Drop, charge, and lose the cords
Community weekly poll: How do you acquire most of your MP3s?
- 8/15/05 4:47 PM
You can't stop some people copying.
by capri_ghia - 8/17/05 12:17 AM In reply to: don't use MP3 by mittensI have never used P2P services in my life. As a musician myself I understand all the work that goes to creating a song or CD, not ust from the main group of performers, but from all the backing musicians, sound engineers who actually don't see much of the money made from selling the music.
However you can shut down all P2P client software but you won't stop people copying music. Before P2P people still copied music using 8 tracks, cassettes, DAT tapes and minidiscs.If the technology is there people will still use it.
I play music also
by RRobinson - 8/17/05 5:04 AM In reply to: You can't stop some people copying. by capri_ghiaAs a musician myself my buddys and I play music for fun. Its not about the bucks. Its about playing because you enjoy it, and if you can make people dance and sing to your music then you have the best payment for your practice hours. If someone wants to donate money for my music then I could buy a better guitar or one of my music buddys a set of drum skins and the such.
You can not play true music if your just doing it for the bucks. Music is feeling from within and you express that feeling threw your musical instriment. And when its super good to ya, then ya start singing. Sure I could record mp3 for sale. But I dont, I put them on my website for downloading and if someone wants to donate a couple of pennys then I have the account at Paypal they can donate.
Great reply, just wish....
by Mickey - 9/5/05 11:29 AM In reply to: I play music also by RRobinsonGreat reply. Just wish he'd left his web address. These are the people I go out of my way to support.
AMEN, AMEN! And let me add that
by Charles Gajeway - 8/17/05 4:09 AM In reply to: don't use MP3 by mittensI am heartily sick and tired of this topic! As a dedicated audiophile and a former (amateur) musician, I have spent my life seeking the ultimate in quality sound. Why on earth would I EVER be tempted to:
A. listen to an audio source with deliberately degrated quality
B. Deny a musician the tiny fraction of an album's price that he/she is entitiled to.
C: Put my music collection at risk by converting/storing it on a medium that is subject to obsolescence and catastrophic destruction.
Please don;t waste time by discussing this topic any further.
RE: Inferior sound quality
by H3LL5P4WN - 8/17/05 5:41 AM In reply to: don't use MP3 by mittensAs for quality, if you're leeching files off of someone, check the bitrate. Depending on how good your ears and earphones/speakers are, you ought to look for files with a higher bitrate. Personally, I can hear distortion on anything below 192kbs, and sometimes even on 256kbps .mp3s. The 128kbps "Near CD-Quality" .mp3s that my file-sharing friends get are completely unlistenable by my standards.
Of course, this is a moot point if you purchase your legal cds and rip them yourself, like I do.
Whilst...
by Mickey - 9/5/05 11:55 AM In reply to: RE: Inferior sound quality by H3LL5P4WNWhilst I appreciate people like yourself who help drive up the quality of what is produced, frankly I and about 99.9999 percent (ball park figure) of the rest of the people on the planet can't hear or just don't notice or even care about noticing these minute differences. If it makes you feel better about yourself to say that you can hear a difference, fine. I feel better about myself if MY football team wins which is truly sad. But the quality arguement to me is quite lame. Talk about losing the clicks and pops or the tape hiss as a result of moving to CD's or mp3's and I'm right with ya. But frettin' over the difference between 128 and 256 is like worrying about whether I wear green or gold to the game. Nobody notices and it doesn't make any difference.
Very True
by scottwb555 - 11/14/05 1:22 PM In reply to: Whilst... by MickeyIve ripped things at 64, 128, 192, and 256 and i can definitely tell that 64 sucks, but 128 through 256 are no different to me
Use Higer Bitrates from quality download sources
by jeep4x4enthusiast - 8/17/05 9:18 AM In reply to: don't use MP3 by mittensI use Yahoo Music Engine and I'm able to download MP3 at 192mb, and thats better than CD quality.
For less than 5 bucks a month, I download as much music as I possibly can. Its allowed me to discover so many artists I would never have experimented with if I was purchasing CD's.
Some music I know people want to own, but with my subscription I'm able to buy tracks for 79cents, or album for 7.99.
No matter what your favorite format, for less than 60 dollars a year (about the cost of 4 CDs), you can still use your favorite way to aquire MP3s, and use this also.
