The one-and-only RIAA discussion thread [2003 - part one]
06-26-03, 12:24 PM
#101
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Dave99
What if your cdrom drive is broken, how do you rip then?
Dave
What if your cdrom drive is broken, how do you rip then?
Dave
Since when does the record industry have to change it's entire business model (doubletalk for basically go out of business) because it might inconvenience someone to enforce it's legitimate copyright interests?
06-26-03, 01:11 PM
#102
Needs to provide a working email
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Formerly known as Darrin Garrison
Posts: 3,321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1118686,00.asp
RIAA Declares War: Change Needed
By John C. Dvorak
June 10, 2003
Recent revelations predict that the music industry is going to resort to dirty tricks to halt music piracy. These include but are not limited to (do I sound like a license agreement?) planting Trojan horses, disabling individual computers, causing Internet slowdowns through hacking, sending out bogus files posing as real files, and going into your PC to erase files. You can read about this in a recent exposé in The New York Times as well as on many Web sites.
Madonna has already taken action by sending a recording to MP3 sites purporting to be her new song but actually containing a mean message. Hackers immediately targeted her site. And with the RIAA gauntlet tossed to the ground, the wrath of hackerdom will certainly be focused on music industry Web sites and servers until they beg for mercy. Although the record companies can probably hire a few good hackers to thwart college kids who want to swap music, the companies should also do a cost/benefit analysis of a potential broad-based retaliatory attack.
The music industry has had plenty of time to change its business model since the MP3 format first appeared in the mid-1990s. And the industry must have had a clue by 1998, when it began to track down pirated albums on CD-R. By the time Napster came along and tried to cajole the industry into adopting it for distribution, everyone but the RIAA knew that the game was altered.
Years later, the music business still clings to its hopes for foolproof digital rights management and for some way to keep profits coming in. Every time someone suggests a low-price compromise, we hear from sincere and struggling artists who are trying to survive by selling copies of albums directly. They argue that for them, prices must remain where they are. The fear is that fringe, avant garde, and niche acts cannot survive the way things are going. What to do?
I hate to say this, but the game is over. The music industry, as it now exists, cannot continue. Small artists are toast, and big artists will not be as big as before. Madonna's album slid fast after her exercise in guilt-tripping her fans. Musicians will have to make money the way they did before there was a recording business—by performing. The digital mechanism for copying freely is simply too compelling to be resisted, period. Gosh, the music industry itself has no concern for the artists. Why should the public?
As for the argument that music will die, who are we kidding? Even if music creation stopped tomorrow, we'd need ten lifetimes to go through all the material that is currently on the market, not to mention backlists and archives.
Is there a way around this grim situation? I think it's too late for electronic distribution, too. Sure, Apple's new online music store quickly sold a million dollars' worth of quasi-copy-protected songs for a dollar each. That price is too high, and somehow, the songs will be traded.
The only thing that can possibly save the music industry is to remove music from the digital merry-go-round—keep it off computers or make it very difficult to transfer. The only way to do this is via a massive format change that both improves the music and offers better value. This means putting songs on the latest DVDs, in improved high-quality massive-bit-rate formats that require multiple disc layers.
I envision each instrument recorded on its own track, then mixed by a master program to create the song and variations or remixes from the same source material. Essentially, you would have up to 40GB of raw music, which would be impractical to copy to a computer. Producing such a recording would take more thought, but putting it on a Blu-ray disc would cost no more than putting it on a CD. If it sold for the same $15 needed to keep young musicians going, everyone would win with such a scheme—and the music would sound phenomenal.
Digital distribution is flawed, no matter how much potential it seemed to have at first. The music industry is generally having no part of it, anyway. And DRM is a hoax and a waste of time. It may keep Sony from stealing from Vivendi Universal, but that's about all.
This is the revolution the music industry must undergo. Arm waving and suing kids only stall the inevitable. And digital distribution only stalls the inevitable, as do legislation and copyright laws. A massive format change—beyond superdiscs—that takes recording into a new dimension of reality is the only solution. Start yesterday.
RIAA Declares War: Change Needed
By John C. Dvorak
June 10, 2003
Recent revelations predict that the music industry is going to resort to dirty tricks to halt music piracy. These include but are not limited to (do I sound like a license agreement?) planting Trojan horses, disabling individual computers, causing Internet slowdowns through hacking, sending out bogus files posing as real files, and going into your PC to erase files. You can read about this in a recent exposé in The New York Times as well as on many Web sites.
Madonna has already taken action by sending a recording to MP3 sites purporting to be her new song but actually containing a mean message. Hackers immediately targeted her site. And with the RIAA gauntlet tossed to the ground, the wrath of hackerdom will certainly be focused on music industry Web sites and servers until they beg for mercy. Although the record companies can probably hire a few good hackers to thwart college kids who want to swap music, the companies should also do a cost/benefit analysis of a potential broad-based retaliatory attack.
The music industry has had plenty of time to change its business model since the MP3 format first appeared in the mid-1990s. And the industry must have had a clue by 1998, when it began to track down pirated albums on CD-R. By the time Napster came along and tried to cajole the industry into adopting it for distribution, everyone but the RIAA knew that the game was altered.
Years later, the music business still clings to its hopes for foolproof digital rights management and for some way to keep profits coming in. Every time someone suggests a low-price compromise, we hear from sincere and struggling artists who are trying to survive by selling copies of albums directly. They argue that for them, prices must remain where they are. The fear is that fringe, avant garde, and niche acts cannot survive the way things are going. What to do?
I hate to say this, but the game is over. The music industry, as it now exists, cannot continue. Small artists are toast, and big artists will not be as big as before. Madonna's album slid fast after her exercise in guilt-tripping her fans. Musicians will have to make money the way they did before there was a recording business—by performing. The digital mechanism for copying freely is simply too compelling to be resisted, period. Gosh, the music industry itself has no concern for the artists. Why should the public?
As for the argument that music will die, who are we kidding? Even if music creation stopped tomorrow, we'd need ten lifetimes to go through all the material that is currently on the market, not to mention backlists and archives.
Is there a way around this grim situation? I think it's too late for electronic distribution, too. Sure, Apple's new online music store quickly sold a million dollars' worth of quasi-copy-protected songs for a dollar each. That price is too high, and somehow, the songs will be traded.
The only thing that can possibly save the music industry is to remove music from the digital merry-go-round—keep it off computers or make it very difficult to transfer. The only way to do this is via a massive format change that both improves the music and offers better value. This means putting songs on the latest DVDs, in improved high-quality massive-bit-rate formats that require multiple disc layers.
I envision each instrument recorded on its own track, then mixed by a master program to create the song and variations or remixes from the same source material. Essentially, you would have up to 40GB of raw music, which would be impractical to copy to a computer. Producing such a recording would take more thought, but putting it on a Blu-ray disc would cost no more than putting it on a CD. If it sold for the same $15 needed to keep young musicians going, everyone would win with such a scheme—and the music would sound phenomenal.
Digital distribution is flawed, no matter how much potential it seemed to have at first. The music industry is generally having no part of it, anyway. And DRM is a hoax and a waste of time. It may keep Sony from stealing from Vivendi Universal, but that's about all.
This is the revolution the music industry must undergo. Arm waving and suing kids only stall the inevitable. And digital distribution only stalls the inevitable, as do legislation and copyright laws. A massive format change—beyond superdiscs—that takes recording into a new dimension of reality is the only solution. Start yesterday.
06-26-03, 01:20 PM
#103
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Darren Garrison
What to do?
I hate to say this, but the game is over. The music industry, as it now exists, cannot continue. Small artists are toast, and big artists will not be as big as before. Madonna's album slid fast after her exercise in guilt-tripping her fans. Musicians will have to make money the way they did before there was a recording business—by performing. The digital mechanism for copying freely is simply too compelling to be resisted, period. Gosh, the music industry itself has no concern for the artists. Why should the public?
I hate to say this, but the game is over. The music industry, as it now exists, cannot continue. Small artists are toast, and big artists will not be as big as before. Madonna's album slid fast after her exercise in guilt-tripping her fans. Musicians will have to make money the way they did before there was a recording business—by performing. The digital mechanism for copying freely is simply too compelling to be resisted, period. Gosh, the music industry itself has no concern for the artists. Why should the public?
06-26-03, 04:56 PM
#104
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by spankyj
Since it's legal to own MP3's of songs that you own - having this stand up in court will be damn near impossible.
So what if I'm sharing 600 songs. I could own the albums for all 600 of those songs. It's the person's responsibility on the other end to be certain they have the albums as well.
Since it's legal to own MP3's of songs that you own - having this stand up in court will be damn near impossible.
So what if I'm sharing 600 songs. I could own the albums for all 600 of those songs. It's the person's responsibility on the other end to be certain they have the albums as well.
These are the people the RIAA are going after, not the downloaders or the people who just have MP3s.
First, it's probably extremely difficult to track people who download MP3s -- is this even possible for anyone except the person who is the downloader is downloading from?
And second, the downloader might own the CD to begin with. (Don't know if this is really a legitimite excuse, though.)
But the person hosting the shared MP3 is easily trackable and definitely DOES NOT own the copyright in question. If the person DID own the copyright, then it is perfectly legal to distribute it.
BUT... how does the RIAA really know what you have to share? I mean, you might have an MP3 titled after a popular song, but it could actually be four minutes of dead air or dogs barking. Shouldn't the RIAA actually have to download the MP3s in question in order to prove there was actually an infringement?
06-26-03, 05:32 PM
#105
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm sure they do download it and check it out beause yes, you can throw in the whole "It's 4 minutes of dead air" or "I retitled it even though it's something different".
06-26-03, 08:00 PM
#107
DVD Talk Legend
Yeah, I'm sure there are countless people out there with four minutes of dead air saved in an MP3 called St_anger_full_ver.mp3
Maybe you can tell them you're really a lawyer for Metallica and you're conducting online research.
Maybe you can tell them you're really a lawyer for Metallica and you're conducting online research.
06-27-03, 06:10 AM
#108
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm always bothered that in all these discussions about file-sharing over the years you almost never see a distinction between songs (or complete albums) that are readily available in stores and in print as compared to songs or "bootlegs" that are completely unavailable by any other means.
This should be two separate arguments. I see no problem whatsoever sharing the latter but as for the former I don't think people should be selling or sharing those songs. However, if, for example, you only like one song from a particular artist and it is commercially available you should be able to download it (as opposed to buying a whole cd for one track) from an official source for a small fee (less than $1.). If that's not the case then I have no problem with the sharing of that song for free.
This should be two separate arguments. I see no problem whatsoever sharing the latter but as for the former I don't think people should be selling or sharing those songs. However, if, for example, you only like one song from a particular artist and it is commercially available you should be able to download it (as opposed to buying a whole cd for one track) from an official source for a small fee (less than $1.). If that's not the case then I have no problem with the sharing of that song for free.
06-28-03, 10:20 AM
#109
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The land of Toppled Trees. Virginia
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I pulled this from a post on the Boycott the RIAA site.
From a comment posted on Slashdot:
Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.ht ml
[cornell.edu]
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.ht ml
[cornell.edu]
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993 -01/0018.html
[cni.org]
From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.ht ml
[cornell.edu]
Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
From a comment posted on Slashdot:
Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.ht ml
[cornell.edu]
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.ht ml
[cornell.edu]
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993 -01/0018.html
[cni.org]
From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.ht ml
[cornell.edu]
Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
06-28-03, 11:47 AM
#110
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The land of Toppled Trees. Virginia
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by resinrats
Very true.
I love how people try to justify their stealing. Lame excuses of: They weren't going to buy the CD anyways. Yet they still wanted a certain song off it. But now they have the song they wanted. If P2P wasn't around they would have to buy the CD to get the song they wanted.
Saying the artist doesn't get enough money from the company. Well guess what, downloading the alblum results in one less CD sold in the store. Without the sales, the less money the artist gets. You are ripping your favorite artists off.
With less sales, the less companies will fund the discovery of new bands. So your all time favorite band might never get a chance to have their shot at making a CD.
People love to call companies 'evil'. What do you consider yourself? Chapion of Justice and one day all of America will praise you for battling the evil corporate villians? Morons.
People never come out and say their stealing or pirating. Are you getting material for free that you should paying for? You thieves.
People like to think they would run the company different. What is the point of a company..to make money. I'd laugh as people in their 'noble' ways run the company right out of business.
I hope the RCAA wins all their cases. There needs to be a well publicised example of someone who is convicted. Multiple years in prison & fined several millions of dollars. Their life needs to be ruined because of their stealing. If you aren't stealing, you don't have to worry. If you are, remember to not drop the soap.
Very true.
I love how people try to justify their stealing. Lame excuses of: They weren't going to buy the CD anyways. Yet they still wanted a certain song off it. But now they have the song they wanted. If P2P wasn't around they would have to buy the CD to get the song they wanted.
Saying the artist doesn't get enough money from the company. Well guess what, downloading the alblum results in one less CD sold in the store. Without the sales, the less money the artist gets. You are ripping your favorite artists off.
With less sales, the less companies will fund the discovery of new bands. So your all time favorite band might never get a chance to have their shot at making a CD.
People love to call companies 'evil'. What do you consider yourself? Chapion of Justice and one day all of America will praise you for battling the evil corporate villians? Morons.
People never come out and say their stealing or pirating. Are you getting material for free that you should paying for? You thieves.
People like to think they would run the company different. What is the point of a company..to make money. I'd laugh as people in their 'noble' ways run the company right out of business.
I hope the RCAA wins all their cases. There needs to be a well publicised example of someone who is convicted. Multiple years in prison & fined several millions of dollars. Their life needs to be ruined because of their stealing. If you aren't stealing, you don't have to worry. If you are, remember to not drop the soap.
I bet your one of those people who never do no wrong, and your s**t don't stink either. What are they serving at the trough today? Who are you to judge people for what they do and the things they beleave in? Get off your high horse, not everyone is a corperate sheep. Open your eyes to the fact that the issue is more than just downloading music. The music industry as a whole from record companies to radio stations is turning to crap. The concert industry has become a greedy joke also, with more hands than ever before reaching out for a slice of the pie. People are getting tired of the homoginized crap that the RIAA's labels are overpromoting. The record industry has become narrow minded in every dept. In it's willingness to accept and change with the times, and in what types of music they promote. They pay off radio broadcasters(Clear Channel etc..) to keep thier playlist narrowed down to only the few artist they want us to hear. In turn making damn near every radio staion in the country into a top 40 hits station, which is lame(death to corperate radio!!!). The only way people can discover music now a days is to go online. Well unless you like all the corperate sheep crap they spew out for the easily and mindlessly entertained. On top of all that, the RIAA are trying to overturn laws made to protect are consumer rights and freedoms. These are laws that were put into place for more reasons other than just music. Some of these court proceedings can effect your way of life in the futare wether you download or not, even if you are Mr. or Mrs. Do Right. If I were you, I wouldn't throw my ball into the RIAA's court untill I researched all the facts behind thier goals, which it seems you have not. You are jumping up and belittleing people in defense of something you don't know much about, just so you can be Joe Good Citizen, and try to feel good about yourself. No one deservs to be sued by the RIAA, unless they took said MP3's and turned a profit off of them. For corperate drones like you, every thing in the music world must be peaches and cream(accept the can). For most of us we are fed up, and we don't need Jonney Do Rights like you trying to bring us down. I like to eat off a plate, not from the trough.
06-28-03, 12:16 PM
#111
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I have Babylon 5 episodes on my Tivo now--I guess that's legal. I have those same episodes on cd that I downloaded--guess that's illegal. Neither really matter because the day season 3 is available on dvd, I'll be getting my official copy.
It baffles me that the recording industry equates downloading with a lost sale. I think they're really out of touch.
Somone above wondered if their lawsuits would really alienate potential customers, and this is my take on it: I listened to some radio talkshow host talk about how the RIAA was going to take your car, your house, or your college tuition if they caught you downloading, and I thought college tuition? An industry that would sue a college kid and take away his education for downloading mp3's is not an industry I want to support. I'm not planning on buying any more cd's until this clears up (not a big threat--I've bought 5 cds in the last year, and only two of those were new, but still, they've alienated me.) The RIAA sucks and though they've probably scared me out of downloading any more songs, they're the losers because the only cds I bought last year were cds that I'd downloaded first.
tasha
It baffles me that the recording industry equates downloading with a lost sale. I think they're really out of touch.
Somone above wondered if their lawsuits would really alienate potential customers, and this is my take on it: I listened to some radio talkshow host talk about how the RIAA was going to take your car, your house, or your college tuition if they caught you downloading, and I thought college tuition? An industry that would sue a college kid and take away his education for downloading mp3's is not an industry I want to support. I'm not planning on buying any more cd's until this clears up (not a big threat--I've bought 5 cds in the last year, and only two of those were new, but still, they've alienated me.) The RIAA sucks and though they've probably scared me out of downloading any more songs, they're the losers because the only cds I bought last year were cds that I'd downloaded first.
tasha
06-28-03, 05:33 PM
#112
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Another factor in this.. Streaming radio. the cost a station has to pay in order to broadcast online is outragious. So if you want your station to be heard around with the fewer played songs you do play, then another step would be to offer streaming radio so that folks can hear the songs but will have a problem just right clicking and saving as
06-28-03, 06:57 PM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the record company wants to sell $15 cds not the best two tracks off the cd for .99 each. Customers have been honest about how they want to buy/get music. In most other industries the companies would attempt to adapt to give their customers what they want, in the record industry the motto appears to be "the customer is always wrong."
