Streaming Service Summary

[danadam]

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

From https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/private-copying/ there is, for example, a link to UK legislation: The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014

 

[Raindog123]

From https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/private-copying/ there is, for example, a link to UK legislation: The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014

Thanks. Pretty clear. I wonder if there is anything like this available in/for the US..?

 

[bluefuzz]

Spotify Connect [ ... ] all the forum members will mock you for using this service

Why would anyone mock you for using Spotify? I have evaluated Tidal, Apple Music and Qobuz and Spotify easily runs rings round them all with regard to ease of use, catalogue size, features, reliability, UI, and most importantly for me, discovery. I can't detect (with casual listening) any sound quality differences between these services that couldn't be my imagination or simply a different master, lossless or not.

My main rig is a NAD C658 with BluOS. My headphone rig is a Pi4 running Moode > Topping E30/L30. Mobile use is iPhone SE > Sony WH1000XM2 Bluetooth headphones.

Tidal, I found the web UI bland and discovery poor. Even after several weeks of assimilating a 'library' it still suggested the same R'n'B/Hiphop tracks that it did when first joining the service. Still not interested! Usability through BluOS was acceptable but, at least for the music I'm interested in, I would judge Tidal's library to be at least an order of magnitude smaller than Spotify's. I have a gigabit internet connection at home and in the short time I had Tidal I often experienced dropouts, connection errors and downtime. I didn't try it on mobile. I don't think I have ever experienced a dropout on Spotify either at home or on mobile in the five or so years I have used it. I would also prefer not to support MQA so Tidal is unsubscribed ...

While I have a M1 MacMini, a 15" Macbook Pro, 12" iPad Pro, iPhoneSE and AppleTV 4K within reach I found Apple's Music service singularly patchy and confusing. AppleTV is the only device that could be permanently connected (via HDMI > HDfury Diva > toslink) to the NAD but is nevertheless still clamped at 48 kHz - not that I claim to be able to hear any problems with that - but it seems unneccessary. Airplay works both directly to the NAD or via the AppleTV but Airplay has its own limitations and is not a great experience. Apple Music has some potentially useful discovery features but nothing that really betters Spotify. I found a small handful of releases available on Apple Music that were otherwise not available on Spotify but mostly the library was still obviously smaller than Spotify's. The two times I tried to use Apple Music on mobile it wouldn't connect at all ... Unsubscribed.

I'm still evaluating Qobuz. The BluOS experience is obviously similar to Tidal and as such works OK. The library seems to be similar in scope to Apple's - a small number of items that are not on Spotify but otherwise noticeably smaller. I think I hear a few of the Qobuz hires releases sound better/different to Spotify's versions. Probably due to different masters. Qobuz often has both multiple hires and normal CD-quality releases of the same album which seems unnecessary and confusing. Discovery seems more or less non-existant. I haven't unsubscribed from Qobuz yet but I'm not seeing or hearing any compelling reason to keep it.

This is not to say Spotify is perfect. It's constant fiddling with the features and interface can be annoying and more importantly it reportedly pays the least royalties back to the artists of all the services, which is worrisome. I wouldn't have a problem with a service that charged more for new releases (say under a year old) compared older (5+ years, 10+ years, 25+ years etc.) if I knew the different payment tiers actually went back to the artists.

 

[Richard10250]

Why would anyone mock you for using Spotify? I have evaluated Tidal, Apple Music and Qobuz and Spotify easily runs rings round them all with regard to ease of use, catalogue size, features, reliability, UI, and most importantly for me, discovery. I can't detect (with casual listening) any sound quality differences between these services that couldn't be my imagination or simply a different master, lossless or not.

My main rig is a NAD C658 with BluOS. My headphone rig is a Pi4 running Moode > Topping E30/L30. Mobile use is iPhone SE > Sony WH1000XM2 Bluetooth headphones.

Tidal, I found the web UI bland and discovery poor. Even after several weeks of assimilating a 'library' it still suggested the same R'n'B/Hiphop tracks that it did when first joining the service. Still not interested! Usability through BluOS was acceptable but, at least for the music I'm interested in, I would judge Tidal's library to be at least an order of magnitude smaller than Spotify's. I have a gigabit internet connection at home and in the short time I had Tidal I often experienced dropouts, connection errors and downtime. I didn't try it on mobile. I don't think I have ever experienced a dropout on Spotify either at home or on mobile in the five or so years I have used it. I would also prefer not to support MQA so Tidal is unsubscribed ...

While I have a M1 MacMini, a 15" Macbook Pro, 12" iPad Pro, iPhoneSE and AppleTV 4K within reach I found Apple's Music service singularly patchy and confusing. AppleTV is the only device that could be permanently connected (via HDMI > HDfury Diva > toslink) to the NAD but is nevertheless still clamped at 48 kHz - not that I claim to be able to hear any problems with that - but it seems unneccessary. Airplay works both directly to the NAD or via the AppleTV but Airplay has its own limitations and is not a great experience. Apple Music has some potentially useful discovery features but nothing that really betters Spotify. I found a small handful of releases available on Apple Music that were otherwise not available on Spotify but mostly the library was still obviously smaller than Spotify's. The two times I tried to use Apple Music on mobile it wouldn't connect at all ... Unsubscribed.

I'm still evaluating Qobuz. The BluOS experience is obviously similar to Tidal and as such works OK. The library seems to be similar in scope to Apple's - a small number of items that are not on Spotify but otherwise noticeably smaller. I think I hear a few of the Qobuz hires releases sound better/different to Spotify's versions. Probably due to different masters. Qobuz often has both multiple hires and normal CD-quality releases of the same album which seems unnecessary and confusing. Discovery seems more or less non-existant. I haven't unsubscribed from Qobuz yet but I'm not seeing or hearing any compelling reason to keep it.

This is not to say Spotify is perfect. It's constant fiddling with the features and interface can be annoying and more importantly it reportedly pays the least royalties back to the artists of all the services, which is worrisome. I wouldn't have a problem with a service that charged more for new releases (say under a year old) compared older (5+ years, 10+ years, 25+ years etc.) if I knew the different payment tiers actually went back to the artists.

Thanks for your feedback. People with ears that are apparently better than my old ears suggested that the resolution offered by Spotify "gave them headaches" after long listening sessions. Now I have convinced myself that I can hear the difference. I have the "twitch" that keeps me tinkering with hardware, speaker placement and music sources. I now know more about REW than I ever really wanted, but yet I keep drilling deeper. In some ways this "twitch" is a joyful hobby that keeps me entertained with reading forums and plowing through youtube videos and used equipment forums, while in other ways it agonizing over nuances while I should just enjoy the music and be happy. I guess I need a 10 step program, but I am not ready to confess yet...

 

[audio2design]

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.

I believe the courts have repeatedly ruled this is fair use as long as you are not giving the rips away. The music industry has also said they have no issue with this.

That is much different from sharing all your music with family and friends negating their need to purchase or stream.

Not sure why there should be a time limit. It's not like a patent where there is concrete societal benefit. I think of how in my older siblings youth how much richer many aspects of the music scene were as artists could release an album, sell 50000 copies and survive another year.

 

[MRC01]

... Not sure why there should be a time limit. It's not like a patent where there is concrete societal benefit. ...

This is debated in intellectual property circles. The original purpose of copyright was (obviously) to incentivize production of creative works of all kinds. Yet many creative works derive from other works, to one degree or another. So if the copyright terms are too broad, too strict or too long, it could have a negative impact on other creators and works. Typically some kind of limited time span for copyright has been viewed as a compromise to secure benefits to the original creators without burdening future generations.

 

[sarumbear]

This is debated in intellectual property circles. The original purpose of copyright was (obviously) to incentivize production of creative works of all kinds. Yet many creative works derive from other works, to one degree or another. So if the copyright terms are too broad, too strict or too long, it could have a negative impact on other creators and works. Typically some kind of limited time span for copyright has been viewed as a compromise to secure benefits to the original creators without burdening future generations.

Debate as much as you can but fact of the matter is when you buy a CD you sign a contract. That contract is guarded by RIAA. This is what they say about it.

Copying CDs

• It’s okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but not for commercial purposes.
• Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
  • The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
  • The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
  • The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.

 

[pseudoid]

...That is much different from sharing all your music with family and friends negating their need to purchase or stream...

*Friends come over and I turn on the music.
*I ask my friend in Timbuktu to listen to a cut.
They may decide to thank me for the "sharing".
*FM radio is playing a new artist, and I like it.
Should I thank them for sharing?
1)I certainly gained not a penny; 2)The FM radio certainly did (in an obscure way and w/much less on ROI); and 3)Streaming services gained even more.
This is where one starts questioning as to what the process is with which a song really becomes a hit...job in all the wrong wallets.

 

[MRC01]

Debate as much as you can but fact of the matter is when you buy a CD you sign a contract. ...

I don't know why I'd debate the point that I have been making all along!

 

[sarumbear]

I don't know why I'd debate the point that I have been making all along!

I rephrase. Argue as much as you can. Ripping CDs then putting on a NAS which is shared with friends is illegal.

Having said that, is that criminal? I don’t know. I’m not the judge. All I know is, it’s illegal. I also remember reading it in the news a while ago of parents fined thousands of dollars and forced to pay because their kids made MP3s on their computers available for share.

 

[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.

Well my point all along has been toward your earlier comment above. Ripping CDs for personal use, whether storing them for backups, or even uploading the rips to your phone to listen when you're in your car or traveling, is OK. Even the RIAA and record companies acknowledge this.

That said, your other point is correct: sharing the copies you make is illegal. Or (obviously) selling them.

Back in the 1980s, I remember some CDs had fine print that said, "no lending!". Like you couldn't buy a CD and loan it to a friend? That always seemed to me like an unreasonable stretch of copyright law. By that interpretation, you couldn't sell your own CDs to a used record store.

 

[sarumbear]

Well my point all along has been toward your earlier comment above. Ripping CDs for personal use, whether storing them for backups, or even uploading the rips to your phone to listen when you're in your car or traveling, is OK. Even the RIAA and record companies acknowledge this.

They don’t acknowledge that at all. They says it’s OK to copy to Audio CD-R. They are different to standard CD-R. Ripping is not allowed. Read again what they said. I’ve highlighted for clarity.

That said, your other point is correct: sharing the copies you make is illegal. Or (obviously) selling them.

Back in the 1980s, I remember some CDs had fine print that said, "no lending!". Like you couldn't buy a CD and loan it to a friend? That always seemed to me like an unreasonable stretch of copyright law. By that interpretation, you couldn't sell your own CDs to a used record store.

You can sell but not lend. Selling is transferring the copyright.

 

[MRC01]

They don’t acknowledge that at all. They says it’s OK to copy to Audio CD-R. They are different to standard CD-R. Ripping is not allowed. Read again what they said. I’ve highlighted for clarity.

You can sell but not lend. Selling is transferring the copyright.

The lawyer representing the RIAA and MPAA did acknowledge that; I posted earlier a link to an article with a quote.
Copyright exceptions like "fair use" and "archival" are not simple bright line rules, they've got grey areas.

 

[sarumbear]

The lawyer representing the RIAA and MPAA did acknowledge that; I posted earlier a link to an article with a quote.
Copyright exceptions like "fair use" and "archival" are not simple bright line rules, they've got grey areas.

It’s your life. I can only show you the legal data. You decide how you live your life.

 

[pseudoid]

....The lawyer representing the RIAA and MPAA did acknowledge that; I posted earlier a link to an article with a quote...

And how does that exactly put more food in the starving artist plate, exactly? I forget the rest of the legalese but still no guilt.

 

[ahofer]

Qobuz has a terrific classical library, and I enjoy the lack of MQA gimmicks. However, there is a bug in Roon integration where it de-authorizes tracks (I believe it has to do with balancing rights in US vs other countries). There’s an authorized track somewhere, but Roon ends up pointing to the non-authorized one and it won’t play. Drives me up the wall. They’ve been telling me they “are aware of the problem” for two years now.

 

[Richard10250]

Thanks to everyone that provided feedback! I greatly appreciate the conversation. You have given me the strength to enjoy what I like and without fear of the RIAA! Now all I have to figure out is what I like (smile). I am going to try the Bluesound Node and determine if the Tidal purple MQA light makes my life full. If the purple light does not make me feel superior to all others, then I will likely jump down to Spotify and berate all those silly people chasing the MQA madness. Blessing and happiness to everyone. May we all find peace in our own times.

 

[MRC01]

...If the purple light does not make me feel superior to all others, then I will likely jump down to Spotify and berate all those silly people chasing the MQA madness. ...

As you pass from one extreme to the other, don't forget to sample the land of simple lossless FLAC that lies in between.

 

[pseudoid]

DRM became a sub-post here but the sub-topic has not been put to bed (if it will ever be done).
Legality and Criminality is a topic that pits too many concerns against each other: Profits, Laws, Consumers, Artist, and... the hooligans b*st*rds.
I would love to hear how Sir @sarumbear rationalizes (for example) this ASR post on "What are we listening to right now.." with over 11K replies and many linking to youtube for the music that they are listening to right now.
I am not attempting start a conflict here but is listening youtube links (recommended/shared) legal/criminal?
Regardless of the fact that yt probably has to pay a stipend for each pair of ears.

 

[sarumbear]

DRM became a sub-post here but the sub-topic has not been put to bed (if it will ever be done).
Legality and Criminality is a topic that pits too many concerns against each other: Profits, Laws, Consumers, Artist, and... the hooligans b*st*rds.
I would love to hear how Sir @sarumbear rationalizes (for example) this ASR post on "What are we listening to right now.." with over 11K replies and many linking to youtube for the music that they are listening to right now.
I am not attempting start a conflict here but is listening youtube to links legal/criminal?
Regardless of the fact that yt probably has to pay a stipend for each pair of ears.

First I’m not a Sir. I’m just an ordinary citizen.

Second, I suggest you study how streaming websites like YouTube pay out royalties. There’s nothing illegal on any mainstream stream media site. That topic is only in your head. Royalty distribution has been sorted for a decade.