does that mean you'll give away all the code/programs you'll ever write?Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Data technically has no value.
if so.. how will you pay rent etc?
Printable View
does that mean you'll give away all the code/programs you'll ever write?Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Data technically has no value.
if so.. how will you pay rent etc?
Sourcecode and the result are two different things.Quote:
Originally posted by si_the_geek
does that mean you'll give away all the code/programs you'll ever write?
if so.. how will you pay rent etc?
Programs perform functions. They have a value. Sourcecode can be edited to allow for further functionality.
The debate is going off track! ;-)
1. If MP3s are 128kbps/16bit/Stereo (or better) then its quality is hardly is considered similar to that of CD quality audio. Researchers have proved that human ear can't detect difference between CD quality and MP3s coded at that rate (or higher). In future better techonology will further compress sound (eg. MP4 or WMA have done already).
2. Whether $15 is cheap or expensive depends on how much you earn! Not all people live in USA. There are lots people who earns less than $10 per day! Demanding $15/CD from such people are NOT ETHICAL rather it should be considered as EXPLOITATION by the greeds of artists et. al. If you demand such price from these people, they will not pay rather they will invent their own way to listen the music (ie. convert several CDs to MP3 and thus reducing the price).
3. MP3 CDs are much easier to carry (1 MP3 CD is equivalent of 10 Audio CDs at least)!
4. If music industry sees that consumers are willing to pay $15/CD they will increase the price to $20 in next album. If no body buys, then they will be forced to reduce price to $10! So, it's simple economics!
5. Buy CDs of your favorite rock artists/bands and you will see that at least 40% of tracks are already available in other CDs (ie. repeated)! Do you think it is right? Aren't they charging you twice for the same track? Are they ethical?
6. Until recently CD writing/copying techonology was not easily available (at least at your desktop computers). So, music industry charged CDs at their will. Now, because of MP3s and CD copying became so easy, that they have started crying foul. Is this fair?
7. If something is copyrighted, then copying it by any means (either CDA or MP3 or WMA) is illegal. If someone says that music industry has to wind up their business just because of MP3s, that allegation it is simple bull****!
These are all my personal views, anyway.
1. There are audiophiles that can hear the difference, especially with certain types of music (usually classical). CD Quality is not good enough for some people even. And I'm personally for a higher quality audio, even if I can't hear the difference. If I'm going to but something, I want it in the highest quality possible, which is why I'd never buy an MP3 cd. It should be within my fair use rights to make a MP3 cd for my personal use out of music I legally own if I wish.Quote:
Originally posted by sbasak
The debate is going off track! ;-)
1. If MP3s are 128kbps/16bit/Stereo (or better) then its quality is hardly is considered similar to that of CD quality audio. Researchers have proved that human ear can't detect difference between CD quality and MP3s coded at that rate (or higher). In future better techonology will further compress sound (eg. MP4 or WMA have done already).
2. Whether $15 is cheap or expensive depends on how much you earn! Not all people live in USA. There are lots people who earns less than $10 per day! Demanding $15/CD from such people are NOT ETHICAL rather it should be considered as EXPLOITATION by the greeds of artists et. al. If you demand such price from these people, they will not pay rather they will invent their own way to listen the music (ie. convert several CDs to MP3 and thus reducing the price).
3. MP3 CDs are much easier to carry (1 MP3 CD is equivalent of 10 Audio CDs at least)!
4. If music industry sees that consumers are willing to pay $15/CD they will increase the price to $20 in next album. If no body buys, then they will be forced to reduce price to $10! So, it's simple economics!
5. Buy CDs of your favorite rock artists/bands and you will see that at least 40% of tracks are already available in other CDs (ie. repeated)! Do you think it is right? Aren't they charging you twice for the same track? Are they ethical?
6. Until recently CD writing/copying techonology was not easily available (at least at your desktop computers). So, music industry charged CDs at their will. Now, because of MP3s and CD copying became so easy, that they have started crying foul. Is this fair?
7. If something is copyrighted, then copying it by any means (either CDA or MP3 or WMA) is illegal. If someone says that music industry has to wind up their business just because of MP3s, that allegation it is simple bull****!
These are all my personal views, anyway.
2. Right, you price for the market. In Japan CDs cost about the equivalent of US $25-30.
3. True, but you can make the MP3 cds yourself and have you're legal high quality sources store at home.
4. There's a marketing theory of pricing and the economic theory of pricing. The economic theory is supply & demand, so high selling titles should actually go down in price (and you can get bigger discounts on them). Marketing theory says price is a selling point - it's why things are priced a penny less than a full dollar. In real life, price lies somewhere between the two.
5. I don't know, I don't buy too much music, and what I do buy happens to be soundtracks.
6. Consumers screwed the record companies big time (think Napster), and now the record companies are trying to screw the consumers big time (DRM). Nobody wins.
7. We need to get people to obey copyright and the companies to respect fair use rights, IMHO.
The record companies never got screwed. They're making as much money as they ever did.
What lack of invidual sales subtracts, inflation adds then some.
They're just mad because they lose potential profit. Which is not potential at all.
As people say, if they didn't get it in mp3 form, they would simply get it another way.
I.e. friend's CD, copy to a casette, radio record to a casette, etc. etc.
Stop whining.
this makes no sense!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
And I'm personally for a higher quality audio, even if I can't hear the difference
MP3s coded in 192 kbps or 224 kbps have really high quality audio yet file size 1/5th of WAV files!
I can't agree that record companies are losing money. They always want more money! They're just afraid that their profit will go down that's why they speak of ethics & copyright!
Have a nice music... :cool:
Are you saying music has no value? It's function may not be the same as programs, but it does have functionality.Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Sourcecode and the result are two different things.
Programs perform functions. They have a value. Sourcecode can be edited to allow for further functionality.
Think of the entertainment value - I don't know about you, but I think that something that entertains me for several hours (or even hundreds of hours depending on the CD in question) is worth a similar amount to something else that entertains you to a similar degree for the same amount of time. (whether this is going to the pub, bowling, cinema etc).
So again: does that mean you'll give away all the programs you'll ever write? if not, why do you expect people in other proffesions to do it?
I buy CDs.
I also d/l MP3s. Which I may or may not have license to. :p
I think artists would care more about people enjoying their music than another million added to their already tens of millions.
You know, even if mp3s had not come around, people would still find some way to bootleg songs. Its like sotware, videos, and everything, else, when theres a will, theres a way!!! I mean think about it. In China, Mexico, and many other countries bootleging is probably the main source of income for some, and the onlything others can afford!! If the music labels were so intent apon making impossible to copy the music, I think they would have tried alot harder than taking a magic marker, and outlining the edge of the CD. I think they actually want us to bootleg songs to some extent. This is ludicrous, you say, but think about it. Bootleged music is never the same quality that it comes in legally, so if people really want the songs, they'll buy them, and by having people bootlegging to their songs, more people listen to the music. Its like a second(actaully a third, if you want to count internet radio) radio for the labels. Most people just download songs to sample them, and if they like it, they buy the CD. Now theres always an exception to the rule, but I think that in the long run, the labels are probably going to make more money, I think they just want something to whine about!
Im John Stossel, and I say, "GIVE ME A BREAK!!!"
(Just Kidding, Im not John Stossel):D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I can get you any song, within reason, at or above CD quality.
:rolleyes:
I don't think you can get it above CD-quality...you might, if you have contacts, be able to find a 48KHz version of it, but that would normally be internal to the recording studio.
I can get beyond 320 kbps.
Easily.
Yes, but there is no way to get it above CD quality when it's released on CD to start with!
Artist gets about 2$ per CD but they have other costs so we are not saving music with our money. Also some bands never make it because they dont get exposure.
My personel complaints......
-15$ per CD .... When I want 1 or 2 songs Per CD
-In the car I need a 6 disk player to have 10-12 songs that I
truly like.....
Solution.... continue to copy mp3s until recording industry dies....
This will happen anyway because mp4 or other will be along soon......
Then start local mp3 servers that anyone can access and download music they like for 50 cents per song (or whatever).
I would pay that.... I think most of us would... Have those connected to a national\world servce that keeps track of downloads per song and do those on MTV, VH1 etc.... Money directly to artist!! with little over head and we are all happy....
Actual best songs recognised and we get more and better choices....
Who's going to pay to d/l when you can d/l free?
I waaaay to cheap to pay for something I can get for free, unless I know that that thing is nowhere near as good or will cause problems for me.
I never even use CDs. I just download music and listen to it.
If they had some kind of purchase program online that gave you rights to the music, I'd probably pay for it, granted it's not as expensive as CDs.
But I don't see the purpose in buying something I'd just rip off and put on the computer anyways.
who wants to pay for a cd of crap w/ one good song? if they ban it i'll just tape it off the radio again... its just less effortQuote:
Originally posted by kleptos
I look at it like this, i wouldnt have paid for the CD anyways, so they arent really loosing my money. They never had it.