Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
"s76fitz" wrote in message ... http://dontbuycds.org/ -- fitz in nyc, ny, usa That is the largest pile of Horse**** I ever read!!!. This reminds me of the paparazzi argument. (They got tunnel vision) Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. If it's really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean, you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right? Then if you like it, buy the cd and these so-called facts stated in that site will be valid.AND "Everybody wins". But right now.....with high bitrate files and even full cd's available via internet download (for free).....there has to be something done about it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
s76fitz wrote in message ...
http://dontbuycds.org/ Here's one that I like better: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ Boycotting all cds is kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Boycotting RIAA releases potentially* sends a message to the worst offenders. And there's no need to pirate anything, since there's plenty of great music being made outside the RIAA umbrella. A tool to figure it if that CD is a RIAA release: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ There's probably plenty of good music out there being made for RIAA member labels. But some potential fun side effect of a boycott a 1) alerting your favorite artists and labels about real concerns about riaa practices 2) motivation to dig around and find some of really good music on non-RIAA labels that you might have missed otherwise. rossi * Do I really think enough people will climb on board to really "send a message" to the RIAA. Not really. Most consumers don't really care. I do think it helps to raise awareness, though. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message ...
"s76fitz" wrote in message ... http://dontbuycds.org/ -- fitz in nyc, ny, usa That is the largest pile of Horse**** I ever read!!!. This reminds me of the paparazzi argument. (They got tunnel vision) Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my copyright and first amendment rights of free speech. Nobody in thier right mind would agree to sabotaging thier own art, by reducing the resolution/bitrate/quality, just to suit you. If it's really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean, you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right? Then if you like it, buy the cd and these so-called facts stated in that site will be valid.AND "Everybody wins". But right now.....with high bitrate files and even full cd's available via internet download (for free).....there has to be something done about it. You alone are responsible for the selling of your music, your burden doesn't extend to me. I'm not going to lower my bitrates, or produce less free music, just to please your whim, and help you sell what you cannot sell. Andrea |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
"Andrea" wrote in message om... "mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message ... "s76fitz" wrote in message ... http://dontbuycds.org/ -- fitz in nyc, ny, usa That is the largest pile of Horse**** I ever read!!!. This reminds me of the paparazzi argument. (They got tunnel vision) Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my copyright and first amendment rights of free speech. Nobody in thier right mind would agree to sabotaging thier own art, by reducing the resolution/bitrate/quality, just to suit you. If it's really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean, you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right? Then if you like it, buy the cd and these so-called facts stated in that site will be valid.AND "Everybody wins". But right now.....with high bitrate files and even full cd's available via internet download (for free).....there has to be something done about it. You alone are responsible for the selling of your music, your burden doesn't extend to me. I'm not going to lower my bitrates, or produce less free music, just to please your whim, and help you sell what you cannot sell. Andrea , what ever blows up your dress!!! Hey Dip ****, if you have your "own" material.....and wish to make higher bitrate mp3's go ahead!!!! It's your decision, it's your right,......But, "DO NOT" buy a cd of another artist and place that on the net for anyone and everyone to download for FREE!! It is a VIOLATION of that artists rights!!! And it's muther ****in Illegal! You dumb**** Muther ****er. It stinks bad enough in here, and now the pile of horse**** is attracking flies. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
"reddred" wrote in message ... "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message .. . Andrea wrote: I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my copyright Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting airplay would violate your copyright? I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that there be a LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I don't know if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate some right or another. jb No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put them in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at highest bitrate possible, or even 16/4424/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!! No Problems what so ever! "You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE with it..... BUT..... Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the same manner and your in trouble. Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that thier bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in full, listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have to "buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact. Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that violate your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I mean, they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT violates my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some other movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured movie NOT the trailer"!!! I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people (ones who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by downloading the low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And then make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what the problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther ****in peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
Rob Adelman wrote:
Andrea wrote: I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my Your plans don't really matter. This is about artists who actually have something people want to hear. Knock it off, Rob. There are millions of people who would rather hear new music produced and distributed independently rather than buy another goddam copy of the White Album on the format du jour. Just because your tastes run the gamut from bland to tired doesn't mean everybody else's does. No offense. Andrea's very good point is that people making new music with new ideas shouldn't get screwed over just to protect the marketshare of their less adventurous competitors. ulysses |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
Justin Ulysses Morse wrote: Just because your tastes run the gamut from bland to tired doesn't mean everybody else's does. No offense. Why are you attacking my tastes? What do may tastes have to do with it? The point is, it is not surprising that an artist with a track record and an ability to sell records may have a much different opinion of illegal file sharing than one who has never sold an album or few enough to matter. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
actually she was talking about legal file sharing, and mine12u said
that ALL files being shared should be bitrate limited.... There are artists who don't mind sharing their music - I wonder if those artists also believe in performing music to make a living.... Rob Adelman wrote in message ... Justin Ulysses Morse wrote: Just because your tastes run the gamut from bland to tired doesn't mean everybody else's does. No offense. Why are you attacking my tastes? What do may tastes have to do with it? The point is, it is not surprising that an artist with a track record and an ability to sell records may have a much different opinion of illegal file sharing than one who has never sold an album or few enough to matter. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
(Chris Rossi) wrote in message . com...
s76fitz wrote in message ... http://dontbuycds.org/ Here's one that I like better: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ Boycotting all cds is kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Boycotting RIAA releases potentially* sends a message to the worst offenders. And there's no need to pirate anything, since there's plenty of great music being made outside the RIAA umbrella. A tool to figure it if that CD is a RIAA release: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ There's probably plenty of good music out there being made for RIAA member labels. But some potential fun side effect of a boycott a 1) alerting your favorite artists and labels about real concerns about riaa practices 2) motivation to dig around and find some of really good music on non-RIAA labels that you might have missed otherwise. rossi * Do I really think enough people will climb on board to really "send a message" to the RIAA. Not really. Most consumers don't really care. I do think it helps to raise awareness, though. The magnetbox website is pretty good, I found out that one of my favorite artists who hadn't released anything for a couple of years is now RIAA-free and independant. The change is slow, but people are coming around, and now getting the whole picture, and every question about RIAA and lawsuits is an oppertunity to inform the public who are now more receptive to the information. Andrea |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message ...
"reddred" wrote in message ... "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message .. . Andrea wrote: I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my copyright Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting airplay would violate your copyright? I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that there be a LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I don't know if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate some right or another. jb No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put them in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at highest bitrate possible, or even 16/4424/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!! No Problems what so ever! "You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE with it..... BUT..... Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the same manner and your in trouble. Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that thier bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in full, listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have to "buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact. Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that violate your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I mean, they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT violates my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some other movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured movie NOT the trailer"!!! I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people (ones who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by downloading the low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And then make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what the problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther ****in peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY. You called for a carte blanc limit on ALL file bitrate, and now you are backpedaling. Andrea |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
"Andrea" wrote in message om... "mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message ... "reddred" wrote in message ... "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message .. . Andrea wrote: I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my copyright Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting airplay would violate your copyright? I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that there be a LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I don't know if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate some right or another. jb No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put them in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at highest bitrate possible, or even 16/4424/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!! No Problems what so ever! "You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE with it..... BUT..... Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the same manner and your in trouble. Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that thier bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in full, listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have to "buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact. Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that violate your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I mean, they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT violates my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some other movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured movie NOT the trailer"!!! I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people (ones who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by downloading the low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And then make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what the problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther ****in peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY. You called for a carte blanc limit on ALL file bitrate, and now you are backpedaling. Andrea Wrong!! I assumed you'd KNOW what I was refering to. (Music, illegal downloading) I am just clarifiying was I meant when I said: "Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. If it's really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean, you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right?" (etc.etc.) Thats what the subject was about, music and the unauthorized downloading of...."Stealing". (Titiled: don't buy CD's......etc.etc.) And, 64kb/s was just a number, could be any. But if the artist wanted to have his full 16/44 cd available for anyone to download, that be fine as well, just as long as it's what they wanted. Guess there's really no way to control download frenzies. But by making 64kb/s (or lower) mp3's the norm for downloading unauthorized material, (frenzy type) the download frenzy would still go on, but it would be legal. The argument that these P2P/Kazza's promote new/old music for free will be still be as valid as it was before, only it won't be the high quality cd comparable bitrate's. Make the P2P's regulate thier traffic!! (or at least a warning about what the user should/should-not do using the software) (???) Just making the trading/sharing of the UNAUTHORIZED material w/higher-full sample rates illegal and punishable. These P2P's could stay in business without any worry, people could continue to "steal" without any worry. And more people will buy the retail cd. But also, if the artist has a site where thier music is available for free, then that would be totally fine as well. It is thiers to do as they wish. Indie bands = happy Labels = happy Artists = happy Thieves = happy (to a certain extent) General public = happy How about some type of "PUNKBUSTER" software included in all media players? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message ... "Andrea" wrote in message om... "mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message ... "reddred" wrote in message ... "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message .. . Andrea wrote: I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my copyright Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting airplay would violate your copyright? I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that there be a LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I don't know if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate some right or another. jb No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put them in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at highest bitrate possible, or even 16/4424/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!! No Problems what so ever! "You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE with it..... BUT..... Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the same manner and your in trouble. Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that thier bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in full, listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have to "buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact. Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that violate your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I mean, they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT violates my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some other movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured movie NOT the trailer"!!! I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people (ones who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by downloading the low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And then make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what the problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther ****in peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY. You called for a carte blanc limit on ALL file bitrate, and now you are backpedaling. Andrea Wrong!! I assumed you'd KNOW what I was refering to. (Music, illegal downloading) I am just clarifiying was I meant when I said: "Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. If it's really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean, you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right?" (etc.etc.) Thats what the subject was about, music and the unauthorized downloading of...."Stealing". (Titiled: don't buy CD's......etc.etc.) And, 64kb/s was just a number, could be any. But if the artist wanted to have his full 16/44 cd available for anyone to download, that be fine as well, just as long as it's what they wanted. Guess there's really no way to control download frenzies. But by making 64kb/s (or lower) mp3's the norm for downloading unauthorized material, (frenzy type) the download frenzy would still go on, but it would be legal. The argument that these P2P/Kazza's promote new/old music for free will be still be as valid as it was before, only it won't be the high quality cd comparable bitrate's. Make the P2P's regulate thier traffic!! (or at least a warning about what the user should/should-not do using the software) (???) Just making the trading/sharing of the UNAUTHORIZED material w/higher-full sample rates illegal and punishable. These P2P's could stay in business without any worry, people could continue to "steal" without any worry. And more people will buy the retail cd. But also, if the artist has a site where thier music is available for free, then that would be totally fine as well. It is thiers to do as they wish. Indie bands = happy Labels = happy Artists = happy Thieves = happy (to a certain extent) General public = happy How about some type of "PUNKBUSTER" software included in all media players? NO. Internet=sad. The future of the net has fewer central servers in it. The refusal of media companies to secure their software has nothing to do with it. jb |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
http://dontbuycds.org/
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:19:02 GMT rec.audio.pro Fri 12 Sep 2003
11:19:02a http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ Yes, Mo' Betta. and thank you. -- fitz in nyc, ny, usa |