| Author |
Topic: Napster/Live365.com comparison |
Earl Foote
From:
Houston, Tx, USA
|
Posted 10 Jan 2002 10:17 am |
|
After reading the "I Think Most Will Agree" post, I came up with a question.
There were a lot of forum members that were against Napster because they were handing out free music, not reimbursing artists, etc. I've heard no such negative comments about Live365.com.
My question is: How are the two services different in their end result?
(I don't have anything against Live365.com, I like the service. I just thought that it's funny that no one has brought up the "free music/artist reimbursement issue)
What do you think?
Earl
Houston, Tx |
|
|
|
Lem Smith
From:
Long Beach, MS
|
Posted 10 Jan 2002 10:55 am
|
|
Earl, I'm going to toss in a guess here and say that the big difference is that on live365 what you're hearing is generally lower quality audio because it has to stream, and it can't be downloaded. I've heard it compared to AM radio.
On the other hand, with Napster and it's clones one can download songs that are pretty much CD quality and burn them to CD's, in some cases a person can down complete CD's by a particular artist.
So, I would think the quality of the music and the fact that you can download would be the two main reasons.
Just MHO,
Lem |
|
|
|
Dave Burr
From:
League City, TX
|
Posted 10 Jan 2002 12:19 pm
|
|
I guess my question would be, how is Live365.com any different than a normal radio broadcaster? Also, look over the "legal info" link at the bottom of the home page of Live365.com. It looks like they've covered themselves pretty good.
Respectfully,
Dave Burr |
|
|
|
Earl Foote
From:
Houston, Tx, USA
|
Posted 10 Jan 2002 12:57 pm
|
|
Your right Dave Burr. I went to the legal info link. They liscense the music the same as clubs, radio stations, etc. Question answered.
Earl
Houston, Tx |
|
|
|
