Would you pay 5 cents for a song?

The Globe and Mail ^ | Wednesday, March 9, 2005 | GUY DIXON

[sittnick]

How are the MP3-CD players nowadays? Car or otherwise?

There really is no settled standard for MP3-CDs, so many of the older players and some of the DVD players are a bit touchy. Some of the old ones were extremely touchy about ID3 tags. Others have restrictive limits on folders and tracks within a folder. Others place limitations on encoding techniques. (For instance, variable bit rate creates problems on many) Many of them still do not have a true "bookmark" feature, which would be highly desireable for audiobook usage. I have found that the best players are the portables, with Panasonic being the best value. RCA has made decent boombox units, a format favored by our customers, but underdeveloped in general. Wal*Mart markets an adequate $35 boombox under the Durabrand label(though they may have discontinued it). I did not care for the Sony car player (skips, hard to use front panel. The Kenwood car player is a very good value.

There are attempts to standardize mp3 audiobooks, and I saw a unit (the Soul player) at last year's APA convention. Their sample disk was from moveon.org. I warned them that they are offending people with that crap. They didn't care. In any event, we have to make our CDs work with what people actually own, and omit the bells and whistles, at least for now.

For our audiobooks, we usually encode mono 44khz with as fast a bit-rate as we can get. With voice readings, higher compression results in insignificant reductions in sound quality. We don't even really need the 44khz, but you don't really save that much by reducing it.

[sittnick]

What's up with the 1% tax? Why does it even exist? Where does that money actually go?

It would probably go to the big record companies only. In reality much of the downloading that takes place is for hard to find '70s novelty ballads and obscure ethnic music. Somehow, I suspect small players will not receive compensation, especially if we refuse to join RIAA. Just think you buy a computer, and some money goes to Marilyn Manson and its record company, just peachy.

[Chunga]

"Do we really owe it to thieves not to steal from them?"

Yes. Stealing from thieves isn't justice.

By "studio execs" do you mean "record company execs?" Everyone I know with a stand-alone-type recording studio is on the verge of shutting down.

[Niteranger68]

"It would probably go to the big record companies only. In reality much of the downloading that takes place is for hard to find '70s novelty ballads and obscure ethnic music. Somehow, I suspect small players will not receive compensation, especially if we refuse to join RIAA. Just think you buy a computer, and some money goes to Marilyn Manson and its record company, just peachy."

If they are going to tax computers on this basis, 99% of that money should go to the porn industry! Not that I agree with the premise.......

Your previous posts are right on target.

[an amused spectator]

It is just a matter of time before someone puts a lossless compressed collection on an audio DVD and provides hours of music for the price that the record companies charge for 74 minutes or less.

600-700 CDs ripped @ 128kbps occupies about 20Gb. I just saw an ad for an 80Gb hard drive for 39.99.

So, 600-700 CDs are worth about $10.

Period.

[Chunga]

Incorrect.

In a market economy, the artist and his business associates decide, based on demand or the lack thereof, what his music is worth.

In a market economy, if one doesn't wish to pay the asking price, one refrains from purchasing the product. One doesn't come into possesion of a copyrighted or trademarked product by cloning it unless one is comfortable with the reality that in so doing, one has become a thief.

[clyde asbury]

Try shareaza at shareaza.com

Another good tip.

[an amused spectator]

Anyone who reads this board on a regular basis is a "thief", because Disney and its corporate brothers paid good money to Congress to make it so, Number Two.

Bits and bytes. The artists need a new business model. The water is flowing around the dam, whether or not they want it to.

You can shout about "copyright" all you want to, but the copyright Nazis overplayed their hand, and the market is taking corrective action.

[FatherofFive]

"as opposed to the $ZERO I have paid for music in the last 15 years"

Do you also steal cable TV? Drive off from gas stations without paying?

Any way you rationalize it, taking something of value without paying for it is stealing.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

one has become a thief

"Thief?"

Comitted a tort, maybe. But not a real thief. Copyright is not the same thing as real property.

For one, it is the only property right (if you can actually properly call it a property right) the government actually created, and that it can revoke on a schedule set by the government.

Equating copyright with rights to real property has no basis, debases the idea of real property.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

Perhaps you would like your right to your house to be only as "real" as an author's copyright?

Don't equate them.

[FatherofFive]

"Perhaps you would like your right to your house to be only as "real" as an author's copyright? Don't equate them."

This makes no sense. Physical property and intellectual property are both property. Stealing either is still stealing.

[an amused spectator]

Perhaps you would like your right to your house to be only as "real" as an author's copyright?

Actually, your right to your house has already been stolen by the government when no one was looking. In my state, and many others, if you don't pay the yearly levy on "your" property, the state government takes it back and sells it for the money that you "owe" them.

I prefer to be called "land steward" rather than "land owner", since I bear all the expenses and the state reaps all the benefits. I have to get permission from THEM to build, or they'll fine me for putting stuff up on their land; I have to maintain the property, or they'll fine me for "blight", etc., etc.

</rant>

So, FatherofFive, to make HHH's point, if the state considered "copyright" to be "real property", they'd be right in there with a yearly assessment, bucko - you can count on it. :-)

[FatherofFive]

"Actually, your right to your house has already been stolen by the government"

You folks defy logic and reason to justify the stealing of intellectual property. When you buy a house, you contract with the state to pay money - property taxes - in return for services such as fire and police protection. When I sell you a song or a software program, I do not enter into a contract other than to give you the right of personal use. I did not sell you the right to make multiple copies and take away my liveyhood. Think about it. I write a software program. I spent three years, and paid 6 programmers to help. I sell you a copy for $49. You then go out and post it on the internet, and everyone has a "free" copy. Why would I ever do this again? Stealing is stealing.

[an amused spectator]

You folks defy logic and reason to justify the stealing of intellectual property

No, YOU folks defy logic and reason to justify the absurd "copyright" laws that were bought and paid for by corporations like Disney. Your arguments are Mickey Mouse©. ;-)

[FatherofFive]

Please respond to example I gave in post 74. Try to think of yourself as the creator of the software program. You spent $700,000 to make a program. You expect to sell a million of them at $49 each. You sell the first copy to a guy who then distributes it free to everyone. You see a huge loss on your investment, instead of becoming rich. Why is it absurd to want your intellectual property protected? Think about it.

[an amused spectator]

I write software. If nobody can use it because it's locked up, the best piece of software in the world is worth exactly nothing.

I agree with a reasonable interpretation of the "limited times" clause, but I don't agree with laws that were bought from a corrupt Congress.

If the laws were changed to a reasonable interpretation, you'd have a leg to stand on. As it is, you're standing on absurdity.

[Mr. K]

you missed my point- I have not purchased anything because nothing was worth buying. Especially not the crappy music coming out now at $14.95 a pop for a CD.

So they have gotten $0 from me in the form of sales.

I would, probably, buy a bunch of stuff at a nickel a pop.

[djf]

Grrrrrrr......

I just spent 200 bux and a couple hours installing a new Clarion in my car. It will do self burned CD's and CD-RWs.

A few years back, a couple months before DVD's hit the stage, I paid good money for a top of the line Toshiba VCR.

Bite me!!

;-)

[FatherofFive]

"I write software. If nobody can use it because it's locked up, the best piece of software in the world is worth exactly nothing."

According to you, the value of software is the price of the media that carries it. How can there be profit in such thinking? Under copyright laws, the owner can determine how many times it could be copied. The government doesn't, and the government doesn't care. The producer states the terms, and the laws simply protect those terms. You could allow one copy, or a hundred. You agree to the terms before you purchase. When you violate those terms, you are stealing.