| Home | Forums | Reviews | Guides | Newsgroups | Register | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Interesting, but it's all speculation.
I still see problems with the music downloading that you pay for. 1st - What kind of licenses does it have, ie, can you burn it, can you copy it to MP3 players, can you upload it to services such as the former iLocker. 2nd - What format is it in? Obviously, you need it to be small enough for the 56ker's, which makes up most people, but the people who were downloading really were the DSL/Cable group, which could afford the extra bandwidth to get higher-bit rate files. 3rd - The price... 4th - This one is for artists / RIAA / record labels - If an artist makes a CD like they do now, there are some artists who make a CD with a few hits and the rest is junk, while others try to make a whole album of hits (see: Beatles, Led Zeppelin I-IV), so if the artist makes only hits, then those are the songs that get downloaded. If you charge 90c/song, and a band makes 2 good songs that are popular, then RIAA gets $1.80, and the artist much less. However, now, the consumer pays $13, instead of $1.80, so they get the junk, but the RIAA gets the money. The other side of #4 is, this will only help to create artists who don't put junk with a few hits, encourage it, and eventually, destroy the crappy artists (boy bands, etc.). Here's an interesting point, if you can download songs for, say 90c/song, and an artist makes an album with, say, 18 songs, and you want to download all of it, then you should pay $16.20. It costs you $16.20 to download compressed audio and then you can pay the extra money for a CD-R and a Jewel case, and say that is an extra 60c total, so you have spent $16.80 to make something that most people can do now, illegally, for $0.60. However, you can go to a store and buy it for $13.00, if they don't change the pricing because of decreased printing of CDs, and you get a pressed disc with high quality uncompressed audio AND the artwork. Seeing how cdcovers.cc has had their CD Covers section shutdown (thanks to the RIAA), would services be able to offer the artwork? Would you need to pay extra, would you need to download all the songs first, and then it is free, or extra? The MOST important thing to me is the quality. If you were to truly offer songs on the internet, to maintain CD quality, which is something that we pay for right now, you would need to offer the songs in a format such as uncompressed WAV 44.1kHz 16-bit Stereo, or APE, or FLAC, or OFR, WV. Seeing how the only one universally understandable is WAV, but it is also the largest, at 10MB/minute, this is interesting. If I pay 90c to get a song, I want the WAV file, but do I really want to download 600MB to get a whole album's worth of music, or 800MB to fill a whole mix CD? The answer is no. Moreover, which of these formats offers licensing ability, to control our media, as the RIAA loves to do? Well, WMA comes to mind. This is a poor choice, since it only helps Microsoft, which in turn means that the WMA codec is advanced and more popular, thus killing the open-source codecs such as OGG, MP3, or any of the alternatives to WAV I had named. The quality of these downloaded files for money, has to be EQUAL to CD. It cannot be less, that is an inferior product. At that point, the ONLY music medium is the 15+yr old CD, and the ONLY way to get this is at a store (internet or local). Just for extra, I found the thing about the 2/3 + of "young" people who would stop sharing if it is a crime with jail or fine to be more of a joke than actually accurate. Did this "poll" only feature people who DO share? I know that plenty of people are just leeches, and if you ask a leech if they would share, they'll say no, no matter what. How many of these people actually are telling the truth. Everyone knows that "young" people say one thing and do the exact opposite. Would these "young" people find alternatives to Kazaa? What would happen if a truly anonymous P2P service is launched, with no way of tracking any IP addresses, MAC addresses, or data packets sent/received? There is no evidence of a "crime" anymore. You cannot assume that every song downloaded by somebody is a crime - theft. There are legal circumstances under which you are allowed to have these media files. For example, if you own the CD, you can copy the CD into MP3 format for yourself. If you don't know how or your PC can't due to speed issues (ie it is quicker to download than to rip/encode), then it makes sense to obtain a copy of your purchased, licensed media via P2P services or warez or anywhere else, except pay services due to their fee (although if you want to pay twice, go ahead). How do you know that every one of those files has been illegally downloaded, and the owner of the computer which contains these files does not own a copy of every CD those songs came from? So, I guess, if you are sued, you can go out and buy all the CDs necessary to obtain these songs, paying cash and burning the recepits, and wearing a disguise as to conceal who you are, as the RIAA will ask all stores if they have seen anybody come in and buy a lot of stuff and if they say yes, and they show a picture of you, and the guy says it was you, then your screwed (BTW, I'm being serious here), then make an unprecendented legal case claiming all the songs were legally licensesd due to your purchase of the albums / CDs from which these songs have come. That would really help out everybody. Think about it, though, if it costs you $1,000 to purchase the CDs, then you are out $1,000, but have all the CDs and that's cool enough. On top of it, your found not guilty of theft, piracy, etc., and you face no jail time, and don't have to pay fines that are well over $1,000. On top of that, you have shown that the RIAA cannot simply sue anybody because of possesion of an MP3 file. MP3s, WMAs, WAVs, OGGs, APEs, WVs, FLACs, AACs, AC3s, etc., are all LEGAL to have. Alright, now, after all of this, as to the DVD issue that Black Locust had brought up, the same idea pretty much applies. If the on-demand stuff is to be released to the general public, on the Internet, this will be a tough one. File size is an issue. Quality is another one. I would only pay for sometinhg with the quality of DVD video, with atleast AC3 5.1 surround. There will never be a day that you are going to get me to pay for the 700mb MPEG-4 w/ MP3 2.0 audio AVI file, the quality is not there. However, if offered through digital cable services (like in my area currently), then it would need to have digital quality, and the option to have it in HD would be a necessity. Moreover, it needs to have 5.1 surround, as the DVD does. If I go to Blockbuster and pay $4.25 for a DVD, I get 5.1 audio, maybe even DTS, and that is an absolute must to watch teh DVD. It's how it was intended, it's how it is supposed to be viewed. It wouldn't have been recorded in 5.1 if it weren't important to the movie. Why would I be paying money for on-demand video that didn't have 5.1 or HD option? This also means that the digital cable boxes need to have both Coaxial and Optical digital outputs. (As in my case, coaxial won't receive 5.1, but optical will, but maybe others receiver's will only receive 5.1 through coaxial, or if your receiver does both, then you can pick the cheaper cable or the better cable). I'm not sure how the digital boxes look, but I doubt they have both coaxial and optical. Comments?  "Black Locust" <> wrote in message news:bl2112-... > This is mostly about CD's, but it also mentions DVD's so I thought it > might be of interest. > > Credit: http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5070...ag=cnetfd.buzz > > Study: CDs may soon be as final as vinyl > By CNET News.com Staff > September 2, 2003, 8:24 AM PT > > > Forrester Research on Tuesday predicted a steep fall in CD sales, as > audio and video file sharing over the Internet continues to emerge as a > preferred option among consumers. > > The firm said 20 percent of Americans engage in music downloading, and > half of the downloaders said they are buying fewer CDs. By 2008, 33 > percent of music sales will come from downloads, with CD sales down 30 > percent from their 1999 peak. On-demand movie distribution will generate > $1.4 billion by 2005, and revenue from DVDs and tapes will decline 8 > percent, Forrester predicted. > > "The shift from physical media will halt the music industry's slide and > create new revenues for movie companies, but it will wreak havoc with > retailers like Tower Records and Blockbuster," Josh Bernoff, principal > analyst at Forrester, said in a statement. "As a result, we're about to > see a massive power shift in the entertainment industry." > > > According to the study, in the next nine months, at least 10 > Windows-based music services will emerge, creating alternatives to > illegal file sharing. America Online already has 90,000 MusicNet > subscribers; Musicmatch and RealOne Rhapsody are expected to > differentiate their media players with Web radio; BuyMusic will try to > take advantage of its early entry with personalized recommendations from > ChoiceStream; and Apple Computer will release a Windows version of its > popular iTunes service. > > Forrester predicted that by the end of 2004, Apple and possibly > Musicmatch will emerge as leaders, file sharing will be in decline, and > downloads and on-demand subscriptions will bring in $270 million. > Surging online revenue--including subscription services--will increase > music sales by more than a half billion dollars in 2004, according to > the study. > > The research firm said music companies and studios are realizing that > they must create new channels for online delivery. Consumers, tired of > paying high prices for CDs and DVDs, are looking for flexible forms of > on-demand media delivery. > > "Technology trends like increased broadband adoption and cheap, > widespread storage have made it possible for consumers to easily manage > their digital entertainment at home," Bernoff pointed out. > > The survey also shows that the music industry's plan to sue individuals > for online piracy through software such as Kazaa might pay off: More > than two out of three young file sharers said they would stop swapping > if there were a serious risk of jail or a fine. > -- > BL |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
