Redbook Keeps Surprising

bsmith 6-26-2016 5:15 pm
someone explain to me why cd’s sound better to me than the file of that cd.

If the software used for ripping (and the settings of that software that were used) assures that the file is a bit-perfect copy, and if playback in both cases uses identical hardware (i.e., the CD and the ripped file are played back from the same computer or other device), one possibility is that the difference is due to differences in computer-generated electrical noise that is riding on the signal provided to the DAC (whether that DAC is internal or external to the computer), resulting in differences in jitter.

Of course if the rip is not done in a manner that assures bit-perfect quality, or if the playback hardware is different in the two cases, anything is possible.

Regarding the copyright law issues that have been discussed, LP2CD has provided outstanding answers IMO. With regard to the bicycle analogy, another way to look at it is that both the new bike and the one that is given away (and used by someone else) have been purchased and paid for. That is not the case, of course, when a CD is ripped and then given away.

Regards,
-- Al

Hi Dave,

Hopefully LP2CD will provide the more specific reference you requested (which I am not in a position to readily do), but I see it this way: If the CD is ripped and the copy is given away or sold (either case being clearly illegal as stated in the RIAA reference you provided), one user has an original that has been paid for and another user has a copy that has not been paid for (from the perspective of the copyright holder, at least). The same holds true if it is the original and not the copy that is given away or sold. Why should it make any difference which user has the copy and which user has the original?

Best regards,
-- Al

Hi Al, that seems logical.  However, with respect to infringement the law may be more concerned with quantifying real rather than theoretical damages to the copyrighter.  Clearly, there are greater damages associated with large scale selling or sharing of digital copies than with the resale of a single original CD at the retail level.  Some lawyers on the blogs make other distinctions, such as contrasting the resale of an old out-of-print CD original to the purchase new CDs acquired expressly for the purpose of duplication and resale.  The former resale may actually benefit the artist, as re-sale in the secondary market may stimulate renewed interest in their work.  The issues of the passage of time, the seller's intention and degree of commercial interest are all variables.  In the final analysis this particular issue is a nit for the industry and should be as well for us.   Every point made by the RIAA regarding prohibitions against copying for commercial purposes is expressly in the context of reselling digital duplications. 

dgarretson

Please provide a more specific reference regarding the illegality of disposing-- for profit or otherwise-- of an original CD after making a digital copy for personal use. The RIAA seems to be vague on this point.

The RIAA obviously has an interest in this matter, but it is not an arbiter of copyright law.

What's often misunderstood about US copyright law is that it isn't really based on assuring revenue for content creators. It's actually based on artists being able to control distribution of their work. The revenue then flows from that control.

When you examine copying through that lens, it's easier to understand the limitations allowed on the copying and sharing of material.