Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Is lossless audio worth it? (Read 11590 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #50
In terms of the articles general point... I agree with "if" I was into streaming, which I am not (it can be okay just to hear something briefly to see if you like it on say a random song on YouTube etc though). but I avoid steaming as a general rule as for anything I care about ill 'find' the FLAC somewhere and then keep it for long term storage and make my lossy files (MP3 @ V5 (130kbps average)) as I prefer to always have a high quality source file I can access offline anytime I want (and it's still nice to burn a limited amount of music to CD-R for playing back in a CD Player for that once in a while use).

but unless a person is really young (say 15-25 years old or so) and nitpicks over really small differences, a typical MP3 @ V5 (130kbps average) is a strong option because it does well in public listening test (i.e. any random person will be more than happy with it's sound quality), it's quite efficient (I realize storage space is cheap and all but it's on principle), and I am not getting any younger (closing in on my mid-40's).

but I think as people get a bit older, they tend to cut back on obsessing over little things that younger people tend to do and see the big picture better as some people are obsessed with always having the latest and greatest stuff (not just on music but applies to quite a few things in general), but after a certain point it's just excess luxury and barely any better etc. hell, you can even see some obsessing with collecting albums etc etc, but for a while now, even for artists I generally like a decent portion of their music, I tend to cut out the 'filler' tracks as while it can take some time to sort out, it's worth it since when you listen you are pretty much only listening to the songs that stand out from the pack or thereabouts, which is a more efficient use of ones time. the same with movies and so on as the movies that stand out from the pack I tend to keep so I can watch whenever I want with no internet required as I don't like steaming on this either.

anyways, the way I see it... unless someone can hear audio flaws fairly easily without needing to compare to the original, then overall it does not really matter. even if you are more into the music with no distractions, it still don't really matter as any flaws are small enough not to effect the overall sound quality to any worthwhile degree, especially on typical speakers/headphones variations most people tend to have.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)... MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in proper order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #51
Quote
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
~ MLK

I would disobey excessive copyright laws on principle alone. If everyone did likewise, corrupt laws like this that enrich the upper class at the expense of the rest of us would be quickly invalidated.

Personally, I see all this talk about copyright as FUD, spread by an 'industry' for it's unethical, greedy and irresponsible goal of cheating and stealing from artists and the public.

Just saying.

Let's re-frame the issue. Let's say I buy a CD, I make a copy of that CD, I sell that copy to somebody. Clearly, that's illegal, right? I'm taking somebody else's work, duplicating it, and selling it to somebody else. 2 copies of the work exist, the artist got paid for 1 of them.

OK, so now we reverse it. I buy a CD, I make a copy of that CD, I sell the original to somebody. We have the same net result - 2 copies of the work exist, but the artist only got paid for 1.

This is a straightforward question - if the net result is the same, that the artist was only paid for 1 copy when 2 exist now - then how is it not OK to sell a copy of a CD, but it is OK to sell the original but keep a copy for yourself?

Please don't goalpost move with "well everybody does it" or "everybody gets away with it" etc. Anything along those lines is not answering the question.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #52
2 copies of the work exist, the artist got paid for 1 of them.
No. Because of private copy levies, the artist got paid for both.

Quote
We have the same net result
Most laws don't give much weight to the result, but do to the way you got there.

Quote
then how is it not OK to sell a copy of a CD, but it is OK to sell the original but keep a copy for yourself?
Because one is legal, and the other one isn't.

Quote
Please don't goalpost move with "well everybody does it" or "everybody gets away with it" etc. Anything along those lines is not answering the question.
You're moving goalposts too. We started from 'is this legal' and now we're at 'is this fair'.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #53
First: what a certain law in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time actually says, might be due to both long-lasting lobbying and long-lasting tradition. To elaborate more on the latter:

Much older than the mass distribution of copies of performances (recordings stamped and sold) are works recorded in print (or before that handwriting), and some of the history reflects that. Song lyrics as poetry (the music part of it was separate) - and sheet music.
An interesting piece of history (UK, mainly): https://eprints_test.chi.ac.uk/id/eprint/2350/1/Little%2C%20J.%20D.%2C%20History%20of%20Copyright%20-%20%20%20A%20Chronology.pdf

Keeping file and track of published work has served the purpose of censorship way before copyright. And in that respect, it could be seen as fair that if the state would allow you could distribute a book to the public, then they should allow the public to get a hold on the content - which doesn't mean anyone would be free to exploit it for commercial purposes. To keep in that perspective, it is not so much a surprise that I might, if I have access to a lyrics sheet paid for and owned by the local choir, take a piece of coal and copy the most ridicuous stanza onto the inside door of the outhouse loo - even if that constitutes a copy of a protected work. Again, making a copy and disseminating it to the public would be a different story.

