i agree with that comment. it is so easy to record audio being played back.
one insane flaw of that idea is the low bit rate. 128kbps? 10 cents? trapped in a tab? forget it man. i'd never pay 10 pennies for crappy 128, or worse yet, 64 kbps clips "trapped in a tab". my hearing range isnt astounding, i lose the ability to hear audio past 14 khz, but i can tell you that 128kbps sounds ridiculously bad. my friend goes nuts saying that mp3 sounds terrible at even 320kbps, he can hear above what the speakers can produce, whereas i cant tell the difference between 320 and 192 kbps audio, he can.
that basically means 10 pennies for pure crap even a guy with "bad hearing" can tell that its horrible sounding. you know what? i think i'll take winamp's shoutcast radio if i really wanted 128 kbps.
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 24, 2008 9:34:01 PM
I think this is a bad omen because it further restricts the right of music ownership. Besides, youtube already offer this service, get this, for free. To debate on whether lala's pay-for-access service is a good or a bad thing, visit: