A Heretical View of File Sharing

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 11 Apr 2004 4:30 pm

Chas, I can understand how illegal copies could hurt your sales -- in fact, I would think that file sharing and illegal copying would hurt the little guy more than the big guy because for the little guy, each illegal copy is a bigger chunk of the pie, so-to-speak.

Also, I would think that anyone who writes and/or publishes music would be in favor of the big guys trying to stamp out illegal copying.

As far as word of mouth publicity, you have a good point. However, I would think and hope that word of mouth would be almost as effective, if not as effective, without illegal copying.

I remember when I was a kid, if one of my friends bought a good album, I'd almost always end up buying the album too.

I think the real problem is that file sharing over the internet allows an incredible number of copies to be made from just a single legitimate copy. Regardless of the sound quality of MP3's, the fact that so many people are using the format speaks volumes. It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Dustin Rigsby · Post by **Dustin Rigsby** » 11 Apr 2004 6:30 pm

I at one time used to download quite a bit of songs you just can't find on C.D. . They weren't great digital copies,either. I do not download anymore because I refuse to be sued by the one major label(sony). I belive this is why we have crap forced down our throats these days. Those mergers that happened a few years ago...should have been ruled illegal and not in the best public interest. That is how they are able to charge the music lover $18.00 bucks for a C.D. that is released by made up,fake bands with no talent.

------------------
D.S. Rigsby
Carter Starter and various six string toys

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 11 Apr 2004 6:57 pm

I remember when I was a kid, if one of my friends bought a good album, I'd almost always end up buying the album too.

Me too, especially because 1/4" tape cost more than the album and it was easier to drop the needle. And if the needle was having trouble tracking, then a stack of nickles or quarters always kept it in the groove. Hmmmm, where did all that dust come from......

Bill Llewellyn · Post by **Bill Llewellyn** » 13 Apr 2004 10:02 am

MP3's aren't exact copies of the original songs, incidentally. They're compressed files, with some loss of the original information. They are, however, bit-for-bit duplicable to identical copies of themselves without further generation loss, and that's a concern to the original makers of the music. More so of a concern than old fashioned tape-to-tape copies of analog versions, which were self-limiting (the multi-generation dubbed sound eventually gets very bad).

I'm not in complete agreement about the sometimes maligned quality of MP3 sound. As with many things, "it depends." The MP3 format compresses (or encodes) the original material in order to reduce the file size, and it allows a great degree of variation in the resolution or fidelity of the resulting file depending on one's choices before encoding occurs. The higher the fidelity setting, the bigger the resulting file, and vice versa. The resolution is defined by the encoding "bit rate", which can be set to be from perhaps 16 kilobits per second to 320 kbps. There is also a variable bit rate option, which is a bit more space efficient. The defacto standard seems to be 128kbps. I don't know how it landed there, but it is certainly a compromise between file size and fidelity. A typical raw CD song at 50 megabytes will compress down to perhaps 5 MB at this encoder setting. As for the sound of the resulting file at this bit rate, some songs do better than others. Some songs sound ok to me at 128kbps while others have obvious "artifacts". I have personally compressed a number of tracks from my own CDs for my personal use (in the car or at the gym) and I favor 256kbps to 320kbps. At those high settings the music sounds just great--no artifacts. So for those who bristle at the idea of MP3s, you're probably reacting to the limitations of the commonly used 128kbps bit rate. However, as net bandwidth goes up and storage space gets cheaper (can it? it's already very cheap) file sharers may start upping the bit rate such that encoded music will approach being indistinguishable from the original CD tracks for all but the most discerning listeners.

(As I've stated before, I don't use the file sharing sites. I'm an iTunes kinda guy.)

------------------
Bill, steelin' since '99 | Steel page | My music | Steelers' birthdays | Over 50?[This message was edited by Bill Llewellyn on 13 April 2004 at 11:23 AM.]