Ripping a CD and then selling the original is different in practice, but not so much in principle: I take a published work and extract the meaningful information in a copy I create for my own use. Whether that is so much different that the law should treat it different - that us up to lawmakers.

Several jurisdictions have what I see the UK introduced in 1988/1989: The right to "Paternity" (your rights as originator of the work). I don't know Dutch, but when @ktf quotes "auteursrecht" and as little I know about Dutch, it sounds like the word comes from the rights of the originator?
Protecting the creator is not in publishers' interest, and due to that sort of lobbying, the protection is ... let's say, "not the same everywhere". It took the US a hundred years to sign the Berne convention.

All this would have to be weighed against various uses we consider "fair": For example, several public figures have tried to apply copyright laws to prevent their shady past (and present) from being disseminated to larger audiences. (Paternity rights give them a better case, because selected quotes can argued to be a bad-faith distortion of the full work. Bullshit you say? There have been cases where press photos of politicians have been photoshopped for ridicule, and faced cease and desist letters from the photographer. And you do not want to fight the church of $cientology's full arsenal of lawyers.)


And lyrics ... ? Still has various levels of protection across the globe, but I don't see TOS#9 applied to threads about lyrics downloaders.


Now, ...

Let's re-frame the issue. Let's say I buy a CD, I make a copy of that CD, I sell that copy to somebody. Clearly, that's illegal, right? I'm taking somebody else's work, duplicating it, and selling it to somebody else. 2 copies of the work exist, the artist got paid for 1 of them.

OK, so now we reverse it. I buy a CD, I make a copy of that CD, I sell the original to somebody. We have the same net result
You are talking about counterfeiting, which is not the usual copying case.
(If you did not intend to talking about counterfeiting, then you are too far from the actual factual goalposts.)


2 copies of the work exist, but the artist only got paid for 1.
Like when you handwrite write lyrics on a toilet wall, yeah?
Or copy them into file tags.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #54
Let's re-frame the issue....
First off, no, let's not reframe this as changing the context evades the argument. Besides, even this new argument is flawed. The artist receives payment twice, once from the original sale, the second time from the fees on recordable media meant to address the issue you claim is the problem.

Second, We've posted the actual articles of law and what have you posted which would directly support your position?

Third, in the real world, no one deletes their digital copy when they sell the original. You are of course free to do as you please but there is a provision in law which precludes convicting people of what is a common practice just to make an example of them. Nor do the rules which you interpret one way have any bearing at all in other jurisdictions.

Four, like I said, the law is being bent and bent laws deserve to be disregarded. In truth, if anyone is ripping off artists, it's Big Media and corrupt copyright laws are often used by upper class transnational corporations in order to restrict and exploit we the people and our culture, not support it. Ethics trump legalities. Hopefully anyways.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #55
Fees on recordable media depend on jurisdiction - but not on the number of copies actually made.
What that should cover is also up to lawmakers, of course.
As is the entire division of rights between those who hold commercial (or moral/emotional, as creator goes) stake in the work, and the rest of us.

Should there be a levy on plastic used in 3D printing now that it can be used to create faithful copies? Should there be taxes on whatever enthusiasts use to build faithful replicas of old cars? (Or even: should copyright law enable car makers to strike down on manufacturers of spare parts that involve a certain level of design?) Again, decided by the lawmakers you voted for (or didn't vote for). 

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #56
Besides, even this new argument is flawed. The artist receives payment twice, once from the original sale, the second time from the fees on recordable media meant to address the issue you claim is the problem.
How are those fees paid to the correct artist? What happens if you use a medium that doesn't have a private copying tax?

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #57
IMO no need to overthink , when talking 44-48k 16bit audio its a no brainer to me. At home I take the highest quality streaming.
Forget the word lossless too, think more like 'higher bitrate or quality level'  thats how the human mind works.
So for cd-audio there can easily be another quality level aka 'lossless' or 800kbit or higher than 320k .
Storage and bandwidth is not a big issue for 44-16.  So lossless should really be normal @ no extra cost.
I am already listening to lossless radioparadise and sanctuaryradio streams free.

 'Hi-Res' can take huge amount of storage and some people may accomodate that. In this case I am all for charging audiophilles a premium for the luxury.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #58
How are those fees paid to the correct artist? What happens if you use a medium that doesn't have a private copying tax?
1) can't blame us end users and consumers for a corrupt, classist and controlled 'marketplace'
2) is there such a medium or do all our bases belong to them?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #59
1) can't blame us end users and consumers for a corrupt, classist and controlled 'marketplace'
No, but you also can't argue the artist is getting paid when they aren't.

2) is there such a medium or do all our bases belong to them?
In Canada (where you seem to be located), the fees only apply to CD media. Anything else - a DVD, an SD card, a USB drive - you don't pay any fees to make a copy of your music.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #60
No, but you also can't argue the artist is getting paid when they aren't.

Quote
Recorded music revenues reached an all-time first half high of $8.4 billion in 2023, growing 9.3% at estimated retail value.
~ https://www.riaa.com/reports/riaa-mid-year-2023-revenue-report/

In Canada (where you seem to be located), the fees only apply to CD media. Anything else - a DVD, an SD card, a USB drive - you don't pay any fees to make a copy of your music.

Quote
In January 2008, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Copyright Board's July 2007 decision, stating that its previous ruling in the 2005 Canadian Private Copying Collective v. Canadian Storage Media Alliance case is dispositive authority for the proposition that "the Copyright Board has no legal authority to certify a tariff on digital audio recorders or on the memory permanently embedded in digital audio recorders."

"Canada's current private copying levies are as follows: $0.29 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio disks. The Pirate Party of Canada, or the PPCA, has called for the scrapping the levy, as there are plenty of non-piracy related uses for CDs and it is unjust to punish Canadians who don't use them for these purposes.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada

Say what you will, I know a guilt trip when I see one. Furthermore, if you want to interpret this issue your way, you need to at least concede others have the same right. I consider defend the public's domain to be a responsibility we all share.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #61
https://www.riaa.com/reports/riaa-mid-year-2023-revenue-report/
Which doesn't change the fact that the artist doesn't get paid based on the number of times their music is copied.

Furthermore, if you want to interpret this issue your way, you need to at least concede others have the same right.
Huh? I don't understand. Others have the same right to what, exactly?

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #62
Let's re-frame the issue....
First off, no, let's not reframe this as changing the context evades the argument. Besides, even this new argument is flawed. The artist receives payment twice, once from the original sale, the second time from the fees on recordable media meant to address the issue you claim is the problem.

Second, We've posted the actual articles of law and what have you posted which would directly support your position?

I posted this which says, in no uncertain terms, that you're supposed to delete any copies of media before you resell it. You claimed it applied to using media in new works, which it 100% does not. It directly applies to this example of copying media and selling the original: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,124869.msg1037849.html#msg1037849

I'll repost it here:

Quote
Reproduction for private purposes

    29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if

        (a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;

        (b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;

        (c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

        (d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and

        (e) the reproduction is used only for the individual’s private purposes.

    Meaning of medium or device

    (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a medium or device includes digital memory in which a work or subject-matter may be stored for the purpose of allowing the telecommunication of the work or other subject-matter through the Internet or other digital network.

    Limitation — audio recording medium

    (3) In the case of a work or other subject-matter that is a musical work embodied in a sound recording, a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording or a sound recording in which a musical work or a performer’s performance of a musical work is embodied, subsection (1) does not apply if the reproduction is made onto an audio recording medium as defined in section 79.

    Limitation — destruction of reproductions

    (4) Subsection (1) does not apply if the individual gives away, rents or sells the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made without first destroying all reproductions of that copy that the individual has made under that subsection.


