Stop Music For Free, Pleads Record Industry

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | July 10, 2002 | Paul Majendie

[Bible Baptist Lady Patriot]

This so called ghetto music is pure junk! I'm getting old. Give me those oldies!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

There are some artists, like Zeppelin where I have bought the same music on album, eight track, and CD. They have made more than enough money off of me.

[dpwiener]

Stealing music off the internet that you didn't pay for is ZERO DIFFERENT than stealing a sweater from a dept store.

One needn't disagree with your statement to nevertheless express a low opinion of the Recording Industry and its counterproductive approach towards piracy problems. Similar end-of-the-world scenarios were touted by the movie industry when VCRs came along, but the reality is that VCRs were the best thing that ever happened to Hollywood. By ultimately embracing the medium, and renting and selling tapes at reasonable prices with a convenient distribution system, the movie industry made new fortunes. The Recording Industry could have done the same.

It is true that the Recording Industry faces a technical problem: File copying and communicating is cheap and easy via computers and the Internet, so piracy is hard to stop. But their desired solution is to crush the rights of all computer and Internet users by imposing draconian legal restrictions and hardware limitations on everyone, regardless of the fact that many (hopefully most) of us do not engage in piracy.

That is outrageous and evil. Just because they have a problem with some piratic users, that is no excuse for them to harm non-piratic users. Even if their problem turns out to be insoluable in practice, it is still their problem and not mine.

So I have very little sympathy for the Recording Industry. The harm they are attempting to inflict on the rest of us dwarfs any harm they may be suffering (and which they could have avoided anyway), and their problems in no way excuse or justify their depravations.

[RWG]

Music for free means less new music, fewer new artists, less choice, thousands less jobs...maybe not, check out www.emusic.com

[eno_]

"Piracy" is copying a work for profit. Whatever P2P sharing is, it does not fit the classical definition of piracy. In fact, it is closer to the fair use right I have to make a copy of a work for distribution without compensation - i.e. "the Betamax decision." Unlimited P2P availability of copyright works may violate the rights of the authors of those works, but it is not, strictly speaking, "piracy."

[BikerNYC]

Because you can still make money. Perhaps the business model will require that artists be paid no more than teachers. I don't view that as a horror story.

[berned]

The basis of all capitalism is... Irrelevant to discussions of art.

This may be the single most ignorant remark I've seen on Free Republic.

Capitalism does NOT apply to art????? Capitalism makes every single facet of life better, produces superior product in every area of life EXCEPT art????? Socialism fails to motivate excellence in every area EXCEPT art???

Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with you.

[xJones]

You might like this thread.

[ken5050]

As soon as U2 fufills its current record contract, I'd expect them to put the next album on line, sell it directly. That's what is scaringthe music companies. They won't be needed anymore...

[berned]

And what gives Ted Turner the right to earn royalties in perpetuity on movies that he had nothing to do with creating?

Uhhhhh..... Would that be because he PURCHASED them from people who voluntarily SOLD them to him?

[George from New England]

Just as they should get paid for their work, once I have purchased a license, I shouldn't have to keep purchasing a new license for the same product on a different media.

BINGO.

I own about 20,000 45 rpm records from the 60s and 70s. I had to pay the royalties for a second time when I bought all of them on CD.

Where's my refund? Where do I submit my claim?

[Timesink]

The record industry pleaded on Wednesday with consumers to stop downloading and recording music for free because piracy was strangling the multi-billion-dollar industry.

No. You're a bunch of ultra-greedy bastards that have been convicted of price-fixing and collusion many many times over the years. You charge $20 for a CD that costs $1.25 to produce, and then give only 75 cents to the artist. You force me to buy that $20 CD when I only want one song off of it.

The market interprets price-gouging as damage and routes around it.

[tomkat]

Craftmanship is dead

not completely ...

[Bill Rice]

"Record executives also believe there are now more unauthorized music files available on the Internet than at the height of Napster ( news - web sites)'s success in the field.<"

So how come I can never any of Zappa's "Beat the Boots" series anywhere? I have EVERYTHING he's done, except for these albums.

Does anyone have any suggestions where I should look?

[Timesink]

Kennedy said Irish supergroup U2 sold 10 million copies of their first Greatest Hits compilation album. The second volume is due out this year and he wondered: "Are these figures still attainable?"

No, but that's because U2's first greatest hits album contained a ton of great songs, while this second one is going to consist largely of crap.

[Tex-Con-Man]

The answer is something that the record labels still refuse to do.
Make their entire libraries available for downloading. Charge per song, more for new releases, and less for the older ones.
Make the transaction simple and inexpensive(a dollar a song?), and the record companies will make more money than they'll know what to do with.
Plus the added bonus of no CD or distribution costs.

There are plenty of "Napster-types" who would gladly pay for the songs THEY want, as opposed to what the labels choose for them.

The record labels have decided. The consumer has 2 choices: Either buy a bunch of overpriced CD's to get the few songs you want, or download them illegally. Until they offer a 3rd choice, they will continue to head toward bankruptcy.

[discostu]

Oh you are so out of touch.
Here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005QG9G/qid=1026335334/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-6135937-5637422
release date Oct 16, 2001
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000066HQE/qid=1026335334/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-6135937-5637422
release date June 25 2002

Haggar and Roth are so yesterday as to not be worth mentioning, last I heard they had to tour together to get decent sales going. As well as Ozzy kicking out a new album every couple of years (had a gap with the Black Sabbath reunion, but that resulted in an album, just not an Ozzy album) Ozzfest is a tradition that has hit every summer for close to 10 years.

Now there are some artists that have good ticket sales without a fresh album out, but what they have is HISTORY, like the Dead did until Jerry died.

The formula for a big concert tour (we're talking places seating at least 3000 preferably with 5 digits, not little 500 seat casino shows) is very simple: release CD, push CD, get radio play for new songs on CD, promote tour through music stores and radio stations (you know the ones selling and playing the new CD). The CD is the lynchpin for the whole promotional system. Even lowrent guys like Jimmy Buffett (whom I'll be seeing in october) know this math (seems like every time I hit the B's he's got another album out, I spend tons on CDs and still can't keep up with Jimmy). As for williams the 3rd, he's another Hank Williams, come on, how much name recognition can one guy get. He sells tickets on the Grateful dead method.

Now I agree that it's a problem that the RIAA is trying to limit fair use. But they're getting fuel on this from the bootleggers that are using this new technology to violate fair use. Massive internet distribution of copyrighted material is NOT legal. Certain levels of sharing among individuals is ignored and lives on fuzzy legal ground, blowing it open to thousands of downloads on the internet is not. It's bootlegging pure and simple.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Uhhhhh..... Would that be because he PURCHASED them from people who voluntarily SOLD them to him?

Uhhhh..... Copyright was originally intended to provide income to the author during his lifetime, starting off at about 7 years. Corporate lawyers lobbied to extend the period to about 200 years. Copyright has been perverted from its original intent to something that is totally unjust, but I suppose in your warped world view whatever laws lawyers can manage to lobby past congress for purposes of theft is just dandy.

[WhiteGuy]

Hey you old fart!

I've done the same thing....

(Most recently Bob Seager's Night Moves)

(I actually had to show and explain to my daughter what an album is)