on the subject of buying mp3s from amazon

tl;dr buying mp3s on amazon is annoying.

it is annoying using Amazon's downloader, but once you purchase an mp3 album, you get 25gb of free storage in their digital locker, fyi.

yeah i went elsewhere because they made it so damn hard/annoying.

By the time I've downloaded every track, I will have clicked almost 100 times in the cloud player alone. This is not ownership.

you don't own any music you buy. that's the law

honestly, it bothers me more that copyright killed sampling.

  On 5/28/2011 at 12:41 AM, hahathhat said:

honestly, it bothers me more that copyright killed sampling.

did it though?

  On 5/28/2011 at 12:45 AM, sneaksta303 said:

  On 5/28/2011 at 12:41 AM, hahathhat said:

honestly, it bothers me more that copyright killed sampling.

 

did it though?

*samples conversation, puts it in right before a huge drop

*samples public domain*

  On 5/28/2011 at 12:45 AM, sneaksta303 said:

  On 5/28/2011 at 12:41 AM, hahathhat said:

honestly, it bothers me more that copyright killed sampling.

 

did it though?

well, not unless you hire a bunch of lawyers to determine how much of your profits they're taking, if not all of it. did you know fatboy slim didn't make a dime off of rockefella skank? i also remember beck talking about how he'd get a bunch of turntables going for some noise, but can't do that anymore because the lawyers just gut the track.

i know vibert samples a lot of library music, these days. copyright crackdown has sent people like him into a corner. while there's still stuff to work with, there's a massive amount of much better stuff with a brickwall around it. so you say, "xyz would be perfect here, but i can't use it." it makes the music just a tad less good/interesting.

if you're just some dude, of course you can sample whatever you want, esp. if you don't release anything. but if you're trying to make it as a musician, you can't go anywhere near it. i do a bit of illegal sampling, but i try to keep it off the stuff i'm really trying on. worry it'll come back to bite me....

I like buying mp3 album on amazon. Do it all the time. Don't mind the software one bit. I think it's great. It would be nice if they offered uncompressed versions in .wav format. It sounds great for 320k Mp3 though. I get an occasional slight pang that I'm paying for something that isn't the best quality (audio) possible.

Does anyone know if a big conglomerate like amazon would be able to get away with using the flac format? I would assume as long as they are just using the technology and not selling said technology.

But are their like limitations of .flac's use? Like non-corporate, etc.

If not amazon should flac it up.

  On 5/28/2011 at 12:41 AM, hahathhat said:

you don't own any music you buy. that's the law

 

honestly, it bothers me more that copyright killed sampling.

I don't know if I'd call it "a shame", but I certainly think it's sad. It's good for music to be protected at least by the owners.

Wait---revelation?

That's what has hurt the music industry so bad in the first place?

*ponders*

*asplodes*

Anyway, I think of like, Marilyn Manson's "Portrait of an american Family" Early 90's industrial, skinny puppy, haujobb was like, all samples.

"DJ Mixes" Are pretty much the only saving grace (or at least safe haven) for sampling these days.

who owns a song, anyways? if you keep it in your head it's yours, but once you let it out......

i wouldn't want kanye west sampling one of my beats, looping it, and rapping over it. copyright wouldn't help much there, i'd still have to find a lawyer (and a way to pay the lawyer). i think, as always, it's about money. the sampling crackdown was partially a cash grab -- labels suing each other for $millions because they own the rights to a track. the ridiculous anti-piracy crap is also a cash grab. the lawyers ensure individuals can't play ball. only those with enough money to have a couple sharks on retainer!

edit: i'm still thinking about this. i suppose, if you stay small, you can do whatever you want and not get sued. but if you sell over 5-10k units -- e.g. start to make money -- that's when the sharks will smell blood. so this only matters if you intend to make money from music.

i've been happy with the mp3s i've purchased from amazon

  On 5/28/2011 at 2:59 AM, Brandi_B said:

It would be nice if they offered uncompressed versions in .wav format. It sounds great for 320k Mp3 though. I get an occasional slight pang that I'm paying for something that isn't the best quality (audio) possible.

 

Does anyone know if a big conglomerate like amazon would be able to get away with using the flac format? I would assume as long as they are just using the technology and not selling said technology.

 

But are their like limitations of .flac's use? Like non-corporate, etc.

 

If not amazon should flac it up.

They're not doing FLAC because the amount of people (and especially Amazon buyers) that want/care about lossless is really small and it would add a big bandwidth cost if people realised they could download even more bits for their money. Add to that a few mayor players like Apple who refuse to implement FLAC support even if it wouldn't cost them anything (no license costs & ready made permissive-licensed decoding libraries, absolutely no cost involved.)

I don't buy from Amazon because I don't think I need a large reseller like Amazon to get the goods I want. I'd rather buy from the label or smaller affiliated stores even if it's more expensive and I get raped on shipping. They tend to deliver lossless and give great customer treatment.

I ain't payin' for lossy audio files.

I tried to buy a BMSR album off Amazon for the free cloud drive space, but all my payment information was out of date. My order didn't go through but I still got the free 20GB of drive space.