From my personal blog:
http://independentmusician.blogspot.com/

Saturday, March 25, 2006
Should .mp3's be for sale?
Folks, after recently trying out a "free trial period" at Emusic (based upon all I know, it is the only online "pay" music download service that I would even ever dare to think of considering) I have to again ask the question; "should an .mp3 file (or an .ogg, or other "lossy" audio download) be considered worthy of being commercial product?"

I mean, shouldn't we just consider .mp3's (and the like) to be nothing more than promotional ads? Are not these lossy, audio-compressed downloads (at the most) mearly and only worthy of being freebie "give-away" things intended to intice you into buying the record (or CD), or into going to see the artist play live, or buying the merchandise, etc.?

I think it was a bad idea for the "consumers" of music to fall into a mind-set that granted true commercial value to .mp3 downloads. Alas, this mistake has already occured and despite their lies as to the reason of their "sue 'em all" campaign, I suspect the RIAA labels are laughing at us right now ...all the way to the bank.

Napster 1.0 whetted the public's appetite for .mp3s and the RIAA moved in for the kill. Michael Robertson's MP3.com built itself up on the back of independent artists, then got greedy for a piece of the RIAA's music pie (...giving the RIAA an excuse and the tools to virtually destroy the "woulda/shoulda been" .mp3 marketing model.) What we ended up with is a few struggling indie music sites like Dmusic, IUMA, etc. (GOOD) ...and iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster 2.0, etc. (RIAA dominated "sucker-bait") (...very BAD.)

Things couldn't have turned out more in favor of the greedy content cartel if the whole sequence of events had been pre-planned.

I lament what has happened over the past few years, but I suppose all we can do is simply "deal with it" and try not to let things get any worse.

Whether a format is worthy or not by some subjective standard, if people want to buy it, then I don't see why it shouldn't be a commerical product. Obviously millions of people are happy with low-quality and low-resolution. They might be annoyed by DRM content restrictions, and I think we will hear more and more about that as time goes on. It really is an unacceptable imposition and restriction -- to the point that you cannot even sell a song you legitimately "bought" and "own."

It makes me wonder about the viability of high definition video. Will people really care about any version of HD-DVD when compared to ordinary DVD? The high resolution audio formats, DVD-A and SACD are languishing.

The problem with the "giveaway" formula, is that many people have so little discernment or concern about quality, that in many cases it will suffice for them as a substitute for purchase.

I think that's the truth, whether we like it or not. So, there's likely to be much resistance to the idea from those trying to control the music.

auto, I am sad to say that you are probably right that it is likely too late in the game for me to insinuate that .mp3's are "not of high-enough audio quality" anymore as a primary reason.

The sheep have been fed the BS already (and they ate it.)

DRM hopefully will proove to be a tougher pill to swallow.

========

I will disagree with you that the "giveaway" formula doesn't still apply.

What better way in the world could there be exist for an artist or band to find potential fans than to let themselves be heard without undue/unfair BS restrictions?

(Well, I suppose if you are the RIAA, you could use payola, monopoly, bribes and other lobby influence upon the government to change the laws in your favor...)

...or a gun to the head of the potential consumer. (It all might as well be the same thing.)

Hmm. Apple has made a fortune selling lossy files with drm... Sad as that is.

All mp3 files are not created equal.

You can fool at least 32% of the people all of the time.

gdZiemann,

"All mp3 files are not created equal."

We agree on that point.

What we need for the future of music, and the future for our earth is not only laws that allows consumers to use the music for the full extent of the technology, protection of the content providers, and new enviornment laws governing the use of materials to enjoy digital content.

For once, CD sales are going down, which is a good thing, but I keep on buying CDs today, because of the too restrictive rules when it comes to online stores. Also, I can do more with ripped WAV files converted to MP3 files for place on my iPod.

But we need enviornmental laws to protect the earth and our ecosystem as well as protecting the intellectual property while still allowing consumers to make unlimited copies of electronic content for personal use.

