Comment Re:At the end of the day (Score 1) 789
I think things have changed in the past couple of years. First off, (and all of this is in my humble opinion, of course), we were all unhappy when we (the computer savvy world) we being given a bad name because some kids were sharing music. And it started out harmlessly enough, some kids on IRC or something like that.
Then, along came colleges with their LANS that everyone had access to shared folders and could trade at will, and at light speed. Whole albums were being copied in a blink of an eye, and that's about the time that napster started and the RIAA took interest... Because it wasn't some small thing.
now... onto why we (again, the computer savvy community) believe that the RIAA is still a horrible entity.
1.) The RIAA has used very strong language in their description of file sharers... everything from pirates to copy right infringers... essentially, criminals. When in fact, most of us were, for the most part, in compliance with copyright laws, as screwed up as they may be. The DMCA (which no one seems to like at this point) states that end users (i.e. US) are entitle to make backup copies (i'm not sure if it's 1 copy or however many...) for personal use. I personaly have my entire CD collection ripped in MP3 form on my hard drive for my own use... that's near 20,000 songs. And, if I can be fined 10,000 for every song... thats (doing math in head...) 200 million dollars! because, I sure as hell don't have proof that i bought all (or any) of those CD's...
Ok, rambling point number 2.) and this one hits close to home with me... The music industry has taken a severe turn over the past 10 years. Bands aren't pushing albums anymore, they're pushing singles... But, since only the top 10 chart toppers are for sale in single form anymore (if at all) most songs we (us again) would like are not available to us unless we spend nearly 20 big ones on a CD where we have heard only 1, maybe 2 of the songs... and too often are the rest of the songs crap (and thusly why they're not all singles i suppose)... But, I'm not about to go out and pay the RIAA folks $19.95 for me to listen to one song, and then give the last $.05 to the band for trying to put out a full album. That math just doesn't work for me (and I am not exaggerating at all there, I'm in the music business, for each CD sold, the band generally gets between 5 and 12 cents...)
Last but absolutely not least.... mp3's are not (by far) CD quality, by their nature... No one has ever seemed to bring this up (atleast that I've seen). true CD audio clocks in at about 10 megs a minute (raw wav format at 16 bits stereo)... mp3 format generally comes in at about 1 meg a minute... Once again, do the math, 1/10 the size != 100% quality. And, on most CD's they have disclaimers that say "this recording was meant to be played off of a CD to achieve the highest quality in audio listnening... if you feel that this is not the case please write xxx @ xxxx.com"
And, along those lines, I, as an artist/musician, feel that it's not just the music (the music should be the most important part of course, though), but more the overall package. This includes... Artwork, extra features, videos, interactive media....
So, in conclusion, I believe that if bands and record labels would step up to the plate, so to speak, and give the consumer a reason to want to buy CD's again (be it cheaper price.. better overall package, BETTER SONGS!!!) that alot of people will turn back around. Not everyone, but alot of people, enough to balance things out.
I for one will still continue to download MP3's before I buy an album, and no one's going to stop me. Thank you, and I apologize for ranting incoherantly for the last 20 paragraphs.
Then, along came colleges with their LANS that everyone had access to shared folders and could trade at will, and at light speed. Whole albums were being copied in a blink of an eye, and that's about the time that napster started and the RIAA took interest... Because it wasn't some small thing.
now... onto why we (again, the computer savvy community) believe that the RIAA is still a horrible entity.
1.) The RIAA has used very strong language in their description of file sharers... everything from pirates to copy right infringers... essentially, criminals. When in fact, most of us were, for the most part, in compliance with copyright laws, as screwed up as they may be. The DMCA (which no one seems to like at this point) states that end users (i.e. US) are entitle to make backup copies (i'm not sure if it's 1 copy or however many...) for personal use. I personaly have my entire CD collection ripped in MP3 form on my hard drive for my own use... that's near 20,000 songs. And, if I can be fined 10,000 for every song... thats (doing math in head...) 200 million dollars! because, I sure as hell don't have proof that i bought all (or any) of those CD's...
Ok, rambling point number 2.) and this one hits close to home with me... The music industry has taken a severe turn over the past 10 years. Bands aren't pushing albums anymore, they're pushing singles... But, since only the top 10 chart toppers are for sale in single form anymore (if at all) most songs we (us again) would like are not available to us unless we spend nearly 20 big ones on a CD where we have heard only 1, maybe 2 of the songs... and too often are the rest of the songs crap (and thusly why they're not all singles i suppose)... But, I'm not about to go out and pay the RIAA folks $19.95 for me to listen to one song, and then give the last $.05 to the band for trying to put out a full album. That math just doesn't work for me (and I am not exaggerating at all there, I'm in the music business, for each CD sold, the band generally gets between 5 and 12 cents...)
Last but absolutely not least.... mp3's are not (by far) CD quality, by their nature... No one has ever seemed to bring this up (atleast that I've seen). true CD audio clocks in at about 10 megs a minute (raw wav format at 16 bits stereo)... mp3 format generally comes in at about 1 meg a minute... Once again, do the math, 1/10 the size != 100% quality. And, on most CD's they have disclaimers that say "this recording was meant to be played off of a CD to achieve the highest quality in audio listnening... if you feel that this is not the case please write xxx @ xxxx.com"
And, along those lines, I, as an artist/musician, feel that it's not just the music (the music should be the most important part of course, though), but more the overall package. This includes... Artwork, extra features, videos, interactive media....
So, in conclusion, I believe that if bands and record labels would step up to the plate, so to speak, and give the consumer a reason to want to buy CD's again (be it cheaper price.. better overall package, BETTER SONGS!!!) that alot of people will turn back around. Not everyone, but alot of people, enough to balance things out.
I for one will still continue to download MP3's before I buy an album, and no one's going to stop me. Thank you, and I apologize for ranting incoherantly for the last 20 paragraphs.
