AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

(Mark) wrote in message . com...
At the risk of starting a flame war, I want to point out what I find
to be a great irony on this news group...

Hey, no need to flame Mark. Just a misreading of things here that's
the cause of your confusion.

One the one hand, MP3s as a recording technology are generally
badmouthed in this news group as so poor quality as to be un-usable
for any serious recordings...

"Generaly" being a keyword there. Also, no one has used the term
'unusable' (i don't think), just less preferable. MP3 can be very
'usable' for some things. But yes, for the best recordings, one would
hope to be using the best available technology for the task. It's
always been that way. Various arguments as to what actually
constitutes 'best technology', but never any argument that we don't
want that for origional recordings.

MP3's sound as listenable as they do (sometimes) precisely *because*
the origional recording was *not* recorded in MP3.

on the other hand...

If I share an MP3, I have "stollen" some precioous intellectual
technology.

Um, well, no. You, me, and everybody that has a computer already has
the tecnology. What you are stealing is intelectual property. The
creative work, and,in this case, the performance of it, both of which
we pay for because we can't come up with that particular song and/or
perfom it ourselves, and it's something we desire. Even if i'm a
songwriter or jazz or clasiccal composer, i can only write 'my' stuff.
I pay money for something i like because *i* can't write *that* music.

I find this somewhat ironic.

Given all the misperceptions, that is understandable.

I don't think you can have it both ways. If MP3s make such bad
copies, then sharing them really isn't stealing anything but noise,,,
right?

Nobody said that MP3 makes 'bad copies' in every case, just that it's
inferior to wave files, and not to be used for origional recordings.
You are really groping here. The lowest rate MP3's are, indeed, pretty
much noise. But, considering the highest rate MP3's, and now, AAC et.
al., and if i'm only going to play it on my computer or walkman, it
would be hard to discern the difference from wave or CD's for a lot
of music, especially pop or rock, which consitutes most of the
downloads.

or

If your going to argue that I should be fineed $10,000 for sharing an
MP3, then you are admitting that it must have been a pretty good copy
after all.

What's to admit? It's only your misreading of things that make you
equate origional recordings with copying. I have a Tandberg cassette
tape machine that makes *very* good copies, especially if from a
direct-to-disc LP (maybe CD or DVD-A too, haven't tried yet). Yet i
don't see professional recordists breaking down my door to grab it to
replace their ATR's or Ampex's or Studer's or 24/96 DAW's or
soundcards. Curious, no? They must be 'admitting' *something*, huh?

If, however, that cassette machine could somehow produce the sheer
volume of copies that MP3 can, and i could so easily ditribute this
multitude to people all over the world, i think the RIAA would
definitely be kicking my door down to grab it.

2 sides of the coin

Yeah. Either we should not offer Porshe's because for most
normal,legal city driving, a Hyundi serves the task almost as well.
Or, OTOH, i need a car, and it's OK if i steal a Hyundi because it's
not a Porshe.

JF