🚀 go-pugleaf

Yary Richard Phillip Hluchan writes:
 > This means you need a pro machine to make a non-copy protected original.

Curt Welch writes:
 > This also means you can make a copy-protected original without a pro
 > machine!  If your recording is good enough that everyone wants a copy
 > of it, then you probably want it copy-protected.

Ah, I knew this topic would drift back into realm of GNU eventually.

Suppose I don't want to sell my music or protect it in any way other than
keeping other people from restricting its distribution.  Sound familiar to you
GNUs?  And my reasons for this need not be altruistic.  For example, giving
away tapes is a good way to expose people to your music.  All other things
being equal, the better the quality of the recording, the more favorable the
impression you'll make.  If you get enough of a following, then you might be
able to SELL some music someday or, if you're really lucky, be offered record
contract.  At the very least you might land some gigs.

Thanks to this gratuitous copy protection, people won't be able to freely
share music that I WANT them to give away.  People shouldn't be forced to take
a trip down Analog Lane just to be able to make more copies for their friends.

If this topic still does not seem germane to the newsgroup gnu.misc.discuss,
imagine if computers marked disks and tapes, and refused to make third
generation copies of ANY data, copyrighted or not.

kyle jones   <kjones@talos.uu.net>   ...!uunet!talos!kjones

p.s. All of this presumes DAT will eventually become affordable enough to
     dip into the cassette tape market.  If it doesn't then the point is
     moot, because no one's going to sink a fortune into a DAT player
     just to listen to flawless bootleg copies of CDs, when CD players for
     your home, car, and shoulder are already available and affordable.)