Would it be considered piracy...

Shadowstar · #1 June 27th, 2002, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Well, except that Gallio's discovery didn't enable people steal stuff.
[/QB]

Not yet, anyway.

I know some people that are just itchin' to steal the moons of Jupiter.

Baron Munchausen · #2 June 27th, 2002, 02:27 AM

Actually, the previous revolution in the music industry is the best comparison. It used to be that people bought sheet music & played songs for themselves on pianos or other instruments. So, the authors of songs were the 'superstars' of those days. When vinyl records and radio broadcasts came along ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers) was paranoid because people could hear ONE person's performance and not have to pay individually for it. They went into the same 'make everything illegal' tirade that RIAA and MPAA are repeating today. But of course people liked the new technology too much.

It took a while for new business models to be worked out but we did finally get a reasonably stable system that worked well enough for several decades. Given that there is no way to reverse the technology I think RIAA and MPAA will have to settle for a new business model themselves eventually.

Puke · #3 June 27th, 2002, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowstar:

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
Well, except that Gallio's discovery didn't enable people steal stuff.

Not yet, anyway.

I know some people that are just itchin' to steal the moons of Jupiter.[/QB]

dont look in MY appartment, but whens the Last time you actually SAW the moons of jupiter? yep, thats what i thought. and if you ever want to see them AGAIN...

geoschmo · #4 June 27th, 2002, 07:40 AM

Dude, you aren't really stealing the moons. You are just sharing them.

Geo

Shadowstar · #5 June 27th, 2002, 08:27 AM

I can just see it now:

Headline:
2130AD - God sues mortal for lunar theft!

tesco samoa · #6 June 28th, 2002, 01:43 AM

MP3's 128 kb recordings are not high quality.

I have no problem with them being traded. If you have a half decent system you will notice how hollow they sound. Highs are very flat. 320kb is where you start to equal cd quality.

CD's themsevles are finnaly starting to equal records in sound quality. what with dvd-a and scad.

Digital music is catching up. It is still young and behind tubes for quality.

Where was i going with this.....

Baron Munchausen · #7 June 27th, 2002, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
MP3's 128 kb recordings are not high quality.

I have no problem with them being traded. If you have a half decent system you will notice how hollow they sound. Highs are very flat. 320kb is where you start to equal cd quality.

CD's themsevles are finnaly starting to equal records in sound quality. what with dvd-a and scad.

Digital music is catching up. It is still young and behind tubes for quality.

Laser printers were, and still are, garbage compared to full-blown photo-offset printing. People loved laser printers anyway because they were in control. They could print nice, readable documents and decent if not 'realistic' graphics for themselves.

It's the same force behind MP3s. Personal control. You can have a huge bunch of music on a drive and shuffle-play it the way you like. Doesn't matter if it has hit the 'Top 40', or if it's 30 years old, or even if it was ever sold in a commercial music store. A little bit less sound quality is not a problem for most people. Even if they have 'high-fidelity' equipment they are used to listening to FM stereo, which is lower sound quality than 128 bps MP3s.

Meanwhile, 'ClearChannel' rides all the corporate owned radio stations and forces them to play the same 10 songs over and over for the rest of eternity, or until they go bankrupt from people tuning out and listening to their MP3s...

See the reasons for MP3s?

BTW, I prefer a minimum of 160 bps MP3s.

[ June 27, 2002, 14:55: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]