Time to start using some dodgy Russian sites?

[NJS 4043]

I know its a cliche but I've bought (and downloaded for free) albums in the past on the strength of one track only to find that the rest is nearly all crap. This means I could have paid £10 for one or two tracks.

 

I can't think of anything else where you take a risk on a purchase like this which can mean something you've bought is almost useless.

 

 

In an ideal world I'd let people download all the tracks on an album and then have a trial period like software where you either pay for the ones you like or they stop working - technology permitting of course.

[Park Life 71]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

 

When did it happen this artists making millions for getting up and drawling into a mike?

[Guest alex]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

Good post. Nice post script too.

[Park Life 71]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

Good post. Nice post script too.

 

I don't consider 99% of singers and musicians as artist at all. The vast majority of poets, writers and filmakers live and die broke, you don't see long internet arguments about and pity parties regarding their needs. The whole music consumer market is clearly set up so Decky-Joe-Epstien-Miggins can buy his 25th Rolls Royce while charging upto £15 for a cd. Get the fuck out of here.

[Happy Face 29]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

 

Well said. You are the very model of a modern lawful citizen.

 

I just think they're missing a trick.

 

Before I started downloading music I listened to rock and pop through and through. I would never even contemplate buying an electronic CD, an underground Hip Hop CD, an African CD, a bluegrass CD etc. The best of these genre's rarely got or still get any radio or TV play. Since downloading has enabled me to fall in love with a lot of albums from these areas I'm now a far more valuable commodity to a record company looking to sell their product. The range of my tastes has expanded exponentially and continues to. The number of artist in my 'must have' category is wider than it ever was or would have been. These are the artists I'd never have heard, that I would now gladly spend a reasonable amount on to get the CD.

 

It's just the lack of innovation that annoys me. As always the businessmen want to stifle the most exciting developments in music and it's left to the artists like Radiohead and Girl Talk to push new release models. Singles and radio play only promote the most popular (say) 10% of what's out there, so I don't think that's as valuable. Even if they don't give it away entirely, why can't they offer something like cd's as a demo (like they do with software) that times out after 30 days or 5 full plays?

Edited July 25, 2008 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

Good post. Nice post script too.

 

I don't consider 99% of singers and musicians as artist at all. The vast majority of poets, writers and filmakers live and die broke, you don't see long internet arguments about and pity parties regarding their needs. The whole music consumer market is clearly set up so Decky-Joe-Epstien-Miggins can buy his 25th Rolls Royce while charging upto £15 for a cd. Get the fuck out of here.

They're exactly the same as most singers and musicians in that regard, i.e. they don't make much money out of it unless they're very lucky. The fact that you don't consider some of them to be

artists is neither here nor there.

Edited July 25, 2008 by alex

[Park Life 71]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

Good post. Nice post script too.

 

I don't consider 99% of singers and musicians as artist at all. The vast majority of poets, writers and filmakers live and die broke, you don't see long internet arguments about and pity parties regarding their needs. The whole music consumer market is clearly set up so Decky-Joe-Epstien-Miggins can buy his 25th Rolls Royce while charging upto £15 for a cd. Get the fuck out of here.

They're exactly the same as most singers and musicians in that regard, i.e. they don't make much money out of it unless they're very lucky. The fact that you don't consider them artists is neither here nor there.

 

Let's cut all this artists shit then. Most bands are manfactured and deliver derivitive garbage. If anyone is stealing in this triangle its record companies from artists and there is quite some case history to prove that.

[Guest alex]

I totally agree. Most fucking books and films are derivative shite too though. So are most of the paintings you see for sale in suburban art galleries.

[The Fish 9340]

don't forget food, food's shit as well.

 

so that's music, film, books and art and food...

 

Surely there is something good in the world?

[Guest alex]

don't forget food, food's shit as well.

 

so that's music, film, books and art and food...

 

Surely there is something good in the world?

That's another tap-in mind

[Park Life 71]

I totally agree. Most fucking books and films are derivative shite too though. So are most of the paintings you see for sale in suburban art galleries.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

 

As I said earlier it will be seen as a quirk of history this multi-millionaires musician lark.

[Park Life 71]

don't forget food, food's shit as well.

 

so that's music, film, books and art and food...

 

Surely there is something good in the world?

 

People get what they deserve I don't worry for one second about that.

[Happy Face 29]

Did you see the news a few weeks back about Prince contacting youtube to protect his copyright....on a cover of a Radiohead song?

[Guest alex]

I totally agree. Most fucking books and films are derivative shite too though. So are most of the paintings you see for sale in suburban art galleries.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

 

As I said earlier it will be seen as a quirk of history this multi-millionaires musician lark.

I don't think it will though Parky. I think you'll get people making money for selling stuff, simple as. I mean it's still the tiny minority of people of who make money out of it though. And even if they don't sell much in the future in terms of material, they'll tour and make money that way. Look how much people are prepared to pay for a live show now. It's fucking outrageous. Essentially though it's just people at the top (and by top I mean popular) providing a product people want.

[Park Life 71]

Did you see the news a few weeks back about Prince contacting youtube to protect his copyright....on a cover of a Radiohead song?

 

[Guest alex]

don't forget food, food's shit as well.

 

so that's music, film, books and art and food...

 

Surely there is something good in the world?

 

People get what they deserve I don't worry for one second about that.

You're right there like. It's a particularly snobby view but one I subscribe to whole-heartedly. I think it suggests people will always lap-up shite music too though.

[The Fish 9340]

don't forget food, food's shit as well.

 

so that's music, film, books and art and food...

 

Surely there is something good in the world?

 

People get what they deserve I don't worry for one second about that.

You're right there like. It's a particularly snobby view but one I subscribe to whole-heartedly. I think it suggests people will always lap-up shite music too though.

 

But if past performance is owt to go off, they're locked into this course forever. If shite like Basshunter can top the Album charts, it's only a matter of time before the only good music is live music.... no bad thing to be honest.

[Park Life 71]

I totally agree. Most fucking books and films are derivative shite too though. So are most of the paintings you see for sale in suburban art galleries.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

 

As I said earlier it will be seen as a quirk of history this multi-millionaires musician lark.

I don't think it will though Parky. I think you'll get people making money for selling stuff, simple as. I mean it's still the tiny minority of people of who make money out of it though. And even if they don't sell much in the future in terms of material, they'll tour and make money that way. Look how much people are prepared to pay for a live show now. It's fucking outrageous. Essentially though it's just people at the top (and by top I mean popular) providing a product people want.

 

Well as long as we're moving away from the 'poor artist' bollocks in this thread. I'd even question whether most of the product is what people want. I feel ill when I see the likes of Bono pushing a credit card.

[Happy Face 29]

Did you see the news a few weeks back about Prince contacting youtube to protect his copyright....on a cover of a Radiohead song?

 

 

In a recent interview, Thom Yorke said he heard about Prince's performance from a text message and thought it was "hilarious." Yorke laughed when his bandmate, guitarist Ed O'Brien, said the blocking had prevented him from seeing Prince's version of their song.

"Really? He's blocked it?" asked Yorke, who figured it was their song to block or not. "Surely we should block it. Hang on a moment."

 

Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."

 

YouTube prohibits the posting of copyrighted material. If the site receives a complaint from a copyright owner, it will in most cases remove the video(s). Whether the same could be done for a company not holding a copyright is less clear, but Yorke's argument would seem to bear some credence according to YouTube's policies. YouTube, which is owned by Google, declined to comment.

 

Prince also did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday...

 

When Prince performed at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in Indio, Calif., on April 26, he prohibited the standard arrangement of allowing photographers to shoot near the stage during the first three songs of his set. Instead, he had a camera crew filming his performance.

 

http://stereogum.com/archives/prince-is-be...a-l_010102.html

[Golden Glory 0]

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

I generally don't like the music that is shoved into your face via the media, artists that are promoted are as a rule of thumb, ones that I generally dislike. MySpace and YouTube are fairly decent ways of doing this, but often to find the best material you have to expose yourself to the work of an artist. I can understand that they're due money for the good that they have provided, but personally I see music and the music I download as a way of finding which artists I like and then trying to see them live or buying their CDs. If I download an album and love it, listen to it constantly I will go out and buy that album, it's more than likely I won't ever utilise the CD, but it's nice to have a physical manifestation of the music, sort of, to hold and keep. I'd say a quarter of music I download is listened to once and never listened to again, mainly on recommendation from others. I'd return the CD if I bought it. I see it a little bit like that. Try before you buy/see them live.

[Guest alex]

I totally agree. Most fucking books and films are derivative shite too though. So are most of the paintings you see for sale in suburban art galleries.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

 

As I said earlier it will be seen as a quirk of history this multi-millionaires musician lark.

I don't think it will though Parky. I think you'll get people making money for selling stuff, simple as. I mean it's still the tiny minority of people of who make money out of it though. And even if they don't sell much in the future in terms of material, they'll tour and make money that way. Look how much people are prepared to pay for a live show now. It's fucking outrageous. Essentially though it's just people at the top (and by top I mean popular) providing a product people want.

 

Well as long as we're moving away from the 'poor artist' bollocks in this thread. I'd even question whether most of the product is what people want. I feel ill when I see the likes of Bono pushing a credit card.

I think they should be paid for what they produce though, you know whether you think they've got too much money already, whether you think Bono's a cock-end, etc. It's all a bit subjective. To me, they produce something that people enjoy and it's reasonable to then expect to be paid for that. It's all very well saying it's a 'labour of love' and all that but the artists are losing out. I have a lot less sympathy for the record companies who have always shafted the artists and who charge too much for the product anyway, thus helping top create the black market in the first place.

[Meenzer 14193]

As a music consumer, I'm never happier than when I get to know a relatively obscure artist via MySpazz or similar, see them live in an intimate venue and buy their self-produced CD from them in person. That said, I invariably have no idea how much they're getting paid to perform and how much is being siphoned off by the venue/promoter/etc., to what extent they get any profit out of their CDs, and so on. In fact I do wonder how a lot of less famous performers ever make enough to feed themselves, never mind actually turn a reasonable profit.

[ChezGiven 0]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

 

*burps*

 

Nice post and lovely finish.

 

Not sure what music companies have done that is so wrong, certainly no worse than the film industry, the chemicals industry, the oil industry, the plastics industry, the coffee industry, the food industry, the drugs industry, the football industry, the financial industry, the law industry etc etc etc etc.

 

Every company that makes money is open to criticism as they all act in a way that increases their profits. Students tend to hate this as they have no money then forget all about it when they need to pay bills and taxes. Funny that.

[Fop 1]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

Never said it was, just said it goes away with the right business model.

 

 

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

We do live in a capitalist society, we also live in a democracy.

 

Individual rights should NEVER be crushed by the greed for profit, yet they almost always are, as in this case.

 

 

 

When you start to bring morals into it (as has been done here), it becomes even worse, as Lar's 3rd Ferrari in no way should be paid for by everyone else's rights erosion.

 

 

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

They have a right to make money legally.

 

They do not have a right to make money however they want and to do what ever they like to do so.

 

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Just because some people download, doesn't mean record companies can do whatever they like, crush freedoms and rights (and even completely illegal stuff) to everyone else.

 

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

Yes I propose spying on all record companies private data and conversations just in case they are thinking about trying the root-kit method again. Good idea!

[ChezGiven 0]

As you've got no qualifications in law fop, just stating that these changes will mean an invasion of privacy means nothing. The details of how this will be implemented are not available nor how the monitoring of use will be implemented within existing laws. If it is implemented within the law then absolutely nothing of what you're saying stands. To be so sure of your rightness in these circumstances hints at mental illness.