I still refuse to buy copy protected CD's. One of the companies seem to having everything they put out protected. So I do not own the new Norah Jones, the remixed Beatles album and a whole bunch of other music that I just put back on the shelf. Why should I be restricted from having the tunes on my computer...in the car....ipod etc? Especially considering the high prices for new material. Plus why is that I can buy movies on DVD for ten bucks and yet back catalogue of music stuff is still expensive? Movies cost real money to make compared to "records" so it goes to show you how much dough there is in it for the majors. Plus the fact that on movies people are much more likely to collect residuals where as most of the musicians get zip.
I will say that for anyone interested, my dad will burn you a CD of the pop band I used to drum with: Girl with 100 Heads. Now THAT you can have for free. Hey, we were voted the best unsigned band in the northwest by the readers of a prominent music mag...and then we broke up!
Bicycles are also too expensive for young people to afford. And cars. Though I'm quite certain that if we could transmit them cleanly, as in white collar electronic form, we would find a way to justify their theft as well. If a photographer's image cannot be used without permission from the artist, why do you feel entitled to take freely from the music industry?
My brother works with some of the biggest names in the music industry, and Ntscdan, the artists do make MUCH bigger money than the anyone else in the loop. It's part of their contract that they pay only a percentage to the company, managers, etc. Look, these people make bank--like most people in the overpaid entertainment industry--but it seems to me that as avid internet users, we have simply devised a rationale for supporting our habits. I just paid $130 for a cell phone, one that cost maybe $5 to manufacture. Do you think I have the right to steal it just because of the markup?
I do not work in the music industry, but I am writing a novel. And no, I am not about to give it away over the internet, or accept that the public will download it for free without my permission. Because in some traditional vault of our culture, that is still considered theft.
Don't buy if it's too much. I've said it before, if they charged like $10 for a CD I think the record companies would be way ahead. I pass up a lot of cd's because they cost too much. I usually buy them when they are $12 or less, I rarely will pay more than that. So instead of spending $100 on 8-10 cd's, I'll spend $25-30 for 2 or 3.
Pirating of music occurs because music is too expensive for most young people. I understand that some will steal no matter what the price. However, the incentive to pirate drops with the price.
It is not copying. It was not Napster. It is not lousy sounding mp3. It is the consentration of ownership. It is lousy pseudo-music that is behind declining CD sales for long before Napster. That is what causes stupid business types to make lousy artistic choices and loose market. It is pouring shcool money into football rather than music because people who like music cannot be trusted to vote the party line. Protection on cd's comes from needing somebody to blame for lousy product. A few great artists cannot compensate for a sick industry.
08-09-04: Synthfreek That remark about only sending crap to the libraries is UNTRUE! There was just a huge deal on CNN a few days ago about how Kansas state officials have stepped in and confiscated what they deemed offensive. Confiscated CDs included Outkast, Rage Against The Machine, Notorious BIG, Stone Temple Pilots, Lou Reed & Devo???!!! Check out CNN.com.
It's a matter of opinion I guess, but I'd say your list largely supports the statement you are refuting ;-)
That remark about only sending crap to the libraries is UNTRUE! There was just a huge deal on CNN a few days ago about how Kansas state officials have stepped in and confiscated what they deemed offensive. Confiscated CDs included Outkast, Rage Against The Machine, Notorious BIG, Stone Temple Pilots, Lou Reed & Devo???!!! Check out CNN.com.
I buy only 8-track tapes. They come real cheap at yard sales. Got the Isely Brothers Greatest Hits and Jim Nabers Spirtuals this weekend for a dime each. You don't even have to flip'em over!
I'm waiting for the pirated sex tape of "Whitney does Norah"...coming soon as an mpeg - at your fingertips, and downloadable on the Information Superhighway. Expanding the hearts and minds, and warming the nether regions of millions of our young people each and every day!
Not to defend the record companies, whose treatment of artists is generally indefensible, but no one's forcing you to buy anything. If the price is too high, or you don't like the usage restrictions, walk away.
Just remember that it's a free(-market) country, and the producers are free to do whatever they want, just like the consumers. If the record companies can make more money selling copy-protected disks, that's what they will do. And if the artists can make more money releasing their own disks rather than signing with a record company, they'll do that, too. (Most of them don't, you may have noticed, which suggests that an unfairly small piece of a big pie is still better than a bigger piece of a small pie. But the economics of that could change with time.)
Contrary to the title of this thread, I wouldn't assume that the companies are making a mistake here. I presume they know their market better than you do. (You just might not be part of it!)
That's the way capitalism works. And anyone who can afford a high-end audio system has no standing to complain about the iniquities of capitalism.
I agree the big music companies are making way too much money off CD's while most of the artists starve from the miniscule renenues. I read something recently about a mderately well known artist (can't remember the name off-hand, story may have been in NY Times) who made essentially nothing off CD's released by a major label even though they sold thousands. Now this artist is self-releasing and will make a modest profit, even though number of CD's sold will be significantly less. Shows you where the money goes. A comparison to movies may not be appropriate however, since most of them were released in theaters and have already made the movie company mucho dinero. Releasing on DVD just adds to the greed.
I mostly buy used vinyl. Along with redbook, SACD is basically a way to sell all the CDs again, just an angle to get more profit from old titles. Anyone can get LPs for CHEAP and they sound better (assuming well recorded) than all other formats.
No such thing is 'copy protected' CDs. nearly all of those should be referred to as 'playback restricted' since that is what they really are. Also you can't really call them 'CDs' or 'compact discs' or redbook anymore since they are a different beast. more like pieces of 5 inch polycarbonoate media that resemble compact discs. or 'the disc formerly known as a CD'. ;-)
Like Elizabeth, I buy all of my stuff on usedor new vinyl when I can. Although I cannot match the prices or selection Elizabeth enjoys. Sigh.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