    2012, c. 20, s. 22

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-6.html

For the "I paid taxes on my CD-Rs" argument to hold up I think you'd have to keep your copies strictly on CD-R since those had the taxes paid. Having lossless copies ripped to your hard drive wouldn't count since no tax was levied there. Since this thread was about ripping to lossless, along with the sheer impracticality of having to juggle a bunch of CD-Rs around, I'm very certain these lossless rips aren't strictly on taxed CD-Rs. Plus none of that matters anyway because the law clearly says you're supposed to destroy those copies when you sell the original. There is no clause like "you can keep copies so long as they were on taxed media." Nope. Destroy all copies. Plain, simple, clear.

Everything else in your post was goalpost-moving and deferring (corrupt systems etc).

So I'll re-ask the question because it was not answered.

Quote
If the net result is the same, that the artist was only paid for 1 copy when 2 exist now - then how is it not OK to sell a copy of a CD, but it is OK to sell the original but keep a copy for yourself?

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #63
So long as you're not enabling simultaneous listening - you're making a copy of a CD to your hard drive or whatever, for your own private listening, all good. Perfectly moral. Most likely perfectly legal in pretty much any country in the world.

If you resell the CD you should delete the originals. I wouldn't photocopy an entire book and sell the original so I can continue reading it - I read it, I enjoyed it, once I no longer desire owning it I sell it.

If you resell a CD but keep a copy, you are ripping off the artist. You now have multiple copies that can be listened to simultaneously but the artist only got paid for the first copy. I don't see how on earth that can be justified as moral.

I think invoking MLK to support the argument that this is somehow the moral thing to do because the current laws are unjust is way over the line and honestly, has got me pretty upset. We're not talking about oppressing people for the color of their skin here, we're talking about not paying artists for their music.

I think it's best if I walk away from this thread because I'm pretty disgusted after that MLK bit.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #64
One question for those of you who live in places with public libraries:

Are there photocopiers there?

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #65
When it comes to streaming audio, I think it makes no sense to buy lossless because most people listen to Spotify, for example, on a mobile phone or tablet, not on a serious stereo. However, I'm all for buying lossless if we're talking about buying audio (digital copies) for home listening. I don't want to speak for everyone, but it's easy for me to tell the difference between lame 320 and lossless audio.
Beware of people - they can be a source of disappointment

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #66
For the "I paid taxes on my CD-Rs" argument to hold up I think you'd have to keep your copies strictly on CD-R since those had the taxes paid. Having lossless copies ripped to your hard drive wouldn't count since no tax was levied there. Since this thread was about ripping to lossless, along with the sheer impracticality of having to juggle a bunch of CD-Rs around, I'm very certain these lossless rips aren't strictly on taxed CD-Rs.
In some countries, like where I live, private coping levies are paid on harddisks etc. Not a lot really, but I paid a levy of € 7.30 on my smartphone, € 2,70 on my PC, € 1 on my external harddrive and € 1,10 on my e-reader.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.


Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #68
One question for those of you who live in places with public libraries:

Are there photocopiers there?
Yes, but there are restrictions on how they are used.  The copies are only meant to be small extracts (not whole works), and only for private study.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #69
Everything else in your post was goalpost-moving and deferring (corrupt systems etc).

So I'll re-ask the question because it was not answered.

If the net result is the same, that the artist was only paid for 1 copy when 2 exist now - then how is it not OK to sell a copy of a CD, but it is OK to sell the original but keep a copy for yourself?
Sorry, all I see is rhetoric. I stand by my arguments. I see this is never going to be resolved as far as you're concerned. So me, I've made my points, I'm done.

Oh, and as for the photocopies, those are also fair use.

We can all see the corrupt industries that resulted from the unethical and immoral extensions of what was a reasonable copyright law. I refused to be manipulated by corporate shills no matter how persistent they are.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #70
Sorry, all I see is rhetoric. I stand by my arguments. I see this is never going to be resolved as far as you're concerned. So me, I've made my points, I'm done.

Oh, and as for the photocopies, those are also fair use.

We can all see the corrupt industries that resulted from the unethical and immoral extensions of what was a reasonable copyright law. I refused to be manipulated by corporate shills no matter how persistent they are.

Okay, music pirate.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #71
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy gives details for quite a few countries.

It seems, that you don't need to fall back to fair use in the US because the Audio Home Recording Act allows "non-commercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings." That would also mean, that ripping a CD and selling the CD doesn't make the copy illegal or copyright infringement.