Laws, like my named: "Digital Media Enviornment Act, or DMEA" that eliminates record stores selling physical formats such as CDs and DVDs, as well as forcing electronic companies to sell electronic devices that uses less electricity and selling MP3 players with solar-power technology as well as a longer lasting batteries that allow for storage of solar power while the power is being turned off, will go a long way towards greening up and cooling down our earth, restoring our precious lifeforms, our coral reefs (Boy, not only it vital for our fish, it's vital for us as well), and restoring the nutrients we need, because of MP3s eliminating the need for air polluting trucks that carry the CDs to the stores.

Furthermore, I think that a great secure format allowing consumers to make copies and put them on any devices that consumers own as well as editing and legal sharing will enhance the market, enhance consumer usage of purchased content, and by releaing technology that allows consumers to create and share music throughout the internet.

So, when companies releases copy protected content, they need to be extremily careful about what market. Consumers want to manipulate the movies in any ways he/she likes to. We need to give content providers a lesson saying that every purchased CD or physical media made is very determinal to our earth and enviornment. They need to also be aware that electronics that uses high amounts of energy is also determinal to our ecosystem, our enviornment, and our health.

JDonahue, you are "a crazy nut" ...but I'm glad to see you back. (Where ya been?)

You still seem to be hung up on that alchemical dream of a "perfect DRM" (...which the law of nature and physics doesn't allow to exist.)

...but you DO display evidence that you are LEARNING from us (and, at the same time, TEACHING us about other certain aspects.)

SALUTE!

the basic question of should mp3s be for sale is a good one that can lead to many differant tangents...
How good is yer stereo?
How good is yer hearing?
Can you tell the differance between a Gibson guitar with a Marshell amp from a Fender Strat thur a Blackface? Do ya wanna?
At 1500watts I run Winamp thur a stage PA for a stereo. Altho not the highest of fidelity, I enjoy the color that stage equipment adds, plus my hearing is somewhat damaged from being on stage so much If one simply uses an EQ to shape their sound then they're changing what the artist heard. How much fidelity do you need and what are you willing to pay for it?
Higher bitrate mp3s are fine by me, altho I think they should be for sale for cheep, very cheep, no album cover art, no physical disc, no shipping charges, and the lower fidelity equals up to covering the artist's fair share and supporting the server space.
If I were a famous artist who sold quite a bit I would try to release stuff on Li-Fi mp3s, CDs, and Hi-Fi Vinyl. (All DRM free btw)
DRM is evil, I wont buy anything with DRM.

JDonahue, I am concerned not a whit about pollution from CDs. I suspect the pollution caused by the manufacture of those throwaway styrofoam hamburger containers and meal boxes that you get at fast food joints dwarfs the pollution inherent in the manufacture/disposal of the CD format by orders of magnitude. If the environment is your bugaboo, going after CDs is like bandaging a finger cut while leaving a bleeding artery untreated.

Shmoo, I agree with you on the giveaway concept. I only point out why the big record companies might have a legitimate reason to be fearful. (I think their fear is unfounded -- expanded audience would make up for lost sales -- as is shown in some p2p studies.) I'm not opposed to unrestricted mp3 trading with some small fee attached for the performers/songwriters, say ten cents a song. But the current legal thinking is so far from that progressive idea, that it is almost in the realm of science fiction.

I would like to see a letter writing campaign where we get music lovers everywhere to write to Congress, emphasizing that Congress and the Supreme Court have already affirmed that copying is a natural and acceptable thing -- evidenced by the AHRA and the Betamax case. The Congress and the courts have already made legal provision for noncommerical copying. In the wake of that, a system has evolved of a very small, very reasonable "user fee" on blank videotapes and audio tapes (and "audio CD-Rs"). This concept merely needs to be updated and expanded for the p2p era, providing some means of copying with a small fee. Mandatory licensing of personal copying.

If I ruled the world, it would seem fair to me if streaming music was available for free -- so people could sample tunes. MP3s would be available at very low cost for those who wanted a permanent lossy copy -- through p2p or by manditory licensing and allowing sites like eMusic to carry all tunes, not just a small percentage of artists. Downloads costing a dollar or more would have to be be full fidelity, 16-bit uncompressed (or at least lossless format).

What we need is a revelution, everybody, grab your torches! We're gonna burn down to RIAA HQ!

When I was a kid I had a mono record player with a lid and a handle on the side. In the 70's I had cassette deck and an 8 track. Do you think that mp3s sound worse than that? I don't. And if you are listening to Slipknot or (god forbid) Metallica do you really think a little lost fidelity makes a difference?

The question is: "Should mp3s be for sale?"

The answer is: People will buy anything. If it didn't violate some terms-of-service, I'm sure I could sell my own feces on eBay.

Indeed, a compressed format IS lossy and inferior (not just to the master tape, but even to a CD or a record of the performance). Granted, not all MP3s are created equal, as George said. Some are 320 bitrate, and that ain't too shabby, but most are of lesser quality.

Shmoo's contention has some validity.
And that's a big reason in and of itself for the satellite companies and other entities to challenge the RIAA's rather unreasonable (pricey) demands in regard to how much they want to charge for lossy files.

Regarding a crucial (and disgusting) aspect of the music industry:
The content cartel needs to be litigated for arrogantly trying to write the rules about music distribution across the board (and thus discriminating against independents whose success may depend partly upon file sharing and other methods that the RIAA wants to unduly control).

I think it's okay for mp3s to be sold. I personally do not sell mine, but instead post them for free or as donationware. I am finding, as time goes on, that I can see the end of the tunnel, in which I merely donate to artists I like for the music I download. But we're not there quite yet.

OldCodger,

"Indeed, a compressed format IS lossy and inferior (not just to the master tape, but even to a CD or a record of the performance). Granted, not all MP3s are created equal, as George said. Some are 320 bitrate, and that ain't too shabby, but most are of lesser quality."

Indeed, you don't know what your talking about.... Here, read and be educated:
You really should consider reading/studying more on the topic at hand before you hit post. 320k CBR mp3s are INDEED INFERIOR to VBR mp3s....

VBR stands for Variable bitrate. In this encoding mode, you choose the desired quality on a scale from 9 to 0. Then encoder tries to maintain the given quality in the whole file by choosing the optimal number of bits to spend for each part of your music based on the sample complexity. More bits to the most complex samples and less bit rate for the less complex. This allows the quality of the mp3 file to remain constant. There are no wasted bits here for example when there is complete silence the bit rate is at its lowest and when an orchestra and percussion come into full affect the bit will adjust upward. The reason why this mode was not used 5-6 years ago was because like JS some encoders had a hard time applying this mode properly. Fortunately though, just like JS all that has changed since then, LAME actually now recommends this mode overall for best quality / file size performance.

This encode mode is different from what most people are used to i.e. CBR (Constant Bitrate) the previous scene standard. The bitrate will be the same for the whole file in CBR mode. This means that each part of your mp3 file will be using the same number of bits no matter what. Whether the music sample is a difficult one to encode or an easy one, the encoder will use the same bitrate, so the quality of your mp3 is variable. Complex parts will be of a lower quality than the easiest ones. The easier parts (like pure silence) will get too much bitrate conversely which is simply wasted space.

LAME also supports the mode ABR (Average Bitrate) however there are are no plans to support ABR in the scene so it wont be discussed here.

VBR > ABR > CBR

This scale is in terms of the quality of each mode to comparison to the next.

http://hqscene.fatty.dk/

Browse the whole site, and read everything, then come back with a response. Oh, and one more thing, please stop talking shit!

My words (that you're attacking) were:
"Some are 320 bitrate, and that ain't too shabby, but most are of lesser quality."

Strictly speaking, how does your response, other than being an attempt to put me down, accomplish a negation of what I said?


"320k CBR mp3s are INDEED INFERIOR to VBR mp3s...."

Did I say they weren't? In my sentence that I posted, I wasn't attempting to compare MP3s formats (CBR vs. VBR) in any way. Most readers wouldn't know or appreciate what that involves, anyway.
I merely commented the fact that 320 bitrate wasn't too shabby, but that most (MP3s as most readers understand them to be) are of lesser quality (than, for example, 128 bitrate). In and of itself, how is that incorrect, sir?
BTW, this is not a geek forum. If you desire all of us to become so technical that we can't even post messages about commonly understood topics without being so sensitive that we've covered all the bases, you're on the wrong website.
Leflaw is correct for putting you in your place with his previous comments about you, and you know what those were.

I'm disposed to join a growing list of those who consider you to be an ass (rather than an asset) by your giving an impression that you’re just waiting to criticize somebody in an unnecessary harsh, elitist way so as to make yourself seem more important. In that respect, you are about as much a liability to the cause of this website as you are a potential asset, my friend.

Here's a question for you:
Do you think the readers of our forums should be chastised (for using everyday lingo about MP3s) if they haven't reached a certain level of, ah, acceptable proficiency in such things as variable encoding?

OldCodger,

this website is about educating users concerning the vile tactics of the riaa. What happens to the artists, and the end users. If someone is going to post about mp3s, what's the harm in making sure the information is accurate? For some silly reason, many persons seem to think 320k mp3's are as good as it gets, and that's not the case...

I'm just getting tired of people ragging on lossy mp3s, and trying to compare it to an 8track, or a vinyl record. I have news for those people, The recording equipment available to the beatles, etc, was all analog; Guess what? Analog is lossy.... Anybody who would try to claim an 8track/vinyl record, whatever has more sound data present then a scene ripped and encoded mp3, is smoking crack, and needs there hearing checked.

Mp3s and drm are technical in nature OldCodger, if it's your intention to dumb it down for the "non-geeks" then perhaps it's you who is at the wrong site. You can't defeat your enemy if you know nothing about it.

In this day and age, the more non-geek you are, the worse off your going to be. People and computers are becoming more intolerant of it. It's better to learn a bit, geeky to you or not... The computer scene isn't after all a fad.

DRM is a very important topic for discussion, But if you don't understand what's going on, or you can't explain it to somebody so that they understand, then your doing yourself no favors. Generalising about it is unacceptable, that's the shit the RIAA pulls. People here I'd like to think are better then that.

"I'm disposed to join a growing list of those who consider you to be an ass (rather than an asset) by your giving an impression that you’re just waiting to criticize somebody in an unnecessary harsh, elitist way so as to make yourself seem more important."

Hmm. Like I said before, I'm not concerned with your opinion of me, or anyone elses. I'm not here to seem important. I'm here giving my take on things, same as you, same as everyone else. What I'm not doing however, is talking out of turn about things I don't know anything about.

You can't critize drm or anything else if you don't know what your talking about. You might as well get over that silly notion of an elitist attitude, it's cheap and unfounded. I've been easy going in comparison.

Are you folk always going to be incapable of criticism (useful) without resorting to disruptive and destructive insults ???

Where's my asprin?

"Mp3s and drm are technical in nature, OldCodger; if it's your intention to dumb it down for the "non-geeks", then perhaps it's you who is at the wrong site."

I realize they're technical, and yes, I'll admit to being "guilty" of avoiding much of the jargon/details for the sake of the non-geeks here.
One, or both of us, just may INDEED be on the wrong site, I'll grant you.

"What I'm not doing however, is talking out of turn about things I don't know anything about."
"For some silly reason, many persons seem to think 320k mp3's are as good as it gets, and that's not the case..."

The standard knowledge level of people here and elsewhere doesn’t include variable-encoded VBR mp3’s, etc. What are we going to do, COERCE them to attend classes or take tutoring?

I KNOW that 320 CBR mp3’s aren’t at the top of the list for quality of sound reproduction! Hey, all I originally meant was that compared to the master recording or a CD or a virgin vinyl presssing, a standard (okay, CBR) 320 mp3 is pretty good but still inferior. Okay, I didn’t mention to the masses about variable digital encoding (i.e.,VBR) which most certainly IS superior to analog vinyl & casette tape. (So, execute me for an unpardonable sin!)
How many people here are in tune with this kind of stuff? I just don’t feel like routinely bringing up concepts I might have to spend too much time explaining myself about.
I’m not going to be a resident instructor on these forums. That’s not why I’m here.

BTW, I ALSO know you are involved in offering one of the highest quality uploading/downloading "systems" of music files available on the 'net, and I understand and appreciate that type of precision of reproduction. I am an audiophile myself.

What I DON'T know is how come I keep feeling that there’s a kind of shadow hanging over me at these forums, as if I'm somehow expected to prove myself.
Well, you know what, I'm just not going to even spend time demonstrating any level of knowledge or ability. You can believe what you want.

"You can't criticize drm or anything else if you don't know what you’re talking about."

I’ve been criticizing drm and other nefarious, disruptive, or inferior software schemes promulgated by the ilk of the RIAA and MPAA (and even MicroSoft) for quite some time on the basis of practicality and ethics without feeling the need to address technical issues.
Look, you're savvy. And I know a few things too. You and I and TrueAudio and goldenpi and some others know how to use a registry editor and vbs scripts, for example, and can take care of ourselves just fine in preventing/purging malware like rootkits (oops, sorry, I forgot, I'd better be saying "memory-resident executables" or other appropriate phrases). Again, that's not the point. The point is this:
How many computer users on these forums do? (Not a majority.) So, how should we interact effectively? Teach them, or talk down to them, or taunt them, or get on the same page as their level to begin with AND THEN work from there? I chose the latter path, but I sure have been getting crap for it.
Well, I’m TIRED of being lambasted.

Hell, I know the best stategy of all for me: I’m going to quit posting ANYthing.
I don’t need this.
I can drop by occasionally and be a reading “lurker”. That would be a lot more peaceful, anyhow.

So, take over.
Have at it; it’s all yours.
(I’m serious.)

P.S. Hey, Shmoo, I could use some of that aspirin myself, buddy. Whew!

So long.
It’s been . . . interesting.

[Exhaunt.]

I became a PC geek after years of being an audiophile. Let me assure you Analog recording outpreforms digital recording. Digital recording is limited in its fidelity merely by being a sample to begin with. Our ears and brains work in an analog format. Analog does not sample 44,100 times a second, it is a consent wave of energy. The Beatles' Abby Road studios and Jimi Hendrix's Electric Ladyland studio (other then measurable wow and flutter) outpreform any analog to digital converter on any soundcard.
The trick of the thing is, the average digital PLAYER is much better then the average analog PLAYER and of course digital copies may be more clones then copies. I had a pair of Technec's turntables featuring linier tracking tonearms and quartz locked motors, my Tascam RSM270x cassette deck (ci 1983)was capable of a broader fequency reasponce then any soundcard Ive yet to read the specs on. It outperformed the equipment used to TEST audio equipment (that's why I bought it) Dang thing cost me more then my PC and CakeWalk put together
I like digital recording, it's cheep, easy, and the music fan prob'ly has a soundcard as good as mine. Home PCs have brought home recording to anyone with enough cash to buy it and it's a lot cheeper then the high-end analog equipment was. Keeping everything in the digital realm as much as possible keeps it closer to the fidelity that is only possible with analog equipment.
I've conducted bands (high school) and I've listened to the analog recordings on high end analog equipment, with my eyes closed I could not tell the differance between recorded and live. This is simply NOT possible digitally.

Insults are not given here and replies with insults are meaningless. No one is going to get nor understand someone else's point of view when one is busy trying to read thur insults.