Streaming Service Summary

[pseudoid]

This post should have been a poll.
I would have like to find out what other members consider a "music library".
My music library has become a pure local NAS-based system, with a bunch of 256GB microSD cards stuffed for portability anywhere.
I offloaded few thousand LPs/CDs in the last few years, after transcoding them (via dBpowerAmp) all to the NAS.
Family/Friends also have access to this NAS' content (2TB music and 4TB movies) for their musical and movie streaming/sharing needs.
A lifetime-membership to SiriusXM and ISP (cable) provided 70+ music channels complete my musical universe.

 

[Tom C]

Your information is not correct. The latest version of iTunes for Windows can play lossless tracks. The problem with iTunes is you cannot change the sampling rate between tracks. The output setting is fixed. Any track with a different sample rate is converted to that setting.

However, as the vast majority of tracks on Apple Music is sampled 44.1kHz you will play lossless most of the time.

I am relieved to here my information in that regard is incorrect. My understanding is that that was the case at Lossless launch last June. When did the situation change, and how did you discover it?
On Apple devices streaming lossless, there are settings available to choose whether or not you want lossless, hi-res, or neither when streaming via WiFi, cellular streaming, or downloads (in case you’re worried about your data cap). I downloaded iTunes today on a fresh Win10 install, and didn’t find those settings available.

 

[sarumbear]

I am relieved to here my information in that regard is incorrect. My understanding is that that was the case at Lossless launch last June. When did the situation change, and how did you discover it?
On Apple devices streaming lossless, there are settings available to choose whether or not you want lossless, hi-res, or neither when streaming via WiFi, cellular streaming, or downloads (in case you’re worried about your data cap). I downloaded iTunes today on a fresh Win10 install, and didn’t find those settings available.

I must apologise. I was playing the lossless tracks I have ripped not Apple Music tracks. I agree, and the Internet agrees as well, that iTunes cannot play lossless Apple Music files. You need the Apple Music app which is not available for Windows.

On Windows the only option is to use the Apple Music website.

 

[audio2design]

Family/Friends also have access to this NAS' content (2TB music and 4TB movies) for their musical and movie streaming/sharing needs.

I guess pointing out this is technically piracy would be pointless?

 

[pseudoid]

I guess pointing out this is technically piracy would be pointless?

Could it really be piracy if no one is making money (sell/buy/rent) and the content is your own that you paid dearly for?
Or are you one of them HooliganBastards, here to play out a shenanigan?
MAJOR Edit:
I entered 2 simple queries to my search engine:
Q#1 >> "How long music royalties are valid"
Q#2 >> "How long patents are valid"
I only picked/posted results from the top 3 hits, for each.
Make no mistake: I have the greatest respect (actual admiration) for every artist and FIRMLY believe in fair compensation for the works that they create. Yet, the dichotomy between the two answers to the above two Qs most definitely show a huge disparity.
It may have started with the original "Payola" scandal of the 1970s' radio "pay-to-play" shenanigan.
I am not in the camp that would promote paying for EACH listening to a song for 95+ years nor do I have the least bit of guilt for a war-on-consumers that were NOT started by the artist but their "owners"! This war, on 'starving' artists, neither started by the artists themselves nor are they the prime beneficiary (although they are getting much better residuals, since the streaming craze).
Do I have to worry about having to pay royalties for my grandkids piano lessons from old classical music sheets? Sheeeeet no!

 

[sarumbear]

Could it really be piracy if no one is making money (sell/buy/rent) and the content is your own that you paid dearly for?
Or are you one of them HooliganBastards, here to play out a shenanigan?

Even ripping your CD is legally prohibited. Technically making a copy of any music track is illegal, not to mention sharing it. That was the reason why there was a levy on blank cassettes.

 

[MRC01]

Add Qobuz and Idagio to that list.

Idagio has only classical music, but they specialize in it, with custom metadata making search & browsing much better than any other service. Their browser player is lossless at CD quality (they downsample high res tracks to CD quality for streaming).

Qobuz is also worth mention, as it is the only service that plays lossless streams at CD quality and higher in the browser. With other services that support losssless high res, it only works in their custom players not in the browser.

PS: Apple has their ALAC lossless format, but it only works on Apple devices, not in the browser player.

 

[Ralph_Cramden]

Amazon HD

Cons: No Amazon connect service

They do have Alexa Cast, tho.

 

[Raindog123]

Technically making a copy of any copyrighted music track is illegal,

Fixed it for you

 

[MRC01]

Even ripping your CD is legally prohibited. Technically making a copy of any music track is illegal, not to mention sharing it. That was the reason why there was a levy on blank cassettes.

