Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agree and disagree.
It is comparable and it is not.
Comparable: Most people do not rip to lossless formats. So most people getting music from these sites are, indeed, getting "low resolution" copies.
True to some extent but a 320kbps mp3 is pretty damn close, very few people would be able to discern the difference between that a CD version and even then you need a pretty good system to hear it.
Quote:
Comparable: I also grew up in the generation. I had lots of full copies of cassettes. My friends and I swapped tapes all the time... full length, not mix tapes.
I traded a few in my time too but I usually ended up buying it. Every week, get my check and head to the music store for one cassette...
As I already suggested the length of copyright needs to be adjusted, what do you think is fair amount.
IDK, it doesn't really matter. Fans are going to go and buy a CD or DVD as soon as it comes out. Everyone else will get it some other way. As I said be for Copyrights have out lived their usefulness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
True but recording to tape or VCR isn't quite comparable. Analog recordings reduces the quality and each subsequent recording reduces it more. A VCR has relatively low resolution even compared to the original SD broadacst. Plus it's a lot of damn work and time because the recordings could only be done real time. You still need to purchase the blank tapes too. Having been around when both of these formats were introduced I can tell you few people actually spent the time to make recordings. Most people just made mixed tapes for audio at the most.
In comparison you have instant access to high quality copies now.
Sorry but that's not a very good argument for having illegal copies.
So you are saying that it's OK to have an illegal copy, as long as it's in lower quality then the original? At lease you admit it's not a black and white issue.
Second, anybody who has ever listened to an MP3, knows that the quality is lower then that of a CD. So actually the situation is exactly the same as coping a CD on to tape. It comes out lower quality. And downloading music or moves in the 2000s = recording music from the radio, or video taping a movie on TV in the 1900s. The only thing that has changed is the attitude of the courts. In the 1900s the courts ruled that it was OK for consumers to make copies for their personal use. Now in the 2000s they say you can't do that anymore. Mostly its due to societies increasing acceptance of corporate greed. Now days individuals are always wrong, and corporations, RIAA, MPAA get what ever they want. In the 1900s there was a better balance.
I used to copy music to cassette tapes. Often, I even owned the original (unless I taped it off the radio). But as he said, I wasn't sharing it with a lot of people. It was actually for my own use.
I used to do that all the time to, in the 1980s too. I didn't even own turntable, but I would buy all my music on LPs. Then borrow other people's turntables to dub the LP on to a blank tape. Reason being the quality of recorded cassette tapes at that time was terrible. The record companies used the cheapest possible manufactured cassettes they could find, and charged more money for them. Audio dubbed from an LP onto a good quality blank cassette tape sounded so much better. Plus if the tape broke (which happened often), I still had the original.
As I said be for Copyrights have out lived their usefulness.
So if I spend two years developing some software I should just have to give it away and hope someone pays me for it?
Quote:
So you are saying that it's OK to have an illegal copy, as long as it's in lower quality then the original? At lease you admit it's not a black and white issue.
Don't put words into my mouth, I didn't say that at all. I was pointing out your comaprison to recorders of the past with mp3's of today is apples and oranges.
Quote:
Second, anybody who has ever listened to an MP3, knows that the quality is lower then that of a CD.
Maybe on the crap you download off the internet, If your personal mp3's are that bad you need to look into what you're doing wrong. A 320kbps mp3 is very close to original.
Quote:
In the 1900s the courts ruled that it was OK for consumers to make copies for their personal use.
Their is nothing preventing you from making copies of CD's you own for personal use, the only real new regulation is in the DMCA which forbids breaking copy protection.
When you want to approach the dubious claim that "it's different now" in regards to piracy in the 1980's and today, let me know.
Again I'm not discussing the legality but the differences in quality and availability. You suggested they didn't lose money in the past with recording devices and I'm just pointing out it's not a fair comparison.
Again I'm not discussing the legality but the differences in quality and availability. You suggested they didn't lose money in the past with recording devices and I'm just pointing out it's not a fair comparison.
Yes, but suggesting pirating in the 80's via cassette tape as somehow "less illegal" because of the degrade quality or limited sharing capability is dubious.
The availability nor quality makes no distinction with regards to copyright law which is the current discussion.
Yes, but suggesting pirating in the 80's via cassette tape as somehow "less illegal" because of the degrade quality or limited sharing capability is dubious.
Again, don't put words into my mouth, at no time did I suggest it was less illegal. Just so it's clear to anyone reading this you can legally make copies of music you have purchased for your own personal use. It's becomes infringement of copyright when you give a copy to someone else.
Again, don't put words into my mouth, at no time did I suggest it was less illegal. Just so it's clear to anyone reading this you can legally make copies of music you have purchased for your own personal use. It's becomes infringement of copyright when you give a copy to someone else.
I would certainly suggest is was VERY MUCH considered "less illegal" back in the day.
As I already said, sharing one cassette with 4 or 5 of your buddies is vastly different then using Limewire and sharing that one CD with 100's of 1,000's of people.
Somebody should go read the copyright laws, all the way back to the laws existing prior to 1972 when it became possible to copyright a sound recording.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
