-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
If you use Kazaa, you *must* read this!
- Thread starter General Grizz
- Start date
darthdarrel
New Member
I agree with you 100% my friend!
and Ethyl Cooper,I don`t think that the dowturn in Metallica sales has anything to do with any economic downturn or file sharing,the whole truth is that for 1 there is a silent boycott,because of their retarded oposition to file sharing and Their susiquent lawsuits and also the quality of their music has taken a sharp downward spiral,basically they suck anymore, and people don`t want to by cd`s of music that sucks! plain and simple.
Fievel
RunDisney Addict
Originally posted by darthdarrel
I agree with you 100% my friend!
and Ethyl Cooper,I don`t think that the dowturn in Metallica sales has anything to do with any economic downturn or file sharing,the whole truth is that for 1 there is a silent boycott,because of their retarded oposition to file sharing and Their susiquent lawsuits and also the quality of their music has taken a sharp downward spiral,basically they suck anymore, and people don`t want to by cd`s of music that sucks! plain and simple.
Well...Metallica went straight to #1 on the charts, so I'd hardly call their sales "lacking".
And please watch the language....the music you think "sucks" may be what I have in my cd player as we speak.
You wouldn't want me telling you that your music sucks, would you?
darthdarrel
New Member
Sorry if you were offended Brad, Please accept my apology. but every review I have heard about their new album was terrible,and this is coming from Metallica fans and yes it shot straight up to #1,but fell down fast and it is not me saying that Metallica sales are down, it`s the recording industry saying that and they are blaming file sharing,which I say is alot of hogwash!
prberk
Well-Known Member
Yes, and we all do well to remember that the issue was decided based on the use of the machines for (1) timeshifting and (2) copies of your own stuff or TV shows for personal use, not for rebroadcast.
When things are out of print, or otherwise unavailable, I believe "fair use" also applies but may be limited. I am unsure.
I do understand that we make tapes, CDs, etc., and often cross this line. I just think that we should make a reasonable effort to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," which means we should pay for things that we take when that is the intent of the seller. I really only see it as a problem when it is blatantly for sale by its rightful owner and we take it anyway.
I admit that I copy things when I can't find them for sale, etc. I just want people to realize the rights of others, especially when most poeple who do this file sharing make sure to protect most things that they themselves own (and their own creations would be even more treasured).
prberk
Well-Known Member
Because the equipment is no more responsible for what is copied than a gun is for whoever brandishes it and kills someone.
I was a sound tech at my church, and I used CD burners and blank CDs (and tape recorders and blank tapes) to make and copy live recordings of people making their own music... banning the instrument would prevent that.
prberk
Well-Known Member
BTW, there was a great article about this in our local paper. It was by our local music critic, Melissa Rugierri, who is in her late 30s and really writes fun and interesting reviews...
So I was interested when I read this...
(and yes, I read it in the real paper, then found it offered FREE, on the paper's website... ;-) ).
http://www.timesdispatch.com/weekend/music/MGBPMD4WJGD.html
Anyway, please read and comment. It is great.
So I was interested when I read this...
(and yes, I read it in the real paper, then found it offered FREE, on the paper's website... ;-) ).
http://www.timesdispatch.com/weekend/music/MGBPMD4WJGD.html
Anyway, please read and comment. It is great.
joefox97
Active Member
*sigh*
The reality of the situation is that the RIAA could care less about the artists that are being bilked out of money (and I make no qualms that the artists themselves are being bilked out of money). The RIAA is worried about their, rather sizable, cut.
As many have said, both amateurs and professionals in the industry, the music industry as we know it is finished. They are as antiquated as the record players and eight-trakcs that made brought them to power.
The beauty of this is that in the future, ("In the future, packages will be sent to distant worlds through beams of light!" -FedEx sponsorship of SpaceMountain in post-show) Sorry, couldn't resist.) musicians will still be paid for their music. They'll be paid directly by the people who listen to the music, and not by a roundabout bureaucratic mess known as the RIAA. Songs will be bought directly from the bands themselves.
Take Aerosmith for example. I love their music. I want to see them continue to make music. I have most of their music downloaded, and have purchased the CD's containing the tracks I've downloaded and enjoyed, because I want them to continue recording music.
If I didn't support them, they may not be able to continue recording. But how much of my support did they actually see? How much of that money was taken away by a near-government-level wasting agency called the RIAA?
So instead of paying $20 for a disc where half goes to bureaucrats with their hands out, I'll pay $1 per song to the artist, directly. They make more money, I get the music I want, and the RIAA goes away, like they should.
And I, for one, can't wait to see it happen.
And as far as hackers attacking the RIAA - it's only a matter of time until the RIAA truly regrets this decision... I'm not making threats, but suffice it to say that they've angered the wrong group of geeks.
The reality of the situation is that the RIAA could care less about the artists that are being bilked out of money (and I make no qualms that the artists themselves are being bilked out of money). The RIAA is worried about their, rather sizable, cut.
As many have said, both amateurs and professionals in the industry, the music industry as we know it is finished. They are as antiquated as the record players and eight-trakcs that made brought them to power.
The beauty of this is that in the future, ("In the future, packages will be sent to distant worlds through beams of light!" -FedEx sponsorship of SpaceMountain in post-show) Sorry, couldn't resist.) musicians will still be paid for their music. They'll be paid directly by the people who listen to the music, and not by a roundabout bureaucratic mess known as the RIAA. Songs will be bought directly from the bands themselves.
Take Aerosmith for example. I love their music. I want to see them continue to make music. I have most of their music downloaded, and have purchased the CD's containing the tracks I've downloaded and enjoyed, because I want them to continue recording music.
If I didn't support them, they may not be able to continue recording. But how much of my support did they actually see? How much of that money was taken away by a near-government-level wasting agency called the RIAA?
So instead of paying $20 for a disc where half goes to bureaucrats with their hands out, I'll pay $1 per song to the artist, directly. They make more money, I get the music I want, and the RIAA goes away, like they should.
And I, for one, can't wait to see it happen.
And as far as hackers attacking the RIAA - it's only a matter of time until the RIAA truly regrets this decision... I'm not making threats, but suffice it to say that they've angered the wrong group of geeks.
joefox97
Active Member
Great article? First of all, she already owns the music, so downloading it is NOT illegal - she owns it, and this is an allowed "backup" copy. Second of all, this is all her nephew knows. His generation has technology like this ingrained into them - like genetic knowledge. They think, live and breathe this stuff - it's just how their minds work. Her article is nothing but a "I'm too old for this ****" moment.
WDWSwashbuckler
New Member
But that isn't the point of the music industry's case. Believe me, I work at a law firm and I have these discussions with lawyers all the time. The point isn't that they've still made alot of money. The point the music industry makes in this case is that they could have still made MORE if internet users weren't downloading and sharing music online. I know as well as you do that the music industry had WAY too much money, but they still want more.
SirNim
Well-Known Member
To alleviate the pain of all this, I am donating some of MY FREE TIME to create and write original NEW, CATCHY, SONGS that I will offer to ALL OF YOU to DOWNLOAD for abolsutely NO PRICE (aka FREE!), without fear of being caught and sued by a Tribunal!
In fact, some of my songs are already up the Internet...
one is at:
http://www.geocities.com/bajcafe/DiversitySongsmall.mp3
(of course I have the WDW songs, available using the link in my sig but they are not original compositions, just remakes I have created!)
Enjoy!
heheheh (this post was more ceremonial than anything else... although the link really is real hehe)
In fact, some of my songs are already up the Internet...
one is at:
http://www.geocities.com/bajcafe/DiversitySongsmall.mp3
(of course I have the WDW songs, available using the link in my sig but they are not original compositions, just remakes I have created!
) Enjoy!
heheheh (this post was more ceremonial than anything else... although the link really is real hehe)
NowInc
Well-Known Member
It's kind of ironica viewing my standpoint on this issue (me being in a band which does in fact sell CDs)...our MP3s have been freely available on the internet for a while, and ya know what? If people like the music..they will BUY the CD (this is what I personally do. I got sick of spening 15+ bucks on a CD where only 2 songs are worth listening to).
Bands (most at least) make tons of money from MERCH sales (T-shirts, hats etc) as well as playing shows. The CD sales, well....thats a whole other issue. The reason artists like Metallica (im going to talk more about them in a bit), Dr.Dre etc are all against MP3 trading is because they own the SOLE EXCLUSIVE rights to their music. Therefore, they have the most to lose from it being freely distributed.
Personally, I see MP3 swapping as a GREAT way to open peoples minds to new bands/styles (not to sound arrogant, but its how my band got so popular). Metallica, back before they were "the best metal band in the world" (debatable), used to make bootlegs of their own album to trade with other people. Thats how they got recognized back on the east coast, and its also how they got signed. So for them to be COMPLETLY anti MP3 (aka bootlegging)..they are being pretty hypocritical. Also, keep in mind that Lars has since made statments regarding his "mistake" on taking on napster...something about how he expected to have an army of fans behind him, and when he turned around...no one was there. He realized he was views as a betrayer against what his "music" orginated from.....and a funny side note to all of this, Metallica had to release their album SUPER early because it was leaked on the internet weeks before its official date. Stores were instructed to put it on the shelves the second they got it in. And yes, it still reached #1. (Mansons new album also reached #1 and that was on the net for a good 2 months before it came out...remember my review?)
As for darrels comments as to "why make CDrs and CD burners"...uh...yeah..as said...the TOOLS are only as illegal as the person using them. I personally use my CD burner to burn DATA most of the time, not music. Same goes with my DVDr...tho i could easily start bootlegging movies.
A few artsists are starting to sell their albums "one track at a time" thru their websites (usually around $1.50 per song)..and i think thats a GREAT idea. It at least all goes directly to where it belongs.
Then of course, there are the industry hyprocrits...not the artists..im talking about the LABELS. Most noteably...Sony. Sony makes the worlds best selling line of MP3 players, invented the CD burning technology, and still has a problem with MP3 sharing/creation due to the sony music label. Same company with opposing views againt itself.
Final note, keep in mind that CD sales break records every year...it hasnt gone down at all (no matter WHAT the RIAA tries to tell you), and its more common now for an album to go platinum instantly than it ever has in the past.
In the end, its all about greed and who thinks they arent getting their oversized cut. I know how sleezy this industry is first hand, and trust me, the bands ALWAYS lose. Either the fans get ed cuz the band is against the trading, or the label will drop support for a band (finanically) if they stand WITH the practice.
Personally...my band will ALWAYS be pro-mp3 trading because we OWE it for our fanbase. Word of mouth goes a long way, and not everyone can get to a CD store that sells our album (up until very recently, it was only available DIRECTLY thru us via paypal which most of our fans, ages 14-17, dont have). We now have fans all over the world (france, bolivia, japan, south africa etc) thanks COMPLETLY to the mp3.
Bands (most at least) make tons of money from MERCH sales (T-shirts, hats etc) as well as playing shows. The CD sales, well....thats a whole other issue. The reason artists like Metallica (im going to talk more about them in a bit), Dr.Dre etc are all against MP3 trading is because they own the SOLE EXCLUSIVE rights to their music. Therefore, they have the most to lose from it being freely distributed.
Personally, I see MP3 swapping as a GREAT way to open peoples minds to new bands/styles (not to sound arrogant, but its how my band got so popular). Metallica, back before they were "the best metal band in the world" (debatable), used to make bootlegs of their own album to trade with other people. Thats how they got recognized back on the east coast, and its also how they got signed. So for them to be COMPLETLY anti MP3 (aka bootlegging)..they are being pretty hypocritical. Also, keep in mind that Lars has since made statments regarding his "mistake" on taking on napster...something about how he expected to have an army of fans behind him, and when he turned around...no one was there. He realized he was views as a betrayer against what his "music" orginated from.....and a funny side note to all of this, Metallica had to release their album SUPER early because it was leaked on the internet weeks before its official date. Stores were instructed to put it on the shelves the second they got it in. And yes, it still reached #1. (Mansons new album also reached #1 and that was on the net for a good 2 months before it came out...remember my review?)
As for darrels comments as to "why make CDrs and CD burners"...uh...yeah..as said...the TOOLS are only as illegal as the person using them. I personally use my CD burner to burn DATA most of the time, not music. Same goes with my DVDr...tho i could easily start bootlegging movies.
A few artsists are starting to sell their albums "one track at a time" thru their websites (usually around $1.50 per song)..and i think thats a GREAT idea. It at least all goes directly to where it belongs.
Then of course, there are the industry hyprocrits...not the artists..im talking about the LABELS. Most noteably...Sony. Sony makes the worlds best selling line of MP3 players, invented the CD burning technology, and still has a problem with MP3 sharing/creation due to the sony music label. Same company with opposing views againt itself.
Final note, keep in mind that CD sales break records every year...it hasnt gone down at all (no matter WHAT the RIAA tries to tell you), and its more common now for an album to go platinum instantly than it ever has in the past.
In the end, its all about greed and who thinks they arent getting their oversized cut. I know how sleezy this industry is first hand, and trust me, the bands ALWAYS lose. Either the fans get ed cuz the band is against the trading, or the label will drop support for a band (finanically) if they stand WITH the practice.
Personally...my band will ALWAYS be pro-mp3 trading because we OWE it for our fanbase. Word of mouth goes a long way, and not everyone can get to a CD store that sells our album (up until very recently, it was only available DIRECTLY thru us via paypal which most of our fans, ages 14-17, dont have). We now have fans all over the world (france, bolivia, japan, south africa etc) thanks COMPLETLY to the mp3.
CmdrTostada
Member
there is an article about sony in wired lol, I have a subscription, and I read every article because I have no life. But in an issue of Wired there is an articel about the "civil war" inside sony, I think if you put, the civil war inside sony, in the search querie you can find the article.
prberk
Well-Known Member
NowInc., my only real problem with what you said was that you said it was all about greed. See, that argument is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
I see it clearly as an argument of right and wrong, based on ownership and the rights of it.
Think of it this way: if you bought a $20,000 car and let it sit in your driveway this evening at the same time that I might need a ride, I might argue that you obviously have plenty of money and are being greedy with it. Your car is sitting there idle and locked, while I need a ride.
You would probably argue that you owned the car, and since you felt like resting tonight and had no real obligation to me, it is completely within your rights to let the car sit there; and in doing so, you are not being greedy with your money or possessions, just exercising your right of ownership.
You would get very mad at me and perhaps take legal action if I decided that you did not deserve respect for your arrogance and greed, and therefore decided to use an anti-locking device to open the car and go ahead and take it for the evening anyway. Besides, who would it hurt? You were going to rest tonight anyway? And you still get to use the car in the morning, just like you planned to!
Why would you have me arrested????
For good or bad, the record companies own much in this debate, but frankly they also paid for it. They put up the risk in developing artists, paying for promoters, tours, etc. They may make money, but they also bankroll the artists and take risks to get them where they are. They have a right to manage what they own. (Which also extends to your right to work with your own material the way you see fit.)
I see it clearly as an argument of right and wrong, based on ownership and the rights of it.
Think of it this way: if you bought a $20,000 car and let it sit in your driveway this evening at the same time that I might need a ride, I might argue that you obviously have plenty of money and are being greedy with it. Your car is sitting there idle and locked, while I need a ride.
You would probably argue that you owned the car, and since you felt like resting tonight and had no real obligation to me, it is completely within your rights to let the car sit there; and in doing so, you are not being greedy with your money or possessions, just exercising your right of ownership.
You would get very mad at me and perhaps take legal action if I decided that you did not deserve respect for your arrogance and greed, and therefore decided to use an anti-locking device to open the car and go ahead and take it for the evening anyway. Besides, who would it hurt? You were going to rest tonight anyway? And you still get to use the car in the morning, just like you planned to!
Why would you have me arrested????
For good or bad, the record companies own much in this debate, but frankly they also paid for it. They put up the risk in developing artists, paying for promoters, tours, etc. They may make money, but they also bankroll the artists and take risks to get them where they are. They have a right to manage what they own. (Which also extends to your right to work with your own material the way you see fit.)
Well the RIAA can come after me for all I care I am 15, whats the worst they could do? Yell at me and tell me to stop! I think I have some 900 hundred songs listed on Kazaa (Lite!). All of those I got from other Kazaa users.
I do however buy most of my new music legally. Being a DJ part-time, I pay tons a month for the latest music on CD and videos on DVD from companies like Promo Only and TM Century. I get very mad when I see jerks taking their Promo CD's and uploading them to Kazaa.
I have also paid the price of file swapping by getting a few bugs, but Symantec killed them for me.
Remember what is happening. Most new computers in the future wont offer a disk drive. Why? Because the computer industry feels the CD-R's are a better medium to back up DATA to. Thats why Imation is the only major company still making disk drives. CD-R's were not first ment for music, but rather data files and storing more then the disket. Like NowInc said, Sony did perfect it, and created the music CD-R burner. Sony has also put them self in a bad spot like he said. There own technology is "hurting" there Sony Classical, Sony 5/50 and other Sony Music companies.
Sony did the same witht he BetaMax video recorder. The Motion Picture Industry sued Sony for that and lost.
RIAA needs to learn that in todays world they are screwed!
If Kazaa goes, I predict another P2P file program taking its place and leaving Kazaa in the "Napster Grave Yard".
Also, I find that stupid Adobe anti-Piracy site bogus! I mean please, how many individual users do they waste their time on. Yes, maybe major companies, but why wouldnt a major comapny buy a large volum lic.?
Well my 2 cents...
I do however buy most of my new music legally. Being a DJ part-time, I pay tons a month for the latest music on CD and videos on DVD from companies like Promo Only and TM Century. I get very mad when I see jerks taking their Promo CD's and uploading them to Kazaa.
I have also paid the price of file swapping by getting a few bugs, but Symantec killed them for me.
Remember what is happening. Most new computers in the future wont offer a disk drive. Why? Because the computer industry feels the CD-R's are a better medium to back up DATA to. Thats why Imation is the only major company still making disk drives. CD-R's were not first ment for music, but rather data files and storing more then the disket. Like NowInc said, Sony did perfect it, and created the music CD-R burner. Sony has also put them self in a bad spot like he said. There own technology is "hurting" there Sony Classical, Sony 5/50 and other Sony Music companies.
Sony did the same witht he BetaMax video recorder. The Motion Picture Industry sued Sony for that and lost.
RIAA needs to learn that in todays world they are screwed!
If Kazaa goes, I predict another P2P file program taking its place and leaving Kazaa in the "Napster Grave Yard".
Also, I find that stupid Adobe anti-Piracy site bogus! I mean please, how many individual users do they waste their time on. Yes, maybe major companies, but why wouldnt a major comapny buy a large volum lic.?
Well my 2 cents...
NowInc
Well-Known Member
I understand and accept your opinion...you are definatly well educated on this topic much like myself, and have presented your side of the argument inteligently and professionally...a rare trait on this forum...believe me.
There is no "right or wrong" in this matter...its a matter of perspective, and honestly..every case is different.
There is no "right or wrong" in this matter...its a matter of perspective, and honestly..every case is different.
EthylCooper
Active Member
You know, this brings up some interesting points. Out of print and unavailable items are not covered by fair use under copyright laws.
For example, Me, Alice, the Alice Cooper autobiography (cowritten by Steven Gaines) is out of print, and was never printed as a paperback. Consequently, very few copies of it exist, and used copies were selling for around $400 for a while. Most people had no way to read it, except for the text file that was floating around the internet a few years ago. (I was lucky enough to have read it through an Interlibrary loan at my college.) Even though the likelihood of a second printing is almost nil, Steven Gaines (or his agents) asked webmasters to remove the files. I do understand him wanting to protect his copyright, but I wish they had sought some sort of middle ground here that would protect his rights and still give others the chance to read the book.
The idea of fair use was completely ignored by the agents of J.D. Salinger, who several years ago sent out C&Ds to most any ISP with a site that quoted even a few lines. You can read a little about this
here , if you want.
Even the VCR issue....only time-shifting was mentioned as a fair use in the Betamax decision, and one of the biggest reasons for this decision was that some producers (notably Mr. Rogers) stood up and defended the idea of time-shifting. Many of the recording practices we all do--watching a taped show more than once, showing it to friends in our homes, lending it to friends to watch at their homes--aren't specifically protected. And now that TV series are becoming available to buy on DVD, you can bet that if the Betamax case were currently in the courts, the production companies would have a much different stand on the matter.
My point is this: Copyright law is necessary in our economic structure, but the corporations holding those copyrights are going to frightening extremes to try to enforce them lately. I understand that the Internet Era is a scary time for them, but technology happens. Their time and effort would be better spent watching the trends and adapting to the new markets than threatening us with litigation and releasing crippled CDs (without even a warning sticker) that prevent us from reasonably using the disc.
CDS Disney
Member
750 to 1500 per song not only do they want to find out who you are but destroy you as well. Its cule punishment if you ask me.
EthylCooper
Active Member
...and I'm not sure how well that will work and still leave us able to make our own backup copies for personal use. Not only that, but at this point many of us have spent hundreds of dollars on equipment that reads regular mp3s, and the likelihood that this new file type will be readable to those players isn't very good.