I am with you!!!
regards,
gicio
Printable View
I am with you!!!
regards,
gicio
Definitely, you are right. 320 vs 128 bit encoding are different, the more bits/second, the better the sound.. but I think either way, it will not be the same as the original.Quote:
Originally posted by sociallysleepy
I have "better than average" hearing and I can say without a shadow of a doubt I'd prefer a 320kbps mp3(encoded on LAME) over a CD anyday. I have compressed a 320 down to 128 and noticed a HUGE difference in sound quality than compared the 128 to CD and it sounds the exact same to me.
It could just be me though, when my friend sends me songs and they are 128 I can notice the poor quality immediatly and I re-download a higher bitrate version(usually 192). When I asked him about the crappy quality he said it sounds great too him.
I also notice a huge difference between a downloaded 320 and a ripped 320 I do myself with LAME and CDEX. But like I said, my hearing is a tad bit weird.
:D
to me, the 320 sound, is more full, less noise etc..
128 sounds dull and flat.
My wife bought a CD two days ago.. I was like what the hell are you doing. :D
Found out it was an educational CD produced by Oxford Publishing.. I don't think they are RIAA related.. but I am not sure as I couldn't find out definitely.. I hope not.. bloody bastards... They are the vultures ready to rip the hearts out of the fans that pay their salaries..
Pure scum.
the 128k mp3 encoded file is almost always done with a technique called joint stereo.Quote:
Originally posted by Big Booger
Definitely, you are right. 320 vs 128 bit encoding are different, the more bits/second, the better the sound.. but I think either way, it will not be the same as the original.
:D
to me, the 320 sound, is more full, less noise etc..
128 sounds dull and flat.
this is done by mixing the left and right sources together and any audio sources that re distinct in left or right speaker get more priority in the encoded process.
this keeps the stereo speration but you will notice most cymbol sounds willl sound washed out or phased.
encoding at 160cbr or higher is almost alwaya encoded at true stereo and should not have this problem
320 cbr is nice quality but it is still constant bit rate and remains the same throughout the recording
if you have a song with plenty of dynamics the info gets squeezed in this constant rate.
i preffer variable bit rate at the highest level. this will allow the encoder to use as much bandwidth needed to preserve the sound quality as close to original
This whole thread just has me totaly confused.
You mean there are no 45's????:D
Only Army issue.:DQuote:
Originally posted by uschie
This whole thread just has me totaly confused.
You mean there are no 45's????:D
We are trying not to spend our money in way that help the RIAA. Boycott-riaa.com has done a thorough job of explaining the issue. This link talks about "Why Boycott?".
Link
Is there a list of record companies that the RIAA covers? I'd really like to know?
Or better, which record companies are not a part of the RIAA?
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp
there ya go.
Thanks SS,
Great resource!
One other question, when you buy used CDs, the RIAA doesn't get a penny right? Cause there is a used CD shop down the street from my home and I want to pick up the white stripes album.. Elephant.. :D
Just wondering, cause I really don't want to ever purchase an RIAA backed CD again. I'd rather tape the money to the ass of a camel.. and watch it go bye bye into the desert of doom.
so u have been to IRAQ then ??Quote:
Originally posted by Big Booger
I'd rather tape the money to the ass of a camel.. and watch it go bye bye into the desert of doom.
LOL
The RIAA gets no $ from used CD sales.
They do get money from blank CD sales though which is quite funny.
Add me to your list!!!!!!!!!!
I've not bought a CD since 1999............I continue to share on my P2Pprogram....be well all.............
i havent bought a cd for years..sure add me.
I am resisting buying any CDs..
One other thing, does the RIAA get reimbursed for rental CDs?
was upset with G/f last nite, went out shopping and she bought 2 ! new CDs, i nearly made her turn back and return them!
Well, at least I got home and ended up with 4 cds ;)
I did like Dido... :D
Scarriest Haloween ghost, ever!
Link
im in
im in add me to your list
May the RIAA rot in hell!
"ADD ME TO YOUR LIST".
:fire:
DOWN WITH THE RIAA!!! KEEP IT ALIVE.. TO HELL WITH THEM AND THEIR ILK!!!!
After reading the posts and seeing this:All I have to say is this. The so-called taxes and won lawsuit money goes to the labels that publish the artists work. The artists themselves get nothing. Secondly, the false market created causes such CDs to be very costly, thus actually making people go to the Internet for cheaper or free music. Thirdly, due to the false market, there is demand created. This also increases the prices and is a big profit for the labels. The artists do not get any advantage from these. (Think in terms of the Oil Market, low supply and high demand causes the oil prices to be high and the labels as the OPAC, having a monopoly over the market) Forthly, the talk about d/l music from the net makes artists not to earn money is complete BS, because the labels themselves earn the money from CD sales and not the artists. Fith, the labels and the RIAA come up with all these brainwashing BS to protect their profits so that people don't see red at the stock markets. (The rest in the stock markets are all economics and gibberish only for economists not us techs). Ok end of rant.:DQuote:
At any given point about 20% of the music every recorded is available legally. The rest is locked away by the labels depriving the creators of a potential source of income, the fans of the music they want, while creating a false market for the band "d'jour."
I encourage everyone to buy anything for Christmas except a CD that would put one cent into the RIAA coffers.
The RIAA insists that theft is the reason that sales are down. I hope that the boycott is also having an impact.
I agree efc,
I skipped out on purchasing CDs because of the RIAA and their methods. I'd rather support a drug addicts habit than to give the RIAA one red cent.
I actually was going to get my wife the Norah Jones' CD for Christmas because she likes her music, but I didn't because it is an RIAA held lable that produces her albums.....
Again, Merry Xmas RIAA, I hope you go broke!
It is time to stir the pot again. New suites by the RIAA.
RIAA embarks on new round of piracy suits
By John Borland
CNET News.com
January 21, 2004, 10:47 AM PT
The Recording Industry Association of America launched its largest wave of file-swapping lawsuits Wednesday, filing new copyright infringement suits against 532 currently unnamed individuals.
The suits are the industry group's first since an appeals court in December blocked its original strategy of identifying alleged file swappers before filing lawsuits by sending subpoenas to their Internet service providers. As a result, Wednesday's legal actions target hundreds of unnamed or "John Doe" computer users, whose identities will be added to the suits only after a court process likely to take several weeks.
"The process by which we identify defendants has changed, but the program has not," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a press conference to announce the lawsuits. "Our message should be as clear as ever: We can and will continue to bring lawsuits against those who distribute music to millions of strangers."
The move comes after a month of mixed news for the RIAA, which had a set of legal setbacks--including the appeals court ruling on the subpoena issue--and some indications that the dampening effect of lawsuits on file-swapping may be wearing off.
A survey the Pew Internet & American Life Project took in December found that just 14 percent of Americans said they had recently downloaded music from a file-swapping network, compared to 29 percent in a similar survey completed in May 2003.
In contrast, a report released last week by Internet monitoring firm The NPD Group found that music file swapping rose 14 percent between September and November.
The RIAA declined to comment on the studies, saying different groups used different methodologies and that it is impossible to compare them accurately. Its campaign had been undeniably successful in teaching people about the legal issues surrounding file trading, executives said.
"What we do know for certain is that awareness has shot through the roof," said Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA's new chief executive officer, citing the results of a study the industry group privately commissioned. "Prior to the launch of these legal actions, 35 percent of the population understood that (trading copyrighted music online) was illegal. Now, that percentage is in the mid-60s."
As the group is taking a new legal approach, instituted to comply with the December appeals court order, the new lawsuits are being filed in four batches against large numbers of anonymous individuals. Although suits are bundled around ISPs and are being filed in New York and Washington, D.C., the RIAA declined to name which Net service providers are involved.
Instead of names, the suits contain information on the Internet Protocol addresses of alleged file swappers. An IP address is a technological routing device assigned each Net surfer by their ISPs while online. The RIAA plans to ask judges to open a legal discovery process that will allow it to obtain the subscriber information associated with those IP addresses. The subscribers' names will then be added to the lawsuits.
The subscribers will be given a chance to settle before their names are officially added to the suits, Sherman said. However, the settlement amounts offered by the RIAA may be higher than in previous rounds, since the new process has raised legal costs, and the earlier suits have made it far less likely that a file trader could plead genuine ignorance of the law around the issue, the group said.
Wednesday's suits bring the total number of people in the United States sued by the RIAA for file swapping to 914. Sherman said 233 suits have been settled so far; another 100 suits reached settlement agreements, at an average of about $3,000.
Other music industry groups in Canada and Europe have indicated in recent months that they are likely to follow the RIAA's lead and begin filing suits against people swapping copyrighted music online in their own regions. None of these legal actions have yet occurred.
Posted it earlier http://www.techzonez.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8527 ;)
Yeah, I didn't see your post until after I put this one in. Still - it might start a new round of post on this thread. It has been active.
John Doe.. good luck laying down the name with the IP. If I were an ISP I'd fight this with all the fevor of a starved tiger. The RIAA should back down and disengage. This is not a war.. you are attacking the wrong crowd. Their sales are even up, yet they continue with this..
They are pissing off customers, potential customers and it is not having a good effect. I wished kids were more active in this and could understand the effects of buying CDs. Kids are powerful and can make a stand by stopping the purchase of CDs. That would be a great message.
Time to rev this thread up again. Below article appeared today.
washingtonpost.com
Record Industry Sues More Over Downloads
By TED BRIDIS
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 17, 2004; 2:07 PM
WASHINGTON - The recording industry sued 531 more computer users Tuesday it said were illegally distributing songs over the Internet in what has become a routine reminder reminder that college students, teenagers and others can face expensive lawsuits for swapping music online.
The Recording Industry Association of America filed the latest complaints against "John Doe" defendants in lawsuits in Atlanta; Philadelphia; Orlando, Fla.; and Trenton, N.J. It said the defendants were customers of one of five Internet providers based in those cities.
Philadelphia is the headquarters for Comcast Cable Communications Inc., the nation's largest cable company. Atlanta is headquarters for Earthlink Inc., another of the nation's biggest Internet providers.
Music industry lawyers identified the defendants only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.
The RIAA's president, Cary Sherman, said illegal downloads continue hurting new, legitimate Internet services for selling music. "We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undermines the creative future of music itself," Sherman said in a statement.
Last month, the recording group filed lawsuits against 532 computers users who were customers of Internet providers based in Washington and New York. The latest actions represent the largest number of complaints filed at one time since the trade group launched its legal campaign last summer to cripple Internet music piracy.
The recording group has said previously that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse. Settlements in previous cases have averaged $3,000 each.
It also appeared on the TZ front page today ;) http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=7372
That's where I saw it (thanks Rev), and I don't like it one little bit!
What is the implication of the "John Doe" case? how are they going to put IPs to names? Do they have a big list of IPs ie 10,000+ and they are slowly going thru them? like the CHildPorn website sting ??
And what about the ISPs that go defunct in the time it takes this to go to court??
This is a joke and a lame attempt at the RIAA to get more publicity in hopes that file sharers will be scared off by their silliness.
Now, is this a stupid question?? But anyhow I will ask it, woudln't the RIAA be better if it targets to illigal profiting from pirated music instead that downloaders??
I don't remember where, but I read that there are a lot of bands joining together against RIAA because file sharing makes them more popular.
More news from the boys with the supenas. Lets show those college punks a thing or two.
I still say, "Boycott, boycott, boycott".
***************
Record industry sues U.S. file-sharers
Wed April 28, 2004 02:37 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A U.S. music industry group says it has sued 477 more people for online copyright infringement as part of its effort to stop music piracy, blamed for a prolonged sales downturn. Since January, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), employing the "John Doe" litigation method, has sued more than 2,000 people.
The RIAA is using this method because the names of the 477 people accused of illegally distributing copyrighted sound recordings on peer-to-peer services were not yet known, said Jonathan Lamy, spokesman for RIAA.
The trade group has identified suspected song-swappers by Internet addresses only since an appeals court in December sided with Verizon Communications by ruling that Internet Service Providers did not have to respond to subpoenas, filed as a prelude to lawsuits, requesting names of users.
As in previous suits, the RIAA plans to discover swappers' names and locations through court-issued subpoenas, Lamy said.
Wednesday's action was directed at file sharers using commercial ISPs as well as 69 people at 14 universities, including Brown, Emory and Princeton.
In March, RIAA suits targeted 89 people using college networks.
"It remains as important as ever that we continue to work with the university community in a way that is respectful of the law as well as university values," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president.
The RIAA represents the world's big record labels like Warner Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG, EMI Group Plc, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music and Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group.
The RIAA has filed 2,454 lawsuits since September, including suits filed before the "John Doe" method became mandatory. It has settled about 437 cases for about $3,000 each (1,700 pounds).
Is there a new list?
Department of Law
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271
Department of Law
The State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
For More Information:
212-416-8060
For Immediate Release
May 4, 2004
$50 MILLION IN ROYALTIES RETURNS TO ARTISTS
Deal With Record Industry Sets New Procedures for Recovery of Unclaimed Asset
State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced a deal with the nation’s top recording companies that returns nearly $50 million in unclaimed royalties to thousands of performers. The agreement comes after a two-year investigation by Spitzer’s office found that many artists and writers were not being paid royalties because record companies had failed to maintain contact with the performers and had stopped making required payments. This problem affected both star entertainers with numerous hit recordings and obscure musicians who may have had only one recording.
