AfterDawn: Tech news

EMI boss says digital music will cover lost CD sales

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 23 Jan 2006 7:57 User comments (40)

EMI boss says digital music will cover lost CD sales Eric Nicoli, the chairman of the EMI group, has said that digital music will make up for the loss of music sales and become a quarter of the music industry's sales by 2010. He also commented about the poor success and promise shown by music subscription services and mobile music downloads. "Our belief is that the [total] market will be bigger in 2010 than it is today - and potentially much bigger," Nicoli said in an interview with Reuters.
"We've seen a tripling [of download sales] in the last year and we've hardly gotten started," he said. "The day is surely within our sights when digital growth outstrips physical decline and we can all compete for share of a growing pie." So far, most music services are failing to provide real competition to Apple's iTunes music service, which has been surprising to the labels, especially when they are offering subscription services.

"We thought subscriptions would be huge - they haven't been," Nicoli said. Mobile music downloads are also not proving to be popular enough yet. "We're at year zero - if that - with mobile," he said. He commented that allowing consumers to download individual tracks from albums (or the "unbundling" of music) is vital to the success of digital music. "The pessimists will say that's a problem, but our research suggest that the net effect of unbundling is a positive," he said.

Source:
The Register

Previous Next  

40 user comments

123.1.2006 19:58
mikecUSA
Inactive

I really believe that the answer to all of this illegal download crap, is: #1, record companies need to unlock their vaults and release everything, P2P's need to have madatory music and movie filters so that no unauthorized files of music owned by a legit record label or movie house are able to be illegally traded. Make every possible song available to every audio format out there, and charge a dollar a song period, like it was in 1979. Every 45 RPM was a dollar an album with 10 songs on it was $10. Fair deal, even though no real physical article would exist in the modern transaction, the physical media is irrelevent. I think every song should cost a dollar, and as inflation creeps in, the price should keep pace with inflation. Eventually, the infrastructure that grew up around record distribution and promotion with dissapear, and so will the bills that record comanies used to have, so their costs of doing business will drop. Record company executives should get rich, we all ought to get rich, Figure out a way for yourself to do it legally and you will. You winers that complain about rich record execs have no problem shelling out hard earned cash for a car, or a house, or an apartment rental, but wine about the money you have to spend on what is really only a means of entertaining yourself. How pathetic. If you truly can't afford something, whose fault is that. Yours. If record companies are sucking ass cause their products are too expensive whose fault is that? Theirs. I'm bored with both classes of winers. It's entertainment, that is all. It's not essential, it's not even important. Most of the modern world is brainwashed into thinking music and movies are somehow vital. They're not, they're past times, distractions, unimportant drivel when you're on your deathbed hoping for one more romantic moment with your lover, or one more glimpse of the sun reflecting on the water down on the ocean, or seeing your children and their happy families. Good grief, get over the brainwashing and the obsessing about entertainment. Go ouotside and take your kids or your lady friend for a nice relaxing walk.

224.1.2006 0:57

And I thought that the Compact Disc is a digital format...

324.1.2006 3:53

I'm not sure there's many music cds left out there. Not real ones anyway. They're cd-roms nowadays, - file-crippled, software-bearing, DRM-riddled cd-roms - bearing only a passing resemblance to something we once knew as red book. You may have heard about them. I think you can still find the occassional red-book at flea markets, garage sales, and 2nd-hand shops. Yeah .... I think you're right, mikecUSA. If we believed all the high-profile hype spoonfed to us by the entertainment congloms, we wouldn't be able to draw another single breath without first running out to buy or download the latest gangsta-rap single. The four necessities of life: Food/water Shelter Oxygen Trash-Rap Videos (Yeah, right). I remember those $1, 45-rpm singles as well. I used to buy them all the time at Eaton's and Sears and Zellers. You even got a 'B' side for free. Fidelity-wise, they sure as hell beat the crap out of anything you'll ever download today. Saddens me to think that a whole generation will never know the sheer quality these little vinyl platters delivered, and instead, will (do) base their quality judgements on today's 128kbs .mp3 file.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Jan 2006 @ 4:08

424.1.2006 13:20

Bah~ These people've no idea what crud they are actually downloading. The naivety shows in these people. If you ask any iTunes/Rhapshody/yahoo/msn/walmart/napster/whatever downloader what they would consider 'good quality' they'll say "a song with no crackling in it!". Poor helpless souls. My theory on good quality music, is LAME Encoded 192kbps + (vbr preferred, but 192kbps+ CBR suffices) mp3 (I know it's lossy, but it's easy to work with) iTunes etc don't tell you about that bit as clearly as they do about the latest song... Don't touch legal downloads, You'll regret it in the long run!! --Bizzle--

524.1.2006 16:14
mikecUSA
Inactive

lethal b----why do you say stay away from legal downloads and about regretting it if anyone does purchase them?

624.1.2006 17:49
tbiggs
Inactive

i would assume because its all filled with DRM! dont you no .

724.1.2006 22:11

Most, if not all, of today's "legal" music downloads do indeed carry some form of user-restriction(s). If you can't live with that, then you shouldn't download them. Sometimes you can only burn a certain track 'X' amount of times. Sometimes you are denied the ability to burn any given song, at all. Only "authorized" (crippled) devices (iPods + Sony atrac + ...) may be used to play them back. Lose (or break) your iPod and you can kiss your music purchases goodbye. In Canada here, I've downloaded many legal (paid) music tracks from a service called "Bonfire". They carry the Big Label stuff we have known for years. The only reason I paid for them was because I was 'allowed' to burn a normal, regular, unrestricted red-book music cd with them. (Although in order to do so, I had to jump through many hoops, use Windows Media Player 9, contact user-support several times, install a Windows Media Player patch..... and even then, actually *getting* the final music cd burned was a labor of love). These "puretracks" were in crippled .wma format, and their audio quality was disappointing, to say the least. I buy roughly 0% of today's music. (At least I *think* they call it music). I have another name for it. I'm all for p2p downloading. Always have been. The RIAA can b--w me. There's something downright NORMAL and RIGHT about an unrestricted .mp3 file. (Although I kinda prefer ogg vorbis files (*.ogg) encoded at quality level 5 or higher).

825.1.2006 8:12
mikecUSA
Inactive

Well I'm almost done with this conversation. What some are advocating is that music created by someone else, and owned by still another person is music that you want to get their music for free. You don't want to pay for it. At all. You want it for nothing. Right now, you can buy a cd, and burn it using an "off the shelf" software package. I did it this christmas, with the new foo fighters CD. It was DRM's too, but I was able to do a mirror image burn of it, one copy for my miata collection, one for my Mini-van and one for around the house. I keep all of my originals in storage in my garage. Some of you also contend that all new music is crap. Okay, you have an opinion, but I doubt that you are not downloading current music. Much of the "classic" good stuff is available in record stores today, so the real fact is, you want free music. You want it for nothing even though the musician created it and has been paid a basic amount and hope to make royalties off it, A&R men have to be paid to promote it to try and get it to become a hit (which takes exposure) and the staff of people that run all of this machinery all ought to get paid too. You're position of stealing music is wrong, short sighted and selfish. Fair use of music one buys is one thing, expecting it for free is immature and childish. Feeling that you're entitled to get it for free is insane. Grow up. I hate DRM too, but I don't own the record company. I am smart enough to circumvent DRM, and so I enforce my own fair use policy, but I condemn in no uncertain terms---PIRACY. Pirates are bad, pirating is bad for the industry that has provided the world with wonderful music for over 100 years. If you can't see the value of the music industry, you're blind and unintelligent. Yes I question some of the greed and the over reach of DRM, but the best thing that could happen to the music business is the legal reality of all p2p's to filter out all non-legal songs and movies. You don't own the music, it's not yours, it does not belong to you, if you buy a movie or a song, now you own that copy and should enjoy it as you wish, but you should not be permitted to transfer that to someone else and still retain the original, that robs several other people of their potential income. Ask any small business owner what that does to them. If yoiu can't relate or understand, it's because you selfish and short sided and brainwashed. One last point, basic economics. You're either an employee, an employer or unemployed. This is true of every artist, secretary, mail room person, and executive. If you're communist or capitalist, you should care aboutn you're fellow worker, stealing music affects those other workers no matter what level they're at, so if you don't care about that, I have no care for you. If you don't buy your music, you have no right to it at all. If you are unwilling to pay for your music you are an idiot.

925.1.2006 8:53

Quote:
What some are advocating is that music created by someone else, and owned by still another person is music that you want to get their music for free. You don't want to pay for it. At all. You want it for nothing. Right now, you can buy a cd, and burn it using an "off the shelf" software package.
I like getting it for free, but I would buy it if the industry would work with me. You cannot get a decent CD in this country for under nine pounds, what's up with that? The only way to get it any cheaper than that is to get it off iTunes & the like... (no thankyou ;)
Quote:
Make every possible song available to every audio format out there, and charge a dollar a song period, like it was in 1979.
You more or less hit the nail on the head with that statement, that's what we want! (but not a pay-per-download rate, it needs to be a fixed monthly rate..)
Quote:
Much of the "classic" good stuff is available in record stores today, so the real fact is, you want free music. You want it for nothing even though the musician created it and has been paid a basic amount and hope to make royalties off it, A&R men have to be paid to promote it to try and get it to become a hit (which takes exposure) and the staff of people that run all of this machinery all ought to get paid too.
Stop limiting people, is my answer to the rec. industry. They know what consumers want, (drm free, high quality music on a subscriptin basis). More fool them for not wising up to it. After all, they're not going to change peoples' minds..
Quote:
You're position of stealing music is wrong, short sighted and selfish. Fair use of music one buys is one thing, expecting it for free is immature and childish. Feeling that you're entitled to get it for free is insane. Grow up.
Come on man, step into the 21st Century here, this is the real world! I agree to a certain extent that it is immoral etc, but at the end of the day, trying to guilt-trip people into forking out for what they can get for free is a rather juvenile approach. There are no sufficient alternatives in my eyes. Everyone is harping on about the rise in legal downloads at the moment, but not a mention of the fact that more people have joined the p2p corner than the legal downloading one. Know why? Because p2p/piracy has been going on for so long, that it's getting boring. The amount of people filesharing will continue to dominate until the industry deals with the fact that p2p is here to stay..
Quote:
You don't own the music, it's not yours, it does not belong to you, if you buy a movie or a song, now you own that copy and should enjoy it as you wish, but you should not be permitted to transfer that to someone else and still retain the original, that robs several other people of their potential income. Ask any small business owner what that does to them. If yoiu can't relate or understand, it's because you selfish and short sided and brainwashed.
With all due respect, it seems you are the one that is mislead; There are no decent alternatives to free music. It's either pay over-the-odds for most of today's music and be left out of pocket, or pay for the crippled crap that you get on legal sites. Thanks, but no thanks...
Quote:
If you are unwilling to pay for your music you are an idiot.
Geez, is that the best you can do? Give me -DRM FREE music -choice of how it is encoded (format, bitrate, the works) -at a resonable monthly rate otherwise, I'm sticking with mainly downloading my music, thanks.

1025.1.2006 10:07
amerifunk
Inactive

It's called culling the herd. The way I see it, pirates are keeping the 'big' people from getting bigger. The people working the CD presses/mail delivery people/Joe the studio Janitor, and everyone else working small jobs will still get their 9.50 regardless. If 50 Cent can't have every color Lambo it's no sweat off my back. If a rich record exec can't surprise his wife with a 10 million dollar necklace for her birthday every year, well then, I guess she'll have to suffer. If people are willing to find the know-how and spend the time/money to download and access internet copywrited material for personal use, then they are entitled to it. How many people do you know that will read for hours online to find a movie they want to watch in a theater??? Not many. If some1 wants to spend 5-6 hours reading how to do it, where to get, how to convert...then let them do it. You talk about going for walks and enjoying life...why don't you? Why don't the people that hired you do that? Tell THEM to calm down. Stop spamming friendly community sites with your blaming conforming propaganda. Shit happens. The world isn't supposed to be completely sterile!!! Everyone can't have their own way. You are either helpin or hurting. Pirates help each other hurt a larger entity to better themselves. You, being part of the larger entity would hurt us to help yourself. [unacceptable language edited out] Amerifunk, please don't go that route with the four-letter words, even if you strongly disagree with someone. Thanks. -- A_Klingon --

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Jan 2006 @ 17:16

1125.1.2006 10:15

amerifunk, I have had to report you because of the swearing which is against the forum rules (in my sig) But I can't deny I had a few laughs reading through your post.

1225.1.2006 17:54

MikecUSA:

Quote:
Well I'm almost done with this conversation.
Sorry bub, you don't get to soapbox like that and then just run away. You get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, or what?
Quote:
Some of you also contend that all new music is crap. Okay, you have an opinion, but I doubt that you are not downloading current music.
So you doubt it, eh? Are you a psychic too? Do you speak for me? It has been so many years since I have downloaded any "current" music, I can't even count them. To me, 95% of today's current shoved-in-your-face hyped-up-to-the-stratosphere 'must-have' "music" is not worth wiping my a-- with. You must watch "American Idol" a lot.
Quote:
If you don't buy your music, you have no right to it at all. If you are unwilling to pay for your music you are an idiot.
I hope you're only speaking generically. I will assume so, because I take it you read my post (above) regarding the $$$'s worth of PAID music I have downloaded. God forbid I should be an 'idiot' in your eyes. I believe in compensating the Artists not the companies who control every breath they take. The RIAA is corrupt. THEY are bigger thieves than anyone they're suing. They control governments. They are criminals. Rip offs. Joy-sapping, anal-retentive, smug, lying cockroaches. Self-defeating, and one can only hope for the future - self-destructing. Artist-robbing royalty-sucker-uppers. Thoroughly unnecessary middlemen in today's world. They sue their own artists. They sue dead grandmothers. They sue people who have never downloaded an .mp3 in their lives. They command about as much respect in today's world, -- and are about as well-liked -- as an Iraqi-insurgent-extremist suicide-bomber. If they want to continue to be a multi-multi-billion-dollar industry, they need to wake up and smell the coffee. They need to progress to the point of _today's_ FREE p2p networks in terms of ease of use, song availability, and fair-use DRM measures. The BEST thing to ever happen to you and I ARE the P2P networks. Not only do they keep the big boys in check, but they *force* the mothers to come up with something *better* or fall by the wayside. My god man, get a grip. You're not gonna make many friends here if they perceive you're so far up the RIAA's ass you can't breathe properly. (You don't work for them, do you?) -- A_K --

1325.1.2006 18:42
mikecUSA
Inactive

Hi. I have nothing to do with any record companies or the RIAA. In addition to that, I agree that the RIAA is more bad than good. I dislike it too. I just think that downloading music without paying for it is a really bad idea for the music industry, which is the only vehicle for most artists (known and unknown, famous and non-famous) to get money for the music they make. They sell their creations to someone else (record company & publishers) and with that goes the rights to the works. If the record companies fail, that is bad news for future musicians. If you're not buying music now, when will you ever? I'm sure you have a smart retort to my question, but seriously you and others like you actually want to see the record company's go away. John Mayer, Josh Groban, Elvis Presley, Elton John etc would not have ever happened, and there's be no future stars to listen to is you get your way. The record company's are changing distribution methods and doing away with physical media. It will all be streamed eventually, and I'm not sure I like that. I don't believe in the subscription method. I like looking at my shelves of CD's and DVD's and 45s and LP's. This will eventually be an online world where future generations rent their music and I hate the idea of that. Renting muisc? Ugh. I make my living as a private party DJ. I often play music I don't like at these events, but I go home and listen to my favorites, of my hard drives in my makeshift DJ studio. But my music is legal, and when I can buy CD's any more, I will be forced to buy music as downloads until that becomes something the record companies won't want to do when they can charge for renting music through a subscription service. By then I will have zero interest in new music myself and just enjoy my favorites of the last 40 years. I just don't see how anyone feels entitled to free music, music they think is great but not worth paying for, because the record companies that made your access to that great music possible at the original source might make a lot of money off of it. I just don't understand the ethics. I'm sure you're a good person, and this attitude seems inconsistent with everything else your about.


Michael Cowles
Springfield Virginia USA

1425.1.2006 19:00
mikecUSA
Inactive

I guess I have my own issues with entertainment evolution. I know that when CD's first came out everyone was saying how record albums sounded better. I honestly can't agree, they're different, tonally ---but I like CD's better. I'm personally glad CD's were invented. I didn't really get into MP's until late 2002. I resisted because I heard that they were compressed audio and that sounded like it might be substandard. I was blown away when I heard my first mp3 player plugged into and actual stereo with full range sound. They sound great with head phones on, so I jumped on the mp3 band wagon. Now I've downloaded from itunes and they sounded fine to me. I burned a CD of the tracks and then ripped the songs to raw mp3. These also sound great in my car, on headphones, and in my DJ studio, so what's the problem? Now it's true that I could share these new raw mp3's on the web, but why should I? I want Jack Johnson and the Rayvens to get credit for it and the record companies that sponsored them to make a little money. I want apple to make more money etc etc. Afterdawn is against piracy and for FAIR USE. That's why I'm an afterdawn fan. Apple sells a song and they authorise making up to 3 different copies of it. My Miata, My Chrysler mini-van, and my DJ studio. That seems fair to me, and I think the quality is great. My ear can't hear the difference in a straight mp3 rip and an itunes rip to mp3. And No, I don't work for Apple.


Michael Cowles
Springfield Virginia USA

1526.1.2006 0:56

Quote:
My ear can't hear the difference in a straight mp3 rip and an itunes rip to mp3
Well, that's just you. I can tell the difference.. Artists & Companies will never go hungry, people will always buy music; In the same breath though, people will always fileshare.. The ratios will vary (p2p:purchase), but it is here, and will always be here. My advice to you, accept it, and move on with your life.. {Klingy, did I just catch you moderating there?} ;-)

1626.1.2006 1:44

CD's will eventually go extinct. Everyone will be downloading legally.




R.I.P. 2Pac, Eazy-E, Biggie, Big L, Big Pun, Mac Dre, Aaliyah, Left Eye and all the other fallen soldiers

The best MP3 ripper around (Exact Audio Copy)
http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/mydeneaclame.cfm
To make gapless audio cd's out of MP3's
http://www.chrismyden.com/040207.php
To check vital info on your MP3's download Encspot
http://www.guerillasoft.co.uk/encspot/
To get past copy protection on Audio Cd's read this
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/70597
To tag your MP3's the easy way download T&R
http://www.softpointer.com/tr.htm

1726.1.2006 2:01

Quote:
Everyone will be downloading legally.
Unless they remove the DRM, and start encoding music properly, then no friggin way. Plus, nothing beats going out and buying a CD. I will never download legally. I will not be controlled by anyone..

1826.1.2006 18:08
tbiggs
Inactive

mikec USA i have purchased a ton of cd's ( 600 or about ) in the last 10 years or so and had no problem paying for the overpriced frizby's until about two years ago when i found out my money was financeing a campaign to sue individual file sharers, and let me tell you freind i will never buy another peice of work published by any of these imoral inhuman record gods as long as i live , and thats a fact. anyone that thinks its ok to support a company who sues helpless mom and dads for there kids geting online and dl some music to listen to because it is a fun thing for a kid to do is just as much of a smut as the label gods themselves . have you no compasion for your brothers and sisters , what is wrong with your brain man . i want you to no that i will be praying for you along with my church , and when you get your heart right come on back and we will all have a good chat with one another ok . till then take your bullsheet somewhere else cause it is only enraging folks over here . when and if ya do get your heart right come back and join us in our fight to end all the destruction you and the companys you work for are doing to alot of good people . you truly make me physicaly ill . i have to go now , but remember i am praying for you brother.

1927.1.2006 2:31

tbiggs: Since the first advent of the Compact Disc, I too have purchased enough of them over the years to stock my own mini-store! (several hundred...) Not to mention many full album's-worth of paid, downloaded .wma tracks. Mike: My sentence above should tell you that I love not only music, but the many wonderful musicians and songwriters who have brought it to me. Without them, there would be no record labels. There would be no RIAA (a fact you will never hear the RIAA mention). There would be no music industry. So yes, I have nothing but respect for musicians - they have afforded me much enjoyment. It therefore behooves me to see these fine people from being systematically gouged by the RIAA, and to witness it's relentless persecution of the occassional P2P-er, who - in all likelihood, - has purchased more music than the RIAA will ever know. I might add, that it is WE who purchase the music, enabling the RIAA (a truly extinct dinosaur of the music industry) to not only exist, but to flourish - another fact you will never hear them mention. And we are treated like s--t. Do I want to see the end of Record Labels? No, not necessarily so, but it would depend on the label. If a record label (which could easily be owned by a more successful artist or group) were not part of the RIAA network of organized crime, I would say "Sure! Go for it!") You (sorta) ask where Elton John might be today if it were not for the record label(s). You have to remember that when Elton started out, there *was no* internet. There was little-to-no means of promotion or song-distribution as there is today. TODAY, musicians have a far better alternative. And despite the assistance Elton might have received in that regard, I still believe in my heart that it wasn't the labels who made him the International star that he was (and is) - it was ELTON JOHN who made Elton John a star. He had (and has) the raw talent to achieve massive success. MCA (the label) just came along for the ride and skimmed whatever they could off the top by hanging on to his coattails. The same can be said of the many, many successful artists I have enjoyed over the last 40 years. In Dela's recent news-update ( http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7245.cfm ), we see a much more toned-down, contrite, less arrogant, less hostile IFPI (International Federation of the Phonograph Industry) acknowledge the ever-vital need to treat their customers fairly. They seem to (quite convincingly) make a good argument for today's reasonable fair-use DRM, even though I hate any form of DRM. I think the IFPI realizes that it will accomplish it's goals one hell of a lot faster with a gentler approach than the terrorist-bullying scare tactics of the RIAA. I think it (the IFPI) also realizes that the P2P phenomenon is here to stay (although, like the RIAA, they will never admit to it), and they must adapt by offering a better alternative. I'm willing to listen to them, unlike the RIAA whom I have totally written off long ago. I will never knowingly buy a copy-protected cd. I will (and have) bought DRM'd .wma tracks, because I was permitted to make my own (normal) music cd out of them. (I don't even have the original, downloaded tracks any more - I don't need them - I have the resultant cds I made from them.) On the musician's side ...... I know it is very hard for a new group or solo artist to break-through in this ever-competitive field, and I know that many deserving music makers are barely surviving. That is why I urge all of them to embrace the Internet and use it to their best ability to both promote and distribute their work. Signing a contract with the RIAA is akin to signing a pact with the Devil. I want to see the profit returned to the MUSICIANS & Songwriters, not a corrupt conglomerate who professes to represent them. I wish it were possible for a new coalition to be formed on behalf of these wonderful people. If enough musicians got together to support one another - perhaps by contributing a tiny percentage of their earnings into a general fund to be shared in times of need by other members - it would be a help. I dunno - maybe it could be called TICOMAS or something. (ta-koe-maz) - <T>he <I>nternational <C>oalition <O>f <M>usicians <A>nd <S>ongwriters. Don't Laugh! Just think of the good things that might happen if, say, just a few of the already-established mega-artists were to start the ball rolling with such an organization, and take the lead by going Indy. (Paul McCartney, Elton John, Steve Winwood, Bruce Hornsby, .....), all of whom have progressed far beyond any need for the RIAA. Musicians helping musicians. Sounds good to me! Lethal:

Quote:
{Klingy, did I just catch you moderating there?}
Yep! I don't like modding folks, but I can't idly sit by when one member tells another member to F. O. :-)
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Jan 2006 @ 2:46

2027.1.2006 6:15
mikecUSA
Inactive

Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt response, we're not as far apart on this issue as I started out feeling. I guess the only position I can't acquiese to is the role I see in promotion and exposure that artist don't really have the time or the skills to do, and as they're starting out they don't have the money to do on their own. I have seen numerous Beatles stories, DVD's about the early days. They came close to not making it, and without Brian Epstein, and his deep pockets and record company connections, they never would have become something everyone seemed to develop an appetite for. Pete Best decided to go back to Art school because things didn't look like they were going anywhere, and then he was voted out of the band, but trust me, it looked sketchy until about the time they all met Ringo. Strange but true, the Beatles really took off once they had a passionate drummer. Something they all at one time came to admit, BUT timing is one thing and clout is quite another, and the difference between playing music in a bar band, or a garage, or at a high school prom or perhaps a 10,000 colliseum tour of New York London Paris Munich is promotion and exposure and money. Money that can only come from deep pockets. So only kids with rich family members or a rich "patron" (like Supertramp had) will make it under an alternative system. Now matter what happens in the future, it's going to take a marketing and promotion department to get the music to the masses, and if that's important to the artist (getting rich by getting music to the masses) then the majority of artists will be looking for a record company signing bonus and a favorable multi-album deal. This will never change. There are just too many artists without record deals working at Starbucks alone, surrounded by CD's by "signed" artists, to change my mind on this. Record companies are necessary to get the music to the masses, and that's why they're so important. If making money is not important, if keeping a day job is important, the musician will not seek a record deal and will unlikely ever be discovered. It takes money to make money. That's just the honest truth. The artist agrees and signs the contract that he or she feels is a better situation than before he got discovered by the recored company, so who's really responsible for getting themselves gouged? I don't see it that way. I know record companies were very horrible and ruthless to guys like Dobie Gray, and a slew of 50's R&B singers and songwriters, but modern recording artists and writers can't claim ignorance or innocense. Ray Charles was blind and smart. He blindness made him immune to smoke and mirrors, and he carved out a very shrewd record deal with Atco, and so did Kelly Clarkson with her label, so where's the beef?


Michael Cowles
Springfield Virginia USA

2127.1.2006 7:33

It is obvious to me the music industry so greedy their representative can not hide his greed when addressing an audience who will take that attitude as validation for breaking the law. I can see their side of the coin. A minimum ipod hold 1,000 tunes. I believe most of the ipods are in the hands of students. How can the average student afford the $1,000 needed to down load a legal mp3. The cost to the music industry to make a sale first dropped from vinyl to CDs then again down loads which are really pure profit. They are not satisfied by only doubling the profits when they went from vinyl to CDs. They had to double the price on the cheaper CD because it sounded better. They sell old tunes the stole away from the artists for the same price they sell tunes they may have had to pay a fairer price for the rights. I suspect the music industry expects to see major increases in profits every year has it has been going since they started selling recordings. They see every tune on an ipod that was not down-loaded from them as lost revenue. I suspect most persons with ipods would not do so if they had to pay for each tune. The Music industry reminds me of the US auto makers. The US auto makers did everything in their power to stop gasohol from being legal. If one of those companies had just 1 leader with 1 functioning brain cell they would have championed gasohol. They make cars that run on gas which is running out. Prudent measures taken early enough could have prolonged that business for decades more than what it will be. Did they? No! Instead most of what they are making 20 years later guzzles precious gas and contribute to global warming. How warped can you get? Well, their time has come. The smarter companies have spent their resources making a more energy efficient cars are reaping the benefits of right thinking. Hopefully the music industry is in that same boat. I do not have an ipod but the greed of the music industry has me riled. Hopefully, newly created bands will bypass those greedy pigs. Very few persons would balk at 100 tunes for $10. I suspect charging a more reasonable price will be far more profitable than the music industry’s pricing.

2227.1.2006 7:43

MikecUSA, your plan will never work. There will always be code breakers. The real answer is fair pricing. I disagree with you. A $1 per tune is laughable! You must work for the music industry! Fair priceing should reduce the illegal stuff to the point where the pirate population becomes a managable size so they can get nasty with them. Right now they have too many enemies to be effective. They are fighting the world.

2327.1.2006 9:01
mikecUSA
Inactive

I do not work for the music industry. I work with the stuff the music industry produces. Nobody has the time to scan the internet to find all the great music ouot there. The record scouts find the talent and then the talent sells their work to the record company. GET IT? The artist SELLS their stuff to the record company, fully knowing what that means,and the record company takes ownership of it purchasing the rights from the creator in the hopes of making a profit. Most Logical, intellectually honest people understand this, which is why Itunes and and the IPOD are the success stories that they are. All these kids, 20 somethings, 30 somethings etc will continue to become part of the legal download revolution. Your contention that the illegal downloaders will thrive is counter inutitive. Most people do not want to risk their reputations or livelihoods or lifestyles for the act of acquiring free music. Only people clever enough, devious enough or technically savvy enough will be able to avoid conversion to the legal model of music consumption that the industry has evolved into. The masses will continue to gravitate towards the easiest way to get their stuff. Yeah, right now it's hard to imagine anything easier than something like limewire, but if you know you could go to jail for stealing and had a lot to lose, like reputation and a clean police record, you'd think twice before walking into a CD store and walking with even just one cd without paying for it. I got a job when I was 14 as a bagger in a grocery store to finance my buying of music back in the 70's. Everyone internationationally bought their music legally back then, and that "trend" lasted until the mid 90's. Anyone that feels entitled to free music is again, short sighted and anti-capitalist--actual against paying a worker for the work they do, so their anti-money, anti-worker and anti-future. Stealing, or better yet, robbing someone of their earnings is immoral. Suing a mom for thousands of dollars for something her kid did is immoral too---but don't change the subject. If i could afford to buy music at 14 years old for a dollar a song, anyone can now if they get off their ass and prioritize. Especially you, if you're reading this forum page. So don't tell me kids can't afford it. $300 play stations, $300 Ipods, $2.00 ringtones from rapper "50 Cent"(shouldn't his ringtones cost no more than $.50:) If you have limits on what you can afford, change your bottom line so that it fits your appetite, or curb your appetite. This is the adult way to deal with any problem. Relistic is the way to live. If you continue to break the law it might catch up with you. The RIAA is not the governement, their juddgements can be fought, and you can win, IF you're honest and not a law breaker. Again I don't work for the music industry in anyway, i have 2 kids in college and a Junior in High School, and a seven year old. I audit their internet use, so they are not illegally downloading or surfing porn, both could invite in trojans, viruses and unwelcome intrusion to our home network, not to mention assaults from the law enforcement community. My force job is to provide sustenance to my family in a legal way. My second is to provide nurture and guidance which includes loving discipline. My third job is to protect my family. all three priorities are tied for first place. IN short, the record companies buy the music from the artist, then they make multiple copies available to the general public for a price. They base that price on what they decide, because it's their money that paid for the product to begin with and there's A&R, promotional cost etc. Buying it gives you the right to use it, and make fair use copies of it for yourself--perhaps your family. That's it in a nutshell. Don't be making zillions of copies available for free because then your killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Unless you're selfish, self-centered, short-sighted and generally ignorant, then go ahead and break the law--risk your police record and possibly expose your family to shame and costly legal problems.

2427.1.2006 10:57
duckNrun
Inactive

mikecUSA you said: quote: "I hate DRM too, but I don't own the record company. I am smart enough to circumvent DRM, and so I enforce my own fair use policy, but I condemn in no uncertain terms---PIRACY" I hate to be the one to tell you but YOU ARE A PIRATE! You ILLEGALY CIRCUMVENT DRM and as such under the DMCA you are breaking FEDERAL LAW. The Record Industry has gone on the record stating that if you cannot make copies of software (e.g Windows) and put it on more than one machine what makes people think that they can make copies of their music for the same purpose (multiple places of using this product). I'm going to have to forward this whole thread to the legal people at the RIAA so that they can compel AD (now that they too have to curtail their site and abide by this ridiculous laws) to turn over your user information so that they can pursue a DMCA violation suit against you..... So face the facts! You DO NOT LIKE being told that you can't have fair use and protect your origional disc so you BREAK THE LAW! You don't like the fact that you can't make copies of music (DVD's too I bet!)and don't like the DRM so YOU break the law and circumvent it. Don't be hipocritical by saying that other people SHOULDN'T break the law also! In the end, it won't matter that your being punished for making fair use copies and your 'cell mate' is being punished for downloading copies....

2527.1.2006 11:03
duckNrun
Inactive

one more think mike, you say that you are a "private party DJ"..... Do you make money for being a private DJ? If so do you pay your royalties for the music that YOU are making money on at these parties... if not then you are a BIGGER PIRATE than those who only download for personal use. Yes, you may buy these songs you play at parties but if you are making money on their public performance (and actually I believe that making money isn't the actual requirement, it's the public performance) then you are a PIRATE... ...aye matey and shiver me timbers! lol

2627.1.2006 12:49
mikecUSA
Inactive

I pay for my music, I have a subscription service also, which is standard practice and allowed by RIAA as well as individual labels that license music for us to use. Companies like promo only, RPM, and TM Century. So I'm not a pirate there. Also, I do not give the musicc to third parties, I don't sell music to third parties. I use the music I buy for my clients and my own private enjoyment. Even ITUNES allows three copies of each download to be played on various devices. That's not pirate either. I burn them to disc, which is allowed by itunes, again not pirating, and I play them in my van, in my Miata, and on my DJ system, which I use while I'm at home. FYI I'm not breaking law, I operate within the law. I also am allowed to make back up copies of the movies I buy too. Read the law for yourself and read it carefully. There's a real nice bit in there about fair use, of which I'm a solid supporter of. My issue with you freeloaders is that you are greedy and stingy about your money and have an "entitlement mentality" about getting for free what other people spend a lot of time and money on to make available to the world. Take shots at me all you want... I'm 44 and have been around long enough to know what I'm talking about, and no amount of cheap shots (from some kid who has no serious heartfelt thought about the unintended consequeces of his actions) are going to sway me. I never threatened to turn anybody in for anything either, which I think should be noted. You have made a threat, and for that I am offended. I was making a passioned argument for objective truth in the spirit of debate. So before I subject myself to wasting any more time on someone like you who definitely has issues, issues that he has decided to take out on me, a fellow ordinary guy on a forum room, I will no longer respond to any more posts on this thread. Obviouosly my opinion is not appreciated, wanted, or respected, and the spirit of brotherhood I THOUGHT was the hallmark of Afterdawn is really not existing for guys of my opinion. There is some serious group think going on here and my opinions are not politically correct enough for some of you. So, have fun talking to yourselves, blah blah blah. Bitch bitch bitch with no understanding and no real insight to the real issues in play, and the real consequences at stake, or the true solutions at hand. Contrary to what most of you think, you are NOT part of the solution---you are the problem. I tried in my own to try and get you to look at this thing from a different perspective, give you young guys a little insight, as a helpful older friend, BUT you've chosen to threaten to attack me and threaten me. So that tells me you've heard enough out of me. So be it, I can take a hint. I've got more important stuff to attend to anyway. I've got to take my 7 year old kid to the movies to see "Over the hedge".

2727.1.2006 13:56
amerifunk
Inactive

"jail for stealing and had a lot to lose, like reputation and a clean police record" "unwelcome intrusion to our home network, not to mention assaults from the law enforcement community" Sounds a lot like Fahrenheit 451 o.o Instead of 'burning' books in this case though, they'd be putting them out once again. We could even call them Firemen, minus the irony and with a fun 200X twist! They could break into a KNOWN offenders home (once they know, it's a free-for-all [minus the freedom part]) take all the criminal's assets and 1/10 of their life away (assuming they live to 100) for the retention of 0's and 1's on a piece of plastic/metal. I assume with the patriot act they could do that. Digital Terrorists lets say! They could come into a person's home, take said mother/daughter/son/father whom they KNOW broke the law (note* fund investigation into finding these criminals: surveillance, monitoring systems, personal ID systems, the like), seize their assets, destroy their files, contact all family members, friends, coworkers and acquaintances, search their homes as well, prosecute, and so on and so on. Quietly eradicate from one home to another until all is cleansed. All they have to do is make sure they have something bigger in the media being fed to the masses (war, terrorism, attack) so the Acts of Justice being carried out by the ruling Government Police Peace Force can resume with little interest/protest. WAR IS PEACE - "The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. ... War is Peace."-1984 The continuous use of 'war' in the media keeps the people uncertain, yet interested, distraught and down, willing to look for happiness not in thier fellow man, but in the products they SHOULD buy, MUST buy, HAVE TO buy like the friendly people in the box tell them. "imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and Progressive." - 1984 same shit in AbuGrabe "There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself."-1984 The mental attitude of George Bush, the RIAA and many other uber-powerful world entities, is that they are in the Absolute Right (a divine right if you will) and people are willing to believe and accept this as Devine Truth. The Sky is Blue, Trees make oxygen, Copying MP3 illegal *feeling of guilt/dread* "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. ... How does one man assert his power over another ... By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. ... A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. ... If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."-1984 This is ultimately true of Congressmen and Senators. When our ancestors founded America, they were shortsited in not taking into account the population will grow and grow (Franklin couldn't help it :-p) So now we're stuck with 400 somthing a*holes playing with decisions effecting HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people (billions when including the other half of the world haha) and one Psuedo Military/Business Power-hungry rich-kid presenting his ass to the masses (not referring to actual people, they don't count - meaning the congressmen/senators/lobbyists/Osama's family [leave the kid alone already! he's a good kid!]) to be kissed for his grace (though we all know he gets his lips dirty on some Arab ass when it comes to his pride-ful oil dealings [how many companies did he fail?]) "A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic"-1984 We see this in our 'Reality-TV", heated congressional debates, movies, video games....except Orwell got this one wrong. It is not the individual who is currupted by such things, rather, made passive and experience these things through the actions of another (Ophra and Dr. Phil's whole deal) FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - Main Entry: slav·ery Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)rE Function: noun 1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL 2 : submission to a dominating influence The movie/recording/government/media industries would have us believe we are free, when it is THEY who tell US what to do, while in their own state, play amognst similair power-sharers with their power-games and even ignore/break the very laws they threaten us with. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (the quotes and stuff don't exactly pertain to this one, just thought I'd throw it in) “The program of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching” (p. 13). -1984 The Two Minutes Hate can be likened to our Prime Time News filth, the party obviously being the Republican and Democratic Neocons. BUT, we as a poeple are not even entitled to a common enemy!! Rather we are presented with HYPED war, mostly hyping the death of our very own soldiers :'( ,rather we are given old, decrepit men and smiling oily family-knows-and-deals-with-our-'leader' baffoons.... and that's it! Not to mention the constant threat of our lives and livelyhood! man.... FU@K the gov't FU@K "WAR", FU@K Osama, FU@K all actors/actresses/faggot-brown-nosing,fashion-designing media-whore narcesists and FU@K TV!!! ALL TV FU@K it! For at least 5 years! All it is when you turn it on "NEED NEED NEED" Whatever happened to the old TV shows? The old movies? When actors were actors and you could almost 'imagine' yourself in their place and truly enjoy something....instead of sitting idly thinking "Hmmm....ok,...that's Vin Diesel all right..." It's so FAKE. Fake in that everything is so over-done and perfected to the point of it being not real. Or I'm just bored of life...

2828.1.2006 9:23
duckNrun
Inactive

Mike, I'm sorry but BMI would disagree with you buddy. In fact they have clearly stated their opinion on this very thing. So clearly that a simple search resulted in it being in the top 5 results. Here's the link: https://www.bmi.com/news/200006/20000627a.asp and here's the article edited for brevity: 6.27.2000 Playing Music In Public May Require Copyright Clearance, BMI Reminds Small Business Owners NASHVILLE, June 27, 2000 -- Business owners who use copyrighted music in their establishments may think songwriters are compensated for public performances of their songs in the purchase price of CDs. They sometimes don't understand why businesses are responsible for obtaining a license from performing rights organizations, such as BMI, before they can play copyrighted music for their customers. "This is an issue that is occasionally misunderstood," said Tom Annastas, BMI Vice President of General Licensing. "Some people assume purchasing music is like buying a shirt or shoes. What they may not realize is music is similar to movies, television programs and books under copyright law. Many people know that buying a copy of a movie doesn't give them the legal right to open up a movie theater or play a movie in their business. Similarly, music is an intellectual property, and various uses of that property entitle the creator to additional compensation." (skip forward) When you purchase a CD or tape of music, Annastas said, you buy the right to play that music in your home and car, or in private gatherings of family and acquaintances. If you play music in a business, whether the music is recorded or live, copyright law requires that you obtain permission from the composers of that music. "Some business owners would like to see all performing rights included in the purchase price of recorded music, but that wouldn't be fair to the majority of consumers, who buy music only for personal use," Annastas said. "When you look at the entire picture, our lawmakers have written a lot of wisdom and experience into the copyright law." Songwriters receive a little more than three cents for each song included on a CD or tape sold, but those royalties make up less than half the income of most songwriters. Most of their compensation comes from the public performance of their music in businesses, such as radio, television, restaurants and clubs. "Because businesses use music to attract customers or improve ambiance, music can help generate profits," he added. Many businesses play a lot of songs, however, and negotiating an agreement with individual songwriters could be difficult and expensive. "That's exactly why most nations have performing rights organizations," Annastas said. "With a single agreement, we give a business legal access to millions of songs." So I am sorry but you ARE A PIRATE! Your flimsy claim that you have bought the CD's and therefore you can "use the music I buy for my clients and my own private enjoyment" is false. While you can use them for YOUR OWN PRIVATE enjoyment the very copyright laws you berate others for violating you are violating as well.... FOR PROFIT, whereas those who you berate are only doing so for their own personal and private use. As for copying CD's per the law if you are circumventing ANY DRM on them (as you said in the previous post you were doing) then you are not violating copyright law but you are violating the DMCA. This is why DVD Decrypter had to be removed from this site. It IS LEGAL to make a backup of any media you buy for private personal archival use, but it IS NOT LEGAL to circumvent ANY CP per the DMCA So you are violating not only the letter of the Law (the DMCA and Copyright Law for the public performance of these songs) but also the spirit of the law (which was to provide fair use for non infringing purposes while ensuring artists got paid for their products when used as a means to make money using their products). Say what you want but the Law is the Law and YOU ARE VIOLATING IT. Now that you know the truth are you going to contact the RIAA and begin entering into negotiations to continue to use this music ILLEGALY for your clients? As you can see, even a restaurant that plays music for dining customers (and that music isn't the actual service being provided only something used for ambience while providing the service which is food) MUST pay royalties... So until YOU comply with the law I expect you not to be a hipocrite and lecture others on the evils they are participating in! YOU are doing MORE HARM than the downloaders are! As you can see the MAJORITY of a musician's income comes from the royalties provided by people like you who use their music in business venues (regardless of the profit turned) and NOT the 3 cents they earn from the CD!

2928.1.2006 9:59
duckNrun
Inactive

One more thing Mikey-boy.... Don't be labeling me or anyone else in here as 'freeloaders' and as for the comment 'some kid who has no serious heartfelt thought about the unintended consequeces of his actions' it amazes me once again how someone who has NO IDEA who they are talking to would make comments stating what someone is or isn't like and what they are or are not about! As far as YOU KNOW I could be anyone, of any age, with any mindset whatsoever. Oh and by the way... I don't do P2p (as if it's any of your business even if I did)! I use the same legal download services that MANY PEOPLE here do! As for me being a kid, well you stated your 'age' as if thats proof that you really are 44... because I said I am....oh please! If you are really that naive to think that you canpost something and that means that others will accept it for fact you better watch out for those 'dating' sites! LMAO. I could say that I am 55, or 44, or 35 or say the truth which is age is non relevant to this discussion. As your 'age' proves: Age is not an indicator of wisdom and understanding! As for the 'threat' and you being insulted.... oh boo hoo hoo I AM INSULTED BY YOUR HIPOCRISY and for the record if you couldnt reads the sarcasm in what I said then too bad for you. Finally, I HAVE READ MANY LAWS, and the fact still remains that while it is legal under copyright law to make a backup of your media it is ILLEGAL under the DMCA to circumvent the CP that may be placed within that media. This is one of the wonderful things about ambigous and contradictory laws being passed. One law gives you the right and onther law takes it away. You can go round and round all day long saying Law 'A' lets me do this only to hear Law 'B' outlaws you doing it.... So Mr. 44 year old GROW UP, PAY FOR THE RIGHT TO USE YOUR MUSIC FOR YOU CUSTOMERS. stop LYING TO YOURSELF that your doing the 'right thing' and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't be a hipocrite accusing others of the splinter in their eye when you have a beam in yours!

3028.1.2006 11:38
mikecUSA
Inactive

okay duck and run, I'm not sure why you continue to be uncivil towards me, that's cool, but instead of ignoring you, I will try to clear up I like to clear up erroneous info whenever I find it. Hence my advice. THE BMI & ASCAP fees are paid by the venue, not the DJ, call any music distributor of subscription services, promo only, RPM, or TM Century et al. DJ's for private parties do not need to purchase the BMI or ASCAP license, because it would drive all the DJ's for the private party world out of business. The venue, that is, the bar or restaurant is the repsonsible party that needs the license, they're the ones making millions of the sonogs performed. The license fees for BMI and ASCAP are greater than the incomes that most DJ's charge for their services per year. If I had to pay the fees that a bar has to pay, I'd pay the fees and open a bar to get maximum return on my license costs, but private party DJ's are exempt. It's a practical limitation to the licensing rules that makes sense to everyone involved. So I bet you thought you had me there, thinking "Gotcha, if you don't pay BMI or ASCAP --you're a pirate." Well, again, your information is wrong. I've been doing this DJ thing for over 20 years. I've spent over $500,000 for my entire collection, and out of all of that music, I only play 50-60 songs at each event and that's true of most DJ's. I only do gigs once a week, which is Saturday. WIth my $500,000 investement of music I OWN, I have the right to play music forprivate events. If I played "in public" I wouold need the BMI or ASCAP license. I don't performed publicly. Period. As far as DRM and CD's---I don't use any illegal software to make copies, and all of my purchases for copying fall squarely in the "fair use" spirit and wording of the specific laws. So you can call me whatever you want, but pirate is one title that really doesn't fit and a couort of law would definitely decide in my favor. I've had at least a dozen conversations over the past three years with various reps of the RIAA, and it's lear to them and me, that I am not the kind of person they consider as someone they would pursue because what I'm doing is clearly "fair use". As long as I bought all of my music, as long as it's legally acquired, I'm squarely within the parameters of the law. I wish you well, and I'm sorry for whatever I said that made you feel like I'm an enemy of yours. You're free to continue illegally downloading, no ones apparently going to be able to stop you, and I suppose you are really confident of your ability to avoid getting in any trouble. Cool, it's your life. You're comfortable with it, fine. I just have a different opinion. I guess you detect a holier than thou attitude coming from my direction. No, I just have a different opinion and I am not shy about voicing it. I admit I've been frustrated discussing this subject, I'm just glad I won the argument with my kids and they see things my way. You are a free individual running your own life as you see fit. Good luck with everything.

3128.1.2006 14:12

mikecUSA, I give you a lot of respect for coming in here in a peaceful manner and sharing your views, even if they are against the beliefs of pretty much everyone else; I wish you well.

3228.1.2006 23:00

Holee-EE-shitz !!! Mike! _Please_! (if U will), please don't don't go anywhere too soon, ok?!!! I've got about 3, eight-paks of beer in me rite now, and as such I'm not really in the best of positions to debate the myriad (plethora?) of comments my American counterparts have heaped upon your personage, -- however -- I am most desirous (wanting) of "summing up our differences", (yours & mine), if you would just hang in there a bit. (Fark, I'm a bit..... (allright - I'm major buzzed) right now, not to mention, I'm 8-1/2 years older than yourself), so you aughta know that * I * know all about Pete Best, and that I loved the Beatles roughly a generation before yourself; (God Bless the "British Invasion"), and NO, the 'other guy' (I forget his name, but he was - in fact - entirely correct) in his position that you have *NO* (RIAA) "permission" to perform (playback in public) recordings of copyrighted RIAA stuff as a party DJ, - not that I give a Royal FuckMaTosis (Oh!, my Jesus God, Michael), you filthy pirate!), of what they think, without the express written consent of the SkagFokkers who said so. Mike! You're a *smart* Dude! (If a little off-side). Please don't let anyone 'scare' you off (so-2-speak); you've already shocked me. :-) Oh yeah, ..... unless you provide me with your home telephone number via a personal PM, I guess I'm gonna have to rat on your sorry ass for .... simply..... speaking the truth. (I'm just joking, Mike). I believe that the RIAA offers "Fun In The Sun" vacation excursions for inside informants. My dear friend ........... WELCOME! TO AFTERDAWN !!! -- Michael G. B-----t; aka - 'Klingy' --

3329.1.2006 0:52

has he gone mad??

3429.1.2006 13:28

Hi guys,hope the testosterone levels have now dropped! Thought only us girls had to get things off our chests, lol! Would anyone be able to help advise what they think of the AllofMP3 site in Russia. I have been looking for what I believe may be legal but sensibly priced sites to download music. Have looked up what other sites say about the legit of this site but people's ideas about it vary. What do you advise - is it ok to use this site, seems to be a bit of a grey area. I just want to download for my own personal use. Can anyone help as it seems so much red tape it is difficult to know what's the best and sites like Napster and itunes seem expensive and some of the albums cost as much to download as to buy here on disk in the shops in UK. Many thanks

3529.1.2006 14:50
mikecUSA
Inactive

Duck'N Run.... Maybe you have a point. To a certain degree I am somewhat of a hypocrite, and owww it hurts to admit it. I will also admit...I've been overly sensitive. Klingons recent post put everything back in perspective. I love afterdawn. It's fun, and perhaps the most worthwhile interchange of any webcchat type stuff I've ever been part of. Even though I got my nose tweaked by duck'n run---looking back now, it was healthy. I don't know what I was thinking as I shared my thoughts, warm embraces? No way---but I'm feeling better today, in context, in humilty even, the Afterdawn community os a good one and I'm glad for the comraderie and the banter, the cheers and the jeers, and yes, the rants. Klingon, thanks for your honesty, and Duck'n run----THANKS FOR YOURS TOO. You have gotten through to me, and my own hypocrisy is obviouos to me. The law is the law. On some level I have crossed the line, and that's the part about the DRM and the RIAA taht's so messed up. It does makes felons out of ordinary citizens and would make students sharing home made mixed tapes of songs they recorded off the radio, an illegal act. Something my generation used to do all the time. And yes when Bostons first albumame out, I recorded a tape of it, and gave a second copy of it to my brother. I just don't see why anyone should got to jail or face a stiff fine for that. I think that's overkill, and why DRM is bad. I hate that. I love Afterdawn, and will probaly never break free of my addiction to it. I guess it can get hot in the kitchen some times, but the heat sometimes tells me I'm a live. I apologize for the many "JUDGEMENTAL" and "Holier than" statements I've made. I reread them and realize I could have said them all much better. Hats off to Klingon and Duck for hold my 44 year old feets to the fire. I look forward to future interaction, it's fun and mistakes are to be expected. Now lets keep having fun !!! Again, I say music is worth paying for, and "FAIR USE" should be respected. Other than that, I'm out of words (but that is surely a momentary phenomenon). NUTS!

