Do you mainly stream music or own it?

[rkbates]

I first listen to then, if I like it enough, purchase from bandcamp or similar to ensure the artist gets a decent chunk of money for their artistry. It's then stored on a NAS. There have been plenty of musical rabbit holes I have gladly fallen into as a result of ASR fora threads; thank you all so much.

Similar here - ASR threads have led to music which I never would have stumbled across otherwise, and streaming gives you the opportunity to test drive the music before you buy

 

[MaxBuck]

Oh don't get me started on f*ckin' SiriusXM!!!

Too late!

One of our cars came with a "free SiriusXM subscription." Which was of course a trial for, i dunno, a month or a few. We never used it, didn't give a damn about SiriusXM, and were happy to let it expire. But did it go away? No! Now we don't have a subscription but the damned thing is permanently programmed in to our car radio as essentially a constant advert for SiriusXM. In other words, we can't just directly select a source - e.g. A.M or F.M radio, without having to scroll THROUGH the bloody SiriusXM page "want a subscription???" No we bloody well don't. Get OUT OF OUR CAR! I've asked our dealership how we can get rid of the damned thing, but they have no answers. I've seen plenty of complaints by other car owners too. There's a lot of hate out there for SiriusXM, for various reasons.

I'm sorry you're so upset. I love SXM.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

I have a bit less than 200 CDs and I have buying them for 30 years. So I am way money ahead from that standpoint.

I think the overwhelming majority of the population realizes that automatic investment plans like 401Ks are are a fantastic way to build wealth.

Conversely, plans that automatically spend money are tremendously destructive towards building wealth. Every time you spend money you deprive yourself of the opportunity to invest wealth.

$10 a month over 30 years invested at the historical rate of return for the stock market of 9.5% would give you about $18,000.

When you add up all the music and video streaming services, an Adobe subscription, the extra money on your car payment for for all those nice options, payments for a top of the line phone every two years, etc and it results in a huge amount of money disappearing easily and effortlessly without any thought.

Buying CDs on an individual basis at least makes you contemplate the purchase. It is still money being spent but there is effort involved.

Sure, we all have different things we want to spend money on but there is absolutely no such thing “as low monthly payments for the rest of your life”.

And no, I am not pretending to be a financial advisor, I am just saying the math is totally cold blooded. Totally, heartlessly cold blooded.

It's not an either-or proposition. Many are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, saving up a tidy sum for retirement while paying modest monthly fees along the way for the things they enjoy. Streaming will make more sense for those who listen to a lot of different music as opposed to those who purchase modest collections and listen to the same things repetitively over the years. My cost savings from streaming a wide variety of music rather than purchasing same are significant.

 

[bladerunner6]

Face it, if you're far enough up the food chain to be an audiophile, your carbon footprint is going to be appalling anyway.

we consume has an impact.

But my wife and I also have smaller cars, shop at the local farmer’s market and do other things that might have less impact.

I am not saying I am a saint but as owners of compact cars versus full sized SUV’s we are out of the mainstream in that area.

It's not an either-or proposition. Many are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, saving up a tidy sum for retirement while paying modest monthly fees along the way for the things they enjoy. Streaming will make more sense for those who listen to a lot of different music as opposed to those who purchase modest collections and listen to the same things repetitively over the years. My cost savings from streaming a wide variety of music rather than purchasing same are significant.

I didn’t say it was either or.

I just said there is no such things as low monthly payments and people should be cognitive of how expensive these things can be.

These big businesses don’t come up with all the subscription and payment plans for our benefit. They are to maximize their profits which means the potential exists for them to impoverish the user.

These straw man and ad hominem attacks are tedious.

Do you agree that automatic investing plans are a great way to generate wealth? If so, then acknowledge the fact that automatic spending plans can therefore be ways to prevent wealth building.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

It's reasonable and prudent for everyone to balance their spending and savings, and automatic spending plans should be as intelligently managed as automatic investing plans. That's the last advice I have to give on the subject.

 

[bladerunner6]

It's reasonable and prudent for everyone to balance their spending and savings, and automatic spending plans should be as intelligently managed as automatic investing plans. That's the last advice I have to give on the subject.

That is just a rephrasing of what I have said or implied multiple times.

