#1
Yeah, I know, but there is something I've not been able to readily find the answer on.

We all know that Napster was the gateway to get us talking about copyright on the internet. We all know that Limewire and torrents, etc. are illegal. No prob.

But about stuff like YouTube (google video).... I'm really curious to see where this is going to go. Stuff gets yanked because it violates copyright. But... you look at 99% of it, and it is breaking copyright laws left, right, and center, so far as I can figure. Nobody complains about it, though. There is no big industry hooplah over it. I'm curious as to how this goes.

Part of me (and as much as I support copyright laws) loves Google Video, etc. Until recently, you couldn't usually download material. You could only stream it. In other words, you could access it, but you couldn't have it. In my opinion, that is a huge difference. We allow streaming of our band's songs off our site, but not downloading. Of course, you can *buy* the CD through our site.

But now that RealPlayer11 has opened the door (yeah, I know, as of about six months ago.... ) to being able to download streaming content, you can now *have* this content. It is now being freely distributed without consent of the copyright holders, and no royalties or licensing is being paid.

Anyone know how this goes?

CT

(and please, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in uninformed rhetoric about copyright like "torrenting is legal because of such-and-such a phrase under 'fair use' blah, blah, blah....." I'm really quite knowledgeable about this stuff otherwise, so don't waste my time with stupid stuff....)
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#2
Real player has cheated the system.
Quote by texasthrasher
Cover your ears(or they WILL be raped) that is ****ing great


I survived weeding out 09'
#3
you know...the laws have changed since all of this..

really, the law was in place so that people couldnt copy a song, then sell the rights to it to someone else for money. plagiarism, more or less. and sometimes, it came into effect when bands steal riffs, lyrics, etc.

copying music is nothing new...remember mix tapes? burning cds? weve been copying music since music has been recorded..except for maybe with records..idk bout those.

and now, we can copy it way more efficiently. why is it illegal? the bands arent making money like they should.

boohoo...the people who made it big arent as filthy rich as they want to be...

its pathetic.

on this track, we wont be able to let our friends watch the dvds we bought. and sharing cds will be illegal. listening to a song on someone else's mp3 player will be a crime, because you didnt pay for it!

music is meant to be shared.
#4
Why don't you think of it as just saving some bandwidth? If people are frequent listeners it's cheaper to give it to them free once than to give it to them free twice.

Also, streaming music has always been downloadable.
#5
Quote by IwantaTele
Real player has cheated the system.


Ah, yes.... with new technologies, other things need to change too. The rules have changed now - or at least, the rules will need to change now.

Will that mean the end of YouTube? I hope not, but I don't see any other option.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#7
Quote by nathanhimmerich
blah, blah, blah....


Sorry to be so cold to your response, but I was pretty clear about not wanting a discussion about copyright rhetoric.

I'm just interested in how sites like YouTube are allowed to survive with respect to copyright laws.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#8
Quote by Freepower
I don't see why.

Can you explain why youtube will die because of this?


As I say... before, it was just streaming. I think people, though recognizing it as technically illegal, were a little more forgiving based on the idea that you still had to BUY the product if you wanted to HAVE it.

Now that downloading is possible (well... you're right about it always being possible, but let's say, now it is within easy means of the average computer user) from these sites, YouTube is no different from Napster now that they are hosting copyrighted material on their servers and distributing it freely to others on a huge scale.

Edit: I know it's not exactly the same thing... in fact, Napster was even less guilty, because the material didn't really reside on their servers. It merely passed through their 'hands' as opposed to sitting there semi-permanently for wide release.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 1, 2009,
#10
youtube play dumb to the copyright law. Their policy seems to be 'if you have a problem with the content then tell us and we'll remove it'
but when people are uploading 13hours of footage a minute it is impossible to police so google have their cake and eat it too.

I don't see any signs that this will stop. Networks and studios with have to just get on board and make offical pages and get some advertisement money/
#11
I agree that they hide behind the 'tell us and we'll remove it' thing. In the real world, it is a great big, "As if..." It's like Limewire telling you that their software shouldn't be used to distribute copyrighted material, and you have to click on a checkbox that says you agree to it.

And yes, it is impossible for their admins to police all uploaded content.

The difference between these sites and fileshare networks and torrents is that they actually host the content on servers that they own, and therefore, can be held responsible for distributing it - just like Napster was.

Which brings us back to the first two ideas in this post. If they can't manage what content gets put onto their servers, do they have any choice but to either shut down or change how they operate, because they ARE responsible. Isn't it kinda like saying, "I have too many acres of property to manage on my own, so if some of it is discovered to be dangerous, then please don't hold me liable?" You'd be laughed out of court for that one!

And I agree that the entertainment industry (not just music) needs to adapt to the new media. It is what it is. I mean, even if YouTube got shut down, there are loads of other sites that are doing the same thing. (google video, metacafe, et al)

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 1, 2009,
#12
I see your point. google is so powerful if viacom or paramount piss them off they might just wipe them off google altogether!
#13


Good one!

But seriously...

I just sent off a similar email to SOCAN - Canada's performing rights organization (just thought of that). It will be interesting to see what they say in addition to whatever anyone else here might be able to offer.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#14
Why would you want to download music off youtube? The quality is awful - it makes even the most beautiful songs sound like a utter ****...
#15
^ + 1

if anything it might make you aware of something that you could go out and buy. (which I've done a number of times)
shred is gaudy music
#16
Yeah, I mainly use youtube to see who the artist is, what sort of stuff they do, and if I actually like it. 30 second samples off last fm just don't really cut it for me...
#17
Everything that is ripped before (audio and video wise) is ripped exactly as Realplayer does now.

Only back then you needed a program that isn't as well known as realplayer.

Even (some) soundcards can record audio by recording directly what goes through it, and Hypercam and similar programs are used for ripping video's for ages.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Jan 1, 2009,
#18
I believe some record companies, a collective, or some such entity is in agreement with you tube for a share of advertising revenue in exchange for letting their music be aired publicly.

I say this because I recently read an article somewhere that they were renegotiating with You Tube to get a bigger slice of the pie and how if they couldn't reach agreement You Tube would have to remove much of it's current music content or face legal action.

Unfortunately, I can't remember much of the details in the article or where I read it, but that part above stuck with me because I often wondered the same thing about You Tube and copyright infringement.


EDIT: Found these articles - should answer your question

You Tube Warner Dispute

SonyBGM YouTube agreement press release
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Jan 1, 2009,
#19
20Tigers - You win!! I knew someone would have found an answer out there at some point.

Very interesting, indeed!

Thanks!

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#20
I know that Chris didn't want a philosophical discussion about copyright law, but there is something very interesting about these developments. Deals like this are a sign that we are coming out of the other side of the huge transition in how the how the recording industry works due to the internet.
1) Pre-internet. Everyone goes to store and buys cd's/cassettes/vinyl/8-tracks. Pirating is mostly limited to individuals copying for their friends, or recording off the radio. Recording industry is more or less happy.
2) Napster, etc. Suddenly everything is available for download online. Recording industry freaks out and tries to force things back to 1) with random lawsuits against 12 yr old girls (remember that one?). Of course this will never work. The genie is out of the bag, and for everything the recording industry does to stop it, new and more slippery ways of sharing music are developed.
3) Recording industry starts finding ways to make money from the new way that things are done, with deals like the one with You tube. Sure there will still be lots of teething problems, but this is a sure sign that the transition is really happening. I think You tube is hear to stay, as long as the company is doing well.

The adaptation had to happen The only thing that makes me sad about this whole thing is the mp3 format. To me, I had hoped this was a temporary format that allowed downloading of music when everyone was still on dialup. But it seems to be hear to stay at least for the short term. Sure, mp3's today are a lot higher quality than the first ones in the late 90s, but it is a crying shame for a band or artist to slave away with their ideas, and in the studio, only for everyone to hear their work in this crappy, compressed format. That to me is the big loss in the art, compared to high quality CDs and vinyl.

Sorry, Chris!
#21
@se01201 - no apologies. Good post. Your point wasn't a moronic 'piracy is good' or 'piracy is bad' argument that has been hashed over a kajillion times in the pit. THAT is what I wanted to avoid, along with a variety of ill-informed rhetoric from those who just spout off what they think rather than what they know, which happens from time to time in this forum.

Everything you said was relevant to the nature of the question, I thought.

I agree with everything you posted, and I'm still not totally sure which side of the piracy fence you stand on. That's a good sign of the fact that you're avoiding rhetoric and sticking to the nature of the question.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#22
Quote by se012101
I know that Chris didn't want a philosophical discussion about copyright law, but there is something very interesting about these developments. Deals like this are a sign that we are coming out of the other side of the huge transition in how the how the recording industry works due to the internet.
1) Pre-internet. Everyone goes to store and buys cd's/cassettes/vinyl/8-tracks. Pirating is mostly limited to individuals copying for their friends, or recording off the radio. Recording industry is more or less happy.
2) Napster, etc. Suddenly everything is available for download online. Recording industry freaks out and tries to force things back to 1) with random lawsuits against 12 yr old girls (remember that one?). Of course this will never work. The genie is out of the bag, and for everything the recording industry does to stop it, new and more slippery ways of sharing music are developed.
3) Recording industry starts finding ways to make money from the new way that things are done, with deals like the one with You tube. Sure there will still be lots of teething problems, but this is a sure sign that the transition is really happening. I think You tube is hear to stay, as long as the company is doing well.

The adaptation had to happen The only thing that makes me sad about this whole thing is the mp3 format. To me, I had hoped this was a temporary format that allowed downloading of music when everyone was still on dialup. But it seems to be hear to stay at least for the short term. Sure, mp3's today are a lot higher quality than the first ones in the late 90s, but it is a crying shame for a band or artist to slave away with their ideas, and in the studio, only for everyone to hear their work in this crappy, compressed format. That to me is the big loss in the art, compared to high quality CDs and vinyl.

Sorry, Chris!


Not sure you understand just how it compresses the information.
There is no quality loss, at least to the human ear.
#23
^ I don't understand the algorithm for sure. It does sound a lot worse to me, compared to a CD, though like I said less so than during the early days for sure.
#25
Quote by 20Tigers
I believe some record companies, a collective, or some such entity is in agreement with you tube for a share of advertising revenue in exchange for letting their music be aired publicly.

I say this because I recently read an article somewhere that they were renegotiating with You Tube to get a bigger slice of the pie and how if they couldn't reach agreement You Tube would have to remove much of it's current music content or face legal action.

Unfortunately, I can't remember much of the details in the article or where I read it, but that part above stuck with me because I often wondered the same thing about You Tube and copyright infringement.


EDIT: Found these articles - should answer your question

You Tube Warner Dispute

SonyBGM YouTube agreement press release

It's certainly possible, if not probable. I know for my site I pay licensing fees to both ASCAP and BMI so that I can legally teach copyrighted riffs and solos. They may do the same or have some kind of arrangement as you suggest.
shred is gaudy music
#26
there is no difference at all between CD and mp3 at 320 bit rate. CD compared to vinyl is a different story.
#27
Source?

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#28
I can definitely hear the quality loss of mp3.

I can try to describe it, it sounds like they used a (audio) compressors (no lol intended), I will explain;

It sounds like it has less "audio spikes" aka the difference between the loudest sounds and the lowest sounds are less, making it sounds "less lively" or more "Sterile".

I think this is why the overall quality of (popular) music is going down.

These days, a lot of music gets produced based on mp3 format, which means that even if u have a good audio system, there is simply no "audio" data to be played because it has never been mixed outside of the mp3 format.

This would also explain why music produced in the "mp3 era", has no apparent quality loss, simply because it's mixed in the "mp3 spectrum".

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#29
there is no difference at all between CD and mp3 at 320 bit rate.



Yesh, but you didn't say a 320 bitrate, did you? And while I couldn't tell the difference I have a feeling I know a chap or two that would.
#30
Quote by Freepower
Yesh, but you didn't say a 320 bitrate, did you? And while I couldn't tell the difference I have a feeling I know a chap or two that would.

source is out there, i can't be arsed to look but this was covered in my Computer Science degree course.

How it compresses is a normal wav or cd format has 44100 samples a second, these samples are recorded as a value between 0 and 32 bits of binary.what mp3 does is firstly removes frequency not audible by the human hear, that dog whistle style effect.

then it compresses the data further by asking the sample a question.
In this example lets pretend the sample is 22 ( the point labelled 22 on the wave graph) as the answer true or false is relevant to the algorithm.

Is the sample 32 or over? no = 0
is the sample 16 or over? yes = 1
is the sample 24 or over? no = 0
is the sample 20 or over? yes = 1
is the sample 22? - yes 1

All this is doing is asking what bits are relevant in the binary
32 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |

16 + 4 + 2 = 22

this has compressed what was 32 bits '00000000000000000000000000000000'
down to this '01011' which just happens to be the binary number of 22

So compressing the data from 32 bits to 5. nothing to do with audio at all except for the removal of audio not heard by human ears.
it is more of a practice of clever algorithms.

Hope that wasn't too long winded.
I am actually doing a data compressing project myself using Java. I hope to make an algorithm that is capable of compressing up to a third of any file by replacing strings on 0's in the files binary and replacing them with a marker that will take up less bits.
#31
Well then.... consider me learned. Nicely done.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#32
Quote by GaijinFoot
this has compressed what was 32 bits '00000000000000000000000000000000'
down to this '01011' which just happens to be the binary number of 22



That's super interesting. Thanks for that! So all it's doing is chopping it from a fixed 32 bits for each number, to the exact number of bits needed to store each number? One bit I don't understand - how does the player know the number of bits that represent the next number? For example, lets say the first number is 22 like your example, so 5 bits, but the next number is 3 - 2 bits. How does the player know to interpret the next 5 and 2 bits as 2 numbers, rather than one 7 bit number? 4 bits (1-32) before each number saying this is how long the next number is?

More general question - go into more detail. For example, what happens in the more lossy bit rates like 192? What does it throw away to achieve the greater compression?
#33
Quote by se012101
That's super interesting. Thanks for that! So all it's doing is chopping it from a fixed 32 bits for each number, to the exact number of bits needed to store each number? One bit I don't understand - how does the player know the number of bits that represent the next number? For example, lets say the first number is 22 like your example, so 5 bits, but the next number is 3 - 2 bits. How does the player know to interpret the next 5 and 2 bits as 2 numbers, rather than one 7 bit number? 4 bits (1-32) before each number saying this is how long the next number is?

More general question - go into more detail. For example, what happens in the more lossy bit rates like 192? What does it throw away to achieve the greater compression?

glad everyone found that interesting! haha I thought I was the only one!

to be honest I don't know how mp3s removes the noise unheard by human ears. I assume that with 192kbps that is just keeps lowering the threshold of what the human can't hear until it starts getting into the area of what a human can hear.

again I don't know about how it knows when the next bit starts. Two things do come to mind though.
One is that it just reads in 5 bits so like the example it plays 01011(22)and then say 00010 (4). so even though 4 to us would be just a single digit it'd still be a 5 string long binary code.

I think it is more likely though that it works in the same way as the internet. sending packets that are 8 bits long. these include a start and stop bit and form a byte which might be easier to work with.

Do you study IT? there is some really interesting stuff out there. most of the time though its just a math grind.
#34
Quote by GaijinFoot
Do you study IT? there is some really interesting stuff out there. most of the time though its just a math grind.


yeah, inadvertantly! I work as whats known as a technical director at a company that does computer animation. You get to solve all kinds of neat problems, and oftentimes it involves programming - so I've picked up lots of random stuff over the years.
#35
I sitll think the compression changes the sound.

Frequencies of music also react to other frequencies played due to vibrations. I reckon if you take away some frequencies it will change the sound of other that are played at the same time.

Much like you can't hear a sub bass sounds, but if you take it away you "Feel" it's missing.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#36
Quote by xxdarrenxx
I sitll think the compression changes the sound.

Frequencies of music also react to other frequencies played due to vibrations. I reckon if you take away some frequencies it will change the sound of other that are played at the same time.

Much like you can't hear a sub bass sounds, but if you take it away you "Feel" it's missing.


Only treble frequencies can be felt no better than they can be heard...
#37
Quote by xxdarrenxx
I sitll think the compression changes the sound.

Frequencies of music also react to other frequencies played due to vibrations. I reckon if you take away some frequencies it will change the sound of other that are played at the same time.

Much like you can't hear a sub bass sounds, but if you take it away you "Feel" it's missing.

I'm sure they take this kind of thing into account. These people are very clever.
Also, CD isn't the ultimate format, even that has it's limits. Vinyl is meant to be the best.
#38
DVD audio is 24-bit / 96khz. This offers far greater resolution and dynamic range than CD or vinyl, no?

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#39
Quote by axemanchris
DVD audio is 24-bit / 96khz. This offers far greater resolution and dynamic range than CD or vinyl, no?

CT

I really don't know the range of vinyl to answer.