Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > What NZ criminal offence is Dotcom accused of having committed?

Reply
Thread Tools

What NZ criminal offence is Dotcom accused of having committed?

 
 
Titus G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2012
whoisthis wrote:

> "Titus G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> whoisthis wrote:


>>> "Titus G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>> whoisthis wrote:


>>>>> I dont own the music, but I own a right to play it


>>>> Do you have the right to lend them to your family, friends or
>>>> strangers?


>>> Yes, just as I have the right to sell the CD.


>> Do you have any downloaded music? If you did, would you have the
>> same right to lend it to your family, friends or strangers or to
>> sell it?


> I have the right to have it on 5 computers in my home, and on each of
> those 5 computers I have the right to have it on 5 ipods/ipads/iphones
> that I own. as well as the right to stream it via airtunes to my TV
> etc.


You have evaded the question. Do you have the same right to lend downloaded
music to your family, friends or strangers or to sell it?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2012
On 17/02/2012 6:44 p.m., whoisthis wrote:

>
> No it is NOT trivial, they need to want to do it, that is the HARD part.
> The issue is that CDs can not have higher bit rates, and digital
> downloads at better bit rates will further erode that market.


Nothing to do with CDs.
ipods ipads iphones have 16bit DACs
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2012
On 18/02/2012 7:11 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
> In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "geoff"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No it is NOT trivial, they need to want to do it, that is the HARD
>>> part. The issue is that CDs can not have higher bit rates, and digital
>>> downloads at better bit rates will further erode that market.

>>
>> What do you mean ? There are CDs, and then there are DVD-A and SACD with
>> 'higher bit rates".
>>
>> That is not the issue. Whatever format they supply is TRIVIAL to physically
>> achieve. Their will is a separate issue. Don't confuse the two issues.
>>
>> geoff

>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/...teve-jobs-atd/
> "There could be hope yet. Before Jobs passed, Young was working with
> Apple to do so. Young said he had spoken with Jobs about high quality
> music, and working on a way to get it out to the masses. Young says he
> and Jobs were working on new hardware capable of storing the
> high-quality audio. Unfortunately, now that Jobs has passed, not much
> has happened, Young said."


Anything can store the audio, that's not the problem.
Playing it needs a 24 bit DAC.

 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2012
On 19/02/2012 7:55 a.m., whoisthis wrote:

>>
>> Anything can store the audio, that's not the problem.
>> Playing it needs a 24 bit DAC.

>
> Chicken/Egg.


Hardware bottleneck of epic proportions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2012
On 19/02/2012 12:43 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
> In article<jhp69c$vgs$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2012 7:55 a.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Anything can store the audio, that's not the problem.
>>>> Playing it needs a 24 bit DAC.
>>>
>>> Chicken/Egg.

>>
>> Hardware bottleneck of epic proportions.

>
> you are right, Apple should have paid out hundreds of millions for extra
> hardware to be able to play back music they were not going to be
> supplied (never mind that 99% of the population would not have been able
> to tell the difference). It took them YEARS to get music that did not
> have DRM.


So was Steve Jobs lying to Neil Young ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
On 18/02/2012 12:58 p.m., geoff wrote:
> victor wrote:
>> The problem for Apple is that their store is designed solely to
>> distribute 16 bit content to their dedicated 16 bit hardware so they
>> have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo, so its no
>> surprise to hear their fanboy trotting out the company line
>> There are other internet sources of 24 bit content for enthusiasts,
>> and that content can even be played on an ipad with an external DAC.
>> HD audio can be distributed on blu-ray, but that is a whole other
>> channel of costs to maintain, and its a movie format.
>> I'm quite happy buying whatever format for the music.
>> Coldplay in 24 / 96 is still ****.

>
>
> And the major differences in 24/96 (etc) LPCM, DVD-A, and SACD are actually
> changes in mastering, not in the inherent quality of the media. And that is
> coming from me with speakers having a 20Hz -20KHz response at less than 0.5%
> THD. Several oredrs og magnitude better than many.
>
> If you've ever heard one CD (16 bit !) that sounds fantastic, then they ALL
> can sound just as good.
>
> Apple's thing had zero to do with 16 bits. It has to do with them being in
> control.
>
> geoff
>
>

Neil Young's point of view was that the best quality possible should be
available.
He's right, purchasing a track from the itunes store should allow you to
download it in the format of your choice, just like bandcamp. You have
payed the copyright holder for the right to play what they recorded, not
what got squeezed out through the cheapest most expedient delivery method.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
On 19/02/2012 6:36 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
> In article<jhpdn8$hnj$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2012 12:43 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article<jhp69c$vgs$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/02/2012 7:55 a.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anything can store the audio, that's not the problem.
>>>>>> Playing it needs a 24 bit DAC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chicken/Egg.
>>>>
>>>> Hardware bottleneck of epic proportions.
>>>
>>> you are right, Apple should have paid out hundreds of millions for extra
>>> hardware to be able to play back music they were not going to be
>>> supplied (never mind that 99% of the population would not have been able
>>> to tell the difference). It took them YEARS to get music that did not
>>> have DRM.

>>
>> So was Steve Jobs lying to Neil Young ?

>
> No. But if you can't get the media from the record companies are you
> going to spend hundreds of millions making the hardware ?
>
> This may come as a complete shock to you, but these kinds of
> negotiations with all the record companies may take YEARS because they
> need to be assured that it will not kill of their current income streams
> without being assured this will create a new/better one for them. Then I
> would guess that contracts with the artists would need to be checked too.
>
> But, as you are the genius, go compete, build it yourself.


I don't think you know anything about it.
Copyright distribution agreements don't cover bit rate or format,
(that's why record companies still deduct packaging costs and breakage
from royalties for digital download files).
Clearly Neil Young as a spokesman for the artists was enthusiastic to
supply as high a quality content as possible to his fans.
If a little site like Bandcamp can do it, it should be a doddle for Apple.
Format quality has nothing to do with DRM, and just as Apple has found
by allowing unlimited cloud downloads to all your itunes connected
devices, delivering better perceived value is the way to compete with
peer to peer distribution.
Enabling an Apple Lossless option would be the first step.
Enabling 24 bit ALAC downloads for people to attach a USB DAC to their
computer or iPad would be a second step. Just the sort of thing Neil and
Steve could agree on.

 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
On 19/02/2012 8:35 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
> In article<jhq2sv$rrr$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2012 6:36 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article<jhpdn8$hnj$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/02/2012 12:43 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>>>> In article<jhp69c$vgs$(E-Mail Removed)>, victor<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/02/2012 7:55 a.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anything can store the audio, that's not the problem.
>>>>>>>> Playing it needs a 24 bit DAC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chicken/Egg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardware bottleneck of epic proportions.
>>>>>
>>>>> you are right, Apple should have paid out hundreds of millions for extra
>>>>> hardware to be able to play back music they were not going to be
>>>>> supplied (never mind that 99% of the population would not have been able
>>>>> to tell the difference). It took them YEARS to get music that did not
>>>>> have DRM.
>>>>
>>>> So was Steve Jobs lying to Neil Young ?
>>>
>>> No. But if you can't get the media from the record companies are you
>>> going to spend hundreds of millions making the hardware ?
>>>
>>> This may come as a complete shock to you, but these kinds of
>>> negotiations with all the record companies may take YEARS because they
>>> need to be assured that it will not kill of their current income streams
>>> without being assured this will create a new/better one for them. Then I
>>> would guess that contracts with the artists would need to be checked too.
>>>
>>> But, as you are the genius, go compete, build it yourself.

>>
>> I don't think you know anything about it.
>> Copyright distribution agreements don't cover bit rate or format,
>> (that's why record companies still deduct packaging costs and breakage
>> from royalties for digital download files).

>
> So you are saying Bandcamp gets it music in this 24bit format from
> Warner Music, Sony, etc etc etc ????
>
>
>> Clearly Neil Young as a spokesman for the artists was enthusiastic to
>> supply as high a quality content as possible to his fans.

>
> Correct
>
>> If a little site like Bandcamp can do it, it should be a doddle for Apple.

>
> Oh ?
>
>> Format quality has nothing to do with DRM, and just as Apple has found
>> by allowing unlimited cloud downloads to all your itunes connected
>> devices, delivering better perceived value is the way to compete with
>> peer to peer distribution.

>
> That too is negotiated with the music labels. Apple did NOT do this by
> themselves.


It's very simple, they would just offer the option to content providers
of uploading their content as 24 bit AIFF. And,just like Bandcamp the
rest of the encoding is derived from that. From the artist to the
listener the transport can be what the listener wants, from the mix the
artist heard to the most economical streaming rate. You buy the track,
not the transport.
Its an incentive for the labels to offer the best quality source to
compete with each other.
At the moment everything is down-sampled.

>
>> Enabling an Apple Lossless option would be the first step.

>
> AAC ?


ALAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

>> Enabling 24 bit ALAC downloads for people to attach a USB DAC to their
>> computer or iPad would be a second step. Just the sort of thing Neil and
>> Steve could agree on.


 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
On 19/02/2012 10:51 p.m., geoff wrote:
> victor wrote:
>> Anything can store the audio, that's not the problem.
>> Playing it needs a 24 bit DAC.

>
> So you use a $3 part instead of a $2 part.
>
> geoff
>
>


Or a USB thingy.
There's probably an Apple boffin wondering how the **** that is supposed
to make Neil Young sound better at this very moment.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Titus G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012
whoisthis wrote:
> In article <jhkr2h$m17$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Titus G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> whoisthis wrote:


>>> "Titus G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>> whoisthis wrote:


>>>>> "Titus G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:


>>>>>>> I dont own the music, but I own a right to play it


>>>>>> Do you have the right to lend them to your family, friends or
>>>>>> strangers?


>>>>> Yes, just as I have the right to sell the CD.


>>>> Do you have any downloaded music? If you did, would you have the
>>>> same right to lend it to your family, friends or strangers or to
>>>> sell it?


>>> I have the right to have it on 5 computers in my home, and on each
>>> of those 5 computers I have the right to have it on 5
>>> ipods/ipads/iphones that I own. as well as the right to stream it
>>> via airtunes to my TV etc.


>> You have evaded the question. Do you have the same right to lend
>> downloaded music to your family, friends or strangers or to sell it?


> I dont know as I have not been in that situation, but my gut feeling
> is NO.


So you are just making this stuff up as you go.

> If I could guarantee that no other copy existed except for the
> one you loaned I would say probably. I note with interest that in the
> US a decision has been made by the courts that you do indeed have the
> right to on sell "used" digital music.


snip

You believe you have the right to sell music whether you bought it on CD or
through download. You believe you have the right to lend music from your
CD's to anybody including strangers but not downloaded music which you might
keep on a CD or removable disk. How strange.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australian, 90, accused of raping 4 Thai sisters OldGringo38 Computer Support 1 07-04-2010 05:16 AM
Accused Library Foot Kisser Indicted TwistyCreek Computer Support 2 07-31-2006 11:13 PM
MPAA ACCUSED OF HIRING A HACKER Imhotep Computer Security 0 05-27-2006 07:12 PM
MPAA accused of hiring hackers Modemac DVD Video 7 05-26-2006 11:03 PM
Re: Woman accused of raping infants the_fovemeister@kebi.com Digital Photography 0 01-23-2004 02:50 AM



Advertisments