Downloading Flying Music?

nafod40 wrote in
:

DBlumel wrote:
Actually, its more like; you are a brilliant inventor and you just
invented the hammer, nothing else like it exists. You have a patent
on it and you would like to make a living from this new invention.
You don't have the financial resources to market or manufacture large
quantities of hammers so you sell your patent or provide a license to
a large corporation who will pay you a royalty for every hammer they
sell on your and now also their behalf.

Would it be so simple. The music industry screws the artists as much
as they screw their customers. They are not in the business of
exposing you to as much new and interesting music as possible, or
helping as many new bands as possible get a chance to make it. They
are in the business of predictably selling their product. They only
sell songs we know from bands we like, or new songs from bands we
like, or new bands that sound like bands we like. It is all about
control and predictability.

Do you travel around the country? Ever notice how you can hear a
Doobie Brothers song you haven't heard in a while (hey, they played
china Grove...cool) and them fly to CA and here the same song on the
Classic Rock station there, ditto in Denver. How'd that happen?

Playlists. Control. Money. They control what you hear with the radio
stations, see their videos, so you will buy predictably what they
want.

I used Napster when it came out. I could give you a list 4 pages long
of bands I'd never heard of before, much less heard their music, that
are now on my A-list to listen to. It was awesome. All of the sudden,
I had access to any and all music out there. The barrier was down.
Seeya, record company.

Yep, it was stealing. I wonder of the members of Six Mile Bridge, a
celtic band I got turned onto through Napster, cared. What I want to
happen, is bands create web sites and sell their music directly to me,
with no music industry middle man. They are not needed. We need the
music industry giants like the Model T needed stables with fresh hay.
I can deal directly with the artist now, thank you very much.

Necessary reading if you have kids, and want to understand what the
music business is all about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/

And here's one from Courtney Love, of all people. Based on her tone,
she'd make a fine RAH participant. Testimony to congress.
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ove/index.html



I like your explaination, and I belive the current Napster environment is
perhaps an equitable answer. I base that statement on a quick read of
their website, nothing else, so I could be wrong. 99cents a song sounds
pretty good to have license for it, then you also don't have to buy a
whole album to get 3 good songs and 6+ lousy ones...

I don't believe they have "every" artist/lable on board though.

I would like to see perhaps an "association" of artists get a Napster-
like website going with a reasonable cost-per-song, and cut out the
middle-man.... New artists would, of course, give a few songs away and/or
make them very cheap until they became in higher demand. Older artists
could use the 99cents modal and keep a much more significant portion of
the profits!! A higher percentage of the US market will have to get
internet savy before this can work on a large scale though.


I too used Napster when it was first out and free. MANY (most?) of the
songs I downloaded were from album/cassetes I had purchased 2 or 3 times.
(why was it Styx cassete tape would only last a year or 2??).

If you truely got a "license" to the songs on an album or tape for
personal use, they should have replaced those tape for just a
"materials" charge of a buck or two.... but there is no such vehicle.
Another example is the time I had over $500 of cassete tapes stollen out
of my vehicle. Some of those were replaced with my money. The rest I
ended up replacing from Napster.... I had ZERO guilt replacing those
songs with downloaded songs.....

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:WpfRb.153638$I06.1549162@attbi_s01:

The only fair thing to do is rip off the music industry as bad as
you
can,
for overcharging us for music all these years.

No, the only fair thing to do is to use your dollars wisely, and
purchase the best quality stuff for the lowest price available.

Stealing the music is theft, and -- no matter the sins of the music
industry in the past (which I could dispute, but that's another post)
-- I can't condone it.

That said, I agree that a buck a song is outrageously high for a
download.

Actually, I don't see a buck a song as bad at all....

If you add up the songs on a cd that you like at all.... then divide by
the price of the cd, your much higher than a buck a song. (for most cd's
anyway... most "best of" cd's excluded...)

However, if you want to buy the cd's then rip them to your HD, then burn
the stuff you want to listen to, i've found CDEX to be a very reliable
ripping software, even for scrached cd's... it's free and you can get it
at http://www.cdex.n3.net/ , scroll down to "latest stable release" The
best part of ripping your bought CD's is you do not have to managed the
"license" files so if you want to transfer to muliple devices you will
not have to mess with making sure all the"license permissions" are in
order.