Copyright law has an exception allowing people to make copies of any type of work for preservation purposes. Common sense says this covers ripping your CD to FLAC and archiving the files, in case the CD develops a defect and becomes unplayable.

 

[SKBubba]

I have tried them all.

Settled on roon+qobuz for a while.

Ditching both and going with Spotify for now. Half the cost, extensive catalog, nice app that works the same at home or on the go, connect feature works great with phone/tablet as remote for desktop app or AVR (except no volume normalization with AVR), great discovery features, playlists for any mood/occasion.

Hifi will be a bonus if/when they ever launch it. Even without, I can't tell much if any difference from CD when level matched.

My main complaint is that you can't search favorite albums by genre. No big deal, though.

 

[Raindog123]

Copyright law has an exception allowing people to make copies of any type of work for preservation purposes.

Do you have proof/[source] example of this?

 

[MaxBuck]

Do you have proof/example of this?

Copyright Law: Making Personal Copies

Copyright law does not contain any caveat that allows unauthorized parties to make personal copies of copyrighted products. However, under the doctrine of "fair use," individuals may be permitted to make backup copies or archival copies of some materials as long as certain conditions are met.

legalbeagle.com

CDs and DVDs​

In addition to making a backup copy of software, it is legal to make a backup copy of a CD or DVD so that you can continue to enjoy the copyrighted material if your original copy fails.

I see no reason why the referenced copy can't be ripped onto a hard disk or SSD.

Another piece of evidence of legality is that I'm unaware of anyone being arrested in the US for ripping CDs for personal use.

 

[sarumbear]

PS: Apple has their ALAC lossless format, but it only works on Apple devices, not in the browser player.

It works if you use a Mac and on Windows if you use TuneBlade.

 

[sarumbear]

Copyright Law: Making Personal Copies

Copyright law does not contain any caveat that allows unauthorized parties to make personal copies of copyrighted products. However, under the doctrine of "fair use," individuals may be permitted to make backup copies or archival copies of some materials as long as certain conditions are met.

legalbeagle.com

I see no reason why the referenced copy can't be ripped onto a hard disk or SSD.

Another piece of evidence of legality is that I'm unaware of anyone being arrested in the US for ripping CDs for personal use.

You can copy for your own use. You cannot share it with others.

We are talking about legality not criminality.

 

[NiagaraPete]

This post should have been a poll.
I would have like to find out what other members consider a "music library".
My music library has become a pure local NAS-based system, with a bunch of 256GB microSD cards stuffed for portability anywhere.
I offloaded few thousand LPs/CDs in the last few years, after transcoding them (via dBpowerAmp) all to the NAS.
Family/Friends also have access to this NAS' content (2TB music and 4TB movies) for their musical and movie streaming/sharing needs.
A lifetime-membership to SiriusXM and ISP (cable) provided 70+ music channels complete my musical universe.

I have a 21.5 TB NAS. 40,000 + songs, 1000 or so movies, 200 + music concerts. I tend to use Apple Music more though.

 

[Raindog123]

@MaxBuck With all due respect, these are all someone's opinions... I am not making statements, I am merely asking for an excerpt from a legal - law, license, or case - document.

By your logic, CDs a re ok... but wat abut video DVDs... BluRays... gaming ROMs...? Ripping those "for personal backup purpose", while very similar to music CDs, have been (and often still is) a subject of law-enforcement hunts of various degree of intensity. As far as I know.

 

[MaxBuck]

You can copy for your own use. You cannot share it with others.

We are talking about legality not criminality.

"Cannot share with others." Does that mean you must listen to your music only when no one else is present?

Seriously, I wasn't trying to suggest it's okay to copy the files and send them to your buddies. I agree that's verboten.

 

[danadam]

Even ripping your CD is legally prohibited. Technically making a copy of any music track is illegal, ...

You can copy for your own use.

I'm a bit confused. Aren't you contradicting yourself? Or were you convinced by MaxBruck link and changed your mind?

 

[MRC01]

These areas of copyright law are ambiguous and complex (what exactly constitues "archival" versus "backup"), requiring both sides to apply common sense. If you are ripping your CD (or DVD or BluRay or whatever) to your own secondary storage for your own purposes, not sharing or selling it, then you obviously are not harming or impacting the copyright owner's rights or income. And according to this article, the RIAA and MPAA agree with this:
In 2005, their lawyer (now the Solicitor General of the United States) assured the Supreme Court that "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."

When rights holders and the government go after people is when they distribute or sell copyrighted works, like file sharing, piracy, bootlegging, etc. To my knowledge, they have never come after individuals making and storing backup copies strictly for their own personal use, not distributing or selling them. What would be the point? There's no revenue of any kind, earned or lost, to chase.