| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[ANN] An mp3 thrasher
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:47:02 +0200, Michael Weischnitt wrote:
Fellow audio and music industry professionals, I urge you to check out mpThrasher, a simple and free program for Mac OS X that I wrote to combat online piracy via mp3 exchange. In my opinion, the strategy outlined in my web page - albeit simple - is the only one which really has a chance to succeed against the peer to peer networks. For those who have not read the website, this program works by making degraded (but still playable) copies of mp3s. The idea I assume is that people download them from p2p instead of good copies of the songs, and are thus put off downloading. This is still illegal, as I don't think there is any justifaction in saying that it's ok to share mp3s if you have done a terrible job when encoding them. No matter what your intent in doing so is. Even if you had a thousand people doing this, the only effect will be mild irritation, and perhaps more people restricting who they share with. Please visit: http://mpthrasher.altervista.org/ Thanks in advance and best regards, Michael Weischnitt |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"JoVee" wrote in message
... whatever happened to the approach of just putting out crap/anything/gibberish/annoying-messages as mp3 files with the names of popular stealhappy tunes attached? thats not illegal. Some file sharing problems allow downloaders to "rate" the quality of the file after they've downloaded and shifts the higher rated stuff so it shows up first on a search. They will ALWAYS be able to find a way around any type of prevention. I agree something needs to be done but I don't think technology is going to be the answer. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article ,
philicorda wrote: This is still illegal, as I don't think there is any justifaction in saying that it's ok to share mp3s if you have done a terrible job when encoding them. No matter what your intent in doing so is. Michael Weischnitt at wrote on 6/16/04 9:48 PM: You're right in that it's illegal, but - I hate to say that - we are at war here. and all's fair? not hardly. especially since this is nothing better than throwing **** in the street as a 'cure' to lotsa folks stealing sewage services... argh... |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Weischnitt wrote:
Fellow audio and music industry professionals, I urge you to check out mpThrasher, a simple and free program for Mac OS X that I wrote to combat online piracy via mp3 exchange. The suggested approach constitutes wilful misrepresensation of the oeuvre, at the very least of its sonic qualities and is thus a droit morale violation. For those who wants a simpler wording "album sounds like crap, why buy it?". In my opinion, the strategy outlined in my web page The only sustainable strategy is to make the audience want to pay for their music because they understand why they should. In as much as paying for music de facto is already optional, as is to a very large extent paying for software, then this is about promoting a non-stealing attitude. - albeit simple - is the only one which really has a chance to succeed against the peer to peer networks. No. Somebody somewhere will make a checksum database and design software to filter the damaged files out. The only result of your approach is to alienate people further from the concept of wanting to pay. One does not gain customers by offending people, and offend is all your program will do. Mind you, I agree with you in the problem and in its severity, but not in the suggested cure, I think its sideeffects are worse than whatever effect it may have. Michael Weischnitt Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
... ... One does not gain customers by offending people, Experience in the retail industries suggests that this theory, one that was commonly believed 30 years ago, is dead wrong. Prosecuting every single offender no matter how young they are or how inexpensive the stolen property has significantly reduced shoplifting in the United States. The word gets around and the problem goes away because the benefits simply aren't worth the risk. Word of mouth remains the strongest agent for change that there is. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
... ... One does not gain customers by offending people, Experience in the retail industries suggests that this theory, one that was commonly believed 30 years ago, is dead wrong. Prosecuting every single offender no matter how young they are or how inexpensive the stolen property has significantly reduced shoplifting in the United States. The word gets around and the problem goes away because the benefits simply aren't worth the risk. Word of mouth remains the strongest agent for change that there is. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
At the risk of starting a flame war, I want to point out what I find
to be a great irony on this news group... One the one hand, MP3s as a recording technology are generally badmouthed in this news group as so poor quality as to be un-usable for any serious recordings... on the other hand... If I share an MP3, I have "stollen" some precioous intellectual technology. I find this somewhat ironic. I don't think you can have it both ways. If MP3s make such bad copies, then sharing them really isn't stealing anything but noise,,, right? or If your going to argue that I should be fineed $10,000 for sharing an MP3, then you are admitting that it must have been a pretty good copy after all. 2 sides of the coin Mark |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
At the risk of starting a flame war, I want to point out what I find
to be a great irony on this news group... One the one hand, MP3s as a recording technology are generally badmouthed in this news group as so poor quality as to be un-usable for any serious recordings... on the other hand... If I share an MP3, I have "stollen" some precioous intellectual technology. I find this somewhat ironic. I don't think you can have it both ways. If MP3s make such bad copies, then sharing them really isn't stealing anything but noise,,, right? or If your going to argue that I should be fineed $10,000 for sharing an MP3, then you are admitting that it must have been a pretty good copy after all. 2 sides of the coin Mark |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Jun 2004 07:24:47 -0700, (Mark) wrote:
