the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide.

[Michael]

I got this blog off Digg.Its a long read but very good one.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/1...-birth-of.html

Whats everyone take on it?Mine is simple they could die and i would not care the lest.I think with the Internet(Which i think Saved Prog) Prog is stronger than it ever.These are the same people that tried to destroy Progressive rock and for that i have no sympathy for them at all.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Michael

I got this blog off Digg.Its a long read but very good one.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/1...-birth-of.html

Whats everyone take on it?Mine is simple they could die and i would not care the lest.I think with the Internet(Which i think Saved Prog) Prog is stronger than it ever.These are the same people that tried to destroy Progressive rock and for that i have no sympathy for them at all.

An interesting read...even if the colors strain the eyes.

[Rick and Roll]

There's a lot in that article that I found as rehash. At least it was a decent read, although it sounded like an infomercial for this "oink" site.

[Michael]

Yea oink is gone shut down.I have never heard of it but Like he was saying shut it down and 4 more will pop up.I just like that its bleeding the big guys dry.And oh yea there PR department are class acts.Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you...

[mailotron]

just bla bla bla

[dinosaur]

I don't care how you spin it, if you are making unauthorized copies of someone's copyrighted material, you're a thief. If an artist, or other copyright owner, were to give you consent to copy and disseminate, then okay. Otherwise, it's simply wrong to share/pirate/bootleg or whatever you call it. Digitally speaking, you either have permission, or you don't.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

I don't care how you spin it, if you are making unauthorized copies of someone's copyrighted material, you're a thief. If an artist, or other copyright owner, were to give you consent to copy and disseminate, then okay. Otherwise, it's simply wrong to share/pirate/bootleg or whatever you call it. Digitally speaking, you either have permission, or you don't.

So what your saying is if I have 700(which i do) albums and take them and put them to A Hard Drive Digitally thats wrong even if im not giving them to anyone?I also Own about 800 to 900(some are doubles of the Albums) Cd's which i riped to itunes for my use as well is that wrong?In my eyes i find that completely legal.I buy CD's all the time and rip them to Itunes.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Michael

So what your saying is if I have 700(which i do) albums and take them and put them to A Hard Drive Digitally thats wrong even if im not giving them to anyone?I also Own about 800 to 900(some are doubles of the Albums) Cd's which i riped to itunes for my use as well is that wrong?In my eyes i find that completely legal.I buy CD's all the time and rip them to Itunes.

I believe this was answered (in the US) by SCOTUS in the Univeral Studios, et al. vs. Sony Corp. (now famous as the Betamax) case. It has been determined "fair use" (see 17USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) to make copies of copyrighted material for personal use.

[dinosaur]

No, I'm not saying copies for personal use are unauthorized. Indeed, I also copy files from purchased CDs or vinyls for use in digital format (and before that it was cassette tapes, and, yikes! before that it was 8-track tapes for cruising with the tunes--turntables in the car just never worked very well).
VAX's info about 'fair use' is right on point.
In addition to copies of purchased music, I have downloaded copies of files not purchased, but certainly authorized by the artists, e.g., from the NEARfest website. I see these authorized downloads as their attempt to market their music. Sometimes I buy based on these samples, sometimes I don't. But I do not give any of these files to others or attempt to build any sort of commercial venture based on free sharing of others' work.

[Yesspaz]

I just read it and had an idea. I'm sure I'm not the first, and there's probably better out there, but here goes. The main point here, IMO, is that the labels really own only the means of distribution and the music itself. Once intellectual property is rightly realized to be the artists, all the label legitimately has left is distrobution.

The real trick is to figure out how to let the artist still get paid while controlling their own distro in an mp3 world. Using bit torrent technology and Oink's quality control restrictions, especially their encouragment of FLAC, why not have a torrent site that charges, say, $15, $30, or $50 packages (price = GB dowload allowance, or somesuch). The money is pooled by the online distributor. Once a song is on the site, it's free to trade for life. The artists get paid handsomely for that initial upload! The artist can produce and master themselves, or pay someone to do it, whatever, but the point is that when the artists literally control the music distro, there's no chance of it getting online before release. They release it online themselves to an Oink-like site and get paid for it.


Check out http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/romeria/music.htm

BTW, everyone should get involved with http://www.dimeadozen.org/
It's a free, legal, live bootleg sharing torrent site.

[Rick and Roll]

Am I the only person that doesn't own an ipod or share music downloads?

Sure I'll let a friend listen to a disc by reproducing it. Most of the time the person buys it. In any event it exposes the artist to more listeners. There's no commercial gain for me other than the satisfaction of someone else's pleasure. And again, the artist benefits.

I'm not sending a disc I bought to someone to hear through the mail.

To me this is the same as copying a song onto your ipod.

I don't have any moral stand for or against file sharing - I just don't have any time or interest in it. Isn't there enough music out there?

I'll tell you what pisses me off. Seeing Salem Hill's "Mimi's Magic Moment" on a pirate website BEFORE the release, at three dollars a song.

[Michael]

Really in a Nut shell after watching what has happened in the late 80's and to today.I watched as record Company's all but black balled Progressive rock"It don't make us money we want them to do what we say ect ect ect......"Now the tables are turned Bands really don't need them IMHO and that makes me feel Wonderful really.I make it a point to support My Dudes Flower Kings,Marillion,Spock's beard the list is long and my money has went to them fairly with fare royalty's.I prefer to pay the Band directly they did the work they should get the money not some scum bag POS record company that will fuck them in a second to get another Nickel.Like i said before the internet IMO saved Prog as we Know it and to me thats wonderful.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by Michael

Really in a Nut shell after watching what has happened in the late 80's and to today.I watched as record Company's all but black balled Progressive rock"It don't make us money we want them to do what we say ect ect ect......"Now the tables are turned Bands really don't need them IMHO and that makes me feel Wonderful really.I make it a point to support My Dudes Flower Kings,Marillion,Spock's beard the list is long and my money has went to them fairly with fare royalty's.I prefer to pay the Band directly they did the work they should get the money not some scum bag POS record company that will fuck them in a second to get another Nickel.Like i said before the internet IMO saved Prog as we Know it and to me thats wonderful.

Please understand it applies to all music. Prog is still the same percentage of the total, it's just the total has changed.

Record companies don't blackball Prog specifically, they just want to make money. Whoever brings in the cash, doesn't matter.

I don't agree that the internet saved Prog.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Am I the only person that doesn't own an ipod or share music downloads?

Well, some people want to spend more time listening to music than you do. Don't faulting them.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

I'll tell you what pisses me off. Seeing Salem Hill's "Mimi's Magic Moment" on a pirate website BEFORE the release, at three dollars a song.

Why should that piss you off?

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by VAXman

Well, some people want to spend more time listening to music than you do. Don't faulting them.



Why should that piss you off?

No I don't fault them. Not at all...just curious if I'm the only one...wasn't any intention of finding fault.

One of many reasons that it makes me mad (about the piracy) is that you have an band create output over a year or so's time, package it, get it ready, only to have someone steal it and profit from it. Why wouldn't that make me mad?

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Please understand it applies to all music. Prog is still the same percentage of the total, it's just the total has changed.

Got stats?

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Record companies don't blackball Prog specifically, they just want to make money. Whoever brings in the cash, doesn't matter.

Record companies to not promote what sells. Record company sell what they promote. They force musical paradigm shifts like the clothing industry with fashion changes. Me, I'm perfectly content to wear my demin jeans and T-shirts like I did close to 40 years ago. The only change has been in the sizes.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

I don't agree that the internet saved Prog.

Saved? Probably not. It has become the greatest avenue to the exposure of myriad musical genres. The number of internet radio listeners dwarf the old AM/FM listener counts. XM and Sirius also show that the public is looking for alternatives. Sadly, both XM/Sirius have become what the general public was looking to get away from in the first place.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by VAXman

Got stats?



Record companies to not promote what sells. Record company sell what they promote. They force musical paradigm shifts like the clothing industry with fashion changes. Me, I'm perfectly content to wear my demin jeans and T-shirts like I did close to 40 years ago. The only change has been in the sizes.

Saved? Probably not. It has become the greatest avenue to the exposure of myriad musical genres. The number of internet radio listeners dwarf the old AM/FM listener counts. XM and Sirius also show that the public is looking for alternatives. Sadly, both XM/Sirius have become what the general public was looking to get away from in the first place.

Looks like we're saying the exact same thing. Isn't that interesting about XM/Sirius... it always happens.

Got stats? Got milk? All I'm saying here is that more exposure for all means the same increase. Just a simple weighted average that's all.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Looks like we're saying the exact same thing. Isn't that interesting about XM/Sirius... it always happens.

XM started off on a good footing but it soon eroded under commercial pressures. The commercial rot was inevitable but I really thought that being a subscription service might have staved it off for longer than it did. Now both XM and Sirius want to merge. Once the competition is annihilated, there's even less incentive to be unique or provide unique programming.

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VAXman

I believe this was answered (in the US) by SCOTUS in the Univeral Studios, et al. vs. Sony Corp. (now famous as the Betamax) case. It has been determined "fair use" (see 17USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) to make copies of copyrighted material for personal use.

It may have been covered, but the studios are continually trying to undo it. To whit, all the DRM (digital 'rights' management, right!) crap they're foisting on us. Limited number of copies, limited zones, limited types of media, limited time, software that rootkits your PC, software that disables your CD drive or crashes your system, software so stupid that holding down Shift during boot disables it, DRM that locks your music unless you use M$ or unless you have an iPod, etc ad nauseum. Not to mention suing 6 or 80 year olds that don't even own computers, suing researchers & security analysts who *might* infringe, winning awards of $9K/song, and ignoring sales increases due to file sharing...

Fortunately the ground swell is moving against them, and their whole antiquated 'business model' may come tumbling down, despite their massive politician buy-offs.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

It may have been covered, but the studios are continually trying to undo it. To whit, all the DRM (digital 'rights' management, right!) crap they're foisting on us. Limited number of copies, limited zones, limited types of media, limited time, software that rootkits your PC, software that disables your CD drive or crashes your system, software so stupid that holding down Shift during boot disables it, DRM that locks your music unless you use M$ or unless you have an iPod, etc ad nauseum. Not to mention suing 6 or 80 year olds that don't even own computers, suing researchers & security analysts who *might* infringe, winning awards of $9K/song, and ignoring sales increases due to file sharing...

First, don't confuse the legal right to do so with the technological know-how to thwart it. I am also not a fan of all of the provisions of the DMCA!

I'm not defending the RIAA in the 6 and 80 year olds being sued cases; however, these cases go beyond the 'fair use' doctrine of copying for self use consumption.

Originally Posted by MrMagoo

Fortunately the ground swell is moving against them, and their whole antiquated 'business model' may come tumbling down, despite their massive politician buy-offs.

Let's hope so. The RIAA, like the US governments, exists for its own benefit and not for those it purports to benefit.