|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 5, 2007 1:52:29 GMT -5
www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9791383-7...?tag=nefd.pulseOther articles on the same story: news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&nc...=en&topic=tI just think they're absolutely rotten. I wonder how long they can keep this up before enough people stop buying their products altogether that they REALLY start to suffer? No, downloading music illegally isn't right, but they really have taken this to extremes. $9,250 for each song? That's utter crap! To be fair, she did lie about doing it, and I think that's pretty sad, but still. Artists make the most money from their shows--through merchandise. The Rolling Stones don't still do shows to promote their CD's, they do it to make money from their merchandise. The more cd's an artist/group sells, the more popular they are, which means the more people that will go to their concerts which means the more people that will buy merchandise. Merchandise is the most important money-maker to bands. I thought it was the other way around until I did the band thing for a number of years and learned the way it really works. CD's themselves are a method of advertising. It works quite differently than what the general public thinks it does. The only time artists have even a chance of making a living from CD sales is when it's something that goes platinum and the record industry gives them extra perks--otherwise, artists truly truly truly truly don't make jack from CD sales. There needs to be a lot of change in the industry. A lot of change.
|
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 6, 2007 4:24:56 GMT -5
You have it right. The touring greatly outdoes the cds in terms of money these days, and Rolling Stones is a great example. And yeah, the merchandise has a lot to do with it. Bottom line is, if you want to support your favorite artist, go to their concert, buy a t-shirt, steal their cd, and copy the hell out of it and give it to everyone you know. Think I am joking? See what my favorite artist has to say about cds in general. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4Or for all those who are to lazy to check out the video link, here is a transcription of the main part We should not give any respect to the RIAA. THey have no respect for us, or our artists. The record labels rape and pillage the very people they promote, encouraging them to take drugs and making sure the paparazzis are always in the right place at the right time to see them at their lowest. Screw the record companies, and screw the RIAA. Steal away! The only way to truly support the artist is to go to their show and buy their merchandise. This is how they make money. We need to eliminate the middle man! |
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 6, 2007 4:59:47 GMT -5
I think the only reason to get CDs is to get the best copy possible. If you just want to hear the song and you don't care that much about the quality, download it whatever way you choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 6, 2007 5:01:56 GMT -5
Yeah, but I have to admit Kizzume, I do care about quality. I think I am going to look into getting SACD's of my favorite albums. Many of my favorite albums are available in that format. Now THAT's quality!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 6, 2007 5:06:44 GMT -5
The SACD thing doesn't seem worth it--a special player JUST for those? If you don't get the special player, the sound quality will be the same as on a regular CD.
I like the idea of DVD-Audio a lot more. The ability to have true surround is kind-of cool too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 6, 2007 5:14:21 GMT -5
You should mention that in that one thread on otl, where we were talking about how the industry can now succeed! But yeah, I could be down with DVD-Audio, but I am not sure that any of the CDs I favor are available in that format at this time. Maybe Nine Inch Nails....
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 6, 2007 5:30:03 GMT -5
Done.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 6, 2007 15:15:47 GMT -5
I found this image on another forum talking about this, I think it's great!  |
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 15:30:51 GMT -5
The law is the law, and people should respect it. That being said, I don't think you should run me over with a police car if I jaywalk. Greed sucks, and big labels reek of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 18, 2007 16:53:38 GMT -5
I personally look at the file-sharing programs as a modern-day Robin Hood. Sure, it's wrong, but it's one of the only ways that citizens are able to balance things out.
The other way is not listening to radio--listening to independent artists only. That's basically boycotting radio and the entire industry--it's not something the people are going to do. It's like telling people to throw away their televisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 17:06:55 GMT -5
I personally look at the file-sharing programs as a modern-day Robin Hood. Sure, it's wrong, but it's one of the only ways that citizens are able to balance things out. The other way is not listening to radio--listening to independent artists only. That's basically boycotting radio and the entire industry--it's not something the people are going to do. It's like telling people to throw away their televisions. See I even go a step further with it. I don't think "stealing" music is wrong at all, so long as your money is somehow set aside to assist the artist. What I mean is this: I have copied a lot of Rolling Stones CDs. But on the other hand, I have seen them live, and purchased one of their t-shirts. The money they made off of my VERY EXPENSIVE TICKET, and that shirt, far outweighs what they would have made from their own cds. I simply found a better way to support them. I don't want the record companies having $.001 of my money. As you have already seen with the video I have placed everywhere I can, Trent Reznor, a rock star who has around $4.5 million in the bank (At age 42-- in other words, he could still very easily run out of money some day) has said it himself. "Don't buy my music. Steal it." But I garantee he wants you to come see him live and buy his t-shirts. I don't think copying cds is wrong. Here is another reason: Is it wrong to check a book out of the library? What if you read it, and then don't buy it because you already read it. Shame on you. You are a thief! Why is it any different to go to the library and copy a cd. Books are generally read only once. So if you check books out, by this logic you are a thief. It works to the same result-- copy a cd from the library and you probably won't buy it. Check out a book from the library and read it, and you probably won't buy it. But few people will argue you are a thief if you check books out of the library. |
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 18, 2007 17:14:50 GMT -5
Actually, as far as tickets--they basically just pay for the concert with those. Putting on a show is VERY expensive. The tshirts and the merchandise is where they make the money.
When you borrow a book or a cd from the library, you are doing just that, borrowing it. When you copy a cd, you aren't just borrowing it, you have copied it. Most of the time, people who get copies of albums don't go out and buy those albums--why would they? They already have a copy.
There's no getting around that stealing music isn't exactly "right", but it's not something that hurts the artists. It ONLY hurts the record industry and those who get perks from the record industry for going platinum.
There needs to be a change--one that reduces the importance of big record companies. The RIAA needs a swift kick in its ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 17:23:19 GMT -5
But Kizzume, consider what I am saying. How many books, that you first checked out of the library, did you end up buying? When you read a book, you haven't just borrowed the text. You used the information. That is why Barns and Noble won't let you take back books after you have purchased them. Because they know you could just read them and take them back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 17:28:20 GMT -5
The difference is that the library has the consent of the publisher. You can't justify it. I wonder how far people should be allowed to take the whole "It's wrong, but I don't see enough validity" approach to laws. Doesn't that mean that anyone can interpret any law they don't like? That's dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 17:30:46 GMT -5
The library also has the consent of the music publishers, doesn't it?
|
|
