[BigKeithO]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Sorry, I didn't delete anything to make my point, I simply got as far as you saying it couldn't be done and had to challenge that. The only modification I did was convert my purchased song from AAC to MP3 which is all done within iTunes. There is no downgrade, I convert it because my truck plays mp3's not AAC. My iTunes music purchases are completely DRM free and have been for over a year. Look into it.

Both MP3 and AAC formats are what are called "lossy" formats. With high compression rates you DO lose a little quality when converting them. I'm not sure what bit-rate you download your songs from iTunes in but chances are it is 192 kbps or 256 kbps. Studies have shown that converting from AAC to MP3 at these bit-rates would lead to a barely noticeable change in sound quality (unless you are an audiophile listening on high end gear). Drop the bit-rate lower than that and you could probably tell the difference.

Source: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~holtk/mp3tfd/

So you are both right! iTunes is now DRM free (at least for audio) BUT you do lose a little quality when converting an AAC to MP3 or to a CD.

[RUEZ]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

So you are both right! iTunes is now DRM free (at least for audio) BUT you do lose a little quality when converting an AAC to MP3 or to a CD.

Ok, well just to be an ass and keep this going I could get a deck for my truck that plays AAC, and there would be no conversion.

[BigKeithO]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Ok, well just to be an ass and keep this going I could get a deck for my truck that plays AAC, and there would be no conversion.

Touche!

Everyone should just go with the Amazon store and call it day. Straight up MP3 files, no DRM and you aren't supporting the walled garden that is Apple.

[DrCaleb]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

Haha, I'm on your team DrCaleb! No need to get pissy with me about it, I'm just saying discussing how the industry can make money in the face of piracy isn't really what the article was saying. I guess I could be wrong about that...

Sorry if you took that as getting pissy at you. I didn't mean it that way. I get pissy at them for being lazy and liars. I know you are new, but I'm not the 'get pissy over the internet' type.

RUEZ RUEZ:

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

So you are both right! iTunes is now DRM free (at least for audio) BUT you do lose a little quality when converting an AAC to MP3 or to a CD.

Ok, well just to be an ass and keep this going I could get a deck for my truck that plays AAC, and there would be no conversion.

You have still converted it from the raw CD format. Worst case, raw -> AAC -> MP3 or M4A back to raw CD. There is always loss when converting.

To be an ass too, I could buy the song from iTunes, then download an original 320kb/s rip from CD to regain the quality lost from the original format losses. Would that not be legal?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Why are we even debating the legality here? The Canadian courts have said d/ling music for free is NOT theft. And the last time I checked, the IFPI is NOT the ruling body of law in this country.

[Lemmy]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

I never said that the cost is $0.00, I think I've been misunderstood. A digital file, once it has become digital, becomes a near infinite good. All that I am saying is at this point the price should be driven towards $0.00. The labels don't want to admit this but once online the costs associated with further duplicating this good go away. You recoup the original investment in the song through other means (concert, merchandise, artists time, etc.) and give the song away as promotion. Don't say it doesn't work, look at the radio for an example of it in action. The radio station "gives away" the song to you and I for free every day, in return they are selling our ears and attention to advertisers.

You're trying to make a link between cost and price and economics simply doesn't work that way. Water is a near infinite good too, yet it is sold in vast quantities each day. Comparing downloaded tunes to those on radio is apples and oranges. There are lots of quality issues with anything recorded over the airwaves (and as Dr Caleb has pointed out, those same quality issues exist between on-line tunes and those on a manufactured disc).

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

That said this entire conversation has been steered in the wrong direction, we are talking business models for the industry and that wasn't what the article was about. Also Lemmy/Proculation - it is disingenuous to call downloading a song "theft" or "stealing". No matter how you view the act morally the law views it as copyright infringement, NOT theft. Theft is a criminal matter, copyright infringement is a civil matter and there is a big difference. Talking about stealing a TV in Port au Prince and downloading a song is not fair. When I steal that TV there is only 1 TV, I have taken it and deprived someone of its use. When I download a song you are sharing we both have a copy, nothing has been taken. That is the difference.

Now you're playing a semantics game. As I said earlier, I don't care if you download. I have no moral sympathy for record companies. Fans and artists have, with downloading, found a way to cut out the middleman that had been screwing both the artists and the consumers for decades. Hail progress. But your attempt to justify your THEFT of on-line music through shoddy economics is a failure.

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Why are we even debating the legality here? The Canadian courts have said d/ling music for free is NOT theft. And the last time I checked, the IFPI is NOT the ruling body of law in this country.

Where/when did they do that? That ruling seems to have broad consequences.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

In 2004, the Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) was dealt a blow in its bid to take action against 29 internet users with extensive file sharing activities. The CRIA filed suit to have the ISPs reveal the identities of the 29 file sharers. In the ruling, both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal judged that the CRIA's case was not strong enough to support interfering with the defendants right to privacy and questioned whether the CRIA had a copyright case at all based on its evidence. Because the ISPs were not required to reveal the identities of their clients, the CRIA could not go on to sue the file sharers in a manner mimicking the RIAA's legal proceedings in the U.S.A. The court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada. This decision dealt a major blow to attempts by the CRIA to crack down on file sharers.

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

In 2004, the Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) was dealt a blow in its bid to take action against 29 internet users with extensive file sharing activities. The CRIA filed suit to have the ISPs reveal the identities of the 29 file sharers. In the ruling, both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal judged that the CRIA's case was not strong enough to support interfering with the defendants right to privacy and questioned whether the CRIA had a copyright case at all based on its evidence. Because the ISPs were not required to reveal the identities of their clients, the CRIA could not go on to sue the file sharers in a manner mimicking the RIAA's legal proceedings in the U.S.A. The court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada. This decision dealt a major blow to attempts by the CRIA to crack down on file sharers.

