On preview DB already typed was I was just about to.
The above was, of course, directed to Nightime. In case that was ever in any doubt.
Another great post, Dead Badger!
Because there’s a good reason why a lot of people like Led Zeppelin and The Beatles. They’re from a time when songs became hits because they sounded good. True, there’s good music being released all the time, and there’s always been shit. But IMO, there was a lot more good music in the '60s, '70s and '80s whereas most of today’s music is shit. I refuse to listen to the hit radio stations anymore. And I’ll bet you a lot of people share my value judgement which is why there are so many oldies stations.
Actually, yes! A lot of people record songs off the radio and tape shows/movies off the TV. The courts have ruled that’s legal. What difference does it make if it comes through the air waves or over an internet connection?
What good music from the 80’s? Kagagoogoo? 
Like it was said earlier, the music from that time has been filtered.
Remember New Kids on the Block Menudo and Ice Ice baby? You couldn’t get away from that shit back in the day. There are artists today that will stand the test of time, just like some artists from the 70’s.
Whoops, that was Kajagoogoo
And when was the last time they showed The Hulk (yes from this summer) on TV?
When was the last time you could record an entire album off the radio?
**
Ease of enabling piracy.
Say I want Michael Jackson’s Thriller. With the internet, I load up, say Winmx, and go shopping. I could get Thriller in 15 minutes, burn up a CD and be out the door in 5 minutes.
With radio, I have to sit around ready to record at any second for who knows how long (most likely days), until I have every song from the album, which is tough to do seeing that they only play 3 or 4 singles from it.
Even Stevie Wonder can see the difference.
This is a good way to find out bands to download songs from, but it is hardly possible to buy the cds of every band who gets a good review.
I believe the RIAA sued to get rid of the radio programs that allowed you to choose the next song.
I already have almost 500 cds, a bigger collection than any of my friends or my library.
I do this already. But it isn’t good enough. Find me a shop where I could have listened to Richard and Linda Thompson’s “Pour Down Like Silver”.
Personal recommendations are great for deciding which bands to download songs from. But it is not feasible to buy every cd someone recommends.
Festivals are hardly an “alternative” to file sharing, no matter how you try to twist the facts.
Well, of course, if the website has the song, I don’t need to use file sharing to hear it do I? But this is not that common.
Not nearly good enough. Lack of quality, lack of length, and lack of songs. And again, find me the tracks from “Pour Down Like Silver”, for example. There are too many artists and songs missing.
In my case, before file sharing I had about 12 cds, all from artists I had seen on MTV. And some of those cds are really lame.
After file sharing I have almost 500 cds, most because I downloaded their songs.
A business which deems it a good thing that I end up with cds I don’t like, just because they got their one good song on MTV, and a bad thing if I am able to find the cds that I really would like, is just not a good business.
You missed the point. The RIAA isn’t OFFERING what the listeners want. That is why I brought up the example of a company buying the rights to music, and not releasing it.
Because in a way, that is exactly what the RIAA is doing. Their unfair business practices result in less money for the artists. I can’t believe you would even debate that fact, when the RIAA has been caught trying to make artists into mere “hired help” for the artist’s own cd!
Hold off on your knee jerk reactions for a minute, and think about it. If the artists have something they could make money selling, and people are willing to buy it, but the RIAA refuses to offer it, who exactly is at fault? Really, just think about it.
Of course. I’ll just go get my infinite money and buy every cd ever recorded. How could I have been so foolish?
And like I said, I did listen to music before file sharing. I had a dozen cds, and many of them were bad. I’m almost embarassed to mention them. I had the Wallflowers cd, because I liked that “One Headlight” song, but the rest sucked. I had the Cranberries cd, which it turns out I really didn’t like any of the songs on. I had the Matchbox 20 cd, which got old real fast. I did have some good cds, like Nirvana, but only because they had gotten on MTV.
But you know what? That isn’t acceptable. It just isn’t.
Now I have almost 500 cds, and I like all of them. And yes, file sharing was the ONLY way for me to accomplish this.
Reviews, radio, borrowing, websites, recommendations, blah blah blah.
You know very well none of those things perform the function of file sharing - to allow you to hear a wide variety of music, find out your favorites, and buy only those.
So there is still no alternative. I know it, you know it, the RIAA knows it, everyone knows it. As long as file sharing is the only way to listen to the music I want, I will continue to do it. Because not listening to music is not a viable option, and neither is only buying what I hear on MTV or the radio.
If the RIAA would just realize that this is not acceptable, I feel sure they could come up with an alternative. But they are still holding on to the idea that it is acceptable, and until they are disabused of that opinion file sharing is the only option.
If they want to listen to it, look at it, read it, etc., then it must be worth something to them. No artist is twisting their arm forcing them to look at it, or listen to it, or read it. But if the public wants to consume whatever it is that the creative person creates, they should pay for it, or do without. I see no reason why they should demand to pay $0 for something. If it’s worth $0 to them, it’s obviously, it’s not worth enjoying at all.
Most artists want to be paid for the work they do, so it is in their best interests to price their work within reason, so they can stay competetive. But if people won’t pay, they can just damned well do without. There’s plenty of competition out there after all, so someone else will be willing to sell a similar creative product for a reasonable price.
A statement like this needs to be supported. Please provide a cite.
See… this is what I was talking about. Embarassing. I suppose if the Ford dealer doesn’t offer you the test drive you want, we can expect you to swipe a car and take it for a spin?
Where in the law does it state that company cannot act like an ass and refuse to offer you the type of goods and services you desire? Few people would doubt there’s a viable business model in there somewhere, but who the fuck are you to proclaim it must be employed?
I love how all the bands these days only have one good song, yet you own 500 CDs of music you like.
Btw, I’ll let you in on a little secret.
The best way to learn about new bands is to buy the bands they thank in their credits. I’ve done that since the first CD I brought back in 1992, and it’s never failed me.
It is, I admit, utterly inexplicable.
Then WHY, in the name of all that is good and holy are you fucking well stealing it? You do realise, do you not, that the stuff you are nicking is produced by the same industry that is responsible for Britney? If the title you’re after is deleted, it’s because no bugger was buying it, not because of some insane conspiracy to do down genre X*. We have access to an absolutely bewildering variety of music these days, and pretending that it’s just too hard for poor diddums unless you steal it is just so much poop, in my not-at-all-humble opinion. Your argument boils down, in essence to the following:
“Getting things legally is too hard, therefore I will steal.”
Beautiful.
*Slightly tangentially, what is it with conspiracy theorists? What possible motive could they ascribe to this sort of thing? If there’s a mass of people crying out for music X, where X is not Britney, and you’re a music exec, do you
a) provide music X, and profit thereby, or
b) expend vast amounts of money suppressing music X, signing bands evilly then not releasing anything (mwahaha) for some unknown reason probably related to world domination and lasers?
Ooh Ooh! Miss! I know!
Your argument is naive. A growing percentage of file sharers are older than 30, and there’s even retirees doing it now. My parents fileshare, as do the parents of some friends. The network I use has a profile feature, and I see users in their 30s and 40s all the time.
Yeah right. I work, I pay the rent, I don’t steal food from the grocery store. I still choose to get some music for free (although after buying several hundred CD’s, most of what I look for is just concerts and rarities). The reason I deserve my paycheck is ONLY because someone is willing to give it to me for what I feel is interesting to do, just like with musicians. If no one was willing to pay me, I’d just have to do something else for money, just like musicians.
UnuMondo
Amen. Tim Buckley’s Starsailor is one of the most acclaimed free-form jazz albums of all time, but the copyright holders keep it out of print. It’s not exactly hurting him that I got my copy off of a filesharing network (well, plus he’s been dead for 25 years). Rather, the people who are offering the files are doing society a service, as they are keeping art alive and not letting it be lost to history.
UnuMondo
Now that I think about it, you may be right: maybe there was never a radio program that allowed you to choose the next song from a decent list. I must have been dreaming to think that the RIAA would ever let such a thing exist.
I didn’t say it must be employed. I said that as long as it is not employed, the RIAA is hurting the artists. Of course, that is just one of a plethora of ways the RIAA cheats the artists, so I don’t expect them to change of their own accord. I also said that as long as there is no legal way to listen to music, I will continue file sharing, because music is too important to me to say “oh well, guess I won’t listen to music.”
There are a lot of good cds out there if you look, though not all are recent. I would suggest file sharing, because it is really the only way to find them. Good luck!
I never said I didn’t like music. In fact, I love music. I’m in a band myself, which is one reason why I listen to a wide variety of music for inspiration and to steal some chords. Hey, as long as I’m stealing 
Actually, what I said was that the RIAA is not providing a way for people to listen to a wide variety of music. They are trying to make people like preselected groups by controlling the means of distribution.
As long as there is no legal way to listen to a wide variety of music and discover favorites, the only option is file sharing. That’s just the way it is, if you like music but don’t have g8rguy’s supply of infinite money.
Good point.
My question to the anti file sharing crowd: if the only people who file share are young people who want to steal the newest music, how come you can download so much great old or obscure music? To be honest, I download old music way more than recent music.
Exactly. In fact, I almost mentioned Starsailor. There is absolutely no way I would have heard it without downloading it, and now it is one of my favorite albums. Hopefully they will release it someday.
File sharers do indeed perform a valuable service for society.
But this service COULD be provided by the RIAA, if they were willing!
But they are not, as yet, willing. Thus file sharing must continue.
Actually, there is a sound quality drop. I compress all the CDs I buy into mp3 so I can listen to them on my computer while I net surf and such. I go the extra mile and use EAC with --aps for a variable bit rate and so the mp3s usually end up averaging around 190-240 kb/s, a little higher for newer discs. Most of the junk out there that was shared on Napster, and now KaZaA, is only 128. Either way, that’s a significant decrease from the sound quality of .WAV files prior to compression, as they would play if you just popped your disc into the drive and played directly from the disc.
The dropoff is not as noticeable, I give you that. But the reason for that is that tape was quite simply an absolutely shitty medium. That characteristic hiss was there even with store-bought tapes, and it only got worse as you copied to subsequent generations.
If I am a copyright holder (and I am) and you take my work and distribute it without my permission, blessing, or even knowledge, regardless of whether or not you make money from it, you are not “keeping my art alive”, you are usurping my rights as a copyright holder. And that’s wrong - both morally and under the law. Note I’m not even bringing up “stealing” or “theft”. Just usurping my rights, granted to me under our current system of laws and moral societal codes.
A copyright holder has a right, granted by civil law, to let the works they own be lost to history if they so choose. It may not be the best choice, or one you agree with, but I’m sure you will argue that you yourself should be allowed the free will to do things that society or others may not personally agree with.
If copyright is so onerous to people, why not campaign and hit the streets to overturn the ridiculous extentions to the copyright term lengths added by Disney and their bought Congresspeople?
Personally, I say drop copyright length to the life of the artist plus 18 years, but under no circumstances longer than 50 years. But I don’t think many would agree with me.
Your ideas intrigue me, and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter. 
Seriously, i fully agree with you on this issue. The copyright extensions approved by Congress recently were an absolute scandal.