From: "jondl" <
jondl@...>
> Peter Korsten wrote:
>
> > The case of the RIAA versus MP3.com is rather clear. MP3.com put 45,000
> > commercial, copyrighted CD's online. These are CD's from the traditional
> > record companies, not from MP3.com. Now you must have the original CD to
> > download the MP3's, but fact of the matter is that they infringed the
> > copyright. There's no doubt about that.
> >
> > Did they have to do this? No.
> >
> > Was this very stupid? Positively so.
>
> Well, that's what being debated isn't it? For those of you who would
> like to read more, here's the link:
>
> http://www.mp3.com/my/news/yourmusic.html
I'd prefer a less biased view. Try this one:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/28/1411231&cid=94 > ∗I∗ believe this goes back to my original point regarding the monopoly
> of distribution by the majors. The majors are resisting with all their
> might coming into the digital age and it surely has nothing to do with
> 'artists rights', IMO.
It has to do with easy duplication, and digital media means easier, cheaper
and better duplication than ever was possible on analogue media. That is a
concern alright. Or do you only have legitimate music and software? All of
it?
> > Another reason why DAT failed is because it's expensive, cumbersome
(it's
> > still a tape), it wears easily (rotating heads are always good for high
> > costs), different sampling rate (48 kHz instead of 44.1 Khz) and it
wasn't
> > that much better than compact cassette.
> >
>
> What? The sounds quality of DAT is vastly superior to cassette and, uh,
> have you noticed that 24 / 96 is being widely implemented at the moment?
> 32-bit will be in many Cubase users hands this summer with Cubase v5.
> Granted, there are limits to the amount of resolution our analog ears
> can detect ;-) and I find the idea of recording from 16-bit DAC to
> 18-bit ADC's at 48 Khz of dubious merit at best but...Furthermore, most
> of the then cutting edge DAT recorders offered selectable sampling rates
> and corresponding record times, i.e., 32, 44.1, and 48 Khz. Alesis made
> a FORTUNE off of ADAT technology which was the next generation of
> spinning head technology (still in use BTW in every household VCR!) as
> did Tascam.
Next time you quote me, quote the next paragraph as well, in which I said
that sound quality is indeed better, but that no consumer really cares. What
you're describing is all pro stuff. Pros don't make a consumer product a
success.
Which leaves the point that DAT botched as a consumer product because of the
reasons I mentioned.
> > DCC again was a tape, and it also failed. MiniDisc, although it had a
slow
> > start, has become a success,
>
> Not here in the U.S. It's still floating near the surface but not close
> to a success, IMO. DCC was a flop. Period. Waste of everybodys time.
It's getting there. Check the figures. I recently bought one, and I'm
wondering why I didn't do so earlier. It's a brilliant product, overall
better and cheaper than all those portable MP3 players.
> and it also has the SCMS protocol. So my guess
> > is that SCMS wasn't the sole reason why DAT failed.
>
> We'll agree to disagree. SCMS kept the price between professional and
> consumer MSRPs so out of whack it's amazing DAT became so widely used in
> professional circle.
I don't get this one, really. SCMS could be a reason not to buy a DAT, but
only if you wanted to make a copy from a commercial CD to a DAT, and from
that DAT to another DAT.
This is off-topic, and bordering on the edge of boredom for the average
reader, but I wanted to set this straight.
- Peter