111–120 of 201 posts
The revival we need, urgently, is of recorded music income Why? That ship has sailed. In 2022, as in 1922, 1822, 1722 etc musicians will have to earn their income by playing live.
Yes!! This is how it's supposed to be. The music itself is not scarce, it's the artists who are scarce. Society doesn't need this copyright rent seeking system. If artists want to make money, they should need to actually perform.
The revival we need, urgently, is of recorded music income Why? That ship has sailed. In 2022, as in 1922, 1822, 1722 etc musicians will have to earn their income by playing live.
But there are plenty of genres and artists (1-person bands recording in their basement) that don't make sense live or aren't able to perform live. There is a big difference between a musician and a performer. The bands that are both certainly have the biggest advantage, but we shouldn't discredit people who are just making music.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK under RIPA some authority could get records from your ISP of accesses to a CD info download system. Then they can ask that service for the list of track titles. As copyright is tort, the balance of probabilities is then that you infringed copyright. Doesn't quite make sense, as copyright is tort, but there are police departments devoted to court enforcement. I'd be wary. Not saying it will happen, but seems…
So we start with a wronged party like a copyright owner. They ask a service that is likely in a different country for all the info on the people who looked up metadata of ip they own and don't get laughed out of court. Then they demand that isps all over the country give names and addresses of people all over the UK that broke no law and did no wrong in hopes of conducting a fishing expedition and don't get laughed o…
"Wronged" implies that they were harmed in some way. A better term would be "offended". They discovered, indirectly, that someone else was doing something they don't approve of—which otherwise doesn't affect them at all—and they want it stopped by any means necessary, even though this will just make the other person worse off without materially improving their own situation.
> And streaming is not returning enough to musicians for them to survive; it is only serving to increase income inequality in our industry. The revival we need, urgently, is of recorded music income - and that revival is not coming from silver discs. The fundamental problem is that streaming income is distributed as a percentage of total (worldwide) plays, instead of being normalized as a percentage of plays per list…
I still buy Music CDs. Why? Because once I have the disc in my hand, no-one can legally take it away from me. I can enjoy the contents legally until I'm dead, all for a single one-off payment with no-expiry. However, my households use of streaming media (mainly Spotify) has increased for 'casual' listening, so I think there is a balance, and I hope that buying physical media for music wont disappear completely any ti…
I had ~1100 CDs in 2000. Now I have close to 0. I don't even own a device I could play a CD in nor rip it. None of my 4 PCs (3 Macs, one Gaming Windows Box) have a CD (nor DVD nor Bluray) player. Instead I have about 9000 mp3 files. I find streaming services frustrating because their recommendation algorithm suck. I tried playing "Swing" and it gave me "Volare" by Dean Martin. (that's not Swing), I pick Prince Radio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the one hand, you seem to (understandably) take great pride in the legal ownership of your CDs, but on the other hand, you're almost certainly breaking the law by ripping them. How do you feel about that? I have the same conflict with DVDs/BluRay. I want to play by the rules and pay for the media I enjoy, but it's absurd that it's illegal for me to rip the content that I've lawfully purchased for my own consumptio…
Ripping CDs for your own personal use is not illegal, as CDs have no copy protection mechanism that you would be circumventing.
Many times, buying the CD and ripping it to FLAC* is the only way to legally acquire* music for use with your computer. * It must be lossless and high quality. * It must work offline.
A decent proxy to know that this is true is that at those bitrates, a FLAC file is often smaller than the AAC one. Yes, this makes you wonder why you'd want to use an lossy format instead of the lossless one if you have the choice ... but the point is that you'll probably have just as good an experience with a high-bitrate lossy-encoded file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iTunes music has been DRM free since 2009 (with some exceptions, probably).
Was that retroactively applied? Because my music from pre-2009 remained DRM'd, but maybe I just needed to re-download them. On top of that, it was all AAC, and I regularly had to convert the files to be usable anywhere but Apple's products. It became such a chore, that I gave up on the Apple music ecosystem entirely, and I don't really have any regrets about it.
[1] https://wiki.videolan.org/index.php?title=Advanced_Audio_Cod...
> And streaming is not returning enough to musicians for them to survive; it is only serving to increase income inequality in our industry. The revival we need, urgently, is of recorded music income - and that revival is not coming from silver discs. The fundamental problem is that streaming income is distributed as a percentage of total (worldwide) plays, instead of being normalized as a percentage of plays per list…
If everybody did the same amount of listening the two schemes would be the same. Since they don't, your proposed scheme gives an outsize vote to people who listen less. The current scheme gives a bigger vote to those who listen more. Spend more time than average listening and your preferred bands will get more money from the royalty pool than you put in.
99 are pop fans and listen entirely to top 20. 1 is an outlier and listens entirely to jazz.
Royalty payments are $10/mo per user. ie every month there's $1,000 to be split between artists.
Under Spotify's current scheme, top 20 artists receive ($1,000 * (999/1000)) = $999 dollars. Jazz artists get $1.
Under my proposed scheme, top 20 artists would receive 99*10 = $990, while jazz artists would receive $10.
In other words, multiplying the income of "smaller" artists by 10x. Artists shouldn't get money from people that don't listen to them.
I still buy Music CDs. Why? Because once I have the disc in my hand, no-one can legally take it away from me. I can enjoy the contents legally until I'm dead, all for a single one-off payment with no-expiry. However, my households use of streaming media (mainly Spotify) has increased for 'casual' listening, so I think there is a balance, and I hope that buying physical media for music wont disappear completely any ti…
I had ~1100 CDs in 2000. Now I have close to 0. I don't even own a device I could play a CD in nor rip it. None of my 4 PCs (3 Macs, one Gaming Windows Box) have a CD (nor DVD nor Bluray) player. Instead I have about 9000 mp3 files. I find streaming services frustrating because their recommendation algorithm suck. I tried playing "Swing" and it gave me "Volare" by Dean Martin. (that's not Swing), I pick Prince Radio…