A
Any
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
Prove it.
Prove it.
M
mank!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #62
Have you read this thread?
W
Will
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
If only there was an online service where you could download songs for a minimal fee, and use of the track wasn't restricted.
Wouldn't the record companies profit from that far more than the amount of money they are spending tracking down users, seeding p2p networks with crap, and taking people to court. And don't forget how much it costs in campaign contributions to lobby US Congress.
Wouldn't the record companies profit from that far more than the amount of money they are spending tracking down users, seeding p2p networks with crap, and taking people to court. And don't forget how much it costs in campaign contributions to lobby US Congress.
G
Gef
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
I'm going to hell, I have shed loads of mp3'sn I dont own.
I use newsgroups to download music anyway, and dont distribute. Almost all the bands I listen to are really new or unheard of, and when I do find a good band I tell peeps about it. Some of them buy it, some of them download it and tell their friends about it and some of them say "Gef you loon, you listen to some right crap".
You cant buy publicity like that .. well you probably can but thats beside the point. I buy some music, not much I might add but some. Especially small bands trying to get noticed, I make a point of buying.
Big established bands with huge incomes can suck it.
I use newsgroups to download music anyway, and dont distribute. Almost all the bands I listen to are really new or unheard of, and when I do find a good band I tell peeps about it. Some of them buy it, some of them download it and tell their friends about it and some of them say "Gef you loon, you listen to some right crap".
You cant buy publicity like that .. well you probably can but thats beside the point. I buy some music, not much I might add but some. Especially small bands trying to get noticed, I make a point of buying.
Big established bands with huge incomes can suck it.
A
Any
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
Yes. But according to the RIAA music downloads are directly affecting CD sales. All i have to go on here are a couple of posts on an internet message board.
Like iTunes? http://www.apple.com/music/store/ Or did you allready know about that and i didnt get the point of your post?
Edit: Sneaky URL edit.
E
ECA
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Hey maybe if it worked with something other than macs!
W
Will
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
iTunes is only available to Mac users in the USA. Though it does prove that the market is crying out for that sort of service.
[edit]Though your link isn't to the Apple music download service, but to their mp3 manager software. I know what you meant though.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
rofl - you are ill-informed if you believe that crock of RIAA poop
i'll let scooba post his usual links...
A
Any
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
I never said that i belived what the RIAA say. Mank wanted to use a few posts on here to show that most people buy the music that they download. So why cant i use information from the RIAA to show otherwise?
I know the iTunes stuff is only available in the US and for Macs at the moment but hopefully Apple will sort it to work in other countries. And fingers crossed they will release it for PC as well, but i doubt that will happen any time soon.
I know the iTunes stuff is only available in the US and for Macs at the moment but hopefully Apple will sort it to work in other countries. And fingers crossed they will release it for PC as well, but i doubt that will happen any time soon.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
Is there not an obvious contradiction in those statements ? If you don't believe what the RIAA say then how can you use it to prove us wrong ?
M
mank!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
Do a search on these forums for previous threads about mp3s/RIAA. I think you'll find the majority of us primarily use mp3 as a 'try before you buy' technique.
I
Iswind
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
hehe ive downloaded alot of stuff....
and i dont think theres a legal way for them to break in to my comp and check it anyway so i dont care much ^^
and i dont think theres a legal way for them to break in to my comp and check it anyway so i dont care much ^^
W
WPKenny
Guest
- Thread starter
- #73
It's late so I have no stats to back this up but I seem to remember that one of Eminem's albums was leaked on the interent weeks before it was released yet it was a massive hit and his best selling album to date.
I'm sure there's plenty of examples like this.
I'm sure there's plenty of examples like this.
S
(Shovel)
Guest
- Thread starter
- #74
Myabe if people were to consider what MP3 downloading is most similar to, it would make more sense as to why the RIAA are being so utterly clueless about it.
Radio. Reduced quality music, on demand, when you want, what you want.
It is the ultimate concept of on demand radio that could ever have existed.
The RIAA don't see this. They don't see that actually P2P (whether you buy it or not) still promotes the music more than anything their monopoly could do.
The problem is, that want control. They can't control it. However, the idea of introducing a legit service that doesn't have DRM forced into it to track/control the users is beyond them. Why should they miss an oppotunity to control music users? Even now when they stand on the brink of irrelevance.
Look at the Web Casters turmoil - it's got them sued for anti-competative behavior. Web Casting is very literally like radio (whereas my P2P analogy is obviously not exactly the same at all). Yet Web Casters get charges much much more. The RIAA attourney is on record saying that he doesn't care if 25000 webcasters go under, cause AOL will be provided plenty very soon anyway (see, control again).
And about quoting the RIAA. Basically, in this debate there are many, many biased views. And then there is the view of the RIAA which, contrary to ever bit of "give them a chance" in the entire conscience of the entire human race, is still a pack of ill-concieved lies.
Remember kids, Home Taping killed the record industry 15 years ago... this is just a halucination.
Radio. Reduced quality music, on demand, when you want, what you want.
It is the ultimate concept of on demand radio that could ever have existed.
The RIAA don't see this. They don't see that actually P2P (whether you buy it or not) still promotes the music more than anything their monopoly could do.
The problem is, that want control. They can't control it. However, the idea of introducing a legit service that doesn't have DRM forced into it to track/control the users is beyond them. Why should they miss an oppotunity to control music users? Even now when they stand on the brink of irrelevance.
Look at the Web Casters turmoil - it's got them sued for anti-competative behavior. Web Casting is very literally like radio (whereas my P2P analogy is obviously not exactly the same at all). Yet Web Casters get charges much much more. The RIAA attourney is on record saying that he doesn't care if 25000 webcasters go under, cause AOL will be provided plenty very soon anyway (see, control again).
And about quoting the RIAA. Basically, in this debate there are many, many biased views. And then there is the view of the RIAA which, contrary to ever bit of "give them a chance" in the entire conscience of the entire human race, is still a pack of ill-concieved lies.
Remember kids, Home Taping killed the record industry 15 years ago... this is just a halucination.
M
mank!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #75
Same with Hail to the Thief. Except I don't think it's their best selling album to date, but it's not like sales suffered is it?