By David Meikle (81.130.211.124) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:04 am:

http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn/britain/330982.php

By GOAT (64.228.128.142) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 11:52 am:

Well I have over 500 CDs. Most cost $24.99 CDN. Now they have lowered the cost of CDs to about $15.99 CDN. My humble estimate is that the recording industry owes be about $4500.00 in overcharged purchases. Cut that in half for the "new" technology of CDs and they now owe me $2250.00. If each song I download costs a $1.00 I should be able to download 2250 songs. And I STILL buy music even if I have downloaded it. Because not every CD is good, at least I get to hear it before I buy it.

And that's my rant for the day.

By Juicefree20 (68.161.31.21) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:41 pm:

Goat, I'm definitely in your corner! I have a whole lot of 60 & 70s LPs that fell far shy of giving me bang for the buck. I have a bunch of Disco LPs that had one good song & nothing else but vinyl with grooves cut in it & perhaps, cute cover art. I blame the music industry for this debacle.

They always seemed to hold back on the song that everyone wanted, in order to force you to buy the LP. After that, they did away with the 45 & singles. Even when they released CD singles, it was twice as expensive as 45s. They insisted that we didn't want vinyl anymore & that was untrue.

We all know that they crammed CDs down our throats in order to corner the market, & to sell more of their Stereo equipment (which, by no coincidence, happened to be quite expensive). Sony, Phillips were at the forefront of CD technology & just happened to have a major interest in the record industry. Any one else might call that a conflict of interest, or, at the very least, an unfair business practice.

Then there were the CD prices, which cost twice the amount of an LP, though manufacturing costs were less. Then factor in all those CDs with 3 decent songs & little else. How about all of those CDs with 20 songs, 8 of which are stupid skits?

What about all of those long out of print songs, that they refuse to release? Downloading is the only way to get most of these rare gems. There should be a law that says that if the music has not been re-issued, so that we can purchase it, they can't prosecute anyone. I don't think that there can be any financial damages, when the music isn't available for sale.

Honestly, with business practices like this, how long did they expect to get away with treating their customers this way, without some form of reprisal? The ultimate justice in all of this is the fact that the very thing that they crammed down our throats, has come back to bite them with a vengeance. They deserve it! They've never been very fair to their artist(s), or to us, the consumer. I feel sorry for the good guys, they're the one who suffer. As for the comglomerates, screw them, as they've been screwing everyone for years. I hope that the indies come back strong. Their only agenda was selling MUSIC, not STEREO EQUIPMENT!

If they want to find the real culprits, they should look at the MEN IN THE MIRROR! They set the wheels in motion, screwing everyone out of all that they could. I don't hear any of them worrying about the plight of all of the artists that has been jerked from the 50s through the 70s. Yet, I see how all of them get their nice fat bonuses every year. I haven't heard of one of the big boys picking up food stamps, or, welfare. I haven't heard of any of them or their children missing meals, or going without decent health care. Can the same same be said for all of their artists? I didn't thinks so. I have as much sympathy for them now, as they had & have for their lesser artists.

Again, I'm sorry for all of the good guys & I wish them well. As for the other 98%..........

Juice

By GOAT (64.228.146.213) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 11:03 am:

Great post JuiceFree20!

What has been remarkable in this downloading age is that the smaller market bands have actually seen an INCREASE in record sales and an INCREASE in attendance at concerts (where they actually make their money. Sales on records bought at music stores are a pittance).
While big market "musicians" have seen a slaes slump.

...and the reocrding industry is looking out for the musicians best interest! Yeah, right!

By Juicefree20 (141.149.41.20) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 08:36 pm:

Yeah, look at what DMX said in the other thread.

By Rodmann (12.223.170.105) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 09:49 pm:

Thank you Juice! Once again you've beaten me to the punch and written on the forum exactly what I was thinking.

I can't keep track of how many times I've bought $20 dollar plus CD's just for one song I wanted. As far as Soul music goes the major record labels are not offering us enough good tunes. It's as if they insist on repackaging the same old hits by the same old artists over and over again and over again! Even when they finally do put out CD's by cult artists like Patti Drew they leave off key songs. You could at least give us the singles that made the charts! KevGo made an excellent point on another topic a while back from the record labels point of view that they have to sell a certain amount of units. That's fine and I know that record labels can not please everyone right now but they shouldn't be attacking those music fans who are smart enough to take advantage of filesharing technology. They should embrace this technology, open up their vaults and make their catalogs available for downloading. Those masters can't be making much money for them just sitting in storage!

By Juicefree20 (141.149.41.20) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 10:31 pm:

As usual Rod, that's an excellent point. Only in the music industry, can you be sued for cheating people out of non existent sales. Especially when the downloading turns people on to music that the were unaware of. They always speak of how downloading kills sales. For the newer music, I do understand this & I agree. For the older music, this is pure bull.

I used to see songs listed in various books, that I'd never heard before. After finding some of them on-line, I went out & bought a lot of the music so that I'd get artist, date & release info & a picture of the artist. For artists like that, filesharing is a great tool. As most of them aren't getting paid by the companies, the only one who really benefits is who? The record companies & publishers, which is how most of them like it. Thank God for the fair ones in the business, they unfortunately, are in the minority & have always been so.

Believe it or not, most of the music that I'd downloaded, I've previously purchased
on vinyl. I paid FOR IT ALREADY, YEARS AGO! And as a DJ, duplicate copies at that! The only reason that I downloaded it is because I don't have the time to convert my entire vinyl collection to CD. I see no reason for me to repurchase songs that I've already PAID good money for. That's the part that they fail to consider, some of us download for convenience sake.

Whenever I hear a RIAA type speak, this is what I hear: "It's not profitable enough for us to bother releasing. However, even though we won't release it, we'll sue if you upload it. Even though we won't make it available, you're taking money out of our pockets & putting our jobs & big fat bonuses in jeopardy. And by the way, what's wrong with overpaying for CDs that are the same old rehashed ideas. We have expenses: videos, my mistresses, my habits, etc. Why should we release singles, when we can force you suckers into buying the CD? Besides, kids buy the most music & what do they care, whay do they know? Music, schmoosic, throw in a fat beat, some curses, some sex, a video with half naked girls & VIOLA, we gotta hit! We're not so much upset about folks downloading, we're ,ore upset that you refuse to play our game anymore. Oh why can't it be like the Disco days when we could sell anything? Anyway, it's my ball, you better let me win or I quit. No, no, even better, I'll sue".

That is what I hear, how about you?
Juice

By Rodmann (12.223.170.105) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 11:04 pm:

LMAO! You too much Juice! You're too much! LOL. You hit the nail right on it's head. I liked the line about us supporting their mistresses and habits and getting clowns like Puff Daddy and Ashanti in return! On one hand I agree that it is unfair for people to steal the music of current "artists" whos recordings are easily available but on the other hand I find it hard to feel sorry for these new "artists" every time I see a picture of P-Diddy with his personal butler aka clown holding his umbrella for him on the beach, non-talent Britney Spears on an episode of VH1's The Fabulous Life Of.... or so called musical genius (ha!) 50 Cent and his flunkies telling me that they'll "teach me how to stunt"! I just can't seem to muster up any sympathy for them at all! Can you?

I, like you Juice download a lot of tunes that I already have (and paid good money for) on wax. I also don't have the tools to convert all of my vinyl to CD. Why should the RIAA care about me downloading tunes by people like Judy Clay, Twennynine and Margie Hendrix when these artists were already cheated out of their royalties 20 or 30 years ago! The record labels are used to having their way with the pocketbooks of the consumer. Times are changing and it's hard for the them to swallow!

By Juicefree20 (141.149.41.20) on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 11:30 pm:

Rod, you're right & no disrespect to anyone here, but, the law should be changed. If you have a song, that's out of print, that is not being considered for re-release, it should become public domain. On the one hand, it's alright to pay some collector $1229 for an obscure 45 that may break due to its lack of condition. On the other hand, if someone uploads that same song, it's robbery!! BS!!! Why should we have to pay that kind of money for a record so obscure, that even the publisher doesn't think is worthy for re-release? That's like holding people hostage to someones whim & I find that to be grossly unfair. Songs like that should become public domain after a certain amount of years, plain & simple. As I said, a song would have to be released inb order to cheat anyone out of sales. If they don't think enough of the music to release it, why care when someone uploads it? It may actually simulate sales for some lesser known artist. Like Sonny said in A Bronx Tale: "Nobody cares".

Juice

By G_WIZ (68.43.17.149) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 01:44 am:

http://www.kazaa.com/us/index.htm


get what you want here free


wiz

By LadyMystique (216.108.206.177) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 05:10 pm:

Hey Juice...I agree with your post. When CD singles came out, I was upset when I had to pay almost $6USD for a CD single when 45s were at least half that. I'd rather download from iTunes and Rhapsody for those prices...and BTW when you download the entire album from those sites, it is cheaper than buying at a retail outlet.

By zebop (205.188.209.13) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 05:33 pm:

I don't have any problem with downloading. Most of the stuff I get is hard-to-find, out of print stuff from the '70s and '80s. If they want to put me on America's Most Wanted for downloading the Temptations "I'll Keep My Light In My Window", well...

By Juicefree20 (68.161.46.83) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 08:08 pm:

What really annoys me is that they simply refuse to play fair with anyone. They have a history of not playing fair with their artists & they don't play fair with us. How many times have you bought an LP on the strength of the artist, or hearing a song or two that was good? Now, how many times have you heard the rest of the LP, only to discover that it sucked? Then, to add insult to injury, once you opened it, you couldn't return it. What they said was TOUGH! You bought the LP, with the expectation of being satisfied, with no way to hear the music beforehand. When you buy a car, you can at least test drive it. When you buy Stereo equipment, you can listen to the sound, before you buy it. Music didn't work that way. Maybe you could listen to the CDs that they were pushing, other than that, it was a crap shoot. If you didn't like the CD or LP, what recourse did you have? None at all & somehow, that's never struck me as fair.

Juice

By souljunkie (213.122.215.119) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 08:32 pm:

You guys are spot on and the industry needs to adapt to the times, using modern technology to start giving consumers what they want in a format they want at a FAIR PRICE. To coin a phrase, only the strong will survive in the next decade. Personally I hope the outcome is that independent artists are able to compete on a more even keel with the major players in this industry for everyone's benefit.

I've downloaded music in the past, 50-75% of which I subsequently went out and bought on CD or vinyl. The other 25% turned out to be pure rubbish and has been deleted from my hard-drive never to be played again. IMO, that's how consumer rights should be.

On another note, there is a music chain store in the UK called Fopp which runs a policy of allowing you to return any CD within 2 weeks if you don't like it. That's a positive step in music sales I'd like to see more of.

By Pogo (66.129.42.47) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 08:51 pm:

I agree with the majority here about looking for the old stuff.
Too bad you couldn't get about 100 or so people with the same tastes, each buying one CD and then swapping with the other 99. Buy one get 99 free!
What the hey?
I buy a few off Half.com website. You can usually get a good deal there. Also if you play BMG music club right you can get 12 to 14 CDs for about $4.00 each.
Just my thoughts folks.
Pogo

By ErikT.O. (64.228.108.124) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 08:29 pm:

I agree with Juicefree's post, in fact that's what I initially guessed the "Hey Elitists" thread was about before I looked at it! Why is a collector willing to spend over a grand on a single a great guy but someone who down loads the same song a thieving pirate? Does e-bay have a mechanical royalties program few of us know about? I don't down load tunes myself but there are many legitimate reasons for doing it besides the obvious argument about how much obvious filler is palmed off on so many artists' cd's. A lot of people I know in their mid 30's and older can't be bothered to down load music but are so used to c.d's costing 20 bucks they never really go into record stores any more, that's a huge chunk of people who grew up spending money on music who got sick of it. People older still, like my parents, used to buy records regularly, but gave up and bought a whole lot less on c.d. after almost 2 decades of music pricing itself out of people's range. Then I remember the b-s from the industry about the cost of printing c.d's when they first came out, and the hermitically sealed environment required... in a minute I'll wander aloud why it's cool to support one entity that doesn't pay its music makers, but supporting a different entity that also doesn't pay music makers is wrong.