QueenZone discussion #1087153

True, mp3 will be occasionally reconverted to flac or wav, but I believe that the vast majority of these lossy "flac" shares will be shared outside the serious lossless community, because most of the splintered mp3 sharing and download "community" have slow, and/or download limited connections, plus most mp3 sharers are not reasonably capable of sharing relatively large flac files. Also, most mp3 sharers have no desire to be part of the trading community. Finally, as I stated many times before, many (hopefully most) serious flac lovers will take a few minutes and use a spectral analyzer to verify that the recording is lossless, and inform many others if that recording turns out to be lossy. Thus, the risk of an mp3 recording being shared as flac or wav is even further reduced.

tilomagnet wrote: I can't believe that people are even discussing with these idiots....

tilomagnet wrote: I can't believe that people are even discussing with these idiots.... Ok, have you ever done a trade with someone, burned 20+ discs for that guy containing high quality lossless shows and then receiving the same amount of shows in return, only to find out they're all mp3 sourced and not worth anything. Awesome.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: What will it take for you to realize that you have contributed nothing of value to this community, ever, and that all you do is take away from it!?

Holly2003 wrote: I think Mike was the first to share a quality audio copy of houston.

Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section.

Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings.

You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: I think Mike was the first to share a quality audio copy of houston.

A hundred people had it before him, though. He was just the end of the line. Houston was a hot potato for decades, and collectors had restrictions not to share it. By the time it got to him, the restrictions had eased so he was able to share it. Let's see if he claims that he simply chose to share it all on his own, regardless of how many hands (and whose hands) it had passed through before it reached his.

Before that -- years before that -- Mike contributed to this forum before it had a music-sharing section.

Fair enough. Then I'll revise my statement to: "He has contributed nothing to this forum since people came to understand the potential of technology, since he has chosen to pander to his antiquated views on quality preservation."

Many people here contribute nothing to the forum and the only time they make an appearance is to ask for more recordings.

This is true... but let's not change the subject.

You cannot impose your rules on someone else's website.

But you see, they're not my rules. Technology and its potential are making the rules. Some of us here are merely its messengers, inviting people to enjoy unofficial music in the highest quality possible. I'm trying very hard, and continuing to fail, to understand why some people can be happy with inferior versions of recordings.

Holly2003 wrote: Whether Mike was the first to "have it" or not, I believe he was the first to share it here. That demonstrates that your remark "he has contributed nothing" is wrong.

As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.

As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: Whether Mike was the first to "have it" or not, I believe he was the first to share it here. That demonstrates that your remark "he has contributed nothing" is wrong.

I edited my post while you were writing yours. I'll give some credit, but not much. Even if he was the first person to track down Houston to share to the public, it doesn't eliminate what he has done since. Still, if I may say so, you clearly don't understand the history of the Houston recording. It's not simply a matter of "who shared it first." It's far more complicated than that.

As I said also, there is more to this forum than sharing music, and Mike was here a long time before most of those hurling insults even knew Queenzone existed.

Longevity has nothing to do with someone's current actions, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to overlook them. If someone joined the forum today with the same views, people would be making the same efforts to explain to them how not to destroy recordings.

As for the rules, like myself, and Mike, and everyone else, Flac sharers are guests here and guests should obey site rules. The owner of the site -- the one who designed it, and the person who pays the bills -- allows mp3 sharing and Mike should not be insulted or told to leave by other forum members because he shares mp3s.

Just because a rule has been imposed doesn't mean it's inherently right on all levels. Most websites once had the same rules (or lack of rules) that this website has. But they got with the times, while this one didn't. The bottom line, as I've stated many times before, is this: If it weren't for tapers, transferrers, and collectors, these recordings wouldn't be available to people in the first place, and thus this announce forum wouldn't have existed in the first place, either. It has nothing to do with "rules". Rules can become outdated over time. Common sense should suggest that those who make the recordings available have the right to say what can be done with them. If one of those requests is to maintain the recording's quality, people should respect their wishes as a thank you for the recording, which otherwise would not have been heard. If these requests aren't met, then in many cases, no more recordings will emerge from that source. It's that simple. You will not meet many tapers who will encourage people to share their recordings in mp3. That said, it is a fact that some shows won't ever be heard because of this forum. Sure, there are various reasons why recordings will remain underground, but the champions for lossy sharing here are to blame for some of them. So what's more important? New recordings, or mp3 versions of existing ones?

Holly2003 wrote: In your opinion what Mike is doing is wrong: in the opinion of the guy who runs the forum (and who pays for it) what Mike is doing is fine. That is the bottom line.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: In your opinion what Mike is doing is wrong: in the opinion of the guy who runs the forum (and who pays for it) what Mike is doing is fine. That is the bottom line.

In *my* opinion? Not the opinions of everyone in every other thriving collecting community? You, along with Mike and most of the people at this forum, just don't have a clue. I don't need to state my business any further, as I don't feel like talking to brick walls anymore, thanks. Enjoy your mp3s.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Right... every person with money and can make rules is inherently flawless and knows exactly what's best for everyone!

Maz wrote: Just a couple of comments - -I agree that tapers are vital to the process, but I can't imagine that, back in 1976, they were thinking "those bastards better not convert this to mp3." I just don't think that arguments applies to this situation. -Technology does not set the rules; consumers do. Until companies come out with "flac-players" and itunes starts charging a buck per flac download, I do not see mp3s going anywhere. -In essence, because a few morons convert mp3 to flac, everyone should suffer? That seems to be what this boils down to, and that's simply not right. I respect both sides of the argument and cannot see why they can't co-exist.

Maz wrote: -I agree that tapers are vital to the process, but I can't imagine that, back in 1976, they were thinking "those bastards better not convert this to mp3." I just don't think that arguments applies to this situation.

Giammy83 wrote: mmm I don't understand the problem... Flac or Mp3 for me is the same, because is a Queen material, and for me is the First important point. We destroy the mp3 annuncer, why? Nobody Put a gun in ours/yours brains for download it!!!!! Respect the Mp3 announcer and the flac announcer If someone don't won't Download the mp3, his don't download it, SIMPLY!!!! sorry for my english.