StumpMan
Premium
join:2001-07-26
Clinton, NC
| reply to dadkins
Re: they cut off their nose to spite their face.
I think you guys should consider another alternative.
By pushing everyone else off the court, no one will be left except the ones controlling the money. Then they offer music on THEIR terms and at THEIR prices. No competition means they get the whole pie, not just a slice.
People call them idiots and fools, but I think they are looking at the long term picture..
(BTW I am not a fanboy, just offering up a different opinion on the situation) |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| Not worried either way really... I'm burned out on music.
..and they are idiots.
One form of free(paid?) advertising that they are trying to "fee" into submission.... not very bright.
Seeing as these stations are already paying to play the tracks, and it is advertisement(they(RIAA) are getting paid to have someone advertise their goods for them... WTF?)... they are now going to charge more? 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | Webcasters just have to open up shop 'offshore'.
As long as I can get my show...The Tom Leykis show.
»www.fmtalki.com |
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to dadkins
Same here...Im burned out on all these gimmicks out in music land...
There might be one or two acts/artists that deserve ear time, other then that, eff the music industry...buncha clones, reminds me what Apple and Microsoft did to Xerox.
And at the heart of it all lay the RIAA lames... |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to StumpMan
said by StumpMan  :By pushing everyone else off the court, no one will be left except the ones controlling the money. Then they offer music on THEIR terms and at THEIR prices. No competition means they get the whole pie, not just a slice. Their slice is most of the pie already. So, yeah, it would make sense that they'd want a pie-and-a-half. Greed knows no logic.
It's not spite, but pure economics. Catering to the complex tastes of true music lovers is difficult and costly. Trotting out a parade marginally talented but hot-n-slutty performers spawns new generations of cash cows who are content to buy the Cheap Stuff and ask no questions. Internet radio is the last refuge for the former. The RIAA makes more money if it's devoid of anything that might spark a glimmer of taste in the minds of the latter.
--
Dead webcasters don't make cents.
|
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to FiL
said by FiL :Same here...Im burned out on all these gimmicks out in music land... ...which is precisely why Internet radio needs to survive. It's the one place where you can find good, gimmick-free music.
There might be one or two acts/artists that deserve ear time, other then that, eff the music industry...buncha clones, reminds me what Apple and Microsoft did to Xerox. Take brilliant but abandoned ideas, and run with them?  That doesn't sound like the music industry of today...
You're forgetting that for every dumb and talentless "artist", there's a small army of equally dumb and talentless suits, whose job is to promote the mediocrity. And for every mediocre "artist" that's heavily promoted, there are an untold number of really talented artists who aren't promoted, and will more than likely end up living their own life of mediocrity as their talent goes to seed. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--
Dead webcasters don't make cents.
|
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| Nah, Im very informed on the music industry having created/produced/written my own music for the last 8 years.
No sh@$ a garbage artist gets to the top because of heavy promotion and more so PAY OFFs... But the artist is still part of the problem.
Xerox abandoned their idea or got it stolen from them? Im pretty friggin sure they would've kept up dev. on the gui if not for the Apple five-finger discount. How is that not comparable? A brilliant idea is one that, in atleast 'murrika, makes you a lotttttt of money. Thats what these clones are doing; going for the cash crop instead of planting their own seeds...seems like a carbon copy example. High five for me! |
|
jkb246
join:2000-03-18
Newark, NJ
| reply to StumpMan
Not if people don't buy
Look at the history of downloading. For a few years it was anything goes. Free downloading everywhere. Then came Itunes and people seem to be paying for music in droves. Now Universial wants to get rid of Itunes I would imagine to open there own site. Guess what will happen?????
People wont be buying much Universial because it wont play on the IPOD. The same is going to happen with internet radio. More people aren't going to listen to commercial FM. They are going to do something else.
One day they will figure it out. Valenti is gone. Just have to wait until the RIAA's Head Congress critter is gone and maybe then they will put in a younger person that understands technology. |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to FiL
Re: they cut off their nose to spite their face.
said by FiL :Nah, Im very informed on the music industry having created/produced/written my own music for the last 8 years. No sh@$ a garbage artist gets to the top because of heavy promotion and more so PAY OFFs... But the artist is still part of the problem. With all due respect, I have good reason to believe that you're biased. It seems that you're letting jealousy get the better of you. Vapid teenagers can certainly be gold diggers, but they typically lack the riches to buy their ticket to fame until after they have made their fortune.
Xerox abandoned their idea or got it stolen from them? Neither. Xerox ran a R&D facility on Palo Alto, CA called the "Palo Alto Research Center", or PARC in acronym. Many valuable innovations were made at PARC: Ethernet, OOP, laser printing, the first practical windowing system and the first modern PC, to name a few.
Apparently the only people who didn't recognize the value of PARC's inventions was Xerox top management, who failed to capitalize on the priceless IP, and allowed it all to just walk away. The fact of the matter is that despite its momentous foresight, Xerox was nothing more than a copying machine company at heart. The top management at Xerox did in fact abandon the ideas of Xerox PARC employees. As a result, Xerox lost those ideas, the people who had the know-how, and the famed research facility.
Im [sic] pretty friggin [sic] sure they would've kept up dev. on the gui [sic] if not for the Apple five-finger discount. Xerox never owned the graphical user interface to begin with. Therefore nobody could have stolen it from Xerox. Apple did apparently license some components of the Xerox Alto computer for a nominal fee. Needless to say, licensing is not theft. And it was the ongoing failure of Xerox top management to even attempt to profit from PARC inventions, nothing more.
--
Dead webcasters don't make cents.
|
|
