Would it be considered piracy...

Puke · #1 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 · #2 June 27th, 2002, 07:40 AM

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

Geo

Shadowstar · #3 June 27th, 2002, 08:27 AM

I can just see it now:

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

tesco samoa · #4 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 · #5 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 ]

geoschmo · #6 June 27th, 2002, 04:15 PM

Calling it an issue of personal control completely ignores the recording industries main argument. Which is that they have the right to control the distribution of their product.
Whether you believe they are being shortsighted or not, people have the right to make poor business decisions. You don't have the right to make them for them.

When you make your living off of how many people buy your recordings, then you are naturally going to be opposed to someone distributing copies of those recordings, or enabling the easy distribution of those copies without you receiving compensation for them. Espectially when that person gets compensation for the act in the form of advertising revenue as Napster was doing.

Pointing out the lesser quality of MP3 recordings is really not an issue either. Most (not all, but most) people listen to popular music on car stereos, while they are driving, sitting around the house, out at the beach, etc. While they are doing stuff. It's background music. The lower quality of the recording is insignificant if you are listening to it on a lower quality sound system, or aren't concentrating hard on the music cause you are doing something else while it's playing anyway.

Geoschmo

Baron Munchausen · #7 June 27th, 2002, 04:41 PM

Not pointing out that it's about personal control misses the main point of everyone else's argument. 'Copyright' has become legalized extortion. It Lasts for the author's lifetime +70 years for printed works and apparently is meant to be perpetual for the music industry. You did hear how they tried to sneak a 'music is a work for hire' clause into recent legislation so they could own everything outright instead of having to pay royalties to the artists who CREATED 'their' wealth? How many years has has it been since 'Satisfaction' by the Stones was released? Approaching 40. Yet we are still expected to pay a fee directly (buying a CD) or indirectly (commercials on radio) in order to hear it! It's part of the culture now, one of the most recognizable songs in history. When can we just listen to it without being tapped by bloodsuckers? If the suits won't accept reasonable limits on copyright then people are going to ignore them. It's the classic case of abuse of the law producing disrespect for the law.

I really, really hope that the challenge to copyright extension being heard by the Supreme Court is upheld or we are headed for Copyright Feudalism.

[ June 27, 2002, 15:43: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]