AAAaaaand.... It's gone!

Strider590

Given that most people don't know how (to rip CDs) and are actually jealous of people who do know how, it's no surprise there was little opposition to this change.

Classic "I don't care, it won't affect me", but just like internet censorship, eventually it comes back to bite them.

Going back 10 years or so, I used to download music/movies from various "free" sources, the only people opposed to it were people who couldn't do it themselves, but almost everyone at some point asked me "would you be able to get ??????? for me?".

S0litaire

chunter wrote: »

I think by now most people with any substantial amount of music cds will have them transferred onto their computers. More practical. Once the ipod/mp3 player arrived, the days of the cd player were numbered.
The decision is not so much clueless as pointless and irrelevant and about 10 years out of date.

Although this case was about CD ripping, their arguments ( the entertainment industry) is about "format shifting" in general. (I.e. copying a CD to an iPod, or copying a DVD to a media centre).

k599rag

esuhl wrote: »

But why would you want lossless streaming as the only way to listen to music?!

LOL, it's called progress, why would you need to have a disc in a device and not be able to play it from any device? I can play all my library from Google Play Music from anywhere in the world.

With regard to CD's. I've not had a CD for years as they were ripped many years before anyone thought it was bad for the industry. Windows Media Player has had a Rip option for years and no one complained about that. Now that everyone can do it the poor old music industry moans and groans about it.

Why did Sony etc sell blank tapes, cd's and DVD's many moons ago in HMV? It wasn't so we could all record ourselves singing was it? They made millions from selling the blank tapes and they thought that was OK. Now with tech evolving and getting easier for the masses the music industry is complaining that they will be bankrupt as we don't buy the media from them! Read here: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/streaming-helps-push-up-sony-music-profit/. The music industry is still huge but they are greedy and want to bleed more and more from us!

The quality of the streaming sites will get better and better as communications and bandwidth to the internet increases. Yes, there may be a difference between CD and streaming sites but its not noticeable for the masses, just the select few who spend thousands of £'s in BOSE or B&O on a top of the range system. Joe Public should use YouTube, Spotify and all the other streaming sites and get all the music for free. If Ed Sheeran says this http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/sheeran-unfazed-by-illegal-file-sharers/051810 there can't be a major issue. Go to the concert!!

RumRat

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Internet, politicians of all flavours are clueless, which is obvious as soon as they open their mouths. They aren't all clueless about everything though.

The senior judiciary are in general far from clueless. Most of them are incredibly sharp, even if they don't know about tabloid "celebs" (which appears to be how intelligence is defined by The Sun). So, here is the judgement from Mr Justice Green which the OP, the article they linked (and the Guardian article that linked to) all failed to directly link to:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1723.html&query=songwriters&method=boolean

The judge found in favour of the government on four counts and against them on one. Had I the time I'd read the whole thing as they are usually enlightening, but with over 300 clauses setting out method, evidence, reasoning and conclusions for each I don't have the time at present. Perhaps you do and could explain what part of the method or reasoning you find clueless?

I'm sure you have more time than I, so will give you the pleasure of reading it in depth.
it may be best to revisit this after the Judicial review, which, as you know, will only review how the decision was made and is not interested in the rights and wrongs of the conclusion.
I'm surprised that they went for a Judicial review, because the Government will just be able to make the same decision again only in a more lawful way.
The judiciary may be able to use the odd bit of tech or have the a loose understanding of eMail, FB and Twitter etc. I don't believe that the vast majority have clue how the public use that tech/media.
I'm willing to have my mind changed and realise that it's a bit of a generalisation to say that the collective is clueless, but, it will take more than someone making legal arguments around reports/evidence compiled by someone else. Sorry.

esuhl

Strider590 wrote: »

Given that most people don't know how (to rip CDs)...

Really?! Good grief! Surely any idiot can do a web search and be ripping CDs within minutes?!

k599rag wrote: »

LOL, it's called progress, why would you need to have a disc in a device and not be able to play it from any device? I can play all my library from Google Play Music from anywhere in the world.

Ha ha! Progress you reckon! How is degrading music quality progress?! It's like suggesting that a move to fuzzy black-and-white TVs would be a progression from sharp colour ones!

I can play my CD collection from any device, and stream it over the Internet, if I wish. The only difference between me and you is that I get to listen to the music in CD quality, while you have to suffer lossy compression.

If you want to call your low-quality solution "progress" over a hiqh-quality one, that's up to you. But you really are kidding yourself!

spud17

esuhl wrote: »

If you want to call your low-quality solution "progress" over a hiqh-quality one, that's up to you. But you really are kidding yourself!

Which is why anyone under 30 can't believe the sound quality from my high end Hi-Fi from the 1970's.

Also amp has just needed bit of attention, 2nd time in 40 yrs, :(repaired by electronics engineer replacing transistors.
Try that with modern gear.

Strider590

esuhl wrote: »

Really?! Good grief! Surely any idiot can do a web search and be ripping CDs within minutes?!

More likely end up downloading something from the first link they find and getting their PC infested with malware.

Sharon87

Strider590 wrote: »

More likely end up downloading something from the first link they find and getting their PC infested with malware.

Or if they have itunes, it will come up saying 'do you want to copy xxxxxx to your itunes?' click yes and it will rip it for you! The only thing I changed was the settings so it's a higher bit rate and in MP3 not AAC. But anyone can rip a CD and when iTunes automatically asks you if you want to any idiot can do it!

googler

chunter wrote: »

I think by now most people with any substantial amount of music cds will have them transferred onto their computers. More practical. Once the ipod/mp3 player arrived, the days of the cd player were numbered.
The decision is not so much clueless as pointless and irrelevant and about 10 years out of date.

I have a "substantial amount of music CDs" and am nowhere near getting them all transferred to storage. Over 1Tb now, and I've not even scratched the surface.

I've yet to find a file player solution that allows me to play music as quickly as I can from my CD shelf.

Go to shelf, pick up CD, place in player, press Play

as opposed to

View home screen of playback device - proceed to artist, album or song list. (waiting for device to load this list) Find (say) artist (waiting for device to load this list), find album (waiting for device to load this list), select album (waiting for device to load this list), press play on first track or selected

or, on an iPod, one way is;

Select Music; Select Cover Flow - this retains the last used position, let's say that's an artist beginning with D - I want to play Zappa (filed under Z) - on an iPod Classic, that's 12secs of scroll wheel to get there. Then scroll through to find the album of interest, select and play

There's no device which will display my whole collection on one screen, so any file playing solution must have nested levels of indexing - artist, album etc. The larger the collection, the longer it takes to find anything.

This is even before we consider the merits of FLAC vs mp3 ....

RumRat

esuhl wrote: »

Really?! Good grief! Surely any idiot can do a web search and be ripping CDs within minutes?!



Ha ha! Progress you reckon! How is degrading music quality progress?! It's like suggesting that a move to fuzzy black-and-white TVs would be a progression from sharp colour ones!

I can play my CD collection from any device, and stream it over the Internet, if I wish. The only difference between me and you is that I get to listen to the music in CD quality, while you have to suffer lossy compression.

If you want to call your low-quality solution "progress" over a hiqh-quality one, that's up to you. But you really are kidding yourself!

Which is why people are turning to streaming from the likes of , Tidal, Quobuz, or Deezer Elite.
So the 'Low Quality' gloat is becoming old hat slowly but surely....Eventualy Spotify will have to follow suit...