Serious question: Why does anyone "buy" personal music nowadays?

Serious question: Why does anyone "buy" music nowadays?

Personally, I never listen to music, so I admit I'm out of the fold.

However, in a recent thread, it was shown to be trivial to extract decent
quality MP3 audio on everything except iOS from what seem to be ubiquitous
music videos on the net.

Windows example:
youtube-dl.exe -x --audio-format mp3 --audio-quality 0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU
Android example:
NewPipe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU ("download audio").

In order to run these tests, I clicked around and was surprised that every
title I checked, had a music video (every single title). Of course, I only
know of the popular stuff, but my question is related to the fact that it's
extremely easy to extract the audio and listen, either on a windows, mac,
or linux computer or on an Android mobile device (but not on iOS, it
seems).

Given that free music seems legally available just by clicking, what is the
rationale that people use to purchase personal music nowadays?

How does the industry monetize personal listening music today?

On 16/07/2017 21:38, Roy Tremblay wrote:
Personally, I never listen to music, so I admit I'm out of the fold.

It is because your interest lies in abusing young boys. It is for that
reason you spent nearly 6 months trying to conceal your identity using
Hosts file and openVPN. You have now mastered enough to take risks by
changing names from Lionel Muller to Roy Tremblay. Authorities won;t
have trouble finding you out who really you are.

--
With over 500 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

Good Guy actually wrote:

It is because your interest lies in abusing young boys.

I'm serious when I suggest that you get professional help.
I pray for you but you need to talk to someone about your personal issues.

In article , Roy Tremblay
wrote:

Serious question: Why does anyone "buy" music nowadays?

because piracy is illegal.

Personally, I never listen to music, so I admit I'm out of the fold.

bull****.

However, in a recent thread, it was shown to be trivial to extract decent
quality MP3 audio on everything except iOS from what seem to be ubiquitous
music videos on the net.

there's no issue whatsoever to do that on ios (yet another thing you
don't know how to do).

On 7/16/2017 4:38 PM, Roy Tremblay wrote:
Serious question: Why does anyone "buy" music nowadays?

Personally, I never listen to music, so I admit I'm out of the fold.

However, in a recent thread, it was shown to be trivial to extract decent
quality MP3 audio on everything except iOS from what seem to be ubiquitous
music videos on the net.

Windows example:
youtube-dl.exe -x --audio-format mp3 --audio-quality 0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU
Android example:
NewPipe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU ("download audio").

In order to run these tests, I clicked around and was surprised that every
title I checked, had a music video (every single title). Of course, I only
know of the popular stuff, but my question is related to the fact that it's
extremely easy to extract the audio and listen, either on a windows, mac,
or linux computer or on an Android mobile device (but not on iOS, it
seems).

Given that free music seems legally available just by clicking, what is the
rationale that people use to purchase personal music nowadays?

How does the industry monetize personal listening music today?


I believe it depends on the music. We like acoustical/folk/traditional.
Since many of the artist are local, the only way you can get their music
is on CD, even though they may have a couple of songs on their website.
Since the groups are local, if you want to see them you go down to the
park and see them live the next time they perform.

For some of them to have a music video, it would take the daily job
salaries of all of the members in the group, and then there would be no
national demand.


There is another group of artist like the bands from Ireland and
Scotland that are available in nearly the same way as the local artist.

I would suspect there are other types of music where these artist are
only available on CD.

While we have many CD, I don't know the last time we bought a CD by a
nationally known artist.

--
2017: The year we lean to play the great game of Euchre

On 07/16/2017 04:38 PM, Roy Tremblay wrote:
Serious question: Why does anyone "buy" music nowadays?

Personally, I never listen to music, so I admit I'm out of the fold.

However, in a recent thread, it was shown to be trivial to extract decent
quality MP3 audio on everything except iOS from what seem to be ubiquitous
music videos on the net.

Windows example:
youtube-dl.exe -x --audio-format mp3 --audio-quality 0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU
Android example:
NewPipe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU ("download audio").

