| Originally Posted by KenW /img/forum/go_quote.gif Forgetting all the legal issues for a moment, what I find entertaining is the battle between those who would seek to protect the content and those who are challenged to find a way around it. Maybe I'm just easily amused, but I do love watching this back and forth. The industry comes up with new security measures and it's simply throwing down the gaunlet to those who get off on breaking through those measures. I just love it.
|
| Originally Posted by ThomasJB /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is happening is that the **AA is trying to justify their extortion with stupid laws, and no one has the power or the motivation to take a stand against them. 
|
| Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif GV, thanks for entering into a dialog with me. I love dialogs! First of all, my claim that music is integral to human life stems from recently published articles that delve into what, exactly, was at play in shaping human beings into the music lovers that we tend to be. See this one for example. I do view music as a fundamental right for human beings. However, in the same way that access to water should be a basic right, this does not at all mean that compensation for access isn't appropriate and necessary. You can either dig the well yourself or compensate someone to do it for you. So with music. Just to be clear, I admire the wily antics and philosophical expression of the people over at The Pirate Bay. However, subscribing to the idea that music should be free is pretty dumb. Maybe if the world had taken a different course, but we are where we are, and you gotta pay for stuff here. I myself download a fair amount of music (I'll let you infer the methods). What I like, I buy in CD form. What I dislike, I delete or forget about completely. In a Clear Channel landscape where Internet radio might soon be going the way of the dinosaur, how is it exactly that I'm supposed to hear music that I might actually want to buy? I haven't--and I kid you not--listened to FM radio (other than NPR and Howard Stern) since 2003. Not a second of it. I can't say I don't listen to top 40 material because I honestly don't even know what it is anymore. I suspect I don't even come close. Judging by the tone the RIAA has created in the past few years, I feel like I wouldn't be far off in speculating that my finding music without the RIAA's guidance is, in and of itself, a threat to the beloved entity. The correlation between RIAA sales being down and file sharing being up does not prove causation. Could it be that as the RIAA tried to force feed consumers that which made the RIAA money, a substantial number of consumers simply lost interest? Now with the Internets, all of a sudden we can find music we actually like, and so we do. And then RIAA sales drop even more, and it clamps down even harder, and even more people lose interest in its offerings. Real music is a product of human culture and is not the cold, stale product that the RIAA wants it to be. I truly feel like reducing it to mere entertainment is in error; music is not Mission Impossible 2. I don't feel entertained when I listen to music. I feel like a part of myself is awakened. Music hits a spot in me like nothing else can. That's evidence enough to me that music is not something to be body slammed down our throats like everything else we consume. It is something to take natural shape as innovators and listeners change over time. I think we should be able to exert some influence on what it is, and I think the RIAA would much prefer that we get on board and listen to the same 40 songs as everyone else. The music landscape is like a diverse creek running through the woods. This creek naturally carves out new paths for itself, sometimes changing directions completely, sometimes forking off in two different directions at once. The RIAA has tried to tend the banks all along, and became remarkably adept at it prior to the coming of the Internet as we know it today. This new scene is like a new fork in the creek, obviously with some serious rapids. The RIAA seems to be responding by erecting concrete barriers to keep the creek running straight, narrow, boring and under its control. People may continue to buy music while rafting their way down snore creek, but the cultural significance of music is sapped away for the benefit of, as you said, the RIAA's coffers. You bring up some good questions. Compensation is key. I also won't delude myself--I'm sure there are plenty of people out there just plain stealing music. But as I've said before, a stolen file does not necessarily translate into a lost sale. And in many cases, a temporarily borrowed ( 
The RIAA's members may have once played a critical role in disseminating music, but they have since turned into a cold, faceless corporate conglomerate. They took their collective finger off the pulse. If the RIAA falls apart tomorrow music stands absolutely no chance of going with it. As I said, the RIAA didn't invent music. Music will be around as long as there are people. And if the RIAA disappears or is at least weakened to the point where it is no longer able to push politicians to push its agenda, the playing field suddenly gets a lot greener for everyone else. This isn't going to magically happen if everyone stops paying for music, but with the Internet and file sharing suddenly I get to chase down, for example, bands like Destroyer. After a few downloaded albums I promptly bought his entire discography straight from Merge. This system has an incredibly broad reach and creates a much more level playing field than corporate radio. I think it should be obvious even to the most casual observer that this is what the RIAA fears most. |
| Originally Posted by GlendaleViper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like many things, if you return the balance of power, you eliminate the need for such absurdly polarized views. Think of it like the musical equivalent of prohibition: Abolish it and, not only will you eliminate the criminal element (since it can be bought fairly and legally), but you also foster safety (regulation), trust (police state is eliminated) and an economic boon (tax income). It's not much of an analogy, but I hope you get my drift. |
| Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thing is, you don't have to pay full price for music. I've bought boxes of LPs at thrift stores for a few dollars. I buy used CDs online and at stores. I listen to FM radio, and I also legally download public domain music. I have more than I have time to listen to and it's cheap. I get lots of music, but the RIAA doesn't see my dollars. If you really want to hit the RIAA where it hurts, buy used. Or trade with your friends. 100% legal, 100% ethical and you get lots of music. |
| Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not going to read into this one at all. But you might find it interesting: New laws create second-hand woes for CD retailers. (via Digg) http://www.digg.com/music/New_Laws_C...e_of_Used_CD_s |
| Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not going to read into this one at all. But you might find it interesting: New laws create second-hand woes for CD retailers. (via Digg) http://www.digg.com/music/New_Laws_C...e_of_Used_CD_s |
| Originally Posted by GlendaleViper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ever feel it's a losing battle? |
