[nspindel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breadnbutter P.S. I agree that spaceconvoy's post was quite rude, but that is no excuse for racist remarks! Instead of respecting the "law" you should first learn to respect human dignity.

Read my reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nspindel Actually, you are right. It wasn't right of me to say those things, and I apologize to the fine people of the great state of Hawaii. I guess I just got extremely angry when personally attacked by a thief.

 

[Nandro]

Quote:

the process of copying is - including making copies for your mp3 player

So iTunes would be illegal just for having the import feature then? Thats silly of them.

 

[breadnbutter]

nspindel: I read your reply and welcome it. But the point is that personally I hope that I would _never_ make such remarks if I had only a few seconds to think about it. Not because I am imune to such feelings but because I am aware of the damage that racism has caused and continues to cause.
For me such things are much more serious than copyright infringement. So IMHO someone who made such a remark has lost all credibility when it comes to moral issues. And your next sentence after the apology really shows that you should think about your moral priorities.

 

[breadnbutter]

nandro: Well, as long as the CD has no copy protection there is no problem. The law protects the copy protection itself, not the content. Now this might seem sensible to a lawyer who never used a mp3 player, but the practical implications are quite absurd.
So this shows how legislation seems to be unable to catch up and react to the technical advances and the associated changes of society.

 

[nspindel]

Ok, well how about we all just agree to disagree then. This thread was about compressed vs. lossless listening, and has completely digressed to the point of having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. So how about we just let this thread die, it's getting a bit silly....

 

[atx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breadnbutter Now is this about being ILLEGAL (oh, now my capslock seems to be stuck as well, must be infectious...) or being morally wrong?

I agree to this point. Copyright infringement and stealing are two different things. The RIAA lawyers would LOVE to have you believe that they are equivalent, and if you believe they are, then you're the ideal poster boy for the record industry. When I saw the sticker "Don't steal music" attached to my new iPod, I can't help but smile at the cunning way the industry is trying to equate the copyright laws to one's morality.

In a similar way, Microsoft would love nothing more than to charge you an annual fee for using their Windows operating system, and if you don't pay up, you're basically violating the law and therefore you are stealing.

Anyway, those people who believe copyright infringement is stealing should just pat themselves on the back for paying every CD they've got, wink at a mirror, and go on their way.

 

[K2Grey]

They are two different things (note how I was careful not to use the word stealing in my post), however, that does not mean that one is wrong and the other is righteous. The terminology doesn't effect the morality.

If Microsoft wanted to sell the next version of Windows and charge an annual fee to keep using it I'm sure that would be their right. When you buy Windows, you are not buying the software itself, but rather a license to use it. I see no reason why they cannot sell a time-limited license. This is not to say that it would necessarily be a good move by Microsoft, but if Microsoft were to do this, there would be nothing morally wrong with it so long as it was made clear the license was time-limited, and if they were to do this, it would be copyright infringement to use the software past the end date of the license without renewing.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

It's sad, but true:

The studies have been done.

Very few people can tell the difference between 320 kbps lossy and FLAC even with the best gear (orpheus and expensive speakers included).

It all sounds good.

-Matt

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

How about getting a copy of something you already have? Say you have a cd that has a scratch and you just download a song to replace the scratched copy?

According to the "Fair Use" doctrine established in the Betamax case in the 80's, you can make copies of things you BOUGHT for your own personal use. So making a copy of a scratched CD, or to play in the car, or even importing into iTunes and putting on an iPod -- all these things are, currently, 100% legal for music that you paid for in the first place. Borrowing CDs and ripping those, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it, these things are 100% illegal, currently.

Whether they are immoral or not is not for me to say. But they ARE illegal, pure and simple. Plenty of things in the country are illegal that should not be IMO, but this is not one of them, again, JMO.

 

[Nandro]

So technicaly (sp?) if I get a copy from the net off a forum or something of an album I own but cant play due to scratches should be cool. I have a few albums that are beat to death, unrecoverable but I have also bout multiple copies and just want the songs.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nandro So technicaly (sp?) if I get a copy from the net off a forum or something of an album I own but cant play due to scratches should be cool. I have a few albums that are beat to death, unrecoverable but I have also bout multiple copies and just want the songs.

I can't see how any court in the land would convict you for that

 

[Nandro]

I guess what I am looking for is about 150-200 casettes that I have in the cases that I am using copies on tape. I could just copy the tapes to digital, but it would be easier and sound better to get a full digital copy. They should alow us to trade up our tapes. I have some that I bought about 5 of the same tape because it got eaten or just worn to where it sounds like a peice.

 

[archon_c]

May be there are some differences between a high bitrate lossy file(just like 320K MP3) and a lossless. But it's hard to tell the different of them.