3629.1.2006 20:29
amerifunk
Inactive

afterdawn DOES rock.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Jan 2006 @ 21:24

3729.1.2006 21:06

amerifunk - edit out all that swearing, calm down, and check the rules

3830.1.2006 3:16

This is for MikecUSA. Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way. It was a knee jerk reaction to the music industries unbridled greed. To a computer guy like me, you do work for the industry. I never said you were part of a recording co or part of the P2P police. If you work in an industry you can always see more value in it than the average Joe. I am no different. I could make a case computer programmers should make more. They have a higher IQ than doctors, lawyers and CEOs. We work harder than any of them on occasions. None of them ever have weekend where all you can do is let your brain heal after extended periods intense concentration. I bet you do not sympathies nor should you. We do make a good buck and no one put a gun to my head to become one. Saying you were part of the industry was not supposed to be an insult. I have nothing against the industry but the recording industries greed. They have done a great job. Still selling a low quality mp3 for a $1 for a century is crazy. MAYBE, $1 a tune might be OK for the CD quality tune but not for a lossey format file. No one holds a gun to anyone’s head to sign with a label. However, they are the only game in town so if you want to be a rock and roll star you have to play their game. As far as an unbreakable encryption scheme, you are now in my area of expertise. I can say without reservation, it can not be done! There are way too many smart programmers out there. The only reason nations can protect communications is both the send and receive hardware are kept secret and the codes always change. You can not sell devices to play encrypted tunes and expect no one to figure out the process. I still say, if you sell the tunes cheap enough and make it easy to find exactly what you are looking for will solve the industries problem. They are looking at a world market for a century. Allow someone to find tunes using different types of “fuzzy logic” where the buyer does not have to know the title or the artist to find a tune and you will sell turns like hotcakes, if the price is right. Lastly, if you bought a tune with a copy write you are probably not a pirate if you make a copy for your self. The law is vague and you are in the “grey zone” but you are not in the same boat as P2P down loaders. I believe the industry should make a fair profit. If they do not sell stuff they will go out of business and they do play an important part in our culture. Until now, they were able to dictate the rules but technology has changed the game. Before you only had to real options, buy at their price or do not. Now you can opt to “steal” the tune. I surmise persons are flocking to option 3 in huge numbers. The industry needs to grow up or go by the way of the Dodo Birds. Unfortunately, they seem to want to play that part! I can see you have been taking you shots “like a man. Good for you! I believe everyone is entitled to their own option. Your opinion is fairly defendable even though not mine.

392.2.2006 12:19

Sooner or later (I sincerely hope for the former), don't you think that eventualy the RIAA is not going to have any further choice BUT to start talking about genuine, *real* fair-rights use for the paying customer? "Fair-rights Use" is not a phrase the RIAA wants to hear about. Tough! They would have *much* to gain by this, and an undescribable fortune to lose. I don't know much about the ifpi (International Federation of the Phonograph Industries), - I think I have the ancronym correct -, but as I said before, their overall attitude - while still DRM-heavy - is a hell of a lot more "user-friendly" than anything I have *ever* heard coming out of the RIAA. If there's ever going to be any peace for the RIAA (and us) it's going to have come from a whole different approach on their part. One would think that by now - at least with any other sane organization - the realizaton would have come that the RIAA's wholesale suing of just about anything that moves, is not the answer! How long can they expect to foster the unbridled loathing of the massive, international, music-buying public? (Aw geeze, maybe somebody knows something I don't), but until the RIAA-conglomerate of mega member-labels begins "Fair Usage" discussons with paying customers (as the ifpi seems to be beginning to do), - rather than trying to CONTROL everything you say, think, feel, listen to, watch, and download - we'll always see P2P file-sharing, bit-torrent and other 'quasi-legal' alternatives. Laws were meant to be changed. We've been seeing a lot of that lately, even if not all for the better. And what is perfectly legal in one country is either banned or frowned upon in others. (Canada is still - at least for the time being) still better off that our just-recently bombarded Finnish counterparts because of *their* new laws.) (Rant-rant-rant-rant....) I'm still optimistic, guys! And if I am going to be forever silenced, warned, threatened, abused, ripped off, controlled, discriminated against - or in general, treated like a criminal for purchasing music, then I will *continue* to look at alternatives like P2P (and all upcoming equivalents), until the RIAA either gets it's act together, or loses what it feels is enough money to want a change! (Or have to)! I love Boston too, MikecUSA. kat123 - I don't know quite what to make of AllofMP3 in Russia. Several years ago I only downloaded a few tracks (full albums, actually - some of which I still have) of their free (promotional) albums. You DO have to register with them, of course, and about a year ago - when I made a quickie visit again to their site, I found they still had ALL of the information about me, and a record of all I had downloaded. I do believe that RUSSIA is one place where the Law-Of-The-Land is viewed a whole lot differently than in, say, the USA or Great Britain, so you may indeed NOT be breaking any copyright laws by dealing with them (I haven't followed up much on them recently). About the only thing I can say is - if you DO payout any money for either their tracks, or music from any other "disputed" company's service, SAVE A COPY of your receipts!

403.2.2006 0:40

Many thanks will do. It's about time they really clarify what is legal and what is not. If the greedy bozos got off their backsides and thought about it - they could set up a legal site offering value for money downloads - problem solved - they would continue to rake in lots of money and they would substantially reduce amount of "questional downloads" from alternative means. Perhaps it's about time someone sets "their wake-up call"! For years here in the UK we have been moaning about the relative costs of buying dvds and cds from shops. As for the argument about ensuring royalties are paid to those who have made the songs, yes I agree - however only a very small amount of the purchase price is actually paid to the artist - the rest is paid for "production costs" which relistically only amount to a few pence when produced on a large scale....... but of course we are forgetting those hidden costs...... exclusive 5* holidays umpteen times a year for the managing directors of the various companies involved in the production and distribution One's own personal assistant to shop for the wife's birthday present Top of the range, f*** everyone off motor and we must not forget the lowly tea and coffee girl! Someone somewhere is making a nice huge profit and one can understand their relunctance to give up their easy to come by money ..... by suing anything on 2 legs with a pc which is capable of internet access. Important note here: They would enslave all of owners of pc's if they were able to track and trace them.... just think of all the extra money from lawsuits to be gained from little Suzie who is learning to type by copying a text out of a book for practice! A lot of the music I download is oldies that I already own on vinyl and is not available commercially on cd and I do not have the means or knowledge yet to do it myself and want to be able to play on a cd in the car - where is the harm in that How many of our us used to record the top 40 from our radios back in the 80's - did you see the copyright police taking action then - of course not - too much hard work. Technology does it for them now as every pc on the net has it's own identity. Nice work if you can get it!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive