quote:

Originally posted by astroboy If people always followed that line of thinking no-one would ever do anything about unjust/stupid laws, and we'd still have slavery and alcohol prohibition, wmen wouldn't be allowed to vote etc.... Of course they do, and in a democratic country everyone else has the "perfect right" to protest about it.

couldn't have said it better myself.

oh wait, i could have spelled women right..

but other than that, great post.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith couldn't have said it better myself. oh wait, i could have spelled women right.. but other than that, great post.

Doesn't the RIAA also have the right to prosecute those who are guilty of copyright infringement however? I'm afraid that people are adopting a much too simplistic approach to the situation. Yes we support the electronica artists that we dl because we are much more devoted to our music (I have felt) and many of us spin and would purchase vinyls anwyay. However, many other people do not adopt this approach and merely believe that the recording industry "rapes" us on prices and therefore we have a right to steal music for free. The sad fact that most people do not realize however, is that as the recording industry loses profits, the quality and quantity of music that reaches the market place will decline proportionally.

Sure we can all point at the big name artists, look at how much they make, see how much the recording industry makes compared to them, and conclude that there is a great injustice (of which to a minor extent I agree). However, count how many big name artists there are in the industry that "make it", and imagine how many artists that the recording industry spends millions on in an attempt to bring to the market that never make it off the ground. The funds spent on talent search and initial deals must be quite considerable. If all the companies in the recording industry were rolling in the money so to speak, you would see numerous startups who would offer better deals to artists and still generate lucrative profits. Unfortunately the public is very finicky, what looks like a failure could generate millions while a seemingly sure fire candidtate can quite easily tank.

I don't blame the RIAA for what they're doing ... perhaps they shouldn't charge as much as they do, but people shouldn't be getting music for free due to 'retribution' or whatever.

___________________
Retro ...

the bands should focus on live shows

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy Yeah I agree with you 100% there... but that still doesn't negate my points about the value of and right to protest

he prolly doesn't know what 'civil disobedience' means. as martin luther king jr. once said "there are just laws and there are unjust laws and it our duty to tell the difference."

all i think is that the riaa is going about the wrong way of doing stuff. that nto being able to ripa cd bullshit wasnt working, so they had to find someway to do it. but ya, i dont agree with teh method.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Doesn't the RIAA also have the right to prosecute those who are guilty of copyright infringement however? I'm afraid that people are adopting a much too simplistic approach to the situation. Yes we support the electronica artists that we dl because we are much more devoted to our music (I have felt) and many of us spin and would purchase vinyls anwyay. However, many other people do not adopt this approach and merely believe that the recording industry "rapes" us on prices and therefore we have a right to steal music for free. The sad fact that most people do not realize however, is that as the recording industry loses profits, the quality and quantity of music that reaches the market place will decline proportionally. Sure we can all point at the big name artists, look at how much they make, see how much the recording industry makes compared to them, and conclude that there is a great injustice (of which to a minor extent I agree). However, count how many big name artists there are in the industry that "make it", and imagine how many artists that the recording industry spends millions on in an attempt to bring to the market that never make it off the ground. The funds spent on talent search and initial deals must be quite considerable. If all the companies in the recording industry were rolling in the money so to speak, you would see numerous startups who would offer better deals to artists and still generate lucrative profits. Unfortunately the public is very finicky, what looks like a failure could generate millions while a seemingly sure fire candidtate can quite easily tank. I don't blame the RIAA for what they're doing ... perhaps they shouldn't charge as much as they do, but people shouldn't be getting music for free due to 'retribution' or whatever.

why do you have to be such a thorn in my side? having a nemesis is fun sometimes, but damn, your dogging me man!

anyway.. i agree with much of what you say. you are correct, the RIAA is completely legally within their rights to sue individual users. Copyright infringement is a crime, one i confess to, and i bet you would to.

However, that doesn't change the fact that what the RIAA is doing is counterproductive to it's own survival, and the continuance of good music. The RIAA is literally biting the hand that feeds them, and turning on the music lovers that made it so rich in the first place.

As has been said, the reason music downloading is so popular, is the quality of music you would buy on a CD is low, and the price of it is high. there may be only one or two good songs on a CD, and you are forced to pay $25 for it. or, in the case of trance music, i am frequently forced to pay $35 or more for a double CD.

That's IF i can even get it locally usually there is only mixed Ibiza compilations and ATB albums in stores around here. If i want real underground stuff, i need to bust out the VISA and buying online, having to wait for my tunes, not knowing if the CD will arrive busted, or incorrect, paying high shipping costs, as well as ridiculous insurance costs, and wondering if there is going to be a postal strike.

when you compare that with taking 5 minutes to download the one track i want the CD for, then the choice is obvious. does this make it right? no. but it makes it the only logical choice.

Now, who created this situation? the artists? the RIAA would love you to believe that, but it's THEM, who made it this way. THEM who force artists into contracts of album after album with stiff deadlines so crap tunes get put on with no polish. it's THEM who decide who get's royalties, what measly slice the artist gets, and how to distribute. and it's THEM who ultimately own the copyright, not the artist.

the fact of the matter is, the RIAA and large record labels have been made useless by technology. we no longer need a million dollar studio to release a record, all you need is a G4, some software, and some talent. Throw in some hardware synths and some beatmachines, a digital mixer, a few FX units, and some decent monitors, and your a high roller for less than the price of a new car.

And distribution is no longer a function that record companies are needed for, not with the ease of direct distribution on the net, and the ease of burning CDs.

The question is, what do we need them for? Vinyl. I've spent way over $1000 in the last year on records, and without mp3, i'd never have even bought the first one or found out about this music.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

*ahem*

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith *ahem*

Was that ahem directed at me? Well get this ... I agree with you ha! The RIAA is digging themselves their own grave. I never said that what they're doing was smart, but their response is somewhat understandable since they pretty much lost their entire target market audience over hte course of 2 or 3 years. Everybody pretty much had a computer and access to Napster or whatever. I wonder how much money they lost in sales and what their initial reaction was ...

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Was that ahem directed at me? Well get this ... I agree with you ha! The RIAA is digging themselves their own grave. I never said that what they're doing was smart, but their response is somewhat understandable since they pretty much lost their entire target market audience over hte course of 2 or 3 years. Everybody pretty much had a computer and access to Napster or whatever. I wonder how much money they lost in sales and what their initial reaction was ...

well, not specifically directed at you, but i was just miffed i typed up that huge post and nobody seemed to read it or care. I need my feelings validated!

lol, anyway, i have read disputing figures on the sale of music in the late 90's and rise of napster. Some say it's higher, some say it's lower. there are too many other factors to take into consideration, such as the economic slump, the relative availability of music to be purchased online as opposed to a store, the boycotting by many people of groups such as Metallica and Dr. Dre, as well as boycotting "copy protected" CDs that never worked anyway.

I did a lot of research back in '99 and found that basically music sales neither dropped nor rose due to napster, AG, kazaa etc. And this conclusion is borne out by my own purchasing habits, when i see a CD i just GOTTA have, i buy it. when i am wondering what some unknown DJ across the planet sounds like, i download a live set, and buy his CD if it's worth it. I am still buying about a CD a month, more when i can afford it.

As for singles, i download them, but only for casual listening, to decided what to buy on vinyl. they usually get deleted within a month, unless they are really good.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage