James Sharp wrote:If you're paying for a download you're going to get the same quality audio as you would from downloading illegally.
Really? dang i always assumed the napster and itunes paid downloads are like 312kb's or something like that while most Illegal downloads usually are like 128..
Well, you need to have better sources than the average public user would, but those same high-quality files
are available (though most people don't have the auditory ability to notice differences)
James Sharp wrote:And i also figured the reason napster made you pay a fee to burn songs to cd's in addition to its monthly fee to download songs to your computer was because you are buying the rights to "backup" the song on a cd so you can listen to it wherever you want. such as a cd player.. or a dvd player.. or anything that is not directly related to anything mp3. so i always assumed that technically if you put that song you paid to reproduce on a music video.. then you are not violating any laws..
AFAIK you only have the right to listen to said music on your computer. That's why some (but not all as TartanT points out) music services require you to even have to use other programs to essentially re-record the songs to listen to them in another media player, put them on an mp3 player, burn them to CD, etc.
James Sharp wrote:But then again.. even for people who paid for the album it is a violation.. so really even using a bought cd to distribute the songs in the form of an amv is illegal..
so looks like whatever we do it is illegal isnt it?
Essentially, yes. But apparently some ethics are involved in certain methods and not in others. I try to explain this unique facet to others outside of the community and they tell me we have our heads quite far up our own asses and usually laugh about it for a while.