Your friend the Record Industry

[MeridianFC]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/industry/02/14/illegal.downloading.ap/index.html

Aren't they swell. They sure know how to make friends.

[nancyb]

My company didn't need the record industry to tell them not to allow that. They also prevent you from listening the streaming audio and will block sites if they appear to getting too much traffic and have no business association with the corporation.

[Renegade of Funk]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
Aren't they swell. They sure know how to make friends.

You can say this for them. They're doing a great job running Congress!

[Lucid]

From Wired mag a few months ago...

"In November, the Navy seized 100 computers at Annapolis and threatened 100 students there with court martial in a raid on music-swapping."

Ain't nothin like almost ruining a kids education and future becuase he downloaded the newest System of a Down song.

Check this bit of info I came across...

- The 273,000 recording artists in the country average $30,000 a year.
- 273,000 x $30,000 = $8.19 Billion
- Recording Industry is a $40 Billion a year business.
- 20.4% of the profits go to the actual artists themselves.

I fuggin hate these people.

[jmh30]

Originally posted by Lucid
- The 273,000 recording artists in the country average $30,000 a year. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I AM kinda curious where these numbers came from.

[Lucid]

Originally posted by jmh30
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I AM kinda curious where these numbers came from.

In Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood Online Entertainment conference given a few years back.

http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html

In the speech she attacks the RIAA and it's constant practice of screwing over artists rights for profits. Kinda scary to see that a business in this country can work this way.

[whirlwind]

On a related note, I haven't been able to play anything from Live365.com for a week now.

Think our webmasters are blocking the feed? I can get to the site...it plays their video ad...then it halts.

Hmmm.

[zpjohnstone]

Originally posted by jmh30
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I AM kinda curious where these numbers came from.

Here's an article (that originally appeared in The Baffler)that may shed some light.

http://www.anybodylisten.com/Steve_Albini.htm

[CrazyF.C.]

you wanna hear some ************************? My university, western kentucky u, has implemented a policy where in order to get the internet in your dorm, you have to agree to let them monitor your internet activity. You know, to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal like downloading software, music, movies... F### that, clear violation of constitutional rights. Why don't they just stick cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we arent doing drugs.

I still do it anyway, f### em.

[Lucid]

Originally posted by CrazyF.C.
you wanna hear some ************************? My university, western kentucky u, has implemented a policy where in order to get the internet in your dorm, you have to agree to let them monitor your internet activity. You know, to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal like downloading software, music, movies... F### that, clear violation of constitutional rights. Why don't they just stick cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we arent doing drugs.

I still do it anyway, f### em.

LOL... that sucks ass. Well while it isn't violating your rights cause you aren't forced to use their server for internet access, it is really crappy. I don't blame them though, they are just coving their asses in case the RIAA decides to sue a university. I was a freshman in the dorms in '99-2000, right when Napster came on the scene. Perfect time too cause nobody had really started blocking the P2P programs. Now I just have broadband cable through my cable company and get even faster speeds than in the dorms, it's great! :D

Seriously, when the RIAA decides to finally sue a university is when I'm going apeshit. If you are gonna sue anyone, or ruin anyone's life, don't do it to a student who broke as hell already, do it to some head guys at Microsoft or something. Don't tell me corporate execs haven't heard of Kazaa at all.

I hate these pricks. While I know it's not my right to all the free music I want, that would be stupid to think so, there's better ways to go about trying to stop us from doing it than just proving to us that you are the greedy *********************s we already thought you were.

[NotAbbott]

That Albini article is pretty old. Don't know if the dollar amounts are still accurate.

At the end of the day, copyright law is what it is. I don't buy into most of their arguments, but I understand where the labels are coming from. Legally, file-sharing is stealing. For every anecdote about someone who bought an album because they downloaded it first, there's another where someone has a 100GB hard drive filled with music and swears they're never buying another CD again. Has the perceived value of a CD with an $18 price tag diminished exponentially? Yes. Is there a glaring hole in the way people can "try before they buy" music? Absolutely. Radio sucks (see that other thread), and there's no longer a singles market. Meanwhile, more free-form Internet radio is targeted as well. Clearly, the process is broken, but this Robin Hood mentality isn't the way to fix it, either.

I can't stand the "music should be free" bullsh!t, because it's ridiculously simplistic and ignorant of too many factors. I've read Janis Ian. I've read Courtney Love, Steve Albini and Prince. "Music should be free in certain instances" is more like it, but it's admittedly a very sticky subject and hard to define and/or execute. At the very least, somebody needs to take a long, hard look at copyright and fair use, and find some sort of middle ground.

That's what infuriates me about the online music "debate." There seems to be no openness to compromise. Having been involved in this on the business side, the stonewalling from either side is mind-numbing.

</rant off>

Later,
COZ

[cj herrera]

Did I just read Courtney Love cited as source for information?


I think I need some coffee.

[NotAbbott]

Originally posted by cj herrera
Did I just read Courtney Love cited as source for information?


I was as surprised as you are. It was an article written for Salon about two years ago, which may have been a transcript of a speech of some sort. I don't remember.

Later,
COZ

[nicodemus]

i'm not exactly sure where it is on this site (it is in the forum section usually), but here's a bunch of ways to get around siteblocking

www.bigdaikon.com

this is a site for westerners working in the JET program in Japan. they are always providing tips on how to get around netfilters/siteblockers.

[Renegade of Funk]

Originally posted by NotAbbott
At the very least, somebody needs to take a long, hard look at copyright and fair use, and find some sort of middle ground.

That's what infuriates me about the online music "debate." There seems to be no openness to compromise. Having been involved in this on the business side, the stonewalling from either side is mind-numbing.

Great points. But therein lies the crux of the issue. When you say that both sides should stop stonewalling, what would you have the unwashed masses do? Copyright law is firmly (and I emphasize FIRMLY) directed and controlled by the business side, as the fair use rights of the customer side are continually "reevaluated" and, by effect, narrowed--at least in the eyes of litigation obsessed entertainment conglomerates.

If you're surprised that Courtney Love opined, run a Google search on Jamie Kellner, who commented last year that people who patronize TiVo and skip commercials are "stealing television" and breaching their "contracts" with television broadcasters. Do you remember signing a contract agreeing to watch television commercials (or even TV shows for that matter)?

Of course, Kellner doesn't dwell on that aspect of the broadcasters' relationship with the American public that has granted them decades of free use of the airwaves to develop television broadcasting and build the businesses that make them so rich and give them so much power. It's a fair question to ask whether the public is getting the appropriate benefit of that bargain. I wonder how Kellner would feel if the government, acting for the people, suddenly accused him of stealing use of the airwaves and stripped his company of the privilege.

Kellner even questioned whether or not viewers ought to be able to skip commercials for bathroom breaks. As he put it so breezily, "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for bathroom breaks." Well, gee, I wonder how much.

[jmh30]

Originally posted by Renegade of Funk
If you're surprised that Courtney Love opined, run a Google search on Jamie Kellner, who commented last year that people who patronize TiVo and skip commercials are "stealing television" and breaching their "contracts" with television broadcasters. Do you remember signing a contract agreeing to watch television commercials (or even TV shows for that matter)? Heard this. Ridiculous. I pay enough for my digital cable (without any sort of digital recording) that I shouldn't have to watch any more commercials ever again.

[Lucid]

Originally posted by Renegade of Funk
I wonder how Kellner would feel if the government, acting for the people, suddenly accused him of stealing use of the airwaves and stripped his company of the privilege.

Hah, actually, in order to broadcast on airwaves, you have to lease that spectra (singular of spectrum?) from the FCC. So actually they already own it, but point taken though.

I wish these people would just realize the digital age is allowing free distribution around the world of anything via the internet. We can now watch, listen, record, and relax from all this stuff at our own convinience. You guys have had it good enough for the last century controlling that aspect of our lives, but things change, accept it. Figure out a new business model to go by. You can't expect us to actually want to watch commercials, or expect us to pay $15 for a CD where we just want to hear 1 song and the other 10 are crap. You controlled the distribution during the analog days, but with digital distribution so cheap, easy, and available, sorry, time's up, move on.

Grow the hell up you whiney babies, that's all I gotta say. These people wouldn't be saying these things if the RIAA, MPAA, and whoever else weren't paying them $1 million a year to lobby in washington.

I'm not stupid, I don't think these TV shows, song, movies, etc... should be mine for free. But when I have the choice to be over-charged (CD's) or inconvinienced (having to watch TV at a certain time) to get the product, or if I can get it for free, whenever I want, what do you think I'm going to choose? For those of us that want to get it whenever we want, no ads, etc... charge us per listen, per viewing, per TV season, per album, etc... at a FAIR PRICE. And for those of us that want it free, well find a way to put ads in it, or other ways to make money with it, and give it to us.

Some people want it one way, some people want it another way, you can't satisfy everyone. Until you figure out how to do that, don't complain to us about being screwed. Put your heads together, you can think of something smart (at least I think).

[IMissTheFusion]

F the record industry. When they start charging reasonable prices for cd's, I'll give two sh!ts whether or not they are losing money. At chains like FYE & Turtles, they still have the audacity to charge $18.99 for a single cd. F'n crooks!!

[Kryptonite]

Originally posted by CrazyF.C.
you wanna hear some ************************? My university, western kentucky u, has implemented a policy where in order to get the internet in your dorm, you have to agree to let them monitor your internet activity. You know, to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal like downloading software, music, movies... F### that, clear violation of constitutional rights. Why don't they just stick cameras in our bedrooms to make sure we arent doing drugs.

sh!t, download nothing but porn then.


metallica is coming to Columbus this summer. I feel like having some sort of protest or something.


here's my stance... it's OK to download songs... if there's a 15 song CD, and you want 12 or more (or some great majority), buy the cd. If you only want one or two songs, don't.

of course, it would be easier to buy them if they weren't as damn expensive.

I wonder how the cost of a CD is figured into store employee's pay rates??? There was something released a while back that said CDs cost around $10 to make. Figure in the transportation of the cd, all the people who unload them, all the way to the checkout guy, still they're too damn expensive.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by Kryptonite
sh!t, download nothing but porn then.I would title every email something like "A top secret plot to assassinate the president" or "I'm converting to Islam".
metallica is coming to Columbus this summer. I feel like having some sort of protest or something. You could take a blank CD, tell Lars it's their latest album and ask him to autograph it.