Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Ad opposing online music piracy to debut on Grammy award show. To be aired after outrageously rich musician credits God with success of his song about bangin' hos   ( ) divider line 243
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7180 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2004 at 7:38 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

243 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
2004-02-08 10:39:59 AM  
yes jpboaty,
record prices are influenced by the labels putting them out, riaa (only if the label is part of the riaa), distributors, and even sometimes the artist.

most of the price variation you see if arbitrary
2004-02-08 10:40:11 AM  
I don't hear music... where is it?

jpboaty, Oh, didn't realize you were so myopic. Sorry.
2004-02-08 10:42:24 AM  
A patent lasts 17 years. A copywrite lasts forever.

Twenty years ago I could buy an LP for $3.99 (Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin etc.) and be 99% sure it was worth every penny.
Today I can buy a CD for $12 to $16 and be 99% sure that ony one or 2 songs on it are worth listening to.

I save my money for the 0.001% of CDs out there that are worth the high price record companys are asking these days.
2004-02-08 10:44:19 AM  
The propaganda: Everytime you download a song, an Artist's plate gets a pea taken off of it; you're evil.

The truth: Everytime you download a song, you become a potential customer of the Artist's live performances (i.e. going to their show), and you actually do put money into the Artist's pocket from a concert ticket than an album sales. In reality, it's better that you pirate music and buy concert tickets because you essentially 1) Support the Artist, and 2) Rip of the RIAA, who has so underhandedly monopolized the musical airwaves and distorted the public's view of what good entertainment and talent is. Then they have the farking balls to tell the public that the public is violating them by downloading music the farking RIAA shouldn't have any hand in.

fark the RIAA, go indie, keep downloading, whatever. RIAA should put some stock in iPod, it should embrace downloading and conform to the public. It should stop living in the 1980's. It should stop suing children. Most importantly, it should lay the fark off and let music be music, instead of such a business that they can't run.
2004-02-08 10:46:33 AM  

the RIAA basically only represents five record labels and their 'sub-labels'

Universal Music Group
Sony Music Entertainment
EMI Group
Warner Brothers Music
BMG Entertainment

granted that those 5 are responsible for something like 90% of available records out there, nearly all of it is pure and utter garbage.

I've bought from lots of other labels out there.

I agree though, I'd hate it if I had to buy only the
stuff deemed "popular"... that would suck.

I certainly don't hate recording companies, or the RIAA,
or the artists... they seem like a nice group of people
and the songs I like... I like, they're good enough
for me.
2004-02-08 10:46:50 AM  
2004-02-08 10:39:40 AM allday

"Whatever they do not get they do not get no matter how little. Most knew what they were signing when they signed it, or they should have known. Do not sign a contract without knowing what it means. Mmmmmmmk? Mmmmmmmmk. The interviews I've seen and read do not show artists saying download away. Even many bands that allow you to tape at shows do not provide their music freely over the internet. If the artist wanted to give it to you they would give it to you. Of course, that would require that they still owned it; if they ever owned it to begin with."

So what's the better option?

(1) Download the music for free, denying the RIAA their obese profits from the sale of the CD
(2) Buy the CD, giving the RIAA their obese profit, and reinforcing their behavior, in which they choose NOT to embrace new technology (P2P).

I like popular music. However, I will NOT pay $15-$20 for a CD that contains 2 or 3 good songs, and 10 that I do not care for. I WILL buy single tracks of music, however, if it is priced affordably ($1/song is ok with me) if there is NO limitation to how I use it. However, that still does not exist.
2004-02-08 10:53:04 AM  
right on battlefield

honestly there is so much indie music out there, and a much larger percentage of it is GOOD compared to the 99.9% of the swill the big five puts out.

You have to go discover it yourself though, which is best done by downloading some songs first. Support them if you like them, and they deserve it.
2004-02-08 10:53:23 AM  
I have a friend who plays guitar in a band that wrote a number one single. MTV the whole works. Before the song began to air they were approached to sell it. They could have made enough to take the next ten years or so off and record as there were only three of them and the offer was a couple of million. They chose to retain the rights and all the resulting royalties less overhead. You see, they were/are unsigned by a major label and created their following by touring. When you download their stuff you are taking their money. Although, they'd probably let you have it anyway, but it wouldnt hurt if you asked.

I have another friend who is a very talented blues guitarist. He got tired of touring in a beatup van. He won several regional battle of the...competitions and ended up being signed by a subsidiary of Sony. He has a bus now and still gets to play his music all the time. He does not fell very exploited, but when you download his stuff you are taking his money.

Granted all this taking is of a potential dollar if your purchased instead. So...

I have another friend who drives a school bus. He was gold in the 50s. He gets very little of what he recorded, but if you buy the reissues he gets something instead of nothing.
2004-02-08 10:56:24 AM  
re: 'In fact I would offer that music would get better and more focused on art and talent then the disposable music we have been for force fed.'

Good point.
Britney Spears, artist = zillionaire

Poe died a penniless pauper.

So the MORE MONEY you give to artists, the crappier they get? Makes sense. Look what happened to all the old rock and roll guys once they "made it". They all got lazy and spent the next 50 years getting stoned and fiddling with antique cars.
2004-02-08 10:56:33 AM  
When the teen completes transferring the song file to her computer, the music and the lights at the club suddenly turn off, leaving clubgoers confused over who pulled the plug on their fun.

[image from too old to be available]
2004-02-08 11:05:02 AM  
Stealing is a moral issue; Copyright infringement is a legal issue. When I download a song, I have stolen nothing. All I am doing is lstening to sounds that somebody made. Whoever made those sounds doesn't have less sounds just because I have a copy of the sounds.

Copyright is a legal system that creates an artificial market for creative works by limiting rights to reproduce those works. It exists not because there's something morally wrong with copying, but rather to encourage artistic creation. In the case of the movie industry, there is no way that most movies could be made if there were no copyright restrictions, because of the financial burden of making a movie.

This USED to be true for music, but it's not anymore. Anyone with the desire, talent, and some basic resources can make and produce their own professional music recordings. Copyright is no longer needed to ensure that people make music. It only exists because people are set in their ways, big business is exploiting it for money, and many people still accept the crazy notion that to copy a song is to steal it.
2004-02-08 11:17:00 AM  
Step One : "It's theft!" [insert long rambling diatribe with no supporting evidence]

Step Two : "No it's not. You're a tool." [insert long rambling diatribe on crappy product, economic models, supporting evidence]

Step Three : Profit!
2004-02-08 11:24:22 AM  
A lot of people are mentioning that people should go for "indie" artists. I should like to point out what the RIAA did to, which was for a long time a spectacular example of what you could do for independent artists with the MP3 format. It's hard for me to find new local bands to go to shows now, they can't afford the bandwidth to post MP3s for me to hear, and I really don't want to chance going to a show randomly. ( for an example)
2004-02-08 11:24:34 AM  
cosmic astral code

I hope internet piracy destroys the record industry and totally eliminates all the crappy pop music that is constantly being shoved down our throughts. Only true bands will be left who play for the music, not to get rich.

Then all the garbage men who haul trash for the love of it, not the money, can go see them in concert. Are there unicorns in your world too hippie?
2004-02-08 11:30:55 AM  
I have not and will not ever give close to $20 for one or two good songs on a cd. NEVER!
2004-02-08 11:31:25 AM  
i think pepsi got it right with their ad in the superbowl.
all the 13 year olds who got sued because they downloaded some songs.

the whole downloading music being illegal is a hard issue... its like smoking pot is illegal. Why is it illegal? because we say so. Because really... if i go download ONE song, and light up ONE joint. I just did some massive damage to the world around me and I should be thrown in jail.

/doesnt have any mp3s, doesnt smoke weed
2004-02-08 11:31:38 AM  
Props to the headline of the very few that made me laugh outloud!
2004-02-08 11:31:43 AM  
"Step Three : Profit!"

I'm still waiting for my check! [image from too old to be available]
2004-02-08 11:42:28 AM  
I'd love to pay artists directly for their work when I download. Instead I have to pay the record company. Offspring tried to set up an artist direct download on their website and were told by their record label they weren't allowed to. The huge success of iTunes means people will pay for downloading. Cut out the industry overhead and you'll see that double or triple.

The RIAA wouldn't have so much overhead if they weren't paying the radio stations to play their shiatty music.
2004-02-08 11:45:03 AM  
He steals from the rich, and gives to the poor, Denis Moore, Denis Moore, dum dum dum

This whole redistribution of wealth thing is confusing!
2004-02-08 11:45:19 AM  
it seems to me that most people trying to justify filesharing say they do so because of the RIAA's practices or the outlandish pricing of CDs

i've seen 10 year old albums with 30 minutes of music priced more than $15. that is ridiculous, but...

music is not a necessity. copyright infringement is illegal

if music is too expensive then don't have it
if you don't like the RIAA's practices then boycott their music altogether (that includes downloading)

there is no justification for copyright infringement. none.
2004-02-08 11:52:41 AM  
bonorific - Apparently you need to broaden your musical pallette. One of (in my opinion) the best bands out there, The Beta Band, has had multiple opportunities for commercial success. Major record labels have tried to sign them, major concert venues wanted them to open - but they always decline. They insist that they are there for the music and money would probably change the music.

Work is work, but art is love.
2004-02-08 11:56:40 AM  
Lastly, I'll agree with everyone about the high cost of CDs. What's that about??? One classic example: I bought the movie Amelie for I think around $14 at Target. This is a farking 2 disc set--over 2 hours of entertainment with the movie and extra features. A movie that cost millions of dollars to make, and I can buy it for less money than a music CD that clocks in at under 45 mins. Yeah, that makes sense.

Indeed it does... since a large number of people already spent half that amount or so to see a one-off showing of the film in the cinema. Amelie has already made it's costs back, so selling the DVD cheaply is pretty much pure profit - they're not being nice to you.

A CD on the other hand has to make its costs back just on the sales of that CD. So it's a different situation than with movies.
2004-02-08 11:57:41 AM  
It may be theft, but it's theft that I'd say "I support it" to.

And any artists that whines about it loses much respect from me for not fighting against the record companies. It's easier for them to whine then it is for them to fight to get what they deserve.
2004-02-08 11:58:27 AM  
When i was growing up i would record songs off of the radio onto tape all the time.

I would then copy the tapes and give them to friends...

The radio broadcast is free to me, and the FCC nor the RIAA can prevent me from recording it today

So the real complaint is the ability to leech a digital version and re-distribute it easily...

The RIAA makes investments in these "artists" by paying them X millions for Y years - and the "artist" is required to release Z CDs

So the "artist" gets paid regardless if we DL the songs or not - the RIAA loses $$ becauses they're not making the 95% margins on the CDs now

Pretty hard to feel bad for them

/has over 30GB of MP3s and doesn't feel sad at all ;-)
2004-02-08 12:04:52 PM  
Doofuses. They arent sueing over the downloading. They are just saying they are in those commercials. They are sueing over making music files available for uploading aka sharing.

I have a really bad habit of losing my cds. So Ive had to download two albums recently. I still have the cases, but cant find the friggin things for the life of me. But Im a leach and dont share what I have.

I really dont see anything wrong with that. But Im sure some of you will tell me that Im a dirty thief. So? I had to pay $18.95 for those damn things. I consider that music mine.
2004-02-08 12:09:53 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
[image from too old to be available]
2004-02-08 12:11:17 PM  
Then all the garbage men who haul trash for the love of it...
Thats's funny because everytime I see a garbageman he has at least 100 people following him appaulding everytime he picks up trash. Also, garbagemen get TONS of chicks.I usually see that happen while I'm riding my unicorn.
2004-02-08 12:14:02 PM  
Dear music industry: your paradigm is over. Your time pollutin' the airwaves is over. I gave you the chance to be friends, now I'm giving you the chance to die. Slow down and your tourbus blows up, ALONG WITH YOUR BIG, HAIRY ARSES!
[image from too old to be available]
2004-02-08 12:16:34 PM  
Fun thread.

jpboaty's fighting a losing battle here. Well, he may think he's right, and his opinions are rock solid, but it's 100 vs 1. Well, he did have vegetable, until he mentioned doritos.

Downloading music is theft. Anyone who says it isn't honestly doesn't give two green poops that they're doing it. If they did care, they wouldn't do it. The difference between Mr. boaty and the rest of us.. he cares, we don't.

I also think 90% of new pop/radio/MTV music is garbage. It just doesn't do it for me, and it just seems to lack any of the 'flair' (Yech. Wish I had a better word) that music from previous decades had. I may like a song from time to time, but I don't even consider buying the album. I download the single mp3, and move on. If the sound triggers with me, I'll download a few more tracks, but it's rare that I like it enough to download the full album.

I only buy the CDs for 2 bands. Both I found out about in the 90s, pre-mp3, thanks to the radio. They've released 11 CDs since then, and one band had 2 before that - I bought them all. They're the only bands that have consistantly released music that I, at the least, like. They, without a doubt, deserve my money. Lately, I've been getting their CDs prerelease by mp3, and I still bought their CD anyway.

I think the RIAA should fully suport services like iTunes. It's the only way to protect the bulk of the revenue generated by the music industry. As michiganman said before, he wonders why the government doesn't crack down on the RIAA like Microsoft. Well, it's probably because the music industry, as this thread has well established, controls and protects the output of 80%+ of the music that gets out. If downloading mp3s wipes out what the RIAA puts out, that's a good chunk of change that leaves the US economy short. I'm not defending it, but I just thought michiganman brought up an interesting point.

And it's hard to compare music CDs to anything. Food, no. The resources to make them are perishable, as is the final product. (Ok, in some ways, this is like music CDs) Shoes? No, cost more to make, and is more of needed product than music. Even commercial software. Takes months to make, with more people, some of which is needed for daily life.

I think the whole RIAA ad is stupid. If they get a PSA slot, then it's only right for a counter-ad to shown showing the breakdown of that $18 CD someone just bought.

To counter JohnGaltDiscGolfer, without the recording industry, there'd really be no MTV as we know it now, and people would most likely base their music selections on local bands, more so than national acts. Local fame would be more important. National stardom would be tougher, and the bands and people that get famous may actually have REAL talent.
2004-02-08 12:16:35 PM  
Vegetables Post :

[From Cosmic_Music] I'm a music obsessive (where's my support group?). The amount of money i've spent on albums over the years would make you wince. I like 'originals' as objects in and of themselves and prefer to buy my music. but I would never be able to afford all the albums i need to hear. Indeed, the amount of albums you need to hear even to have a basic, let alone a fully rounded, musical education is huge. Get it where you can.

UHMM I'm a big screen tv obsessive, i would never be able to go and buy all the big screen plasmas i need to complete my big screen tv education.

You are stupid. Good day.
2004-02-08 12:23:52 PM  
There was a lot of crap on but I found some good stuff and actually bought some CDs. Radio isn't big enough to support the eclectic tastes of today's thinking people.

For people downloading stuff like 50 Cent, the PSA should include "if you don't get help from us, please get help somewhere"
2004-02-08 12:27:35 PM  
Free music is here to stay whether we like it or not.
2004-02-08 12:32:13 PM  
Portnow declined to say how much the Recording Academy spent on the campaign, which is scheduled to run through the end of the year. He said broadcast stations will run the ads as public service announcements.

Yeah, because protecting the profits of monopolistic corporations who sue small children is a damn public service.

Hell, as far as I'm concerned, downloading music is a public service--the faster these assholes go bankrupt, the sooner the public won't be living under fear of lawsuit.
2004-02-08 12:36:15 PM  
2004-02-08 11:56:40 AM chiark
Amelie has already made it's costs back...

