OT: AAC > MP3

[Charles Martin]

> From: Gerhard Kuhn <gerhardk at mac.com>
>
>
> I tend to agree with your point of view but Chad

*sigh*

>  even using a method that makes copies
> far inferior to the original.  Translating the logic that it was
> alright to share cassettes amongst buddies

Gerald, you are reading things into my post that simply aren't there. I 
*never* said that what I and my friends did in the 70s was legal or 
"alright." I simply admitted that we did such things.

This is akin to me saying that I have jaywalked in my life (and I 
have), or not come to a complete and full stop at a stop sign (again, 
I've done this). It does not make it right, it does not make it legal, 
and my occasionally breaking those laws does not mean I think the law 
should be repealed necessarily.

It was just an admission that people (specifically me) sometimes engage 
in acts they either don't know or don't care are illegal. This doesn't 
excuse other people breaking the law, or act as rationale for breaking 
much more serious laws, or breaking them on a much larger scale.

Saying that one made sampler tapes in the 70s for friends (which was 
illegal, but to the best of my knowledge was never prosecuted -- and 
the statute of limitations has expired at least 15 years ago) is not 
the same thing as saying that it's okay to mass-distribute millions of 
copies of copyrighted digital material (and again, I never said nor 
condoned that). Just as there are degrees of crimes, there are degrees 
of seriousness to copyright theft.

Distributing the new (fill in your favourite popular artist) album on 
Kazaa literally takes money out of the artists' and record companies 
pockets and sabotages potentially millions of sales -- that can and 
should be prosecutable.

Making a CD of various tracks for a couple of friends of artists you 
think they should be exposed to may also be illegal, but the record 
companies and the artists have historically indicated that they are 
quite willing to "look the other way" on its illegality in the name of 
publicity and exposure they might not otherwise get.

It is this *balancing act* that copyright holders and consumers much 
achieve that I was addressing in my post. If anything, I was calling 
for an *expansion* of "fair use" to cover *reasonable* things (like the 
occasional homebrew "sampler cd") that are currently regarded as 
"infringement" so that we don't get silly debates about "scale of 
theft" (oops, too late) :).

>  to today's terms suggest
> that sharing files encoded at 64 kbs over a corporate network is o.k.
> but sharing 128 kbs files over the internet is not.

I don't know who said this, but it certainly wasn't me.

> I also believe that if the record companies embraced Apple iTunes store
> model people's interest in peer to peer sharing would die a quick death
> since consistent high quality files at a reasonable price would compete
> against files that may be virus ridden and of dubious quality.

You see? You and I are actually in agreement on this, I think. You just 
misunderstood me, that's all.

>   This
> would be much more cost effective for the copyright holders than the
> big stick approach they seem to favour at this time.

I completely concur with this.

_Chas_

"The Box said 'Windows 95 or better' ... so I got a Macintosh."