A different take on the "theft" thing...
 

Firstly, I must apologise if this particular subject has already been broached -- though I haven't noticed it discussed anywhere. I also must say that I take a neutral stance on the whole affair, so kindly don't take this as an attack in any way. If it causes any offense, I apologise again.

*****

Yes, I've read the blazing debates on whether or not copyright infringement is the same as theft. IMHO, the full conditions of the term "theft" aren't met, therefore any logician would tell you that they are inequal and thus the term theft is inapplicable.
If copying was theft, I'd be a felon for simply video-taping MTV
But I digress -- this isn't my point.

The RIAA has yet to see their potential for benefit on the information sharing medium. I'm not sure how many people, like me, value listening to music. Without wishing to sound pretentious, I would label myself as a connosieur in that respect.

Listen to me -- mp3 files, regardless of what some people may tell you, are simply not as good in sound quality as CD recorded sound. Take E-CDs into account, and you're a leap ahead. It is impossible to squeeze digital media into a file size that makes downloading it worthwhile. Until the computer industry itself gives us all T6 connections and 5 Terabyte hard drives, that is the way it will stay.

Through the information sharing enabled by networks like gnutella, I've since come into contact with musical artists I didn't even know existed. This wealth of music is, for one, overwhelming, and for two it provides a unique way in which to sample new music at your leisure. There are artists out there whose albums aren't actually stocked at the local record store -- they need to be imported. I know, because I've done this.

If you haven't reached, my conclusion yet, please allow me to reiterate:

I want to give the record industry some money. That's right. I want to buy the CDs of all of this new music I've heard in order to better appreciate the music itself. Yes, I could download an album of variable quality and no crisp high notes, but I'd much rather get an enhanced sound CD and dissolve into the music for half an hour.

I don't think many people even consider that fact that, while an illegal recording is a copyright infringement, it is in no way a definitive copy (that would be in the region of ten to twenty megabytes minimum per minute of music -- trust me, I'm a qualified studio technician).

Just think... If they improved the music they actually sell to us such that it can't be simply mp3'd, they'd realise they were sitting on top of the best viral marketing plan in the world...

Surely that way everyone's happy. Can't we just be friends?

*****


Dude... Sorry that was so long, but I just needed to say it, you know?
People forget that it should all be about the music. As a music lover, I'd rather not be persecuted nor prosecuted.

I can notice the quality difference. But that's from working with sound too...(I'm a synth student). However...I do feel that very high quality mp3s 256+ are almost indistinguishable to me from a CD played from the same source.

Anybody else have their take on that?

Agreement
 

"If copying was theft, I'd be a felon for simply video-taping MTV"

Well, I definitely agree with that!!! I also think that if they say we can't download files, then they will eventually say that about everything. Where does it end? :rolleyes:

And I like CDs better because I can play them almost anywhere there is a CD player, whereas mp3s can only be played on a computer or in a specialized mp3 player. :cool: