The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I mean legally download songs *ahem*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In my view, it's a load of Barensheiße. You can't stop people downloading MP3s, and when a site is closed down, it opens up about a week later. When will the music industry realise that they can't win?
Plus, there are still loads of idiots who'd rather spend £10- £15 on a new CD, when a blank CD and a few minutes worth of phone bills won't cost more than 50p.
Plus, there are still loads of idiots who'd rather spend £10- £15 on a new CD, when a blank CD and a few minutes worth of phone bills won't cost more than 50p.
I don't no how they can sue anyone for breaking copyright laws because of sharing music files. It is actually against copyright to lend a cd or tape(if anyone is still using them), but the music industry just ignores this because it happens so much. What is the difference between lending someone a cd or tape and sharing a backed up version.
Totoro wrote:
> They should make CDs more attractive to buy. Put more multimedia bits
> and bobs on the discs with videos, interviews, etc, and bring the
> bloody prices down so people may be tempted to buy them.
Thing about that is people will just copy these from the disc too.
> They should make CDs more attractive to buy. Put more multimedia bits
> and bobs on the discs with videos, interviews, etc, and bring the
> bloody prices down so people may be tempted to buy them.
Thing about that is people will just copy these from the disc too.
I think this problem is something the record industry deserves quite frankly.
The prices of CDs have been way too high for ages now, so "the man" has fought back. I feel sorry for any musicians who've lost money due to file sharing, but I blame the fat cats in the end (though I suppose Kazaa does give smaller bands a showcase for their tunes, with the chance of people discovering them and buying their album/s).
They should make CDs more attractive to buy. Put more multimedia bits and bobs on the discs with videos, interviews, etc, and bring the bloody prices down so people may be tempted to buy them.
The trouble is for the record, and now the film industry, is that file sharing networks like Kazaa have gone from smallish user bases of hardcore people to massive networks frequented by many normal people. The system has just got too big, and much easier to use.
How the future will be is anyone's guess.
The prices of CDs have been way too high for ages now, so "the man" has fought back. I feel sorry for any musicians who've lost money due to file sharing, but I blame the fat cats in the end (though I suppose Kazaa does give smaller bands a showcase for their tunes, with the chance of people discovering them and buying their album/s).
They should make CDs more attractive to buy. Put more multimedia bits and bobs on the discs with videos, interviews, etc, and bring the bloody prices down so people may be tempted to buy them.
The trouble is for the record, and now the film industry, is that file sharing networks like Kazaa have gone from smallish user bases of hardcore people to massive networks frequented by many normal people. The system has just got too big, and much easier to use.
How the future will be is anyone's guess.
Page: