Quote:



That's classic! Say, what kind of headphones is that kid wearing?

Quote:



Sorry, that's just plain wrong. You do realize that no-one would want to be a musician if this were indeed the case?

You are not allowed to just burn a copy of a CD and give it to your friends. Would you want someone to clone your child and put it up for adoption? Speaking from a musician's perspective, that's what it would feel like, emotionally.

I've got no problem with artists saying that they don't mind their music being distributed -- but that should be treated on a case-by-case basis, not extrapolated to the entirety of the musician population based on a couple of examples. If Grateful Dead say it's okay to record their concerts, then it's okay. If King Crimson hate the fact that their concerts are taped, then you shouldn't tape them. I disagree with them, but acknowledge that it is their right and only their right to say so.

I also have a problem with a lot of things the RIAA are perpetuating -- copy protection, watermarking, and the infernal contract structure. But that doesn't make it right to sink to their level -- when you illegally listen to copies of artists' work for free and against their will, you're screwing over the artist as much as the record companies are.

That said, hacking into a private website is illegal and wrong, no matter what. It's the Internet equivalent of graffitti, and should be treated as such. If you disagree with what the RIAA is doing, there are other ways to fight them (join lobbies, contribute to fights against their cause, etc.) that are legal, safe, and -- in the long run -- more effective. As long as these guerilla tactics give the perpetrators a bad name, the better the RIAA look in contrast.

Actually, there are other solutions out there, that will fund new and popular music. It is called branding, and it is how television got started. It has relatively few drawbacks.

Brittney Spears is now singing about Pepsi. You can imagine a world where songs would be about merchandise, politics, retailers, restaurants and new concepts.

The music label expenses (marketing, payola, distribution, etc.) can be replaced with campaign funds (which are almost as large).

Perhaps the the age of differentiation between the show and the ads are drawing to an end?

That will solve the problem of copying of songs (as the advertiser will pay for it anyway), the lower quality watermark problem, as well as allow the P2P networks to continue (although with much less funding as the "free" in their unique, "free music" based business model heads down the drain).

I would guess at least some consumers will lament the days that music had other meaning. For them, MP3.com and its peers will always exist.

wow. it really looks like some of you listen solely to music that is spoonfed to you by the record companies via MTV.

personally i'm greatful that you're wonderful source of "meaningful" music is in danger, since it might result in some of you resorting to listening to real musicians.

think about your music and how many of you listen to artists strike it rich thanks to the record companies? lets see... jazz. nope; the best musicians barely made enough money to eat. classical... nope; they live off of concert goers, in an extremely competetive environment. bluegrass... nope; well not until about a year ago when everyone went bluegrass crazy because hollywood fed it to them. rock 'n roll... hmm, there's one, of course the money and fame drove most of these groups into drug abuse and depression, and eventual doom. hip hop... yes, we wouldn't hear most of these guys if it wasn't for record companies, but the ones we do hear the most aren't the talent. pop... oh yeah; i guess i forgot that so many of us who seem to be so into "music" lack any sort of actual musical "taste", if i may be so bold.

so i can understand why all of you, drooling over the new red hot chilli peppers and blink 182 and 'nsync cds would be upset. if i was a little less intelligent i might be too.

this is harsh, considering these huge over-hyped and over-produced mega stars are what get people excited, and therefore excited about "music" and obviously it is what sells. i still think losing it isn't all that bad of a trade-off.

there is still value in cds, and will new technology and formats coming out, people will still want them. I'd much rather have a real cd with a picture on it an liner notes than a burned cd, even though they sound the same. its just cooler, and its principal. i don't think artists will stop printing their music, and i don't think they'll stop charging for printed music, but i also don't see any value that huge power hungry record companies add into this mix.

dusty said:
"Sorry, that's just plain wrong. You do realize that no-one would want to be a musician if this were indeed the case? "

it seems they're confusing you all into thinking pretty faces and dance moves are what music is all about. yet there are still people who want pretty faces and dance moves, so that will continue to sell as well. but there is a lot of music out there that has nothing to do with pretty faces and dance moves, and its sad that you, of all people, are forgetting that.

these are people that don't really benafit from big record companies and while i wouldn't pass up an opportunity to be a big sell-out superstar making millions, this is the type of musician I WOULD WANT to be.

also don't forget that britany spears didn't start by realizing she was such an incredible talent that she would never share her musical brilliance w/o a multi-million dollar deal. you sound so nieve. britany spears could be any girl with blond hair and a nice midriff. she's a creation of the music industry, and after reading this:

"I would guess at least some consumers will lament the days that music had other meaning"

i would guess that some WOULDNT, otherwise they WOULD BE NOW. do you people not understand this? are you blind? will you ignore this completely and continue on with your stubborn posts speaking of rules and morals? try listening. you may be older and wiser than i, but its never too late to expand your mind. i try to consider the whole picture, and your arguements just don't pan out.

argh. someone else has to take over for me, because i'm certainly talking too much.

For the artists, they make most of their money from touring anyway, not from cd sales.

I guess the RIAA is going to have to payoff legislators to get rid of FM radio, AM radio, Sat. Radio, all radios, Tv's, MTV, and VH1, and all "free" music.

And burn all recorders and recordable materials.

Quote:



Not if I'm recording using analog cables. In that mode, it does not know if I'm recording tape, CD or whatever.

Quote:



Thanks for your profound contribution. Are your parents brother and sister?

Quote:



You might like analog copies, i sures hell don't. My deck allows me to record cd to MD digitally and i would prefer it to stay that way as a consumer.

Quote:



Currently no, but in the future it would. That's the idea. All DACs would insert watermarks into the analog out and all ADCs would be programed to shut down if they detected a watermark in the incoming signal. Or the source itself would have the watermark in it, and we know what that has a tendency to do to the sound. The RIAA is not stupid in this respect, they know that analog is insecure, and want to fix it.

don't bother bubba. you were pretty clear the first time, and he's obviously not interested in listening.

hahaha its hacked again

same ****. haha. you can even download crappy lincoln park right off the riaa server. wonder how they managed that. oh... priceless.

better click it quick, sure it wont last long

Quote:



And what's wrong with communism?

To Beagle: and in what way are you giving the artists their worth when 99% of the money you pay for big label music goes to label, which is an RIAA member? You could do better by downloading an mp3 and then e-mailing a quarter to the artist.

And I do hope you realize how much quality you're giving up by recording analog.

Oh, and to combat analog recording, the RIAA is going to put watermarks in the MUSIC. And to make sure that recording can't succeed unless the analog line condition is HORRIBLE (e.g. recording with a $3 MIKE), the watermarks will be quite audible.

There is already a copy protection scheme for CDs that works by introducing uncorrectible errors throughout the CD. This method relies on the error masking circuitry to make the music sound ok in the damaged parts, but what kind of sound quality do you think you'd get?

If they come up with this kind of thing to prevent DIGITAL copying, imagine how much worse analog copy protection would be.

Idiot

I wouldn't mind if their headquarters were trashed like 911. I agree when people say that there's simply no stopping them by conventional means. (see e.g. http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenT...035#1560906035 and search for 'xplo') Of course I don't live in the US, so I'm not as sensitive to this issue as some of you. I place 911 firmly in the 'mass murder' category; but if the target site were someplace more appropriate like a G8 conference site, I wouldn't mind

It'd be a bit different if the system of royalties and payment worked the way the RIAA says it does. Buying a CD, for example, does not create much of a royalty for an artist. The way it usually works: New artists get signed, they get essentially a loan to get promotion, tour, and recording, then spend the rest of their career paying the loan back. When they tour, most of the money goes to Ticketmaster (remember Pearl Jam's stand-off with Ticketmaster?). This model applies to most musicians that get signed and don't last long, i.e. most musicians. As for rich guys not complaining, the idiots in Metallica should be a prime example of greed gone wrong. The RIAA represents corporations, not the artists.

Then you get into the issue of price fixing CD's, ownership of all the other forms of media that are necessary to brand a band, and conflicting market practices. For example, the record companies have branded the whole MP3 format as a hacker's tool to avoid paying for music and take away money from the artist. Then some of the same major companies a) market consumer products that encourage playback of MP3 and b) form their own encryption schemes that mirror MP3 but serve the same function, i.e. copying music. My point, the RIAA is not a single entity, it is only represented in courts as one. It follows the dollar and is very angry that it can't figure out how best to cash in on the internet business.

I believe the RIAA, not to mention its analogous business models in the television, computer, film, and publishing industries, is your standard oligarchy. What can artists do? They can create a union that actually works on their behalf to change the contract structure for both recorded and live music. Consumers? We should work on the price-fixing issue, educate the public (even if informally through conversation), and put our money where our mouths are.

There are various reports floating around that file sharing has, for a majority of the people using it, actually kept buying levels even or increased them. Perhaps the real fear from the rec execs is that they actually have to start signing acts that are worth promoting. As for the original hacking issue, I'll treat it like I do graffiti - every once it a while, it's art.

Quote:



Um, i'm a little confused here.

Metallica are geniuses! Why? Simple. They sued Elektra to get hold of their catalog and also to control the $$$ they get from touring. In other words, when touring Metallica gets paid first then they pay everyone else. Notice how Metallica cd's still go for $15 or so? No discounts in Metallica's catalog, thats for sure. That's why Metallica are a bunch of rich, idiot guys not complaining unlike the majority of artists who are broke and clueless.