let me target a particular idea. You said, referring to the sound quality of mp3s, "on almost all sound systems, indistinguishable from CDs." I agree. Encoded properly, they sound pretty much the same. This I say from personal experience, not word of mouth tales. But for me to go through the trouble of making the CD to mp3 conversion I'm going to need them to sound distinguishably better than CDs. They don't.
All of your points, while true, still sound to me like I'd have to put in time, effort and money. For this, I get sound quality equivalent to CDs, but now I'm out said time, effort and money. As I said, I'd prefer to devote all of that to other things. For example, I'm trying to learn bass guitar. I definitely would rather be doing that than encoding mp3 files. Automated batch jobs or no, it's still pulling me away from what I'd rather be doing.
I promise this is the last time I will say this: for me to make the switch to mp3s they have to offer me enough of a payoff to make the work worthwhile. I saw the payoff when I moved from LPs to cassettes. I saw it again when I moved from cassettes to CDs. I don't, yet, see it with mp3s. That's my mileage on this topic. And it's the only mileage that matters to me.
So, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. Or that your points are invalid. I'm just going to say that they aren't applicable. What I object to is the implication (in your original post) that there is something wrong with me (or people) because I (we?) don't see it your way. Something may be wrong with me, yes, but it's not this.
A little background. Once upon a time, I did try the very thing you assumed I didn't. I tried making a conversion to mp3s. You know what I discovered? Not only was I not really taking advantage of what they offer over CDs, but I wasn't using them at all. Except for being at the computer (where I do the least amount of my music listening) I had no way to play them. I look at my life now and see that without taking on what I perceive as mispent time/money/effort this is still true. It's not that I've never tried using mp3s or don't understand that they do sound good. It's just that they don't fit into my life. I know people dig on the long playlists and random access. And that is pretty cool, from a conceptual standpoint. Honestly, it's just not very important to me.
A couple of other things, briefly: I do like mix CDs. I like making them. (I won't bore you with the details of how I approach making mixes but it does sound to me like what you do with yours is very different from what I do with mine.) Most of the CDs I make are for my wife, who travels for her job. She needs to be able to play them in rental cars or they're just not useful. I could ask, but I'm pretty sure built-in mp3 players aren't standard in cars yet. Nor will carrying extra gadgets make traveling easier. And, I also like listening to albums from start to finish. I don't buy many CDs. A result of this is that I am rarely burned by the "2 good songs, 8-10 filler tracks" syndrome so the entire album is worth listening to.
I'm the first to say that in a few years I might not be using CDs anymore. Then again, some cars still come with only a cassette player as standard. You have to add the CD player. How long will it be before mp3 players come built-in the low-end models? Quite awhile, I'd imagine. And as you said, mp3s might now be the wave of the future's future. So why switch, just to switch again? As new technologies come out, I evaluate them and see how they fit into my life. When I find stuff that works, I use it. When I find stuff that doesn't, I think, "that's nice. But not for me." What I refuse to do is change my life around for the sake of some new file format/technology.
That's just how I go about it.
ps - the Rome mp3 player is cool, but since my car only has a cd player, it's not really worth picking one up.
-r
Your judgment has been clouded by an all too common
First up: cars and horses. Planes and trains. Email and snail. (You left out how the airplane industry is hurting the auto industry since people fly across the country instead of drive.) These are not very good examples. Why? Cars offer (environmental issues aside) a better service than the horse-drawn cart arrangement. The same can be said for planes vs. trains and email vs. snail mail. The reason people are not restricting themselves to the old technology is that the new stuff is better. That is capitalism at its best. Somebody came out with a better product and won over the customers.
I have yet to be convinced that listening to mp3s is significantly better than listening to CDs. As far as I can tell mp3s and audio discs are pretty evenly matched. They are good at different things and have different things going against them. MP3s let you bring a lot more music with you. Good thing. The trade-off there is sound quality. More quantity, lower quality. Bad thing. Audio discs don't let you diminish the quality of the tracks. Good thing. But you have to bring more of them along. Bad thing. (Although, one might argue that hunting through hundreds of mp3s is harder than hunting through a few extra CDs.)
These are the two main reasons I'm not switching:
1. Players. There is one place I can listen to mp3s. One. As in one whole number larger than zero. I listen to music in lots of places. At work, in the car (or a plane or a train), in the kitchen, in the living room and at the computer at home. That last one is the sole mp3 friendly spot I have. And, it turns out that this place garners the lowest amount of music listening time. I have CD players already at work, in the car (and one I bring on planes and trains), in the kitchen, in the living room and at my computer at home. For me to adopt mp3 as a format I'd need to be able to play mp3s everywhere I can play CDs.
That's money I have to spend on mp3 players. Money I feel should be spent on other things. Not to mention that the players will probably break soon after the warranty ends. Thus replacements are necessary. More money. Blech.
I can already play CDs anywhere I want to. I like how they sound. And you want me to give that up?
2. Time. I'd have to spend time converting everything to mp3, or looking around online for good quality rips. Then, I have to get the mp3s onto something the player will read. Admittedly, that's a small factor, but it's there. Either way, that's time I'd rather spend doing something else. Especially since I don't think the benefits of using mp3s are all that impressive.
So there's the problem. In your examples the new technology provided very obvious and distinct advantages over existing technology. I progressed from LP to cassette to CD because each time I felt I was getting something out of the move. That made the work worth it. Cassettes are more portable than LPs - big advantage. CDs sound better than cassettes, don't lose the portability, and make songs easier to get to - big advantages again. I've evaluated the mp3 vs. CD issue. I don't see a big advantage to mp3s. Certainly not one that worthy of the time and effort it would take to switch. So why should I bother? Because you say so? Some argument.
The "technology has moved on" bit is a nice sound byte, but it's hardly convincing. I'm glad mp3s work for you. That's great. CDs work for me. Your insistence that "there's no need for records (or CDs?) anymore" comes from the fact that you have no use for them anymore. It's a common refrain around here, "my way is bettter than your way because it's my way so listen to me." Saying it a lot, and loudly, doesn't make it true.
-r
But whoever said the record labels act or think logically? Bit of devil's advocate here...
Current copyright law doesn't allow the consumer the right to distribute recorded works. Only the person with distribution rights can legally do that.
That's their quibble. Your mp3s are allowable through fair use for you to use, not others. (Thank goodness they lost that battle.) Legally you can't distribute copies of your mp3s to other people, even if they have a copy of the exact same CD you used to make the mp3s.
Absolutely Stupid.
The law's just outdated and should be changed. The problem is the old fuddy-duddies who can't wrap their brain around the fact that once you and I both buy the CD we're not going to give them any more money for that title. W(ho)TF cares if I make copies of your mp3s? They already got their money from me. It's not like they've jumped at the opportunity to sell music in that format...
So that's what it is.
Of course, the trick with filesharing is how to validate that both the person making the mp3s and the one downloading them actually have the CD.
-r
It doesn't matter if I have web pages open in browser windows or browser tabs. I'm not going to be able to look at more than one page at a time anyway. My monitor isn't big enough to support two browser windows side-by-side (or stacked one above the other) and have either page be readable. And I'm not going to bother with the effort or money to set up a multi-monitor environment.
Given that I am not ever going to be able to see two web pages at the same time, I have to do some sort of switching. I'm fine with this. I find it is more beneficial to have one browser with 6-10 tabs than it is to have 6-10 browser windows open. All that ALT + TAB-ing gets really old. And I like being able see what webpages I have open just by looking at one window. This is not the One True Way(tm). It is what works for me.
When I'm doing editing with a text editor I generally keep several files open at once. (How many websites are comprised of just one file?) I don't want to have 20 text editor windows open. I want one text editor with 20 files open. This saves me from having to do save/open operations every time I change the file I'm working on. And it saves me from have to ALT + TAB through 20 application windows to find the file I'm looking for. CTRL + S and it's on to the next file.
Tabbed interfaces that employ good design are extremely useful for me.
"One document, one window" is the sort of narrow, view-the-world-with-blinders type of thinking that leads to a 16-ton weight being dropped on you.
-r