Wow. I'm surprised that because of this ruling we haven't had groups like Napster and the Pirate Bay relocate here being protected by the law unless the court isn't protecting the owners of file sharing web sites.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

In 2004, the Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) was dealt a blow in its bid to take action against 29 internet users with extensive file sharing activities. The CRIA filed suit to have the ISPs reveal the identities of the 29 file sharers. In the ruling, both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal judged that the CRIA's case was not strong enough to support interfering with the defendants right to privacy and questioned whether the CRIA had a copyright case at all based on its evidence. Because the ISPs were not required to reveal the identities of their clients, the CRIA could not go on to sue the file sharers in a manner mimicking the RIAA's legal proceedings in the U.S.A. The court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada. This decision dealt a major blow to attempts by the CRIA to crack down on file sharers.

Wow. I'm surprised that because of this ruling we haven't had groups like Napster and the Pirate Bay relocate here being protected by the law unless the court isn't protecting the owners of file sharing web sites.

I think the ruling went in favour of the little guy that puts his music in a shared folder for P2P as opposed to actual sites that host the music content themselves and make it available to everybody.

[Public_Domain]

[BigKeithO]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

In 2004, the Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) was dealt a blow in its bid to take action against 29 internet users with extensive file sharing activities. The CRIA filed suit to have the ISPs reveal the identities of the 29 file sharers. In the ruling, both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal judged that the CRIA's case was not strong enough to support interfering with the defendants right to privacy and questioned whether the CRIA had a copyright case at all based on its evidence. Because the ISPs were not required to reveal the identities of their clients, the CRIA could not go on to sue the file sharers in a manner mimicking the RIAA's legal proceedings in the U.S.A. The court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada. This decision dealt a major blow to attempts by the CRIA to crack down on file sharers.

I knew about the first part for many years now, but I never knew that sharing was legal.

That's good to hear.

That is debatable. The ruling hasn't been tested in court since, many people believe that the private copy levy legalizes downloading of audio recordings but uploading is still illegal. That said it is only the levy making this so, the levy doesn't apply to hard drives or iPods or anything other than blank CDs. So technically you must download the song directly to a blank CD to be legal. Again, it hasn't been tested in court since 2003. The CIRA is scared to lose the case and officially make P2P legal in Canada so they haven't tried.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I knew about the first part for many years now, but I never knew that sharing was legal.

That's good to hear.

Sharing has been legal for a VERY long time now. Back in the day before the internet, people would copy cassettes. When blank cassetes were purchased(it's the same for blank cds today) the record companies recieve a fee for potential losses from copying. Their problem is, while being stuck to that agreement, which they were QUITE willing to accept, with the advent of downloading music, they get no fee.
They're just pissed cuz when they bound themsleves to that agreement, nobody foresaw what the internet would/could do. By agreeing to those terms, they tacitly approved of people copying music.
Too bad for them. Keep up to technology and trends or whither on the vine and die. Don't punish some kid with overamped criminal charges just cuz you can't keep pace with your own agreement.

[BigKeithO]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're trying to make a link between cost and price and economics simply doesn't work that way. Water is a near infinite good too, yet it is sold in vast quantities each day. Comparing downloaded tunes to those on radio is apples and oranges. There are lots of quality issues with anything recorded over the airwaves (and as Dr Caleb has pointed out, those same quality issues exist between on-line tunes and those on a manufactured disc).

People are paying for the scarce perceived value of "safe, quality water" when they buy water each day. I think you are proving my point. Who cares about the quality of the recording? I am not talking about recording the song off the radio, I am talking about the radio station giving away a song for FREE to you and I while still making money. Or is that impossible Mr. Professor?

Lemmy Lemmy:

Now you're playing a semantics game. As I said earlier, I don't care if you download. I have no moral sympathy for record companies. Fans and artists have, with downloading, found a way to cut out the middleman that had been screwing both the artists and the consumers for decades. Hail progress. But your attempt to justify your THEFT of on-line music through shoddy economics is a failure.

I don't download FYI, I just like to debate P2P. Where does morality fit into your economics classes? We agree with the middle man part, the internet is the great enabler and the labels are trying to hold it back. And like I said, it isn't semantics, it is a FACT. Look up theft, look up copyright infringement. They are two totally different things, this isn't my opinion here this is how the courts define it. Educate yourself on the subject.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

That is debatable. The ruling hasn't been tested in court since, many people believe that the private copy levy legalizes downloading of audio recordings but uploading is still illegal. That said it is only the levy making this so, the levy doesn't apply to hard drives or iPods or anything other than blank CDs. So technically you must download the song directly to a blank CD to be legal. Again, it hasn't been tested in court since 2003. The CIRA is scared to lose the case and officially make P2P legal in Canada so they haven't tried.

And thusly, based on the ruling that was made, d/ling tunes is still legal in Canada until decided otherwise.
If the CRIA is afraid to challenge the ruling from 2004, then it would seem they just don't have a leg to stand on.
What you're saying doesn't make any sense. The legality of d/ling music to a non-cd format is "up in the air" because the group that would be the one to challenge the ruling, is afraid to lose the case and officailly make P2P legal?
The courts said it was ok to do so and until the CRIA grows a pair to challenge that ruling, I'm going with the court's decision that it's legal to download music for free onto my computer, as opposed to the group that says it IS illegal but doesn't have the balls to challenge it for fear of losing.