  chRoniX10Peace sells, but who's buying?Premium
join:2004-05-22
Chatsworth, CA | Right direction This is definitely good news and a step in the right direction.
--
~smooth operator~ | |
|
 |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Right direction I agree and kudos to Trent Reznor for his promotion of it. | |
|
|  mocyclerPremium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| As an artist/businessman who is a free agent and beholden to no one, Reznor is certainly within his right to do as he pleases with his own product. I'll leave it up to him to figure out how he's going to support his rock star lifestyle by giving stuff away for free.
Where I split with him is his encouraging theft. The main argument I've heard to justify music piracy is that the record companies are robber barons and somehow "deserve" to get ripped off.
While it's not wholly untrue, you could use that argument to steal pretty much anything.
Reznor's newfound piety might be convincing had he not already made millions off the system he now claims to despise.
mocycler
| |
|
| | | | Re: Right direction Actually the record is the smallest part of the gross profits now. It's all in concerts, and the retail around the concerts.
It's not like it was 10 years ago when the concerts were used to sell cd's/records. | |
|
| | | | I think his comments were aimed more at the record companies, retailers and other middle persons.
The music industry is a cesspool at those levels. | |
|
| | | | said by mocycler:While it's not wholly untrue, you could use that argument to steal pretty much anything. No, really, you can't. You can use the argument to justify digitally copying just about anything, but not to justify stealing physical goods.
Why do people have such a difficult time seeing the difference between these two things? I'm not arguing the language issues between copyright infringement and 'stealing', either (though there is a difference there as well). I'm talking about the real world difference and real world impacts of digital copies vs stealing.
| |
|
| | | mocyclerPremium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | Re: Right direction said by someguy99 :
No, really, you can't. You can use the argument to justify digitally copying just about anything, but not to justify stealing Stealing, copying, file sharing...call it what you want, you are still taking/giving away someone else's property without compensating the rightful owner. And it's still illegal.
You can play lawyer and dick around with words to justify behavior you know is wrong...but my basic point was that disagreeing with a law is not a valid reason to break it...or encourage others to do the same.
At least Reznor has the nuts to call it what it is. Gotta give him credit for that.
mocycler
| |
|
| | | | | | Re: Right direction Maybe if we had fair use actually work, then it would be a different matter, but when Sony says that making one copy of a cd for yourself is theft (even just to rip it and put it on your mp3 player), or the fact that a car repair shop in the UK is being sued for playing the radio because coworkers and customers can listen in. The **AA's are just plain stupid trying to hang on to an outdated business model and is refusing to change with the times. Once they get their collective heads out of their collective asses, then we might see progress.
The first duty of any company is to produce a quality product at a fair market price. At least that's how it used to be, now it's make as much money as possible and screw the consumer. | |
|
| | | | |  bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO | Re: Right direction If you can't compete, litigate. If that doesn't work, legislate. | |
|
| | | | bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
Cockeysville, MD Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
| "One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. "
It's kind of amusing to hear that 'disagreeing' argument when you know damn well the RIAA is guilty as hell of collusion, price fixing, and at least a half dozen other practices against free market competition. The simple fact remains that if a corporation disagrees they pay lobbyist and pay off legislators to make it legal, when an individual does it they just take a chance that they won't get caught. The industry just wants to shift the responsibility of persecution to a publicly funded organization and reap the benefits to lousy business practices.
If you want to reduce the entire argument to an individual moral judgment, I find the greater wrong on the other side of the equation. | |
|
| | | | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Right direction I'm reasonably sure that Dr. King wasn't talking about uploading music, or speeding, or any of a dozen other laws that one might find mildly objectionable.  In fact it's pretty insulting that you chose to invoke those words in this topic.
