Sorry, Dead Badger I was trying to point out that they couldn’t post to those sites because they would be listed as users and therefore watched by the all-important RIAA. The members of the band have a thing about their site tracked by lawsuit-happy corps. Hope that cleared it up, thogh, as always, I’m sure I’ll have to clarify further in other’s posts. 
Well, listening to a track once isn’t enough to decide if it’s worth buying. I’d be satisfied with, say, 5 times - or maybe you could limit the number of days the track is available once it’s downloaded, instead of the number of times you can play it.
I don’t think being able to sneakily record songs would be a show-stopper, as World Eater suggested. Most stereos can already record any song off the radio without needing to switch the cables, and that hasn’t caused the industry to collapse. 
First of all: Fuck you, man. I’m trying to discuss something calmly and as rationally as possible only to be met with your out of line insults and accusations. You’re a dick.
I didn’t say that. I said MOST, which you conveniently ignored because you just really wanted to call me a liar.
I’m not pissed at anybody. Read again.
As I said. I don’t support the shitload of people who download specifically to steal popular music.
Bullshit. It’s a nice way to sample a VERY limited amount of music, the vast majority of which doesn’t appeal to me.
What’s really the difference, though?
Learn to read, dude. I would drive to the store, or order from amazon, and pay 15 dollars. Because I want the CD. Because I like it. Not rocket science. Assuming that everyone who downloads music is a cheap bastard who doesn’t buy CDs is just wrong. You’re determined to put people into the “bad guy” group without ever considering any sort of benefit some of us individuals provide to the music industry’s bottom line.
So yeah, you’re completely out of line. No I don’t want to drive across town to listen to 30 second clips of music I may or may not like. Lazy fuck. Sure.
No, it’s not a black and white concept. It’s not one or the other. Fuck you for trying to villainize everyone who has anything to do with filesharing. I spend a lot of money on CDs. Of course that means nothing to you, in your single-minded fanatic idea that we’re all thieves. Hell, you can call me one if you want, but my CD case says otherwise.
-
Yes, I clearly said that I’m too lazy to drive to the store for any reason. You have excellent comprehension.
-
How about people don’t want to (and shouldn’t be expected to want to) pay for music they’ve never heard before
-
If only self-destructing mp3s were possible… it would be a wonderful solution.
I don’t remember calling anyone stupid. I don’t remember claiming that everyone has a god-given right to Outkast. I don’t remember suggesting that major record labels and producers should be happy about massive theft of their product. Are you sure you were responding to me and not just spouting off the same extreme arguments with no regard to my original post?
Right, thought so.
well after a few hours of sleep I am feeling a bit more frisky so here it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Eater
The very problem is that I can listen to it. Say I take the speaker plug out of the speakers and plug it into my minidisc player, voila, now it’s mine forever.
Who knows, the whole thing gives me a headache.
great its probably that lack of creativity you have going on there,
if there were full versions of songs available to listen to that were ripped at 92ish bps it would be pretty irrelivant if someone recorded them, 92bps is listenable but its not even fm quality. maybe bump the bps down a bit more if thats still to high but definitly not that 64 bps crap, that is to low. so you could still steal the tracks but there is nothing that will allow you to bump up the quality of a rip.
why does the first 15 seconds of a track not work for me?
because in 15 seconds you hardly hear any of the song, and with the techno genre most songs have an intro that lasts anywhere from a few seconds to 2 minutes. if I played the first 15 seconds of just about any crystal method album for you then played 15 seconds from the middle of the song you would have a really hard time matching the intro to the track it belongs to.
" I can’t recall the last time I needed to replace track 7 on my Deftones disc."
wow you have never scratched a cd? impressive. in order to replace that cd you would have to buy a whole new one, download the faulty track and rip the rest to make a new copy, or have all the tracks already ripped so you can burn a copy at will.
Quote:
I realise its not leagal, I realise that SOME people just download everything they want and never pay a dime. those people arent me.
Yeah yeah that’s what everyone says, I call bullshit.
um fuck off?
“Quote:
if I use the only means I have for listening to obscure or just hard to hear music in order to make my decision about a cd I honestly couldnt give a fuck about the legality.
You make it sound like no one every listened to music before p2p, which of course is stupid.”
you make it sound as if before p2p it was even possible for somone from NY to hear local bands from San Francisco and make an informed decision as to purchase or not to purchase which is stupid.
“No matter what secure system they come up with, I can bypass it in 2 seconds simply by recording it to analog and then re-encoding it. So as long as it makes noise, they are fucked. This is why they are shitting their pants.”
we just covered this but what the hell. my turn to call bullshit.
ssst, I’ll let you in on a secret. It’s not an industry standard to make one really good song and all the rest are shit. It’s an excuse you use to rip off an artist. Is there some magical formula for making a song good I’m unaware of? Are you suggesting that “the industry” (which doesn’t write the music btw) has the capability to make every song good, yet for some dark nefarious reason they choose to not to do so? If so, wouldn’t it be in their best interest to make every song good?
Pretty fucking stupid when you think about it eh?
its irrelivant what the industry standard is for making albums, how they make albums and how they sell albums are totaly separate concepts. they have nothing that would even relate one to the other. who gives a fuck how albums are made? the FACT is that shitty albums exist with 1-2 tracks that are good enough to pay for and the fact is the industry wants you to pay for the whole thing. and since I am the one arguing for greater availability of single songs my argument is neither and excuse to rip off anyone and no its not pretty fucking stupid. whats pretty fucking stupid is bringing up the way albums are made in a discussion about how they are sold.
“Try his website, you know, the first place you should look. You can buy whatever you want there.”
funny how yosemitebabe just shot that down…see this is the thing, because the RECORDING INDUSTRY wont put ALL their catalog up for sale in a convientient format demand for hard to find music completly outstrips supply. itunes is independant of the industry so are all the other mp3 sites, those sites only carry the tracks that will make THEM the most cash, they have to buy the tracks just like everyone else does.
under the current system, the album yosemitebabe is looking for will have to be manufactured before she could get her hands on it. but in just a few minutes somone at that label could rip that shit to mp3 and have it hosted for sale on a web site. in her case shes willing to wait. alot of people will download the tracks if they can find them and then wait for the cd to go on sale. other people will just dl the tracks and be happy with that. the current business model punishes everyone with any interest in that album EXCEPT the ones who will download them with no intention of buying…nice way to run a business.
"Would you like to sample every song off his album, from the comfort of your home? Try here…
http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2947307
Took me about 15 seconds this time. You are really running out of excuses."
off what album? yeah a few of the albums on 9 pages have 15second samples most of his stuff has no samples available. and as we have discussed, 15seconds of intro is worthless when trying to decide if the song is any good or not.
“So stop saying the RIAA this and the RIAA that, you don’t even know what the fuck your talking about.”
why do you have such a problem understanding that the riaa isnt some bizzare entity that appeared out of empty space to protect the rights of the recording industry? they are DIRECT representatives of all the major labels. they work FOR the labels, and its not that big of a fucking leap to understand that the “riaa companies” is just a way of dropping all those labels under one simplified (but still acurate) name. I find it hard to beleive you are so stupid that you cant understand this, so stop being obtuse as an excuse to toss out insults.
“Quote:
the industry is doing everything in its power to stop people from filesharing EXEPT (as in the one thing they arent doing) offer a fucking alternative.
Um, don’t you consider Itunes an alternative?”
the industry had nothing to do with itunes try again please.
“Quote:
they shut down people who were PAYING money from their own pockets to get music out to the people who want to hear it.
People who legally purchased music who then turned around and illegally offered it to the masses? Are you saying since they bought it they have the right to do some mass giveaway now? I hope not, because you must be a special kind of stupid to believe that”
well that quote was in reference to the people hosting net radio stations on their own computers/bandwidth and from their own collections but since you are more than a little challenged in the comprehenson department I will have to let that one go.
