1
   

Forget KaZaA!! (or: I discovered Soulseek)

 
 
Monger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:36 am
nimh wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Some of the fields are off the screen to the right. I always just drag the ones I want onto the screen and push the others off into the hidden area.


No, yeh, I know that, I looked there too. I guess perhaps I messed up. Can you see it?

I've used a number of versions of Kazaa & Kazaa Lite, and they've always displayed the bitrate under 'Quality'. But it's quite easy to drag a column into the previous one, making it tricky to find & resize it again.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 05:05 pm
Thanks Monger, that must be what I have done. And I can't for the life of me find it back again, I've pulled at all the "borders" between the columns this way and that, but no sign of where "Quality" might have gone.

Anyway - all I wanted was to test for Fishin' how the average and sum total of different quality bitrates compared between KaZaA and Soulseek.

Like I said, for Soulseek I got 19 screens worth' of results for "Cornershop", of which some 7+ screens of 192k/s and higher files. In KaZaA, I can thus not see what the bitrate is ... of the three files that I found on "Cornershop".

<grins> Can you imagine how glad I was to find Soulseek, if you see that difference in #s!? Da-amn ...!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 12:52 pm
bookmark
0 Replies
 
fluffhead237
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 01:17 pm
When you go to the gas station to fill up your gastank, do you pay for your gas when you're done or do you drive off?
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 03:25 pm
Well, if i like an artist or an entire album i buy it. But if its just rnadom songs from random artists, I download it. I wouldnt buy the cd anyway so theyre not losing money but gaining a potential fan. Perhaps if artists didnt release albums that featured only 5 or so good songs, piracy wouldnt be such a problem. A few artists realease solid albums but most don't.
0 Replies
 
fluffhead237
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 07:26 am
But if a 14 song album costs $14 at the store why not buy the songs that you know are good for a buck off of itunes?

I do see what you mean though. You make a good point. If the only gas I could purchase for my vehicle was poor quality gas at an extremely high price and I knew someone that could give me high quality gas for free illegally, I'd probably do it. The record industry blames their customers for downloading songs illegally instead of realizing that it's their own severe mismanagement that's put them in the position they're in. What's tough about it though is the negative trickle effect that downloading illegally has on the entire music industry; cd stores, artists, price gouging, etc.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 09:25 am
A more crucial difference is that gas is a commodity that is not duplicated like an mp3, it actually represents a loss of goods. Making a copy of music can derive the merchant of a potential sale but it does not remove the ability to sell it as it's copied.
0 Replies
 
fluffhead237
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 10:06 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Making a copy of music can derive the merchant of a potential sale but it does not remove the ability to sell it as it's copied.


I'm not sure I follow you there. Are you saying that even thought it's being copied, songs can still be sold since it's not a physical good or are you saying that record companies can regulate their sales by charging people to download songs?

There needs to be trust between the vendor and their customers. Just like the owner of a gas station trusts that you'll pay for your gas when you're through pumping, record labels and their artists trust that their customers will pay for songs when they download them. That's why if you download a song off the internet that's copyrighted without paying for it, that's similar to going to a gas pump, pumping a gallon of gas and leaving without paying.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 10:10 am
Sorry, derive should be deprive above.

I'm saying that the comparison to stealing gas is a poor one. Gas is a product whose use results in the depletion of the product. Duplication of a file does not deplete the product and only removes a potential sale.

If there was no potential for a sale, it makes no difference to the merchant. If there was a potential for a sale it does.

Either way, there is no product depletion so the monetary loss is against what could have been made, and not to cover a depleted good.
0 Replies
 
fluffhead237
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 10:50 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Sorry, derive should be deprive above.

I'm saying that the comparison to stealing gas is a poor one. Gas is a product whose use results in the depletion of the product. Duplication of a file does not deplete the product and only removes a potential sale.

If there was no potential for a sale, it makes no difference to the merchant. If there was a potential for a sale it does.

Either way, there is no product depletion so the monetary loss is against what could have been made, and not to cover a depleted good.


If it's difficult to see past the difference you're presenting what about pirated software? Better example?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 10:51 am
Pirated software is a better example.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 09:51:17