Besides, no one's conscience is telling them that copyright law is "unjust", it's the greed bone doing that kind of talking. The same "Screw it, everyone says and does what they want to" kind of attitude that's pretty much taking over society. | |
|
| | | | | | mocyclerPremium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Right direction said by jester121:I'm reasonably sure that Dr. King wasn't talking about uploading music...or any of a dozen other laws that one might find mildly objectionable...it's pretty insulting that you chose to invoke those words in this topic...it's the greed bone doing that kind of talking. The topic of filesharing/stealing/downloading, or whatever, has been kicked around for a loooong time. The general editorial slant of this website's operators (and a huge majority of the members) is that it's ok because the record companies are crooks anyway. Call it the "Robin Hood" defense, if you will.
Framing the issue as some great crusade against social injustice is not new, and we all know it's no more than a thinly-veiled scam to justify what can only be defined as wanting something for nothing.
But making allusions to Dr. King is an astonishing a new low. It never occured to me that there are people in this world ignorant enough to twist the tenets of the civil rights movement into a valid reason for illegal music piracy.
And yes, it's really, really offensive to those who, were it not for ML King, would still be sitting at the back of the bus .
mocycler
| |
|
| | | | | | |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: Right direction The monopoly and control that the record labels have while contributing nothing to the product offends me. The fact that you're claiming that Dr King's words dont apply to all unjust laws is more offensive than anything. The fact that you're the one who brought up the race issue also offends me.
All he did was quote Dr. King, word for word. And since you disagree with him on whether or not the law is unjust (you have the right to believe that) you chose to exploit racial tension to make him unable to express himself (how dare you).
For far too long have publishers exploited artists and authors while contributing nothing to the finished product. The internet has finally put an end to that and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it (and I have yet to hear a REASONABLE argument in favour of doing so) | |
|
| | | | | | | | | No I don't think it's offensive to anyone. The poster mentioned nothing about civil rights. He was probably referring to the concept of natural law, which Dr. King promoted. If a law is immoral or takes away "natural rights" then it is ok to not follow it. | |
|
| | | |  major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by mocycler:said by someguy99 :
No, really, you can't. You can use the argument to justify digitally copying just about anything, but not to justify stealing Stealing, copying, file sharing...call it what you want, you are still taking/giving away someone else's property without compensating the rightful owner. And it's still illegal. Downloading is not illegal. It is the here and now and record companies are dinosaurs desperately trying to litigate themselves into a new century, but they don't have a chance once more bands jump on the NIN "pirate" bandwagon.
Radiohead just eliminated all the BS middlemen and have the digital equivalent of a tip jar on their site. Basically, fans have the option of paying or not to download the band's new album.
--
The Toll
| |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Right direction Actually, downloading a copyrighted file without permission of the copyright owner is illegal (the original Napster verdict established that), however it is nearly impossible to prosecute without invasive spyware or access to all of the ISPs' log files. Even then, it would be expensive and time consuming to prosecute thousands of people for one download each. So the recording industry has to settle for suing people sharing files out and hope that the downloaders will go away if they take down enough sharers.
I do agree with the "record companies are dinosaurs" part of your post though. They are desperately trying to hold onto control over the entire music process and onto the illusion that the only good music is RIAA music. More and more their control is slipping away, though, and they're getting more and more desperate.
I don't think record labels will go away entirely in the future, but will instead evolve into entities more like advertising firms. Bands will hire a label to promote an album for a cut of the proceeds. The band will retain copyright over the album and the label can be fired with little to no ill effects on the artist if the label doesn't perform up to par. Labels in this format would be smaller entities with less control over the process (though perhaps the same number of connections with things like radio air time). | |
|
| | | |  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| said by mocycler: are still taking/giving away someone else's property without compensating the rightful owner. And it's still illegal. You can play lawyer and jane around with words to justify behavior you know is wrong...but my basic point was that disagreeing with a law is not a valid reason to break it...or encourage others to do the same. At least Reznor has the nuts to call it what it is. Gotta give him credit for that. mocycler Ok there, Mr. "I have something copyrightable to sell";
Let's say you are a hungry music artist. I don't say starving because you have 100large in the bank that your aunt left you when she went to be with Elvis.
You also just happen to have a pretty decent 4:16 Wayne Newton Remix track that you have for sale on xTunes for 99¢ (+1¢s&h).
Today you are aghast! to find out that I have P2P'd 100,000 copies of your track (Something to gift when the fruitcake runs out) without the expressed consent of You, the copyright holder.
I also said Superbowl, without permission.
But I am overcome with remorse at your aghastness!, and in a fit of pity, I return all 100k tracks, and the drive they rode in on.
However, on my way out, I palm a blank check from your desk, and promptly turn you into a starving artist.
But the good news is, you have recouped the 100k tracks, and you are in the same situation as you were before, when I had your music, but not every bit of your money.
One's just as good as the other, right?
Or might Potential (wish, hope, dream) Money not carry the same value as Bank Money?
Just wond'rin
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them. | |
|
| | Warez_ZealotRural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan | Probably by going on tour and merchandise. Only a shill would make most of their $$$$ on CD's (i.e rap and pop flavours of the week)..
--
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it." - Malcolm X | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| said by mocycler: Where I split with him is his encouraging theft. The main argument I've heard to justify music piracy is that the record companies are robber barons and somehow "deserve" to get ripped off. While it's not wholly untrue, you could use that argument to steal pretty much anything. Reznor's newfound piety might be convincing had he not already made millions off the system he now claims to despise. I could not have said it better! Thanks!
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary. | |
|
|  SlidetboneMazin GoPremium
join:2002-11-10
Land O Lakes, FL | Ok, so the choice of words "STEAL" was not politically correct, but it is about time artists stood up against the labels and multinationals that do nothing for music. There is real talent out there. We allowed mainstream to totally mess up what we hear. Music today is nothing but noise.
Makes you wonder why the resurgence of "oldies music" from the 60's, 70's 80's and even some 90's.
Musicians now have access to digital software and music apps that make studio equipment of the 80's obsolete and at an affordable price. Real recordings can be made and the internet used as the promotional transport. No more paying the middleman for gigs, recording contracts and clout.
Let em have it!! | |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | Radiohead, bitrate? I'm intrigued by the Radiohead download option, but I cannot find any information about what bitrate the files will be encoded at. Has anyone seen this info elsewhere?
--
Dogma is the problem. | |
|
| | | Re: Radiohead, bitrate? I think 256k. Radiohead wouldn't skimp on quality. | |
|
| | | | Re: Radiohead, bitrate? My confirmation email from this morning states that they will be 160kbps DRM-free MP3s. Which makes them, what, V3 VBR? I'm throwing a couple bucks in for this, and plan to buy the hard copy when it comes out early next year. | |
|
|  PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Download it; if the quality sucks, pay them little. If the quality is awesome, pay them a lot. | |
|
| | sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Radiohead, bitrate? said by PolarBear03:Download it; if the quality sucks, pay them little. If the quality is awesome, pay them a lot. I think you pay and then download. It's not released yet. Just curious if anyone saw any info in an interview, etc. where they noted what the bitrate on the downloaded version is. | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by PolarBear03:Download it; if the quality sucks, pay them little. If the quality is awesome, pay them a lot. Considering how mnay peole already thnks it's ok to steal music I doubt that many "fans" will give them ANYTHING. That's just how cheap people are. People think that everything should be free and these Radiohead is about to find out how true that is. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Radiohead, bitrate? I disagree. While there are people who are insanely cheap and think that all music should just be free for the taking, most people are willing to pay a reasonable price for their music. Of course, the definition of "reasonable" varies from $0.10 per song to $0.99 per song to even $1.30 per song (ITunes DRM-Free download).
Radiohead is sure to get people who enter "$0" in the payment box, but they're also likely to get people entering a buck per song or perhaps even more. And since people know that all of this money goes to the artist (unlike CDs where the artist is lucky to make a dollar off of every CD sold), people will likely be more generous. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Radiohead, bitrate? If they get 5 million downloads world wide with about a million or so paying a dollar for the album, thats at least 5 million dollars of direct money right to their pockets. Of course they'll probably get many more hits with varying degrees of payments. Bottom line, its pure profit that bypasses the middle men. It's a new era for rock and folk groups. Even minor but "good" artists may find a rather decent living doing it this way! | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Shaw
 ·TELUS
| Probably works better for established artists. I'm thinking this approach isn't bad, but It probably works better for established bands that already have a following. The RIAA/Labels to bribe modern radio to play songs  People have the hear about it before they'll download it.
Then again sometimes when something catches on the internet it spreads like wildfire, but I would think they be the exception opposed to the norm.
I think Riaa/labels gouge to much from their bands and charge the fans too much. Stand price is what 12.99-14.99 for a cd? Band gets a buck, maybe a dollar for the supplies to make it, and a dollar for distrubtion. Surely they could know the price down below ten dollars and kicking a high percentage to the artists.
14.99 for a cd or 20 for a 100 million dollar hollywood produced movie (Even cheaper if you wait a year). I think cd's are over price, and I think they miss the board with digital downloads. They charge just as much as a cd (or more) and you get a DRM'd POS and nothing to show for it but some files. I buy the odd cd, but paying the same price for something digital and DRM'd doesn't sit well with me. | |
|
 Skilos
join:2000-08-19
Astoria, NY | id pay Personally, i would rather pay the artist directly. Sounds like an interesting model.
But that still leaves the little guys "small bands" to fend for them selves it terms of getting gigs, and shelling out cash for studio time and putting out CD's.
Still interesting times ahead for music. | |
|
| | | Re: id pay said by Skilos: Personally, i would rather pay the artist directly. Sounds like an interesting model. But will you, if you can get his songs for nothing?
Trent Reznor may change his tune after a couple years without any income except for concerts - that is if he can actually book any without label backing. And after his pay if you like it internet plan draws minimal money.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| |
See 21 replies to this post |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Skilos: But that still leaves the little guys "small bands" to fend for them selves it terms of getting gigs, and shelling out cash for studio time and putting out CD's. Yes, but not really.
By the time any small band has been signed by a label, they've been doing this themselves, anyway.
If this continues, the labels are going to have to really earn their keep.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
|
| | Skilos
join:2000-08-19
Astoria, NY | Re: id pay yes, but not really.
Yes big labels can make the next big teeny bopper happen overnight, and make millions for them selves and a few more for the artist, but remember "a light that burns twice as bright last half as long" great quote by the way. todays labels just put out one hit wonders just to make a buck, just look at American idol.
small bands don't really need big labels any more given the ease of distribution of there music by way of lets say torrent technology, also a nice website. and maybe a good PR person and/or manager.
and "yes i would" to a post further up i would pay, even if i could get it for free. i know that artist have to eat so they can make there music.
thats how record labels got in this mess to bigin with. charging $25 $30 or what ever. they just got greedy. people just found a better way to get there music. if more artists go at it on there own they may not be the next super duper mega stars that the world knows all over, but i bet they sure will have a cult following provided they are good and in the end that is better than any label.
man im tired of typing. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Skilos: Personally, i would rather pay the artist directly. Sounds like an interesting model. But that still leaves the little guys "small bands" to fend for them selves it terms of getting gigs, and shelling out cash for studio time and putting out CD's. Yeah that's why bands like to sign with a lable. They handle all that stuff. How dare they ask for compensation for all that expense. | |
|
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| Pure fantasy Two out of of thousands don't exactly make record labels irrelevant. Someone needs a big reality check. | |
|
|  hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Pure fantasy said by BUYaclue :
Two out of of thousands don't exactly make record labels irrelevant. Someone needs a big reality check.
The ball is starting to roll.
--
People pray to God because they're told to. | |
|
|  tileguyPremium
join:2007-08-09
Derry, NH | IMHO a BIG reality check would be for the artists who lose royalty money to the RIAA. The artists need to really understand where the money stream is going and most of it is NOT going to them. To Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails......... GO GET IT and F**K the RIAA!!!!! | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Pure fantasy said by tileguy:IMHO a BIG reality check would be for the artists who lose royalty money to the RIAA. The artists need to really understand where the money stream is going and most of it is NOT going to them. To Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails......... GO GET IT and F**K the RIAA!!!!! Listen if I'm a label and I sign a band and I provide them with a MUCH superior recording studio than they would get on their own, I promote their album and expose it to much more people than they could do on their own, and pay for all their expenses and fund their tours and get them larger gigs than they would get on their own, am I not entitled to compensation and maybe just a bit of profit too? | |
|
| | | hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Pure fantasy said by BF69:said by tileguy:IMHO a BIG reality check would be for the artists who lose royalty money to the RIAA. The artists need to really understand where the money stream is going and most of it is NOT going to them. To Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails......... GO GET IT and F**K the RIAA!!!!! am I not entitled to compensation and maybe just a bit of profit too? sure, but not a butt raping profit. Maybe %35. And i dont think labels fund tours.
--
People pray to God because they're told to. | |
|
| |
hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | MaRcH OF THE PIGS F*CKING PIGS!
Wait! isn't that what Reznor said? 
--
People pray to God because they're told to. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | How much are they making by doing this? Um ZERO. REAL fricken smart. Hey maybe McDonald's can give away free cheeseburers in hopes of selling more Big Macs. Me thinks this will just result in McDonald's selling LESS Big Macs and losing tons of money on cheeseburgers. Maybe we should go tell our bosses to stop paying us for work and somehow this will make us all millionaires. Me thinks these guys have done WAY too many drugs. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | Read between the lines Reznor probably didn't leave his contract. After what he said about stealing music at his concerts, he was probably permanently kicked out of the recording industry.
It's probably a mutual agreement in the end, but I smell he was intentionally pushed out as a way to get out of his contract.
I do envision on-line promoters someday replacing trad record labels. But that will bring a scary industry with it as well as soon as it gains political power.
The only difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult has no political power. | |
|
| | | Re: Read between the lines Kicked out? As long as Reznor was selling albums, he could piss in their champagne, call it Crystal and the record company people would have called it vintage and guzzled it down.
If he got out of his contract before it was up, he had to have his record company dead to rights on something very, very shady. If they saw a chance to make more money off of him, they would have fought him for years, in court. | |
|
| | Give the ablum away for free on your website and profit off merchandise sales selling items that you only could get from your site | |
|
| | I don't see any poor artist. Jay-Z isn't broke and his stuff is all over the net. Is Kanye broke? Don't think the top country artist are starving. Virgin records is getting into the airlines business. Oh maybe Norah Jones works part time at Target, uh, NO! Stop the madness. The RIAA and MPAA needs to stop lying about the money there are losing. Oh yea, I have seen Dr.Dre on the cover of fortune magazine. | |
|
| | The problem is copyright laws The fundamental problem is that the law has been corrupted by the megacorps. The orginal copyright, which was great for over 150 years, was 14 YEARS. PERIOD. That's a reasonable amount of time for any artist to make money from their works. The problem is that Disney and others corrupted the law to make copyrights 'eternal'. If we still followed the original founders beliefs, all the music from the 80's and early 90's would now be in the public domain. I fully support the prosecution of copyright infringers, but not under the current laws. Roll back copyrights to 14 years, and it would be ok, otherwise, it's just a farce.
Fix the copyright laws, and you fix the problem.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
|  PiggieI Actually use WindstreamPremium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL | By Passing the RIAA Hurry for them. People here are in the old copyright argument, all but hijacking this thread. What you think an artist makes off albums? A sweet deal if you are mega famous is 20%, 10% is more like it. The Record company and the RIAA who does nothing but complain lately, get three times the average artist.
So you sell a thousand copies on a label and make a grand. Sell your music direct for even $10 for a downloaded CD and you only have to see 100 to make a grand.
Two people I know of locally are doing that now. They produce their own CD's, have the professionally stamped not burned, printed j label. Cost for 1000 is about $1200. They sell them for $10 each when they do a gig somewhere if people want a copy of them.
It's spreading like wild fire. I see it in higher class restaurant clubs now a lot. You can buy the artist's CD right there.
For a big boy to do it means it's taken to a new level, not the start of something. But yes, lets hope this gets the ball rolling at he national level.
This is beyond wonderful, as seeing the RIAA become a thing of the past would be a dream come true for tens of thousands of artists they do longer serve or protect, just rob.
Piggie :@) Yahhhhhhoooooooooooooo
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 2 downstream switches feeding 5 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my neck | | |
|
|  NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: The problem is copyright laws "Fix the copyright laws, and you fix the problem."
Ditto! | |
|
| | | I believe it was 14 years with an optional, one-time 14 year extension that you had to apply for. I would support a system like that. It would eliminate the abandonware grey area. (If the company that owned the rights vanished, the copyright would expire relatively quickly.) Plus, even assuming most music stayed under copyright for 28 years (14+14), we would be getting music from 1979 in the public domain now. Why should an artist who recorded a song in 1979 expect to keep getting paid for it? Why should a company who made a movie in 1960 expect that it will continue to generate revenue. (And honestly, how much revenue do they really make from these older movies/songs?)
On the whimsical side, being a Heroes fan, and having seen the latest episode last night, I read your last line as:
Fix the copyright laws, Save the World
It might just be true, too. | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Bills Bills Bills I hope Reznor paid his bills like for studio time, the person who created the master disk, the mixing engineer, back-up musicians and so on. the truth is there is a lot more to the cost of his music than just pressing a disk.
Those who sold service to Reznor may want to hire a lawyer. | |
|
| PiggieI Actually use WindstreamPremium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL | Re: Bills Bills Bills said by Scatcatpdx: there is a lot more to the cost of his music than just pressing a disk. Those who sold service to Reznor may want to hire a lawyer. A lot of bands are mixing their own stuff these days.
The lawyer is a wonderful idea, kick out the RIAA and bring in a group to replace them to grab the money.
Brilliant.
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 2 downstream switches feeding 5 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my neck | | |
|
|  BetaTronSinzPremium
join:2002-08-18
Brooklyn, NY | You can't honestly think that a person that's been in the industry as long as he has wouldn't have this figured out. | |
|
| | | Reznor has his own studio. | |
|
 93254336Weapons Of MasturbationPremium
join:2001-10-20
kudos:1 | A New Paradigm Perhaps even more revolutionary is the idea of artists releasing "open source" remixable versions of their music: take it, remix/mash it, and post it. That's a level of accessibility beyond the comprehension of the RIAA.
- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."
| |
|
| BetaTronSinzPremium
join:2002-08-18
Brooklyn, NY | Re: A New Paradigm I must say... that idea just plain owns. | |
|
| | | | Re: A New Paradigm I agree! NiN leads the way! | |
|
| | Good Job! Long live Radiohead and NIN! Now if only many other bands will follow suit. | |
|
| |  Way 2 go Trent!
BTW: If you have not been to a NIN concert it's freaking AWESOME. The energy he gives the crowd is energetic to say the least. | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Very Interesting Marketing stra It is very interesting what Radiohead is doing. You have two options with the new album. You can download it for what you think it is worth plus a credit card fee. Or you can get what They call The DiscBox for 120.00 US Dollars, or 60 pounds. This consists of the new album, "In Rainbows", on CD, 2 x 12 inch heavyweight vinyl LP records. A second, enhanced CD with additional new songs, along with digital photographs and artwork. The Discbox also Includes artwork and lyric booklets all of this is encased in a Hardback book with slipcase, and it includes to codes to download the online album. I will bet they sell a bunch of the DiscBox's talk about a future collectors item.
You can bet other bands will be watching this If it is successful you can bet other band will follow suit.
--
Eat a BLT for Iran | |
|
| TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Re: Very Interesting Marketing stra... Looks like this is spreading, Oasis, Jamiroquai after seeing the sucess Radiohead is having, going to make similar moves. Radiohead is not releasing figures but their website jumped from number 43 to number one in the UK.
»www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh···d108.xml
--
Eat a BLT for Iran | |
|
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | awesome That is pretty cool. I just downloaded the nine inch nails torrent and it sounds great . I like that they are embracing the idea. it is also interesting the radio head group doing the pay what you want. i may download it and shoot them a few bucks just to support them and their idea.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Investing Trades : PM Me | |
|
| | I hope people show their support I know many consumers are just in there and will be cheap asses and will put something very low or nothing on the price. I encourage anyone who wants the Radiohead album to show their support and pay a decent price since there is work going into that. I'm not saying to pay something like 15-20 but at least $5-10 for it to show they can make money of their music without record labels. Be smart and not cheap. | |
|
|  LuksterPremium
join:2001-04-02
Burbank, IL | Re: I hope people show their support This is the perfect time to start supporting artists like Trent and Radiohead. All these posters that said they wouldn't fork 1 penny to the RIAA, that they would pay if the price was reasonable, that if it all went to the artist they would be glad to support them; this is your chance, this is your moment to shine, show them that you waren't lying. This is the turning point, if it does not work for these already established artists it will not work for smaller ones. I already do pay for their work, make sure you give them atleast half of that. | |
|
| | Broadband and Radiohead have made record labels irrelevant The same way Pearl Jam and the Internet made Ticketmaster irrelevant. | |
|
| emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | Re: Broadband and Radiohead have made record labels irrelevant Very different situations.
Performances require a PHYSICAL VENUE that someone is going to own. That owner is going to have a contract with TIcketmaster, and if you ( the band) don't have your own venue, you're going to have to deal with them.
Downloading and listening to music requires NO ONE between the band and the listener.
I guarantee that if there was some way that bands could carry their own arena around with them, Ticketmaster would have some problems.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox | |
|
| | I only like that one song. Another aspect to look at is record labels pushing artists' single songs that are popular, and sometimes even (*gasp*) GOOD. Then the consumer goes and purchases the artist's album and every other song on it are utter pieces of garbage. That is why you have some classic albums put out with a song on it that just doesn't belong. The songs that the label forced the artist to make to sell the cd.
Anyway, my point is: Is it fair to "fool" the consumer into buying a worthless album for $20 for one song that gave a false image of the album?
That's where downloading comes into play. Take iTunes, just for example. I can preview an album and download only those songs that I like for .99. Then, if I do like the whole album, I can get it cheaper than buying the CD at a store.
These are all the right steps in the direction of freeing all of us from bad music and high prices. That's just my opinion though... | |
|
 hpguruCurb Your DogmaPremium
join:2002-04-12 | Bad advice quote:
STEAL IT. Steal away! Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin’.
No doubt he will cover your ass after the RIAA sues you into an early paupers grave.
--
God is the problem. | |
|
| | | Re: Bad advice said by hpguru: quote:
STEAL IT. Steal away! Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin’.
No doubt he will cover your ass after the RIAA sues you into an early paupers grave. Those who do not know their rights, do not have any. Regardless of who is or used to be under what label, all that is simply a mater of what royalties go to who and what is split in what way. Who can do what with music is ultimately up to THE ARTIST according to the law.
Could the RIAA *try* to sue you for passing around Trent's Tunes? Of course, this is America. You can try to sue someone for having looked at you the wrong way if you want -- doesn't mean you'll win.
NIN has given PUBLIC PERMISSION and NIN is the copyright holder. Now of course, if you did not mention this little fact to your lawyer and the judge, you'd get sued into that grave you mentioned. But as long as you KNOW THIS and you DO MENTION IT -- not only would the RIAA *lose* and you could counter sue them -- but NIN could (as far as I know) potentially also sue the RIAA for attempting to infringe upon their copyright with the suit against you.
It's not NIN's responsibility to make sure you know your rights. Your an adult, wipe your own arse.
-Dave | |
|
|
|
