Elvis Costello predicts death of record business

I always liked Costello. Seems everyone gets it but the labels - nothing new.

I am wondering how this will change radio.

If this happens.

I believe radio would get much better and more diverse. Right now all the major stations play what the labels indirectly pay them to play. Artists don't need the labels like they used to. They can produce and market their music by themselves while maintaining control over it and getting their fair share of the profits.

Radio has already began the adjustment with XM and Sirius! What a concept...basically any type of music you want from the 40's to New Age, uncensored, commercial free, 100% digital quality for a low monthly price.

Quote:

---

Radio has already began the adjustment with XM and Sirius! What a concept...basically any type of music you want from the 40's to New Age, uncensored, commercial free, 100% digital quality for a low monthly price.

---

Even moreso, there was an brief arguement, in having satellite radio cover weather and traffic reports. But guess who won! If you want to know, get a satellite radio! ;)

Quote:

---

"As soon as broadband is big enough, the record business is over,"

---

Oh I can believe that, PLUS when fiber optics come into play, good night, is that going to be interesting! No longer will the RIAA or the MPAA have the upper hand, no longer will or are forced to buy cd's with only 1 damn song that we like and the others are crap. P2P is the wave of the future, both personally and privately. All file transfers will be done this way. Gentleman...and Ladies, let the good times roll!!!

The big wigs in the music record business are a bunch or morons because they say that peer-2-peer file sharing networks are the reason behind there lack luster sales. But they have never done a study that actually supports what they calm. Do you know why, because they just to make acquisition first take everyone down that they can, and then in secret perform the study and see that they were completely wrong?

Hey shewy19, How right you are...in some ways! ;) The music and movie industry aren't losing much ground, if they were, they would crack down harder on all who downloaded material. So, why do it...tell ya why...and I am sure some of you can agree. They don't want to lose money. I mean think about it...not less than a couple of years ago, there was no such thing as P2P. Now look at it. BOOM! Such a growing trend, however, you won't be hearing about this in the mainstream media, like tv news reports and so forth. At least I haven't seen any. But this much is well known, IF, for some reason, they actually DID a news report, like they do for hackers, virus writers, and so forth; I guarantee you, this thing would BLOW up! Having a P2P client isn't like a taboo topic, but more people don't come out and say it. But as P2P clients grow at such a huge rate, the MPAA and RIAA are going to have their hands full in trying to stop not a small group of people here and there...but whole countries. In closure, I just want to say that they frivolous lawsuits by the MPAA and RIAA are a waste of peoples time...and the MPAA and RIAA suck! ;)

They won't win because it is a control issue not a crime issue. They fail in their efforts at control because they are being run by, shall we say "older" individuals that don't understand technology and fueled by greedy people, the artisit, who won't embrace it. Did the RIAA learn nothing from the "War on Drugs"? They go after the users who have no money and hence won't follow through on the prosecution. Do you really think they'll throw a 13 yr. old in prison for MP3s? The MPAA is trying a little harder by going after the source but imho they fail to realize that there is no "source" that they can shut down. I liken it to the internet itself. You could shut down some key locations through which it runs and cripple it for a brief moment but traffic, much like torrents, would be redirected and life would go on. If they were a bit wiser they would invest the money spent on litigation into improving high speed networks, providing quality services nationwide such as video on demand and offer it at resonable pricing without trying to limit how I enjoy my entertainment with DRM. I for one would gladly pay a couple bucks to get a high quality 400kbs+ DL of a movie that I could burn and watch at my leisure. I've already paid 3k for a wide screen HDTV, $150/mth to Comcast, several K to Sony for the AV equipment, and God only knows how much on my computers and now you want me to pay how much to actually leave my techno encampment to go see a movie at a theater? Oh my, I'm beging to ramble...let me jump off my soap box now :)

LOL! No way...ride the soap box downhill!

Well, humans are inperfect, they all make mistakes and when it comes to PCs. The ones who like to find holes (hackers) in the code other people make, they exploit them. This trend will continue FOREVER, are everyone is willing to take risks in one way or another. This will cause, no matter what kind of crackdown is done, hackers and coders etc. to just make newer, better P2P programs that will get around the R$AA measures. Its a never ending cycle. Just my two cents, Peace. Pop Smith

You are right, all that litigation money needs to be spent elsewhere. Just look at the legal music downloading services that we have now. Even the best one, (in terms of no ownership restrictions, though they dont have the selection that Itunes has) which is RealRhapsody, is .79 a song. Do they think we can't do math? The average album has 16 songs on it (the average rap album has 20-22). 16 times .79 is $12.64, about the price of buying the album! If songs were .50 apiece, I might seriously consider not downloading any more albums, especially since I am such a nut about quality, which I could then ensure, by getting the music from the source, also, all the songs on an album would match in volume for a change, without the need for tweaking with some external "mp3 tweaker" software.