Does anyone know where to find DSD versions of any artists anyone has heard of?

[Siltech817]

16 minutes ago, bigbob said:

--but I am a cheap audiophile, not an attorney...

 

I think maybe you are just overthinking things a bit? It's really as simple as @kumakuma put it, when you copy the library CD, even if just for your own personal use, you haven't paid the copyright holder for an additional license, have you? So they've been paid once for media which there are now 2 copies in use. In a broader sense, how could either the artist or the record label continue in business if your way of doing things became widespread? There are lots of libraries and even lots more people, if this became the norm the music creation business would at some point collapse, no?

You really have no leg to stand on here, not legally or otherwise, and I'm thinking this site's owner has in the past chimed in on this topic in other threads to say exactly what has been stated here, it is not ok to take a copyrighted work as your own without having paid for it.

All things legal aside, it isn't even remotely defensible from an ethical perspective, and being a cheapskate is not a defense.

 

[bigbob]

14 minutes ago, Siltech817 said:

 

I think maybe you are just overthinking things a bit? @kumakuma.

 

 

I drew that conclusion an hour ago, but it is Sunday, no football, so let us joust here on the Internet. The self-righteous vs. the @cheapaudiophile...

 

 

14 minutes ago, Siltech817 said:

In a broader sense, how could either the artist or the record label continue in business if your way of doing things became widespread?

 

 

So I guess you have never heard of Limetorrents, PiratesBay, and other BitTorrent sites?

 

As the writer said earlier about SACD and DSD are not new-- neither has the barn door been closed for quite some time.

 

I spent my career working for a News Agency, and part of my compensation was a royalty to be paid from gross revenues in the syndication and re-selling of my copyrighted images. This was to be something irrevocable and assured us that we would have some income from our work.

 

Then that agency was purchased, and the terms were changed. Now, all images were sold on subscription, and the royalties clause eliminated in the new contract.

 

14 minutes ago, Siltech817 said:

 

 

You really have no leg to stand on here, not legally or otherwise, and I'm thinking this site's owner has in the past chimed in on this topic in other threads to say exactly what has been stated here, it is not ok to take a copyrighted work as your own without having paid for it.

 

 

Oh, you had to go there... I am a right below knee amputee, so a phrase like "You don't have a leg to stand on", from your perspective is just a quaint turn of a phrase.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Siltech817 said:

All things legal aside, it isn't even remotely defensible from an ethical perspective, and being a cheapskate is not a defense.

 

 

 

Nor is being an ignorant Bigot an excuse to disrespect members of the Audiophile Community who are disabled, not wealthy, or employed.

 

Now, one last time-- I am not advocating sharing ripped files on file-sharing.

 

I am talking about ripping a CD--whether you purchased it, or borrowed it, or bought it second hand at a yard sale. I am talking, on a forum about Computer Audiophiles about DSD being a paid service--a subscription service.

 

Have you ever ripped a CD?  And how will you defend the possession of files, which you ripped?

Have you the receipts where you purchased the CD? 

So, you say you ripped the CD so you could easily manage your music library with a music server.  You made a copy for your personal use, correct?  Is that fair use?  ONLY IF YOU PAID FULL PRICE, some would say. But, what about buying a box full of CDs from the neighbors' garage sale. Yes, please show where you reimbursed the artist for their royalty. Just ASCAP and BMI, thank you.

 

You are a legal scofflaw unless you can prove the purchase provenance of every music file in your hard-drive, external storage, NAS, cloud.  Subpeonas are being drawn as we speak. Sure there are Terrorists, and Drug Cartels, but these people ripping CDs from the local library is where the taxpayers want their dollars spent on enforcement....

 

When the Feds really decide to make the crack-down on the plague of people ripping SACDs in their Blu-Ray player, or some other crimes of great significance,

I will still remind you that any CD Rip is potentially a copyright violation.

 

And the reason why they have copiers in the public library is so you can infringe upon the author's royalties.

 

Does it make economic sense to go after a single end-user-- or would you go after Spotify, with its ubiquity-- who has apparently played songs that they did not license? 

 

Now stop thinking so hard...