In order to run these tests, I clicked around and was surprised that every
title I checked, had a music video (every single title). Of course, I only
know of the popular stuff, but my question is related to the fact that it's
extremely easy to extract the audio and listen, either on a windows, mac,
or linux computer or on an Android mobile device (but not on iOS, it
seems).

Given that free music seems legally available just by clicking, what is the
rationale that people use to purchase personal music nowadays?

How does the industry monetize personal listening music today?

People buy it because they respect the fact that the artist is trying to
make a living.
They do it because they don't know how or want to pirate.
They do it because it's just simple to use itunes and download etc.
And maybe they just can't find it in any other format.

On 7/16/2017 5:17 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-07-16 16:38, Roy Tremblay wrote:
Serious question: Why does anyone "buy" music nowadays?


Because if nobody buys, no more of it will be made.


And that would be a very sad world indeed.

Rene

On 7/16/2017 6:00 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 7/16/2017 5:17 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-07-16 16:38, Roy Tremblay wrote:
Serious question: Why does anyone "buy" music nowadays?


Because if nobody buys, no more of it will be made.


And that would be a very sad world indeed.

Rene



'Music has charms to soothe the savage breast' not sure who by.

Rene

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


anything that I buy from Bandcamp is always in OGG Vorbis
to ensure that the song is devoid of any kind of proprietary codec.

and greatly limits your ability to play it.

Huh????

because ogg is a niche format that's nowhere near as widely supported
as mp3/aac, plus it offers no benefits to justify its existence anyway.

Odd, the two players I use most often have no problems with it.

that doesn't mean *every* player will, nor will every app, and since
you only singled out 2 players, that means your other players *can't*.

the simple fact is that mp3/aac is *far* more widespread than ogg.

All true, but my most used players are VLC and MPC-H64. AFAIK, VLC is
the most widely used free player,

those are apps, not players, and since they are not included with any
os (it's a separate download), you are proving my point.

mp3/aac does not require any additional software or any additional
steps. it just works.

most portable players (e.g., ipod) do not support ogg.

ogg has less support. simple fact.

available for all three major OSs.

you're leaving out a couple.

Nice example of how global stats hide significant details, and so
suggest different conclusions when taken in isolation.

nothing is taken in isolation nor is anything hidden.

the fact is that mp3/aac are universal and ogg is not.

you're assuming that your single use case is representative of the rest
of the world. it isn't.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


Of course copyright infringement is illegal. So what's your point?

*that* is my point.

there are a few people in this thread making all sorts of ridiculous
excuses that there is nothing wrong with copyright infringement.

As I read it, they are making comments about the fuzziness of the term,
and the complexity and occasional weirdness of enforcement, not to
mention the variations between jurisdictions, and not least because
precedent and statute have specified exceptions to the rules, so that
it's not immediately obvious whether or not an instance of copying is an
infringement.

there's no fuzziness nor is there any variance.

the original poster was trying to justify pirating music and video from
bittorrent by claiming nobody has been caught.

his assumption that nobody has been caught is false, and even if nobody
had been caught, there's always a first.

pirating copyrighted content, regardless of method, is illegal.

NB that all infringement begins with copying. Whether a particular
instance of copying constitutes infringement depends on a lot of
factors. "Infringement is illegal" explains nothing.

pirating via bittorrent doesn't depend on anything. not only is it
infringing, but it's willful infringement. you can't 'accidentally'
download music via bittorrent.

EG, I can watch a Youtube movie as it streams, or copy it for watching
later, and even on a different device, after which I usually delete it,
unless i want to watch it again. Is that infringement?

youtube isn't the issue, and according to youtube's terms of service,
downloading is a violation unless there's a download button, which
there normally is not.

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
4. General Use of the Service‹Permissions and Restrictions
C. You agree not to access Content through any technology or means
other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the
Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may
designate.
....
5. Your Use of Content
B. Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your
information and personal use solely as intended through the provided
functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of
Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a
³download² or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for
that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit,
broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content
for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube
or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors
reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and
the Content.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Trespassing is not in and of itself a crime

yes it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_land
http://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/trespassing.html

USA.

yes, usa. the original poster lives in the usa, so usa laws apply.