 

[ThatM1key]

90% ownership
10% streaming
When you own a CD, (Usually) you get better quality control then with a streaming services.

Discussion Starter: Is it really wrong to "download" an out-of-print specific version of a CD? Let's say I want the MFSL version of Count Basie's April In Paris. You can't buy from MFSL anymore, so you got 2 options. Find a copy online or buy a used overpriced copy from eBay, either way MFSL doesn't get any the money. Sure I buy that album (from a different company) new from Amazon or even stream it but the mastering is different.

Another good example would be the DCC version of Metallica's Ride The Lightning. DCC doesn't even exist anymore, so I can't buy that CD directly anymore. I can buy a new version of that album but it'll mostly sound different and even suffer the loudness wars. Streaming services offer terrible versions also. Tidal only offers it in MQA flavor and Qobuz offers a 96/24 version but I guarantee it'll also suffer from the loudness wars.

I understand people have there rights but there's always a but. Companies & Artists can't bitch about losing sales if they only offer a shit version and not offer that specific good version anymore. Metallica used to bitch about wanting "control" but yet they doing a shit job at controlling audio quality.

That's why I kind of don't care about FLAC streaming that much. With Spotify it was okay to give up quality, why? because you got convenience in exchange. Nowadays you got convenience and technically uncompressed audio but you still get that ****** audio quality control. Instead of getting a 480p picture of a pile of shit, your getting a 4K picture of a pile of shit. Why pay more each month, if its still gonna sound like dog ass.

At the end of the day, you do you.

 

[sarumbear]

Discussion Starter: Is it really wrong to "download" an out-of-print specific version of a CD? Let's say I want the MFSL version of Count Basie's April In Paris. You can't buy from MFSL anymore, so you got 2 options. Find a copy online or buy a used overpriced copy from eBay, either way MFSL doesn't get any the money. Sure I buy that album (from a different company) new from Amazon or even stream it but the mastering is different.

If you are a low biding citizen, irrespective of disagreeing with the law, then the answer is no, it’s illegal to download music that you do not have the physical media or you haven’t paid for the download from reputable seller.

The rest of your discussion is too fluid for me to understand what point you are making.

 

[Robin L]

If you are a low biding citizen, irrespective of disagreeing with the law, then the answer is no, it’s illegal to download music that you do not have the physical media or you haven’t paid for the download from reputable seller.

The rest of your discussion is too fluid for me to understand what point you are making.

The point he's making is that it's not either/or. The licensing agreements made with recordings include a lot of de-facto bootlegging. If he wants "X" he's going to search for "X". If copying something on the internet is how he is going to get it, that's how he's going to get it. Not streaming, not "owning", but making a permanent copy while he still can.

 

[sarumbear]

The licensing agreements made with recordings include a lot of de-facto bootlegging.

How is that so? At least in the UK licensing is pretty clear and there is no allowance for bootlegging.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314995/copyright-guidance-consumers.pdf

 

[ThatM1key]

If you are a low biding citizen, irrespective of disagreeing with the law, then the answer is no, it’s illegal to download music that you do not have the physical media or you haven’t paid for the download from reputable seller.

The rest of your discussion is too fluid for me to understand what point you are making.

If I recall, in a legal sense (For america), a song is a song regardless of version. So in a sense if the song is aired on FM radio or streamed for free (Youtube, etc), then that means all the other versions are also free. I wish American laws can recognize different versions of songs that cannot be bought directly from a company and streamed anymore.

how is that so? At least in UK licensing is pretty clear.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314995/copyright-guidance-consumers.pdf

In the UK eyes, I can argue that the MFSL version of "Ride The Lightning" that can be found online, can be considered "archiving and preservation" due to the company/artists not selling/streaming that version anymore.

 

[flyzipper]

Is it really wrong to "download" an out-of-print specific version of a CD?

Yes, it's wrong (also illegal).

The rest of your writing is an attempt to rationalize your position.

If I recall, in a legal sense (For america), a song is a song regardless of version. So in a sense if the song is aired on FM radio or streamed for free (Youtube, etc), then that means all the other versions are also free.

This is also (a) wrong (interpretation of copyright law) -- creator rights aren't relinquished when a song is played on the radio.

 

[ThatM1key]

Yes, it's wrong (also illegal).

The rest of your writing is an attempt to rationalize your position.

It's just my view of it.

This is also (a) wrong (interpretation of copyright law) -- creator rights aren't relinquished when a song is played on the radio.

But yet I can record from the radio legally?

 

[sarumbear]

In the UK eyes, I can argue that the MFSL version of "Ride The Lightning" that can be found online, can be considered "archiving and preservation" due to the company/artists not selling/streaming that version anymore.

Just because something is not available doesn’t mean it’s license free. There is no room in the text, which I copied below for reference. You do not have the license for “archiving and preservation".

it will still be illegal to make copies for friends or family, or to make
a copy of something you do not own or have acquired illegally, without the copyright owner’s permission. So you will not be able to make copies of CDs for your friends, to copy CDs borrowed from friends, or to copy videos illegally downloaded from file-sharing websites.

 

[sarumbear]

It's just my view of it.

In civilised societies individual views on laws are allowed but you cannot action on those views. That’s called breaking the law.

 

[ThatM1key]

Just because something is not available doesn’t mean it’s license free. There is no room in the text, which I copied below for reference. You do not have the license for “archiving and preservation".

You shouldn't need a damn license to archive. Look at archive.org, you can archive video games legally.

it will still be illegal to make copies for friends or family, or to make
a copy of something you do not own or have acquired illegally, without the copyright owner’s permission. So you will not be able to make copies of CDs for your friends, to copy CDs borrowed from friends, or to copy videos illegally downloaded from file-sharing websites.

Yes that is also true

In civilised societies individual views on laws are allowed but you cannot action on those views. That’s called breaking the law.

Yes that is also true

Do you ever see anybody going to jail just because they shared a out-of-print CDs. The only time you'll see anybody go to jail is when people share currently released media that actually makes companies & artists lose millions of dollars. In my home state, It's technically illegal to collection rain water but people do it anyways.

 

[Robin L]

How is that so? At least in the UK licensing is pretty clear and there is no allowance for bootlegging.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314995/copyright-guidance-consumers.pdf

If you look into the history of music licensing in the USA, you will find many record companies [Roulette jumps to mind] that were effectively laundering Casino cash, or revenues otherwise that could only be transacted using cash. These companies had a penchant for claiming legal rights to recordings they otherwise had no involvement in whatsoever. The drifting of the Everest label into the hands of these cut-out merchants is a classic example of the product of experienced engineers and performers falling into the hands of people who had no concern with quality control, or anything else resembling moral restrictions, for that matter.

These legal waters are probably a lot murkier than you'd like.

 

[sarumbear]

If I recall, in a legal sense (For america), a song is a song regardless of version. So in a sense if the song is aired on FM radio or streamed for free (Youtube, etc), then that means all the other versions are also free. I wish American laws can recognize different versions of songs that cannot be bought directly from a company and streamed anymore.

I’m afraid you are mistaken. Unlike in the UK, in US, there no allowances to copy/rip/backup any recordings.

About Piracy - RIAA

Music theft—or piracy—is constantly evolving as technology changes. Many different actions qualify as piracy, from downloading unauthorized versions of copyrighted... Read More »

www.riaa.com

And, the license is about a recording, not the song. Each different recording is treated independently.

 

[sarumbear]

If you look into the history of music licensing in the USA, you will find many record companies [Roulette jumps to mind] that were effectively laundering Casino cash, or revenues otherwise that could only be transacted using cash. These companies had a penchant for claiming legal rights to recordings they otherwise had no involvement in whatsoever. The drifting of the Everest label into the hands of these cut-out merchants is a classic example of the product of experienced engineers and performers falling into the hands of people who had no concern with quality control, or anything else resembling moral restrictions, for that matter.

These legal waters are probably a lot murkier than you'd like.

How has this changes the law?

 

[ThatM1key]

I’m afraid you are mistaken. Unlike in the UK, in US, there no allowances to copy/rip/backup any recordings.

About Piracy - RIAA

Music theft—or piracy—is constantly evolving as technology changes. Many different actions qualify as piracy, from downloading unauthorized versions of copyrighted... Read More »

www.riaa.com

And, the license is about a recording, not the song. Each different recording is treated independently.

As a home consumer I can legally make a copy/rip/backup of the media I bought.

Audio Home Recording Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here in America, it is okay to record from the TV and the radio.