musical greed

[xyle_one]

where of where has the ART of music gone??
$17 billion napster case of so-called "artists" wanting money they should have recieved if napster hadnt been distributing music.
disgusting.

[jtpenrod]

quote:A music industry group including publishers of rock hits ranging from "Jailhouse Rock" to "Walk Like An Egyptian" sued Bertelsmann AG for $17 billion, alleging the German media company helped the one-time cult song-swap service Napster deprive them of royalties.

Publishers, not artists.

This is just another slimey lawyer trick: go after the deep pockets.
___________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux

Their fundamental design flaws are completely concealed by their superficial design flaws.

[Kintaro]

How would you feel if everybody stole your skill.

PIRATE GOOD MUSIC AND DIE, BUT PLEASE PIRATE FUCKING TECHNO AND RAP.

[Faust]

Dont knock dance or rap fucktardo.
BTW when i listen to a "pirated" (yar me hearties, shiver me timbers) Manson track I dont think he loses  any of his singing skill.  So im not stealing his skill - im not even stealing anything.

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]

[Pissed_Macman]

If it's only me that's downloading music from Limewire it won't make any difference at all. It's all you "other people" that are to blame.

[slave]

Whatever insane method the record companies use to compute their "losses" doesn't really matter.  A little thought shows that "pirating" music only makes it more popular, since it reaches more people.  Besides, any attempt to restrict the public's freedom to copy and share information is obstructionist, and deserves punishment instead of reward.  If the record companies can't keep up with the digital age, then I say pooh pooh to them anyway.  They shouldn't have the right to stop people from sharing music in a natural way, and calling it "piracy" is just a smear tactic.  Do they really think that copying a tune off Kazaa is the moral equivilant of sailing the high seas, murdering people and attacking ships?  I guess some of them do.  

I can hear their threat now:  If you all share your music, instead of buying it from us at ridiculous prices then we'll stop making music, or go out of business.  Everyone else thinks like we do, so then you'll be stuck with no music at all!  Bwa hahahahah!

Shit on them!  Music was meant to be shared, and the idea of a music "industry" is the most dumbfucked thing ever.  And I for one am disgusted by the sheer crap the music industry tends to peddle these days anyway.

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

[xyle_one]

quote: Shit on them!  Music was meant to be shared, and the idea of a music "industry" is the most dumbfucked thing ever.  And I for one am disgusted by the sheer crap the music industry tends to peddle these days anyway.

yes. i will never understand how an art can be an industry. its confusing. i am tempted to just download what i like, and send the actual artists a check for like $10 - 15. most of what the industry throws at us is crap. they sign an act because it will sell millions, and the label gets money. then we are expected to hail it is genious & brilliant when it is far from that. fuck the music industry.
x11- you cant say that techno (which is a genre like drum and bass, or house music, you should really say electronic music) & rap is okay to pirate because you dont see it as realy music or something. pick up some Uberzone, Chemical Brothers, Moby, DJ DB, & Sasha's newest disc for soome really good MUSIC. as for rap, maybe try hip hop, rap sucks. try atmosphere, eyedea, rhymesayers, jurassic 5, kool keith. rap is like 80s butt-rock. it sells, but its crap.....anyways. fuck it

[flap]

quote:i am tempted to just download what i like, and send the actual artists a check for like $10 - 15.

You should do it. And don't send that much. If you send a couple of dollars it will be more than what they would make if you bought the cd. So they'll get more money, you'll spend less, and the record company parasites get nothing.

[hm_murdock]

As someone who is a musician, I've got a wierd perspective on this. I hate the record industry, and hope they die, but I also believe that musicians are entitled to some reward, be it monetary, or critical accolades, or both. I see Napster and all the file sharing stuff as really just a first step in making the Universals and Aristas obsolete.

I've heard that Virgin is going to start their own "pay-per-song" file-sharing service. Their owner/CEO, Richard... something... I can never remember his name... seems to be an entrepreneur in the classic sense of the word. Superior product, at a competitive price. And now, a superior distribution method. You preview the songs, pay for only the ones you want, and roughly 85% of it goes to the musicians.

Sounds good to me!

[xyle_one]

that does sound good. i would rather pay the artist for the music. i dont see why i pay the label. its stupid. but it worked  :rolleyes:  dumb..

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James: Mac Commando:
I've heard that Virgin is going to start their own "pay-per-song" file-sharing service. Their owner/CEO, Richard... something... I can never remember his name... seems to be an entrepreneur in the classic sense of the word. Superior product, at a competitive price. And now, a superior distribution method. You preview the songs, pay for only the ones you want, and roughly 85% of it goes to the musicians.

Sounds good to me!

So... what function does Virgin actually fill then? Why does an artist need a record label at all if they're going to be distributing their music online? At least with the current setup you can argue that the labels are providing a physical distribution service i.e. they're pressing the cds, which is convenient for people who couldn't download tracks even if it were legal to do so.

The point is that with that pay-per-download scheme the copyright restrictions will still be in place so you still won't legally be able to share the music, or at least I presume so.

[cahult]

I think his last name is Branson. He