The article shows that even in the USA, there are large variations in
the treatment of trespass, which anyhow is usually dealt with as a tort,
not a crime.

still illegal.

, that's why the cops won't
enforce it just because you tell them about it, even if you have proof.

yes they will.

... he says, despite being offered an example to the contrary.

you didn't offer any such example.

Robert T. gave extensive descriptions of his problems with trespassers.
Twice, at least.

'robert t.' is the resident nym-shifting troll, so anything he say is
not credible.

cops absolutely will remove trespassers.

Maybe if you have managed to keep them on the property. I wouldn't even
try that in your country, too much risk of getting killed. But if the
trespassers have disappeared, the cops have no one to remove, and
getting an arrest, as Robert T. recounted, is almost impossible.

he claims to have photos and other identifying information.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

For example this post is copyrighted, but it's obviously
quite OK to copy it (provided you don't violate my *other* -
than copy - author's rights [1]).

[1] "Author's rights" is the (Berne Convention) preferred
term, because the misnomer "copyright" implies that it's
only/mainly about (not) copying, but that's only a *part* of
the author's rights.

Actually, copying your screed in order to discuss it is
perfectly legal.

not necessarily. it's up to a judge to decide if something is fair use,

If the copied-in-order-to-discuss text is properly attributed, it
doesn't infringe on that (proper attribution) author's right.

attribution is not required

Attribution *is* required. The Berne Convention says so.

usenet etiquette says otherwise:

http://www.lsu.edu/internet/usenet/usenet-etiquette.html
€ Quote as little as possible from others' messages. This is the
only major deviation between mail etiquette and news etiquette. Your
news message may be sent to thousands of other sites. Most of these
sites keep anywhere from several days to several weeks' worth of old
news articles. This means that the article you are replying to is
probably available, if someone needs to look at it. In particular,
"me too" messages, where you quote several dozen lines from someone
else's news article, and then add a one-line comment at the end are
frowned upon. Make sure that all the quoted text is absolutely
necessary.

the attributions are available via linked message ids. anyone who is
confused and has lost track can easily determine who said what.

and doesn't make infringement legal either.

Duh! Who said differently?

then why are you arguing?

there is also an expectation that a post made to a public discussion
forum will be quoted in a response, with or without attributions.

The Berne Convention doesn't give a toss about your "expectation"!

it's not *my* expectation.

it's the expectation in using a discussion forum.

that's very different than copying music or video.

Which we weren't discussing.

actually that *is* what was being discussed.

it was *you* who tried to sidetrack it into usenet attributions and the
berne convention.

As you do *not* properly attribute most of the time - i.e. also not in
your post to which I'm responding - *you* *do* infringe on people's
author's rights/'copyright'.

nonsense and you just said quoting on usenet is non-infringing. you
can't have it both ways.

Try to read for comprehension: Quoting is OK, *if* properly
attributed.

nope. the only problem is when it's *improperly* attributed.

furthermore, i *always* attribute the post to which i am replying.

the remaining text is solely for context and its attributions are
nothing more than noise and no longer relevant.

You leave out the attributions of all lower level quotes, i.e. for
example my previous text(s) and Wolf K's text. That's infringement of
our author's rights. Period.

there is no infringement whatsoever.

however, the
attributions can be obtained with a click.

The Berne Convention doesn't do clicks.

then they need to get with the times.

The quote and attribution are
required to stand on its own. nospam-rules don't apply.

they're not my rules.

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

For example this post is copyrighted, but it's obviously
quite OK to copy it (provided you don't violate my *other* -
than copy - author's rights [1]).

[1] "Author's rights" is the (Berne Convention) preferred
term, because the misnomer "copyright" implies that it's
only/mainly about (not) copying, but that's only a *part* of
the author's rights.

Actually, copying your screed in order to discuss it is
perfectly legal.

not necessarily. it's up to a judge to decide if something is fair use,

If the copied-in-order-to-discuss text is properly attributed, it
doesn't infringe on that (proper attribution) author's right.

attribution is not required

Attribution *is* required. The Berne Convention says so.

usenet etiquette says otherwise:

No, it doesn't. It says to limit your *quoting*. It does *not* say to
*remove* the attributions from your quotes. That - the latter - is
purely nospam-MO, period.

http://www.lsu.edu/internet/usenet/usenet-etiquette.html
? Quote as little as possible from others' messages. This is the
only major deviation between mail etiquette and news etiquette. Your
news message may be sent to thousands of other sites. Most of these
sites keep anywhere from several days to several weeks' worth of old
news articles. This means that the article you are replying to is
probably available, if someone needs to look at it. In particular,
"me too" messages, where you quote several dozen lines from someone
else's news article, and then add a one-line comment at the end are
frowned upon. Make sure that all the quoted text is absolutely
necessary.

the attributions are available via linked message ids. anyone who is
confused and has lost track can easily determine who said what.

The Berne Convention doesn't do 'linked messages'. The (partial) quote
*must* be attributed, period.

and doesn't make infringement legal either.

Duh! Who said differently?

then why are you arguing?

there is also an expectation that a post made to a public discussion
forum will be quoted in a response, with or without attributions.

The Berne Convention doesn't give a toss about your "expectation"!

it's not *my* expectation.

Yes, it is. Other people do *not* remove the attributions of their
(partial) quotes. That's *your* MO and other - sensible - people do
*not* expect it. (And, the point is moot, because the Berne Convention
*requires* it.)

it's the expectation in using a discussion forum.

that's very different than copying music or video.

Which we weren't discussing.

actually that *is* what was being discussed.

it was *you* who tried to sidetrack it into usenet attributions and the
berne convention.

Nope, *you* said "copyright infringement is illegal". Since that is a
silly "Duh!", I responded with "The point is of course what's an
infrigement and what's not." and gave an *example* of that.

So we can conclude that you have some problems with 'linked messages'!

As you do *not* properly attribute most of the time - i.e. also not in
your post to which I'm responding - *you* *do* infringe on people's
author's rights/'copyright'.

nonsense and you just said quoting on usenet is non-infringing. you
can't have it both ways.

Try to read for comprehension: Quoting is OK, *if* properly
attributed.

nope. the only problem is when it's *improperly* attributed.

No attribution *is* "*improperly* attributed".

furthermore, i *always* attribute the post to which i am replying.

the remaining text is solely for context and its attributions are
nothing more than noise and no longer relevant.

You leave out the attributions of all lower level quotes, i.e. for
example my previous text(s) and Wolf K's text. That's infringement of
our author's rights. Period.

there is no infringement whatsoever.

Is your uninformed *opinion*.

Let me repeat a part which you apparently overlooked/ignored:

rewind_and_repeat

As you do *not* properly attribute most of the time - i.e. also not in
your post to which I'm responding - *you* *do* infringe on people's
author's rights/'copyright'.

and if a judge decides it's not, you're liable.

So let's hope for your sake that no judge is watching this! [1]

[1] Not really joking. We had a website taken down for this exact
infringement (and out-of-context quoting).

rewind_and_repeat/

[And yes, this *is* about Usenet posts.]

The guy also thought "there is no infringement whatsoever.". He was
wrong and had to cave in.

however, the
attributions can be obtained with a click.

The Berne Convention doesn't do clicks.

then they need to get with the times.

They - and that includes the US - don't give a toss about your
opinion.

The quote and attribution are
required to stand on its own. nospam-rules don't apply.

they're not my rules.

Yes they are, unless and until, you show examples - in (a) sensible
Usenet group(s) - where several other posters do the same as you do
(intentionally removing attributions of material which *is* quoted).

I hope you don't mind that we don't hold our breath.