[jhwalker]

21 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

I drew that conclusion an hour ago, but it is Sunday, no football, so let us joust here on the Internet. The self-righteous vs. the @cheapaudiophile...

 

 

 

So I guess you have never heard of Limetorrents, PiratesBay, and other BitTorrent sites?

 

As the writer said earlier about SACD and DSD are not new-- neither has the barn door been closed for quite some time.

 

I spent my career working for a News Agency, and part of my compensation was a royalty to be paid from gross revenues in the syndication and re-selling of my copyrighted images. This was to be something irrevocable and assured us that we would have some income from our work.

 

Then that agency was purchased, and the terms were changed. Now, all images were sold on subscription, and the royalties clause eliminated in the new contract.

 

 

Oh, you had to go there... I am a right below knee amputee, so a phrase like "You don't have a leg to stand on", from your perspective is just a quaint turn of a phrase.

 

 

 

Nor is being an ignorant Bigot an excuse to disrespect members of the Audiophile Community who are disabled, not wealthy, or employed.

 

Now, one last time-- I am not advocating sharing ripped files on file-sharing.

 

I am talking about ripping a CD--whether you purchased it, or borrowed it, or bought it second hand at a yard sale. I am talking, on a forum about Computer Audiophiles about DSD being a paid service--a subscription service.

 

Have you ever ripped a CD?  And how will you defend the possession of files, which you ripped?

Have you the receipts where you purchased the CD? 

So, you say you ripped the CD so you could easily manage your music library with a music server.  You made a copy for your personal use, correct?  Is that fair use?  ONLY IF YOU PAID FULL PRICE, some would say. But, what about buying a box full of CDs from the neighbors' garage sale. Yes, please show where you reimbursed the artist for their royalty. Just ASCAP and BMI, thank you.

 

You are a legal scofflaw unless you can prove the purchase provenance of every music file in your hard-drive, external storage, NAS, cloud.  Subpeonas are being drawn as we speak. Sure there are Terrorists, and Drug Cartels, but these people ripping CDs from the local library is where the taxpayers want their dollars spent on enforcement....

 

When the Feds really decide to make the crack-down on the plague of people ripping SACDs in their Blu-Ray player, or some other crimes of great significance,

I will still remind you that any CD Rip is potentially a copyright violation.

 

And the reason why they have copiers in the public library is so you can infringe upon the author's royalties.

 

Does it make economic sense to go after a single end-user-- or would you go after Spotify, with its ubiquity-- who has apparently played songs that they did not license? 

 

Now stop thinking so hard...

 

Bunch of bull to justify getting stuff for free.

 

If you want to rip CDs, pay for them.

[Siltech817]

17 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

I drew that conclusion an hour ago, but it is Sunday, no football, so let us joust here on the Internet. The self-righteous vs. the @cheapaudiophile...

 

 

 

So I guess you have never heard of Limetorrents, PiratesBay, and other BitTorrent sites?

 

As the writer said earlier about SACD and DSD are not new-- neither has the barn door been closed for quite some time.

 

I spent my career working for a News Agency, and part of my compensation was a royalty to be paid from gross revenues in the syndication and re-selling of my copyrighted images. This was to be something irrevocable and assured us that we would have some income from our work.

 

Then that agency was purchased, and the terms were changed. Now, all images were sold on subscription, and the royalties clause eliminated in the new contract.

 

 

Oh, you had to go there... I am a right below knee amputee, so a phrase like "You don't have a leg to stand on", from your perspective is just a quaint turn of a phrase.

 

 

 

Nor is being an ignorant Bigot an excuse to disrespect members of the Audiophile Community who are disabled, not wealthy, or employed.

 

Now, one last time-- I am not advocating sharing ripped files on file-sharing.

 

I am talking about ripping a CD--whether you purchased it, or borrowed it, or bought it second hand at a yard sale. I am talking, on a forum about Computer Audiophiles about DSD being a paid service--a subscription service.

 

Have you ever ripped a CD?  And how will you defend the possession of files, which you ripped?

Have you the receipts where you purchased the CD? 

So, you say you ripped the CD so you could easily manage your music library with a music server.  You made a copy for your personal use, correct?  Is that fair use?  ONLY IF YOU PAID FULL PRICE, some would say. But, what about buying a box full of CDs from the neighbors' garage sale. Yes, please show where you reimbursed the artist for their royalty. Just ASCAP and BMI, thank you.

 

You are a legal scofflaw unless you can prove the purchase provenance of every music file in your hard-drive, external storage, NAS, cloud.  Subpeonas are being drawn as we speak. Sure there are Terrorists, and Drug Cartels, but these people ripping CDs from the local library is where the taxpayers want their dollars spent on enforcement....

 

When the Feds really decide to make the crack-down on the plague of people ripping SACDs in their Blu-Ray player, or some other crimes of great significance,

I will still remind you that any CD Rip is potentially a copyright violation.

 

And the reason why they have copiers in the public library is so you can infringe upon the author's royalties.

 

Does it make economic sense to go after a single end-user-- or would you go after Spotify, with its ubiquity-- who has apparently played songs that they did not license? 

 

Now stop thinking so hard...

 

I'll stop right there then, you've misquoted me, intentionally or otherwise, at the very beginning of your post above. I'm thinking intentional in order to take a simultaneous stab at another member. You've also violates the site rules with your nasty name calling.

All of my previous points stand, and your attempt at sympathy is in very poor taste.

No one ever said anything about "going after" a single entity, nor any other party, those are you words. Similarly, no one ever said you were illegally sharing these files, again, your words. You did however advocate the idea of ripping library CDs you don't own, and that is neither legal nor ethical.

Good day sir, enjoy the cheapskate lifestyle and it's online persona/mantra.

[bigbob]

10 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Bunch of bull to justify getting stuff for free.

 

If you want to rip CDs, pay for them.

 

Actually, the real bull shit is that we are even having this discussion.

 

And he is without sin, please cast the first stone....

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, bigbob said:

Nor is being an ignorant Bigot an excuse

Are you personally attacking him?

[bigbob]

Maybe making fun of a disabled person is acceptable amongst your friends but saying "you don't have a leg to stand on" to a one-legged man is a personal affront that is both ignorant and bigoted. To that end, we don't say "you are an Indian-giver to Native Americans, which I am also. As for eponymous "Cheap" title doesn't mean I am jealous of a system that costs 100 or 1000 times my own-- but we live in world where there are more folks 'on the Cheap' than buyers Wilson speakers...

If you need to be insulted, then put on that shoe and strut like you shoplifted it from Walmart...

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, bigbob said:

Maybe making fun of a disabled person is acceptable amongst your friends but saying "you don't have a leg to stand on" to a one-legged man is a personal affront that is both ignorant and bigoted.

 

This makes absolutely no sense at all.  

 

Siltech817 used this expression BEFORE you revealed that you are amputee. Are you saying he knew this before you told us this fact?

[ShawnC]

I think this is the second time you've brought up the fact that your an amputee.  Maybe you should put that irrelevant information in your title so the rest of us never use a common phrase like that again. 

[bigbob]

19 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This makes absolutely no sense at all.  

 

Siltech817 used this expression BEFORE you revealed that you are amputee. Are you saying he knew this before you told us this fact?

 

We native Americans have a saying: Don't judge a man before you have walked in his moccasins. Making a comment about a disabled person and then thinking "oh my" I didn't know you have one leg...is an excuse is what I find offensive. You don't walk into an Italian restaurant in New York and start guffawing about the Mafia --capiche?

Maybe "you don't have a leg to stand on" doesn't offend you, but it is offensive to me. thanks for your support... The Big Indian with one moccasin.

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

We native Americans have a saying: Don't judge a man before you have walked in his moccasins. Making a comment about a disabled person and then thinking "oh my" I didn't know you have one leg...is an excuse is what I find offensive. You don't walk into an Italian restaurant in New York and start guffawing about the Mafia --capiche?

Maybe "you don't have a leg to stand on" doesn't offend you, but it is offensive to me. thanks for your support... The Big Indian with one moccasin.

 

 

You are missing the point.

 

How could he have known that you are missing part of your leg or disabled when he made his post? 

 

You stated this fact AFTER he posted!

[Ralf11]

a “transformative” use would be to rip portions of a music CD onto your computer, add your own rap lyrics to it (esp. if you comment on the music itself) and then post the result on youTube

[The Computer Audiophile]

Give it up. Move on. 

