DSotM underground DVD-A

[Robster65]

Good morning gentlemen

Just downloaded this mix yesterday, popped it in my DVD-A in my Accura and WOW !!!

Haven't played it on the home system yet, I can't hardly wait.

I'm fairly new to the forum - I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what I need to download and burn the disc (software/hardware).

 

[neil wilkes]

@ Peter King & Robster65.
Please read the thread.

 

[holland123]

if any one is interested I know where to get a dsotm copy that is not a quad mix but is a true copy of the sacd on 96/24 5.1 surround just pm me. I have both and can't tell the diff on my onkyo universal, the only diff is the dvd-a makes me scream in my car!! The quad mix does not...

 

[neil wilkes]

the dvd-a makes me scream in my car!! The quad mix does not...

The DVD-A is the Quad mix.

 

[georgeshannon]

There are two DVD-A now. One is the Quad mix. The other is a digital copy of the SACD.

 

[ssully]

I would guess that a digital copy of the SACD (which is still in print) would also be, um, not the sort of thing we should be advertising here for distribution?

 

[holland123]

then the record companies should put out what people want or as far as I'm concerned they can kiss my ----

 

[ssully]

Or the moderators can ban your ---.

Which is what tends to happen on such forums to people dumb enough to publicly offer copies of current catalog, i.e, non-'legacy', product.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

Yes, if anyone wants a copy of the newer 5.1 surround mix of DSOTM, they can easily obtain a copy from this link right here, http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Moo...2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1268348244&sr=8-2-spell

I agree the record companies should put out what people want. I just don't see how that's a valid argument when it's made about something that is easily available to purchase.

 

[MyCuff]

Yes, if anyone wants a copy of the newer 5.1 surround mix of DSOTM, they can easily obtain a copy from this link right here, http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Moo...2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1268348244&sr=8-2-spell

I agree the record companies should put out what people want. I just don't see how that's a valid argument when it's made about something that is easily available to purchase.

The point that was made several posts above is that the DVD-A copy of the SACD can be played in his car. The CAR has a DVD-A player, but not a SACD player. A person with the right skills and technology can legally make a copy of his own SACD - right? Slightly trickier, can a owner of the original SACD download the DVD-A version of the same album?

 

[Old Quad Guy]

The point that was made several posts above is that the DVD-A copy of the SACD can be played in his car. The CAR has a DVD-A player, but not a SACD player. A person with the right skills and technology can legally make a copy of his own SACD - right?

You can make your own DVD-A copy for yourself from your own store bought disc, I believe, as long as it is not distributed in any way. That should be considered "fair use."

Slightly trickier, can a owner of the original SACD download the DVD-A version of the same album?

Sorry but, technically no. Because it is considered an illegal copy of the SACD title illegally obtained.

 

[holland123]

but in reality, you own a copy of the sacd, you own a copy of the cd, you own a copy of the lp. you are really just having somebody make you a copy of something you already own onto a different format ? right? if you take the money that you pay this other person out of the equation it is actually the same thing as having your friend take your disc and copy it for you into a format that is not commercially available, isn't it? fair use

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

Yes, there is a difference between what is legal and what one feels is ethically right. Personally, I have no problem with downloading what I've already bought.

However, the general rules of this board is to not discuss specifics on where to obtain a bootleg recording, except for in the underground threads. And also that any discussion of where to obtain bootleg recordings in the underground threads be about things that are out of print. So, while I agree that it is morally and ethically ok for someone that owns the SACD to obtain a DVD-A backup for playback in the car, it is entering into gray areas as far as the legality and the policy of the forum. However, no specifics were discussed on how to obtain the disc, and whatever one wants to discuss via PM is perfectly fine, so I don't think anything wrong has happened in this thread yet.

 

[ChristopherLees]

but in reality, you own a copy of the sacd, you own a copy of the cd, you own a copy of the lp. you are really just having somebody make you a copy of something you already own onto a different format ? right? if you take the money that you pay this other person out of the equation it is actually the same thing as having your friend take your disc and copy it for you into a format that is not commercially available, isn't it? fair use

a question best saved for the Judge.

