Fakutu:

Everyone seems to be missing the point here... Most bands (not including the Britney Timberlakes) spend hundreds of thousands to record an album, usually money *loaned* to them by their record company. In *most* cases, the band ends up losing money on the CD...

---

Good thing you said "most", since I know of 4 specific
instances where small time bands made a CD, and promoted
them, themselves. One guy was going around the country
in his own van, with gear in the van, and he'd write
music while driving across country, record it whereever
he was, and ship the music off to be pressed.

If the bands are good, they make it, if they aren't,
oh well.

Nothing says you have to do what BS, JT, or others like
them did... and it's dirt cheap to make a CD, dirt cheap
to have them pressed in 1000 quantities.

pkat:

Buying music is not like buying shoes. If buying shoes was like buying music you'd find 1 shoe that fits and feels comfortable. However to get that one good shoe you also have to buy 21 other shoes that don't fit and for the most part and pieces of crap you're going to throw away the minute you get home.

---

Well ya, you can always find "one hit wonders", but that's
always been like that, it's nothing new.... and that doesn't
justify stealing music either.

In the shoe example, you went to the store, saw some shoes
you liked, and slipped them in the shopping bag, got them
home and found they really weren't what you wanted to wear.
So you leave 'em in the closet... and it's still theft.
You liking the shoes you stole, or not liking them, didn't
make it "not theft".

And before I exit this... one of the reasons I'm all
for people buying the CDs is that I used to play in
bands, and I know what the bands had to go through, years
of practice, and not a lot of pay. If you like the result
of all those years of practice and attempts to be creative,
pay 'em for that enjoyment... else, you're not really
being all that nice in taking and never saying "thanks"
for the stuff you enjoyed.

Whatever.

Hmmmm, odd that you guys come up with this Tennis Shoe analogy...I think a better one would be the Xerox analogy.

When Xerox introduced their photocopier back in the 50's or 60's or whenever it was invented, did all the big publishing houses freak and start declaring it illegal and that Xerox was costing them millions in lost revenue? Imagine, people could just go check a copy of their favorite book out of their local library and go to the nearest Xerox machine and make their very own copy, cutting the author and publishing house out of their "justified" cut! But it never happened....why? Because someone had the intelligence to realize that after considering the time it takes to stand there and flip page after page, scanning and printing to end up with a unbound, homemade "book" - all printed on one side of the page - then add to that the cost of blank paper, toner, or the 10 to 25 cent per page charge at the local grocery store or copy house...that they really didn't have all that much to worry about. Besides, they had no mechanism to compile statistics on how many books were actually being duped in the first place.

Then we had the VCR come out in the 70's. That produced an outcry and suit from Hollyweird - "People will be taping our movies and TV programs right off the air and we won't be able to charge them for that - they can even fast-forward right through the disgusting advertising we want to shovel down their throats - it will cost us millions in lost revenue!" As if there was any revenue there that they would have gotten in the first place. So the Supreme Court allows them to attach a small surcharge to all our blank tapes, audio as well as video - just in case we might use them to record something that was copyrighted (as if ANYTHING we COULD tape off the air wasn't copyrighted).

And now the same surcharge applies to any blank CD with the word "Music" on it - never mind that there's absolutely no physical difference between those blanks and "Data" blanks.

Back in the day, all music came on vinyl in a large one-foot square cardboard sleeve - usually with some fancy artwork printed on it. Even a few would open up to reveal even more artwork, or if you were lucky, the unintelligible lyrics would actually be printed there! All this for the amazingly low price of about 5 to 10 bucks! Then the compact disc was invented and took the masses by storm. It was smaller, cleaner sounding and very scratch resistant in comparison to the old vinyl medium. But at about DOUBLE the price! I think that it took all of about 5 years for record stores to completely clear out all of their old vinyl inventory and replace them with CD's. But then I discovered we had been shortchanged in another way...

