damn, I forgot!! :D

http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons...p/uf005924.gif

:D

its funny because CD sales were better last year than they have been in the last 10 years, personally if i download something and i like it i go and buy the whole, shiny, new CD smell, crispy wrapper- ALBUM

someone told me once do you like hearing new music? "yes" then you have to support the artist, AND the big demon cock rapist he works for or there wont be anymore new music.

i am also a musician i play in a local band and someday would like to get paid for what i do so the idea didnt sound too weird to me.

my 02

LATE
Kyle
71 911

Lars whole point was that a song was leaked, and put up on Napster BEFORE they were done mixing it., The song being I Disappear from the MI soundtrack. The band never cared about Live, bottleg recordings, but they had major issues with Studio produced music being distributed BEFORE it was suppost to.

Now the bands stance is, go ahead and download the music, just as long as its already been released in album form.

The RIAA has been bending us over the counter for decades, and bending the musicians over also. Though I feel the peer to peer downloading problem should be delt with in a different way. I agree it is a threat to musicians in general.

If the problem was an internal leak, they really need to have better control over their employees, wouldn't you say? Instead of attacking Napster et al?

"NAPSTER BAD!"

:rolleyes:

It was an internal problem, of which was addressed, and fixed before they did St Anger. What the major problem was, Napster refused to deal with the problem of removing the song from the program. They attacked Napster because they refused to have it removed, when in fact, they could have.

OF course all the new music would stop. . .I mean Really, who's ever heard of a starving artist!? .. .they just don't exist.
Art is not like Law or medicine, were people argue or medicate just for relaxation and enjoyment. :rolleyes:

BearShare rules.

Here's my take on it: I wrote this column for my college's newspaper.

Recording Industry created its own enemies
By Nabeel Jawahir
Contributing columnist


In a desperate attempt to dissuade the millions of people who download and swap music files online, the Recording Industry Association of America has begun to prosecute 261 individuals whom they deem as to be “major offenders.”

These folks, who shared an average of about 1,000 copyrighted music files each, are bound to be portrayed by the RIAA as examples of what happens when you download and share copyrighted materials. While most people will not dispute the illegality of sharing music, the major question that needs to be asked here is why the RIAA is facing all these woes in the first place.

Without a doubt, the practices and actions of the RIAA over the years have greatly contributed to its current vulnerable situation.

Compact disc sales have dropped more than 30 percent since mid-2000. While the RIAA would like to complain that this is reason enough to put an end to Internet file sharing, it is ignoring the bigger picture.

Few people, especially not poor college students like us, are willing to pay almost $20 for a CD that may have three good tracks. These high prices are due to pure greed on the part of the RIAA.

A compact disc costs only about 6 cents to stamp — less than when the technology first debuted — but the RIAA, always eager to make a profit, has refused to lower the price one bit.

It is also questionable whether the RIAA is sending out a positive message by actively prosecuting file sharers. Without a doubt, many ordinary individuals are guilty of downloading music from programs such as KaZaa and WinMx, mainly due to the astronomical prices of CDs.

By going after the “little people,” the RIAA is doing little more than reinforcing its image as a greedy purveyor of overpriced merchandise, ever ready to pounce on anybody who dares undermine its sovereignty.

A better solution would be to avoid lawsuits altogether, and the requisite bad publicity that accompanies litigation such as this. The RIAA tries to make it up to online music swappers by charging them a fee to download new music off the net, and thereby avoid prosecution.

Nice try, but a program enabling users to download music for a small fee should have been enacted years ago, in place of the half-hearted attempts being put forth years later.

People may obviously argue that with the advent of high-speed Internet and CD burners, this type of file sharing was inevitable. This is probably true to a certain extent, but it is extremely doubtful that file swapping would have taken off the way it did if it were not for the high prices of music in stores.

Had CDs been priced lower in the first place, the extent of music file-sharing would not have reached the epic proportions of today, since people would not feel a need to download all the songs if an entire CD only cost five or six bucks at the store. By forcing individuals to pay $15 for a CD — think three days worth of lunch — the backlash was all too predictable.

Even more laughable is the latest “amnesty” attempt put forth by the RIAA last week. In order to avoid a potential lawsuit, one can voluntarily identify oneself as a file-sharer, delete all accumulated music files on their computer and promise not to share any more files.

If that fails, then I suppose the RIAA may threaten to spank them and send them to their rooms to think about what they have done.

The best thing for the RIAA to do now would be to admit that they have made big mistakes in the past and make a genuine effort to satisfy the music fans they have arrogantly ignored for so long.

Make CDs cheaper and allow a much broader selection of music to be available online, for a small monthly fee for subscribers. A few days ago, Universal Records announced that it was dropping the prices of its CDs substantially, in hope of lower prices promoting greater sales.

Let that serve as a precedent for the industry, before the next wave of litigation further sours the relationship between the recording industry and the consumer.

-------------------------------------------------

Nabeel Jawahir is a political science sophomore. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Kernel.

Sep 17, 2003

I'm not sure what your point is here. That starving artists don't exist? I know plenty. That art isn't as important for society as law or medicine? I know people who think that way but I certainly don't.

And if you think that people don't argue and medicate for relation and enjoyment...well then you have been on the island too long :p

What gets me is that in most Broadband ISP ads I always hear have something along the lines of "Download Music (or MP3's) FAST"

It is listed as a benefit or a desirable feature of broadband.

I think those greedy SOB's (RIAA) should go after the ISP's and Ad Exec's that promote illegal activity to the generally un nformed public.

While I believe that the price for CD's is high compared to the cost of production, we also live in a democracy where anyone can charge any price (outside of gov't regulated businesses of course) for their product.

Within the laws that we all agree to (agree by nature of not changing them) sharing this copyrighted material is illegal. So even if they were charging $100 for a CD, that does not give anyone the right to illegally copy the material.

THink about if we used this same sort of "active protest" for the speed limit... We would all be driving 95MPH because we know that the current limits are largely set for revenue, not safety. Better yet, car manufacturers start charging double for cars... Would that justify people stealing parts to build their own cars?

Two main ways to protest this?
1. Change the copyright laws, not bloody likely.
2. Don't buy the music! Listen tot he radio, buy music from the sources of cheaper CD's (Indie, local, etc..). If they stop selling $20 CD's while other guys are selling them by the millions for $6, then they will lower the price.

This is not a moral or social issue and as such, I don't believe it qualifies for Ghandi-style protests. It's their material, their price, and their fate.

WinMX - no spyware.

I also suggest installing AdAware, from http://www.lavasoft.de/software/adaware/

Yes, good question.
I was mocking the absurdity of the notion that musicians will stop producing music, if exorbitant amounts of money are not involved.

I saw the multiple ways my post could have been taken . .I should have edited for clarity .. .I've been a bit "off" lately, as I've recently found myself managing a family-members major health threat. :(
Anyway, this really hits-home that this "music download issue" is "much a-do, about nothing" (though I'm sure RIAA is enjoying the hype)

This music download issue has the exact same problem that the software producers have. The biggest difference is writting code is much more boring than writing music, IMO (read: $'s motivate coders more than musicians) . . .similar, in a lot of ways, but I digress. . ..and (they differ) in that software is a tool and music is entertainment. (the value proposition is different)

In the long-run, I expect what will happen is, download sites (like kaza, napstr) (which make money (albeit indirect) by cutting in to the existing marketing/distribution $machine) will be shut-down. And, the popularity of entertainers (willingly) going directly to the net for distribution will go up . .. until net distribution completly ecllipses the current marketing/distribution $machine.

AHhh, an arguement. . .I do feel better ;)
(btw: I meant, in that questionable post, that dispensing medications or defending a drunk-driver is not fun in the same way that creating music can be. . . fully reallizing, that it could be read as "people (self)medicate just for relaxation and enjoyment." --my bad. )

I feel for you Island, family health problems are usually very taxing.
I have recently tried to discourage my daughter from downloading music files, I know the chances of her getting caught are slim, but it is illegal. I took my daughter to the Metalica Summer Sanitarium because I got a half priced ticket from her friend who bailed. Deftones kick ass. Metalica is a pair of megalomaniacs (Ulrich & Hetfield) drunk on their success. Half into their set my daughter asked why no pyrotechnics, I said "let's go I'll explain it on the way to the car. We weren't impressed, when they came out on stage they more or less dissed the other 4 bands by stating they would bring it to another level. :rolleyes: I saw them 12 years ago before they became so important & was impressed.

Because they dont use pyro for all of their songs. They will use pyro for the song One.

How was it a diss, stating they were bringing it to another level ?
Those bands wish they could take it to Mets level.

And your one of the few who liked DefTones.

Because hubris is never attractive.

Nice word. Very appropriate. :D

Why were they being arrogant ? Mets music is at a higher level these the bands they played with. I see it as James say that to all the little rap/numetal kids, that your about to see, hear, and fell what real metal sounds like.

There`s nothing wrong with having pride.

Thanks. Somehow I actually stayed awake in HS English. :D

Yeah, it's only one of the 7 deadly sins.... ;)