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.
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.
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.
Millions and millions of people listen to music exclusively via MP3 (or AAC) music via their iPods. They listen using earbuds. And they never ever compare the audio quality to uncompressed audio unless they are listening to a bandwidth-limited FM radio broadcast. These people are part of the dumbing-down of audio quality that is at odds with ever-improving video quality.
Courts still say you can time-shift TV broadcasts and do not prosecute people who make copies for personal use - as long as "personal use" doesn't include sharing.
The ONLY material thing that has really changed in the last 50 years is that piracy is outrageously easy to do without loss of quality.
I support prosecution of file sharers, regardless of size. Obviously it is more interesting and cost effective to go after big abusers.
You've broken (even though you'd probably never admit it publicly) laws a or b but never law c, you condemn those who's broken law c.
Uh the hypocrisy!
Are you a model citizen who has obeyed every single law or have broken some in the past (whether you'd like to admit it or not)?
Have you ever cheated in your high school exams? Have you ever sped on the freeway or run a red-light because there was no one around?
If yes, you have no right to preach anyone who is sharing file that what they are doing is illegal and/or immoral. No one is innocent so please stop with "I support prosecution of ....".
I am neither saying I do it nor saying I don't but at least I don't come to a web forum and act all high and mighty by pretending that I follow the rules.
I HATE drunk/medicated drivers (include the texting a-holes to that list), not because what they are doing is illegal, not because they are breaking the law but because what they are doing can get others hurt and even killed, including me and my loved ones. How does file sharing people affect you? Whatever valid reason you might have, think if you might have done to same to another person in the past?
Hate me all you want but if you disagree, then at least look in the mirror while saying that and see if you even buy your own BS....
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.
I refer you to the 1st amendment's applications towards the Internet. Scale doesn't matter.
I refer you to the 1st amendment's applications towards the Internet. Scale doesn't matter.
The scale does matter at least to those losing money and in the eyes of the law, taking it to the next level is criminal and people who distribute millions of copies of pirated music/software/video are the target of the FBI. I'll note than in the past there's been operations that were freely distributing copyrighted material that have been prosecuted and the reason they have been prosecuted is because of the scale.
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.
We are talking about Limewire. The vast majority of files shared on Limewire are in the 128kbps range, followed by 160kbps and then 192kbps. Which probably accounts for 99% of the files shared on Limewire (or for that matter any other download music service).
There is no indication in your post I was responding too you were specifically referencing MP3's from limewire. Matter of fact it would indicate to me you were referencing copying CD's since you followed it up with a comparison of copying CD to tape.
Millions and millions of people listen to music exclusively via MP3 (or AAC) music via their iPods. They listen using earbuds. And they never ever compare the audio quality to uncompressed audio unless they are listening to a bandwidth-limited FM radio broadcast. These people are part of the dumbing-down of audio quality that is at odds with ever-improving video quality.
Call it dumbed down if you like. But the way I look at it, its good enough for me. Listening to an MP3 gives me about 10 x better sound quality then I got back in the day, when I recorded my music off FM radio.
Same reason that in the rare occasion I want to watch a TV program, I'm perfectly happy to watch it on Hulu. Yes, I know its not the same video quality I'd get watching it on an HDTV. But its free and it about 100 x better video quality then what I watched when I was a kid, on a 15" B&W TV with a snowy over the air signal.
Personally I think the content is more important then audio and video quality anyway. So long as it sound or looks half way decent, it fine for me.
There is no indication in your post I was responding too you were specifically referencing MP3's from limewire. Matter of fact it would indicate to me you were referencing copying CD's since you followed it up with a comparison of copying CD to tape.
Reading comprehension would make it a lot easier for you to follow the conversation. Lets try it again. Before you clearly understood that I was talking about downloading. Please don't take things out of context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
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:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom; "We are talking about Limewire. The vast majority of files shared on Limewire are in the 128kbps range, followed by 160kbps and then 192kbps. Which probably accounts for 99% of the files shared on Limewire (or for that matter any other download music service)."
Even music download services like iTunes encoded at 128kbps. Which is not even close to 320kbps.
As I already suggested the length of copyright needs to be adjusted, what do you think is fair amount.
As I said before I think copyrights have long outlived their usefulness. But if you really want to try and put a reasonable time limit on them, these figures from the UK may help.
1. 67% of the revenue from audio recording is realized in the first seven years after issue.
2. 97% of the revenue is realized in the first 30 years.
3. After fifty years the remaining revenue amounts to only 1% - 2% of the total.
So as you can see there is no legitimate reason to have copyrights last 95 years. The copyright holders could still earn 97% of their total revenue if it lasted just 30 years. Then the public could benefit of it for the next 65 years.
But that is not going to happen. Because in the next 10 or 12 years it will be extended to 150 or 200 years (what ever Disney decides they want).
Reading comprehension would make it a lot easier for you to follow the conversation.
You made a general bland statement that MP3's are not as good, I was only responding to that. If anything you need to be clearer in what you are posting, if you want to be specific you should have qualified the source of the MP3's. There's no reading comprehension problems here but a lack of communication skills on your part.
Here's your post:
Quote:
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.
When you say "anybody who has ever listened to an MP3, knows that the quality is lower then that of a CD", am I am supposed to be mind reader and know you are referencing downloads? You further convey the message you are talking about copying files from CD by mentioning copying CD's to tape.
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.