“Quote:
in short they STILL HAVENT FUCKNING OFFERED US ANY REASON NOT TO USE FILESHARING.
Itunes”
once again itunes isnt the industry, they dont have access to everything and its in their best interest to only host stuff that sells in large amounts, see the difference between an industry hosted site and a place like itunes is just that, the industry sites would GAIN something from hosting the entire catalog where as a place like itunes LOSES something…sony doesnt have to pay to distribute sony artists, itunes does.
“Quote:
can anyone here tell me that the cost of hosting a cd for download would be less profitable than manufactoring the cd/liner, shipping the cd, putting it on the shelf, and selling it to the public?
Sure hosting it would be cheaper, incidentally that’s why every major label is at this very moment setting up an online store.”
only 10+years after the advent of the technology, and only after blowing all that energy on the riaa bs.
"What do you do when you’ve found something you really, really like, yet can’t find a place to get the CD?
Do you delete it?"
I usually sit on it til I can find the cd, some get deleted in the name of hard drive space, others sit around awhile til I can do some research and see if I cant find them. but yes some end up on my hard drive even if I cant find the cd. what does that cost anyone again? lemme see. its not for sale and no longer in print, if its deleted I dont listen to it, but on the flip side if its not deleted then I dont forget about it and keep my eye out for it when rumageing through the used cd bins where I will pick it up if I find it and STILL the label/artist wont see a dime of my money because it wasnt for sale in a retail outlet (as in new cd format)
so once again the riaa companies lose out, deleted/saved/purchased used the label/band doesnt make a fucking dime.
why havent they started the websites yet?
“Quote:
instead of finding a way to sell those obscure artists to people who want the music but cant hear it any where convienient.
So what you are saying is there is some obscure band out there that everyone knows about and wants to listen to, but their stupid label won’t promote them? First off if everyone knows you, you’re not obscure, and second if an artist has such a following, the label will promote them till no tomorrow, taking in a tidy sum while doing it.”
no I am not saying there is some obsucre band out there that everyone knows about. what the fuck? a band isnt very obscure if everyone knows about them.
I want to hear shit from lots of obscure bands, the fact that I have never heard of them doesnt disqualify me from the list of people who would pay for their music if I COULD hear them.
“without some way to replace the power of p2p the riaa companies are just fucking themselves over.
Well they won’t replace it, because the power of p2p is that it’s free, nothing else. Say, how is napster doing now that you pay for it?”
Jet releases their next cd, they rip some 92bps mp3’s and host them for free download on several p2p services, I am happy because I can sit in my chair and download the songs for my listening convenience, the labels are probably all pissy at the idea but perhaps could be talked into it since the quality is so low the mp3’s are virtually valueless. and since there is no way to bump up the quality of an mp3 there is no loophole to this idea. millions of users are happy, the labels are satisfied (in theory) and noone is pissed off at them. hmmm crazy as a fucking loon I am.
“hosting netstations is cheap, compared to the advertising money the riaa crew already spends its fucking FREE.
Everything is cheap when it isn’t your money.”
just so you know, I can host a net station from my house on my pc right now. I can broadcast at 128bps 24/7 and I am pretty much unemployed at this point.so yeah its cheap, my dime or yours. but thats a nice sentiment.
“hosting high quality mp3’s is massivly cheaper than manufactoring/shipping/retailing cd’s will ever be.
Bandwidth, servers, 24 tech support, etc ain’t cheap in it’s own right.”
compared to cd manufacturing PLANTS? shipping FLEETS of trucks, and thousands of retail outlets. just shut the fuck up already you are going out of your way to not think about the painfully obvious just to you can argue.
“She could also get it if he put up all his music on his own site, why don’t you get mad at him too?”
well if memory serves hes dead…and even if hes not hes still on a label some place.
“its not like I am sitting at my pc giggleing over my amazing powers at computer theft. the truth of the matter is that until the option is there people are going to fileshare,
The option is there, Itunes and others, you are just blind to it.”
no you are blind to the fact that itunes and the others like it have a serious lack of variety, they host the same shit you can hear on any radio market in the country and little else. since the stuff I am usually looking for has no radio market its not there.
“the technology has exitsed long before napster and will continue to evolve and change. the riaa will never be able to keep up, as it is they are already several steps behind and falling fast.
You just don’t like the RIAA. That and you’re ignorant.”
um I dont like the riaa, I am surprised you could come to an accurate conclusion based on such limited information. truly shocking. now what does that have to do with the riaa’s vain attempt to put a stop to technology and its use? and why am I ignorant again?
“the riaa can call me a thief all they want. you can consider me a thief if thats how you feel. I am personally satisfied with my record of buying the music I find when I like it. I have orders placed at used cd shops for obscure crap (thats how I got my copy of Silly Rabits “Dirt” Cd) I couldnt care less if some other people are flat out stealing music from the p2p networks.
Well I’m sure you won’t care when the Silly Rabits get dropped from their label because the sales numbers were too low.”
to low? why because a band you cant hear if you dont live in the seattle area got some free exposure? because a few people are now LOOKING for their cd instead of being ignorant of the bands existance? they are a small market band there is no way in hell they are going to LOSE money from the kind of global exposure you can get from p2p. christ now whos being ignorant.
“Man, you’re a fucking idiot, straight up.”
well I suppose the feeling is mutual.
Why file-share:
-
I like music. I play in a band, and I write songs. Music is entertainment and inspiration to me.
-
I need to listen to a large variety of music, some of which cannot be found legally, to find the very best.
-
The only way to listen to a large variety of music is file sharing.
How do I find music:
-
I read reviews on a variety of websites, Amazon lists, and listen to what my favorite artists say their favorite artists are.
-
I download songs by artists that were mentioned to see if I like them.
-
File-sharing is the only way to listen to the huge amount of music I listen to.
Counter argument: Why not buy them all?
Answer: I can’t afford to do so. I have already bought pretty much every cd I found interesting from the BMG music club. That is because they have reasonable prices that I can afford. Incidentally, some of the cds I bought from BMG turned out to be lame. Too bad I didn’t download them first.
Why I’m not patient for what can’t be had legally:
-
Because I don’t feel like it. Patience is not always a virtue, nor is it something to be proud of in all situations. But if you just want a pat on the back for how patient you are, I’ll oblige: pat
-
Because doing so only supports the recording industry’s current practices, making it even more likely that I will be unable to get what I want legally in the future.
-
Because I don’t have to… file-sharing, remember?
On file-sharing hurting obscure bands:
-
How come indie bands are getting more successful since file sharing started?
-
How come indie labels are increasing sales?
Counter argument: Umm… it’s just a coincidence.
Answer: No, it isn’t.
On prices:
-
I have over 500 cds, much of them either from online music clubs, used music stores, or from back when there were great deals at online stores. That shows that I am very willing to buy cds at a reasonable price.
-
The RIAA used price fixing. That is not legal or reasonable. Yeah, I’m gonna go cry for these guys.
I got about $14 back in the settlement, but that is not as much as those scoundrels stole from me. But wait, it is fine for them to steal, right?
- The bloated recording industry, much of which should be obsolete given advances in technology, could easily make cuts, which would allow lower prices. But if they did so they would lose power, because they would not be as necessary. Ask yourself why prices are getting ever higher, despite the rapidly decreasing cost of recording an album, and the proliferation of much cheaper ways to get exposure?
Could it be that instead of going with the technology, the RIAA is trying to hold it back in a desperate attempt to remain necessary? Hmm…
I’m not even going to try to wade through all this rambling . . .
However, I want to clear a few things up.
We don’t know who it is that won’t put each and every one of the 505 scores or themes of Ennio Morricone up and available. It could be Morricone himself, for all we know. He does have a right to decide that maybe he doesn’t want something of his available for sale. I don’t wish for him to lose that right, just like I don’t want World Eater to lose that right. Nor do I want to lose that right.
But it’s not your call to make. It’s not your business.