You can then burn to cd with Nero, or even direct from windows media
player on some versions of windows. Also whatever software came with
your cd burner will usually work in "burn to audio cd" mode. I ripp to
mp3 192kb/s or better, then leave a backup on the computer, then burn up
to 20 songs at a time to the disk.

I've ripped every cd I own, and they reside on a hardrive on a computer
in our entertainment center and I set media player to play various
playlists depending on the occation. for example, durring a christmas
gathering, i can play over 12 hours of christmas music without repeating
a song.... beats the heck out of finding disks, changing disks, etc.

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

ET wrote:

I would like to see perhaps an "association" of artists get a Napster-
like website going with a reasonable cost-per-song, and cut out the
middle-man.... New artists would, of course, give a few songs away and/or
make them very cheap until they became in higher demand.

What I thought they should have done was to go ahead and give away their
music via MP3 files, but in suitably low sample rates so the quality was
perceptibly lower. Then folks could buy the real deal at max sample rate
if they liked the songs. It would have let people explore the catalog of
music, while allowing them to track what people are interested in
(marketing data) and still making a buck. They were still locked in to
the old ways.

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
But the radio station IS paying for it.

I thought it was the other way around (Payola). The station is used
as a promotion tool to push CD sales. Any kind of fee is a formality.

As for recording you are not getting
a digitly perfect copy as you are on a download.

The music you download isn't perfect either, its been compressed with
lossy algorithms. I know people that say they can hear the difference
on the typical "rip". Admittedly, the 10,000th person that shares it
is getting the same quality as the first. I'm waiting for the next
compression algorithm for video. There is so much interesting juice
left in that problem to be solved.

Hence it has never been
that popular of a way to get music and it certainly didn't replace the sales
of records.

Back in the day I had all kinds of cassette tapes. Some bands
actually embrace the idea and take that approach as a way to build
fans and sell concert tickets (Phish).

Remember the big stink with home taping when the VCR came out. They
wanted to make it against the law. "Oh, they'll zip past the
commercials. Thats stealing from us because our advertisers aren't
getting their products shown." Now its just a distant memory. We
lived through that, and we'll live through this.

I thought it was the other way around (Payola). The station is used
as a promotion tool.

As far as the hammer is concerned if you have a way that both you and the
person or 10,000,000 people you lend it to can use it at the same time I'm
sure they will come up with a

UNENFORCEABLE licencing agreement for the product.

Let me ask you this. Is there a price that the record industry could set
that you would then say that "Hey, I don''t need to pirate music anymore."?

Depends on what your time is worth. If you're a teenager with a $10
month allowance, it ain't much.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:xEcRb.155813$xy6.746734@attbi_s02...
We've got the PS Engineering CD/Intercom in our plane, and listen to CDs on
long trips.

I am obviously slipping into "dinosaur" status, as I have never downloaded
music, for "burning" onto a blank CD. I *have* burned CDs, but I've always
done it from tracks played off of another CD.

Does anyone here download (and then burn) CDs for listening while in flight?

Well, sort of. We burn CDs of MP3 files, which we play in an
MP3/CD player. The advantage is you can get a lot more music
onto a single disk.

I also have a 256 MB MP3 player which is about half the size
of a pack of cigarettes and will hold 8-9 hrs of music, downloaded
thru the USB port of any PC.

Any recommended sites? Tips? Are these things still free, or did all the
freebies get sued out of existence? Thanks!

Pretty much the freebies got sued enough that people are
hesitant to put stuff out there. There are a number of sites
where one can download MP3s for a fee. This is especially
good for small recording studios and relatively unknown artists,
and we've gotten some cool stuff we really like that way.

We also record cassette tapes and even (speaking of dinosaur status)
LP records into MP3 files on our computer then burn disks. Your
kids are a bit old for it to matter, but this is especially useful
for people with young kids to entertain.

In article gers.com, "Doug"
writes:


Bob
I'm not sure , but I think you are responding to the wrong person. Anyway,
my point isn't whether it's ethically or morally right or wrong to download
music , but that to call it 'theft' or 'stealing' is not correct. It 'isn't'
theft, it's copyright infringement and trying to equate that to theft is
wrong.

Doug



Sorry Doug, but I can not accept that, it remains theft as far as I am
concerned.

But in either case, it is WRONG!

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article ,
(Jay) writes:

But the radio station IS paying for it.

I thought it was the other way around (Payola). The station is used
as a promotion tool to push CD sales. Any kind of fee is a formality.


Wrong, do you homework.

As for recording you are not getting
a digitly perfect copy as you are on a download.

The music you download isn't perfect either, its been compressed with
lossy algorithms. I know people that say they can hear the difference
on the typical "rip". Admittedly, the 10,000th person that shares it
is getting the same quality as the first. I'm waiting for the next
compression algorithm for video. There is so much interesting juice
left in that problem to be solved.


That depends on rather you are downloading MP3 or the original format recorded
on the CD. In the latter case, you are getting as near perfect a recording as
possible. It can be reproduced a million times and not lose one bit.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , "L.D."
writes:


"you are stealing a potiential sale from the owner of the rights to
reproduce and sell the music"

Ok it may be a poor example, but if it is, so is yours. Substitute hammer for
music in your example. Then I stole the right of the maker of that hammer of
a potential sale.

OK I do say I shouldn't copy music and sell it. Neither should I copy that
hammer and sell it. I have a pretty nice shop and I've copied several
tools. Now if anyone is going to tell me I can't copy a tool in my shop for
my use or a friend of mine, then our country is getting worse than a
dictatorship. Same goes for music.



Nobody is telling you that you can not make a copy for your use if you paid for
the original but when you download those copies from some source by the
MILLIONS and MILLIONS, you are participating in the theft. By the way, if you
copy that tool totally and start selling it or even giving it away in numbers
sufficient to get the attention of the original manufacturer, you will also
find yourself hip deep in trouble.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237 wrote:
In article ,
(Jay) writes:


But the radio station IS paying for it.

I thought it was the other way around (Payola). The station is used
as a promotion tool to push CD sales. Any kind of fee is a formality.


Wrong, do you homework.

Bzzzzt. You should do yours. He's not wrong. Not at all wrong. In fact,
it is much worse than he thinks. From article
http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/200...ola/index.html

"Does radio seem bad these days? Do all the hits sound the same, all the
stars seem like cookie cutouts of one another? It's because they do, and
they are. Why? Listeners may not realize it, but radio today is largely
bought by the record companies. Most rock and Top 40 stations get paid
to play the songs they spin by the companies that manufacture the records.

Here's how it works.

Standing between the record companies and the radio stations is a
legendary team of industry players called independent record promoters,
or 'indies.'

The indies are the shadowy middlemen record companies will pay hundreds
of millions of dollars to this year to get songs played on the radio.
Indies align themselves with certain radio stations by promising the
stations 'promotional payments' in the six figures. Then, every time the
radio station adds a Shaggy or Madonna or Janet Jackson song to its
playlist, the indie gets paid by the record label."


From congressional testimony by Courtney Love...

"The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You
have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio;
independent promotion is a system where the record companies use
middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the
unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records."

Another site
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/pdf/r...sstatement.pdf

Here's a company that will take your money and give it to stations
http://www.novamusic.com/radiopromo.html

osite (RobertR237) wrote in message
That depends on rather you are downloading MP3 or the original format recorded
on the CD. In the latter case, you are getting as near perfect a recording as
possible. It can be reproduced a million times and not lose one bit.

Almost NOBODY downloads uncompressed music. Its just too unwieldly
with current bandwidths and tranfer protocols. Obviously you haven't
been downloading music (copyrighted or not) off the internet, LOL,
especially with a dial-up line.

I guess the important thing here is for everyone to follow their own
compass. Some people never exceed 55MPH on the freeway, most people
do it every day. I think its more a weakness of the law than that of
the majority of the population. Has something to do with federal
matching funds and states wanting the money but not wanting to enforce
the law.