Slashdot Mirror
Instant Live Concert Recordings
WebGangsta writes "The AP is reporting that there's a new device out that allows you to record a concert... legally. It works because it's run by the venue, direct from the mixing board. After the show, concert-goers visit an on-site kiosk and purchase a 128MB keydrive (which may or may not be proprietary to the system). Then they swipe their credit card again to download the concert they just attended to the keydrive. The MP3 can then be shared with whoever they'd like (no restrictions on copying the show to friends)." We've had some previous stories about a different system with CD-R's available after the show.
...I'll be the one with the CD duplicator selling blank CDr's for $1 each.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Why are concert recordings illegal? Is it like taping a movie at the theater?
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
$45 for a T-shirt, $8 - Coke, $500 - for a Pen drive - showing your friends you can't manage money....priceless
Sig removed by order of FBI Patriot ACT
Sounds awful. Most bootleggers (of the legal variety, I do not consort with thieves ... erm, yeah) would rather pluck off their own ears than listen to, let alone pay for, a crappy mp3 concert that they had been to live.
I've been active on etree, StG, and similar for years, and before that I traded hand to hand. General rule (not of thumb, it's just a rule): if it's compressed, it's crap. We don't want it, and we don't want it to propogate. Because, assuredly, some dope will take his mp3 keychain, and pop it into Nero or whatever they have these days, and print out his own CD. Which will then be traded, and there will be a very sub-standard concert floating around.
"What we were seeing is that a large number of people were taking their CDs home and ripping them to MP3s, so we thought it would benefit music fans to eliminate that middle step," Reilly said.
First of all, I've learned never to trust anyone else when it comes to encoding audio. Secondly, if you can download the concert immediately afterwards, there's obviously no quality check step to make sure everything came out okay.
128M for 110s of recording time comes out to approx: 160kb/s. Totally unacceptable for live concerts.
(Sit back and moderate? Comment? What's a slashdotter to do...)
With all the DCMA/DRM/copyright FUD being thrown from monkey to monkey these days, it seems that some of us forget that recording a concert is not inherently illegal. There are many, many artists who encourage the taping and distributing of their live shows -- here's a list of more than 900 of them. Furthermore, there's even a P2P client dedicated to sharing 100%-legal music. That's right folks, the RIAA doesn't have anything to do with this.
Before I sit around and watch the comments pile up, there have been "devices" available for years that allow you to record a concert legally -- they're called tape recorders. These days, many serious hobbyist tapers are moving to a digital-only setup to cut down on loss of audio quality. (Wish I could give you model numbers or something, but that's what Google's for folks...)
Now, the "instant" bit of this is what's actually interesting. 'Course, you're dependent upon the venue for all this, and we know how much us slashdotters like being dependent upon stuff that doesn't smell like open-source/community-owned...
$ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
If I went to a show and it was good, I'd definitely pay $10.00 to download a digital copy of it.
:)
But if you are half drunk and trying to work some kiosk, you'll probably pay $40.00 for a copy of a terrible show, perhaps even accidentally paying for it twice as you fumble around with the keychain while trying not to spill your beer.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American