9 Oct
2003
9 Oct
'03
10:29 p.m.
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Mark Knecht hat gesagt: // Mark Knecht wrote:
I back you on this Frank. It's roughly equivalent to gpl'ing code. At
least from a philosophical perspective if not legal. Anyone who tries to
pass off an open source ogg release as their own music is just lame but
they should be encouraged to sample it and rework it to their hearts
content. I just wish flac was more widely accepted but that ain't gonna
happen.
Imagine if all cdplayers understood flac instead of cdda...
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
And on the other hand, Linux based musicians
who *want* their music to be
heard are cutting their nose off not making it extremely available through
mp3s. Frankly, independent of the perceived advantages of .ogg over mp3
(open source, sounds better, no licensing issues or royalty payments) it's
just good business to make your product usable by more people. That leads to
good stuff. Forcing people to go to .ogg seems like it's backwards to the
open source movement.
I disagree. I see a necessity in trying to force people to use ogg or
any other free (as speech) codec, before "digital rights protected"
codecs get more widely used. It's politics, but I think it important.
Mp3 is not an alternative here, because there already are more
powerful commercial and DRM enabled codecs available and it is an
important task to not let these take over.