The RIAA still sucks.

[Quiggs]

Originally Posted by Alastor

FLAC?

No. FLAC doesn't use the same kind of compression.

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by Quiggs

No. FLAC doesn't use the same kind of compression.

I know, that is why I was suggesting it. Not all online music has to be lossly.

[CdocZ]

I am not saying MP3's are better - crap quality is why I never used limewire once I actually started paying attention to what I listened to.

However, the article did say that dropping record sales was something that the record-companies were worried about. I can't imagine its a lack of interest in music, and the internet-sharing age provides a pretty strong answer.

[zeppelin]

Before online pirating, people were making mixtapes. Sure, the advent of the internet has made it easier for people to obtain copies of music without paying; what it really stems down to nowadays is the quality.

The quality of mainstream music is in a serious decline, and perhaps potential buyers are realizing more and more. There isn't enough incentive to drop nearly 20 bucks on a CD wrapped up in cheap plastic packaging. The CDs, and records, that I (personally) buy are the ones that offer a reason to have the physical copy, or are by artists whose work really deserves the money. The success of legal online distribution should clue them in that dropping record sales aren't a result of online pirating, but rather a shittier product. The music's quality, and what you really get when you drop 15+/- on a CD, are deciding factors of a purchase, online availability or not.

It's all getting stale, and it's time for change. Just look at Radiohead's approach, I'd call it revolutionary, and even though you could choose to pay nothing, they still made it a success in numerous ways. Frivilous lawsuits aren't the answer to a better music future, rather putting the money towards improving the entire music purchasing and collecting experience is. Now if only the suits at the RIAA would listen.

[drakkie]

I have not bought a new CD in almost two years now. I dusted of my dad's old record player on the attic and play almost solely vynil now. Much better value for money and the kind of releases on it are really works of art. My mate also makes welcome use of them in his DJ sets.

I have to admit, I download a CD sometimes too though, but not more than once a month or something.

[baddabang]

Originally Posted by drakkie

I have not bought a new CD in almost two years now. I dusted of my dad's old record player on the attic and play almost solely vynil now. Much better value for money and the kind of releases on it are really works of art. My mate also makes welcome use of them in his DJ sets.

I have to admit, I download a CD sometimes too though, but not more than once a month or something.

you crack me up.

[silverhawk]

im not surprised that theyve passed the law against copying music from CDs. What did surprised me is that they charged a person $9,250 per song. they should sue software makers which allow users to copy music from their CDs through their softwares. thats just my opinion.

[zeppelin]

Originally Posted by silverhawk

im not surprised that theyve passed the law against copying music from CDs. What did surprised me is that they charged a person $9,250 per song. they should sue software makers which allow users to copy music from their CDs through their softwares. thats just my opinion.

The RIAA should just get bent, really.

Sorry, I've got a lot of pent up rage against the subject.

[VtecMini]

When I had an Amiga 500, you were apparently allowed to make copies of any games you owned and use them instead of the originals to avoid damaging the originals, since the game was your property and a damaged original disk was fairly terminal.

I don't think it is, but is this still the case? If so, how is this different?

[2ndclasscitizen]

Originally Posted by silverhawk

im not surprised that theyve passed the law against copying music from CDs. What did surprised me is that they charged a person $9,250 per song. they should sue software makers which allow users to copy music from their CDs through their softwares. thats just my opinion.

Under Fair Use Copyright laws around the world, making a personal copy of any music, movie, game etc that you legally own is fine. However, when the US created the DMCA, the act of circumventing any copy protections on a piece of media, regardless of it's your legal copy, was made illegal. So under fair play, you're allowed to make a personal copy, but because you're new CD has some shitty copy protection on it, it's illegal for you to burn it, rip it to your HDD etc.