Comment missing the point - fomat doesn't matter (Score 1) 206
This debate keeps going in circles around what is really at the heart of this whole matter - the music. Most of the comments in this and other digital music strings seems to center around file format...why? Who cares? That's exactly where the jerks from SDMI want the debate to stay - in the realm of the technology and not the content.
In the interview with WIRED, Leonardo Chiariglione from SDMI made this passing comment, "...These are rules set up by the man who has the rights to the content..." This seemingly insignificant comment cuts right to the heart of the matter - the rights to the content, in other words who owns the music. SDMI could give a shit about the exact format the technology will take, and would love to see us go 'round and 'round arguing about which format is better. They don't want us to start talking about what lies beyond that - the rights to the content.
The record companies would like you to believe that they have all the content that you desire, and all these mp3 trading sites do nothing but further that belief. Instead of spending time trading your TOOL mp3's for somebody else's Celine Dion mp3's, let's use this awesome technology to take away from the record companies that which makes this all possible - the content. There are thousands of incredible bands on the Internet that are trying to get some exposure using this technology so that they don't have to cave in and sign with a label just to make a buck. Why not just give in and buy the damn TOOL CD - pay the twelve bucks and get on with it. If you are going to spend time and effort making CD's from mp3's, try finding some new artists that could really use the exposure. Every band is a unheard of until they're heard of. How many people had ever heard of Creed three years ago? Not many. Does that mean because they had little exposure they somehow sounded different than they did after they were signed?
Spend time supporting the sites that support the unsigned artists rather than depriving the signed artists of the income they've earned. Remember, they're under contract - they've sold their soul already - why add insult to injury. All but a handful of bands make next to nothing from their contracts, so if you like their music, why not support them.
Let's focus our efforts in trying to help the future Creed's of the world get some exposure rather than wasting half a day downloading, formatting and burning a CD from a signed band just to save a couple bucks. If we give the unsigned artist an outlet, we take away the content from the labels. If we take away their content, then who gives a shit what format they come out with - it won't matter if they don't have the rights to the music.
The real shame of this whole debate is the fact that what gets lost is the music itself. Musicians work hard writing songs - I know, I am one, and the point of a lot of these comments have one underlying premise - lets get it for free. Well that's great for you, but now who's worse SDMI and the lables, or you? You're both bending us over...expecting us to work for your enjoyment for nothing.
In the interview with WIRED, Leonardo Chiariglione from SDMI made this passing comment, "...These are rules set up by the man who has the rights to the content..." This seemingly insignificant comment cuts right to the heart of the matter - the rights to the content, in other words who owns the music. SDMI could give a shit about the exact format the technology will take, and would love to see us go 'round and 'round arguing about which format is better. They don't want us to start talking about what lies beyond that - the rights to the content.
The record companies would like you to believe that they have all the content that you desire, and all these mp3 trading sites do nothing but further that belief. Instead of spending time trading your TOOL mp3's for somebody else's Celine Dion mp3's, let's use this awesome technology to take away from the record companies that which makes this all possible - the content. There are thousands of incredible bands on the Internet that are trying to get some exposure using this technology so that they don't have to cave in and sign with a label just to make a buck. Why not just give in and buy the damn TOOL CD - pay the twelve bucks and get on with it. If you are going to spend time and effort making CD's from mp3's, try finding some new artists that could really use the exposure. Every band is a unheard of until they're heard of. How many people had ever heard of Creed three years ago? Not many. Does that mean because they had little exposure they somehow sounded different than they did after they were signed?
Spend time supporting the sites that support the unsigned artists rather than depriving the signed artists of the income they've earned. Remember, they're under contract - they've sold their soul already - why add insult to injury. All but a handful of bands make next to nothing from their contracts, so if you like their music, why not support them.
Let's focus our efforts in trying to help the future Creed's of the world get some exposure rather than wasting half a day downloading, formatting and burning a CD from a signed band just to save a couple bucks. If we give the unsigned artist an outlet, we take away the content from the labels. If we take away their content, then who gives a shit what format they come out with - it won't matter if they don't have the rights to the music.
The real shame of this whole debate is the fact that what gets lost is the music itself. Musicians work hard writing songs - I know, I am one, and the point of a lot of these comments have one underlying premise - lets get it for free. Well that's great for you, but now who's worse SDMI and the lables, or you? You're both bending us over...expecting us to work for your enjoyment for nothing.