"As a result of this agreement, new procedures will be adopted to ensure that the artists and their descendants will receive the compensation to which they are entitled," Spitzer said.
Under the deal, the recording companies have agreed to do the following:
• List the names of artists and writers who are owed royalty payments on company websites;
• Post advertisements in leading music industry publications explaining procedures for unclaimed royalties;
• Work with music industry groups and unions to locate artists who are owed royalty payments; and
• Share artists’ contact information with other record companies.
In addition, each company has agreed to have the heads of the royalty, accounting and legal departments meet regularly to review the status of royalty accounts and take steps to improve royalty payment procedures.
The companies have also agreed to comply with New York State’s Abandoned Property Law, which requires that if an artist or his or her family cannot be found, unclaimed royalties be "escheated" or turned over to the state. The state then holds these monies until a claim is made.
The participating companies include: SONY Music Entertainment; Sony ATV Music Publishing; Warner Music Group; UMG Recordings; Universal Music; EMI Music Publishing; EMI Music North America; BMG Songs; Careers-BMG Music Publishing; BMG Music and the Harry Fox Agency.
Spitzer thanked the recording companies for their cooperation in resolving the matter. He noted that the companies could have fought the initiative, which actually goes beyond what the law requires. Instead, the companies worked with the Attorney General’s office to resolve the matter in a way that will help artists and their descendants.
Spitzer also thanked music industry attorney Bob Donnelly, who originally brought the matter to the attention of his office and then helped identify ways to resolve it.
Prominent artists who were owed royalty payments included: David Bowie, Dolly Parton, Harry Belafonte, Liza Minnelli, Dave Matthews, Sean Combs and Gloria Estefan.
Spitzer noted that while royalty disputes are common in the entertainment industry, this particular problem did not involve disagreement over the terms of the recording contract or the amount of the royalty payment. Instead, it was a matter of the record companies not maintaining accurate contact information to mail royalty payments. Pursuant to the agreement, the companies will make a greater effort to locate and stay in touch with artists who are owed payments.
Spitzer said the recording companies had improved their efforts to find missing artists since the investigation began two years ago and that, collectively, the companies had already returned more than $25 million to those who were owed funds. An additional $25 million is expected to be distributed as part of the settlement.
The matter was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Gary R. Connor, Harriet B. Rosen, Patricia Cheng and Joseph Wilson of the Attorney General’s Investment Protection Bureau, under the direction of Acting Deputy Attorney General Terryl Brown Clemons.
Are they paying interest on these payments? As it sounds like to me they may be a little late in getting the payments to the artists...
Another reason to loathe the RIAA...
And they wonder why sales are down.
*********************
Price hike at Apple iTunes
Published Friday 7th May 2004 11:26 GMT in The Register
The world's five biggest music labels have successfully forced Apple to increase the prices it charges for songs on the online iTunes Music Store.
As we reported back in April, the major labels have been engaged in negotiations with the Mac maker in a bid to persuade it to put up prices.
According to a New York Post report today, citing sources close to the talks, all five have succeeded.
The sources claim Apple has now signed agreements with EMI, Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG), Sony, Universal and Warner that will see prices on some songs rise from 99c to $1.25, an increase of over 26 per cent.
Still, that's better than the $2.99 price point some labels had been pushing Apple to introduce.
Album prices are going up to. Many are likely to continue to be offered for $9.99, but some are appearing in the ITMS for $16.99, a rise of 70 per cent.
As one music industry source told The Register: "That will really ingratiate the public and discourage piracy, won't it?"
Apple does appear to have had it way in other areas, however. The NYP's sources reckon the company did not agree to label demands that some artists' songs only be sold in album batches and not as individual tracks.
In the past, some acts, most notably Radiohead and Metallica, have said they will not allow their songs to be offered individually. But that clearly runs against what many music consumers want: the ability to pick and choose the songs they want and not be stuck with all or nothing album offers. The old days of buying an entire album for one song are hopefully behind us.
We'd say it's about time the music industry started thinking that way too. There will always remain a place for albums - CDs too - but artists and labels have to start thinking 'outside the disc' if they're to reach a new generation of consumers now empowered to buy exactly what they want.
Other services may face similar demands, but there does seem to be a particular focus on Apple. Having established the market for legal downloads, Apple now seems to be facing a music industry paranoid about the power that success might bring the Mac maker. ®