-
Poster
It is my understanding that MP3's, ANY MP3's are NOT exact duplicates of whatever was copied, as all MP3's are missing many things not found in original recordings. Now, if this is true,(i'm no expert in this field) it seems to me, that any attempt to "sue" ANYONE is null and void from the very beginning. I suppose that anything that has a copyright, and is copied EXACTLY, could be considered in a different way, but I really don't see it as a problem with MP3's. Someone care to expound on this?
-
-
07-31-2003, 04:42 AM
File Sharing -
#2
Poster
its violating copy right. Just give it up we're pirating. Dont try to come up with weird logic. Just download!!! and download and download!
-
-
07-31-2003, 05:00 AM
File Sharing -
#3
Poster
Yeah MP3's lose quality when they were ripped from the retail CD, and that the CD's might have some extras that MP3's don't, but do we care? Would the RIAA care? IMO, it's not possible for a person to not do something illegal. We must break the rules at a point in out lives.
-
-
07-31-2003, 05:03 AM
File Sharing -
#4
Poster
I think as long as you could identify the song the RIAA would have a case.
-
-
07-31-2003, 05:35 AM
File Sharing -
#5
Member
the mp3 file sound fine if above 128 bitrate and higher and depand how the user rip it, so i find mp3 file sound good, i don't give shit what the cd have sound the same for me. $17 or $20 or higher for fucking cd the only has song no special feature etc.. i wouldn't pay for it, the last time i bought a cd was lenny kravits the shit was in 2000, so i only buy classical cds and when a really singer comes out maybe a big maybe i would buy , i don't want to support riaa anyways. so i am avoiding buying cd until RIAA drop dead.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks