RIAA blames downloaders for bad sales, beg to differ

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
BS, if the technology was around 10,20 or 30 years ago people still would have downloaded MP3's without giving it a second thought.

Since I was 8 years old (circa 1982), I would record songs off the radio to a blank cassette. I didn't have a CD player yet anyway, so it was almost as good as buying the cassette. This is the same thing, except the technology is better.

 

[MegaloManiaK]

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/09/riaa_sue.html

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
BS, if the technology was around 10,20 or 30 years ago people still would have downloaded MP3's without giving it a second thought.

Since I was 8 years old (circa 1982), I would record songs off the radio to a blank cassette. I didn't have a CD player yet anyway, so it was almost as good as buying the cassette. This is the same thing, except the technology is better.

not really, theres a drastic quality difference and ease of distribution and creation.

casettes were horrible, copying was time consuming, and to distribute between people was difficult, the scale of copying was not anywhere near what is psosible now with near perfect copies.

 

[Rob9874]

I mean the idea of being able to enjoy a song without paying for it. Sound quality is nothing compared to today, but it was the best we had, and never worried about it.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Where were you to defend the music a decade ago? Oh that's right, you're voice was overshadowed by the fogies claiming that 70/80's rock was much better.

Has the situation changed? Nope, only the people.

I didn't defend the music 10 years ago. At 19, I was the one saying 70's/80's music was better than Nirvana and Pearl Jam. But now I see music standards have declined even further, and I don't mind hearing Evenflow on the radio. It's better than Linkin Park's hip-hop/rap/rock crap.

I didn't mean "you" specifically. I was referring to the people from my generation that are only now starting to defend their era.

Just by calling Linkin Park "hip-hop/rap/rock" pretty much proves to me that their music is more innovative than most bands in recent decades - especially compared to the cookie cutter hair bands and fret wankers of the 80's. Their DJ is amazing and their beats are original and catchy.

Just because you don't like it, does not mean it's crap.

 

[0roo0roo]

if you taped a lousy copy off the radio, it atleast was sorta paid for a bit by the radio station and the commercials. not to mention the quality was poor, you could consider it a promo sample.

mp3s, no one gets paid.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Their DJ is amazing and their beats are original and catchy.

See, I don't see ANY value in a DJ. To me, spinning records does not require any musical talent. And creating "beats" is not a terrific feat in itself. Today's generation has been brainwashed to thinking those things take talent. Even though I don't listen to them, I can argue that Poison was more talented than anyone in Linkin Park. As much as I hate them, CC Deville was an amazing guitarist. He just wasted his talent on pop rock.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
that other guy that listed music like van halen, iron maiden etc, i don't see the talent i can't stand em.

I wasn't the one who said I liked Iron Maiden. In fact, I can't stand them either. But judging them from a musically objective standpoint, I can't deny their talent. Their music is written and played very well. It's just not my taste. But the talent is definitely there. As compared to today's music, also not my style, but with less talent.

and back during iron maiden, there were hundreds of albums released per year as are now. or was it thousands, i can't remember. you remember almost none of those. thats how it works, most is cr@p at all times.

i'm not sure what you consider todays talent, seems like your judging based on britney and timberlake very narrow.

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
if you taped a lousy copy off the radio, it atleast was sorta paid for a bit by the radio station and the commercials. not to mention the quality was poor, you could consider it a promo sample.

mp3s, no one gets paid.

Exactly. Taping off the radio required you to listen to the radio. Ad money pays for it. Radiostations also pay royalties on what they play.

Another thing is that they are broadcasting the songs in the air for radio. They openly send these waves to your house. With filesharing, you have to go out there and get the stuff. You have to make an assertive effort to get the song, rather than tape free radio waves entering your house.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
if you taped a lousy copy off the radio, it atleast was sorta paid for a bit by the radio station and the commercials. not to mention the quality was poor, you could consider it a promo sample.

mp3s, no one gets paid.

Well one thing is for certain, nobody is going to spring for a CD after listening to all the songs on it via MP3 if only there is only one or two good songs on it.

