Mp3sharing like breaking bread

by Bas 18 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  Bas

  well, I came to this when I was sharing numb/encore by JZ/linkinpark with a friend of mine. The song actually mentions breaking the bread, but what i mean is when u share a Mp3 you still have the full song, sort of like the breaking of the bread story. I'm also on a P2P network where I can download mp3's. I heard that some of you regard this as stealing and illegal. Well I don't. I think these artists which are shared sell enough records to be millionaires + they make millions more from concerts if they're really genuine artists.

  Back to the breaking of the bread thing, could it be a metaphor for spreading knowledge in general? I think so.

  b
• 

  DanTheMan

  It's breaking bread that you stole from somebody else who purchased the ingredients for and spent the time to prepare.

  This post is a perfect example of the goofy gen-Y rhetoric about music needing to be "free" in the mystical sense as if it has a spiritual life of its own that I mentioned in a previous thread, that makes me barf.
• 

  Bas

  I didn't steal anything from anyone, it was shared with me. Well I guess I know where you are standing then, but that's ok. Let me ask you this: If I would be taping songs from the radio, would that be stealing too?

  Bas
• 

  DanTheMan

  I didn't steal anything from anyone, it was shared with me

  But the chain has a beginning, where somebody stole it or copied it from their own CD and "shared" it without the permission of the copyright holder.

  If I would be taping songs from the radio, would that be stealing too?

  Nobody records from the radio using cassette tapes anymore, so it's not a useful analogy. And the quality isn't the same. With MP3's that are 128 kbps and over, the quality is virtually indistinguishable from the original CD track (ok I'm backtracking from previous comments on another thread with that one).

  The record companies need to drastically reduce the price of purchasing music online and phase out CD's altogether, IMO.

  BTW, sorry, my first post to this thread was a little bit overstated
• 

  Country_Woman

  Dan, a question: you stated "Nobody records from the radio using cassette tapes anymore, so it's not a useful analogy."

  But in the not-so-far-away-past, we did'nt have the possibility to "share" mp3's and people did record the music from the radio.... So was it stealing or not ?

  I think it is the same - no matter what quality ... (and downloaded music is 'nt that good either. I find myself buying CD's and DVD's for the better quality)

  That does'nt mean that I am against sharing, I am not. Not because the artists are asking to much for their music (they do) but I think that all the talk about "rights" have gone to far..

  My family did explore a showroom for fancy CV elements - rather large space. We did have a taperecorder with some music - else it was so quiet (we did have almost 10 visitors a day) We got a visit from the BUMA / STEMRA since our showroom was so large, there could be a 100 men / women in at the same time, we had the choice to either pay for the rights Euro 400,-- or remove the installation - which we did. (don't remember if we had to pay per month, 3 months or per year)

  Point is, we had to pay to let our visitors listen to the music... they did'nt come for the music, they did'nt ask for the music, and we were charged for a huge amount.

  In my opinion, music should have to be free after a few months -

  There are a lot of artists here, bringing their music out on DVD: they are not so easy and so cheap to copy. But they are doubled in price. I refuse to buy those: I don't want the face of that singer, I only want to hear him. When I am able to get these numbers on mp3 - I get them (but only when I enjoy the music)
• 

  DanTheMan

  But in the not-so-far-away-past, we did'nt have the possibility to "share" mp3's and people did record the music from the radio.... So was it stealing or not ?

  Shades of gray here, I'm not sure if I can commit to an absolute yes or no to the question. I used to record stuff off the radio when I was a kid, what 12 year old living on a $5 per week allowance can afford to go out and buy albums all the time. But back then, if an artist or group had a couple of songs out that I liked, even if I recorded it I still wanted the album. I don't see where that is the case with most people who are getting their music via P2P.

  I stand by what I said previously, I don't think that recording off the radio and getting a digital copy from the internet (a copy that 99% of people wouldn't be able to distinguish from the actual CD track) are comparable actions. 12 year olds today have a lot more money, and paying $.99 for a song you like is not a killer amount of money, though paying $10 for the whole album is outrageous, that is where they are not getting it - sell individual tracks for 49 cents, or whole albums for 3 dollars, and watch the P2P controversy disappear.
• 

  Leolaia

  And the quality isn't the same. With MP3's that are 128 kbps and over, the quality is virtually indistinguishable from the original CD track

  I don't agree. I used the tape off the radio a lot, and the quality is not much worse than 128 kbps. I can really hear the difference between such highly compressed mp3s and the original CD track. Maybe most Gen-Yers don't mind or can't hear the loss of quality, but at least for me I prefer to buy the actual hard copy CD to get the full-bodied sound.
• 

  Leolaia

  For instance, in 1996 I recorded off the radio a concert by Orbital which had a version of "Halcyon + On + On" which is superior to the album version or the live version on the "Satan" single. And this was broadcast live, and never broadcast again. I recorded it on high-quality tape and converted it to WAV. The sound quality in this song is as good, if not better than 128 kbps mp3s.

  As I mentioned in the other thread, there are some groups, such as Metric, which support file-trading of their songs -- especially those that are otherwise not available on CD. I agree with you that the P2P purist rhetoric is way off-base, but there is indeed a grey area here in some cases...
• 

  DanTheMan

  I used the tape off the radio a lot, and the quality is not much worse than 128 kbps. I can really hear the difference between such highly compressed mp3s

  Leolaia, next time you're in Ohio, swing by my house and I'll play a RATM track from a CD over the headphones for you, and then the same track in 128 kpbs AAC. If you can tell the difference, well, I'll be damned.
• 

  Leolaia

  128 kbps AAC has much better quality than 128 kbps mp3. Different formats. The majority of files traded that I've seen are in mp3 format and most in 128. I believe your original comments on both threads pertained to mp3s.