Hmm...

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Black Locust, Sep 7, 2003.

  1. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    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_3-5070177.html?tag=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
     
    Black Locust, Sep 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: Hmm... [kinda OT, evolved into P2P / pay music issue]

    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:...
    > 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_3-5070177.html?tag=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
     
    Anonymous Joe, Sep 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Black Locust

    Invid Fan Guest

    Re: Hmm... [kinda OT, evolved into P2P / pay music issue]

    In article <BuM6b.282716$cF.88241@rwcrnsc53>, Anonymous Joe
    <> wrote:

    > 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.


    On the Apple site, you can burn around 10 cds with the same playlist
    (change the song order and burn 10 more), have it on up to 4 computers
    at the same time, and any number of iPods. You can't upload it
    anywhere, naturally, as nobody else would be able to play it. (you can
    burn a cd then re-rip it, but sound quality will suffer).

    > 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.


    ACC seems like a reasonable compromise.

    >
    > 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.
    >

    Apple's pricing is $.99 a song, or $9.99 per album. If you're not
    intending to burn it, that's a $3+ saving over buying it at the store.

    > 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).
    >

    It depends on how you're going to use it. I currently only listen to
    music either on my computer or with my iPod at work. Thus, any cd I buy
    is going to get ripped anyways, so what I download will be the same
    quality as what I'd end up listening to from the cd anyways.

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
     
    Invid Fan, Sep 7, 2003
    #3
  4. Black Locust

    Biird Phd Guest

    Re: Hmm... [kinda OT, evolved into P2P / pay music issue]

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 18:33:31 -0400, Invid Fan <> wrote:

    >In article <BuM6b.282716$cF.88241@rwcrnsc53>, Anonymous Joe
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >On the Apple site, you can burn around 10 cds with the same playlist
    >(change the song order and burn 10 more), have it on up to 4 computers
    >at the same time, and any number of iPods. You can't upload it
    >anywhere, naturally, as nobody else would be able to play it. (you can
    >burn a cd then re-rip it, but sound quality will suffer).
    >

    This group is about DVD's, no stealing music for CD

    Prof. Speedbyrd :>
     
    Biird Phd, Sep 8, 2003
    #4
  5. Re: Hmm... [kinda OT, evolved into P2P / pay music issue]

    Invid Fan wrote:

    > In article <BuM6b.282716$cF.88241@rwcrnsc53>, Anonymous Joe
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > On the Apple site, you can burn around 10 cds with the same playlist
    > (change the song order and burn 10 more), have it on up to 4 computers
    > at the same time, and any number of iPods. You can't upload it
    > anywhere, naturally, as nobody else would be able to play it. (you can
    > burn a cd then re-rip it, but sound quality will suffer).
    >

    Why will the quality suffer? I don't know Mac's, but can't you simply
    rip the CD as a WAV without any loss like a regular CD?

    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > ACC seems like a reasonable compromise.
    >

    I haven't heard ACC, but given the choice, I'd take SHN. Absolutely no
    compression loss and half the size of a WAV.
    >
    >>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.
    >>

    >
    > Apple's pricing is $.99 a song, or $9.99 per album. If you're not
    > intending to burn it, that's a $3+ saving over buying it at the store.
    >


    I believe that practice will become common with most of these services
    for the very reason the original poster mentions.

    >
    >>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).
    >>

    >
    > It depends on how you're going to use it. I currently only listen to
    > music either on my computer or with my iPod at work. Thus, any cd I buy
    > is going to get ripped anyways, so what I download will be the same
    > quality as what I'd end up listening to from the cd anyways.
    >

    Adios,
    ~Nick
     
    Nicholas Andrade, Sep 9, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mr mucky

    hmm

    mr mucky, Jun 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    750
    Plato
    Jun 13, 2004
  2. Chris S
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,425
    Keith the Confused
    Oct 14, 2005
  3. cass

    hmm, .rar file extensions...

    cass, Jul 7, 2006, in forum: Software
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    917
    unholy
    Jul 9, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXM=?=

    OT: Friday hmm...

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXM=?=, Sep 8, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    468
    Guest
    Sep 8, 2006
  5. =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXM=?=

    OT: Friday hmm...

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXM=?=, Sep 8, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    748
Loading...

Share This Page