Sometimes, it just isn’t financially feasable to make available every single thing someone’s composed.
Ennio Morricone’s done 505 things. Well, much more than that, since most scores usually have at least a dozen tracks. While I’d love to be able to poke through his whole library of work and cherry-pick which ones I want to buy, I don’t think that the current business model is obligated to do that for me. It might be very expensive for them, for one thing. And while there are a fair share of Morricone fans, how many will want all 505 of his scores? Some of these 505 are probably not going to appeal to everyone. Some may appeal to only a few.
And in the case of Sibelius, he’d written a lot of music, and for whatever reason, no one recorded all of it (I am not sure, but I don’t know if all of his work has yet been recorded). I am guessing that some local orchestra in Finland (he’s really big in Finland) probably performed some of his more obscure works, but no one had gotten around to the expense of doing a professional recording for a long while. (And in the case of Our Native Land, it required an orchestra and a chorus, so that was an extra hassle.)
Sometimes this is just how it happens. No one is trying to “punish” anyone. And the creators and copyright holders of these works still have rights. A right to refuse to have something released to the public, if that is their wish. Do you want them to lose the rights over their work?
As a friend of the band Small Town Drunk (actually their website/booking guy) i can tell you that:
[ul]
[li]we have never been contacted by the RIAA[/li][li]we would never work with the RIAA unless we are on a label registered to BMI, ASCAP, or SESAC (or unless we had to otherwise, at all, ever. no way).[/li][li]we would give our music away anyway, because we want people to hear what we have to say.[/li][/ul]
I’m actually surprised that someone knows of us other than friends of ours, and other bands…
We have stuff on Kazaa? That’s rad!
Well, I hope this info helps the debate.
There would be no GPL Feraris? Many hands would work on tweaking it out. However I think at this point the analogy fails. I think we can agree music is not something that produced like software or Ferari design.
The funny thing is RIAA labels put most artists who sign with it in debt. The RIAA also prevents it’s signed artists from selling music elsewhere that they won’t sell. In other words the RIAA hurts the amount music avilable!
Most Indie artists and some RIAA artists support file sharlng. The RIAA (think stupid dinosaurs) is only music body really against file sharing (think dinosaur killing giant space rock). With modern tehnology artists don’t them. Indies feel file sharing improves sales. The RIAA disagrees. I think it’s more that after listening quality music is more likely to be bought then inferier music. A huge ad campaign does not help.
Yes, they hold the artist down, put a gun to their head, put a pen in their hand and make them sign an eeeevil contract, and then forcibly stuff fistfuls of cash into their pockets to put them forever into debt. Mwahaha.
Y’know there’s a strange phenomenon noticed by anyone in the financial business. It goes like this:
Aspiring business person/artist/property developer (whatever) to financier: “Please give us money. We’re going to be huge. We’re going to sell widgets/music/holiday units like hotcakes. All we need is the cash, we’ll pay it back in spades. Pleeeease”
Financier: “Well, okay, but in return sign your life over to me, sign over your first born, sign over your life’s work output and total creative control and 95% of your profits.”
Aspiring etc (tongue hanging out, slavering, dollar signs in eyes): “Sure, sure, anything, whatever, where do I sign, I’m gonna make it big, you’re my buddy your’re my pal!”
And then it all goes wrong. And suddenly “my buddy, my pal” becomes “that evil bastard that forced me into debt boo hoo hoo”.
And some people fall for this sob story crap. Sound like anyone you know, netscape 6?
Let me get this straight. By providing large amounts of funding to artists to record large amounts of music (and insisting on a degree of control to protect their investment) the member of the RIAA reduce the amount of music available.
Doublethink much?
Sure. So all you have to do is wait. According to you, freely shared quality Indie music will win out and the RIAA and their outdated technology and inferior music will go the way of the dinosaurs. Strangely, you and your ilk seem to be worried about the RIAA, when you ought to be celebrating their silly strategy and their imminent demise.
Why is that?
I’ll tell you the difference, which to most people is obvious.
Downloading the track for Outkast’s website means it has the blessing of the artist. Downloading it from kazaa supports a system used for ripping off artists. And before you ask me if I can download it free what does it matter where I download it from, the artist can control what songs are available on the site, so if 5 tracks are up there, those are the only 5 they want available.
It’s not a benefit if people steal twice as much as they buy.
This is exactly what pisses me off. Here you have the ability to sample an album before you buy it, just what you wanted, so what’s the problem? Is it because it’s not in high fidelity super duper surround sound?
Dude it’s about as black and white as it gets. You’ve either ended up buying the CD for every mp3 you’ve downloaded and currently have on your drive or you haven’t.
You know, it’s not even that you’re thieves, it’s the lame justification that you use to swipe music. The whole “they don’t give me what I want, because I have to go all the way to the store to buy a shitty album with one good song on it”, blah blah, whine, whine whine.
Then the really stupid thing is you automatically get pissed at the eviilllllllllll RIAA, it’s obviously their fault. :rolleyes: No, it’s not at all possible that the artist wanted to keep tight reign on their music, or perhaps the label couldn’t afford to distribute online, no no no, its the RIAA.
Also keep in mind…
Now I’ll wager that at least 50% of the people in the US have CD players.
Hmmm 6.9% vs. 50%
Well, having the ability to preview albums with 30 second clips and buying the CD right there isn’t enough to get you out of bed.
As we’ve mentioned a million times already, there are loads of places to listen to music before you buy it. Online record stores, brick and mortar record stores, radio, internet radio, MTV, and a friend’s house just to name a few.
Which I don’t. I don’t claim to own the albums for ALL of my mp3s, but a great many of them. So for MY PARTICULAR CASE we agree that filesharing is a benefit to the industry bottom line.
Why does it piss you off that I can do the more convenient thing and listen here to the whole song with greater selection and better quality? Result is the same.
Blah blah blah. Post it to somebody who made any of those claims. Because I sure the fuck didn’t.
Or filesharing programs. The only difference is that you think one is wrong and the others are ok. For people who don’t rip off gig after gig of popular music to avoid buying it, it’s the exact same result as any of the others.
Yes, but then you’ll bitch about how the quality sucks, so you go to Kazaa to download higher bitrate versions.
You know, I don’t think I ever heard these guys before, so I went and checked them out how I would check out anyband I’m interested in. I was able to listen to the first 30 seconds of every song on the album I was checking out. Sure some of them started off slow, but many of them didn’t, with the vocals kicking in pretty quickly. I was able to get a great idea of how they sound and if they are consistent from all the clips I listened to, and I think anyone else would too. You don’t have to hear an entire track to be able to judge if you’ll like them you know.
I have no problem with someone downloading something they already own because it was scratched, they’ve already paid for it. This has nothing to do with the discussion.
It was.
What that I can make an mp3 from anything, even if it has DRM?
Umm, she didn’t shoot down anything.
So go see a venture fucking capitalist then, get some money and start up your own alternative, hard to find Tunes.
Capitalism at work my son.
No you ass, you don’t just rip something and put it on your website to sell in minutes.
You have to realize that 95% of the people out there don’t know how to build a website, set up a secure transaction method, set up the webhosting, register their site with search engines, etc. To be honest, from a garageband point of view it’s easier to burn up some CDs, make some crappy art for the sleeve, and drop them off at the local record store on consignment. You can hand out CDs to people, drop them off at places, give them to friends to handout, etc. With a website you have to get people to take the step of coming to you, and trust me that step is a pain in the ass. I’ve been in bands for over 10 years, I’ve done it every which way, and the best way for a band is to get off their ass and hand their shit out at shows and such.
Incidentally, this was how my band got signed. Somehow though a friend of a friend, Tricky heard our shit and got in touch with us. Now if we had waited for him accidently find us on the web, we would be pretty fucked.
Well I don’t know of a single label that would make online tracks for sale available before CDs for sale. You realize from a business standpoint if can only do one or the other, that CDs are the way to go, right?
30 second samples, and they are more then enough to get an impression of the artist, which is the point of a sample,
They are not direct representitives of the labels. They are a trade organization that monitors copyright information and things like statistics and such. When you are ranting against the industry for making shitty music or forcing you to buy an entire album, you shouldn’t even mention them, it makes you sound like an ass. It’s like you’re blaming the screen actors guild for the last Matrix being shitty.
I fail to see the problem as a shitload of music is inexpensively available in the single song format you requested.
It’s like you can never be pleased or something.
I want to know who these people they shut down, who were paying money from their own pockets.
It’s in their best interest to make a profit (like with any company), which by the way they don’t. Luckily ipod sales have sky rocketed, which is what they were hoping for.
Well I’m sure in time, as these companies set up their online stores there will be intense focus on what will help them “gain” then most.
Oh yeah it was very possible to set this sort of thing up in 1994 :rolleyes:
As we speak in futuristic 2004, only 6.9% of people in the US have broadband.
Get with reality.
Yeah whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. You’ve heard the song, you know if you intend to purchase it (at this point you should delete it), and yet you continue to listen and glean enjoyment from something you acquired for free.
Because they would spend money on that, and you assholes would still download it elsewhere for free.
Well then save your ire for the fucking band, because most of these obscure bands you ramble about have nothing to do with the RIAA, they’re unsigned, or they’re on some mom and pop label. The moment they go on a major, they’re no longer obscure. Perhaps they are to you, but not to the million other people that listen to them. Now don’t get pissed at “the man” if you listen to a bunch of stupid bands that don’t know how to properly promote themselves. The very first thing a band should do is whip up a batch of CDs to give out, they next thing they should do is build a website.
Sounds good to me, only difference is the label should have the file on their website, because using kazaa would add more to it’s popularity.
Do you have any concept of how weak a 128 upstream is? You couldn’t stream to more then 5 people.
Well I said online is cheaper, but I wouldn’t say massively cheaper. You are trading in one set of costs for another.
Servers, bandwidth, IT, backup facilities, customer service, etc ain’t cheap, especially on a huge scale.
Keep in mind, Itunes is losing money at 99 cents a download, so to cut a profit it has to be more. 99 cents a track for a 15 track CD is almost retail store pricing.
You just have some stupid axe to grind.
Then they are stupid and they’ll go out of business one day when some hot new (maybe you, go to a VC) upstart comes along.
Or a company that offers some tiny ass obscure music doesn’t stay in business long. Either way the onus is on you, as a listener of obscure music to seek it out, but to do it in a way that is legal. I’ll just add that while you think you’re sticking it to the man, you are actually fucking over the artist. And yes, I know the artist is being fucked over by the RIAA and his label. Now they’re being fucked over by the RIAA and his label and you.
You’re ignorant because you assume that these industries should just instantly switch over to unproven technology (unproven in 1994) that is best suited for a limited niche of people. Technology takes time to trickle down and to be adapted. As far as music industry, there are a great many things that need to be worked out. You keep saying that nothing is being done, yet this is patently false. Napster showed that people want ease of use, and variety at their fingertips, now how do we do it legally?. Itunes has set the bar, and many will be following. Many of the big retail record stores now offer samples of their entire inventory online, and many labels are in the process of setting up online stores. Things are changing, you are just don’t want to take your fingers out of your ears.
First off exposure doesn’t mean increased record sales. I know you agree with this because you sample bands before you buy, and some of those bands suck. In this case, exposure for some of those bands was bad. That’s pretty much the crux of it too, exposure cuts both ways. If you sucked, now everyone knows it, if you are great, everyone knows that too.
You sit here telling me how p2p has done all these great things for bands, but this goes against common sense and real experience. Give me the name of a band or artist that became popular as a result of p2p. In fact, it would make more sense the other way, build up a following and then ditch your label to cut costs and have total control over your own ship. Try asking Hootie, Pearl Jam or Prince how they’re doing these days, because they ain’t doing too well.
I’ll even wager that nothing could be better for a band then having some ruthless evil record label behind you. Sure they’ll fuck you over a bit, but they’ll also break some legs to get you to the top.
Next, prove to me exactly why p2p is a better way of promotion then other methods. I’ve already stated numerous times that it’s more of a secondary type of promotion. People hear about you, then go look for you, not the other way around.
A few people isn’t enough to help boost record sales.
Who said they were going to lose money? I said that p2p will probably lose them more sales then make them.
The silly thing here is I offer you advice from the very perspective of a unknown local band. As a promotional tool p2p sucks, get that through your head.
I don’t agree to shit, I’m not going to give you some cookie because you stole a bunch of shit and then ended up buying “a great deal” of it.
The industry and it’s artists will be better off, when you can lay legal claim to ALL the music you own, not 90% of it.
Result is not the same, you now have the whole song in high quality. Whether you buy it or not (and to remind you that you don’t buy a 100% of the time, see above) you now have that song. This is far different from listening to a sample that doesn’t stay on your computer.
How about…
“No I don’t want to drive across town to listen to 30 second clips of music I may or may not like.”
As I said above, it’s not the same results as others. The undisputable fact that you don’t own all of the music on your computer confirms this. Sure you’re not as much of an asshole as some dude with 10 gigs available, but you’re still an asshole.
To be fair, not all songs are well represented by their first 30 seconds. The first minute or so of Steely Dan’s Deacon Blues, for example, is not recognizable to someone who is only vaguely familiar with the song.
How is 99¢ per song inexpensive? (see below)
Broadband has nothing to do with it. I never had broadband, but that didn’t stop me from downloading from sites which have permission to offer free mp3s. It may have taken 15-20 minutes per song but it sure didn’t stop me.
:eek: It’s losing money? Because of the costs of hosting the content online, I presume? This is troubling because, while not having exact figures for pricing of a cassette tape or music CD-R handy, I do know it includes the royalty and I know for sure it’s a lot less than the $15-$20 or so worth of songs that could be put on it.
Sure if you listen to a clip of one song, you won’t get an impression. An impression can easily be formed after listening to several clips, however.
How many of the recording industry fans here were making these same defensive claims before we found out they were using price fixing?
I’d like one of you to just admit “yes, I was wrong, they were in fact price fixing”.
And I can’t wait until you have to say “yes, I was wrong, they were in fact desperately trying to hold back technology to maintain their destructive monopoly on the music business, abusing their bloated excess to rip off both artists and customers, and lying about it the whole time”.
By the way, I don’t know how you listen to music, World Eater, but I don’t listen to it in 30-second earfuls.
I believe that 30 seconds is enough for you to know if you want to spend $18 on a cd.
But can you believe that the same is not true for many others?
I believe that if somone listens to 30 seconds of each track on an album, they should be able to determine if they like the artist.
To be honest we can debate about the appropriate amount of time, I wouldn’t mind something like 90 seconds or so. Whatever the amount of time decided on, the point obviously not to provide the entire track, as once acquired there is less incentive to pay for it legit.
I sometimes need to hear a whole song many, many times before I know if it’s worth it to me to pay for it.
And sometimes I buy a CD and then years later, I decide that I don’t like it so much after all. Same goes for books and movies.
Golly, I buy books all the time without knowing everything about them beforehand. And you know what? If it turns out that I don’t like it as much as I’d hoped, I sell it on eBay. Same goes for CDs and movies. (Though I haven’t sold any CDs yet. I seem to like whatever I get, or else I know I’m going to keep it for the sake of “completeness.”)
How many “free previews” should one get with these things? Sometimes you’ve just got to take the plunge and buy the damned thing, or forget about it. And if someone wants to give away more extended free previews (like MP3s from their site), then that’s their choice. Maybe they’ll pick up some extra sales that way; maybe not. And maybe others will decide that too many free previews will undermine their sales. I think that they have a right to decide that they don’t want to give away too many freebies, or any freebies, for that matter.
Whatever they want. It’s their choice. Not mine, and not yours.