06-29-03, 01:49 AM
#114
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The company NEEDS to adapt to change, and quick if they want to continue recieving money. people are moving away from CD's and finding smaller ways to carry much more music with. an MP3 player holds up to hundreds of cd's worth of songs in a small little hand size case. they want ease and as easy as cd's were to carry around, MP3 players are easier.
they want to sell the 15 buck CD because it really doesn't cost them more then a few bucks to make it and they get the huge profit off it.
they want to sell the 15 buck CD because it really doesn't cost them more then a few bucks to make it and they get the huge profit off it.
06-30-03, 07:09 PM
#115
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Living Room on the Couch
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
Even if it's not an original movie you can still be entertained for a few hours. Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer were masters at it. Same basic movie with a few changes made them tons of money. And people still like to watch their movies even though there isn't really any difference between Top Gun, Days of Thunder and other movies.
With music it's different. In the 1990's it seemed like everybody sounded like Nirvana, Pearl Jam or Green Day. If you didn't know the name of the band playing the song it didn't matter since it all sounded the same. Then came the boy bands, Brittney, Christina Aguilera and others and they all sounded and looked the same too. If you watch MTV then you'll see that everyone sounds and looks the same.
I guess people got bored and stopped buying music. I'm against sharing and don't care if RIAA sues these people, but they only have themselves to blame. It seems every generation of music there are a few original bands in every genre and most others just copy them.
Even if it's not an original movie you can still be entertained for a few hours. Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer were masters at it. Same basic movie with a few changes made them tons of money. And people still like to watch their movies even though there isn't really any difference between Top Gun, Days of Thunder and other movies.
With music it's different. In the 1990's it seemed like everybody sounded like Nirvana, Pearl Jam or Green Day. If you didn't know the name of the band playing the song it didn't matter since it all sounded the same. Then came the boy bands, Brittney, Christina Aguilera and others and they all sounded and looked the same too. If you watch MTV then you'll see that everyone sounds and looks the same.
I guess people got bored and stopped buying music. I'm against sharing and don't care if RIAA sues these people, but they only have themselves to blame. It seems every generation of music there are a few original bands in every genre and most others just copy them.
Thank you!!!! Finally somebody else finally says Top Gun and Days of Thunder are the same movie!!! Ive thought that for years!
06-30-03, 07:43 PM
#116
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Capo2002
God the RIAA doesn't get it. There are plenty of people out there who download music and still go out and buy cd's. I can fall in that category, I do download music from time to time but I've also bought quite a few cd's this year. I am just more selective about what I buy today.
God the RIAA doesn't get it. There are plenty of people out there who download music and still go out and buy cd's. I can fall in that category, I do download music from time to time but I've also bought quite a few cd's this year. I am just more selective about what I buy today.
If the music industry is in a state of decline it's because the "music" being made today is complete & utter crap! The artists on major labels (for the most part) just aren't writing good music and the labels aren't signing (for the most part) any good new bands.
06-30-03, 11:12 PM
#117
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by nodeerforamonth
Agreed. 100%. When Napster was around, I bought WAY more CDs than usual because I was able to check out some music beforehand. I mostly downloaded concerts anyways. I only really downloaded about 10 complete CDs and in all cases except for one (which was an import), I ended up buying the real product anyway for the artwork, they were cheap ($10-$12 indie label stuff), and the real thing sounds way better to me than compressed mp3s. I mean, mp3s sound good, but not perfect.
If the music industry is in a state of decline it's because the "music" being made today is complete & utter crap! The artists on major labels (for the most part) just aren't writing good music and the labels aren't signing (for the most part) any good new bands.
Agreed. 100%. When Napster was around, I bought WAY more CDs than usual because I was able to check out some music beforehand. I mostly downloaded concerts anyways. I only really downloaded about 10 complete CDs and in all cases except for one (which was an import), I ended up buying the real product anyway for the artwork, they were cheap ($10-$12 indie label stuff), and the real thing sounds way better to me than compressed mp3s. I mean, mp3s sound good, but not perfect.
If the music industry is in a state of decline it's because the "music" being made today is complete & utter crap! The artists on major labels (for the most part) just aren't writing good music and the labels aren't signing (for the most part) any good new bands.
I still think that downloading is only part of the problem. I think also that the way people are spending their entertainment dollar is changing. I'm buying more DVD's and video games lately and I know alot of people who are doing the same. What's the RIAA going to do next? Break down my door and smash my computer and my PS2 so I have to buy more CD's?
I remember the first thing I learned in Economics 101 was: If you have a product you want to sell you set the price at what you think the public will pay. If they don't want to pay that price you can do two things; give them a different product they are willing to pay for, or LOWER the price.
Sounds like the RIAA needs to go back to business school.
