Ripping MP3's - How Do You Feel About It?

[David Meek]

First off, let me clearly state that I am very aware of the issues around protecting IP (intellectual property) rights of artists. I feel that if someone is talented enough and driven enough to produce a song, album, movie, painting, sculpture or whatever and it becomes marketable, then by all means that person should be compensated accordingly for their efforts. BUT, I also believe that once I purchase a CD, album, DVD-A or SACD of an artist's work, that I should be allowed to copy it for my own personal use - ie. ripping an MP3 of it to carry on my laptop so that I can enjoy the music at home AND at work without having to house media such as CD's at work or take them on business trips - and that should be the extent of copying. For the record, let me state that I'm firmly against peer-to-peer music sharing sites. You should pay, or don't play.

What do you think about the whole MP3 issue?




David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

[Lex]

I personally am more concerned about MPG (miles per gallon), than MP3s. I do think as an avenue to promote new artists, sample tracks ie. get the music in the people's hands, that MP3s and MP3 sites are a worthy thing for the artists. Of course, once their intellectual property gets out there from their CDs, that's a different story. But I do think I should have the right to rip songs from my own purchased library.

But the fact is, sitting and ripping MP3s doesn't really suite my lifestyle anyway. I'm much more likely to just rip a copy of my CDs for personal use, and put that in the car to listen to.

I think the studios are making a much bigger fuss over this than necessary. Fact is, people traded music long before the internet via cassette tapes. Some people will always do things like this. Another fact is, just because you shut down the student MP3 ripper, doesn't mean he will rush out and buy CDs. Nor does it mean he can't copy music at all. Remember, he probably doesn't have the money to buy anyway. But maybe someday, after he's out of college, he will become a better buying music fan. Shut him down now, you may loose him forever. That's another way to look at it.

Lex

[George Bellefontaine]

Once you own it, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to make copies for personal use.




My Homepage!

[Burke Strickland]

What do you think about the whole MP3 issue?

You've pretty well covered the "controversial" part about intellectual propery and compensation of the artists. What you DIDN'T discuss was the relative quality of the MP3 recordings versus Minidisc or Redbook CD. I have not yet heard an MP3 that I would want to listen to even as background music. The ones I have listened to have been samples at sites trying to sell me the complete albums in traditional licensed commercial CD format, so I would think they'd try to entice us with at least a LISTENABLE snippet of the music, but not yet. :>)

I know that allegedly listenable ones are out there with higehr bit-rates and more attention to other parameters, and that supposedly I could make somewhat higher quality ones at home from my own CDs than what I have heard over the Internet. But why bother? I already have everything set up for CD-R production with full CD sound-quality. I am not convinced that the "convenience" of MP3 is worth their crappy sound "quality". I'd rather have a few ounces of steak than a ton of Alpo. :>)

Burke

[Andrew Pratt]

I agree with David on this one but like burke I have very few MP3's. About the only place I listen to MP3's is at work on my headphones to block out my noisy cell mate

[Kevin P]

I agree with David on this one but like burke I have very few MP3's. About the only place I listen to MP3's is at work on my headphones to block out my noisy cell mate

You need a tubicle system, then you won't want to listen to MP3s

My take on it is along the same lines of everyone else. There's nothing wrong with ripping MP3s from your own CDs for your own use. When you make these MP3s available for others to download and distribute that's when the line is being crossed. That said I think I downloaded 2 or 3 MP3s total back in the Napster days, because I was trying to find a couple of songs (one was OOP) where I wasn't sure of the artist/title.

As for the sound quality, I hear they can sound pretty good if they're done with a decent ripper, but of course most of the stuff that's on the P2P networks don't fall into this category. I prefer to burn CD-Rs and MDs from my CD collection.

KJP




Official Computer Geek and Techno-Wiz Guru of HTGuide - Visit Tower of Power
My HT Site

[SiliGoose]

I am not convinced that the "convenience" of MP3 is worth their crappy sound "quality".

Of course you're not convinced; you have no relevant experience on the issue! Without having experimented with the format you really shouldn't be making generalized claims about the sound quality. I can certainly understand not wanting to learn more but personal opinion means a lot more when you can back it up with in-depth experience.