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
if you taped a lousy copy off the radio, it atleast was sorta paid for a bit by the radio station and the commercials. not to mention the quality was poor, you could consider it a promo sample.

mp3s, no one gets paid.

Well one thing is for certain, nobody is going to spring for a CD after listening to all the songs on it via MP3 if only there is only one or two good songs on it.

And before filesharing, this generally wasn't possible to know beforehand.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i'm not sure what you consider todays talent, seems like your judging based on britney and timberlake very narrow.

I'm including everything that makes up the majority of record sales. Which includes Brittney and Justin. I'm mainly talking about popular rock (whcih has much lower record sales than rap/hip-hop/pop). From what I can tell, the popular rock bands are Good Charlotte, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Coldplay, and Radiohead. I just don't think in 10 years we'll be comparing them to Zepplin and VH.

Although I don't listen to them, I think Sum 41 is VERY talented. Their rendition of Master Of Puppets at MTV's Metallica Icon special was dead on! I like the new Shinedown song, I like Staind, DoubleDrive, Saliva, some Nickelback. So there is new stuff coming out that is good (IMO), but the popular stuff that the kids like is of a lower standard.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Their DJ is amazing and their beats are original and catchy.

See, I don't see ANY value in a DJ. To me, spinning records does not require any musical talent. And creating "beats" is not a terrific feat in itself. Today's generation has been brainwashed to thinking those things take talent.

It's called trying something new. People bitch and moan about bands today all sounding the same, we get a group that's interested in trying something different (relative to their generation) by incorporating hints of techno and rap into their rock recordings. And what happens? People bitch and moan about how DJ's aren't necessary.

Newsflash: Music has not changed in 50 years. We still play with guitar (electric or acoustic), bass, drums, and a singer. There are only so many chords you can arrange together without starting to sound like another band or anther song.

Spinning records? Have you ever even listened to Linkin Park's albums? I would love to see you mix a song together even half as well as Mr. Hahn from Linkin Park. I recommend listening to his solo mix from Hybrid Theory, Reanimation, and Meteora. If you can come up with a mix that sounds even remotely as original and palattable, I'll eat my own penis.

 

[Rob9874]

My grandma can make a good quilt, but it doesn't impress me. Who cares about creating a mix? It's a wasted talent!

Come on over-25ers. Someone back me up here.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
My grandma can make a good quilt, but it doesn't impress me. Who cares about creating a mix? It's a wasted talent!

You're grandma making a good quilt is TALENT. Mixing is part of the music that Linkin Park makes. Just because you're narrow minded self doesn't like it, doesn't make it any less a TALENT.

 

[Rob9874]

OK, this is stupid. I'll never teach you young whipper snappers to appreciate good musical talent. Next topic.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
OK, this is stupid. I'll never teach you young whipper snappers to appreciate good musical talent. Next topic.

Is this what I should expect when I get older? Am I going to become narrow minded and bitter because the music from my generation loses the public limelight?

Am I going to be assigned to a forum by some higher power to trumpet the "talent" of older music, and how new music is trash. Looking forward to it!

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Enter Best Buy/Circuit City/Tower Records and walk out with a CD without paying for it is stealing music.
Download an mp3 record/rip a friends CD may be a copyright violation but it is not stealing.

not again, your talking about technicalities of law, not ethical or moral judgements. trying to make it sound better.

at one time you could have owned another human being and it would have been legal under the law. stealing is stealing.

Actually it is ethical and moral judgments we are talking about. The vast majority of the population does not steal and does not condone stealing. This is one of the reasons the RIAA is trying to tie in the idea of stealing to the whole file swapping debate. Leave file swapping out of it and take it to a more basic level. In any library across this country you can go in and find copy machines. At those copy machines you will see people copying copyrighted works for their personal use without any renumeration to the copyright holder. Almost all of these machines have a sign taped around them somewhere saying that what you are doing is a copyright infringement. Are all these people stealing? How about the fact that you can check out CD's from the library for 2 weeks. If you record/rip a couple of tracks are you stealing? Sorry but words have meanings and there is a reason why these types of activities are termed copyright infringement with consequences and penalties totally different than the ones levied for theft. As for the inflammatory crap about slavery other than shock value I do not see any relevence to the discussion at hand.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Linflas, you two are arguing semantics. Copywrite infringement in certain cases is stealing. The only difference between stealing and copywrite infringement is when something is stolen, the original copy is destroyed or changes posession. That doesn't change the fact that you are receiving goods without paying the necessary royalties.

To-may-toe, To-mah-toe.

 

[royaldank]

I'm including everything that makes up the majority of record sales. Which includes Brittney and Justin. I'm mainly talking about popular rock (whcih has much lower record sales than rap/hip-hop/pop). From what I can tell, the popular rock bands are Good Charlotte, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Coldplay, and Radiohead. I just don't think in 10 years we'll be comparing them to Zepplin and VH.

I will place my money on Radiohead being remembered as one of the best bands to come along in some time. I really liken these guys to being the Pink Floyd of today. Politcal, experiemental, and very different and original. You're correct on the rest, though. Rock is a dying art nowdays.

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
if you taped a lousy copy off the radio, it atleast was sorta paid for a bit by the radio station and the commercials. not to mention the quality was poor, you could consider it a promo sample.

mp3s, no one gets paid.

I beg to differ on that last sentence, companies like AOL TimeWarner - some of the same people who operate record labels, make tons of money selling the service of high speed online connections that gives these file sharing users the ability to do what they do. Someone is making money, but just who is it, is the question. I tell you who can make money, companies who embrace the technology in the favor instead of wish it never was.

I see both sides of the arguement, and I say that both sides have a lot to work on. Neither one has a clear moral ground to stand on. Personally, I used to download music and I used to buy hundreds of CD's. But honestly I am tired of the whole MP3 and song crap that I have gone back in time to just listening to the radio, my CD's, my downloaded music from times before and just plain sick of music altogether. I give you a good example. My birthday just passed this past Sunday and one of the gifts I got for my birthday was a CD. It just so happens that this is the 5th time I receive this particular CD. Why is that you ask? Because I really like the music and the performance. I also know that this Artist produces their own copies not by a large record company. I have had the CD scratched twice, Stolen, burned, and lost, but I tell you what, if I ever lose this one, I will still buy another copy. Because I want to own it. Record companies dont understand loyalty and value. Most people that share music dont understand it either, and it is on this that neither one of them will see the truth. Hence the current lawsuits and the continued use of file sharing. I think back in the day when I did download music, was the time in my life that I bought the most CD's, now, no one wins my dollar for music. Not sure how long that will be...

 

Originally posted by: ness1469
I've said it about 5 billion times, but it's pitiful that people keep saying that all the music is sh!tty, then they try to justify downloading it.

I would rather pay $1 for the one good song on the album than $20 for the whole crappy thing. Being I cannot do that 75% of the time it does not feel so bad saving the $20 and just downloading the one song.

Perhaps when iTunes Music Store stocks 100% of what's out things will be better.

 

[dmcowen674]

Computer CD players will no longer work. Songs cannot be copied

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

9-24-2003 Anti-swap CD hits the racks

These "secure digital" tracks cannot be played on another computer should they be uploaded to the Net.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: royaldank

I'm including everything that makes up the majority of record sales. Which includes Brittney and Justin. I'm mainly talking about popular rock (whcih has much lower record sales than rap/hip-hop/pop). From what I can tell, the popular rock bands are Good Charlotte, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Coldplay, and Radiohead. I just don't think in 10 years we'll be comparing them to Zepplin and VH.

I will place my money on Radiohead being remembered as one of the best bands to come along in some time. I really liken these guys to being the Pink Floyd of today. Politcal, experiemental, and very different and original. You're correct on the rest, though. Rock is a dying art nowdays.

Out of my own curiousity, just who exactly did make up the "majority of record sales" in the 70's and 80's? Was it the wonderous rockers and hair bands or was it Blondie and A-Ha?

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Computer CD players will no longer work. Songs cannot be copied

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

9-24-2003 Anti-swap CD hits the racks

These "secure digital" tracks cannot be played on another computer should they be uploaded to the Net.

How long did it take to break the "unbreakable" encryption on DVD's again? I bet within a week those songs are out on Kazaa.