Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Music => Topic started by: Mad Dr Jeffe on June 26, 2003, 02:46:21 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35397-2003Jun26.html
Like it or not the RIAA is gunning for you... If you have even one illegal song on your harddrive they want you bad.
Legally your wrong, you know you shouldn't have 3000 songs ripped from cd's on your IBM clone, but you still visit Kazaa or other PTP boards in order to get the hottest music, old and new.
Up untill now no one has really asked why?
Why do you do it?
Is it for rare songs? Is it the convenince? Or is it to extend your middle finger to the Record industry for one too many crappy songs. Sound off folks and stop trading songs, ...for now.
-
hey I may not like the heavy handed approach but it is illegal to have any copyrighted song on your harddrive if you didn't payfor it. I've got anime and J-pop which you can't buy here and the second linkin Park cd. I own the cd but the record companie has a software block on it so it wont play in a PC as a music CD. And dang it if I pay for something I want to be able to use it.
-
The Record Co's can argue that you can get Anime and J-pop here, you just have to pay more for it.
-
it's not their copyrights so they'd have to get the Japanese record labels in on it two.
-
I dont know, its not like most music co's arn't global anymore... How many labels do Viacom and Sony own?
-
Convenience, mostly.
But I'm much mroe interested in why the witch hunt?
Fact: Record sales started their current decline before a significant rise in the popularity of p2p sharing
Fact: CDs are overpriced. If the price was lowered, I'd be much happier about paying for a disc.
Fact: shutting down p2p networks hasn't stymied piracy
Fact: before napster shut down, a study revealed that the heaviest downloaders were also more likely to be the most frequent buyers.
It seems to me that the witch hunt is more about control and/or blame for current poor performance than it is about copyright. Sharing and sampling boost revenue, not decrease. Unless of course you've set yourself up in direct opposition to your target market.
There's a lot of other standard argument about cookie cutter bands which produce short term boosts but ignore long term behavior too, but I'll ignore that.
-
If you want me to really answer the question though, I guess I'd say somewhere between Civil Disobedience, cost prohibitations, and convenience.
-
What get me chuckling is that the industry plans to collect 120,000 or more for a single song that has been pirated, which makes me laugh because I have seen Saints computer and I have a good idea how far his bank account stretches. If he were making money off the file sharing, like the networks are, I could see such an exhorbinant price being logical but Im sure that Joe Downloader doesnt have several million dollars to spare.
-
This exact same controversy showed up back when radio tape recorders became common, and record labels launched huge ad campaigns telling people not to share tapes because it was stealing music and would destroy the industry. That eventually died down because it was stupid. The difference now is that the music industry is already on the way down, so p2p showed up just in time to be a scapegoat.
-
They'd never get that much, even if they tried to get me. For one thing, you can't squeeze water from a stone, like you poitned out. For another thing, they'd have to prove that my "piracy" has lost them that much. and it hasn't. At most, it's lost them $1 per song, as I don't redistribute.
-
You know I only download live songs that aren't on albums (bootlegs and what not) or songs from albums that I would never buy anyway. This doesn't justify the illegalness, but it's why I use Kazaa.
If CDs were actually reasonably priced I would have no problem buying them, but they're just not worth $16-18 new anymore.
Interestingly, artists are now working stuff into their tracks which makes the burnt copies worthless (if I understand it correctly). Both Madonna's new album and Metallica's new album are supposed to feature this.
-
Which is fine by me. If the new single is any indication, I have NO intention of EVER listening to anything on Metallica's new album.
-
Yeah. It was ok at first, but it got very lame very fast.
I never buy music, never have. I would far prefer to buy warhammer, alchol or RPGs. OH and comp games. Since i will never buy them anyway, i feel no great remorse over downloading them.
-
Here's an arcticle about bands that are refuesing to let Itunes and other legal internet download companies carry their songs.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90962,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90814,00.html
-
Heh. Is Metallica crazy? First they alienate people with their anti-Napster stance (which I respected them for, even though I thought is was a bad PR move) and now this? Any one alone isn't that bad, but putting them together (Ie, anti-napster, anti I-tunes) is going to get them into trouble with fans.
-
ahh but Metalica lets you download their albums from thier site for a few bucks cheeper then the CD. Even though they say it's not for money, moneys a driving factor there.
-
Of course it's about money. money and control. What else do you think the music industry is about?
-
here's how the music industry should of handled it:
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=128854
-
"...the answer will be to offer them a compelling legitimate alternative, not telling them to behave themselves." Nice to hear that one of the industries is out there listening to someone.
However, the tagline "Movies. They're worth it." Is kind of... well, friggin' stupid.
-
I don't think that movies will ever have the problem that music does. A couple of reasons. First, people really enjoy the movie-going experience. You just can't replace the theater, even with a free download. Second, though more subtle, I don't think that people see movies as being a rip off the way they view music. People know how the record companies have been inflating prices (like charging more for CD's than tapes) and screwing over their own artists. The record companies have a kind of Microsoft feel, and people see themselves as Robin Hood type noble thieves when they download music.
That isn't to say that movies won't take a hit from illegal downloading, I just don't think it will be as potentially destructive to the business.
-
I say America needs to take control of its music habits. The more people decide they need the songs the industry produces, the more they subject themselves to the recording companies' whims.
I often have to step back and say to myself "hey - I don't need this." It may be a little sacrifice, but it's worth it being musically/mentally/spiritually/emotionally/financially free from any corporate entity.
Don't get me wrong - I think music is a beautiful thing and it should be a part of our lives. Especially the Young Fresh Fellows.
So burn, don't burn, whine, don't whine, whatever. Just don't divest yourself of control.
I'm crawling back into my hole now. **scramble scramble**
-
Yes... the demon corporations are taking control of us spiritually through the music of Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera...
-
downloading may be "potentially dangerous" to the music industry. But it is a fact that the music industry started their current problems long before downloading became any sort of issue.
-
I'm no conspiracy theorist, Entropy, but there is a little bit of truth to every joke... ;)
-
that and 97% of other statistics are made up.
But not the monky one. That stat is TRUE
-
What about the joke about the guy who went all the way to Belgium for a belgian waffle? Or the one about knowing there's an elephant in your fridge because there's footsteps in the butter. There's not any truth in that.
-
Man, I get elephant footsteps in my butter all the time.
-
it's not the footprints you should be worrying about. It's when they poop.
-
Ok. All information should be free. All information wants to be free. Music is information. Therefore, I take the typical geek stance that Music sharing is a right. In fact, it is our responsibility and duty to the artists to download their music.
That said though, most commercial music has sold out anyway. Once a group signs a deal, they tend not to be as good, since they're making music not for enjoyment, but because they have to. Being locked into the contract means they have to write X number of songs, and so they just think of what they're doing, and write some underdeveloped lyrics about it over a typical beat. This certainly accounts for the amount of music about sitting under a tree smoking a bong....
Seriously, on the internet there are heaps of amateur music sites, which are legal and really really good. Between a few nerdcore rappers and OverClocked ReMix, I have nine cd's of Mp3 music. Almost all of it is free, and its all very good.
-
1) The "information wants to be free" argument makes no sense logically, legally, or even emotionally. i have no idea what it's appeal is other than it justifies behavior without thought. This comes from a heavy music downloader.
2) The contract system is more fair than it's ever been. Companies do a heck of a lot of work marketing and manufacturing CDs for artists, arranging tours, etc. Try doing it yourself and see how far you get. The artists still tend to get rich. Maybe it's still not equitable, but we tend to forget how much work these companies do. And even if it were as unequitable as you make it sound (and writing x number of songs hardly sounds oppressive) that still doesn't justify song downloading.
-
I saw the movie industries ad about pirating movies and I think they are taking the best approach.
They assume that people are basically good and want to do the nice thing.
If you are on Kazaa check up on your account a large list of Kazaa users are being served subpeonas in preparation for the lawsuit.
-
The cunning masterplan:
I am in britain. IF the RIAA wants to sue me, well, they can try. Anyone wants music without getting slammed, drop me a line and i'll do a upload to you on a IM of some description :)
-
uh... it's not MY responsibility to seek out the subpoena they're trying to serve.
Assuming they want to, which I doubt.
-
True, the "Information wants to be free" argument doesn't make sense. But it does sound good. I would go into the whole freedom of information is the cause of all human achievement argument, but I won't, because I'm lazy. And because I'll just sound like an idiot, trying to argue somehting I don't really understand anyway.
Being in Australia, I don't think the RIAA is going to sue me either, or would really want to, considering the limited amount of pirated music I have. I'm not one of those morons who justs leeches alld ay and never buys a CD. i have problems with those people. I have no problem with downloading itself, but I hardly ever do it, since File Sharers like to take up all my beloved bandwidth on poor, humble winmodem. That makes it difficult to do much else.
Did I just contradict myself? If I did, chalk it up to a change in opinion over tha past eleven hours.
-
Stealing from the RIAA is like stealing crack from a dealer. Yeah, you get something for free, but you're still perpetuating a rather vile industry. My opinion is that if you want free music, you should go download indie stuff from Amazon or mp3.com. Make the RIAA change its ways by invoking the age-old punishment of shunning.
-
heh, crack.
I think that's one of the most original thoughts I've heard on the subject. I will have to consider it.
-
Well, isn't this nifty.
CNN is running a story AT THIS INSTANT about how iTUnes is now availbe for windows 2k and xp platforms.
YAY!
Naturally, you can get more info at http://www.apple.com/itunes/