The record industry is an absolute mess. They created their own problems. The great mp3 debate is blown way out of proportion and is a nice public scapegoat for their problems. I use peer-to-peer downloading to explore new artists. I am confident I have made more purchases due to mp3 downloads than I would have without mp3. It's great to try something new and buy the CD if you like it and delete the mp3 if you don't.




-Sili

[Burke Strickland]

Of course you're not convinced; you have no relevant experience on the issue! Without having experimented with the format you really shouldn't be making generalized claims about the sound quality. I can certainly understand not wanting to learn more but personal opinion means a lot more when you can back it up with in-depth experience.

Thanks for the lecture. In this hobby, listening isn't "relevant experience"? Is whether or not one has produced their own MP3 recordings really relevant to one's ability to listen to, and form an opinion of, the sound quality of those generally available on the Internet? How much "experimentation" do you consider necessary to be able state an opinion of the quality of recordings that one has heard?

I acknowledged in my remarks that better sounding MP3s were possible with carefully tweaked -- presumably "home-grown" -- recordings. But to add yet another recording medium to the array of ones I am already succesfully using would require additional investment that simply has not been justified at this point, your remarks notwithstanding. Even you delete the MP3s after you buy the CDs, whether that is out of respect for someone elses ownership rights or due to their "quality" when compared to the CDs.

To say that listening to a fair number of "off the air" MP3 selections isn't enough, and to require the listener to "experiment" with production of recordings themselves before forming an opinion of the quality of generally available MP3s is like saying to a restaurant reviewer that "you haven't tried every item on the menu, so just because the dozen appetizers and entrees you did try were crappy doesn't mean you have the right to "generalize" about the food there -- and until you become a chef and cook those dishes yourself, you have no right to comment at all."

I'm glad you are benefitting from the virtues you advocate for MP3. However, one can be a legitimate critic without ever having produced an example of the type of work in question.

Burke

[SiliGoose]

Thanks for the lecture. In this hobby, listening isn't "relevant experience"? Is whether or not one has produced their own MP3 recordings really relevant to one's ability to listen to, and form an opinion of, the sound quality of those generally available on the Internet? How much "experimentation" do you consider necessary to be able state an opinion of the quality of recordings that one has heard?

In your previous post you mentioned having only heard "samples at sites trying to sell me the complete albums". Those are always lower bit rate files intended not for fidelity but to give you an idea of the general style of the music (and fast download times). I think it's fair to say your opinion is based on very limited experience. I do not think my statements were at all out of line.

It's totally fine to fault mp3 for being a format you have no interest in. However, to make statements about sound quality where you admit your experience is limited seems odd. As a DVD-A owner I have little experience with SACD...you won't find me making negative comments about SACD based upon my 9 or 10 auditions at various dealers.

Even you delete the MP3s after you buy the CDs, whether that is out of respect for someone elses ownership rights or due to their "quality" when compared to the CDs.

I guess I wasn't very clear on that point. If I purchase a CD based on a previous mp3 download I delete the mp3 due to redundancy. I archive all my CDs via lossless compression (APE). I don't need both the APE and the MP3 of the same song on my PC.

to require the listener to "experiment" with production of recordings themselves before forming an opinion of the quality of generally available MP3s is like saying to a restaurant reviewer that "you haven't tried every item on the menu, so just because the dozen appetizers and entrees you did try were crappy doesn't mean you have the right to "generalize" about the food there -- and until you become a chef and cook those dishes yourself, you have no right to comment at all."

You're totally right, but your arguement is with your own reference, not with me.
You entered the thread and announced yourself as one without a great deal of experience with mp3's. You then immediately generalized that, based on little experience, all mp3's sound like crap:

I am not convinced that the "convenience" of MP3 is worth their crappy sound "quality". I'd rather have a few ounces of steak than a ton of Alpo.

To use your restaurant review analogy, if the reviewer first pointed out that the sum of his previous food experience was with dog food we'd have a pretty good idea of his reference point. Your generalization was far too broad considering your point of reference.

That's all I'm saying. Please don't take it the wrong way.