Some of my most favorite and treasured music from the past had been completely overlooked by the big record companies. To this day I have yet to find a re-release of the old Buckingham-Nicks album that was made before Lindsay Buckingham and Stevie Nicks joined Fleetwood Mac. I had to rip and burn my own from my old scratchy vinyl copy (It's not all that bad - actually it came out pretty good). Then I decided to "upgrade" a couple of favorite live albums to their CD releases - Lynyrd Skynyrd's "One More From The Road", Kansas' "Two For The Show", and Jethro Tull's "Live - Bursting Out". Sad was I to find that rather than make them 2 CD sets as the original vinyl albums were, they dropped out 2 to 4 of the tracks that were originally released in order to make it all fit on a single CD - presumably to cut costs, but they still charged me over 15 bucks for each - which was about 3 to 5 bucks more than I had paid for the original vinyl albums. And the songs they chose to omit would not have been the ones that I would have chosen to drop from the selection. Corporate Intelligence? I think it doesn't exist in theirs...but I digress...

Back in those days it was very commonplace to borrow an album from a friend and make a cassette copy of it for myself. And vice-versa. I never bought factory produced tapes because they were garbage. They still used high-speed recording on ferric oxide tapes (when Chromium Dioxide was the norm for blanks) and sold these crappy tapes for a higher price than they sold the vinyl equivalent, citing higher production costs. Really? It never made sense to me to go spend more on a crappy sounding tape that would wear out in a few hours of playing when I could go buy the full album, complete with all the artwork, liner notes, lyrics, and other goodies that would come with it - plus a higher quality blank cassette to make a copy that I could take on the road with me, for LESS than their crappy cassette produced at the factory with little artwork, no lyrics or anything you could read with anything short of a microscope. But they had no mechanism to give them statistics on how many of us were doing that.

Then we had the advent of MP3's and Napster.

Finally the recording industry had *some* statistics as to how much "sharing" was actually going on. And this was big. It was no longer restricted to your small circle of friends sharing with each other - now it was millions of strangers sharing with each other any and every piece of music ever recorded. The record execs went "OMFG - Look at all that revenue we are missing out on!" As if even one person out there downloading would have paid for that tune if it had been the recording company putting it up for download on the net - even for some small insignificant price - say 10 cents per download (which is really all it is worth to me). Never mind the fact that the vast majority of people that downloaded music then would wind up going to the store and buy the complete CD of the artists they discovered using Napster - with the exception of your typical High Scooler or College Student that doesn't have the money to be able to afford to go out and buy CD's on a whim. Those people wouldn't have bought that CD anyway!

The point to all this is that the RIAA is like an old cowboy that can't shoot straight who is lost in the desert - his horse is already dead but he doesn't know it and his aim is so bad that in trying to put his horse out of its misery, he keeps shooting himself in the foot over and over again.

I think I made a good decision in not continuing on
with playing in bands. That would suck so bad to sell
only 100 CDs, and then go into a chat room and ask
if anyone knew about the group, only to find that every
person that even heard of the band, stole the music.

And when asked if they'd buy it, they'd say that the music
wasn't worth buying... they didn't want to buy it since
they're mad that all the songs sucked, mad at the RIAA,
and mad that "JPBOATY is rich enough, no need to buy it,
we'll just download it instead... it's not stealing, it's
copying, and there's nothing wrong with it, and why are
you siding with the RIAA??? Are you stupid? download the
stuff and forget it".

That would suck more than, gosh, I don't know, it'd be
like being beaten to a pulp while starving to death.

"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."

So that's what happened to all my CDs. Somebody downloaded them - right out of my apartment! I'll bet every time I turn on my VCR, somebody's TV screen goes black, and every time I make a photocopy, a page vanishes out of a book somewhere.

Guess I can only speak for myself as to why I download, etc, and my own opinions on it. So with that qualifier...

First: Copyright infrgingement only has to do with something you would otherwise have to buy but got in a manner other than purchasing it from a legitimate seller. Such as a movie: dowloading a movie and viewing it is a copyright infringement because otherwise you would have to go to the theater, or rent or buy the DVD. Copyright infrongement is also an issue if I take that downloaded movie and sell it to someone. But, if I tape a movie or TV show and give it to someone, I'm not in violation of copyright laws under the "fair use" clause. And much as TV programs and films are there on TV for us to tape, so are songs there on the radio there for me to listen to for free. But for some reason, listening to that same song via a downloaded file is supposed to be theft? Don't think so.

Second: I have never, and would never download an entire album. If you do that (and keep it to listen to) then you've stolen an album as much as you've stolen a movie. IF I like at least three songs on an album, I will give my money to buy that album.

Third: The RIAA is going after, and bullying, people who dowload songs from the internet to listen to. I think they should prioritize going after people who download albums or groups of songs and sell them.

Fourth: There have been three instances where someone has told me "dude you gotta hear these guys" and dowloaded a song or two by a specific artist and - after listening to them and liking them - I've gone out and bought the album. IN some cases, my "illegal" file sharing has actually resulted in further profit for the RIAA.

Fifth:A vast majority of what I have downloaded were songs I already owned (either on tape, or because I have had no less than two extensive CD libraries stolen from my house). I am not about to go out and pay twice for something I already owned, especially where tape is concerned. Just because the technology changed doesn't mean they deserve to charge me a second time for the same purchase.

Sixth: A record label will front the money for studio time, marketing, etc, and then take out all that "loaned" money off the top of sales before they begin splitting any of the proceeds with the band. And thus far the RIAA has yet to document an artist who's been harmed by file sharing. Although two years ago, Don Henley, Sheryl Crowe, and many other recording artists went to Sacramento to protest what they feel are unfair practices by the RIAA such as price gouging and profit skimming.

Seventh: The record industry profits for last year dropped by a paltry 9% which could be attributable to anything, and there's no direct proof that such a small drop in profit is a result of file-sharing (any more than the more believable reason for the profit drop is that the RIAA puts out crappy product). When Doritos and Nike experience a drop in profit, do they blame shoplifters who would have otherwise bought the chips and shoes? (I trust this sheds light on what crappy analogies Doritos and Nike were).

Eighth:99% of the stuff I've seen available for download (on both Kazaa and Winmx) has been music by hugely successful artists. Most of the file-sharing doesn't involve small indie artists who are struggling to survive, but rather "artists" who are trying to pay cash for the second Hummer. My personal policy is I would never download anything by an indie artist unless I was going to listen to it with the intent of buying it. Problem is (for me) there's precious little resouces where I can hear indie artists stuff, so file-sharing for me is almost like my own indie-radio.

I hope this has been helpful. Please note that if you are intending to respond to this I only post one post per thread and do not respond to other people because flame wars are a massive waste of time, especially on Fark.

jpboaty:

Have you read anything most of the people have been saying on here? If the music is good they end up buying the CD usually. So the key is making GOOD MUSIC...and not just one song bundled with 11 piles of feces, you actually have to make an effort to appease your consumer. If your band sucks then you won't rake in the cash, which is how things generally work.

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.



That's when you go on to the next club.



/duh

Callmemorpheus


jpboaty:

Have you read anything most of the people have been saying on here? If the music is good they end up buying the CD usually. So the key is making GOOD MUSIC...and not just one song bundled with 11 piles of feces, you actually have to make an effort to appease your consumer. If your band sucks then you won't rake in the cash, which is how things generally work.

---

That's the problem though, most artists aren't starting out
as musical genius types... they practice and get better.
They get to the point where they can do the same songs the
other artists can do, and nearly as well or better than
they could do them. Then they branch out into similar songs
and new songs, eventually getting their own list of songs
they feel comfortable playing most anywhere. The problem is,
they're losing players all the time, as some go off into
the service when they're 18, or they get a job 50 miles
away... so it's a real struggle for what seems like a really
long time, YEARS.

Over those YEARS, groups tend to make recordings, the groups
I was in, yep, same thing. And sooner or later, groups put
together a CD, and then they promote it. The groups I was
in, we were approaching the point where there'd be soon be
enough to do a CD, but I'm positive that not all the songs
would have been up to par.

Given that, I can imagine going to a chat room and asking
if anyone heard of the group... being told people heard
of it, but that they didn't want to buy it because of
(insert list of reasons to steal music and feel good about
it while hating everyone that worked to get the music out)
and then being thoroughly depressed that it was all a
big waste of time... house payments to pay... and I'd
have tossed it all anyway even if it had gone anywhere.
No sales, no income... no playing... I'm off doing other
work.

jpboaty:

If you're a group that is starting out then your music most likely isn't going to be available online, since you won't be well known yet...so you practice and gain recognition and a better feeling for what your fanbase likes.
Success doens't come automatically unless you're a corporate creation...like all those abhorrent boy bands.

Fark the grammys.

Callmemorpheus

If you're a group that is starting out then your music most likely isn't going to be available online, since you won't be well known yet...so you practice and gain recognition and a better feeling for what your fanbase likes.
Success doens't come automatically unless you're a corporate creation...like all those abhorrent boy bands.
---

But you're missing the point, as the CD get's send out
to radio stations to play, if anyone even liked it at all,
they can EASILY put it in a filesharing folder and anyone
that hears it on some other radio station off across the
US... they just copy it too... and you get LOW sales.

I'm talking about groups that press their own CDs... before
they can even make it... their songs are in file sharing
and nobody buys 'em since they say (insert list of reasons
to feel good about stealing songs and why anyone associated
with the music production, even the artists themselves
should be hated for making the music and how the music sucks
so don't bother buying it, just download it).

That right there, coupled with people moving 50 miles, and
guys going into the service, and having better prospects
in a professional field... I'm more than happy that I didn't
pursue it.

Gosh that would be depressing if you'd go into a chat room
and ask... then get all those replies saying nobody there
would buy it... but they all have copies of it, yet don't
like it enough to buy it... what a massive insult and total
waste of time... I'm fairly happy I didn't continue on.

I've seen video clips of singers and their shopping sprees and outrageous lifestyles...I'm not too concerned about them losing some spending money.

jpboaty:

Groups that press their own CDs won't even make it onto the radio, since the recording companies already have a unwritten contract with the stations.
Lamune_Baba already mentioned that Metallica became popular due to concert bootlegs. So clearly this sort of system can be used to the artist's advantage if you have the skill,

Callmemorpheus:

Groups that press their own CDs won't even make it onto the radio, since the recording companies already have a unwritten contract with the stations.

---

"unwritten contract"

huh...

I guess I'll add that to the list of reasons people
steal music... not that it affects me of course, since
I didn't fall into the disaster called global filesharing
that's basically ruined the chance of new artists being
able to make any money to live on.

I am SO happy I went into a professional field.

It only takes what, 5 years or so of hard, daily practice,
4-6 hours a day, and someone can be good enough to match
most any group out there... but you won't any money because
most everyone out there will steal the music rather than
buy it. They'll claim it wasn't up to par, so why buy it,
just download it and who cares, you'd never buy it anyway.
And if the group EVER even starts to make it, it's even
worse since now they'd throw in "unwritten contacts, so
for sure, don't buy it, tell everyone NEVER buy it, try
to force the RIAA out of business, force the radio stations
out of business, etc..."

What a pile.

jpboaty:

The radio deals with recording companies are in this link from earlier in the thread (once again, forgive my inability to make links):
http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html
I never used "unwritten contracts" as an excuse to copy music, i simply said its why small artists not tied to recording companies don't get on the radio.
And you've missed earlier points too. Smaller artists are less likely to have their music stolen and CD sales are still phenomenally high since people still buy CDs...some artists actually do use file-sharing to their advantage by releasing songs into the p2p networks to create interest in their work.

Fight all you like, RIAA. Spend that money. Sue those 12 year olds. Prosecute those college students. Hire that muscle. Buy them ninja outfits.

Say, maybe you should give your paramilitary goons guns.
That'd teach those kids some manners! That'd scare some parents! It's all about respect.

Callmemorpheus:

The radio deals with recording companies are in this link from earlier in the thread (once again, forgive my inability to make links):
http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html
I never used "unwritten contracts" as an excuse to copy music, i simply said its why small artists not tied to recording companies don't get on the radio.
And you've missed earlier points too. Smaller artists are less likely to have their music stolen and CD sales are still phenomenally high since people still buy CDs...some artists actually do use file-sharing to their advantage by releasing songs into the p2p networks to create interest in their work.
---

I'm not denying that money changes hands. The radio stations
actually have to PAY to play each song. It's understandable
that some recording companies would make deals to have
them pay LESS to play songs they want promoted, that's
common business practice. Buddy buddy business, you play
our stuff "this much" and we'll cut you a break on what
you have to pay us to play each song.

But they can't shut out new artists, that claim is bogus.

Radio stations play what the customers, their listeners
want to hear, relatively. If they get calls to play a
song, the DJ has the option of playing it, or not. And
if a local artist, or unknown artist wants his/her song
played... it better be good, or the DJ won't play it, he's
got to keep his listeners tuned in to sell more ad time
for higher bucks.

And it's not just "over the air" radio stations, internet
radio stations play all kinds of music too.

I know all about the business side of it, and I also
know about the loss of sales part... you won't ever sell
CD's to people that say "I deserve stolen songs". And
if everyone is being told to do that... it's all over,
new artists are toast... or in for a very rough ride
if they're just average and bothered to stick with it.

You guys want to know why the music YOU listen to is
so bad?

If you don't buy it, the sales that tell the recording
companies what to record... aren't there... and they
stop producing the songs, or paying the artists to do
them, or stop paying as much as they would have.

The net result?

No or low CD sales = LOW artist's pay.

Rememeber that equation, it's the truth, that's real stuff
that is going on right now... YOU are killing the artist's
pay and chart performance.

Your very theft of the music, is KILLING the artists pay.

I looked at the stuff recently, and I'm overjoyed that
I never went into it any further than I did... it was
at the point where I could have went either way... the
professional fields don't have such "theft of anything
you do and you're not worth being paid, or if you are,
we don't know because the CD sales are low"... so I'm
overjoyed that I didn't have to go through all that.

jpboaty:

yes, its the consumer that screws over the artist. The recording companies play no role in exploiting them, right? It's a vicious cycle in that to gain notoriety a group has to sign with a major label, but only to receive very little in return of their CD sales. Not to mention that they no longer hold the copyrights to their music.
Thats why this guy created Magnatune in order to bring equality to the musician and his recording label:

http://magnatune.com/

Mopofdeath - Well said!
We're all pretty much on the same page here.

I only pay for hardware (and doritos). Not 1's and 0's, of any type, never have, never will.

I used to tape off the radio - now I just rip CD's - I don't see my take on music ever changing.

I also plan to build a compound and rig my HD with a thermite device. Some day people like most of us farkers will have to. I want to be free - copper mesh around my house and tin foil hats for everyone!

There's no reasoning with people like me - just stay out of my hollow down here in Kentucky and everything's fine.

Callmemorpheus:

yes, its the consumer that screws over the artist. The recording companies play no role in exploiting them, right? It's a vicious cycle in that to gain notoriety a group has to sign with a major label, but only to receive very little in return of their CD sales. Not to mention that they no longer hold the copyrights to their music.

---

No... I'm not saying the recording companies do nothing
wrong... just that the artist's "weight" with those
companies is being DESTROYED by the theft.

Watch what happens with and without the theft:

Case A (no theft)

* The artist makes a CD of songs worth 100,000 sales
* The artist is new
* The artist is learning how business works
* The artist has some help from a manager

Seems reasonable, right? Not a great seller, but hey,
it's something... he's new... maybe he'll be better on
the next CD? Probably?

The recording company sees that he's selling so-so and
they start thinking about that next CD, and thinking about
the price of the CD currently selling, maybe they raise
the price some... maybe not.

Case B (theft of the music)

* The artist makes a CD of songs worth 100,000 sales
* The artist is new
* The artist is learning how business works
* The artist has some help from a manager
* There are no CD sales, or very little sales

So even when the CD is worth 100,000 sales, they don't
get 100,000 sales of it... they get MUCH less and think
the guy isn't much of an artist... he's new... they
don't know he's any good since the sales just aren't
there... will he do better on the next CD? Probably not.
They start looking at him with dislike, like the guy
wasted their resources in recording junk songs that
don't sell... why didn't he produce? What was wrong with
him? Let's get another artist that sells better than
this clown.

The recording company sees that he's not selling and
they start thinking about other artists, and thinking about
the price of the CD and cutting it to nothing, not
wanting to sign him for any other CDs... he's a new
artist... no track record... what do they care if he's
not selling? Dump him.

Guess who helped them decide to dump the artist, to
not pay the artist much if anything, or that the CDs
should sell for 1/2 or 1/3rd of what they're worth?

Guess who did that?

Any clues?

File sharers made the new artist WORTHLESS, or near to it
in the eyes of the recording companies since they never
see the sales, stop believing in his abilities, and tell
him such to his face... "you're just not a big seller,
heck, you don't sell much of anything... see ya".

I am so happy I decided to go into a professional field
instead.

jpboaty:

Ok, now add this element to Case B:

* Hearing artist's music concert goer buys CD and raves to friends about it. Sends track he copies to his friends who in turn like music. File-sharers with similar tastes find artist's music on p2p networks. Sales increase due to people buying the CD of this new artist that they would never have otherwise heard of.

I have discovered countless bands and musicians that I would never have known about had it not been for file-sharing programs, and I usually end up buying their CDs.

Callmemorpheus :
I have discovered countless bands and musicians that I would never have known about had it not been for file-sharing programs, and I usually end up buying their CDs.

---

OK, then I misunderstood. I thought most filesharers
were saying they would NOT buy CD's since they said
it "supports the RIAA, so never buy CDs!!!".

IF they don't buy the CD's, the artists then end up
looking like rotten eggs, and recording companies tend
to toss 'em out and replaces them with whatever anyone
wants to buy.

If 11 year olds withOUT computers buy BS, JT, JL, etc...
then that's what you get if you don't buy the CDs, which
tells the recording companies what is "good" and what isn't.

Your CD purchases are like "votes", if you don't vote,
don't blame 11 year olds for giving you crappy music
to chose from.

All artists range in income levels just as all other working Americans do. For example, there are artists selling hardly any albums all the way through to artists selling 100 million albums. There are single mothers with two kids working two jobs all the way through to a two-person household with no kids who work to make millions.

The key is, we ALL deserve to be paid for our time and work, whether it's per hour, per year, per job, per commission, per piece, per album... So my question is: Of all these people who feel that downloading music is not only cool, but also a right....How many of these people would (or could) work for free or have their parents or family work for free? It's exactly the same thing.

So to be fair, I've come up with a barter plan: The next time you download an artist's work for free, just send your dad, the plummer, to the artists house to install pipes for free. Or have your mom, the doctor, treat the artists family for free. Or have your brother, the contractor, build the artist a house for free. Or have your sister, the police officer, provide free security to the artist. Or better yet, how bout the downloader getting off his or her lazy butt and becoming a roadie for the artist's tour. For FREE. I mean if you feel that it's perfectly acceptable, and legal, to download an artist's music, then you must agree that it's only fair that you should work your a** off through 18-hour days on tour with that artist. For FREE.

/not affiliated with the music industry, but I am affiliated with common sense.

Your CD purchases are like "votes", if you don't vote,
don't blame 11 year olds for giving you crappy music
to chose from.

---

Typo... "crappy" should have had quotes around it, a
lot of people classify music 11 year olds listen to
as such... I haven't recently listened to any of
BS, JT, or JL... so how should I know if they're good
or not?

Since I do buy CDs though, my purchases are like a vote
being sent to the recording companies... so whatever I
listen to... they're already planning to make more. If
you didn't buy the music... chances are, they're not
as likely to be planning to do more of "your" prefered
music.

jpboaty:

Yeah, the world is farked up like that. Corporations are only looking for the simplest way to gain more of the almighty buck...which is what capitalism is based upon, so how can you blame them. Since the masses are asses they all like BS, JT, JL, etc so there you have it...endless pain for the ears.

peanutsmom:

I spent over a year volunteering in the pharmacy of my local hospital...does that cover the music that I download but don't end up buying the CD of?

jpboaty:

Also, I think you'll find that most of the downloaded music is the popular crap anyway...just do a search on a p2p program for any BS, JT, JL, etc and look at how many results appear...scads of them...its almost embarrassing knowing that I go to college with people that like that.

Ok, sure downloading music illegally is illegal. But I still do it from time to time, only to see if the group getting major kudos is worth my $18. I think a drop in CD prices would be cool...


/don't wanna say anything drastic...*cough, like making CD prices fair and not charging $18 for a CD with one decent song on it, cough*

I've only read about half of TFT, but from what I can see, there has been absolutely no mention on why Indie labels are not making the same amounts of money that the big 5 are. The reason is this: The big 5 also have their hands in the same pie as Clear Channel and other major radio conglomerates. With the advent of standardized playlists, you rarely hear Indie bands anymore on the radio. So if you live in an area that doesn't have a lot of concerts, essentially you hear very little from the Indie bands. I agree that most of today's popular music is crap. I am so tired of hearing the same 10 songs ad infinitum. So screw it, I think I will just make my own crappy music.

/train of thought has officially derailed...

You know, I am not real convinced of the RIAA's argument when I watch some MTV "cribs" like show and see the HUGE and often times exceedingly horribly decorated house some of these"musicians" live in. And the expensive cars they drive. You get the drift.
Not to mention, theres usually only one or two good songs per CD anyway.
I hate how the RIAA is bullying people, also.

How is it stealing when you download a song that gets played freely on the radio many many times and you want a good copy for yourself?

Is it so horrible that Lars has to wait a couple extra weeks for his solid gold shark bar?

wow, lots of good points here, and my head hurts too much to read them all.....
my opionions pretty much match the thinking of most of the anti-RIAA people who have posted, and i just have 1 thought to add.
if the RIAA really wants people to buy thier music, perhaps CD prices should get back to where they were about 10 years ago, i.e. lower than DVD proces.
lets see, i go into wal mart, target, whatever. i see CDs for $15-20. i see DVDs for $10-15.
what is going to give me more bang for my buck. 40 minutes of crappy music, with maybe 4 good songs on it, or a 90 minute movie, with a bunch of extras on it.
hhmmmmm
and i wonder what costs more, overall, per unit, to make.

I will say that the concept is simple: lower prices. I use downloading to preview songs. I totally support artists -- I am one. I am not, however, gonna pay $15 for a CD with two songs that I like on it. People crank out music to capitalize on people's money and fanbases, but the music is often terrible. That said, I've bought around 20 CDs in the past two months, ALL of which I downloaded songs from before I purchased.

I like the analogy about the Doritos.

Two questions?

1) Is it wrong t download digital versions of music you already purchased on vinyl?

2) Is it right for artist who already reaped the rewards of selling vinyl albums to take in double profits when their music is released on CD?

These are hypotheticals, not necessarily my opinion.

Is the Fark main page messed up, It is the only place on Fark I cant get to now :(

In the end, as in most conflicts, something has to give. Either, A) laws in regards to Musical recordings have to be reassessed and reconsidered. Or B) tougher enforcement must be imposed. Basically, there comes a time when progress just shrugs off any opposition and becomes its own entity. I think we are at that point with this situation.

If we were some omnipotent being and could plot all instances of laws broken in the US, I am willing to bet that the whole music sharing thing has been committed more times than any other crime in the history of the US. This has to be a significant sign that things should be reevaluated. Sorry everyone on these boards who disagrees, but when every teenager in the nation (our next generation) disagrees with you, you have just lost any battle you wanted to fight.

Sorry for the gross generalizations, I have been known to exaggerate a bit. Hopefully you get my point.

"I've bought two CD's in the past year. Two.

Type O Negative - October Rust
Type O Negative - Life is Killing Me

That's about my opinion on how good music is these days. I'm about to be working for near minimum wage at Wendy's because my car got repossesed (due to the 18% interest rate) so they can all kiss my ass, die of herpes and burn in hell.

Type O Negative can continue making kick ass music, and I'll continue supporting bands that I think are worthy."

For some reason, I find this post hilarious, poignant and incredibly retarded, all at the same time. It reads like a metal version of some country song.

DUN DUN DUN DUN
LOST MY CAR! WORK AT WENDYS!
DUN DUN DUN DUN

Callmemorpheus:

No, it doesnt. But Im sure you already knew my answer. All kidding aside, you volunteering at a hospital was a very nice thing to do. And it was ultimately YOUR choice to do so. That being said, you volunteered for one of two reasons: a. you did it out of the kindness of your heart and wanted to give back to society. Or b. you were trying to get your foot in the door to get a job. Either way, its commendable and its cool that you did it for free. In the end, we both know... that was so not the point to my comment. Thats for playing along though. Good times.


/lover of rhetorical questions.

I'm glad someone thinks artists deserve to be compensated for our art. I've been drawing, painting, sculpting - you name it - for years, and haven't managed to make a career out of it. I'm going to see if I can borrow a lawyer or two from the RIAA and sue everybody who has ever looked at my stuff. Goddamn criminals.

I've bought stuff after I've downloaded it. where's my cookie?

jdemanon

we'll give you one cookie but only if you agree to then go out and buy your own damn box.

/loves to make analogies