I have downloaded a flac file which is the result of ripping an audio cd issued by a record company (I mean a company like RCA Victor or CBS), and downloaded it for free. But neither in the files bundled with the flac file nor in the flacs themselves is there any reference to the performer's name, say the person who played the piano.

In itself, I do not think this is weird. But that is not the practice among people who rip and upload these files, not in the least. The only hypothesis I have is that ripping an audio CD that was manufactured for selling violates some law or legal disposition and the ripper thought he protects himself by hiding the name. Not even the name of the record company is there.

I have now in my hands an audio CD and the label says "Unauthorised copying ... prohibited". But the producer can write whatever he wishes on the label. It does not mean there is legislation in the matter of audio CDs, a medium dating from the 1980's. Perhaps the new laws (projects) that are under discussion at this time in the Congress will have something to say about this question.

I remember having downloaded a 24-bit FLAC file and the uploader not only gave a detailed listing of the performers but also specified every piece of equipment he used in the transcription, from the phono cartridge up to the AD converter, passing by the tonearm, the transcription table and the preamplifier (it was taken from an LP). I do not ask for that much. A mere John Smith conducted the orchestra would have sufficed.

Hi there,

making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is unlawful in most countries. And ripping an audio CD and converting the contents to mp3 or some other audio file is copying. So what these people do is very probably against the law, unless they can prove authorization by the copyright holder.
But what would the person making an unauthorized copy gain by not even mentioning the artist's name? Nothing. Of course they wouldn't put their own name into the file, but usually the available information about the audio contents as such.

Yes and no. In some countries, like Germany for example, the artist/producer doesn't even have to claim any right or intellectual property. So he doesn't have to write anything like that on the CD cover. Yet they usually do so, just to make people aware these rights exist.
In the US, AFAIK you have to claim your copyright on a certain work (book, music, movie, software) to have legal protection. And I don't know what it's like in other countries, but I assume there is some legislation of that kind almost everywhere, though the details vary from country to country.

[X] Doc CPU

It is legal to make one copy for backup purposes and keep it. To massively distribute copies online is illegal. Of course, you can borrow a CD from a friend and return it later.

Hi there,

that depends on where you are, and what it is that you're copying. I know that at least in Germany, the situation is a bit more complicated - but the Germans have a reputation of making things particularly complicated, have they? ;-)

When we're talking about books, audio and video, copying these media is allowed for private (or educational) use. It is even allowed to rent a video, make a copy at home - for strictly private use. It is also accepted, though not explicitly allowed, to occasionally distribute a copy of a CD or video among friends, as long as these are your private circle.

However, it is against the law to circumvent a technical method that is established to prevent copying. In German legalese, this is called "technisch wirksamer Kopierschutz" (translated: technically effective copy protection method). There have been many discussions about whether a method that can easily be defeated (like the CSS on DVD videos) qualifies as "effective". Particularly for CSS, German courts have declared that this method is effective. Period. Therefore it is unlawful in Germany to copy an encrypted (protected) DVD, even for private use. Alright, if you do violate that law and make a copy you really use in private only, they're not gonna pursue that offense.

As for software, the situation is even more complicated. Generally, you are not allowed to make copies of software, unless the copyright holder explicitly allows it. That means, even though many people think so, you don't have the right to make a backup copy of the original diskettes, CD or DVD. Instead, if the original installation media are damaged, the dealer who sold it is supposed replace them. In fact, they often refuse to do so. Some hardcore "word butchers" say that even making a backup of your hard disk is an unlawful copy if the backup includes the software installed on that HDD.
Okay, theory and practice ... In practice, making a backup copy is usually accepted if the purpose is only to maintain availability and continued use of the software.

Yes, we absolutely agree on that.

[X] Doc CPU

That is true in the US too, you cannot circumvent copyright protection ... so ripping a DVD would be illegal, you would have to clone it instead.

Distribution among friends is usually tolerated ... but it would still be illegal to permanently give them a copy ... of course how would anyone know that you gave it to them permanently.

In what respects to audio CDs (cdda containing music, to be more precise) there are at least two kinds of people involved: the one who wrote the music score and the one who performs it. Suppose composer C has written a work. Publisher P publishes the score. Violinist V executes it.

Some time afterwards, when a CD containing the performance has been published by R, the record company, outrageous O rips it and uploads it. I wonder in what way O prejudices C. Once P has payed C, C is out of risk. (Now, Stravinsky was payed by every hour of his music that was transmitted on television. This is another story.)

