Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Miguel Lopez
27075 Followers
Scenic Anemia
2644 Followers
SoniyaShrma
1591 Followers
gorgeoussand
8413 Followers
Mich De L'Orme
5515 Followers
Drew Hendricks
10003 Followers
Fear and Loathing
1602 Followers
Brave Heart
4698 Followers
Cecil Helton
12879 Followers
suite307Dec 17, 2010
A fight they will never win.
dirtyfriesDec 17, 2010
I'd challenge them to go after Google. Muscling around individuals and small P2P startups is one thing...taking on the beast is a whole other level.
f**k the BPI/MPAA/RIAA and any other lame acronym that esssentially elicits money for doing jack s**t for artists.
breadfredDec 17, 2010
I am also wondering - have these people ever read the private ads section in ANY newspaper? How many ads are in their promoting illegal wares? Oh, and these ads were taken over the phone - with a real person taking notes.
When will these newspaper organizations, and their bosses, taken to court?
Oh I forgot: it won't happen. They happen to pay Washington, and strangely enough buying into lobbying seems to immunize you from following the same rules.
It is time for government without lobbying.
It is time for record labels to stop trolling and destroy lives to protect their out-of-date business model
It is time for all of us to show who is the BOSS.
vtbarreraDec 17, 2010
Thank goodness for cached torrent file search results.
Closed AccountDec 17, 2010
The reason nobody buys music is because it sucks.
If the Music today didn't all sound like it came from the same sewer pipe, people might be inclined to buy more music.
hipmanDec 17, 2010
"Hey this music sucks!.Where can I download it for free?".
breadfredDec 17, 2010
Hmm. The only music I tend to download is music that is 20 years old or older.
coreydiggDec 17, 2010
If it sucks so bad then why are people downloading it? Wouldn't they just ignore it completely.
How about this - if you don't like it, don't purchase or illegally download it.
rhythmicmysteryDec 17, 2010
With 19th-century goods, demanding the same price from everybody used to be economically well founded.
With information goods, things are different. With information goods everybody has to pay an individual price corresponding to the value they get from the product.
The music industry is clinging to an outdated business model, trying to defend it with lobbying and lawsuits. They will fail eventually.
coreydiggDec 18, 2010
So what you're saying is the consumer should chose the value?
How about the owners of the music (who invested time and money into it) choose the value, and if the consumer doesn't like it they go without it?
rhythmicmysteryJan 2, 2011
I cannot prescribe to others what they should do, but I do give away my music for free.
http://rhythmicmysteryart.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-new-song-memory.html
paranor01Dec 17, 2010
How do you know it sucks unless you listen to it? And don't use the "turn on the radio or music station" bulls**t, cause not everybody owns a tv or turns on the radio.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanDec 17, 2010
lol.Then what does it matter.Let them keep living in the 19th century.
breadfredDec 17, 2010
There have always been ways to listen to music before you buy it. I have stood many in a time in music store with those massive headphones on my head, at the counter, listening to some tracks from several albums, you know, the big black disc thingies, before deciding how to spend my limited budget.
Also, who the f**k does NOT own or turn on a radio? For crying out loud: give me your address and for postage only I will send you a spare one.
paranor01Dec 18, 2010
Sorry my condescending friend, but I have a rather large collection of 78's and LP's. So stop with the bulls**t "young punk" attitude.
2nd, I don't listen to radio nor watch TV because I find commercials, not to mention most of the shows and music, to be lacking any substance, and treating most people like idiots and chattel.
Sorry if you can't pull away from it. Have a nice day.
breadfredDec 18, 2010
I am sorry to hear you do not have access to radio stations without commercials.
But you also kinda made my point. You know about record stores and the ability to listen before you buy; which was part of my argument. And I am neither young nor a punk.
breadfredDec 18, 2010
You can digg me down if you want, paranot01 - and I really do not mind. By the way, I did not digg YOU down. But please give a reason for it. Let me try to convince you of the validity of my arguments.
paranor01Dec 19, 2010
Basic reason is your lack of reading comprehension.
I did not call you a young punk, but called your attitude towards myself as "young punk". Your attitude tells me what you say isn't really worth listening to.
More clear & simple now ?
djnforce9Dec 19, 2010
@breadfred: While it is true that you can preview music before you buy it, not EVERY CD store allows you to do this and the ones that do put an extremely tight limit on it and/or only allow for a select number of albums. In order to make a proper decision, I would need to skim through the album of interest first to ensure it's not bombarded with "filler" whereby there are a select few songs at the beginning and end of the disc and the rest is utter garbage. Downloading a torrent on the other hand gives me the full/unlimited preview that I need first. Online music stores have previews too although they are often encoded poorly to save bandwidth (rendering them completely useless).
Lastly, I have yet to see anyone still carrying a "disc man" around. Why is the recording industry still selling so many CD's when it's clear that mp3's (and similar digital formats) are in higher demand? Sure there are digital stores but the selection is very limited and most of them don't even sell to anyone outside of the US. Amazon is the most blatant example whereas CDBaby is one of the few stores that actually does things right and I will buy from them when it's possible (they still don't have a really extensive selection when compared to other stores). They even let you re-download the album again should you happen to lose your copy. I remember wanting to buy the new Jeremy Fisher album and ALL the digital stores that were chosen were again, US-only except for iTunes which I absolutely HATE with a passion due to piece of the bloatware they require you to install before they even let you into their store.
In conclusion, the music industry should invest in "getting with the times" rather than frivolous lawsuits and lobbying. Make all their music for sale in digital format (since THAT is the most popular medium now and NOT CD's) to everyone in every country (none of this "sold in USA only" crap).
/End rant
seroevoDec 17, 2010
That's related to one of the core fallacies of the record labels, which is that every single download would've otherwise been a legal purchase.
I've downloaded tons of albums I never ended up listening to at all, or would download an entire album for one song, but figured I might as well check out the rest while I'm at it (only to end up deleting it anyway).
Once myspace made it easy to check out entire or near entire albums my downloading went way down since I knew without needing to download that the album sucked.
But as to why people are even downloading anything if "music sucks," it's more that it's just overpriced.
Why does it cost the same to download an album as it does to buy a CD in which you get a physical copy and booklet of better quality and when distribution and production costs of digital downloads are much less? Why were CDs the same price as records, despite cheaper production, cheaper transport, and and less goods damaged in transport?
Albums should be around $5 and contain at minimum 12 songs. Songs should be 50¢ if sold individually.
Not $10 for what is barely more than an EP, or $1.29 for something I can hear online legally for free anyway.
coreydiggDec 18, 2010
You do understand the the pricing covers more then the actual production of the disk, right? There are recording costs, advertising, etc.
bdbrDec 17, 2010
So The XX and Villagers sound like Ke$ha and Beyonce? Not really.
Maybe you're just looking in the wrong places.
davidtcDec 17, 2010
You say the music sucks but I bet your music player is full of music that you didn't buy. Does it suck listening to music that you think sucks?
3the3dude3Dec 17, 2010
Very misleading headline. This article is about claims made by BPI (British Pornography Industry).
thisisbobDec 17, 2010
Google is an evil information sucking giant vampire squid.
grammerpantsDec 17, 2010
And yet you use it all the time.
hipmanDec 17, 2010
Yeah kinda silly denouncing an organization when you use their products.
dteleDec 17, 2010
"Google made me do it" will soon become the number one defence excuse.
rhythmicmysteryDec 17, 2010
LOL
dteleDec 17, 2010
"Google made me do it" will soon become the number one defence excuse.
edifice98Dec 17, 2010
Am I the only one who saw British PORNOgraphic Industry at first glance?
saintdurielDec 17, 2010
Booo!
They know it's not google's "fault" they just want censorship and control over what we are allowed to view.
Whats next! Pay scales per MB depending on content!?
Different "access" levels of the internet.
Lets stick with an open internet.
elmuerte17Dec 17, 2010
The labels are pointing fingers at every conceivable target except themselves as the source of their problems.
paranor01Dec 17, 2010
And they are well aware of it.
breadfredDec 17, 2010
yep, so they shoot the messenger and bury their head in the sand.
seroevoDec 17, 2010
The irony is that if they took all the time and money they've thrown at stopping illegal downloading and used it towards improving and updating their business model, they'd probably all be better off.
At least the music industry would be.
raidy11moonDec 17, 2010
so they went after bit torrent limewire napster ares and all the other p2p and now they want to go after google.............ok
lets see how this turns out
vinoth06Dec 17, 2010
If you need. You can ban the domain or hosting. For that don't blame Google. Its a search engine. It will provide what ever there in this world. If you feel that site is illegal or abusing the society. Just go and ban the respective sites.
blacklilyninjaDec 17, 2010
like the banks, labels/upper echelon entertainment industry execs that are used to making lots of money to fund lawyers, lobbyists and themselves have continually failed to see that they are the actual problem. Its time they let go. retire. get out of the industry. let us reclaim it for ourselves. This is our revolution. You can't start something new until the old monster is dead dead dead. We are new paradigm. They aren't used to people being able to have so many choices and don't understand that they can't force s**t down our throats anymore. Lost sales automatically means piracy in their eyes. Control for them is a what they want and we can not let them have it anymore.
sirlowkeyDec 17, 2010
Sure, so Yahoo, Baidu and Bing are not on their radar?
Google FTW!
jjustin01Dec 17, 2010
This is the music industry's attempt at getting free marketing.
crashdown1Dec 17, 2010
They're just looking for an excuse to sue someone since they can't stop the bootlegging. Lamers.
ryogaveeDec 17, 2010
So, if the industry wants to force Google to favor legal music stores then they should also cut Google in on the profits. Or, they can just use adwords.
chopperguyDec 17, 2010
Actually "Internet" is the cause of all the BPI/ MPAA/ RIAA woes. Maybe they should think of banning the Internet so that people go to record labels to buy the crap they sell.
breadfredDec 17, 2010
I agree. Really, we should stop all illegal activities. In order to achieve this; I suggest we put every single person in solitary confinement.
Ah, this is getting somewhere: if we put everyone in some kind of a sustaining solution; supplying their every need, and feeding them our chosen music and other information for - lets say - the use of their brains, and give them happy pills, it is a win-win situation!
Really, anyone against this idea is against the free world - so hereby I solute you for your choice for solitary confinement.
Do I really need /s?
skeeordyeDec 17, 2010
nobody's fault but their own...
warpfieldDec 18, 2010
Concert ticket prices should increase until it's cost effective to produce studio-quality work while letting downloads be free. It wouldn't surprise me to see tickets approach a thousand dollars a head or more. Music will be arranged so that it can be played live and sound even better than studio, even with multiple tracks.
Another possibility is that the recording sessions will become the concert. People will have bragging rights like "I was there when the tune was laid down -- where the f**k were you, late boy downloader? That's okay, you can listen to the flat stuff, the table scraps."
So there'll be good money in music; it'll just shift to a different set of players.
trax4321Dec 18, 2010
Just googled "BPI child pornography" and got 125,000 hits.
Those sick bastards!!!!
djordjevicbojanDec 18, 2010
Google is giant, they will have their own team of lawyers fight the scrubs of DMCA scavangers....
afewbravemenDec 18, 2010
Music Industry and others need to realise this.
An artist is a worker like ordinary people and they are finding the profit on the work they do, farmer, engineer or songwriter is beign eroded to the cost level. This is when the labour cost = 0.
jackson01pDec 21, 2010
Even with or without Google. People behind piracy will still coming up with new strategy just in burning your work.