OT: Arrogance Causes Piracy?
Jordan Lund
now out of spite.
The weak link in BMG's logic is that music CD's are meant to be heard.
If they can be heard they can be copied. It's a simple matter of
playing it back from a compatible player, piping the line out audio
into the microphone jack on a PC, saving the sound as a WAV or AIFF
and converting it to MP3. I did this with some old record albums I
wanted to preserve.
So I guess the next logical step is asking customers to pay for music
they can't hear?
All CDs will be protected and you are a filthy pirate
By John Lettice
Posted: 08/11/2002 at 11:42 GMT
One mad consumer relations team might be an isolated incident, two
begins to look like a trend. The dismissive response Bertelsmann Music
Group's copy protection team recently issued to a consumer's query
essentially boiled down to, 'all Cds will be copy protected, it's not
our problem that they won't play on some devices, so tough.' But
apparently, it's a competition. EMI Germany is taking pretty much the
same attitude, and its humorously-tagged Consumer Relations team is
calling the customers pirates while it's about it.
Thanks to DeeKay for drawing our attention to this little stunner, and
for help in the translation. German speakers can view the original in
all its glory here, but we think the following loose translation
captures the flavour of the atrocity (our bold on the best bits).
"Dear Mr. xxx,
We will refrain from addressing the points in your email that are
clearly erroneous. We also don't want to bore you with a lengthy
explanation of why the music industry is forced to use copy protection
measures, even though we would prefer to do something else. Only this
much: There are 250 Million blank CDRs and tapes bought and used this
year for copying music in comparison to 213 Million prerecorded audio
media. This means the owners are only being paid for 46 per cent of
the musical content. For a comparison: In 1998 almost 90% of all audio
media was paid for. Even without a degree in economics everyone should
realise that such trends will result in the music industry ceasing to
exist. Only one measure can be used against widespread cloning of
prerecorded audio media by burning CDRs: copy protection! This is also
the reason why record companies increasingly have to protect their
CDs. An alternative solution for stopping this abuse is unfortunately
not within sight. But we fear that these facts don't interest you at
all. Because these measures mean the end of free music, something that
must cause you much grief.
"Should you really have a problem with playing the CD in question, we
would like you to name the exact model of your player. Then we can
compare this model with the list we have of players that our CDs run
on without any trouble. Then we'll see if the problem really is the
copy protection or if there are completely different reasons. The case
you are reporting that even multiple players refuse to function can,
in our experience, only originate from the realm of fairytales. The
copy protection we employ is state of the art, this means there's
nothing better available to date. If there will be something better,
we won't hesitate to use it. Problems with playing on common
CD-players are minimal, but every now and then it happens that copy
protected CDs don't work on a player. We forward these cases
immediately to our copy protection-provider, which is trying hard to
adapt the technology accordingly and solve the problems.
"If you plan on cracking copy protection measures and burning the CD
by other means we must point out to you that this will be illegal in
the near future when the new European Intellectual Property law is
introduced in Germany. Such breaches of intellectual property will
then also be legally pursued by the state. The officials of the
consumer rights ministry won't tell you anything different - after all
it was the politicians who urged us to finally introduce copy
protection measures.
"If you plan to continue protesting about future audio media releases
with copy protection, forget it; copy protection is a reality, and
within a matter of months more or less all audio media worldwide are
copy protected. And this is a good thing for the music industry. In
order to make this happen we will do anything within our power -
whether you like it or not."
Good, isn't it? What it has in common with the BMG response is first,
that it is written from the standpoint that the company will not
readily accept the argument that a protected CD that won't play in
some players, meaning that consumers rejecting copy protection will
therefore face a long slog if they pursue the matter with the music
company. And they might also get a visit from the anti-piracy squad.
It still seems relatively easy to get a refund from stores, because
most of them seem not as yet to be parroting the music companies'
'it's not broken' line, but their attitude may change. Note however
EMI's introduction of the consumer rights card â this suggests the
company intends to use the new copyright laws to fuzz up the
consumer's existing rights to have products that actually work. Or
perhaps even to overthrow these rights.
Second, the 'all CDs will be protected' line is clearly massively
important to them. If it's possible to buy CDs that aren't protected,
and consumers are aware of the differentiation, then not a lot of
people are likely to want to buy the protected versions, so the
introduction of copy protection will fail. If however it becomes more
difficult, and finally impossible, then refuseniks will be driven back
to recording from the audio output. Still not an ideal outcome for the
music business, but they no doubt calculate that the added
inconvenience will reduce copying substantially, and besides, they're
not finished yet.
Finally, view these two responses (and no doubt many others out there)
as an example of how cuddly, responsive and customer-centric the music
business will be when it has DRM. They really are looking forward to
the day when you have no rights. ®
Cash'n'Carrion Reg Shop Register Recruitment — Real jobs for real
people
fish4jobs — Find the right job in your area
sam
"Jordan Lund" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:92dbefbe.02110...@posting.google.com...
Nick Zitzmann
lu...@earthlink.net (Jordan Lund) wrote:
> The weak link in BMG's logic is that music CD's are meant to be heard.
> If they can be heard they can be copied.
Unless they're Macrovision encoded. I guess it would still work, but you
may not like the quality...
Nick Zitzmann
Check out my software page: http://dreamless.home.attbi.com/
Go there to send me E-Mail!
"La la la! I sing, too! For food, for food! La la la!"
- Gabo, Dragon Warrior VII
kaos
produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple. All blank cd's
are not purchased to pirate music. They must think really highly of
themselves if they think this is the case. I haven't bought cd's in the past
3years and I probably won't in the future, whether its copyright proctected
or not, because I think it all sounds like shit.
"Jordan Lund" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:92dbefbe.02110...@posting.google.com...
> Cash'n'Carrion Reg Shop Register Recruitment - Real jobs for real
> people
> fish4jobs - Find the right job in your area
Pluvious
>While I've never once considered audio piracy, I'm tempted to start
>now out of spite.
>
This BMG new copy protection is going to RAISE the amount of pirates not solve
the problem.
Actually the solution is quite simple. Charge $5.99 for every music CD. Not
$16-$18 dollars.
If music was dirt cheap.. it wouldn't be worth stealing. .you'd just buy it.
Pluvious
RedFox
> >While I've never once considered audio piracy, I'm tempted to start
> >now out of spite.
> >
>
> This BMG new copy protection is going to RAISE the amount of pirates not
solve
> the problem.
>
> Actually the solution is quite simple. Charge $5.99 for every music CD.
Not
> $16-$18 dollars.
>
> If music was dirt cheap.. it wouldn't be worth stealing. .you'd just buy
it.
Also, the copy protection no longer makes them CDs. Philips aren't letting
them call them such, because the very nature of CDs is that you can play
them with any CD player, including a PC CD ROM drive. :)
-RedFox
DavidGX
news:aqi4pp$n12$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> The reason cd sales are down, is simply because the music thats been
> produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple. All blank
cd's
> are not purchased to pirate music. They must think really highly of
> themselves if they think this is the case.
Yeah really. They think cd-rs exist only to cause them grief.
David Oldridge
news:i66psuckmnsjtdbb8...@4ax.com...
> On 8 Nov 2002 11:28:35 -0800, lu...@earthlink.net (Jordan Lund) wrote:
>
> >While I've never once considered audio piracy, I'm tempted to start
> >now out of spite.
> >
>
> This BMG new copy protection is going to RAISE the amount of pirates not
solve
> the problem.
>
> Actually the solution is quite simple. Charge $5.99 for every music CD.
Not
> $16-$18 dollars.
>
> If music was dirt cheap.. it wouldn't be worth stealing. .you'd just buy
it.
I remember when stores just started clearing out their Dreamcast titles,
letting some real classics go for $5-$15 each. Pirating of those titles was
still rampant, with some posting that they'd sell you copies of those $5
games for $3 plus shipping.
<"scott3@iinet.net.au >
what happens if i legally purchase the cd and its stolen. I had 16 cds
stolen out of my car earlier this year, i've started replacing them by
either downloading the songs or copying from friends cds, but what happens
if protection stops me from doing this. I by a cd, some jack-off rips me off
and i'm the one who pays for it. DOesn't seem fair to me.
Kevin Sullivan
>While I've never once considered audio piracy, I'm tempted to start
>now out of spite.
>
>The weak link in BMG's logic is that music CD's are meant to be heard.
>If they can be heard they can be copied. It's a simple matter of
>playing it back from a compatible player, piping the line out audio
>into the microphone jack on a PC, saving the sound as a WAV or AIFF
>and converting it to MP3. I did this with some old record albums I
>wanted to preserve.
I agree. It's always confused me how worked up these companies get
about "digital" formats.
All it takes is one person to sit down and do an analog audio transfer
and spread mp3's around and the end result is the same thing, you'll
be able to get anything you want. People don't give a rat's ass about
whether the quality is pristinely digital so long as it's listenable.
All it does it make it a huge pain in the ass for people who use mp3's
legitimately, for copying CD's they own into a more manageable format.
I have my entire CD collection on a dozen or so CD-RW's that I use in
my car on an MP3 CD player. Or even aside from that, people who just
make direct CD copies of albums for use in their cars without having
to lug the originals around with them.
They really need to wake up and realize that they spend more money
trying to "protect" themselves than they claim they lose from file
sharing. Especially since *100% of the time* their efforts will be
defeated. They spend millions of dollars, incovenience and piss off
consumers, make themselves look like idiots and in the end the people
who want to get around it, will.
TV Dinner
>
> This BMG new copy protection is going to RAISE the amount of pirates
> not solve the problem.
It should actually lower the amount of piracy going on,
since they'll just be trying to stop the "casual pirate",
the person who occasionally makes a copy for a friend.
Basically, copy-protection on games is meant to do the same
thing. Companies know the hardcore pirates will be able to
eventually break their protection. They're just trying to
stop the casual copying that goes on.
Charles Doane
Jordan Lund wrote:
> While I've never once considered audio piracy, I'm tempted to start
> now out of spite.
>
> The weak link in BMG's logic is that music CD's are meant to be heard.
> If they can be heard they can be copied. It's a simple matter of
> playing it back from a compatible player, piping the line out audio
> into the microphone jack on a PC, saving the sound as a WAV or AIFF
> and converting it to MP3. I did this with some old record albums I
> wanted to preserve.
>
> So I guess the next logical step is asking customers to pay for music
> they can't hear?
Actually, the next step is likely to come in a form of planned
obsolescence, sort of like the DIVX format tried where the disc
could be used for a few times and then wouldn't play anymore.
There has been research on plastics for CD's which change color
when contacted by a laser from a player, eventually rendering
them opaque and unreadable. This would then require replacement,
increasing sales and therefore profits. It wouldn't work very
well if people could just make more permanent copies, however.
Record companies used to rely on repeat business in the past.
If they sold you an 8-track tape, you'd be back because it'd die.
The needle of a phonograph would eventually tear a vinyl LP up.
Cassette tapes can only be dragged across the heads so many times.
So, an album wasn't a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. Now it is
for the most part, and record companies don't seem to like that.
Can you blame them? Of course you can, and apparently you do.
When record companies 'signed on' to the CD format, the piracy
threat was that the CD could be copied to a tape. The tape
is second-generation, not perfect, and copying the tape to
another tape would result in horrible fidelity. So, piracy
wasn't any bigger of a threat than any other copying back then.
Now it is. With the advent of MP3's and "file-sharing", CD's
have compounded the problem of being the most permanent with
also being the easiest to pirate.
Record companies have already made one attempt to abandon the
CD format entirely, pushing DAT (Digital Audio Tape) as their
new alternative, and in doing so they lobbied for (and got)
the AHRA, or Audio Home Recording Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
This law allows (or rather, decriminalizes) making copies
of personal music from your own collection for your own use.
The tit-for-tat was the SCMS (Serial Copy Management System)
which was to be incorporated into all digital recording devices
(notably DAT) to prevent copies from being made of copies.
The SCMS was never incorporated into PC's and their CD-R's
because PC's are not digital audio recording devices under
the AHRA. However, that's how they wound up being used, and
the recording industry was stung twice by consumers in the
near-total rejection of DAT and the use of PC's as recording
devices in violation of the AHRA.
All of this results in an animosity of sorts on both sides.
The recording industry feels that it has lost renewable sales,
declawed piracy laws and lost a lot of money to copying.
Consumers feel that they've paid their money, they can use
the product as they see fit, and the industry is just being
greedy and unwilling to embrace new technology.
And people ask why Nintendo never made a CD-based system?
The upshot of this boils down to a simple question:
Who controls the music? Consumers say they do, and BMG et al.
say they do. Both of them can't be right, can they? Maybe.
Record companies are under no obligation to release music in
a CD format. Consumers are under no obligation to buy
whatever format they release either.
However this standoff goes, piracy is definitely to way to
lose credibility for the consumer side IMHO.
--
Oh, oh. Here come those crazy aliens again. Help me, Elllleeot!
Help me get home! (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)
Pluvious
And at the same time preventing me from making my own 'best of' collections. I
should be allowed to copy my disc for personal use period. This new idea is
completely stupid.
Pluvious
Pluvious
EXACTLY.. . I agree with this completely! Someone send this post to the record
industry quick. ;-)
Pluvious
tedb6 pack
news:38oqsuc2usbcuplnf...@4ax.com:
[snip]
> collections. I should be allowed to copy my disc for personal use
> period. This new idea is completely stupid.
Completely agreed. I don't "pirate" music. Although the argument that pure
information shouldn't be legally protected interests me, it doesn't matter
to me in a practical sense since I don't do it.
But I DO make backup copies of much of my music. At one point in the past,
I was concerned (a little obsessively) about theft, and made copies of
almost all my good CDs and put them in my closet. Now, sometimes when I go
to work, I want to listen to a CD, but why shouldn't I be able to make a
backup and use that if I'm concerned about it being stolen? Whether or not
you agree that these are worthwhile measures to take, why shouldn't I be
allowed to do that with music that I've paid for?
I'd like to be able to do the same to my DVDs too -- again, not to pirate
but to back up. I would NOT distribute these backups. I understand that
there *is* a way to copy DVDs though. That's something I'll be looking
into, but why should I have to go to extra trouble if I've bought the movie
in the first place? Can't it be mine, to back up as I please?
--
-tedb6 pack
TV Dinner
>
> And at the same time preventing me from making my own 'best of' collections. I
> should be allowed to copy my disc for personal use period. This new idea is
> completely stupid.
I agree completely. I'd also like to do compilations. But
don't just blame the companies, blame the people who make
illegal copies of games and music. Without them, whether
they're hardcore pirates or just someone who is doing a
friend a "favor" by making a copy of something, there would
be no need for protection of any kind.
kaos
the music industry should feel people don't have the right to make backups
of the music they purchased. It's nice to make a copy of the original, and
use the copy instead so if it ever scratches or gets damaged you won't have
to spend another $18 to replace it. Maybe if the rocket scientists who run
the music industry would lower their prices, people wouldn't go through the
hassle of copying them. When movies first came out on tapes, they cost
approx. $80 and few people would bother to buy them, they'd try to get a
copy instead. Now that they're priced under $15, people would rather just
buy it rather then go through the hassle of getting a copy.
I think it all comes down to the greedy cokeheads that run the music
industry, they're trying to squeeze the public to support their habit. I'm
glad their sales are down, I hope they go down even further and go bankrupt.
Maybe then we'll actually have people making music for the sake of making
good music, instead of trying to make a quick buck.
"Usenet Nitwit" <usenet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e8z9.56432$sP2.18460@sccrnsc02...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Ever heard of insurance? What do you do if someone steals anythng of
yours.
> Do you simply go steal another one and rationalize that it's okay?
>
> "Idial" <"sco...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3dccbb00$0$17...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
tedb6 pack
news:3DCD6A...@yumyumyumyum.com:
I do believe that even if no piracy existed of any kind, the record
companies would still find preventing backups to be desirable. Whether or
not it would've come to this I don't know, but their desire for complete
control of the materials they distribute is obvious.
But more fundamentally, it may be OK to blame the pirates, but my empathy
for the record companies is very small here. It is *not* justifiable in my
view to penalize consumers because some percentage of them may be doing
something wrong -- all you're doing is driving more people against you, and
it's idiotic. You're eliminating uses of the technology that are legitimate
and legal, and regardless of if the guy next door to me is stealing, it
comes down in my mind to ugly greed.