But once you get started, I dont see how economically you would be able to justify using anything else. Unless you illegally aquire musice. And once again at this cost, why would u even take that chance.
I rotate about a Gig of new music in and out of my portable player every two weeks.
missing the point
by McKendrick - 8/19/05 6:09 AM In reply to: don't use MP3 by mittensmp3 does not mean "stolen". I've bought many mp3 files from online services (MusicMatch, iTunes) and will continue to do so. I've also made mp3's from CD's I've purchased. This way I don't have to carry around the 300-plus CD's I own; I can simply move songs onto my player and be on my way. I'm all for the artist getting rewarded for my interest in his or her work AND I use mp3. Your argument "don't use mp3" is missing the point of digital music. Instead, argue "don't steal music" and I'll be with you all the way.
MP3 Doesn't Mean Ripping Off the Artists!
by Gerry77 - 8/23/05 5:40 PM In reply to: don't use MP3 by mittensMy MP3s come from my CD collection and from purchasing through iTunes...Believe me they're well compensated! The compression formats are great for having access to a large library anywhere, easily!
"If I were a musician I'd be furious", eh?
by Mickey - 9/5/05 12:13 PM In reply to: don't use MP3 by mittens"If I were a musician I'd be furious."
That's because you reduce everything down to money and gettin' rich. Not uncommon for the majority of the flatlined public. Why should the top musicians be paid so much more than what most everyone else makes? Why should the obscure ones get get paid next to nothing? You want fair? Not in this world. Take a look around my friend.
Someone offers his music for free, I contribute. Someone charges $100 to get into their concert, Limewire.
What goes around comes around, hunh? Or as you probably prefer it, "You reap what you sow." Now that IS fair.
"...CDs that I own." Good one!
by dennispsmith - 8/16/05 3:41 PM In reply to: How do you acquire most of your MP3s? by Marc Bennett
I chose this 4th option because it most closely matched how I really acquire my downloaded music. "I rip them from CDs...period, no questions please" would have been the selection I made were it available in the poll. Let's just leave it at that.
I pay a subscription service so I figure I own everything
by NXPCPA - 8/16/05 6:03 PM In reply to: "...CDs that I own." Good one! by dennispsmithI pay Rhapsody the lousy 9 bucks a month. That should be enough for me to listen to anything I want to hear whenever I want to hear it. If music providers make unlimited music available fortunes will be made. The money is in the delivery, not the ownership. Rhapsody though gives every indication they and many artists will shoot themselves in the foot by nickle and dime tactics and withholding of music from people like me who are willing to pay for convenience of listening to music on demand. If any artists or record companies are out there listening please get the message. I'll pay for what I listen to but I'm not gonna pay for license protected downloads or new CD's. If I want to hear something that's not on my subscription service, I'll buy the CD, USED NOT NEW, even if I have to pay more for the used CD than the new one. Accordingly all my mp3's are ripped from CD's or from subscriber services I pay for. I was burned with useless license protected mp3 files when LiquidAudio.com and Mainstreetmusic.com tanked. I won't be robbed again. What's fairer than having artists make money the old fashioned way? People should pay for what they hear and see, not for plastic discs and bogus licenses.
Well Actually,
by olliemac - 8/21/05 10:17 AM In reply to: I pay a subscription service so I figure I own everything by NXPCPAThe whole purpose to subscription services is that you don't actually own the music. Watch what happens when you cancel. And what is the old fashioned way? You seem to have a bone to pick with the RIAA, which is acting like a normal business. Some day you should check into how much it costs to put an album together, not the plastic disc, but the music on it.Last time I looked studio time was $200/hr at a good studio. Lots of cash to make an album. But I agree, we should only pay for what we see, and these music services, subscription or otherwise, are the greatest thing EVER for consumers in the music industry. For the first time ever, we don't have to buy an album just for two songs.
My MP3's.
by CrazyBare - 8/16/05 3:42 PM In reply to: How do you acquire most of your MP3s? by Marc Bennett
I've loaded all my CD's onto my hard drive, but also acquire a few from a P2P site. I pay big bucks to buy blank CD's and was told part of the money goes to artists so we can download music. I have no idea if that's true or not. I don't see it as being any different than a teacher photocopying a text book to share with the class.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