So has every song on Classic Queen, but that doesn't stop the record companies from charging 17 bucks for it.
2004-02-08 12:39:19 PM  

This is why you get the Queen: Platinum Collection Greatest Hits I II and III. Fifty one songs for $23.99 on Amazon.
2004-02-08 12:41:43 PM  

And you do know that lots of Queen's profits these days are going to AIDS charities.
2004-02-08 12:43:00 PM  
I believe it's spelled "hoes."
2004-02-08 12:45:02 PM  
12349876: I don't begrudge Queen the profits, and I think it's just damn spiffy that they donate their profits to charity. But, be honest, if I buy the CD, they only see 50 cents, so that's the most that the AIDS charities are going to see. I'd rather download the songs and donate the 17 bucks to charity myself.

And I was only using Classic Queen as an example. The comparison would be just as true if I used, say, AC/DC's "Back in Black".
2004-02-08 12:50:02 PM  

Or you could just get DVD's instead of CD's. Many groups DVD's like Queen's are reasonably priced (same price as movies) and have lots of cool special features.
2004-02-08 12:50:58 PM  
We gave away our first CD on our website and still sell many copies (over 500 so far, being unsigned isn't too bad) of the CD through online vendors and at our shows. Both the digital and physical media can exist, and both can thrive.
2004-02-08 12:51:22 PM  
I'm too lazy to scroll back, but I agree with the guy who asked why the RIAA wasn't concerned when kids taped the songs off the radio. I did that all the time during the '80s. So kids use their computers now instead of a tape recorder. Where's the theft??
2004-02-08 12:52:17 PM  
Sometimes I feel like I'm behind on the so-called modern music scene. I hardly listen to the radio, due to the fact that it gets worse and worse. I mean, it's pretty sad that when I hear something that sounds remotely inspired, it turns out to be a 30-second rock song about Mountain Dew. Of course, every time I flip on the radio, I find that everyone sounds more alike than they did last month, and when I turn on MTV, I get another reality show. I end up realizing that there isn't anything to catch up on at all, and I go back to buying not music, but George Carlin albums.
2004-02-08 12:55:58 PM  
how are you people able to tell who it was that posted a certain article? I can't find Saltines name anywhere.
2004-02-08 12:59:41 PM  
12349876 I agree: concert DVDs and music video DVDs are a much better value than CDs. Album length, cheaper than the actual albums, and with the video/concert footage as well. If I owned a DVD player, I'd probably own several.

But that's neither here nor there. I originally posted in response to somebody's contention that DVDs are cheaper than CDs because the DVDs already made their costs back in the theatres. I was simply pointing out that this was not the case, since, even if the music has already made its costs back, it is still way overpriced. Thus, the CD is not priced to recoup costs, it's overpriced to gouge the public.

THAT was my argument, and it completely flew over your head.
2004-02-08 01:10:14 PM  
My god - if that commercial is correct, I've caused the closure of 19,891 night clubs!

2004-02-08 01:12:57 PM  
What about music that is unavailable in this market. Many of the songs I would like to hear are either from imports or out of print albums. I suppose the RIAA would prefer if we just litsten to what they tell us we should. Why else would they spend millions of $$'s trying to convince us that Britney Spears is an "artist" and a "singer"?
2004-02-08 01:13:01 PM  

I guessed I missed that one

/thought i read all the posts, but i guess not
2004-02-08 01:14:19 PM  
If nobody has made the distinction between theft and copyright violation, I will:

Theft is taking something that someone else possesses, physically. Like a CD from Sam Goody's or FYE or whatever the fark they have around your area that sells overpriced music. It was theirs to sell, you stole it, someone lost money.

Copyright infringement is making a copy of something someone has a copyright to without permission. Not all digital music violates copyrights(i.e. bands that allow taping), but 90 percent of artists don't allow it. This is not stealing per se, because the person who downloads an mp3 likely wasn't planning on buying the disc it came from anyhow, so they neither gain nor lose money. This still is illegal, though, but in a different way, this makes you privy to a lawsuit instead of handcuffs.

Big difference.
2004-02-08 01:16:04 PM  

The difference between taping off the radio and online downloading is that the radio stations pay royalties to play the songs for the general populous, so the money lost by taping is covered by royalties, while the music on the internet is uploaded by people who bought the cd's (which are only licenced for induvidual use), so the money lost by downloading is not recovered.
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.