The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Warning to all Kazaa users... a young girl from America's parents were fined $150,000 for each song downloaded by the girl. She issued a statement claiming she was "sorry" and "didn't wish to hurt the artists she loves so much".
In the end the case was settled out of court for a mere $2,000...
Mere? This is crap... I know some artists are dead against downloading music but I also know many bands don't give a s**t and offer downloadable songs from their very own website...
If more bands did that the better I'd say... beat the money obsessed system!
In the end the case was settled out of court for a mere $2,000...
Mere? This is crap... I know some artists are dead against downloading music but I also know many bands don't give a s**t and offer downloadable songs from their very own website...
If more bands did that the better I'd say... beat the money obsessed system!
Page:
The reason the industy's getting so worried now is that the sheer amount of rubbish they're putting onto shelves just isn't selling, they blame this on file sharing, I blame this on sub standard music.
There's also an extremely strong correlation between the artists whinging (sp?) about it, putting out rubbish.
Now to make myself unpopular by putting Metallica under that catergory. They were the ones suing napster.
The artists creating listenable music don't seem to mind file sharing at all, and Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden delivered this speach before playing an unreleased song live
"The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small digital recorders, MP3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it, we are not like Metallica."
My point being that he was for file sharing because he knew fans want to hear things before they buy them, no point paying out my hard earned 10 earth pounds to get an album with one decent track on with the rest fillers. He also knew that even after 25 years Maiden are still creating good music.
Only people who get worried by file sharing are obviously putting out bad music, and if the RIAA pulled their heads out of their, well, behinds, they'd see that they could start operating a business properly, saving money on record labels that will ultimately lose them money.
Plus album prices are rediculous. £10 as an absolute maximum, and that should really have what someone suggested earlier, videos and other goodies on there.
This copy protections probably a bad idea too, as it's getting more complex, I hear more stories of people unable to actually play the CD's in their computers, and as this is the only CD player some people have, it's a discouragement. And it won't stop mp3's as it can be recorded directly through a sound card connected up to a cd player.
Feel free to flame me if you disagree with me.
There's also an extremely strong correlation between the artists whinging (sp?) about it, putting out rubbish.
Now to make myself unpopular by putting Metallica under that catergory. They were the ones suing napster.
The artists creating listenable music don't seem to mind file sharing at all, and Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden delivered this speach before playing an unreleased song live
"The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small digital recorders, MP3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it, we are not like Metallica."
My point being that he was for file sharing because he knew fans want to hear things before they buy them, no point paying out my hard earned 10 earth pounds to get an album with one decent track on with the rest fillers. He also knew that even after 25 years Maiden are still creating good music.
Only people who get worried by file sharing are obviously putting out bad music, and if the RIAA pulled their heads out of their, well, behinds, they'd see that they could start operating a business properly, saving money on record labels that will ultimately lose them money.
Plus album prices are rediculous. £10 as an absolute maximum, and that should really have what someone suggested earlier, videos and other goodies on there.
This copy protections probably a bad idea too, as it's getting more complex, I hear more stories of people unable to actually play the CD's in their computers, and as this is the only CD player some people have, it's a discouragement. And it won't stop mp3's as it can be recorded directly through a sound card connected up to a cd player.
Feel free to flame me if you disagree with me.
Whoo, didn't know I'd written that much.
Maybe I get too obsessed over some things.
Maybe I get too obsessed over some things.
I think Kazaa and similar programs dont emphasise that downloading songs through them is illegal. I know it is a fileshare programme and allows new artists to be recognised but majorly people use it for downloading songs from already recognised artists thus breaching copyright. If Kazaa emphasised this I think people would be more responsible for their own actions. Plus when will they realise nobody EVER reads those "Terms of service" things.
Quite frankly this story made me feel sick. An industry not only suing it's consumers, but suing a 12 year old is quite frankly ridiculous. A whole generation of people seem to be growing up on downloading music, and while this may hurt record sales, suing people left right and center helps no-one. In the short term the record labels get some cash that is most likely peanuts to them, in the long term people get peeved off at them and no-one suddenly decides they'll buy music rather than download it. Record labels need to accpet that file sharing is here, and cannot be stopped.
They also need to look at downloading as viable marketing. When this was on the news there was something about a record label (Virgin I think) setting up a download service "for as little as 50p a track". Great. So for £6-7 (as most albums have 12-14 tracks) you can get a full album. With no CD, no lyric book, no artwork... Great. Or pay double the price and get the full thing. To be honest I think price is probably the biggest issue. Albums should be about £10. If you look on the back of some sampler CDs they say "don't buy this CD for any more than $3" because they'e made by independant labels in America. Go to HMV and buy one and it'll set you back about six quid. Fair enough if they can't sell it at the proper exchange rate, but at least have $1 -> £1. Anyway. File sharing won't be stopped, it's got far too big.
They also need to look at downloading as viable marketing. When this was on the news there was something about a record label (Virgin I think) setting up a download service "for as little as 50p a track". Great. So for £6-7 (as most albums have 12-14 tracks) you can get a full album. With no CD, no lyric book, no artwork... Great. Or pay double the price and get the full thing. To be honest I think price is probably the biggest issue. Albums should be about £10. If you look on the back of some sampler CDs they say "don't buy this CD for any more than $3" because they'e made by independant labels in America. Go to HMV and buy one and it'll set you back about six quid. Fair enough if they can't sell it at the proper exchange rate, but at least have $1 -> £1. Anyway. File sharing won't be stopped, it's got far too big.
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> The reason the industy's getting so worried now is that the sheer
> amount of rubbish they're putting onto shelves just isn't selling,
> they blame this on file sharing, I blame this on sub standard music.
>
> There's also an extremely strong correlation between the artists
> whinging (sp?) about it, putting out rubbish.
> Now to make myself unpopular by putting Metallica under that
> catergory. They were the ones suing napster.
>
> The artists creating listenable music don't seem to mind file sharing
> at all, and Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden delivered this speach
> before playing an unreleased song live
>
> "The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small
> digital recorders, MP3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put
> it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one
> condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the
> equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is
> what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it, we
> are not like Metallica."
>
> My point being that he was for file sharing because he knew fans want
> to hear things before they buy them, no point paying out my hard
> earned 10 earth pounds to get an album with one decent track on with
> the rest fillers. He also knew that even after 25 years Maiden are
> still creating good music.
>
> Only people who get worried by file sharing are obviously putting out
> bad music, and if the RIAA pulled their heads out of their, well,
> behinds, they'd see that they could start operating a business
> properly, saving money on record labels that will ultimately lose
> them money.
>
> Plus album prices are rediculous. £10 as an absolute maximum,
> and that should really have what someone suggested earlier, videos
> and other goodies on there.
>
> This copy protections probably a bad idea too, as it's getting more
> complex, I hear more stories of people unable to actually play the
> CD's in their computers, and as this is the only CD player some
> people have, it's a discouragement. And it won't stop mp3's as it can
> be recorded directly through a sound card connected up to a cd
> player.
>
> Feel free to flame me if you disagree with me.
I totaly agree with you. CD's should be cheaper and i personaly onlyt download 1 or 2 songs by an artist just to get a feel pf their music. If i like it i tend to go out and buy the album. If not then i dont. Simple.
> The reason the industy's getting so worried now is that the sheer
> amount of rubbish they're putting onto shelves just isn't selling,
> they blame this on file sharing, I blame this on sub standard music.
>
> There's also an extremely strong correlation between the artists
> whinging (sp?) about it, putting out rubbish.
> Now to make myself unpopular by putting Metallica under that
> catergory. They were the ones suing napster.
>
> The artists creating listenable music don't seem to mind file sharing
> at all, and Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden delivered this speach
> before playing an unreleased song live
>
> "The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small
> digital recorders, MP3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put
> it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one
> condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the
> equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is
> what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it, we
> are not like Metallica."
>
> My point being that he was for file sharing because he knew fans want
> to hear things before they buy them, no point paying out my hard
> earned 10 earth pounds to get an album with one decent track on with
> the rest fillers. He also knew that even after 25 years Maiden are
> still creating good music.
>
> Only people who get worried by file sharing are obviously putting out
> bad music, and if the RIAA pulled their heads out of their, well,
> behinds, they'd see that they could start operating a business
> properly, saving money on record labels that will ultimately lose
> them money.
>
> Plus album prices are rediculous. £10 as an absolute maximum,
> and that should really have what someone suggested earlier, videos
> and other goodies on there.
>
> This copy protections probably a bad idea too, as it's getting more
> complex, I hear more stories of people unable to actually play the
> CD's in their computers, and as this is the only CD player some
> people have, it's a discouragement. And it won't stop mp3's as it can
> be recorded directly through a sound card connected up to a cd
> player.
>
> Feel free to flame me if you disagree with me.
I totaly agree with you. CD's should be cheaper and i personaly onlyt download 1 or 2 songs by an artist just to get a feel pf their music. If i like it i tend to go out and buy the album. If not then i dont. Simple.
I mean legally download songs *ahem*
Oh and I forgot to add that I did go out and buy the new Maiden album, day after it was releaed. (Went the first day but the guy in the shop said the shipment was late, and the only other place I could buy it from was HMV, and knowing them it'd be about £16 in there). And it rocks my socks. If anyone else likes them you'll be interested to learn they're gonna be on TOTP tommorow doing Wildest Dreams. Rumour has it they're going to be first, so hopefully we won't have to sit through half an hour of some unknown celebrity who thinks she's 'hip' introducing equally unknown bands.
Vincent Vega wrote:
> I mean legally download songs *ahem*
Naturally :)
> I mean legally download songs *ahem*
Naturally :)
On the plus side (for now anyway)...
http://zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09112003g.php
http://zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09112003g.php
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> The reason the industy's getting so worried now is that the sheer
> amount of rubbish they're putting onto shelves just isn't selling,
> they blame this on file sharing, I blame this on sub standard music.
The thing is... overall places like Sony are reporting a rise on sales in their products... I for one download songs and buy the album on the strength of the songs downloaded... I buy more albums now because I get the oppertunity to not judge on a dodgy single release or just one single release that I thought was okay.
> There's also an extremely strong correlation between the artists
> whinging (sp?) about it, putting out rubbish.
> Now to make myself unpopular by putting Metallica under that
> catergory. They were the ones suing napster.
Metallica's worst mistake was getting angry with a file sharing system... Linkin Park is the same just they don't sue. Sum 41 I think mocked Metallica in their video for the "hell song".
> The artists creating listenable music don't seem to mind file sharing
> at all, and Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden delivered this speach
> before playing an unreleased song live
>
> "The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small
> digital recorders, MP3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put
> it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one
> condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the
> equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is
> what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it, we
> are not like Metallica."
Bruce and Maiden are legends in their own right... their songs are a tad long but I love them... All 3 maiden albums I have (2 live and Brave new world) are superb and I did download some tracks (originally dissapointed in Waisted Dreams... only to love it now)... and I love the songs and plan to buy the album when I get paid. Muse' album was leaked as well and I'm listening to it now... and it rules so I'll buy it.. I never originally planned to buy it. The consumer still loves the product... the companies should use file-sharing systems as a form of advertisement.
> My point being that he was for file sharing because he knew fans want
> to hear things before they buy them, no point paying out my hard
> earned 10 earth pounds to get an album with one decent track on with
> the rest fillers. He also knew that even after 25 years Maiden are
> still creating good music.
Maiden also don't need to make any more money and are now in it for the pure love of making music (they always were but money was always and issue too...).. Metallica still make millions each time... surly if you want to be the biggest band in the world you persuade people to download your tracks just for more recognition...
If Metallica had many a person downloading their songs they'd be fine... the album sales will still be strong with the massive metallica fan base plus they would have 10 times more fans as their music was more freely avalible... it means better ticket sales... more merchandise sales and overall more sales.
> Plus album prices are rediculous. £10 as an absolute maximum,
> and that should really have what someone suggested earlier, videos
> and other goodies on there.
if they can sell a single for 99p then they can sell an album for a fiver.
> This copy protections probably a bad idea too, as it's getting more
> complex, I hear more stories of people unable to actually play the
> CD's in their computers, and as this is the only CD player some
> people have, it's a discouragement. And it won't stop mp3's as it can
> be recorded directly through a sound card connected up to a cd
> player.
So many bands like the idea and so many bands get recognition this way that the idea that file-sharing can be stopped is ludicrous... with 99% of the public behind downloading music and the bands themselves conflicting...
You either unite or lose... Metallica and a handfull of others are fighting a losing battle.
> Feel free to flame me if you disagree with me.
Well I don't.
> The reason the industy's getting so worried now is that the sheer
> amount of rubbish they're putting onto shelves just isn't selling,
> they blame this on file sharing, I blame this on sub standard music.
The thing is... overall places like Sony are reporting a rise on sales in their products... I for one download songs and buy the album on the strength of the songs downloaded... I buy more albums now because I get the oppertunity to not judge on a dodgy single release or just one single release that I thought was okay.
> There's also an extremely strong correlation between the artists
> whinging (sp?) about it, putting out rubbish.
> Now to make myself unpopular by putting Metallica under that
> catergory. They were the ones suing napster.
Metallica's worst mistake was getting angry with a file sharing system... Linkin Park is the same just they don't sue. Sum 41 I think mocked Metallica in their video for the "hell song".
> The artists creating listenable music don't seem to mind file sharing
> at all, and Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden delivered this speach
> before playing an unreleased song live
>
> "The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small
> digital recorders, MP3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put
> it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one
> condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the
> equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is
> what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it, we
> are not like Metallica."
Bruce and Maiden are legends in their own right... their songs are a tad long but I love them... All 3 maiden albums I have (2 live and Brave new world) are superb and I did download some tracks (originally dissapointed in Waisted Dreams... only to love it now)... and I love the songs and plan to buy the album when I get paid. Muse' album was leaked as well and I'm listening to it now... and it rules so I'll buy it.. I never originally planned to buy it. The consumer still loves the product... the companies should use file-sharing systems as a form of advertisement.
> My point being that he was for file sharing because he knew fans want
> to hear things before they buy them, no point paying out my hard
> earned 10 earth pounds to get an album with one decent track on with
> the rest fillers. He also knew that even after 25 years Maiden are
> still creating good music.
Maiden also don't need to make any more money and are now in it for the pure love of making music (they always were but money was always and issue too...).. Metallica still make millions each time... surly if you want to be the biggest band in the world you persuade people to download your tracks just for more recognition...
If Metallica had many a person downloading their songs they'd be fine... the album sales will still be strong with the massive metallica fan base plus they would have 10 times more fans as their music was more freely avalible... it means better ticket sales... more merchandise sales and overall more sales.
> Plus album prices are rediculous. £10 as an absolute maximum,
> and that should really have what someone suggested earlier, videos
> and other goodies on there.
if they can sell a single for 99p then they can sell an album for a fiver.
> This copy protections probably a bad idea too, as it's getting more
> complex, I hear more stories of people unable to actually play the
> CD's in their computers, and as this is the only CD player some
> people have, it's a discouragement. And it won't stop mp3's as it can
> be recorded directly through a sound card connected up to a cd
> player.
So many bands like the idea and so many bands get recognition this way that the idea that file-sharing can be stopped is ludicrous... with 99% of the public behind downloading music and the bands themselves conflicting...
You either unite or lose... Metallica and a handfull of others are fighting a losing battle.
> Feel free to flame me if you disagree with me.
Well I don't.
Page: