Okay so after reading this do you think you'll be buying CD's if they sue you?
http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111336,00.asp
Currently playing: [Kermie's Gridstream Playlist] Atari Teenage Riot - Delete Yourself
Darn that RIIA
Moderator: Station Managers
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Darn that RIIA
by Nexeus » Sat Jun 28, 2003 1:39 am
-
Nexeus - Posts: 4706
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:44 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
by Sergeiovich » Sat Jun 28, 2003 7:55 am
I use the net to "preview" new artists. I hate buying a CD to get a song.. to find the rest of the CD sucks. so... i download a few songs from a certain artist.. then if they are mostly ok, buy the CD.
then i rip the CD, and mix it together with other tracks on my comp into my own CD to burn.
What the RIAA is doing is nothing but desparation. If they would actually try to endorse diversity in musical tastes, and stop trying to run the radio, they would be doing better. i live in the 4th largest city in the US. when i flip thru the radio, how many stations do i find that play anything like tool, or techno, or anything like that? zip. how often do i hear ministry on the radio? none. its nuts. but i can find 4 stations that play top 40. thats what is killing the record industry. a lack of talent and diversity on the airwaves. if the radio stations played some diverse music, people would buy more CDs. not everyone likes the same 40 songs all day. Evanescense (or however its spelled) is a VERY talented group. but after hearing the "bring me to life" song 50 billion times, i wont buy their CD.
GSP has massively expanded my musical horizons, and i have heard more new music in the 6 months i have listened to GSP than in the 6 years prior. also, in that same time, i have totally stopped listening to the radio b/c they dont play what i like. i usually play music i burned onto a CD. sometimes downloaded, sometimes bought from a store. also.. i have bought alot of CDs in that time.
If the RIAA stops fighting the public, and learns how to work WITH the public, their sales will go up.
then i rip the CD, and mix it together with other tracks on my comp into my own CD to burn.
What the RIAA is doing is nothing but desparation. If they would actually try to endorse diversity in musical tastes, and stop trying to run the radio, they would be doing better. i live in the 4th largest city in the US. when i flip thru the radio, how many stations do i find that play anything like tool, or techno, or anything like that? zip. how often do i hear ministry on the radio? none. its nuts. but i can find 4 stations that play top 40. thats what is killing the record industry. a lack of talent and diversity on the airwaves. if the radio stations played some diverse music, people would buy more CDs. not everyone likes the same 40 songs all day. Evanescense (or however its spelled) is a VERY talented group. but after hearing the "bring me to life" song 50 billion times, i wont buy their CD.
GSP has massively expanded my musical horizons, and i have heard more new music in the 6 months i have listened to GSP than in the 6 years prior. also, in that same time, i have totally stopped listening to the radio b/c they dont play what i like. i usually play music i burned onto a CD. sometimes downloaded, sometimes bought from a store. also.. i have bought alot of CDs in that time.
If the RIAA stops fighting the public, and learns how to work WITH the public, their sales will go up.
- Sergeiovich
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 9:31 am
- Location: Houston, TX
by Tacz » Sat Jun 28, 2003 5:17 pm
You all've heard of 30 Seconds to Mars, right?
Well, I had already downloaded all of their songs, but i thought "Hey, these guys kick ass." So I went out and bought the CD, sortof paying the band for the music, because they just plain kick ass. I want to be able to choose where my dollar goes, and that it goes to the right place.
Well, I had already downloaded all of their songs, but i thought "Hey, these guys kick ass." So I went out and bought the CD, sortof paying the band for the music, because they just plain kick ass. I want to be able to choose where my dollar goes, and that it goes to the right place.
-
Tacz - Unstoppable!
- Posts: 2309
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:21 pm
by Mukizu » Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:01 am
Same here, I still buy cds.
What really get's me going is that they mention the artists and songwriters - They do NOT make a living of cd sales, almost all the money goes to the record label, distributors and stores - they do get royalties from radios playing the song tho
I still want to pay for listening to GSP and if most the money goes there if it's a preferred station, I think it's a good idea.
I'd rather donate directly to GSP tho...
What really get's me going is that they mention the artists and songwriters - They do NOT make a living of cd sales, almost all the money goes to the record label, distributors and stores - they do get royalties from radios playing the song tho
I still want to pay for listening to GSP and if most the money goes there if it's a preferred station, I think it's a good idea.
I'd rather donate directly to GSP tho...
-
Mukizu - Posts: 245
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:32 pm
- Location: Atlantean Reets (Denmark)
by Firia » Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:42 am
tharkael wrote:Lemme say that downloading music has NOT depleded the sales of CD's at all,
eeehh,
Not that I ever did buy CD's,
but I don't buy CD's.
I just DL music cause I'm poor.
I know, I'm part of the problem. ^_^
Like a Punk. 
-
Firia - 31337
- Posts: 1953
- Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:08 pm
- Location: Off World
by Ichyro » Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:32 am
The people being hurt?
The owners of the stores, and the simpletons and peons of the music business.
The rest ran off like an Orc Chieftan and let the Peons (Zug zug!) get slaughtered...
This is bullshit, trying to sue College students for 150,000 for EACH FILE.
How about this for a service?
10 bucks a month, and you can download any number of music files?
The only thing this has done is made me appreciate the self-less men and women and Uni's of AcidPlanet, who make music without contracts or costs.
The owners of the stores, and the simpletons and peons of the music business.
The rest ran off like an Orc Chieftan and let the Peons (Zug zug!) get slaughtered...
This is bullshit, trying to sue College students for 150,000 for EACH FILE.
How about this for a service?
10 bucks a month, and you can download any number of music files?
The only thing this has done is made me appreciate the self-less men and women and Uni's of AcidPlanet, who make music without contracts or costs.
-
Ichyro - I Post, Therefore I Am
- Posts: 1263
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:19 am
by Coltess » Mon Jun 30, 2003 4:21 am
In stead of ranting at how bad RIAA is, someone (just not me 
) should present the public and the artists with an alternative. As I envision this system, henceforth know as DivaNet, it would consist of five pieces of software.
A Client Side Player
The player would aside from playing music streams and files also contain the users ID that would allow the user to purchase music files without having to produce a credit card every time they hear a tune they want (automatic login). If bandwidth allows info about the artist could be provided to the listener, such as concert dates and ticketing info and perhaps merchandise (more income for the store/station). This player would be provided free of charge to the public, but require registration to use.
Streaming software for the Streaming (Radio) Stations
This software would track the tunes streamed and the number of listeners at any given time to ensure that the proper amount of royalties be paid by the station. Furthermore, it should support automatic streaming from a playlist and automatic inclusion of listener requests in playlists. The Streamer should offer the Streaming Station a choice of hosting the stream them selves or letting DivaNet servers handle the strain for a fee. It should also support streaming in various quality levels (56k, 128k, 300k or whatever). The Streamer should also provide support for regionally and/or demographically targeted commercials (implementing this will be a pain in the *** I’m sure). The streamer would have an initial price and/or a membership fee.
Integrated Store
A store would be integrated with the Streaming software to allow listeners to buy the tune they just heard and would, like the Streaming software, automatically pay the artists and the station that hosts the store. The store would probably be located on a central DivaNet server, and not at the Streaming Stations, but the station would still earn a referral commission on all sales.
Publishing software
The publishing software would allow any artist to publish music on (upload to) DivaNet at no cost (or perhaps a small fee, this is a business after all). DivaNet would publish a list of new artist/tracks on a daily/weekly basis to all owners of the Streaming software, allowing them to download the tracks free of charge. The Publisher would encrypt an id-tag, unique to the publisher/artist, identifying the owner of the track, who will then be paid for any subsequent airplay and/or sales. Pretty much buy the software or you will not get paid The Publisher should also allow the artist set the price he/she wants for the track from buyers. Streaming royalties would probably have to be fixed.
DivaNet Central Server
This server software would handle the collecting of royalties from the various streaming stations and the store(s) and then deposit them in the relevant accounts. Since it is not economically viable (I think I read that somewhere) to collect less than one US dollar, two payment options would be available to the users/listeners. Prepaying a certain amount (using a credit card, PayPal, or something like it), from which the price of each track will be subtracted making the track(s) immediately available for download, or collective billing for several songs (more than 10 or something like that) which then be available for download.
As to pricing I think the 99 cents Apple charge at their iMusic store is probably too much, considering the savings there should be since there is nothing physical changing hands. A per track price of 50-75 cents would perhaps be more attractive to the listeners. This approach would of course do nothing to prevent people from buying tracks and then offering them immediately for free download via a website or through peer-to-peer software but I doubt there is any way to prevent this at this time. Neither does it protect the artists from people selling bootleg CDs of their material, from people covering their material and making money of their work, or just plain selling their tracks on a rival service without paying royalties. That is a job for RIAA’s lawyers
All of the above may just be naïve/ignorant nonsense since I know next to nothing of the software involved and even less about the music industry, but it seems doable to me considering that almost all of the software has shareware or commercial equivalents, all that is needed is to integrate it. Whether or not anyone would listen to a station that does not play anything published by traditional means (at least initially) is the question. This is the end of my 10 cents worth, and this concept is now copyrighted by me
) should present the public and the artists with an alternative. As I envision this system, henceforth know as DivaNet, it would consist of five pieces of software.
A Client Side Player
The player would aside from playing music streams and files also contain the users ID that would allow the user to purchase music files without having to produce a credit card every time they hear a tune they want (automatic login). If bandwidth allows info about the artist could be provided to the listener, such as concert dates and ticketing info and perhaps merchandise (more income for the store/station). This player would be provided free of charge to the public, but require registration to use.
Streaming software for the Streaming (Radio) Stations
This software would track the tunes streamed and the number of listeners at any given time to ensure that the proper amount of royalties be paid by the station. Furthermore, it should support automatic streaming from a playlist and automatic inclusion of listener requests in playlists. The Streamer should offer the Streaming Station a choice of hosting the stream them selves or letting DivaNet servers handle the strain for a fee. It should also support streaming in various quality levels (56k, 128k, 300k or whatever). The Streamer should also provide support for regionally and/or demographically targeted commercials (implementing this will be a pain in the *** I’m sure). The streamer would have an initial price and/or a membership fee.
Integrated Store
A store would be integrated with the Streaming software to allow listeners to buy the tune they just heard and would, like the Streaming software, automatically pay the artists and the station that hosts the store. The store would probably be located on a central DivaNet server, and not at the Streaming Stations, but the station would still earn a referral commission on all sales.
Publishing software
The publishing software would allow any artist to publish music on (upload to) DivaNet at no cost (or perhaps a small fee, this is a business after all
). DivaNet would publish a list of new artist/tracks on a daily/weekly basis to all owners of the Streaming software, allowing them to download the tracks free of charge. The Publisher would encrypt an id-tag, unique to the publisher/artist, identifying the owner of the track, who will then be paid for any subsequent airplay and/or sales. Pretty much buy the software or you will not get paid The Publisher should also allow the artist set the price he/she wants for the track from buyers. Streaming royalties would probably have to be fixed.
DivaNet Central Server
This server software would handle the collecting of royalties from the various streaming stations and the store(s) and then deposit them in the relevant accounts. Since it is not economically viable (I think I read that somewhere) to collect less than one US dollar, two payment options would be available to the users/listeners. Prepaying a certain amount (using a credit card, PayPal, or something like it), from which the price of each track will be subtracted making the track(s) immediately available for download, or collective billing for several songs (more than 10 or something like that) which then be available for download.
As to pricing I think the 99 cents Apple charge at their iMusic store is probably too much, considering the savings there should be since there is nothing physical changing hands. A per track price of 50-75 cents would perhaps be more attractive to the listeners. This approach would of course do nothing to prevent people from buying tracks and then offering them immediately for free download via a website or through peer-to-peer software but I doubt there is any way to prevent this at this time. Neither does it protect the artists from people selling bootleg CDs of their material, from people covering their material and making money of their work, or just plain selling their tracks on a rival service without paying royalties. That is a job for RIAA’s lawyers
All of the above may just be naïve/ignorant nonsense since I know next to nothing of the software involved and even less about the music industry, but it seems doable to me considering that almost all of the software has shareware or commercial equivalents, all that is needed is to integrate it. Whether or not anyone would listen to a station that does not play anything published by traditional means (at least initially) is the question. This is the end of my 10 cents worth, and this concept is now copyrighted by me
-
Coltess - Posts: 581
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:12 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests