Should music be free?

[Red Dawn]

Of course, if the only music you hear is MP-3's, you haven't a clue about how good a recording can be, and you deserve the crap you get

Hey at least you think we deserve it. That's more than Amusedone is saying.

BTW, are their sites were people actually trade like 10 gigs of MP3's on CD's to others for large quantities of MP3's CD's? Now that would be my idea of stealing.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Love to stay and argue some more, but I've got drinking to do. I'll be back later to continue this.

 

[Geekbabe]

I've d/loaded a lot of music,I've also bought tons of CD',concert tickets,tee shirts and posters
of musicians that I like,for myself and as gifts for my kids.I prefer to think of it as sampling
music as well, there are many artists who would never have seen $1 of my money if I hadn't discovered them via MP3.

 

[apoppin]

This is not the issue. The issue is the property of the artist being used or distributed without his permission. Whether it makes them more money or not, no matter how misguided it may be or not, the choice of how it is distrbuted is THEIR's, not yours.

Yes, it is the issue. We have a freedom as consumers to preview what we buy. You'd be a fool to buy a car without test driving it (do you?). You don't pick a car based on other's reviews. Have you ever seen a car shrinkwrapped in plastic to "protect" us, the consumer?

Radio is a weak promotional tool. It is rife with payola and definitely controlled by the RIAA.

They are miffed because they cannot control the Internet and are trying to enact laws to take away out privacy and freedom of choice.

I believe I DO have the freedom to preview music - as a consumer - before deciding what to buy for myselt. Most artists (except for certain RIAA controlled 'bots like Lars who sues his fans) agree with this concept. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp?

I understand the RIAA is GREED personified - what do you have to do with it other than believing their lies?

 

[SWirth86]

Quote by: EliteGoodGuy

Courtney Love had a very good one about a year and a half ago about how artists get screwed on the production of CD's. Quoted from her herself, artists only make $0.50-$1 per CD they sell.


If artists make only 1$ per CD, then why should you pay 15 bucks for their cd? You shouldnt. Next time you hear about an artist you like, and youve heard some of their music, download their entire album at a good quality from Direct Connect or another p2p client. Burn it. It will sound about the same as the CD. Send the artist a letter w/ 2 bucks and an explanation of how this helps both people out (You pay 1/7th of what it would normally be, and they get 2x to 4x the profit). Encourage your friends/relatives to do the same.

This way, the 'evil' record companies or RIAA don't get their money, youre not quite as broke, and musicians arent starving.

EDIT: Added "Burn it"

 

[AShadeOfClear]

Of course, if the only music you hear is MP-3's, you haven't a clue about how good a recording can be, and you deserve the crap you get

It's all good for me. I can't tell the difference between 128kbps, 320kbps mp3s or CDs. 😱 I'm using studio reference speakers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

gain, why do you feel entitled to the music, Red? They owe YOU nothing.

No they don't. I never said they owe me anything. But then I owe them nothing.If they want to be fair then I owe it to them to be fair. If they want to gouge me then I give them zero consideration.

Then don't obtain copies of their music. Why would you want the product of people you believe aren't being fair?

Are you entitled to anything else made by anybody else you deem as being unfair?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SWirth86
Quote by: EliteGoodGuy

Courtney Love had a very good one about a year and a half ago about how artists get screwed on the production of CD's. Quoted from her herself, artists only make $0.50-$1 per CD they sell.


If artists make only 1$ per CD, then why should you pay 15 bucks for their cd?.

The label has no right to recoup CD and music production costs, advertising costs, distribution and promotional costs? The CD store has no right to make a profit on the product they're selling?

There is a lot more going on than just some skanky bitch screaming into a microphone when you're talking about the production, promotion, marketing and sales of a CD.

 

[apoppin]

ThThe label has no right to recoup CD and music production costs, advertising costs, distribution and promotional costs? The CD store has no right to make a profit on the product they're selling?

There is a lot more going on than just some skanky bitch screaming into a microphone when you're talking about the production, promotion, marketing and sales of a CD. e label has no right to recoup CD and music production costs, advertising costs, distribution and promotional costs? The CD store has no right to make a profit on the product they're selling?

Address my last post AmusedOne - if you dare.

Why do we as consumers - according to your twisted reasoning - have no rights? Why does the RIAA have the right to rip us off with their unfair and outdated business practices?

Why do we not have the right to PREVIEW music by d/l'ing off the net in order to make an informed decision? I get to preview a new car with a test drive. I get hands on at Circuit City with anything I want to purchase and can return it (except for music and movies) for a refund if it does not satisfy me.

 

[SWirth86]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SWirth86
Quote by: EliteGoodGuy

Courtney Love had a very good one about a year and a half ago about how artists get screwed on the production of CD's. Quoted from her herself, artists only make $0.50-$1 per CD they sell.


If artists make only 1$ per CD, then why should you pay 15 bucks for their cd?.

The label has no right to recoup CD and music production costs, advertising costs, distribution and promotional costs? The CD store has no right to make a profit on the product they're selling?

There is a lot more going on than just some skanky bitch screaming into a microphone when you're talking about the production, promotion, marketing and sales of a CD.

You're right, that does shortchange them.
New Plan: The next time an artist releases a CD, The artist should release it over the internet w/ high quality mp3's. Anyone could download it. It would be based on the honor system where you are not required to pay, but if youre not a total asshole, you will. It could be 2 bucks. Would you pay 2 bucks for a cd?

Ill be back after dinner

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

ThThe label has no right to recoup CD and music production costs, advertising costs, distribution and promotional costs? The CD store has no right to make a profit on the product they're selling?

There is a lot more going on than just some skanky bitch screaming into a microphone when you're talking about the production, promotion, marketing and sales of a CD. e label has no right to recoup CD and music production costs, advertising costs, distribution and promotional costs? The CD store has no right to make a profit on the product they're selling?

Address my last post AmusedOne - if you dare.

Why do we as consumers - according to your twisted reasoning - have no rights? Why does the RIAA have the right to rip us off with their unfair and outdated business practices?

Why do we not have the right to PREVIEW music by d/l'ing off the net in order to make an informed decision? I get to preview a new car with a test drive. I get hands on at Circuit City with anything I want to purchase and can return it (except for music and movies) for a refund if it does not satisfy me.

Because YOU have no right to the fruit of OTHER PEOPLE'S labor. They can do what they please with THEIR product. If they wanted to charge 3 million dollars a CD and make their CDs only readable on the machines they choose, that is THEIR right. It's THEIR product.

You act as if you are entitled to listen to music that other people produce. You are not. The artist is entitled to distribute their product as they see fit.

 

[jjones]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the RIAA. I hope people keep stealing music until they feel it hard in their pocketbook. I hope it hurts them in the billions. Maybe then they'll finally wake up to fulfilling the needs of what people want. In my view they have no excuse for not providing a solution. They have completely tied up the industry into a nice neat little package all for themselves so they are the only ones capable of changing the way music is delivered and have the responsibility to make it happen.

Until then, I hope they choke on losses.

Oh, and feel sorry for the artists. No thanks. Where are all the tree-hugging, whale-saving artists? Why don't some of these models for idealism and activism take a stance on what's happening? Why? Because they're too busy lining their pockets too. Don't want to rock the boat and miss a royalty check.

 

[apoppin]

Because YOU have no right to the fruit of OTHER PEOPLE'S labor. They can do what they please with THEIR product. If they wanted to charge 3 million dollars a CD and make their CDs only readable on the machines they choose, that is THEIR right. It's THEIR product.

You act as if you are entitled to listen to music that other people produce. You are not. The artist is entitled to distribute their product as they see fit.

The artist, not the RIAA. Most artists agree with me.

I am entitled - as a consumer - yes, I really DO have "rights" - to PREVIEW a product before I buy - INCLUDING music.

Why do you insist in limiting my "rights"?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

This is not the issue. The issue is the property of the artist being used or distributed without his permission. Whether it makes them more money or not, no matter how misguided it may be or not, the choice of how it is distrbuted is THEIR's, not yours.

Yes, it is the issue. We have a freedom as consumers to preview what we buy. You'd be a fool to buy a car without test driving it (do you?). You don't pick a car based on other's reviews. Have you ever seen a car shrinkwrapped in plastic to "protect" us, the consumer?

Radio is a weak promotional tool. It is rife with payola and definitely controlled by the RIAA.

They are miffed because they cannot control the Internet and are trying to enact laws to take away out privacy and freedom of choice.

I believe I DO have the freedom to preview music - as a consumer - before deciding what to buy for myselt. Most artists (except for certain RIAA controlled 'bots like Lars who sues his fans) agree with this concept. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp?

I understand the RIAA is GREED personified - what do you have to do with it other than believing their lies?

Oh boy, I'm daring to address your last post, do I get a fscking cookie?

Go to a motorcycle dealer. Ask to testride their latest sportbike. Nine times out of ten will laugh in your face. Go to the home depot store. Ask to demo their new toilets. We wont even go there.

Go to your local Walgreens. Demand to demo the Q-Tips.

Your complaint is moot and childish. It is THEIR product, they don't have to do sh!t for you. If you don't like it, don't listen to their music. It's that fscking simple.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Because YOU have no right to the fruit of OTHER PEOPLE'S labor. They can do what they please with THEIR product. If they wanted to charge 3 million dollars a CD and make their CDs only readable on the machines they choose, that is THEIR right. It's THEIR product.

You act as if you are entitled to listen to music that other people produce. You are not. The artist is entitled to distribute their product as they see fit.

The artist, not the RIAA. Most artists agree with me.

I am entitled - as a consumer - yes, I really DO have "rights" - to PREVIEW a product before I buy - INCLUDING music.

Why do you insist in limiting my "rights"?

The artist has signed a legally binding contract with the label that restricts the distribution of the product.

You do NOT have a right to test a damn thing. You have NO rights to the labor of another, and they are not legally bound to let you do a damn thing.

In the business world, allowing tests is a promotional COURTESY, not a requirement.

 

[Red Dawn]

hen don't obtain copies of their music. Why would you want the product of people you believe aren't being fair?

Well usually I wouldn't but when some asshat talks to me in a condescending tone as you are talking to me I might do it out of spite. Let's see, it upsets you that people also use pirated Windows XP. Well let me see if I can upset you a little more by downloading it and installing it on my W2k System. I know it isn't fair but it does piss of jerks who get on their moral high horse and talk down to others so hell it would be worthselling my soul just for that!

 

[Zebo]

A1, Just courious what you think of folks who have warezed cd's and software at home? I mean do you stop accociating friends who took thier office copy of word home and installed it? Do you mingle with these "thieves"? I would'nt associate with poeple I thought were crimmnials.

 

[apoppin]

You do NOT have a right to test a damn thing. You have NO rights to the labor of another, and they are not legally bound to let you do a damn thing.

In the business world, allowing tests is a promotional COURTESY, not a requirement.

In my book, you're full of it. You have NO right to judge others by your twisted standards of what is correct.
Everything in the business world - except music and movies - is not only previewable but returnable; why should music be different?

And - I repeat - you are not the moral police nor my conscience.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You do NOT have a right to test a damn thing. You have NO rights to the labor of another, and they are not legally bound to let you do a damn thing.

In the business world, allowing tests is a promotional COURTESY, not a requirement.

In my book, you're full of it. Everything in the business world - except music and movies- is not only previewable but returnable; why should music be different?

And - I repeat - you are not the moral police nor my conscience.

Please point out where in the Constitution you are guaranteed the right to preview or test anything? Please show me where in fed or state law you are given the right to preview or test anything?

It's not there. Why? Because that would infringe on the rights of the artist or producer of the product. You are attempting to limit THEIR rights to suit your twisted and childish sense of entitlement.

Finally, please show me where, anywhere, you are given the legal right to return a non-defective product.

Short of your misguided and spoiled sense of entitlement, you do not have these rights.

If you're going to advocate theft, I'm going to call you a thief, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, no matter how many fictitious "rights" you make up.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
A1, Just courious what you think of folks who have warezed cd's and software at home? I mean do you stop accociating friends who took thier office copy of word home and installed it? Do you mingle with these "thieves"? I would'nt associate with poeple I thought were crimmnials.

I don't personally know anyone who does this. If I do, they don't tell me.

If I did, I probably wouldn't be welcome around them for very long because I'd tell them how I feel about it.

 

[Zebo]

Finally, please show me where, anywhere, you are given the legal right to return a non-defective product.

Almost every single album IS defective!! They say how great it is during promotional ads with an inplication you'll love it. You then get it home and it sucks ass with like one good song. So you should be able to take it back but can't. And that's exatly why people are taking mp3's, sampleing, then if they like will buy the album.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Finally, please show me where, anywhere, you are given the legal right to return a non-defective product.

Almost every single album IS defective!! They say how great it is during promotional ads with an inplication you'll love it. You then get it home and it sucks ass with like one good song. So you should be able to take it back but can't. And that's exatly why people are taking mp3's, sampleing, then if they like will buy the album.

Carbo, that's pretty sad.

Whether one likes or dislikes a CD is purely a subjective issue of taste. If the CD works properly, it is not defective.

 

[Red Dawn]

They say how great it is during promotional ads with an inplication you'll love it. You then get it home and it sucks ass with like one good song. So you should be able to take it back but can't. And that's exatly why people are taking mp3's, sampleing, then if they like will buy the album.

But they arew entitled to your money because they fooled you with deceptive marketing!

 

[SWirth86]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You do NOT have a right to test a damn thing. You have NO rights to the labor of another, and they are not legally bound to let you do a damn thing.

In the business world, allowing tests is a promotional COURTESY, not a requirement.

In my book, you're full of it. You have NO right to judge others by your twisted standards of what is correct.
Everything in the business world - except music and movies - is not only previewable but returnable; why should music be different?

And - I repeat - you are not the moral police nor my conscience.

Yea, youre wrong. Amused1 is correct. How is he full of it? I'm not judging you, I;m just pointing out that youre wrong.

quote
everything in the business world is previewable except music/movies

The reason theyre not previewable is because w/ music and movies people can copy it, therefore stealing, not previewing.

New Plan: The next time an artist releases a CD, The artist should release it over the internet w/ high quality mp3's. Anyone could download it. It would be based on the honor system where you are not required to pay, but if youre not a total asshole, you will. It could be 2 bucks. Would you pay 2 bucks for a cd? Please reply!

 

[apoppin]

I don't have to show you anything. You haven't bothered to reply to any of the points I brought about previewing music other than the repeat the RIAA's mantra.

Finally, if you're going to advocate theft, I'm going to call you a thief, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, no matter how many fictitious "rights" you make up.

Well, then I will call you a small-minded and sel-righteous RIAA duped chump since you cannot coherently reply to a topic other than to create and defend "rights" of corrupt big business to trample on consumers - and there isn't anything you can do about my "right" of expression either.

Don't worry, I wont reply further to your demented ravings.