ZDoom

Nevander wrote:Also I would say that it technically isn't piracy, since it's a recording and you're using it for yourself. It's not a direct rip of a CD or something that you share. Now recording and distributing is different.

Nevander wrote:

Viscra Maelstrom wrote:i don't think you understand what "lossless" means.

Of course I do. It's right there in the name. It's basically uncompressed forms of audio in which nothing is lost and it's in a raw format like WAV or something. Lossy means that it is compressed in some way and certain frequencies may be cut out to save space, like MP3. I know OP said he wanted lossless, and in my post I said I can't tell any difference between lossy and lossless so I just go with 128kb/s MP3 exported from recoding high(-ish) quality YouTube videos.

Spoiler:

---

GooberMan wrote:Reading this quite nearly knocked off half my IQ.

First, there's the copyright infringement of uploading to youtube in the first place. Making it available there is making it available for distribution, which is quite bad.

Then there's saving a copy to your drive, thus illegally obtaining content without a valid license. What country are you in? I'll google the applicable law for you.

I call that copyright "infringement" something by the name of "fair use." I have a big beef with YouTube and how they handle copyright. There used to be a time when you could use any song you wanted in a video and it was great because there was nothing to worry about. The creativity of videos are being crushed because of copyright law and I would even go so far as to say it is interfering with what is supposed to be the freedom of the Internet.

What about when the band themselves upload their own song to YouTube under a VEVO channel? Isn't that basically the same as someone recording it and then uploading it again under their own? If you can get the song from there, you can get it from the official video also. It doesn't matter who uploaded it. If one person can record it from an official source, so can everyone else.

And then even so, buying the music (and thus a personal license to use it for your own sake) and making copies happens no matter what anyway. It's one of those things where people tell you not to do it, even though there are literally almost zero to no chances of anything even backfiring.

Princess Viscra Maelstrom wrote:so? that's not what the OP was asking for in the thread. he wanted suggestions for lossless, you suggested lossy because you can't tell the difference of lossy and lossless (which i doubt most people really can tell, but that's besides the point.) that's fine and all, but the OP wasn't asking for lossy files, so why you were suggesting it (and downloading from Youtube of all places...) in the first place i don't understand.

I suppose because it's the easiest way for me personally, so I figured it might be for him too. I was trying to be helpful. Plus I should mention I would never directly download from YouTube. Who knows what happens to the audio file in-between you giving the site or program the URL and it rips the audio. I always record the stereo mix sound from my PC to an audio file. Then I can do so much more with it, like make it louder or fix various things about the song I dislike right on the spot. I also cannot stand audio files with metadata. It's a quirk of mine. I like my audio files and songs to be 100% audio. No metadata or album art. Saves space and is much neater.

Enjay wrote:So, you get a copy of the music track to listen to whenever you want to on your devices for as long as you like for nothing and it's not piracy?

Don't you know...

Spoiler:

---

If they didn't want people to copy it and record it, they shouldn't put it out there. They know it's going to happen, you know they have to. That picture isn't going to stop anyone.

Nevander wrote:I call that copyright "infringement" something by the name of "fair use."

Nevander wrote:Let me change my pace

Graf Zahl wrote:Please do. Your posts here clearly amounts to supporting illegal behavior.