3 ms·
It's important to keep a few things in mind: - When you recorded off the radio, you usually had someone talking over the beginning, end, or both (and this was
by jedberg 3y ago
It's important to keep a few things in mind:
- When you recorded off the radio, you usually had someone talking over the beginning, end, or both (and this was by design, because the radio station knew that if you had a good copy you wouldn't listen to the radio anymore)
- Your copy was a lot worse quality than what you could otherwise buy
- You could at best distribute it to a few hundred or maybe even 1000 people if you were really well connected.
With videos on YouTube you can:
- Get an unaltered copy
- In exactly the same quality as the original
- Which you can easily redistribute to millions
It's not exactly an equal comparison. An equal comparison would be copying on VHS from analog broadcast TV. Which was also legal.
- bensecure 3y ago> - When you recorded off the radio, you usually had someone talking over the beginning, end, or both (and this was by design, because the radio station knew that if you had a good copy you wouldn't listen to the radio anymore) If such adulteration was sufficient to prevent my listening to the recording, than I wouldn't listen to the radio in the first place. Radio is at least no better than my recording if it always contains such effects. > With videos on YouTube you can: > - Which you can easily redistribute to millions Which platform might I use to perform this redistribution? And how am I to compete with the copy retrievable from the bands own youtube page?
- cornfutes 3y agoThe similar comparison would be doing a screen recording of the video versus downloading the byte stream.
- ndiddy 3y agoTo save bandwidth, Youtube does lossy compression that drastically reduces the video quality (especially for SD videos) compared to the original file.