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, bigbob said:

Maybe "you don't have a leg to stand on" doesn't offend you, but it is offensive to me.

 

Bob I just read through that post, and you've taken that entirely out of context. Not fair at all to siltech817 as others have already stated, how did you expect him to know about your personal details?

 

Granted, we now all understand that such a remark is offensive to you, but in reading through the various posts I don't see where anyone tried to specifically offend you. As others above have stated, we had no idea of any disability and certainly would never use such a condition to offend you in any way.

 

On the other hand, you were most certainly offensive accusing siltech817 being an ignorant bigot, just as you were earlier in the thread where you equated DSD download buyers as an example of a sucker born every minute.

 

You just did it again taking a stab at Wilson loudspeakers, for no reason other than their price?

 

C'mon man, you started a thread asking where to get DSD downloads by known artists, and when provided that information you attack the very buyers of DSD with being suckers? That looks like baiting to me.

 

Even your advocating of Schiit was also misguided in that same regard (you do know that Schiit pricing you so love is not really them being charitable, it their business model that cuts out the dealer 40% margin).

 

[bigbob]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You are missing the point.

 

How did he know that you are missing part of your leg or disabled when he made his post? I didn't know it until you said this.

 

You stated this fact AFTER he posted!

 

Okay, let me give you further insight. The reason it is politically incorrect to refer to a woman as "chicks" or "Honey" because it is demeaning to women.

 

The reason why it is not a good choice of words to say "You dIf I don't enlighten people to what can be construed to be hate speech, in other contexts means something and is hurtful, how will the people who would just let a casual phrase fly without a care that it means something.on't have a leg to stand on" is because you DO NOT know if there are any "gimps" cripples" or disabled persons who might take offense.

 

Oh how far we have drifted from the OP.

I have read and cited the law concerning copyright infringement--and how virtually unenforceable those laws are considering that they are no way to verify if the music file in a Computer Audiophile system was ripped from your own copy, one borrowed from the library, or stolen in the dead of night by a North Korean hacker who dislikes Seth Rogen movies.

 

I am so bored by all this.

 

$9.99 a month so I don't hear advertisements. That is what a mute button on the remote is for. And I don't intend to spend $25 bucks per album to hear the difference between the HDTracks 24/96 and a DSD. 

 

Now if you have had your feeling hurt, your panties are is a tightwad, or I have insulted you in any way. Fine, grow a set and shut up.

 

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, bigbob said:

Now if you have had your feeling hurt, your panties are is a tightwad, or I have insulted you in any way. Fine, grow a set and shut up.

 

Now you are just being plain rude and jerky, so I've added you to my ignore list and I'd bet others will also.

[bigbob]

1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

On the other hand, you were most certainly offensive accusing siltech817 being an ignorant bigot, just as you were earlier in the thread where you equated DSD download buyers as an example of a sucker born every minute.

 

You just did it again taking a stab at Wilson loudspeakers, for no reason other than their price?

 

 

 

 

The Wilson speakers were selected by Absolute Sound and were like $600K (I assume for a pair.)

I quoted P.T. Barnum about the prices of high-end audio in general but that was so long ago. I forget the context.

 

Hey, nobody likes to be called a sucker, especially by someone who is poor, and thinks a USB Schiit Modi 2 is the bee's knees.

 

I understand 'ego-investment' in one's hobby. I used to hang around a cigar shop where the Millionaires would smoke $20 cigars.

Stereo is nothing more than an excuse to spend money, I get it. And each and every one of you has much more to spend than I, Okay.  Feeling on the sleeves because a one-legged man is happy with a pair of Advents, and an old Denon home theatre receiver--and a pair of $7,800 speaker wires to connect. I do understand ego investment in your hobby.

 

Now no more...talk amongst yourselves, there is men's figure skating on TV...parse that however, you chose.

 

Thanks Chris

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Give it up. Move on. 

 

.

[bigbob]

8 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Now you are just being plain rude and jerky, so I've added you to my ignore list and I'd bet others will also.

 

Thank you, and good evening.

[The Computer Audiophile]

If adults can’t be adults, the thread gets locked.