-Sili

[Chris D]

My info and views on MP3's-

1. They're useful and have their place. What is their place?
a. Like Burke said, useful as a sampler, like from Amazon before buying the whole album.
b. Copying for your OWN personal library
c. Once copied, best used for only low-quality use like a Walkman situation.
d. MP3's are a great and cheap way for people without significant funds to mass store, catalog, and use their own music collection for low-quality use.

2. Due to the above, I personally don't really ever use MP3's--I just use CD's. Can't stand the low quality sound reproduction in most environments, as I've posted before.

3. They should NOT be shared with others. Not many people would have a problem with a college guy giving his buddy a copy to try out a song, but they should not be distributed in mass, such as internet swapping sites.

4. I can't stand listening to the people who argue that artists/labels have "enough money" and their products should be the property of the general public. Every time, I can't help thinking of what the novelist Ayn Rand would say, espousing the people in the world who believe that they are entitled to the free benefits of the work, skills, and efforts of others. (side note- I do NOT follow much of Ayn Rand's philosophies, but she has very interesting thoughts and is a great author) I don't care how much money a person already has. Does a person's financial standing or line of business entitle them any less to compensations for their work and products that they make with their skills?

5. But, media copies of anything--literature, music, movies, etc, should be completely legal to make for your OWN personal use, once you've compensated the makers. I do NOT like the "pay-per-play" philosophy of DIVX type stuff. If people want to make formats like that and sell them, that's fine, but I will never buy them myself.




CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"

[Sonnie Parker]

Hmmmm..... a sin is a sin is a sin, isn't it? If you believe it is.

What's the difference in telling a little white lie and recording an MP3 that you do not own the CD for?

What's the difference between speeding and recording an MP3 that you do not own the CD for?

What's the difference between one of us lending a CD to a friend to make a copy and lending it to a stranger?

While it is wrong, people do it and it may be hard to find someone who will admit it since it appears most folks posting here don't like it.

Just a thought..... not saying it's okay. I sure wouldn't judge anyone who does record an MP3 they don't own because I am not without my own faults by any stretch of the imagination. Some might use the excuse that the RIAA ripped us for so long on CD's that we deserve a few free songs. I realize that still doesn't make it right.


On the quality issue... I've stated something similar to this here before in another thread but I'll say it again. I record MP3's for my truck and I can tell absolutely no difference in an MP3 encoded at 320kbps and a wave file recorded to CD. They sound really good. Of course that's in my truck along with all the other noises that come while traveling in a truck. Not to mention I'm not a critical listener.

I'm not so sure you could compare MP3's that you listen to on the Internet to what you might download and record on CD. I've listened to some on the net that sounded terrible.... yet have them recorded to CD from MP3 and they sounded fine. I use to go to cdnow.com and listen to different versions of songs and they sounded aweful but would download the same song from Napster or Audiogalaxy or WinMX and record them to CD and they sounded fine. Then again I've downloaded some from the same sources that sounded terrible because they were encoded improperly and/or on a poor system when they were recorded. I would then simply re-download and get a better copy. I think some people try to encode MP3's on weak computer systems with slow processors and low memory and they just don't seem to encode as well.






SONNIE

Cedar Creek Cinema

DVD Collection

BFD Comprehensive Setup Guide

[Bing Fung]

I don't have a problem with ripping MP3's...

I contend that the record industry makes way too much money off the sales and really don't need that much profit. It's a changing world and they have to deal with the fact media is easily exchanged.

As for the file sharing on the net, most times I'm getting songs that I already have paid for at one time or another on a Vinyl LP, Cassette, 8-Track.... Those that I don't own I'll certainly buy the CD if I like it. Programs like Napster and Grokster has really broaden my horizions to artists I would have never taken a chance on. My CD collection has never been so diverse as it has been in the last few years.

What the music industry should do is tap into this file sharing and allow 128KB/s max copies to be distributed for free. Knowing that the real patrons of the arts will buy a legitimate copy for the better sound quality, liner notes...etc, while the "freeloaders" may or maynot... That's the price of doing business, write it of as marketing costs, I mean the free loaders are going to get the free copy regardless.

Just becasue they can't have the whole pie, doesn't mean they can't have a piece of pie... Greed!




Bing