What about V? He has also been payed as soon as the takes in the recording studio ended. By the way, P won't be prejudiced by the action of O. And for me, these two people, C the creator of the work and V who conveys that work to the general public, are almost all that matters.

Of course these "almost" constitute a long chain, which ends in the person who buys the CD. But, except the latter, everyone else profits (money) from the work of only one person, two at most. The largest beneficiary --monetary I mean for, in the long run the largest beneficiary is the public-- at least in the field of non classical music, will be the discographic company. And this is the one who most tries to enforce its rights.

Many people has written in LQ about Wikipedia's blackout. And most of them are against SOPA and PIPA. I, on my part, as this post tries to show, disagree with those censoring the person who uploads the Mass in B minor. You will say they are two different things but it all can be reduced to only one: the State advancing over the individual.

Hi there,

it's a well-known fact that the musicians themselves profit least of all - you're right, it's the record companies in the first place. The same is true for actors, if we ignore the top-score Hollywood celebs. And the same is true in science and education, where most of the work and research is done by the people who apply for an academic degree, and their mentors earn the merits. In German, we only have one word for "earn" and "deserve". What a shame.

Unfortunately, nowadays the state is the citizen's major enemy. And that's true for most countries.

[X] Doc CPU

Earn and deserve... How interesting. And what is that word?

Hi there,

the German word for these two is "verdienen". And yes, German language doesn't distinguish between the moral/ethical and the materialistic aspect. That's why jokes like this can exist:

"Wie viel verdienst du in deinem Job?"
"Etwa 50 Euro im Monat."
"Nicht mehr?"
"Du hast mich gefragt, wie viel ich verdiene, nicht wie viel ich bekomme."

For those who don't speak German:
"How much do you deserve for your job?" [note: deserve and earn is the same word in German and can be misunderstood]
- "About 50 Euro per month."
"Not more?"
- "You asked me how much I deserve, not how much I get."

[X] Doc CPU

The joke makes it clear that German nicht = English not. In Spanish nein and nicht are the same word.

I've noticed English speaking people have an inborn incapacity to pronounce the word Bach (brook?) when referring to the composer. They make it end in a 'k' sound. At first I attributed it to ignorance, but then the truth became apparent. But believe me, it had a very comical effect.

Hi there,

that's right, yes.

I know. :-)
It's not that I speak Spanish; I just know a few words and phrases.

Yes, the 'ch' sound is unknown in many languages. On top of that, the 'ch' is pronounced in three different ways depending on the previous letter:
If the 'ch' follows a, o or u, it is pronounced like in your example "Bach".
If the 'ch' follows e, i or a consonant, a similar sound is produced in the front part of the palate ("Licht", light).
If the 'ch' is at the beginning of a word, it is pronounced like a 'k' ("Chor", choir).
There's more, like for example the umlaut 'ü', which is a sound in the middle between u and i. Many native English speakers find it hard to pronounce that sound.

But the problem exists the other way round, too. Many Germans have trouble pronouncing the 'th' sound in English correctly; many don't realize that there are in fact two qualities of the 'th', a voiced and an unvoiced one. Or take the nasal vowels in French that drive students crazy. The Dutch are making a point of their 'ij' and 'ui' combinations and use the 'ch' sound extensively - though they associate it with the letter g in certain words.
And so I guess every language has a few catches that are difficult to adopt for non-native speakers.

[X] Doc CPU

Spanish is a strange language. Not only it's the only one with a single word for 'no' and 'not'. It unfolds to be into ser and estar, and to have into haber and tener. Further, there is no difference between there is and there are, a fact that causes native speakers no little confusion.

So the 'ch' in "ich bin" is slightly different from that combination in "bach". This is understandable. Otherwise, the tongue would be doing magic.

People should have notions of phonetics. So a Germain would only have to be explained that his tongue should be in exactly the same position, as when pronouncing the voiced 'th'.

You spoke, before, about German not distinguishing between "the moral/ethical and the materialistic aspect". I do not completely agree. Maybe that makes some jokes possible but never could it make Goethe possible.

Hi there,

still a language that fascinates me, and I like the sound of it. When I take the time to learn another language someday, Spanish is among my favorites. Russian too, by the way.

I agree, but the Swiss and some people in the southernmost corner of the Black Forest (towards Basel) actually do that kind of magic! They actually produce that 'ch' sound in the back of their mouth, so there is no difference between the 'ch' in "Bach", "mich" (me) and "Milch" (milk). That's hard to understand if you're not used to it.
Years ago, I had to do with somebody from Lörrach, a small German town opposite Basel, and it took me nearly half a day until I understood him halfway, though I'm a German too. German dialects vary a lot across the country. I bet the guys from Hamburg would have serious trouble to talk with someone from the Bavarian Alps, if both groups spoke in their natural dialect. Or listen to someone from Nuremberg, from Berlin, and from Cologne ... you might think you hear three different languages. :-)

That's because you generalized. I didn't mean that as a general verdict, just explicitly in terms of the "earn" vs. "deserve" issue.

[X] Doc CPU

I really doubt your 'CD violates some law, so its unmarked' idea. It been uploaded/shared somewhere I assume, who really cares about the legality of the CD if you are going to upload music.

You are into classical, right stf92? To people arent into clasical music, the composer is normally all they care about. Its the real fans of classical music who do the whole 'perforamer/conductor/etc.' fields in my experience.

Congress? U.S. law only applies to the U.S.. Techncially anyway, the way the U.S. laws are going they want authority over a lot more than the U.S.....

24-bit flacs are always ripped from vinyl in my experience (though it should be possible to get DTS-HD 24bit rips, I've never run across one). The vinyl rippers are almost always good on detial, if you've going to bother hooking up a turntable to the computer, and go through the whole rippign process its not that hard to enter a few fields in the tags. They also like to show off the quality of the ripping equipement they are using.

I dont know about 'most countries', but its true in at least some countuies. But the law is an ass where you cant legally rip a CD or DVD for your own private use. I dont know of any case where someone has been found guilty for ripping a CD/DVD for personal use and retains a copy of the original media.

Some VERY famous people have admitted that they have 'illegal' copies of ripped music in you do take the 'ripping is illegal unless specifically allowed by the copyright holder' position. Remember G. W. Bush talking about having Beatles on his ipod, well before Beatles tracks were avaible anywhere in a format that could be played on an ipod?

http://boingboing.net/2006/04/16/gw-...od-contai.html

BTW, I know of at least one artist how legally retains copyright to all his music, who has encouraged people to upload his (free cost 'sample' tracks/singles) to whatever social media, P2P or sharing site you want, even though there has been no explicit authorisation that I've seen (that was in an interview). But that is a independant artist, so he isnt going to have RIAA, or record companies, looking for files and people to prosecute....

In some places. In others, it not. Most South American countries have (had? havent checked in a while) laws that basicly say 'if you dont profit, its fine'.

I've noticed that German speakers seem to have far more trouble with 'w' than 'th'. Even German speakers who have excellent English speaking skills seem to pronounce 'w' as 'v'. Maybe its just the limited experience I've had with German speakers? I dont think so, and the stuff I've learn about runes, Proto-Germanic and Scandinavian languages makes me think that I'd be right, but I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again, and maybe this is one of those times.

LOL. I've actually seen two German guiys have just that issue...and switch to English because they understood each other better. Its not just German, the same issue exists in English. I've had to 'translate' a person from the north of England into 'Australian' English because the person who was trying to serve him could understand able one word in ten. I've heard of that happening in England with two English speakers from different parts of the country.

Hi there,

now that you mention it - yes, that's another thing that causes many Germans some trouble. Fact is, German doesn't have that sound that corresponds to 'w' in English. Dutch has, AFAIK, but right now I can't think of a Dutch "dictionary" word where 'w' is pronounced as in English, only a place's name: Leeuwarden. But even that may be just an effect of the local Frisian dialect, I'm not sure.

Some years ago, during a holiday trip through the US, I met a young couple in Yellowstone Park, and we had a pleasant conversation. And only after some minutes, we discovered that we came from places hardly 15km apart, and we might just as well switch to German. :-)
The two split up meanwhile, but I still have sporadic contact to either of them.

I'd be surprised if it didn't. Maybe even more so, because English is spoken in so many countries across the world, while the prevalence of German is limited to a comparably small spot - Germany, Switzerland and Austria, plus maybe a few very small patches.

And picking up your North England vs. Australia story, I remember a day when I was at the station waiting for a train, and a young guy came over to me: "Speak English?" - "Yes", I confirmed. And then the man fired a torrent of words at me that sounded a bit like English, but I didn't understand anything. I asked him to speak a bit more clearly and slowly, and then I was able to understand, though I had to concentrate hard and fill some gaps with guesswork. He was a Scot, he told me, a bricklayer who had been in Germany for a four-week-job that earned him a lot of money, but there wasn't anybody he could talk to. He complained that even among the staff of the hotel where he'd been staying, hardly anybody understood him, and now he was happy to get home again.

[X] Doc CPU