 

[holland123]

thank you mr. moderator, here is a poser for all of you out there, I walk into my local music store to purchase a cd of my favorite artist, instead of buying the new disc I opt for the used disc for $5 . which somebody bought and which royalties were paid. they made a copy and sold it to the store, ok fair use at this point correct. now the store resells the disc for which no royalties are paid and I purchase, now obviously the original purchaser had fair use of the disc but where does that right end? I have now purchased a disc and paid no royalties for the right to use.

another one for you all, if a title is in print but not in print in the format that I want to use , lets say for sake of argument in DCC (digital compact cassette) if anybody remembers that debacle, is it illegal for me to purchase that title from someone in the format that I can play? maybe so but isn't this the very argument that pretty much drove dvd-a into the graveyard? a judge ruled that since it was a different format altogether new contracts for royalties must be struck. so if the format is abandoned where would the line be? Now we have legislation which requires radio stations to pay to play which in essence is recording companies charging them to advertise their own clients for them isn't it? is this moral or ethical I don't see it . Does this make any sense to anyone? in reality the radio stations should be charging the recording companies to play their artists thereby advertising the sales of their records ,right. I know that in the early days this is exactly what happened not that it was right or fair but I ask you how did things come full circle to what we have today? I know that this is probably not the right spot in the forum for this discussion and for that I apologize.

 

[MyCuff]

thank you mr. moderator, here is a poser for all of you out there, I walk into my local music store to purchase a cd of my favorite artist, instead of buying the new disc I opt for the used disc for $5 . which somebody bought and which royalties were paid. they made a copy and sold it to the store, ok fair use at this point correct. now the store resells the disc for which no royalties are paid and I purchase, now obviously the original purchaser had fair use of the disc but where does that right end? I have now purchased a disc and paid no royalties for the right to use.

another one for you all, if a title is in print but not in print in the format that I want to use , lets say for sake of argument in DCC (digital compact cassette) if anybody remembers that debacle, is it illegal for me to purchase that title from someone in the format that I can play? maybe so but isn't this the very argument that pretty much drove dvd-a into the graveyard? a judge ruled that since it was a different format altogether new contracts for royalties must be struck. so if the format is abandoned where would the line be? Now we have legislation which requires radio stations to pay to play which in essence is recording companies charging them to advertise their own clients for them isn't it? is this moral or ethical I don't see it . Does this make any sense to anyone? in reality the radio stations should be charging the recording companies to play their artists thereby advertising the sales of their records ,right. I know that in the early days this is exactly what happened not that it was right or fair but I ask you how did things come full circle to what we have today? I know that this is probably not the right spot in the forum for this discussion and for that I apologize.

Ahhh, we have reached the penultimate discussion of legaility vs. ethics. There are dozens of things I want to burn right now in quad format. I know where to get them, and I know how to do it. I own them all, by the way, in cd or album format that I paid for. And, any copy offered for retail, like the new CTA release, I will scoop right up. Yet, because of my position in life, I can't risk doing something "illegal" to acquire the copy in quad that I want. Ethically and morally, I feel I am in the right to download music that I already own, in a format that is not commercially available. Legally, err not so much. I am angry that I am put in such a position!

 

[georgeshannon]

Suppose a friend obtained it and loaned you a copy. You listen to it and give it back to the friend. Was that illegal? Is it the obtaining and having the material that is illegal, or the listening of the material?

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Ahhh, we have reached the penultimate discussion of legaility vs. ethics. There are dozens of things I want to burn right now in quad format. I know where to get them, and I know how to do it. I own them all, by the way, in cd or album format that I paid for. And, any copy offered for retail, like the new CTA release, I will scoop right up. Yet, because of my position in life, I can't risk doing something "illegal" to acquire the copy in quad that I want. Ethically and morally, I feel I am in the right to download music that I already own, in a format that is not commercially available. Legally, err not so much. I am angry that I am put in such a position!

I agree, ethically and morally, one in theory should be able to obtain a title one already owns. But legally no one is allowed to. One can however have their Quad record or tape converted for a fee (or not) as that is a service for the conversion of an already bought product, provided the conversion is not distributed in any manor to anyone else.

If the record companies were smart they would find out what their customers wanted and release the music people want and in the manor they wanted. Even many titles of first edition CDs are out of print as well as plain old CD titles. Using technology there should be a way to keep things in print at a fair price without a large inventory of stock on hand. Let's just hope that this first Chicago title is a start of many more good things to come. Perhaps Rhino might be able to get a release of all the Pink Floyd Quad titles including the unreleased "Animals" title.

 

[wanners]

If the record companies were smart they would find out what their customers wanted and release the music people want and in the manor they wanted. Even many titles of first edition CDs are out of print as well as plain old CD titles. Using technology there should be a way to keep things in print at a fair price without a large inventory of stock on hand.

I was just thinking the same thing. After all that has happened with sinking cd sales, potential death of the cd, and the success of digital distribution, they have nothing to lose by making all back titles available for download. Part of the problem is that they are in transition, still in the control of old school executives who can't comprehend a different business model. Once the transition is complete or a total collapse occurs, things will change. Kind of like the economy. Things are back to business as usual and nothing got fixed. So until there is an even more devastating collapse nothing will change. You heard it here--prepare for economic catastrophe.

 

[wanners]

thank you mr. moderator, here is a poser for all of you out there, I walk into my local music store to purchase a cd of my favorite artist, instead of buying the new disc I opt for the used disc for $5 . which somebody bought and which royalties were paid. they made a copy and sold it to the store, ok fair use at this point correct. now the store resells the disc for which no royalties are paid and I purchase, now obviously the original purchaser had fair use of the disc but where does that right end? I have now purchased a disc and paid no royalties for the right to use.

another one for you all, if a title is in print but not in print in the format that I want to use , lets say for sake of argument in DCC (digital compact cassette) if anybody remembers that debacle, is it illegal for me to purchase that title from someone in the format that I can play? maybe so but isn't this the very argument that pretty much drove dvd-a into the graveyard? a judge ruled that since it was a different format altogether new contracts for royalties must be struck. so if the format is abandoned where would the line be? Now we have legislation which requires radio stations to pay to play which in essence is recording companies charging them to advertise their own clients for them isn't it? is this moral or ethical I don't see it . Does this make any sense to anyone? in reality the radio stations should be charging the recording companies to play their artists thereby advertising the sales of their records ,right. I know that in the early days this is exactly what happened not that it was right or fair but I ask you how did things come full circle to what we have today? I know that this is probably not the right spot in the forum for this discussion and for that I apologize.

I think I can address some of your questions and at least give you some resources to check out. I am an attorney; I don't practice entertainment/IP, but I have looked into it a bit.

Originally, the 1976 copyright act was drafted to further a policy that balanced the rights of authors to benefit (so they create original works) with the rights of the public to consume without being gouged too much. In other words, the law did not attempt to limit consumption after purchase. You pay once to read your book, etc., but not eveyrtime you read it or listen to it. Along these lines the first sale exception applied to allow everyone to sell the copy they purchased to another user one time, and this would be ok. These policies worked until the digital age allowed ease of copying and it blows this framework out of the water a little bit. With the advent of the digital millenium copyright act of 1999, there was an attempt by the copyright holders to increase control over the public's consumption and create a pay by use system. They succeeded to a large extent because they have control over the legislative process and Congress does not really represent the public interest in this area (or at all really). All the other other stakeholders guide law and policy in the area of copyright, not consumers.

As far as the radio station issue, I believe this legislation was a result of the payola scandals. Record executives were lining the pockets of radio stations or managers to play their records. Congress doesn't like payola unless they are the ones receiving it, so they put a stop to it.

I can recommend a couple books for you, I'll get the tiltes and post again.