At the risk of starting a flame war, I want to point out what I find to be a great irony on this news group... One the one hand, MP3s as a recording technology are generally badmouthed in this news group as so poor quality as to be un-usable for any serious recordings... on the other hand... If I share an MP3, I have "stollen" some precioous intellectual technology. I find this somewhat ironic. I don't think you can have it both ways. If MP3s make such bad copies, then sharing them really isn't stealing anything but noise,,, right? or If your going to argue that I should be fineed $10,000 for sharing an MP3, then you are admitting that it must have been a pretty good copy after all. 2 sides of the coin Mark Suppose you broke into somebody's house and stole a painting. You got it home and found it had a dirty mark on it. So that's OK then - it doesn't matter if you stole it. Do you mind telling us where you live? I'm sure we could relieve you of all your slightly less-then-perfect goods. We know you won't mind. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Jun 2004 07:24:47 -0700, (Mark) wrote:
At the risk of starting a flame war, I want to point out what I find to be a great irony on this news group... One the one hand, MP3s as a recording technology are generally badmouthed in this news group as so poor quality as to be un-usable for any serious recordings... on the other hand... If I share an MP3, I have "stollen" some precioous intellectual technology. I find this somewhat ironic. I don't think you can have it both ways. If MP3s make such bad copies, then sharing them really isn't stealing anything but noise,,, right? or If your going to argue that I should be fineed $10,000 for sharing an MP3, then you are admitting that it must have been a pretty good copy after all. 2 sides of the coin Mark Suppose you broke into somebody's house and stole a painting. You got it home and found it had a dirty mark on it. So that's OK then - it doesn't matter if you stole it. Do you mind telling us where you live? I'm sure we could relieve you of all your slightly less-then-perfect goods. We know you won't mind. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:24:47 -0700, Mark wrote:
If I share an MP3, I have "stollen" some precioous intellectual technology. I find this somewhat ironic. --------------------------------snip---------------------------------- Let's put it in the context of computer software. If a friend gives you a copy of Microsoft Word for free, you've deprived Microsoft of at least $100 in profit. Or, more accurately, compare it to books: if someone gives you a PDF file of a HARRY POTTER book, author J.K. Rowling (and her publisher) have lost several dollars in profit. The similarity here is, a PDF file doesn't have the quality of a fine hardbound book. But the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY it contains is identical. Or to movies: you can go on the street right now and buy a horrible-looking copy of SPIDERMAN 2 on DVD, made in China. Despite the fact that it's a "digital copy," it looks like crap. And the filmmakers and the studio won't make a dime on it. The same is true of an MP3 file. If you own a bad-sounding MP3 copy of a new song that you could have paid for, the artist, the publisher, the songwriters, and the record label are still being stiffed on money they didn't get from you. Whether the quality of the recording is good or not is not the point. Thievery is still thievery, regardless of whether it's a bad-quality copy or a great one. If you ever create something unique yourself -- like a work of art, or good writing, or a piece of music -- and then have someone steal it, THEN you'll know how it feels. --MFW |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:24:47 -0700, Mark wrote:
If I share an MP3, I have "stollen" some precioous intellectual technology. I find this somewhat ironic. --------------------------------snip---------------------------------- Let's put it in the context of computer software. If a friend gives you a copy of Microsoft Word for free, you've deprived Microsoft of at least $100 in profit. Or, more accurately, compare it to books: if someone gives you a PDF file of a HARRY POTTER book, author J.K. Rowling (and her publisher) have lost several dollars in profit. The similarity here is, a PDF file doesn't have the quality of a fine hardbound book. But the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY it contains is identical. Or to movies: you can go on the street right now and buy a horrible-looking copy of SPIDERMAN 2 on DVD, made in China. Despite the fact that it's a "digital copy," it looks like crap. And the filmmakers and the studio won't make a dime on it. The same is true of an MP3 file. If you own a bad-sounding MP3 copy of a new song that you could have paid for, the artist, the publisher, the songwriters, and the record label are still being stiffed on money they didn't get from you. Whether the quality of the recording is good or not is not the point. Thievery is still thievery, regardless of whether it's a bad-quality copy or a great one. If you ever create something unique yourself -- like a work of art, or good writing, or a piece of music -- and then have someone steal it, THEN you'll know how it feels. --MFW |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
... Whether the quality of the recording is good or not is not the point. Thievery is still thievery, regardless of whether it's a bad-quality copy or a great one. My favorite quote is "if you think it's 'worthless' why are you stealing it?". Obviously it has some value or you wouldn't have gone to the trouble to download it. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
... Whether the quality of the recording is good or not is not the point. Thievery is still thievery, regardless of whether it's a bad-quality copy or a great one. My favorite quote is "if you think it's 'worthless' why are you stealing it?". Obviously it has some value or you wouldn't have gone to the trouble to download it. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote:
...snip.. Suppose you broke into somebody's house and stole a painting. You got it home and found it had a dirty mark on it. So that's OK then - it doesn't matter if you stole it. Do you mind telling us where you live? I'm sure we could relieve you of all your slightly less-then-perfect goods. We know you won't mind. d Though in the MP3 case it's more like breaking in and taking a photo of said art work. You'd still have the high quality original. Further, that place with the art work is, for the most part, in full public view. In a way it parallels the paparazzi stealing photos of celebs, however they make money from their "theft." Later... Ron Capik cynic in training -- |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote:
...snip.. Suppose you broke into somebody's house and stole a painting. You got it home and found it had a dirty mark on it. So that's OK then - it doesn't matter if you stole it. Do you mind telling us where you live? I'm sure we could relieve you of all your slightly less-then-perfect goods. We know you won't mind. d Though in the MP3 case it's more like breaking in and taking a photo of said art work. You'd still have the high quality original. Further, that place with the art work is, for the most part, in full public view. In a way it parallels the paparazzi stealing photos of celebs, however they make money from their "theft." Later... Ron Capik cynic in training -- |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Olhsson wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... [about mp3 trasher intended to be used to poison filesharing networks with degraded audio] ... One does not gain customers by offending people, Experience in the retail industries suggests that this theory, one that was commonly believed 30 years ago, is dead wrong. Bob, we don't disagree on this. But it is a different context and concept. Prosecuting every single offender [ is efficient] Yees, no contest. no matter how young they are or how inexpensive the stolen property has significantly reduced shoplifting in the United States. It is well known within the retail industry that it is the only sustainable approach, I'm on the customers advisory board of the local Coop supermarket, the policy is the very same. The word gets around and the problem goes away because the benefits simply aren't worth the risk. Word of mouth remains the strongest agent for change that there is. Yes Bob, this is obviously correct. Please be so kind as to take a look at the binary usenet newsgroups. They are the real hot potato: instant world wide distribution. However: everything that is posted on the usenet can be traced to the ip-address it was posted on, it is not a difficult pursuit. Doing that in case things are not the posters to post would make the point you want to get across. Poisoning the filesharing networks with detectable degraded audio does not, it only offends people, it doesn't scare them and it doesn't make them understand WHY they should want to pay, it will only be just another nuisance. Thank you for your comments, always interesting and to the point. Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Olhsson wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... [about mp3 trasher intended to be used to poison filesharing networks with degraded audio] ... One does not gain customers by offending people, Experience in the retail industries suggests that this theory, one that was commonly believed 30 years ago, is dead wrong. Bob, we don't disagree on this. But it is a different context and concept. Prosecuting every single offender [ is efficient] Yees, no contest. no matter how young they are or how inexpensive the stolen property has significantly reduced shoplifting in the United States. It is well known within the retail industry that it is the only sustainable approach, I'm on the customers advisory board of the local Coop supermarket, the policy is the very same. The word gets around and the problem goes away because the benefits simply aren't worth the risk. Word of mouth remains the strongest agent for change that there is. Yes Bob, this is obviously correct. Please be so kind as to take a look at the binary usenet newsgroups. They are the real hot potato: instant world wide distribution. However: everything that is posted on the usenet can be traced to the ip-address it was posted on, it is not a difficult pursuit. Doing that in case things are not the posters to post would make the point you want to get across. Poisoning the filesharing networks with detectable degraded audio does not, it only offends people, it doesn't scare them and it doesn't make them understand WHY they should want to pay, it will only be just another nuisance. Thank you for your comments, always interesting and to the point. Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark wrote:
One the one hand, MP3s as a recording technology are generally badmouthed in this news group as so poor quality as to be un-usable for any serious recordings... In my dictionary recording and distribution are different words. Perhaps you should take more care when reading and attempt to also comprehend what you read. Mark Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark wrote:
One the one hand, MP3s as a recording technology are generally badmouthed in this news group as so poor quality as to be un-usable for any serious recordings... In my dictionary recording and distribution are different words. Perhaps you should take more care when reading and attempt to also comprehend what you read. Mark Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
andrewunix wrote:
: I find this somewhat ironic. There's no irony there. The intellectual property is the music itself, not its sound quality. It could be an "and" rather than a "not". Musicians are not the only ones that have copyrights that are infringed on, nor the only one having ideal rights. agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
andrewunix wrote:
: I find this somewhat ironic. There's no irony there. The intellectual property is the music itself, not its sound quality. It could be an "and" rather than a "not". Musicians are not the only ones that have copyrights that are infringed on, nor the only one having ideal rights. agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:49:50 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1088246713k@trad): There's another way of looking at it, though. If someone gives me a copy of Word, I load it up, don't like it, and deleted it from my system, I've avoided wasting the cost of a copy, and Microsoft has avoided having an unhappy customer who might post to all the newsgroups "Microsoft Word sucks!" --------------------------------snip---------------------------------- Legally, Mike, you're wrong. Morally speaking, though, I think you're absolutely in the right, and I do the same thing myself. I will occasionally borrow a copy of software from a friend, then try it out. If I hate it, I delete it from my system; if I like it, I go out and buy it. Pretty simple. There are some companies out there -- Macromedia is one of them -- that freely let you download full working versions of some fairly expensive software packages and try them out for 30 days. If you like them, you can pay X dollars for a serial number that unlocks it, or you can go out and get a packaged version in a store. I wish more companies would do this. --MFW |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Linear Mode
