I am tired of hearing about this already. Not that I don't care, I do. I am just tired of corporations pretending like they care when they just want all the money they can get. How many times do we hear of a band that was the "next best thing" that always burns out. I think the Rolling Stones sell more albums today today then when they were new. Then again, maybe not. I still have a nice stack of Vinyl albums, and I have re-purchased them to have them on CD. Shouldn't I have been allowed to trade them in for the CD version, since I already had purchased the works? No, there is less money in that for them. How about MC Hammer (just for reference) I see how his ride went up and down, yet I beleive the record company made at least 10X the money he did from his works, did they help him, NO. He wasn't making the money for them anymore. That is how a band stays on MTV and in their favor. When you stop making the money for us, you are history. I am not part of the RIAA, I used to work at a law firm, and saw first hand how this buisness model works. After working to the bone (and sacrificing my life) I was let go when I was not needed for someone who was cheaper and less experienced. After, all the work I had done to raise standards and expand for more profits. When that model was in place, I was expendable. Same thing with the Record company. I still feel resentful when I was asked to work on a case from the IT perspective of CoolMail vs. SuSe. Napster is a tool, they are not hosting the mp3's or collecting them on any servers. It is the end user that is putting the MP3's out there. And, I cannot buy into the fact they are losing money. I don't have the link handy, but I remember that on/. it wa posted that the Record companies made more money this past year then the year before. Profits ROSE, almost 2 billion dollars I beleive, and this is still a problem? I thinkn the fact that an CD costs over $10 is the problem. Media bought at that bulk most come out to about.04 each. Pressing is not that large a cost. So the actual CD is not the issue. The amount they pay the artist isn't as well, as they are already tied to a contract, and the Record comapny usually BUYS these people for peanuts. It is all about demographics, not wheter the music is good. If I hear Bye, Bye, Bye one more time, I will break that person's radio. Face it, the music they are PUSHING, I do not like, and I wont buy it, nor will I want to acquire an MP3 version of it. They are not losing any money from my ability to get a copy it, from Napster, a friend, a radio, etc.... Trying to say that since copying occurs (it occurs without Napster, Gnutella, etc...) that they are losing my money, is bunch of crap. You can't make a buisness model based on the population that everyone buy it. Wouldn't MS then be based on 250 million copies sold in their buisness model? Parents make up the bulk of CD purchasing. I have a 12 year old Daughter. She tells me what CD's she wants, and My wife and I purchase them. And, from what I remember, Album and CD sales occur most between the 11-18 age range. And where does that money come from? The Parents. After age 18, you usually build your collection of music through about age 30, then, you don't have the time. Life takes over, Career, Marriage, Mortgage, etc.... Kids are what drive this industry. And beleive me, the parents foot the bill. I try to listen to new ROCK, and I am still shaking my head. Where are the Next Rolling Stones, Doors, Pink Floyd, etc... Is it my fault that a band's shelf life is not exceeding 3-5 years anymore? I thought Guns and Roses was going to have staying power, bu alcohol and drugs took care of that. Why aren't the record companies being proactive towards the Bands they make their living off of? Because it would minimize their profits. This is probably off topic, but the issue hear isn't Napster, Gnutella, AOL IM, et al, it is the fact that they don't control it at this point. It also is screaming at them that $15-18 for one or two songs is horrible. Then again, it doesn't matter, because we the parents buy them for our kids. I resent the fact that the DMCA is constantly referred to as NOT for companies like NAPSTER. If the laws don't apply for everyone, than it is a BAD law. I hope they win this, they actually deserve it. I say this because they are blanketing everyone as just pirating, but not saying that they made more money this past year than the year before, and it is a trend that continues. How much is enough? What is your proof of losing money? You made more profit, your sales are INCREASING, where is the loss? The fact that I won't buy a CD for myself that I dond't like, but since I could get it, it is a lose? just my.03 cents
Slashdot Mirror
I am tired of hearing about this already. Not that I don't care, I do. I am just tired of corporations pretending like they care when they just want all the money they can get. How many times do we hear of a band that was the "next best thing" that always burns out. I think the Rolling Stones sell more albums today today then when they were new. Then again, maybe not. I still have a nice stack of Vinyl albums, and I have re-purchased them to have them on CD. Shouldn't I have been allowed to trade them in for the CD version, since I already had purchased the works? No, there is less money in that for them. How about MC Hammer (just for reference) I see how his ride went up and down, yet I beleive the record company made at least 10X the money he did from his works, did they help him, NO. He wasn't making the money for them anymore. That is how a band stays on MTV and in their favor. When you stop making the money for us, you are history. I am not part of the RIAA, I used to work at a law firm, and saw first hand how this buisness model works. After working to the bone (and sacrificing my life) I was let go when I was not needed for someone who was cheaper and less experienced. After, all the work I had done to raise standards and expand for more profits. When that model was in place, I was expendable. Same thing with the Record company. I still feel resentful when I was asked to work on a case from the IT perspective of CoolMail vs. SuSe. Napster is a tool, they are not hosting the mp3's or collecting them on any servers. It is the end user that is putting the MP3's out there. And, I cannot buy into the fact they are losing money. I don't have the link handy, but I remember that on /. it wa posted that the Record companies made more money this past year then the year before. Profits ROSE, almost 2 billion dollars I beleive, and this is still a problem? I thinkn the fact that an CD costs over $10 is the problem. Media bought at that bulk most come out to about .04 each. Pressing is not that large a cost. So the actual CD is not the issue. The amount they pay the artist isn't as well, as they are already tied to a contract, and the Record comapny usually BUYS these people for peanuts. It is all about demographics, not wheter the music is good. If I hear Bye, Bye, Bye one more time, I will break that person's radio. Face it, the music they are PUSHING, I do not like, and I wont buy it, nor will I want to acquire an MP3 version of it. They are not losing any money from my ability to get a copy it, from Napster, a friend, a radio, etc.... Trying to say that since copying occurs (it occurs without Napster, Gnutella, etc...) that they are losing my money, is bunch of crap. You can't make a buisness model based on the population that everyone buy it. Wouldn't MS then be based on 250 million copies sold in their buisness model? Parents make up the bulk of CD purchasing. I have a 12 year old Daughter. She tells me what CD's she wants, and My wife and I purchase them. And, from what I remember, Album and CD sales occur most between the 11-18 age range. And where does that money come from? The Parents. After age 18, you usually build your collection of music through about age 30, then, you don't have the time. Life takes over, Career, Marriage, Mortgage, etc.... Kids are what drive this industry. And beleive me, the parents foot the bill. I try to listen to new ROCK, and I am still shaking my head. Where are the Next Rolling Stones, Doors, Pink Floyd, etc... Is it my fault that a band's shelf life is not exceeding 3-5 years anymore? I thought Guns and Roses was going to have staying power, bu alcohol and drugs took care of that. Why aren't the record companies being proactive towards the Bands they make their living off of? Because it would minimize their profits. This is probably off topic, but the issue hear isn't Napster, Gnutella, AOL IM, et al, it is the fact that they don't control it at this point. It also is screaming at them that $15-18 for one or two songs is horrible. Then again, it doesn't matter, because we the parents buy them for our kids. I resent the fact that the DMCA is constantly referred to as NOT for companies like NAPSTER. If the laws don't apply for everyone, than it is a BAD law. I hope they win this, they actually deserve it. I say this because they are blanketing everyone as just pirating, but not saying that they made more money this past year than the year before, and it is a trend that continues. How much is enough? What is your proof of losing money? You made more profit, your sales are INCREASING, where is the loss? The fact that I won't buy a CD for myself that I dond't like, but since I could get it, it is a lose? just my .03 cents