It may be their right, as it is their music to sell (though perhaps not to
mislabel, but that's another issue), but they get no sympathy from me.
As a sidenote, I don't want to dismiss the issue of whether or not music-
as-information can be "stolen", which I still consider an open question
that hasn't been settled satisfactorally either way. I don't do it, and
it's not really relevant here, but it's an issue I think we as a society
need to take another, more serious, look at.
--
-tedb6 pack
Danny Hay
artists who send cd-r's of their music to get a record deal? What about the
people who d/l porn of kazaa and put it to cd, what about the gaming
pirating "industry" what about backups of the cds and people backing their
harddrive up. What about minidiscs? They obviously just see the cd-r sales
as a "point" about how bad piracy is whereas they have no idea and that is
what really scares them, that they do not know the extent of damage the
piracy industry has. All technology can be hacked, it just takes time and
when people realise that, we will decide on a system of equality throughout
the world, which will be cool.
"kaos" <ka...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:aqjrbn$g8u$1...@news.chatlink.com...
Erica
> The reason cd sales are down, is simply because the music thats been
> produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple.
TOO BLOODY RIGHT IT IS!!!!!!
>All blank cd's
> are not purchased to pirate music. They must think really highly of
> themselves if they think this is the case. I haven't bought cd's in the
past
> 3years and I probably won't in the future, whether its copyright
proctected
> or not, because I think it all sounds like shit.
Could not have said that better and I agree 1000 %!
Music today is not what it use to be like years ago! Years ago the actual
artists had talent and talent was not decided on how someone looked but more
on their actual ability to compose and sing a song. With this day and age of
computers anything is possible thats why half of the garbage you see being
sold in shops today is there! These so called artists have no talent and
hence why they are here one minute and gone the next!
Erica
"Usenet Nitwit" <usenet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e8z9.56432$sP2.18460@sccrnsc02...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Ever heard of insurance? What do you do if someone steals anythng of
yours.
> Do you simply go steal another one and rationalize that it's okay?
Insurance is ok. But more than likey an excess is involved and the excess is
probably more than what the CD's are worth! But I personally do not see
anything wrong with making a backup of a CD that you have purchased. This is
a much better and cheaper insurance option I think.
> "Idial" <"sco...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3dccbb00$0$17...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> So I guess the next logical step is asking customers to pay for music
>> they can't hear?
>
>Actually, the next step is likely to come in a form of planned
>obsolescence, sort of like the DIVX format tried where the disc
>could be used for a few times and then wouldn't play anymore.
>There has been research on plastics for CD's which change color
>when contacted by a laser from a player, eventually rendering
>them opaque and unreadable. This would then require replacement,
>increasing sales and therefore profits. It wouldn't work very
>well if people could just make more permanent copies, however.
Yeah, I'm sure that will happen. After all, Circuit City made alot of
money with DIVX...
>Record companies used to rely on repeat business in the past.
>If they sold you an 8-track tape, you'd be back because it'd die.
>The needle of a phonograph would eventually tear a vinyl LP up.
>Cassette tapes can only be dragged across the heads so many times.
>
>So, an album wasn't a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. Now it is
>for the most part, and record companies don't seem to like that.
>Can you blame them? Of course you can, and apparently you do.
I don't think that is accurate at all. "Repeat" buying of word out media
in the past has got to be a very very low number. Nothing to "rely" on at
all.
>When record companies 'signed on' to the CD format, the piracy
>threat was that the CD could be copied to a tape. The tape
>is second-generation, not perfect, and copying the tape to
>another tape would result in horrible fidelity. So, piracy
>wasn't any bigger of a threat than any other copying back then.
>Now it is. With the advent of MP3's and "file-sharing", CD's
>have compounded the problem of being the most permanent with
>also being the easiest to pirate.
But the "fidelity" of a 128kbps bitrate MP3 made by Joe Blow using the
wrong settings on his encoder and spread via P2P to be played over cheesy
PC speakers is about the same as a tape dupe of a tape dupe of a CD. It's
not the original.
>Record companies have already made one attempt to abandon the
>CD format entirely, pushing DAT (Digital Audio Tape) as their
>new alternative, and in doing so they lobbied for (and got)
>the AHRA, or Audio Home Recording Act.
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
>This law allows (or rather, decriminalizes) making copies
>of personal music from your own collection for your own use.
>The tit-for-tat was the SCMS (Serial Copy Management System)
>which was to be incorporated into all digital recording devices
>(notably DAT) to prevent copies from being made of copies.
>The SCMS was never incorporated into PC's and their CD-R's
>because PC's are not digital audio recording devices under
>the AHRA. However, that's how they wound up being used, and
>the recording industry was stung twice by consumers in the
>near-total rejection of DAT and the use of PC's as recording
>devices in violation of the AHRA.
DAT was not an attempt to abondon the CD format. And it may have actually
caught on beyond a niche product at the time if not for the delays and
restrictions due to copyright whining. Funny how the industry was so
caught up with that yet was totally blindslided by CD-R burners becoming
mass market items. Woops.
I think the point is if you sell something at VALUE, people will flock to
it. Piracy will also be around. But if you provide a value, most people
will be happy to pay for it.
In days gone by, a new CD was $10-$11 (MAYBE $12 max) at retail, versus
$7-$9 for a tape. The extra money for the CD was worth it, considering
the added value of the CD format over tape. Over the years that has gone
UP to $14-17 for CDs. Tapes died. That is insane. CDs are "relatively"
crappy 20+ year old technology. Funny, usually the price on tech goes
down as time goes by. In contrast, you can get 1 (or 2!) DVD movies for
$18 that are new releases. These contain a film and a slew of extras.
If you have money to burn, it's a no brainer. And trying to compare that
to, say, movies...does not work. Yes, tickets are a ripoff now at $9
versus $5 years ago. But I do get unobstructed stadium seating, giant
screens, and amazing surround sound. Compared to 10 years ago. That is a
form of VALUE. Compared to CD pricing.
I buy very little music lately. I'm now an old man and enjoy AM talk
radio. And have 20 years of purchased CDs to listen to. And have
Internet radio at home and work. I'm of the opinion that most current
music stinks. The first album I've bought in at least two years tho is
the new Foo Fighters album. Why? Because I was given a reason to.
VALUE. For $11 I got the CD and a bonus DVD with music videos, tracks in
5.1 audio, and some extras. *That* is value. A CD alone for $16 is *not*
value.
--
0--------------------------------------------------------------------0
| http://www.unrealtournament2003.com | Have You Played Atari Today? |
0--------------------------------------------------------------------0
Charles Doane
Erica wrote:
> "kaos" <ka...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
> news:aqi4pp$n12$1...@news.chatlink.com...
>
>>The reason cd sales are down, is simply because the music thats been
>>produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple.
> TOO BLOODY RIGHT IT IS!!!!!!
No, it's not. If it were garbage nobody would bother to steal it.
Do you pirates have two brain cells networking in that pea brain?
> Music today is not what it use to be like years ago! Years ago the actual
> artists had talent and talent was not decided on how someone looked but more
> on their actual ability to compose and sing a song. With this day and age of
> computers anything is possible thats why half of the garbage you see being
> sold in shops today is there! These so called artists have no talent and
> hence why they are here one minute and gone the next!
Hoo-boy. Composers and singers were often not one and the same.
For example, "Woman in Love" performed by Barbra Streisand was
actually written by Barry Gibb and Robin Gibb (not a woman at all,
well, kinda not). You stupid pirates don't realize that most
intellectual property made today is a group effort. Do you honestly
believe that Johann Strauss could have played "The Blue Danube" by
himself? No? Then he'd have needed some performers, huh?
The days of the one-man band are gone. It takes more than that now.
Videogames and movies are the same way. Credits commonly list over
twenty people, even a hundred or more, and that's just the tip of the
iceberg. Music quality has skyrocketed in the last 10 years to the
point that not only movies, but videogame soundtracks are sold now.
You're just bashing it as garbage for an excuse to steal, but that
begs the question: Why would you steal garbage?
Charles Doane
Sean Connery wrote:
> In article <3DCD3AB1...@mindspring.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Yeah, I'm sure that will happen. After all, Circuit City made alot of
> money with DIVX...
DIVX died because people aren't used to tossing CD's in the trash.
That's actually the marketing gimmick which AOL used to some success.
The way to make people want to throw CD's in the trash is to make
them obsolete somehow. Making them unreadable would probably do the
trick, I'd think. So, the technology to impose an artificial "wear"
on future CD's would have a definite appeal to the industry.
>>Record companies used to rely on repeat business in the past.
>>If they sold you an 8-track tape, you'd be back because it'd die.
>>The needle of a phonograph would eventually tear a vinyl LP up.
>>Cassette tapes can only be dragged across the heads so many times.
>>
>>So, an album wasn't a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. Now it is
>>for the most part, and record companies don't seem to like that.
>>Can you blame them? Of course you can, and apparently you do.
> I don't think that is accurate at all. "Repeat" buying of word out media
> in the past has got to be a very very low number. Nothing to "rely" on at
> all.
The highest selling album ever is "Eagles Greatest Hits". It
was released on vinyl. The second highest selling album is
Michael Jackson's "Thriller", also released on vinyl. Don't
you find it interesting that no CD-only release has set such
sales records? Surely there are better albums than these,
but the sales do tell a tale. The story told is a sad one.
Digital formats are stolen so often that a sales record set
by an album released 20 years ago stands undefeated.
Yay pirates, eh?
>>When record companies 'signed on' to the CD format, the piracy
>>threat was that the CD could be copied to a tape. The tape
>>is second-generation, not perfect, and copying the tape to
>>another tape would result in horrible fidelity. So, piracy
>>wasn't any bigger of a threat than any other copying back then.
>>Now it is. With the advent of MP3's and "file-sharing", CD's
>>have compounded the problem of being the most permanent with
>>also being the easiest to pirate.
> But the "fidelity" of a 128kbps bitrate MP3 made by Joe Blow using the
> wrong settings on his encoder and spread via P2P to be played over cheesy
> PC speakers is about the same as a tape dupe of a tape dupe of a CD. It's
> not the original.
Oh, come on. Not even I have "cheesy PC speakers". I'm running
a set of wall-mounted KLH speakers with an old Realistic bookshelf
amp. My PC's amp can source 50 watts per channel, and I'm not even
trying. It sounds gorgeous (I'm listening to "Rain Drops" by Chopin
at the moment) so you can't really claim that cheesy speakers are
all over the place on computers anymore. Do YOU use stock speakers?
I got a set when I bought this PC. They're still in the box. I have
no use for the freakin' pieces of crap.
People looking for downloads ain't looking for the original. Heck,
people looking for QUALITY ain't looking for MP3's. See any MP3's
in stores? Many CD players can handle 'em. My Apex could. Any
of my PC's could. So why ain't they being sold? I'll tell you
why not. Cuz they suck, that's why not, and turds don't sell well.
<snip>
> I think the point is if you sell something at VALUE, people will flock to
> it. Piracy will also be around. But if you provide a value, most people
> will be happy to pay for it.
People are never happy to pay for anything. I don't know which
planet you hail from, but it can't be Earth. People go for cheap
any chance they get. Winona Ryder could have bought the STORE she
shoplifted from but she wanted to be cheap and she saw a chance.
> In days gone by, a new CD was $10-$11 (MAYBE $12 max) at retail, versus
> $7-$9 for a tape. The extra money for the CD was worth it, considering
> the added value of the CD format over tape. Over the years that has gone
> UP to $14-17 for CDs. Tapes died. That is insane. CDs are "relatively"
> crappy 20+ year old technology. Funny, usually the price on tech goes
> down as time goes by. In contrast, you can get 1 (or 2!) DVD movies for
> $18 that are new releases. These contain a film and a slew of extras.
> If you have money to burn, it's a no brainer. And trying to compare that
> to, say, movies...does not work. Yes, tickets are a ripoff now at $9
> versus $5 years ago. But I do get unobstructed stadium seating, giant
> screens, and amazing surround sound. Compared to 10 years ago. That is a
> form of VALUE. Compared to CD pricing.
Hello? Earth to Alien Mothership? What about inflation? You're not
paying for tech, okay? Blank CDr's are what, 50 cents now? Tech is
down as far as tech is gonna go. I'm getting CD's in junk mail.
You're paying for work, intellectual property, not tech at all. Let's
boil your numbers, see what we come up with.
CD in 1982= $10 (I seem to remember them being more, but hey, your game).
Inflation = 60% (average of 3% per year, amortizing makes it WORSE).
CD in 2002= $14 (Should be $16 actually, all other things equal).
Now, are you gonna argue the numbers? Are you gonna say that the
people making money from making these albums are living in 1982 and
your 2002 dollars are worth the same as they were 20 years ago?
Would you take a job making what you did 20 years ago? No?
> I buy very little music lately. I'm now an old man and enjoy AM talk
> radio. And have 20 years of purchased CDs to listen to. And have
> Internet radio at home and work. I'm of the opinion that most current
> music stinks. The first album I've bought in at least two years tho is
> the new Foo Fighters album. Why? Because I was given a reason to.
> VALUE. For $11 I got the CD and a bonus DVD with music videos, tracks in
> 5.1 audio, and some extras. *That* is value. A CD alone for $16 is *not*
> value.
If most current music stinks (a matter of opinion, not of debate)
then why would you have "internet radio at home and work"? I'm not
disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just questioning why you'd have
some "20 years of purchased CDs to listen to" and then use a PC to
get other music which "stinks". I can click on Realplayer and pull
up a hundred plus 'radio' stations too, but I typically just listen
to one of my CD's instead. Maybe it's because I don't like "stinks"
kind of music. Well, that and I like classical music and country,
which are both horribly under-represented. I assume you could play
CD's on your machines. I've not seen a PC made this side of 1997
which couldn't.
Michael Cargill
> Do you pirates have two brain cells networking in that pea brain?
Do you have any proof that he is downloading the music? No, you are simply
jumping to conclusions again.
> You're just bashing it as garbage for an excuse to steal, but that
> begs the question: Why would you steal garbage?
It IS garbage, and you are once again blindly accusing someone of stealing.
--
Lovingly Created by Michael Cargill
-------------------------------------
'Don't Be a Poof - Eat White Bread!'
'You're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat' - Sheriff Brody, Jaws
Charles Doane
Michael Cargill wrote:
>>No, it's not. If it were garbage nobody would bother to steal it.
>>Do you pirates have two brain cells networking in that pea brain?
> Do you have any proof that he is downloading the music? No, you are simply
> jumping to conclusions again.
I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
>>You're just bashing it as garbage for an excuse to steal, but that
>>begs the question: Why would you steal garbage?
> It IS garbage, and you are once again blindly accusing someone of stealing.
That is your opinion, your opinion is garbage, and I don't blindly
accuse PC users of anything because there's nothing I can make up
that they haven't actually done.
Rassleholic
> he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
You own a computer. Pedophiles own computers. Therefore, you are a
pedophile.
kwarlord2004
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3DCFB68F...@mindspring.com...
>
> Erica wrote:
> > "kaos" <ka...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
> > news:aqi4pp$n12$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> >
> >>The reason cd sales are down, is simply because the music thats been
> >>produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple.
>
> > TOO BLOODY RIGHT IT IS!!!!!!
>
> No, it's not. If it were garbage nobody would bother to steal it.
> Do you pirates have two brain cells networking in that pea brain?
>
people don't steal garbage???...ever heard of "dumpster diving"?
>
> > Music today is not what it use to be like years ago! Years ago the
actual
> > artists had talent and talent was not decided on how someone looked but
more
> > on their actual ability to compose and sing a song. With this day and
age of
> > computers anything is possible thats why half of the garbage you see
being
> > sold in shops today is there! These so called artists have no talent and
> > hence why they are here one minute and gone the next!
>
> Hoo-boy. Composers and singers were often not one and the same.
> For example, "Woman in Love" performed by Barbra Streisand was
> actually written by Barry Gibb and Robin Gibb (not a woman at all,
> well, kinda not). You stupid pirates don't realize that most
> intellectual property made today is a group effort. Do you honestly
> believe that Johann Strauss could have played "The Blue Danube" by
> himself? No? Then he'd have needed some performers, huh?
>
that isn't necessarily true of singers. You know, they can do it all with
just a singer and a fancy computer these days.
> The days of the one-man band are gone.
hardly...
It takes more than that now.
> Videogames and movies are the same way. Credits commonly list over
> twenty people, even a hundred or more, and that's just the tip of the
> iceberg. Music quality has skyrocketed in the last 10 years to the
> point that not only movies, but videogame soundtracks are sold now.
>
> You're just bashing it as garbage for an excuse to steal, but that
> begs the question: Why would you steal garbage?
>
ask the hackers why they steal garbage...
--
"What if everything you see is more than what you see--the person next to
you is a warrior and the space that appears empty is a secret door to
another world? What if something appears that shouldn't? You either dismiss
it or accept that there is much more to the world than you think" - Shigeru
Miyamoto
Homer: "...now to you this may seem like an ordinary table, but to a great
inventor like me I see all kinds of things...but no table"
Marge: "that's not a table! thats my dryer."
Homer: "AHH! my files!"
MY Website(s):
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/index.html
The Dex Drive webpage!
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/DexDrive.html
ICQ# 106579441 (Spammers will be automatically ignored)
ZoqFotPik
> The upshot of this boils down to a simple question:
> Who controls the music? Consumers say they do, and BMG et al.
> say they do. Both of them can't be right, can they? Maybe.
BMG controls the intellectual property, and consumers control the
media they purchase. Both parties have certain rights. This copy
protection infringes on the rights of the consumers.
kaos
Thanks for replying on my behalf. I didn't see what this person replied
because whoever it was didn't reply to all the original newsgroups, so I
will refer to him/her as The Idiot.
You are right with the statement where The Idiot is assuming everyone is
stealing, I did not mention anywhere in my post that I download pirated
music, because I don't and never have!!! The Idiot and the music industry
are barking up the wrong tree, they just don't get it. We don't want garbage
music! Their sales are proof of that. If they continue to focus on the
assumption that everyone is downloading, they'll just end up copyrighting
themselves into bankruptcy.
"Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aqoieg$bqk1t$1...@ID-108275.news.dfncis.de...
Alexander Mendes
wrote:
> The reason cd sales are down, is simply because the music thats been
> produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple. All blank cd's
Well, it's not just that. Fact is, CD prices have increased absurdly
fast over the past few years, while bottom prices in other home
entertainment industries have started declining. The industry has
oriented itself towards finding the next mega-hit at the expense of most
smaller markets, at the same time that radio stations are sticking to
strict playlists. Even worse, the market that they're chasing after are
the ones with the most technical skill, and the least income-teens and
college students. And to top it all off, the industry is driving away
many of their would-be supporters and customers with messages such as
the one below.
As far as I can tell, there's no solution in sight. Copy-protected
discs that may or may not work in any particular CD player will send
people fleeing in droves. The formats that have copy protection built
in are years away from mass acceptance. The only people willing to give
exposure to smaller artists are the internet radio stations that the
music industry is currently fighting against. And the industry simply
refuses even consider that they may be doing any damage to their cause
or business.
> are not purchased to pirate music. They must think really highly of
> themselves if they think this is the case. I haven't bought cd's in the past
> 3years and I probably won't in the future, whether its copyright proctected
> or not, because I think it all sounds like shit.
I wouldn't necessarily agree there, but I rarely purchase CDs these day
either. I'm not at all sure that quality has gone down, though - I see
plenty of CDs that I've never heard a song off of whenever I go to the
stores. I'm not going to buy an unknown, though, so I just spend my
money elsewhere.
> "Jordan Lund" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:92dbefbe.02110...@posting.google.com...
<snip for brevity>
<more snippage>
kaos
If the music today is so great, why isn't anyone buying it?? You've either
priced it out of the ballpark, or you're not selling something people want.
Smell the coffee, Charles.
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3DCFB68F...@mindspring.com...
kaos
>
> Sean Connery wrote:
> > In article <3DCD3AB1...@mindspring.com>,
> > Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> paying for tech, okay? Blank CDr's are what, 50 cents now? Tech is
> down as far as tech is gonna go. I'm getting CD's in junk mail.
> You're paying for work, intellectual property, not tech at all. Let's
> boil your numbers, see what we come up with.
>
> CD in 1982= $10 (I seem to remember them being more, but hey, your game).
> Inflation = 60% (average of 3% per year, amortizing makes it WORSE).
> CD in 2002= $14 (Should be $16 actually, all other things equal).
>
> Now, are you gonna argue the numbers? Are you gonna say that the
> people making money from making these albums are living in 1982 and
> your 2002 dollars are worth the same as they were 20 years ago?
> Would you take a job making what you did 20 years ago? No?
>
You never answered why we can pick up movies and DVD's for $15, when 20 yrs
ago, movies cost $80. You obviously have some kind of hard-on for the music
industry.
Charles Doane
kaos wrote:
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3DCFC368...@mindspring.com...
>
>>Sean Connery wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3DCD3AB1...@mindspring.com>,
>>>Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> You never answered why we can pick up movies and DVD's for $15, when 20 yrs
> ago, movies cost $80. You obviously have some kind of hard-on for the music
> industry.
I didn't know the question was asked. The answer is easy enough
though. Movies have a primary market other than home releases,
they're called theaters. The music industry has no equivalent
primary market. Here's a source so you don't think I'm making
this up.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/blockbusters020520.html
Spiderman (the movie, a game was made from it) grossed about
$115 MILLION in it's opening weekend. It's the current record
holder for a box office weekend in the USA. That ain't chump
change, and that's where movies make the bulk of their cash.
They *can* be cheaper in home releases because to that industry,
the home release is a secondary market.
The reason that movies were $80 was because the movie industry
did not understand the new market model which would maximize
their profits. Now they do.
This will not and cannot apply to the music CD market (or the
home videogame market, for that matter) because there's no real
equivalent to movie theaters taking in $100+ Million in three
days. The home market is the primary market, and the money made
is *all* of the money which will and can be made. So it's a
touch more expensive.
See? Simple explanation.
Charles Doane
It does? Which rights would those be? I'd like the Constitutional
Amendment(s) involved. I think you overstate what rights are.
Charles Doane
kaos wrote:
> If the music today is so great, why isn't anyone buying it??
False premise. The music *is* being bought. Or are you
suggesting that Britney Spears is living in a homeless
shelter and eating cat food?
> You've either priced it out of the ballpark, or you're not
> selling something people want.
Or the people who want it have the means to steal it and
will do so without compunction.
> Smell the coffee, Charles.
I don't drink coffee. It just makes me thirsty. I like
iced tea with a lot of lemon instead. It's more bitter,
has more caffeine and I can slam down a 44-ounce glass
inside of 30 seconds. You ain't doing that with coffee.
Erica
>
> Erica wrote:
> > "kaos" <ka...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
> > news:aqi4pp$n12$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> >
> >>The reason cd sales are down, is simply because the music thats been
> >>produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple.
>
> > TOO BLOODY RIGHT IT IS!!!!!!
>
> No, it's not. If it were garbage nobody would bother to steal it.
> Do you pirates have two brain cells networking in that pea brain?
Now why would anyone in thier right mind pay for the crap that gets released
today? If you go out and buy the majority of the garbage that is on the
market today then you are a few kangaroos short in the top paddock! The
point is that people who download this crap are basically saying its not
worth paying good money for. Besides money these days is better spent on
faster computers and cable connections to the internet!
> Hoo-boy. Composers and singers were often not one and the same.
> For example, "Woman in Love" performed by Barbra Streisand was
> actually written by Barry Gibb and Robin Gibb (not a woman at all,
> well, kinda not).
MORE GARBAGE!
> You stupid pirates don't realize that most
> intellectual property made today is a group effort. Do you honestly
> believe that Johann Strauss could have played "The Blue Danube" by
> himself? No? Then he'd have needed some performers, huh?
Who the hell is Johann Strauss anyway?
> The days of the one-man band are gone. It takes more than that now.
> Videogames and movies are the same way. Credits commonly list over
> twenty people, even a hundred or more, and that's just the tip of the
> iceberg. Music quality has skyrocketed in the last 10 years to the
> point that not only movies, but videogame soundtracks are sold now.
What quality music are you talking about that has been released in the last
10 years? I will admit the quality of the acutal sound coming from a CD is
better. But in now way will agree that there has been quality music released
bar from a few bands in the last 10 years!
> You're just bashing it as garbage for an excuse to steal, but that
> begs the question: Why would you steal garbage?
Who said I stole music? I do not steal music nor do I download it from the
internet and whats more I have no interest in downloading the garbage music
that is available today!
Erica
"Rassleholic" <rassl...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MUQz9.335847$121.9...@twister.austin.rr.com...
LOL :).. The funniest thing I have read all month! Good One!!!
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I'm sure that will happen. After all, Circuit City made alot of
>> money with DIVX...
>
>DIVX died because people aren't used to tossing CD's in the trash.
>That's actually the marketing gimmick which AOL used to some success.
>The way to make people want to throw CD's in the trash is to make
>them obsolete somehow. Making them unreadable would probably do the
>trick, I'd think. So, the technology to impose an artificial "wear"
>on future CD's would have a definite appeal to the industry.
Wrong. You talk again like you know what you're talking about.
DIVX died because people didn't want their movie viewing spyed on. Nor
did they want to keep paying the "Disney Tax" to watch a movie and pay for
it each and every time. Nor did they want DIVX versions of films that
were inferior to the "open" DVD release of the same title.
>>>Record companies used to rely on repeat business in the past.
>>>If they sold you an 8-track tape, you'd be back because it'd die.
>>>The needle of a phonograph would eventually tear a vinyl LP up.
>>>Cassette tapes can only be dragged across the heads so many times.
>>>
>>>So, an album wasn't a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. Now it is
>>>for the most part, and record companies don't seem to like that.
>>>Can you blame them? Of course you can, and apparently you do.
>
>> I don't think that is accurate at all. "Repeat" buying of word out media
>> in the past has got to be a very very low number. Nothing to "rely" on at
>> all.
>
>The highest selling album ever is "Eagles Greatest Hits". It
>was released on vinyl. The second highest selling album is
>Michael Jackson's "Thriller", also released on vinyl. Don't
>you find it interesting that no CD-only release has set such
>sales records? Surely there are better albums than these,
>but the sales do tell a tale. The story told is a sad one.
>Digital formats are stolen so often that a sales record set
>by an album released 20 years ago stands undefeated.
>Yay pirates, eh?
Interesting. But unless you can prove otherwise, the multi-platinum
status of those two albums includes ALL FORMATS of the albums released.
LP, 8-track, tape, CD, whatever. The numbers are culm over the years and
over various media formats. Real nice try tho.
>>>When record companies 'signed on' to the CD format, the piracy
>>>threat was that the CD could be copied to a tape. The tape
>>>is second-generation, not perfect, and copying the tape to
>>>another tape would result in horrible fidelity. So, piracy
>>>wasn't any bigger of a threat than any other copying back then.
>>>Now it is. With the advent of MP3's and "file-sharing", CD's
>>>have compounded the problem of being the most permanent with
>>>also being the easiest to pirate.
>
>> But the "fidelity" of a 128kbps bitrate MP3 made by Joe Blow using the
>> wrong settings on his encoder and spread via P2P to be played over cheesy
>> PC speakers is about the same as a tape dupe of a tape dupe of a CD. It's
>> not the original.
>
>Oh, come on. Not even I have "cheesy PC speakers". I'm running
>a set of wall-mounted KLH speakers with an old Realistic bookshelf
>amp. My PC's amp can source 50 watts per channel, and I'm not even
>trying. It sounds gorgeous (I'm listening to "Rain Drops" by Chopin
>at the moment) so you can't really claim that cheesy speakers are
>all over the place on computers anymore. Do YOU use stock speakers?
>I got a set when I bought this PC. They're still in the box. I have
>no use for the freakin' pieces of crap.
Of course I don't. I still get by with my 1st generation Yamaha YST-M10
2.1 setup that was over $150 or something silly like that 6-7 years ago.
All kinds of 2.1 speakers are out or come OEM with systems, doesn't mean
that they're any good. I'd love to go 4.1 or 5.1, but only if its
wireless. I've got enough wires tacked up around here. I'm hoping for
something keen like 5.1 Bluetooth speakers or something...
>> I think the point is if you sell something at VALUE, people will flock to
>> it. Piracy will also be around. But if you provide a value, most people
>> will be happy to pay for it.
>
>People are never happy to pay for anything. I don't know which
>planet you hail from, but it can't be Earth. People go for cheap
>any chance they get. Winona Ryder could have bought the STORE she
>shoplifted from but she wanted to be cheap and she saw a chance.
You're not happy to pay for stuff, it's a given that you waste your
dollars. Me? I'm happy. I'll be real happy tomorrow when I pick up AOTC
and jack the last 20 minutes at 11.
>> In days gone by, a new CD was $10-$11 (MAYBE $12 max) at retail, versus
>> $7-$9 for a tape. The extra money for the CD was worth it, considering
>> the added value of the CD format over tape. Over the years that has gone
>> UP to $14-17 for CDs. Tapes died. That is insane. CDs are "relatively"
>> crappy 20+ year old technology. Funny, usually the price on tech goes
>> down as time goes by. In contrast, you can get 1 (or 2!) DVD movies for
>> $18 that are new releases. These contain a film and a slew of extras.
>> If you have money to burn, it's a no brainer. And trying to compare that
>> to, say, movies...does not work. Yes, tickets are a ripoff now at $9
>> versus $5 years ago. But I do get unobstructed stadium seating, giant
>> screens, and amazing surround sound. Compared to 10 years ago. That is a
>> form of VALUE. Compared to CD pricing.
>
>Hello? Earth to Alien Mothership? What about inflation? You're not
>paying for tech, okay? Blank CDr's are what, 50 cents now? Tech is
>down as far as tech is gonna go. I'm getting CD's in junk mail.
>You're paying for work, intellectual property, not tech at all. Let's
>boil your numbers, see what we come up with.
LOL. The price of CDs has far outpaced inflation. I think the fact that
the industry keeps getting in trouble for price fixing kind of speaks for
itself.
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/01/0158203.shtml?tid=98
>CD in 1982= $10 (I seem to remember them being more, but hey, your game).
>Inflation = 60% (average of 3% per year, amortizing makes it WORSE).
>CD in 2002= $14 (Should be $16 actually, all other things equal).
>
>Now, are you gonna argue the numbers? Are you gonna say that the
>people making money from making these albums are living in 1982 and
>your 2002 dollars are worth the same as they were 20 years ago?
>Would you take a job making what you did 20 years ago? No?
See price fixing above.
>> I buy very little music lately. I'm now an old man and enjoy AM talk
>> radio. And have 20 years of purchased CDs to listen to. And have
>> Internet radio at home and work. I'm of the opinion that most current
>> music stinks. The first album I've bought in at least two years tho is
>> the new Foo Fighters album. Why? Because I was given a reason to.
>> VALUE. For $11 I got the CD and a bonus DVD with music videos, tracks in
>> 5.1 audio, and some extras. *That* is value. A CD alone for $16 is *not*
>> value.
>
>If most current music stinks (a matter of opinion, not of debate)
>then why would you have "internet radio at home and work"? I'm not
>disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just questioning why you'd have
>some "20 years of purchased CDs to listen to" and then use a PC to
>get other music which "stinks". I can click on Realplayer and pull
>up a hundred plus 'radio' stations too, but I typically just listen
>to one of my CD's instead. Maybe it's because I don't like "stinks"
>kind of music. Well, that and I like classical music and country,
>which are both horribly under-represented. I assume you could play
>CD's on your machines. I've not seen a PC made this side of 1997
>which couldn't.
Who said I was listening to the Boy Band Channel? My Internet radio
listening is alot of 80s music, talk, classical. If you're using the Real
codec for Internet radio, then yes, that kinda stinks, try something like
Shoutcast. There are plenty of classical stations you can stream from
around the world. Classical is one of the more popular genres actually.
You must be looking in the wrong places. My fav local classical station
WGMS streams (wgms.com). I often stream stations at work I would normally
listen to on AM/FM, but as a radio wizard you know how broadcast signals
get jammed up in large office buildings, right?
Beyond that, I have digitzed very little of my collection, mostly jsut
tunes to run to. One day I'll Oog Vorbis all of my CDs and setup a proper
media server machine for my LAN. Then I'll be able to access my
collection from upstairs or across town.
Sure I can play CDs on my machine. I do have 4 optical drives on the
machine and am about to add a 5th (DVD-R). I listen to CDs from time to
time, but usually it's a hassle, the collection is upstairs.
getting kevin j
> Michael Cargill wrote:
> > Do you have any proof that he is downloading the music? No, you are simply
> > jumping to conclusions again.
>
> I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
> he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
I don't need proof. Doane owns a comptuer, Doane listens to music, so
Doane has to be a music thief. Doane is evil.
Don't you just love Doane logic?
Michael Cargill
Right, so really the music industry cant complain if no one is buying what
they sell.
OCT
> I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
> he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
this rather sums up the sad mentallity of the record industry. they
reckon that of 250 million CD-R sold wolrdwide, 250 million of them
are used for pirating their music. in reality, a very small
percentage are used in this way - my small company goes through a
about 100 CD-R a month sending data to clients and for archiving users
data.
The fact is, most music chart music is rubbish, and so thats why sales
are falling. its interesting to note that in the UK, single sales are
falling, while album sales are rising. which are people more likely
to bother pirating, the crap singles they hear all the time on the
radio, or the albums? ergo, if the albums are selling and the single
not, piracy is not to blame.
The industry blames its "losses" (ie not actaully loseing any money,
just not making as much as previous years) on pirates, rather than
face up to the poor quality of their products.
there's alot of talk alot about rights, but the music industry seems
to believe it has a right to sell us music, no matter weather we want
it or not!
Charles Doane
Erica wrote:
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3DCFB68F...@mindspring.com...
>
>>Erica wrote:
>>
>>>"kaos" <ka...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
>>>news:aqi4pp$n12$1...@news.chatlink.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The reason cd sales are down, is simply because the music thats been
>>>>produced in the past 7 years is all garbage. Its that simple.
>>>
>>>TOO BLOODY RIGHT IT IS!!!!!!
>>
>>No, it's not. If it were garbage nobody would bother to steal it.
>>Do you pirates have two brain cells networking in that pea brain?
>
>
> Now why would anyone in thier right mind pay for the crap that gets released
> today? If you go out and buy the majority of the garbage that is on the
> market today then you are a few kangaroos short in the top paddock! The
> point is that people who download this crap are basically saying its not
> worth paying good money for. Besides money these days is better spent on
> faster computers and cable connections to the internet!
The people who download this "crap" are looking for an excuse to steal.
By calling it "crap" they pretend like it's worthless and so they excuse
their thievery. Of course, they didn't know that it was worthless before
they stole it, so they're still guilty of the crime any way you slice it.
How money is spent is irrelevant. It's a luxury item. Anybody on the
internet can freakin' afford a $16 CD. Ain't nobody here checking the
couch cushions for pennies.
>>Hoo-boy. Composers and singers were often not one and the same.
>>For example, "Woman in Love" performed by Barbra Streisand was
>>actually written by Barry Gibb and Robin Gibb (not a woman at all,
>>well, kinda not).
> MORE GARBAGE!
What an astonishingly vacant riposte! I name a song, you call it
garbage! What's wrong with it? You don't like the F-Sharp key?
You don't like 4/4 time? No, I think you're just naysaying.
I think it's brilliant, but hey, I can read sheet music. Can you?
>>You stupid pirates don't realize that most
>>intellectual property made today is a group effort. Do you honestly
>>believe that Johann Strauss could have played "The Blue Danube" by
>>himself? No? Then he'd have needed some performers, huh?
> Who the hell is Johann Strauss anyway?
Oh, that's good. He's probably the second-best composer the world
has ever known and only surpassed by Mozart (whom you probably have
never heard of either).
>>The days of the one-man band are gone. It takes more than that now.
>>Videogames and movies are the same way. Credits commonly list over
>>twenty people, even a hundred or more, and that's just the tip of the
>>iceberg. Music quality has skyrocketed in the last 10 years to the
>>point that not only movies, but videogame soundtracks are sold now.
> What quality music are you talking about that has been released in the last
> 10 years? I will admit the quality of the acutal sound coming from a CD is
> better. But in now way will agree that there has been quality music released
> bar from a few bands in the last 10 years!
I don't know why I bother. You'll call it garbage. That's your
response and I know it in advance. Okay, I'll name one. "Stay Home"
by SELF (Shrek soundtrack, rolls during end credits of the movie).
Track #1 of the soundtrack. Go ahead, call it crap.
>>You're just bashing it as garbage for an excuse to steal, but that
>>begs the question: Why would you steal garbage?
> Who said I stole music? I do not steal music nor do I download it from the
> internet and whats more I have no interest in downloading the garbage music
> that is available today!
You don't know that it's garbage then. A lot of it is good, even inspiring.
Charles Doane
OCT wrote:
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3DCFD603...@mindspring.com>...
>
>
>>I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
>>he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
>
>
> this rather sums up the sad mentallity of the record industry. they
> reckon that of 250 million CD-R sold wolrdwide, 250 million of them
> are used for pirating their music. in reality, a very small
> percentage are used in this way - my small company goes through a
> about 100 CD-R a month sending data to clients and for archiving users
> data.
That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
simple death penalty for mailing one.
> The fact is, most music chart music is rubbish, and so thats why sales
> are falling. its interesting to note that in the UK, single sales are
> falling, while album sales are rising. which are people more likely
> to bother pirating, the crap singles they hear all the time on the
> radio, or the albums? ergo, if the albums are selling and the single
> not, piracy is not to blame.
Yeah, you're a genius. It cost the SAME to press an album and display
it on a store shelf as a single does. When you burn a CD-r, does it
cost you less when you put less data on it? No? So the costs are the
same for one song as it is for ten? And people aren't jumping on the
one-song deal? I guess there are a lot of smart people then. Maybe
there is some hope for humanity after all.
> The industry blames its "losses" (ie not actaully loseing any money,
> just not making as much as previous years) on pirates, rather than
> face up to the poor quality of their products.
Quality is better than it's ever been. The tools artists have are the
most powerful ones on the planet. You're saying "don't blame me, I'm
only stealing useless crap" and that argument doesn't fly.
> there's alot of talk alot about rights, but the music industry seems
> to believe it has a right to sell us music, no matter weather we want
> it or not!
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. If you don't want
it, then don't buy it, don't steal it, don't copy it, and don't look
for it. Simple. Really.
kaos
>
>
> kaos wrote:
> > If the music today is so great, why isn't anyone buying it??
>
> False premise. The music *is* being bought.
If it's being bought, why is the music industry whining about poor sales and
blaming it all on pirating?
Or are you
> suggesting that Britney Spears is living in a homeless
> shelter and eating cat food?
>
No she's not, because the music industry has done a wonderful job at
promoting her garbage. Maybe if they focused on promoting bands with talent,
sales would increase and they could stop blaming all their woes on pirating.
I think the people in the music industry wouldn't know talent if it hit them
in the face, I see this every time I flip past MTV. No wonder talk radio is
getting to be so popular, who can bear to listen to the crap that's being
promoted musically(besides 14 yr old girls).
John Dow
> That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
> a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
> by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
> simple death penalty for mailing one.
What, you mean if my company builds a web site for another company and then
mails them a CD-R containing all the source for the site, they should be
prosecuted?
What colour is the sky in your world, Doane?
> When you burn a CD-r, does it
> cost you less when you put less data on it? No?
Yes - it takes less time to burn less data and time, as they say, is money.
Also, the CD-R drive needs to run for less time and therefore consume less
electricity.
This would also have a knock on effect on the air conditioning in the room.
J
John Dow
news:Pine.A41.4.44.021111...@accsp2.wuacc.edu...
> I don't need proof. Doane owns a comptuer, Doane listens to music, so
> Doane has to be a music thief. Doane is evil.
>
> Don't you just love Doane logic?
Oh Shit! "Doane" has a D in it! My surname has a "D" in it!
I must be Doane!
Nooooooooo!
Quick! Someone! Shoot me!
J
Hank, the slack-jawed fanboy
"Charles Doane" wrote
> I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
> he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
I own a computer. I listen to music. I play games on my PC. I have never
pirated a game. I have never downloaded any music. You are wrong and an
asshole with the logic of a troll.
--
Let those voices be your guide.
ZoqFotPik
> It does? Which rights would those be?
The right to unfettered personal/private use of media you have
purchased.
> I'd like the Constitutional Amendment(s) involved.
Why? It is not as if the Constitution guarantees corporations like
BMG any rights either.
ZoqFotPik
> I didn't know the question was asked. The answer is easy enough
> though. Movies have a primary market other than home releases,
> they're called theaters. The music industry has no equivalent
> primary market. Here's a source so you don't think I'm making
> this up.
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/blockbusters020520.html
>
> Spiderman (the movie, a game was made from it) grossed about
> $115 MILLION in it's opening weekend. It's the current record
> holder for a box office weekend in the USA. That ain't chump
> change, and that's where movies make the bulk of their cash.
> They *can* be cheaper in home releases because to that industry,
> the home release is a secondary market.
>
> The reason that movies were $80 was because the movie industry
> did not understand the new market model which would maximize
> their profits. Now they do.
>
> This will not and cannot apply to the music CD market (or the
> home videogame market, for that matter) because there's no real
> equivalent to movie theaters taking in $100+ Million in three
> days. The home market is the primary market, and the money made
> is *all* of the money which will and can be made. So it's a
> touch more expensive.
>
> See? Simple explanation.
Not an adequate explanation, however. You ignore the fact that movies
cost far more to make, and must bring in far more to make a profit.
You ignore the fact that a movie that bombed at the box office will be
the same price on DVD as one that set records. Furthermore, consumers
do not care how much money the industry makes. From their
perspective, it is absurd that a soundtrack on CD should cost as much
as the entire movie on DVD with a bunch of extras.
ZoqFotPik
> People are never happy to pay for anything. I don't know which
> planet you hail from, but it can't be Earth. People go for cheap
> any chance they get.
You do not "go for cheap", you spend money needlessly and accuse
anyone who does differently of being a thief. So what planet are you
from?
Mark Davidson
> > Do you have any proof that he is downloading the music? No, you are simply
> > jumping to conclusions again.
>
> I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
> he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
Remember when I asked if you act like a dipshit on purpose so as to
generate responses to your posts?
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
>>>he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
>>
>> this rather sums up the sad mentallity of the record industry. they
>> reckon that of 250 million CD-R sold wolrdwide, 250 million of them
>> are used for pirating their music. in reality, a very small
>> percentage are used in this way - my small company goes through a
>> about 100 CD-R a month sending data to clients and for archiving users
>> data.
>
>That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
>a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
>by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
>simple death penalty for mailing one.
Pardon? What law would that be? The law of conducting business? I also
send out CD-Rs all the time to clients, vendors, and publications. If
you're going to start making outlandish statements, at least make them
interesting, sheez.
Sean Connery
Mark Davidson <marv...@ironminds.comSPAM> wrote:
Of course he does. And the dipshit posts are increasing. I think poor
Charles is becoming lonelier the older he gets.
tssk
> my big problem with the "solution" of protecting all audio media is that
> what happens if i legally purchase the cd and its stolen. I had 16 cds
> stolen out of my car earlier this year, i've started replacing them by
> either downloading the songs or copying from friends cds, but what happens
> if protection stops me from doing this. I by a cd, some jack-off rips me off
> and i'm the one who pays for it. DOesn't seem fair to me.
Its not fair but take for example the case of computer games.
If you made a back up and your original was destroyed (for example by
house fire) you can use the backup instead.
If however someone breaks into your house and nicks the original, you
can't use the back up. In fact you have to destroy the back up. The
theif now legally owns the right to use that game (until you or the
police retreive the original, if you can!)
tssk
Charles Doane
ZoqFotPik wrote:
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3DD058E...@mindspring.com>...
>
>
>>It does? Which rights would those be?
>
>
> The right to unfettered personal/private use of media you have
> purchased.
That's not a right. If it's not in the Constitution as a right
then it is not a right.
>>I'd like the Constitutional Amendment(s) involved.
>
>
> Why? It is not as if the Constitution guarantees corporations like
> BMG any rights either.
Yes, it does. Copyright holders are granted exclusive rights under
Article I Section 8. Way to lose, bozo.
OCT
> OCT wrote:
> > Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3DCFD603...@mindspring.com>...
> >
> >
> >>I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
> >>he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
> >
> >
> > this rather sums up the sad mentallity of the record industry. they
> > reckon that of 250 million CD-R sold wolrdwide, 250 million of them
> > are used for pirating their music. in reality, a very small
> > percentage are used in this way - my small company goes through a
> > about 100 CD-R a month sending data to clients and for archiving users
> > data.
>
> That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
> a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
> by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
> simple death penalty for mailing one.
Are you really so far up your arse that you dont realise that people
other than the music industry/movie studios/games publishers have
there own intellectual property/copyright material? Its OUR data were
mailing to clients.
> > The fact is, most music chart music is rubbish, and so thats why sales
> > are falling. its interesting to note that in the UK, single sales are
> > falling, while album sales are rising. which are people more likely
> > to bother pirating, the crap singles they hear all the time on the
> > radio, or the albums? ergo, if the albums are selling and the single
> > not, piracy is not to blame.
>
> Yeah, you're a genius. It cost the SAME to press an album and display
> it on a store shelf as a single does. When you burn a CD-r, does it
> cost you less when you put less data on it? No? So the costs are the
> same for one song as it is for ten? And people aren't jumping on the
> one-song deal? I guess there are a lot of smart people then. Maybe
> there is some hope for humanity after all.
>
>
> > The industry blames its "losses" (ie not actaully loseing any money,
> > just not making as much as previous years) on pirates, rather than
> > face up to the poor quality of their products.
>
> Quality is better than it's ever been. The tools artists have are the
> most powerful ones on the planet. You're saying "don't blame me, I'm
> only stealing useless crap" and that argument doesn't fly.
Have you actually heard most of the crap in the charts? heard of
Popstar/Popidol? A bunch a poor covers that wouldn't get into a
studio if someone wasn't making money from the TV shows. The quality
of the recording and the tools used have nothing to do with it, its
the quality of the material thats poor.
> > there's alot of talk alot about rights, but the music industry seems
> > to believe it has a right to sell us music, no matter weather we want
> > it or not!
>
> That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. If you don't want
> it, then don't buy it, don't steal it, don't copy it, and don't look
> for it. Simple. Really.
Missed the point a by a mile there. The record industry seems to think
that sales/profits are dropping due to piracy, when in reality its
just a reaction to the rubbish been put out. They act as if the
public should be buying whatever pop trash they churn out, and think
if we're not buying it we must be copying it. Truth is, i dont want
it, dont buy it, and dont waste my time and a CD-R copying it because
i dont want to listen to it!
So rather than face up to this, the industry want to bastardise the
format so i cant play the music ive paid for on my PC or in my car.
Meanwhile they are trying to change legislation to alter the rights
assigned to the consumer to make up for the failings of their
industry.
Charles Doane
kaos wrote:
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3DD05B5E...@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>kaos wrote:
>>
>>>If the music today is so great, why isn't anyone buying it??
>>
>>False premise. The music *is* being bought.
>
>
> If it's being bought, why is the music industry whining about poor sales and
> blaming it all on pirating?
Poor sales do not mean things aren't being bought, it means
that sales are down and they are. The music industry is
saying that piracy is a factor and it is. I'm not buying
into the argument that music sucks all of a sudden. I grew
up with the Partridge Family, Josie and the Pussycats and
the Monkees being promoted as talent 20-30 years ago, so
don't tell me that crummy plastic-banana commercialized bands
are a new thing.
>> Or are you
>>suggesting that Britney Spears is living in a homeless
>>shelter and eating cat food?
> No she's not, because the music industry has done a wonderful job at
> promoting her garbage. Maybe if they focused on promoting bands with talent,
> sales would increase and they could stop blaming all their woes on pirating.
> I think the people in the music industry wouldn't know talent if it hit them
> in the face, I see this every time I flip past MTV. No wonder talk radio is
> getting to be so popular, who can bear to listen to the crap that's being
> promoted musically(besides 14 yr old girls).
If they're promoting their artists, well guess what? They're
doing their job! That's what they are SUPPOSED to be doing.
You're asking to "promote bands with talent". By whose
judgement are you going to determine what talent is?
Mine? Yours? Your local school crossing guard's? You
can't make judgement calls on talent like that. One thing
I'll say about Britney Spears is that she's a fantastically
talented dancer. I don't think that's even arguable. Maybe
her singing isn't that good (I don't think it is) but music
has been moving into multimedia since the 1960's and in an
multimedia age it takes more than a band. It takes promotion.
Promotion is an investment, let's be clear about that. It's
done to make money. Venture capital isn't spent out of the
goodness of an investor's heart. Making money is the name of
the game, so bands which can make money are considered the
most talented in real life.
BTW, modern music doesn't suck. I don't even especially like
rock music (classical is more my style) and I'd say that the
soundtrack to Splashdown (Infogrames/Atari) is one of the most
outstanding game soundtracks of any game this year. It fits
the game like a glove and puts a finesse on the whole package.
Even if you do think the "industry" sucks, suckage is not any
excuse for stealing. You can't just rob somebody and justify
it by saying "he sucks".
Charles Doane
John Dow wrote:
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3DD106DA...@mindspring.com...
>
>>That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
>>a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
>>by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
>>simple death penalty for mailing one.
>
>
> What, you mean if my company builds a web site for another company and then
> mails them a CD-R containing all the source for the site, they should be
> prosecuted?
Actually, yeah. What the heck is your company doing making web sites
that won't fit on a 1.44M floppy? That's WAY too many frames, buddy.
> What colour is the sky in your world, Doane?
My world has a sky? I can't say that I've ever noticed one.
>>When you burn a CD-r, does it
>>cost you less when you put less data on it? No?
> Yes - it takes less time to burn less data and time, as they say, is money.
It's not your time, it's the computer's time. I'm become aware that
I'm burning at least 1 billion unused clock cycles per second because
this is way too much computer to be piddling around on USENET with and
not playing video games on. Like I care.
> Also, the CD-R drive needs to run for less time and therefore consume less
> electricity.
High speed makes for less reliability. This machine can burn a CD at
40X according to it's specs. I'm sure that it can, but I'm not gonna
let it because the whole POINT of burning a CD is that another machine
might have to read the results. If I'm gonna burn a CD, it's for backup
and it's going to be at the slowest setting for the maximum reliability.
> This would also have a knock on effect on the air conditioning in the room.
Yeah, I'm sure a PC makes a whole lot of BTU's when it's burning a CD.
Maybe I'll put it in my fireplace as an artificial log <sarcasm>.
Charles Doane
I resent the implication that I'm acting.
AxL
In article <3DD197F2...@mindspring.com>,
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>ZoqFotPik wrote:
>>
>> The right to unfettered personal/private use of media you have
>> purchased.
>
>That's not a right. If it's not in the Constitution as a right
>then it is not a right.
Not really, but we'll get to that below.
>> Why? It is not as if the Constitution guarantees corporations like
>> BMG any rights either.
>
>Yes, it does. Copyright holders are granted exclusive rights under
>Article I Section 8. Way to lose, bozo.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries"
This is really the only "right" explicitly spelled out in the
Costitution, but they have been abusing the "limited Times" aspect of
it. The absurd Sonny Bono Act is a prime example of Congressional
intent to impose quasi permanence when Article I, Section 8 clearly
intended for copyrights to eventually expire.
--
-AxL, a...@wpcr.plymouth.edu "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion
a...@mail.plymouth.edu Come into contact with reality at any point."
http://mindwarp.plymouth.edu/~axl - Nietzsche
Charles Doane
OCT wrote:
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3DD106DA...@mindspring.com>...
>
>>OCT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
>>>>he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
>>>
>>>
>>>this rather sums up the sad mentallity of the record industry. they
>>>reckon that of 250 million CD-R sold wolrdwide, 250 million of them
>>>are used for pirating their music. in reality, a very small
>>>percentage are used in this way - my small company goes through a
>>>about 100 CD-R a month sending data to clients and for archiving users
>>>data.
>>>>>Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3DCFD603...@mindspring.com>...
>>That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
>>a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
>>by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
>>simple death penalty for mailing one.
>
>
> Are you really so far up your arse that you dont realise that people
> other than the music industry/movie studios/games publishers have
> there own intellectual property/copyright material? Its OUR data were
> mailing to clients.
That's a crock. My Internet connection sucks at 378 Kbps upload and I
could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
day delivery at best? A business should have a DS-3 or better, if
they're actually serious. You're MAILING data? Even Jurassic Park
moved data faster than you're suggesting.
<snip>
>>Quality is better than it's ever been. The tools artists have are the
>>most powerful ones on the planet. You're saying "don't blame me, I'm
>>only stealing useless crap" and that argument doesn't fly.
>
>
> Have you actually heard most of the crap in the charts?
Yeah, I probably have. I spend a lot of time on the road, and
I spend a lot of time listening to the radio.
> heard of Popstar/Popidol?
Back when the Monkee's big hit was "Last Train to Clarksville".
> A bunch a poor covers that wouldn't get into a
> studio if someone wasn't making money from the TV shows.
So? Making money is kinda the POINT! What did you think the
investors and stockholders in the music business want to make?
Music? No! They want to make MONEY. That's what investors do.
They're kinda funny that way.
> The quality
> of the recording and the tools used have nothing to do with it, its
> the quality of the material thats poor.
Thank you for your opinion. However, your opinion is not any
excuse for pirating or stealing in any way.
>>>there's alot of talk alot about rights, but the music industry seems
>>>to believe it has a right to sell us music, no matter weather we want
>>>it or not!
>>
>>That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. If you don't want
>>it, then don't buy it, don't steal it, don't copy it, and don't look
>>for it. Simple. Really.
>
>
> Missed the point a by a mile there. The record industry seems to think
> that sales/profits are dropping due to piracy, when in reality its
> just a reaction to the rubbish been put out. They act as if the
> public should be buying whatever pop trash they churn out, and think
> if we're not buying it we must be copying it. Truth is, i dont want
> it, dont buy it, and dont waste my time and a CD-R copying it because
> i dont want to listen to it!
Oh really? Then what's your problem? You don't like their product,
you don't sample their product, and you don't steal their product.
So what motivates you to post a message saying "but the music industry
seems to believe it has a right to sell us music"? You know that's not
true. It's a luxury item. You don't have to spend a dime on it.
> So rather than face up to this, the industry want to bastardise the
> format so i cant play the music ive paid for on my PC or in my car.
You didn't pay them to play the music on your PC or your car. You've
paid for media. What next, are you gonna claim that buying an 8-track
for a nickel at a garage sale entitles you to play the album any way
and anywhere you want to?
> Meanwhile they are trying to change legislation to alter the rights
> assigned to the consumer to make up for the failings of their
> industry.
Rights are assigned to the industry. The consumer has no appreciable
rights to speak of, and that's perfectly fair because the consumer did
not contribute jack to the work.
Steve Grauman
could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
day delivery at best? >>
Having the information on CD-R is nicer because it offers a hard back-up. I can
e-mail just about anything I want faster than I can send it through UPS, Fedex,
or the USPS, but what happens if the clients e-mail server goes down? What
happens if their network goes down completely? Or someone accidentally deletes
the file I sent? If I send you the data on CD-R, you can copy the information
onto your computer and then store the CD in a safe place, now you've got a
backup of the info that isn't going anywhere.
<< So? Making money is kinda the POINT! What did you think the
investors and stockholders in the music business want to make?
Music? No! They want to make MONEY. That's what investors do.
They're kinda funny that way. >>
Hey, they're entitled to their cut. And I'll stop "stealing" the music when the
investors decide to take a small cut in profit margins and lower the cost of
CDs to something more reasonable. I'm not gonna go out and pay $20 or more for
a CD that has 2 or 3 songs on it I actually like. Sell it to me for $10, and
I'll keep coming back for the new stuff. With current pricing, the only time
I'll ever pay for a CD is when I know it's got at least 6 tracks on it I want,
and there are very few of those around.
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>John Dow wrote:
>> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3DD106DA...@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
>>>a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
>>>by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
>>>simple death penalty for mailing one.
>>
>> What, you mean if my company builds a web site for another company and then
>> mails them a CD-R containing all the source for the site, they should be
>> prosecuted?
>
>Actually, yeah. What the heck is your company doing making web sites
>that won't fit on a 1.44M floppy? That's WAY too many frames, buddy.
First you waste your money on wasted CPU clockspeed. Now you waste your
bandwidth. I can give you my PayPal account if you'd care to throw any
more money away.
I think your favorite website www.halturnershow.com is comprised of more
than one floppy. Hippocrite.
>> What colour is the sky in your world, Doane?
>
>My world has a sky? I can't say that I've ever noticed one.
Doane's world has a yellow sky. It's called Velveeta.
>>>When you burn a CD-r, does it
>>>cost you less when you put less data on it? No?
>
>> Yes - it takes less time to burn less data and time, as they say, is money.
>
>It's not your time, it's the computer's time. I'm become aware that
>I'm burning at least 1 billion unused clock cycles per second because
>this is way too much computer to be piddling around on USENET with and
>not playing video games on. Like I care.
I'm become aware? Yes you am did done waste them CPU cycles.
>> Also, the CD-R drive needs to run for less time and therefore consume less
>> electricity.
>
>High speed makes for less reliability. This machine can burn a CD at
>40X according to it's specs. I'm sure that it can, but I'm not gonna
>let it because the whole POINT of burning a CD is that another machine
>might have to read the results. If I'm gonna burn a CD, it's for backup
>and it's going to be at the slowest setting for the maximum reliability.
If it's for backup then it's for as fast as *your* machine can read it
back in. That has nothing to do with other peoples drives. Get it
straight.
>> This would also have a knock on effect on the air conditioning in the room.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure a PC makes a whole lot of BTU's when it's burning a CD.
>Maybe I'll put it in my fireplace as an artificial log <sarcasm>.
I'd hate for you to have to move your blocks of cheese from the fireplace,
but so be it.
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
>>>a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
>>>by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
>>>simple death penalty for mailing one.
>>
>> Are you really so far up your arse that you dont realise that people
>> other than the music industry/movie studios/games publishers have
>> there own intellectual property/copyright material? Its OUR data were
>> mailing to clients.
>
>That's a crock. My Internet connection sucks at 378 Kbps upload and I
>could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
>30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
>CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
>day delivery at best? A business should have a DS-3 or better, if
>they're actually serious. You're MAILING data? Even Jurassic Park
>moved data faster than you're suggesting.
In the real world here now Doane. Real business is conducted by sending
material via CD-R all the time. I do it all the time via FedEx for the
most part. You submit material the way people request it. People request
it via CD-R, not your half ass ADSL connection. Beyond that. The
recipient also requires paperwork (contracts, insertion orders) and color
proofs, in the case of publication material.
So, shuddap, and go back to fixing radios and leaky toilets.
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>Do you have any proof that he is downloading the music? No, you are simply
>>>>jumping to conclusions again.
>>>
>>>I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
>>>he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
>>
>> Remember when I asked if you act like a dipshit on purpose so as to
>> generate responses to your posts?
>
>I resent the implication that I'm acting.
I resent the implication that you're not eating.
Charles Doane
Sean Connery wrote:
> In article <3DD1C1F0...@mindspring.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
>>>>a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
>>>>by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
>>>>simple death penalty for mailing one.
>>>
>>>Are you really so far up your arse that you dont realise that people
>>>other than the music industry/movie studios/games publishers have
>>>there own intellectual property/copyright material? Its OUR data were
>>>mailing to clients.
>>
>>That's a crock. My Internet connection sucks at 378 Kbps upload and I
>>could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
>>30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
>>CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
>>day delivery at best? A business should have a DS-3 or better, if
>>they're actually serious. You're MAILING data? Even Jurassic Park
>>moved data faster than you're suggesting.
>
>
> In the real world here now Doane.
Yeah, okay, the real world. I'm used to a 3DS3 SONET. That 700KB CD-R
would last about 5.4 milliseconds at the data transfer rates real biz plays
with. I think I might be playing with better toys than you are. Oh yeah,
that's right, I don't know anything about computers. I'm not supposed to
know what a 3DS3 is, much less SONET, and certainly not what a 32QPAM
modulation scheme on a digital microwave is. I guess you're the super
expert here.
> Real business is conducted by sending material via CD-R all the time.
No, it's not. That's penny-ante crap. Any idiot sending material via
CD-R in lieu of a second's worth of bandwidth is a bad businessman on
the fast track to being a bankrupt businessman.
> I do it all the time via FedEx for the
> most part. You submit material the way people request it.
Oh, okay. That explains proprietary console games <sarcasm>.
> People request
> it via CD-R, not your half ass ADSL connection. Beyond that. The
> recipient also requires paperwork (contracts, insertion orders) and color
> proofs, in the case of publication material.
I've already said that ADSL sucks. I want 100 MBPS connection speed.
Not that I'd do anything with it, I just want to be able to say I have
it. As for docs, even my crummy piece of junk can pull off a 600 dpi
30-bit color scan and make an Acrobat PDF file out of it, and I never
even tried to get a machine which could do that. I need to do more
obsessive conspicuous consumption. I need to buy more stuff I don't
need and won't use. It makes me feel like a rich man.
> So, shuddap, and go back to fixing radios and leaky toilets.
My radios don't break.
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>That's PIRATING! You have no business mailing a CD-r. Anyone who mails
>>>>>a CD-r should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hanged
>>>>>by the neck until dead. Piracy could be stopped if there were just a
>>>>>simple death penalty for mailing one.
>>>>
>>>>Are you really so far up your arse that you dont realise that people
>>>>other than the music industry/movie studios/games publishers have
>>>>there own intellectual property/copyright material? Its OUR data were
>>>>mailing to clients.
>>>
>>>That's a crock. My Internet connection sucks at 378 Kbps upload and I
>>>could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
>>>30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
>>>CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
>>>day delivery at best? A business should have a DS-3 or better, if
>>>they're actually serious. You're MAILING data? Even Jurassic Park
>>>moved data faster than you're suggesting.
>>
>> In the real world here now Doane.
>
>Yeah, okay, the real world. I'm used to a 3DS3 SONET. That 700KB CD-R
>would last about 5.4 milliseconds at the data transfer rates real biz plays
>with. I think I might be playing with better toys than you are. Oh yeah,
>that's right, I don't know anything about computers. I'm not supposed to
>know what a 3DS3 is, much less SONET, and certainly not what a 32QPAM
>modulation scheme on a digital microwave is. I guess you're the super
>expert here.
It's not always about the bandwidth, ace. You conveniently snipped my
paragraph re paperwork. Gee, so shocked. Which is what really counts.
So until you add submitting digital files to vendors to your resume, you
can stop being an expert on something you know squat about.
Besides, this is all a feeble tangent attempt by you to extend the
thread. Get a life.
> > Real business is conducted by sending material via CD-R all the time.
>
>No, it's not. That's penny-ante crap. Any idiot sending material via
>CD-R in lieu of a second's worth of bandwidth is a bad businessman on
>the fast track to being a bankrupt businessman.
Since your experience with this is akin to PC gaming, I'll be the first
to LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. Fool.
> > I do it all the time via FedEx for the
>> most part. You submit material the way people request it.
>
>Oh, okay. That explains proprietary console games <sarcasm>.
That makes no sense.
> > People request
>> it via CD-R, not your half ass ADSL connection. Beyond that. The
>> recipient also requires paperwork (contracts, insertion orders) and color
>> proofs, in the case of publication material.
>
>I've already said that ADSL sucks. I want 100 MBPS connection speed.
>Not that I'd do anything with it, I just want to be able to say I have
>it. As for docs, even my crummy piece of junk can pull off a 600 dpi
>30-bit color scan and make an Acrobat PDF file out of it, and I never
>even tried to get a machine which could do that. I need to do more
>obsessive conspicuous consumption. I need to buy more stuff I don't
>need and won't use. It makes me feel like a rich man.
Gee, I guess we'll just call all the major newspaper and mags of the
country and have them conform to your superior specs. LOL. Silly goober.
>> So, shuddap, and go back to fixing radios and leaky toilets.
>
>My radios don't break.
But your toilets do? If you had a healthy diet instead of flushing shit
thru your system and toilets, perhaps you'd have less breaky toilets. Go
enjoy your midnite Velveeta and Pringles cake...
Michael Cargill
> could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
> 30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
> CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
> day delivery at best? A business should have a DS-3 or better, if
> they're actually serious. You're MAILING data? Even Jurassic Park
> moved data faster than you're suggesting.
You would put it on a CDR so that the client at the other end can simply
whack it in a PC and read it. Sure, you could email it - but then if they
want it on CDR they have to burn it, and not all that many offices have a CD
burner. Most of the people in an office wouldnt know how to use one either.
Not to mention the fact that if it was emailed, and someone else wanted to
access it, it would have to be emailed AGAIN - bit of a waste of bandwidth,
and it would be sitting in everyones Inbox and Outbox, and so taking up a
shedload of space on their Exchange Server (a 95% probability).
And it also seems you have touched upon a reason why the music industry is
going down the pan - why go out and buy the CD, if you can download it?
Perhaps the industry should 'get with the times'.
> Yeah, I probably have. I spend a lot of time on the road, and
> I spend a lot of time listening to the radio.
And that crap is why I no longer listen to commercial radio, or listen to
chart music - its terrible.
> So? Making money is kinda the POINT! What did you think the
> investors and stockholders in the music business want to make?
> Music? No! They want to make MONEY. That's what investors do.
> They're kinda funny that way.
But if they want to make money, then they have to make some music that
people want - if they cant do that, then they cant complain when no one buys
the stuff.
> Thank you for your opinion. However, your opinion is not any
> excuse for pirating or stealing in any way.
This isnt an answer at all, merely you labelling someone a pirate because
they dont like the mainstream guff that the record companies put out.
> Oh really? Then what's your problem? You don't like their product,
> you don't sample their product, and you don't steal their product.
> So what motivates you to post a message saying "but the music industry
> seems to believe it has a right to sell us music"? You know that's not
> true. It's a luxury item. You don't have to spend a dime on it.
If he isnt buying the product, then he clearly isnt sampling it you moron.
Thats why the record industry isnt making any money.
> You didn't pay them to play the music on your PC or your car. You've
> paid for media. What next, are you gonna claim that buying an 8-track
> for a nickel at a garage sale entitles you to play the album any way
> and anywhere you want to?
Woah! He paid for a CD that has the 'Compact Disc' logo on it. He bought
it from a shop that sells Compact Discs, it was in the section where all the
other Compact Discs are sold, and what he bought has 'Compact Disc' written
on it. His car CD player has 'Compact Disc' written on it. He clearly has
every right to expect that CD to play in his car.
> Rights are assigned to the industry. The consumer has no appreciable
> rights to speak of, and that's perfectly fair because the consumer did
> not contribute jack to the work.
The consumer creates the demand. Without the demand, there would be no
industry.
What you suggest is like saying that people have no right to demonstrate or
campaign against the government, because they did nothing to contribute in
the first place.
--
Lovingly Created by Michael Cargill
-------------------------------------
'Don't Be a Poof - Eat White Bread!'
'You're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat' - Sheriff Brody, Jaws
OCT
>
> That's a crock. My Internet connection sucks at 378 Kbps upload and I
> could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
> 30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
> CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
> day delivery at best? A business should have a DS-3 or better, if
> they're actually serious. You're MAILING data? Even Jurassic Park
> moved data faster than you're suggesting.
yes, its sad that with todays internet speed, people prefer to have a
CD. But much sadder is the fact that you cant grasp the fact that
this is just the way it is, and deal with it.
<snip>
> Thank you for your opinion. However, your opinion is not any
> excuse for pirating or stealing in any way.
er, where exactly have i advocated piracy? oh, i haven't! i am
(apparently vainly) try to make the point that the poor quality of
music is leading to reduced sales, not piracy.
> Oh really? Then what's your problem? You don't like their product,
> you don't sample their product, and you don't steal their product.
> So what motivates you to post a message saying "but the music industry
> seems to believe it has a right to sell us music"? You know that's not
> true. It's a luxury item. You don't have to spend a dime on it.
it highlights the attitude of the industry, which buries its executive
head in the sand. The actions and rhetoric of the companies and their
representive bodies, is that of a group that considers itself being
attacked. While facing the decline in their markets and falling
profit margins, they attempt to change legislation rather than adapt
their business model. That the is the action of a monopoly, a group
that *believes* it has a right to sell its wares.
> You didn't pay them to play the music on your PC or your car. You've
> paid for media. What next, are you gonna claim that buying an 8-track
> for a nickel at a garage sale entitles you to play the album any way
> and anywhere you want to?
oh please stop that boring rubbish. I have bought a copy of an
artist's music on a particluar media. I own the media, and also own
the right to play/listen to that music privately. I do not own the
right to copy it (with exceptions blah blah). Im perfectly happy with
this arrangement. However if i buy something that has the "Compact
Disc" logo on it, i expect that it should play in any compatible
device that meets the "Compact Disc" stanards. In fact its unclear
wheather Phillips (who owns the logo and standard) is going to allow
this nonsence to continue - ironically BMG and EMI are actually
breaking their licence to use the logo by taking these actions!
> Rights are assigned to the industry. The consumer has no appreciable
> rights to speak of, and that's perfectly fair because the consumer did
> not contribute jack to the work.
Herein lies the foundation of your misconceptions and misguided
defence of the music industry. The rights are assigned to the
*artists* not to the industry. But thats what they, too, like to
think, using cartels and monolopist practices to force artists to hand
over their copyright (and freedom) in order to share their art.
Charles Doane
Sean Connery wrote:
> In article <3DD1E10A...@mindspring.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>In the real world here now Doane.
>>
>>Yeah, okay, the real world. I'm used to a 3DS3 SONET. That 700KB CD-R
>>would last about 5.4 milliseconds at the data transfer rates real biz plays
>>with. I think I might be playing with better toys than you are. Oh yeah,
>>that's right, I don't know anything about computers. I'm not supposed to
>>know what a 3DS3 is, much less SONET, and certainly not what a 32QPAM
>>modulation scheme on a digital microwave is. I guess you're the super
>>expert here.
<snip>
> It's not always about the bandwidth, ace. You conveniently snipped my
> paragraph re paperwork. Gee, so shocked. Which is what really counts.
> So until you add submitting digital files to vendors to your resume, you
> can stop being an expert on something you know squat about.
>
> Besides, this is all a feeble tangent attempt by you to extend the
> thread. Get a life.
Oh, PAPERWORK! Yeah, computers sure eliminated THAT! <sarcasm>.
Hey, what's this cable? Oh, it's a PRINTER cable! What's this big
box that says CANON on it? Oh, that's a PRINTER! What's it all full
of? Oh, that's PAPER! Practically every program I run has a "PRINT"
command and PC's have killed more trees than even the busiest beaver
ever dreamed of.
>>>> Real business is conducted by sending material via CD-R all the time.
>>
>>No, it's not. That's penny-ante crap. Any idiot sending material via
>>CD-R in lieu of a second's worth of bandwidth is a bad businessman on
>>the fast track to being a bankrupt businessman.
> Since your experience with this is akin to PC gaming, I'll be the first
> to LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. Fool.
What, sending data? You think that's tough? I troubleshoot radios via
data transfers from 100 miles away all the time. It's how I know what
parts to take to fix the broken ones. Actually, it's how I know they're
broken too, for that matter. I work with computers all the time, way
more than an idiot like you does, and I'm good at it. I also hate it,
which is why I do it for money but not for fun. You're laughing in my
face? You've probably never even seen a digital multiplexing shelf in
real life, and you damned sure haven't ever seen equipment running a
Bidirectional Switched Path Ring. I see that junk all the time, and
I'm much more tech savvy than you'll ever be.
>>> I do it all the time via FedEx for the
>>>most part. You submit material the way people request it.
>>
>>Oh, okay. That explains proprietary console games <sarcasm>.
>
>
> That makes no sense.
Oh, did the reference hurt Bond's head? Proprietary consoles mandate
the manner in which data is presented. The Dreamcast uses the GD-Rom.
Nothing but a Dreamcast can read one. The Gamecube uses a proprietary
Matsushita MO disk. Nothing but a GCN can read one. The data is
submitted in a proprietary console format.
>>>People request
>>>it via CD-R, not your half ass ADSL connection. Beyond that. The
>>>recipient also requires paperwork (contracts, insertion orders) and color
>>>proofs, in the case of publication material.
>>
>>I've already said that ADSL sucks. I want 100 MBPS connection speed.
>>Not that I'd do anything with it, I just want to be able to say I have
>>it. As for docs, even my crummy piece of junk can pull off a 600 dpi
>>30-bit color scan and make an Acrobat PDF file out of it, and I never
>>even tried to get a machine which could do that. I need to do more
>>obsessive conspicuous consumption. I need to buy more stuff I don't
>>need and won't use. It makes me feel like a rich man.
> Gee, I guess we'll just call all the major newspaper and mags of the
> country and have them conform to your superior specs. LOL. Silly goober.
Those would be newspapers and mags I read on my Palmtop. One press of
the Hotsync button in my Visor Prism's cradle and I'll have 6 newspapers
shot off of the 'net and loaded into my cobalt blue little toy to be
read (or not) at my leisure. Oh yeah, that's right. I can't get a PC
to work like that because I'm stupid. I guess I'll have to find an
expert to set up my palmtop to do that.
<snip>
Charles Doane
OCT wrote:
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3DD1C1F0...@mindspring.com>...
>
>>That's a crock. My Internet connection sucks at 378 Kbps upload and I
>>could still send a full CD's worth of data to a "client" (700 MB) in
>>30 minutes. Why in the heck would I use the post office and mail a
>>CD-r? I can send the data pizza-delivery speed and you're talking next
>>day delivery at best? A business should have a DS-3 or better, if
>>they're actually serious. You're MAILING data? Even Jurassic Park
>>moved data faster than you're suggesting.
> yes, its sad that with todays internet speed, people prefer to have a
> CD. But much sadder is the fact that you cant grasp the fact that
> this is just the way it is, and deal with it.
What's the transfer rate on a mailed CD? 700KB in 3 days? That's what,
259,200 seconds and 5,600,000 bits of data? That's a 21.62 BPS transfer
rate. Jeeze, a 300 BPS modem would clean it's clock if you could still
find somebody selling something that slow.
>>Thank you for your opinion. However, your opinion is not any
>>excuse for pirating or stealing in any way.
> er, where exactly have i advocated piracy? oh, i haven't! i am
> (apparently vainly) try to make the point that the poor quality of
> music is leading to reduced sales, not piracy.
The quality is just fine, it's never been better. Apparently you
didn't live through the disco years like I did.
>>Oh really? Then what's your problem? You don't like their product,
>>you don't sample their product, and you don't steal their product.
>>So what motivates you to post a message saying "but the music industry
>>seems to believe it has a right to sell us music"? You know that's not
>>true. It's a luxury item. You don't have to spend a dime on it.
> it highlights the attitude of the industry, which buries its executive
> head in the sand. The actions and rhetoric of the companies and their
> representive bodies, is that of a group that considers itself being
> attacked. While facing the decline in their markets and falling
> profit margins, they attempt to change legislation rather than adapt
> their business model. That the is the action of a monopoly, a group
> that *believes* it has a right to sell its wares.
Gee, a producer believes that it has the right to sell it's product?
What a shocker. With computers doing so much of the work, more great
music is being made every day now than used to be made in a year just
a century ago.
You're basing your argument on an opinion. You say that music sucks
now. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Don't expect me
to share it, and don't use it as fact. I hear music in videogames
like PSO which is nothing short of amazing and it's not even supposed
to be anything more than atmosphere chamber music. The soundtrack to
CastleVania IV is beyond awesome, and again, it's not even the main
feature of the game. I'm not going to agree with your opinion that
it sucks. You're just naysaying. Name a song that sucks by name and
artist. I don't think you can. Say what the flaws are. Tell me how
you could improve it. I'm not going to accept "it's crap" as a review.
Sorry, mindless gnomes don't live here. If you're gonna criticise
something in your opinion and not follow it up with *why*, you have a
serious credibility problem and you're bordering on trolling.
>>You didn't pay them to play the music on your PC or your car. You've
>>paid for media. What next, are you gonna claim that buying an 8-track
>>for a nickel at a garage sale entitles you to play the album any way
>>and anywhere you want to?
> oh please stop that boring rubbish. I have bought a copy of an
> artist's music on a particluar media. I own the media, and also own
> the right to play/listen to that music privately. I do not own the
> right to copy it (with exceptions blah blah). Im perfectly happy with
> this arrangement. However if i buy something that has the "Compact
> Disc" logo on it, i expect that it should play in any compatible
> device that meets the "Compact Disc" stanards. In fact its unclear
> wheather Phillips (who owns the logo and standard) is going to allow
> this nonsence to continue - ironically BMG and EMI are actually
> breaking their licence to use the logo by taking these actions!
No, BMG and EMI are protecting their interests by copy protecting the
product. Don't blame them, blame the guilty pirates. I do. It's too
easy to blame a faceless corporation because there's no actual people
there in many people's eyes. I blame the pirates. The corporations
exist to make money. The pirates exist for stealing and greed. So,
I hold the corporations harmless and I'll piss on a pirate's grave.
>>Rights are assigned to the industry. The consumer has no appreciable
>>rights to speak of, and that's perfectly fair because the consumer did
>>not contribute jack to the work.
>
>
> Herein lies the foundation of your misconceptions and misguided
> defence of the music industry. The rights are assigned to the
> *artists* not to the industry. But thats what they, too, like to
> think, using cartels and monolopist practices to force artists to hand
> over their copyright (and freedom) in order to share their art.
The music industry fronts the millions of dollars it takes to be
heard. An album can't even be pressed and distributed for under
$1 Million nationally, and where's little Johnny Keyboard gonna
get the money from when he's playing with a band using his parent's
garage as a sound studio? The music industry gives these kids a
chance, a chance they'd never have otherwise, and you're bashing
'em for it. If things were done YOUR way, nobody would ever have
a chance. I don't like your way. Something is better than nothing.
kaos
What's all this have to do with the fact that music today sucks??
Rassleholic
> then it is not a right.
Bill of Rights, 9th Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
kaos
Obviously I and the majority of people agree that the music industry's idea
of talent is not in touch with reality, it has poor sales over the years to
prove it. Otherwise we wouldn't be listening to them blaming all their woes
on piracy. Maybe they should forget about focusing on multimedia and focus
more on the music. I could care less about how Britney dances.
Thoth
> If however someone breaks into your house and nicks the original, you
> can't use the back up. In fact you have to destroy the back up. The
> theif now legally owns the right to use that game (until you or the
> police retreive the original, if you can!)
I can't agree with your legal analysis, here. A thief never acquires legal rights to stolen
property. This is undisputable.
If you want the answer to the question of whether you can letitimately possess video game backups
read the license agreement that came with the game. You'll see you don't buy the game. You
actually buy the right to use the software in very limited ways. The game software licensing
agreements I've read expressly state that the user cannot make backup copies. If the license says
you can't backup, and you do, you violate federal statutes protecting intellectual property rights
by possessing backups that you have no right to possess. It's that simple.
Which violations, if any, are prosecuted is another matter. I'd be really shocked to find that the
federal government had time to investigate and proecute people that backup video games for their
personal use. It's only people selling these backups that have something to worry about.
That said, greed causes piracy.
kwarlord2004
>
>
> Mark Davidson wrote:
> > Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Do you have any proof that he is downloading the music? No, you are
simply
> >>>jumping to conclusions again.
> >>
> >>I don't need proof. He owns a computer, he listens to music, so
> >>he's got to be a music thief. PC users are evil.
> >
> >
> > Remember when I asked if you act like a dipshit on purpose so as to
> > generate responses to your posts?
>
> I resent the implication that I'm acting.
>
you just admitted that you ARE a dipshit...
LOL
Rassleholic
> > then it is not a right.
Your right to purchase internet access is not in the Constitution, so
therefore, you shouldn't even be here.
ZoqFotPik
> I've already said that ADSL sucks. I want 100 MBPS connection speed.
> Not that I'd do anything with it, I just want to be able to say I have
> it.
"You're referring to a group of elitist pricks who spend hundreds if
not thousands of dollars on the hottest rig (nevermind if there's a
game that needs it yet) just for bragging rights. They're IDIOTS."
Idiot.
ZoqFotPik
> That's not a right. If it's not in the Constitution as a right
> then it is not a right.
Our rights are not limited to those spelled out by the constitution.
Furthermore, the fair use rights of consumers are covered by copyright
laws. Consumers have every right to unfettered personal/private use
of media they have purchased. In a more general sense, comsumers
obviously have a right to use products they have legally purchsed for
their advertised purposes. Anything less is fraud.
> Yes, it does. Copyright holders are granted exclusive rights under
> Article I Section 8. Way to lose, bozo.
No, that refers to "authors and inventors". There is no mention of
corporations like BMG.
Sean Connery
Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I see that junk all the time, and I'm much more tech savvy than you'll
>ever be.
Keep telling yourself that as you type using your wasted $1,000.
John D. Ford
<gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>kaos wrote:
>> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3DCFC368...@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>Sean Connery wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3DCD3AB1...@mindspring.com>,
>>>>Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> You never answered why we can pick up movies and DVD's for $15, when 20 yrs
>> ago, movies cost $80. You obviously have some kind of hard-on for the music
>> industry.
>
>I didn't know the question was asked. The answer is easy enough
>though. Movies have a primary market other than home releases,
>they're called theaters. The music industry has no equivalent
>primary market. Here's a source so you don't think I'm making
>this up.
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/blockbusters020520.html
Correction: The record industry hasn't figured out a way to screw
artists out of more of their concert revenues, yet. I'm sure they
will. Anybody heard that new Tom Petty song?
As we celebrate mediocrity / All the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free
Pretty much sums it up.
Sean Connery
>What's all this have to do with the fact that music today sucks??
Nothing. But as we head into the holiday months, Charlie will get
increasingly depressed and antagonistic. He compensates for this with
increased offtopic nonsense in an effort to connect with humanity at a
time when he sees it all around him and out of his grasp.
Maybe this will be the year he eats the "special" Holiday JELL-O to make
himself happier once and for all.
Charles Doane
Oh, they figured that one out a long time ago. Artists get screwed
out of their concert revenues all the time because of an accounting
practice called "recoverable expenses". It's really just a fancy
name for the practice of loan sharking. Woe unto the artist who
takes a cash advance from a record company, for his is a lifetime
of indentured servitude if not outright slavery.
Rider X
as much as what the studios are claiming they are costing. I think it
will be a interesting research to undertake how much of CD-R is
actually being used to copy music CD.
In anycase, Doane, you have some merit in your argument. However I
think the falling sales of music CDs may not be entirely caused by
piracy. There is a growing acceptance of console and PC games that are
fighting for entertainment dollars (especially among young males) -
also increasing in DVD popularity is also chipping away music industry
revenue.
Personally I consider DVDs have better value for my money than music
CDs. Even some discounted PC games represent better value than an
album with a couple of good songs in it. CDs usually sell around $25
here (Australian dollars) - I am afraid the current pricing is too
dear in comparison to other forms of entertainment.
RiderX
"kaos" <ka...@surfbest.net> wrote in message news:<aqto3k$jjc$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
OCT
> What's the transfer rate on a mailed CD? 700KB in 3 days? That's what,
> 259,200 seconds and 5,600,000 bits of data? That's a 21.62 BPS transfer
> rate. Jeeze, a 300 BPS modem would clean it's clock if you could still
> find somebody selling something that slow.
what, you actually spent the time to work that out??? Are you
seriously trying to tell me you dont beleive that people dont receive
data legitimately via CD-R? look, it takes me far less time to post
data to an FTP site thatn to burn it to CD, but thats what the clients
want, so thats how its provided.
> The quality is just fine, it's never been better. Apparently you
> didn't live through the disco years like I did.
So thats *your* opinion, one thats evidently not shared but a large
proportion of the post-teen record buying public.
> Gee, a producer believes that it has the right to sell it's product?
> What a shocker. With computers doing so much of the work, more great
> music is being made every day now than used to be made in a year just
> a century ago.
You must be having a laugh - or are you simply confusing quality with
quantity.
> You're basing your argument on an opinion. You say that music sucks
> now. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Don't expect me
> to share it, and don't use it as fact. I hear music in videogames
> like PSO which is nothing short of amazing and it's not even supposed
> to be anything more than atmosphere chamber music. The soundtrack to
> CastleVania IV is beyond awesome, and again, it's not even the main
> feature of the game. I'm not going to agree with your opinion that
> it sucks. You're just naysaying. Name a song that sucks by name and
> artist. I don't think you can. Say what the flaws are. Tell me how
> you could improve it. I'm not going to accept "it's crap" as a review.
> Sorry, mindless gnomes don't live here. If you're gonna criticise
> something in your opinion and not follow it up with *why*, you have a
> serious credibility problem and you're bordering on trolling.
Okaaaay...
Sohpie Ellis-effing-Bextor, "Music Gets The Best Of Me" - sounds the
same as her last 4 saccharine sweet, cliched, pop-tastic, cloneware
singles.
S-club juniors - abunch of pre teens doing a little dance
Justin Timberlake, "like i love you" - no talent, media 'it' person,
churning out typically teen-aimed stylised 80's pap.
There's plenty more that i couldnt tell you the the name of, as i dont
wont to know. these are just a the ones that have me reaching for the
off-button.
How to improve? YOU CANT! just dont produce the rubbish. Did i say
*all* music is crap? no, just that alot, probably 50% of the singles
chart. There's alot of good music about, but it dosn't get the
promotion to make it into the charts.
> No, BMG and EMI are protecting their interests by copy protecting the
> product. Don't blame them, blame the guilty pirates. I do. It's too
> easy to blame a faceless corporation because there's no actual people
> there in many people's eyes. I blame the pirates. The corporations
> exist to make money. The pirates exist for stealing and greed. So,
> I hold the corporations harmless and I'll piss on a pirate's grave.
Protect their monopoly. If they really want to protect their music in
this way, they should come up with a new secure format, which i can
then choose to adopt or not. Oh, but wait, that means a massive drop
in sales while the new devices get bought by the public. And the
current protection is futile anyway, as over the next few months the
CD reader software will be upgraded to circumvent it(which is
staggeringly simple, technically speaking). Then only the non-IT
savvy and car drivers will suffer, while the pirate will carry on
their merry little game.
> The music industry fronts the millions of dollars it takes to be
> heard. An album can't even be pressed and distributed for under
> $1 Million nationally, and where's little Johnny Keyboard gonna
> get the money from when he's playing with a band using his parent's
> garage as a sound studio? The music industry gives these kids a
> chance, a chance they'd never have otherwise, and you're bashing
> 'em for it. If things were done YOUR way, nobody would ever have
> a chance. I don't like your way. Something is better than nothing.
Now i know your having a laugh! I dont know the detailed financial
ins and out of the industry, and neither do you. But i know i doesn't
cost 1 million to press and distribute CDs. Thats the cheap part. The
main cost/investment is in promoting and developing artists. They're
then dropped after a few years when the current teens grow out of pop,
and the new teens consider the old artists passe. So the flawed model
of manufactured pop is what reduces profits.
As for Jonny keyboard, you touch upon the crux of the problem. The
Internet, streaming, file shareing and blank CDs pose a hugh risk to
the incumbant industry leaders. Put simply, these things lower the
barriers to entry for any old company, or even independant artist, to
produce and distribute their art. There are cartels in place that
prevent you from having your indie CD put on the shops shelves.
Further cartels prevent anything other than chart single from being
played on mainstream radio. US Congress recently altered legislation,
after strong lobbying from the RIAA, created a new cartel to control
web casting, pricing small indie outfits out of the game. And the
royalties from fringe radio and web casting dont go to the artists,
they go to a industry body that then shares the revenue out umongst...
the top chart artist! Yeah, thats fair.
The industry might have given artists a chance in the past, but the
monopoly they have built is now denying all but a select few any
chance. And the rest of us are headed for a world where we can only
listen to what were told to, where were told to, and charged by the
second for the privilage.
OCT
> If the license says
> you can't backup, and you do, you violate federal statutes protecting intellectual property rights
> by possessing backups that you have no right to possess. It's that simple.
Another one! NO. Firstly, copyright law, as defined by international
treaties and incorporated into just about every country, specifically
allows for the duplication of digital data for archive/backup
purposes.
Secondly, the licence *does not* supercede national laws. Nowhere. So
if a licence says you cant, for example, reverse engineer the
software, but your local laws say you can, then you can (ie in
europe).
Its widely speculated, but unfourtunatly yet to be tested in the
courts, that most provisions in software licences have absolutly no
authority in law. And thats US law! They're *known* not to be
enforceable elsewhere.
sorry to have a go, but people have gone to great lengths to give you
certain rights and protect the consumer from bad company practices,
yet people like you are either unaware or blatantly fight against
them.
Steve Grauman
*all* music is crap? no, just that alot, probably 50% of the singles
chart. There's alot of good music about, but it dosn't get the
promotion to make it into the charts. >>
I'm 19 years old, and I'd say that at least 80% of the music I listen to and
buy on CD is stuff that was new when my parents were my age. Jimi Hendrix, The
Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, Cream, Jethro Tull, Led Zepplin,
etc...Most of the new stuff does nothing for me, and most of the new bands I do
like don't get real widespread because the radio stations are to busy playing
Britney Spears to play it. And when the stuff I like does get played, only one
or two of the songs get on the air, and the radio stations play those ones to
death. When the record companies actually put out CDs worth the $20 or more
being charged, I buy them. When the average album costs over $20 and only has 3
songs on it I like, I'm just going to download them the songs I want. I'm sorry
that some people think of it as stealing, but don't you feel just a little bit
stolen from when you pay $20 for a CD with 3 decent songs on it?
TV Dinner
>
> However I think the falling sales of music CDs may not be entirely
> caused by piracy. There is a growing acceptance of console and PC
> games that are fighting for entertainment dollars (especially among
> young males) - also increasing in DVD popularity is also chipping
> away music industry revenue.
Same thing happened during the late 70s/early 80s when
there was a dip in record sales due to people spending
a lot of their disposable income on videogames. Fortunately
for the music industry, the videogame industry eventually
crashed for a little while. ;)
Charles Doane
Rider X wrote:
> Whilst piracy does cost music industry to a degree, I don't think it's
> as much as what the studios are claiming they are costing. I think it
> will be a interesting research to undertake how much of CD-R is
> actually being used to copy music CD.
>
> In anycase, Doane, you have some merit in your argument. However I
> think the falling sales of music CDs may not be entirely caused by
> piracy. There is a growing acceptance of console and PC games that are
> fighting for entertainment dollars (especially among young males) -
> also increasing in DVD popularity is also chipping away music industry
> revenue.
>
> Personally I consider DVDs have better value for my money than music
> CDs. Even some discounted PC games represent better value than an
> album with a couple of good songs in it. CDs usually sell around $25
> here (Australian dollars) - I am afraid the current pricing is too
> dear in comparison to other forms of entertainment.
I don't follow the argument that DVD's and video games chip away at
music industry revenue. Most DVD's and video games have music in
them, at least in my experience. Doesn't the music industry make
money from that? I've got a copy of NASCAR THUNDER 2003 which has
music from Steppenwolf in the game. Surely EA paid for that. The
manual says they got the rights from BMI to put "Magic Carpet Ride"
in the game (among other songs). If that's competition, it's a
rather incestuous form of competition.
I don't know about the whole "better value" thing either. It's a
rare movie or video game that I play over and over again, I mean
it has to be really good for that to happen, something "Burning
Rangers" class or better. I'll listen to a good album over many
dozens of times. Something like Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the
Moon" has definitely been played enough times to warrant my
purchase. That may be one of the best rock albums ever made,
though. I don't play movies that often. They take 90 minutes
to two hours to watch, and if you've seen it before then it's
not as much fun, where music is almost the opposite. I like
hearing songs I've heard before a lot more than I do seeing
movies I've seen before or playing games I've played before,
unless they have some killer replay value.
The losses in the movie industry are fairly close to what the
music industry is claiming, $3 Billion to $4.2 Billion. So,
there's a piracy problem in the movie industry as well.
According to this article:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-891781.html
There were 2.8 million CD-r copies of albums seized in 2001.
That's a lot of copies any way you slice it. That's also
real and concrete piracy, so there's no way to say that RIAA
is just crying wolf here.
And again, it begs the question: If the music sucks so bad,
why are people cranking out pirated copies of this bad music
literally by the millions?
Billy J. Dancefloor
> With computers doing so much of the work, more great
> music is being made every day now than used to be
> made in a year just a century ago.
will someone page scott wozniak and alert him to this doane comment?
he'll find it rather amusing.
Sean Connery
Hah. Where is he anyway.
This is a classic example of Doane not having any true core beliefs and
that he just rants for the heck of it depending on the way the wind blows.
Rider X
> > think the falling sales of music CDs may not be entirely caused by
> > piracy. There is a growing acceptance of console and PC games that are
> > fighting for entertainment dollars (especially among young males) -
> > also increasing in DVD popularity is also chipping away music industry
> > revenue.
> >
> > Personally I consider DVDs have better value for my money than music
> > CDs. Even some discounted PC games represent better value than an
> > album with a couple of good songs in it. CDs usually sell around $25
> > here (Australian dollars) - I am afraid the current pricing is too
> > dear in comparison to other forms of entertainment.
>
> I don't follow the argument that DVD's and video games chip away at
> music industry revenue. Most DVD's and video games have music in
> them, at least in my experience. Doesn't the music industry make
> money from that? I've got a copy of NASCAR THUNDER 2003 which has
> music from Steppenwolf in the game. Surely EA paid for that. The
> manual says they got the rights from BMI to put "Magic Carpet Ride"
> in the game (among other songs). If that's competition, it's a
> rather incestuous form of competition.
I guess it's how you define 'music industry'. Yes, if you count every
Joe Bloggs who does music as 'music industry' then yes, selling games
do benefit it as whole. I once visited a friend of mine who's running
a games company, there were a couple of guys who did the music (+
sound) for the game. However the typical definition for music industry
seem to be confined within music CD distributers/artists/production
companies who make money out of selling music CDs. You are correct
that there are 'some' songs that games companies pay for. But last
game I played that had any 'songs' in it was Quake, featuring Nine
Inch Nail. In any case I know for a fact that most people who make
music for games do NOT get any royalty nor copyright to their music;
they are just some guys working for a company or two.
>
> I don't know about the whole "better value" thing either. It's a
> rare movie or video game that I play over and over again, I mean
> it has to be really good for that to happen, something "Burning
> Rangers" class or better. I'll listen to a good album over many
> dozens of times. Something like Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the
> Moon" has definitely been played enough times to warrant my
> purchase. That may be one of the best rock albums ever made,
> though. I don't play movies that often. They take 90 minutes
> to two hours to watch, and if you've seen it before then it's
> not as much fun, where music is almost the opposite. I like
> hearing songs I've heard before a lot more than I do seeing
> movies I've seen before or playing games I've played before,
> unless they have some killer replay value.
>
You're absolutely right. Some albums are priceless. I can't imagine
how many times I played 'the best of U2'. Over and over. However how
many "Dark Side of the Moon"s are being produced now? It is not an
album that represents a typical level of quality in todays music.
Typical albums would more likely be Shakira or Britney , or even
Nsyc(gasp!). Now compare that to Starwars or Harry Potter.
In terms of games Half-life/Counter Strike almost ruined my life. But
I guess that's a game's equal of your Pink Floyd. I played System
Shock 2 about 5 times as well (I'm not so proud of it either)
I checked the link below, but it doesn't elaborate any thing about how
they calculated the figure, so I can't comment on what might be a
realistic tally. I'm coming from the assumption that if Chineses in
China bought 10 million copies of Britney, it doesn't mean Britney and
Co lost say 200 million dollars out of piracy. (assuming $20 per CD)
because it wasn't for piracy and her music being so cheap, there is no
way 10 million Chineses would purchase her CD in the regular price.
That reminds me of the time when the newspaper claimed that Starwars 2
lost 200 million dollars out of piracy even before the movie opened.
Their logic?, 20 million downloads over P2P so $10 x 20 million is
$200 millions. They failed to cater for the fact 19.5 million people
out of 20 million downloading users would probably watch the movie (in
theater) anyhow (and most likely to buy the DVD as well).
RiderX
Rider X
for record sales down, you know. Like people might have given up
buying records because Village People wasn't making any more album and
such.
TV Dinner <tvdi...@yumyumyumyum.com> wrote in message news:<3DD308...@yumyumyumyum.com>...
Charles Doane
OCT wrote:
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3DD253E2...@mindspring.com>...
>
>>What's the transfer rate on a mailed CD? 700KB in 3 days? That's what,
>>259,200 seconds and 5,600,000 bits of data? That's a 21.62 BPS transfer
>>rate. Jeeze, a 300 BPS modem would clean it's clock if you could still
>>find somebody selling something that slow.
> what, you actually spent the time to work that out???
Not much time. There's an old TI-81 scientific calculator I keep in my
PC's desk, and I was just checking to see if the batteries were still OK.
> Are you
> seriously trying to tell me you dont beleive that people dont receive
> data legitimately via CD-R? look, it takes me far less time to post
> data to an FTP site thatn to burn it to CD, but thats what the clients
> want, so thats how its provided.
About the only thing I've ever gotten via a CD-r from a vendor was a
catalog, and just like a catalog the pricing was out of date faster
than they shipped their docs and I wind up using the web site anyway.
I see CD-r's dying soon and becoming about as irrelevant as a floppy
disc (can you even still get stuff on those?) in just a couple of
years, maybe even less with the advent of DVD-RAM, and about the only
thing CD-r will be good for is piracy once that becomes the norm.
>>The quality is just fine, it's never been better. Apparently you
>>didn't live through the disco years like I did.
> So thats *your* opinion, one thats evidently not shared but a large
> proportion of the post-teen record buying public.
Yeah, bingo, we're arguing opinions which is a lose-lose argument.
We may as well be arguing about whether today was a good day or not.
Maybe yours was and mine wasn't.
One thing that does make a difference is that teens don't actually
have any money. Well, some, but not really all that much. They
don't have disposable income on the order of $300+ per week like
most 30-something adults have. So, when they see an opportunity to
"save" money by "file-sharing" they leap at the chance because of
greed and pathetic upbringing.
>>Gee, a producer believes that it has the right to sell it's product?
>>What a shocker. With computers doing so much of the work, more great
>>music is being made every day now than used to be made in a year just
>>a century ago.
> You must be having a laugh - or are you simply confusing quality with
> quantity.
Quality is relative, and one man's trash may well be another man's
treasure. Choice is usually a good thing, and quantity means more
choice, at least I think so. That's why I don't want anyone to ever
actually win the "console wars". The fighting is more fun than any
victory could ever be.
>>You're basing your argument on an opinion. You say that music sucks
>>now. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Don't expect me
>>to share it, and don't use it as fact. I hear music in videogames
>>like PSO which is nothing short of amazing and it's not even supposed
>>to be anything more than atmosphere chamber music. The soundtrack to
>>CastleVania IV is beyond awesome, and again, it's not even the main
>>feature of the game. I'm not going to agree with your opinion that
>>it sucks. You're just naysaying. Name a song that sucks by name and
>>artist. I don't think you can. Say what the flaws are. Tell me how
>>you could improve it. I'm not going to accept "it's crap" as a review.
>>Sorry, mindless gnomes don't live here. If you're gonna criticise
>>something in your opinion and not follow it up with *why*, you have a
>>serious credibility problem and you're bordering on trolling.
>
>
> Okaaaay...
> Sohpie Ellis-effing-Bextor, "Music Gets The Best Of Me" - sounds the
> same as her last 4 saccharine sweet, cliched, pop-tastic, cloneware
> singles.
http://www.sophieellisbextor.net/my_music/audio_clips.htm
Sounds pretty much like the B-univ stuff Sega used in Sonic R to me,
which was actually catchy and maybe a bit heavy on the techno, but
not BAD. You call that BAD? I'm starting to think you may just be
spoiled rotten. I've heard a lot worse. Try the soundtrack to the
recent "Swingerz Golf", not THAT is bad.
> S-club juniors - abunch of pre teens doing a little dance
Well, yeah, they're 14 years old. That's what you get watching
little league instead of pro.
> Justin Timberlake, "like i love you" - no talent, media 'it' person,
> churning out typically teen-aimed stylised 80's pap.
Justin Timberlake was born January 31 of 1981. He's pushing 23.
You're picking on kids. If you don't like music by kids (and I'll
admit, I usually don't either) then don't listen to pop teen idols.
For pity's sake, the Rolling Stones are still putting on concerts
and Bruce Springsteen just released a new album, so you can go for
the geezers and get music you like if you want to. Youth may have
the talent but it doesn't have the skill.
> There's plenty more that i couldnt tell you the the name of, as i dont
> wont to know. these are just a the ones that have me reaching for the
> off-button.
Then pick a different radio station, within reason. I listen to
classical, but most people don't seem to like it (I don't know
why not, I love it) so I can compromise with just about anything
save rap. Talking loud ain't singing.
> How to improve? YOU CANT! just dont produce the rubbish. Did i say
> *all* music is crap? no, just that alot, probably 50% of the singles
> chart. There's alot of good music about, but it dosn't get the
> promotion to make it into the charts.
Who says what's rubbish? If you put me in charge, you'd be hearing
Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin. It's better that nobody is in charge
so that diversity lets everyone find something they like. People
can't agree on much of anything. Even ordering a pizza becomes a
major debate if there's more than 2 people involved. So nobody can
say what's crap or not, because that's an opinion and therefore up
for debate.
>>No, BMG and EMI are protecting their interests by copy protecting the
>>product. Don't blame them, blame the guilty pirates. I do. It's too
>>easy to blame a faceless corporation because there's no actual people
>>there in many people's eyes. I blame the pirates. The corporations
>>exist to make money. The pirates exist for stealing and greed. So,
>>I hold the corporations harmless and I'll piss on a pirate's grave.
> Protect their monopoly. If they really want to protect their music in
> this way, they should come up with a new secure format, which i can
> then choose to adopt or not. Oh, but wait, that means a massive drop
> in sales while the new devices get bought by the public. And the
> current protection is futile anyway, as over the next few months the
> CD reader software will be upgraded to circumvent it(which is
> staggeringly simple, technically speaking). Then only the non-IT
> savvy and car drivers will suffer, while the pirate will carry on
> their merry little game.
They don't have a monopoly. Sony Music Entertainment would tend
to disagree that BMI enjoys a monopoly, I'd think. They tried to
do the "new secure format" in DAT. It fell flat on it's face as
consumers rejected it even faster than the "New Coke". So, your
suggestion has been tried and it has failed.
>>The music industry fronts the millions of dollars it takes to be
>>heard. An album can't even be pressed and distributed for under
>>$1 Million nationally, and where's little Johnny Keyboard gonna
>>get the money from when he's playing with a band using his parent's
>>garage as a sound studio? The music industry gives these kids a
>>chance, a chance they'd never have otherwise, and you're bashing
>>'em for it. If things were done YOUR way, nobody would ever have
>>a chance. I don't like your way. Something is better than nothing.
>
>
> Now i know your having a laugh! I dont know the detailed financial
> ins and out of the industry, and neither do you. But i know i doesn't
> cost 1 million to press and distribute CDs. Thats the cheap part. The
> main cost/investment is in promoting and developing artists. They're
> then dropped after a few years when the current teens grow out of pop,
> and the new teens consider the old artists passe. So the flawed model
> of manufactured pop is what reduces profits.
Erm, you ain't gonna get distro without promo. Not gonna happen.
The two are inseperable. No promo=death.
> As for Jonny keyboard, you touch upon the crux of the problem. The
> Internet, streaming, file shareing and blank CDs pose a hugh risk to
> the incumbant industry leaders. Put simply, these things lower the
> barriers to entry for any old company, or even independant artist, to
> produce and distribute their art. There are cartels in place that
> prevent you from having your indie CD put on the shops shelves.
The shops depend on cash flow, and product moving off of those shelves.
You need to realize that the shop doesn't WANT something sitting on the
shelf for a week, a month or two months. Their income is based on
shelves getting emptied by consumers. They have to believe that if an
album is stocked that it will move. How can you convince 'em? Promo.
If the artist is taken seriously enough to land a major label recording
contract, that's what stores will look at. If not, and he just shows
up with a bunch of CD-r's looking for valuable shelf space, he's gonna
find out that stores just don't give that out like candy to every single
goober who wants some. Shelf space is a valuable commodity and how a
store survives.
> Further cartels prevent anything other than chart single from being
> played on mainstream radio. US Congress recently altered legislation,
> after strong lobbying from the RIAA, created a new cartel to control
> web casting, pricing small indie outfits out of the game. And the
> royalties from fringe radio and web casting dont go to the artists,
> they go to a industry body that then shares the revenue out umongst...
> the top chart artist! Yeah, thats fair.
With the recent and devastating dot-com bust, it's become apparent that
there's not a viable means of revenue available from the internet with
music that anyone's come up with. People put up pop-up ad blockers on
their browsers, so advertisement isn't viable and even of the people
who don't block the pop-up ads very few actually respond to them. The
advertisers get an actual count on the ad response (because it's on a
computer and computers can count really well), see how pitiful it is
and won't pay the big bucks for a medium they see as a non-performer.
So, there's really no royalties on web-casting worth speaking of.
> The industry might have given artists a chance in the past, but the
> monopoly they have built is now denying all but a select few any
> chance. And the rest of us are headed for a world where we can only
> listen to what were told to, where were told to, and charged by the
> second for the privilage.
It has to be a select few. There's only limited shelf space and
finite attention spans. Opening the flood gates would absolutely
kill the market and make it so that NOBODY makes any money at all.
It's simple supply and demand. If the supply is increased then
the worth of the product is decreased. So, like every other sort
of entertainment industry, it requires a bit of management in order
to maximize profits.
A good example of this can be found in the video game crash of 1984.
What happened then was that video game consoles had little or no
proprietary protection, and so everybody and anybody could write
videogames and publish them. The floodgates busted loose and the
market drowned in cheap junk. It got so overwhelmingly bad that
there wasn't any way to tell the diamonds from the coal anymore
and consumers left in droves. The way Nintendo dealt with the
problem was the 10NES lockout chip which had to be in carts to
work on the console, and the only ones who could make that chip
was Nintendo. So, Nintendo seized control of an out-of-control
market, instituted the Nintendo seal of quality, and customers
came flocking back to where the sanity was. Since that time,
nearly every console has had some sort of a lockout and a tight
proprietary grip on who makes what for those consoles in order
to avoid a repeat of the 1984 disaster.
If just anyone is allowed to make and publish music in the
mainstream market, that will set up all of the pieces in
place for a disaster equal to or worse than what happened
to the video game side of the entertainment industry less
than two decades ago.
Charles Doane
In that case, the computer was being used as a performer, not as
a tool. The way Scott was abusing the machine was actually
cheating the customer. There is no doubt that computers increase
productivity. That was a matter of a computer doing the
performance as well. People pay to hear musicians, not programmers.
Charles Doane
Rider X wrote:
<snip>
>>I don't follow the argument that DVD's and video games chip away at
>>music industry revenue. Most DVD's and video games have music in
>>them, at least in my experience. Doesn't the music industry make
>>money from that? I've got a copy of NASCAR THUNDER 2003 which has
>>music from Steppenwolf in the game. Surely EA paid for that. The
>>manual says they got the rights from BMI to put "Magic Carpet Ride"
>>in the game (among other songs). If that's competition, it's a
>>rather incestuous form of competition.
> I guess it's how you define 'music industry'. Yes, if you count every
> Joe Bloggs who does music as 'music industry' then yes, selling games
> do benefit it as whole. I once visited a friend of mine who's running
> a games company, there were a couple of guys who did the music (+
> sound) for the game. However the typical definition for music industry
> seem to be confined within music CD distributers/artists/production
> companies who make money out of selling music CDs. You are correct
> that there are 'some' songs that games companies pay for. But last
> game I played that had any 'songs' in it was Quake, featuring Nine
> Inch Nail. In any case I know for a fact that most people who make
> music for games do NOT get any royalty nor copyright to their music;
> they are just some guys working for a company or two.
I think games are using actual musicians a lot more than they used
to, mainly because they've got the storage to do it and the old
days of beep-beep boop-boop sound effects are pretty much in the
past. There are games like Crazy Taxi (Offspring), Splashdown
(Smash Mouth), WipeOut Fusion (Future Sound of London), Twisted
Metal Black (Rolling Stones), and many more.
Even of the games that don't use signed artists, I think that's
still a good argument against the idea that only a few big music
studios have a total and impenetrable lock on music exposure.
There are other places musicians can make money and get a chance.
>>I don't know about the whole "better value" thing either. It's a
>>rare movie or video game that I play over and over again, I mean
>>it has to be really good for that to happen, something "Burning
>>Rangers" class or better. I'll listen to a good album over many
>>dozens of times. Something like Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the
>>Moon" has definitely been played enough times to warrant my
>>purchase. That may be one of the best rock albums ever made,
>>though. I don't play movies that often. They take 90 minutes
>>to two hours to watch, and if you've seen it before then it's
>>not as much fun, where music is almost the opposite. I like
>>hearing songs I've heard before a lot more than I do seeing
>>movies I've seen before or playing games I've played before,
>>unless they have some killer replay value.
>>
>
>
> You're absolutely right. Some albums are priceless. I can't imagine
> how many times I played 'the best of U2'. Over and over. However how
> many "Dark Side of the Moon"s are being produced now? It is not an
> album that represents a typical level of quality in todays music.
> Typical albums would more likely be Shakira or Britney , or even
> Nsyc(gasp!). Now compare that to Starwars or Harry Potter.
I think most music stores still carry Pink Floyd, which is another
problem itself. That's less space for anyone else. The stock in
a video game store doesn't usually involve going back to 1973 stuff.
Not a whole lot of Magnavox Odyssey games are on shelves these days.
<snip>
> I checked the link below, but it doesn't elaborate any thing about how
> they calculated the figure, so I can't comment on what might be a
> realistic tally. I'm coming from the assumption that if Chineses in
> China bought 10 million copies of Britney, it doesn't mean Britney and
> Co lost say 200 million dollars out of piracy. (assuming $20 per CD)
> because it wasn't for piracy and her music being so cheap, there is no
> way 10 million Chineses would purchase her CD in the regular price.
I don't think that's entirely the case and here's the reason why:
Those consumers are getting a CD, therefore they have a CD player.
If they have a CD player, then they absolutely do have $20 in
disposable income to spend on luxury items if they want them.
Of course they won't want them if they can steal them for free,
so to say that they've lost money is an accurate statement.
> That reminds me of the time when the newspaper claimed that Starwars 2
> lost 200 million dollars out of piracy even before the movie opened.
> Their logic?, 20 million downloads over P2P so $10 x 20 million is
> $200 millions. They failed to cater for the fact 19.5 million people
> out of 20 million downloading users would probably watch the movie (in
> theater) anyhow (and most likely to buy the DVD as well).
The movie market is a bit different because they make money on
showings, and in your example those people wanted to see the
movie twice. Theaters around here would make you pay twice to
see the movie twice, so I think it's a valid assumption to make
that they lost 20 million box office ticket sales. Probably
more than that, since many pirates likely didn't watch it alone.
What's the real difference between having an accomplice sneak
you into the theater through a back door to see a movie and a
piracy download like that? I don't see much of one.
ZoqFotPik
> In that case, the computer was being used as a performer, not as
> a tool. The way Scott was abusing the machine was actually
> cheating the customer. There is no doubt that computers increase
> productivity. That was a matter of a computer doing the
> performance as well. People pay to hear musicians, not programmers.
How exactly do you have "computers doing so much of the work" if not
in the form of the synthesizers Scott uses?
Of course, an artist could use a computer, the internet, CD-R's, etc.
to help him promote and distribute his own work without signing the
rights away to a record label, but you think that is illegal too.
In fact, you think anyone who has a PC and listens to music is a
pirate, so is it because of those "pirates" that "more great music is
being made every day now than used to be made in a year just a century
ago"?
It would seem you are having quite a bit of trouble keeping your many
lies straight...
Ted
Sean Connery wrote:
>
> In article <aqtnf3$jb5$1...@news.chatlink.com>, kaos <ka...@surfbest.net> wrote:
>
> >What's all this have to do with the fact that music today sucks??
>
> Nothing. But as we head into the holiday months, Charlie will get
> increasingly depressed and antagonistic. He compensates for this with
> increased offtopic nonsense in an effort to connect with humanity at a
> time when he sees it all around him and out of his grasp.
If you believe this then shouldn't you befriend him and thereby decrease
his antagonism and depression?
Ted
Charles Doane wrote:
>
snip
> An album can't even be pressed and distributed for under
> $1 Million nationally
snip
Nonesense. Many albums are distributed nationally with a few thousand
copies (and sometimes less), coming from companies that gross less than
a few hundred thousand dollars a year (and less).