SFO Archive Forums - View Single Post

05-08-2005, 10:25 PM

Quote:

I'd rather steal soda than support Coca Cola, too. Coca Cola is even worse than the msuic industry because atleast musicians don't have sweat shops set up in south america where the workers get 5 cents per hour.
A better analogy would be the guy who sells oranges in the exit of the freeway.

You still avoided answering the question. In a more practical, public sense, would you go ahead and steal something openly just because you BELIEVE that it's "overpriced?"

Quote:

It's also called a monopoly. They can have $50 for a CD because there is no competition. If every record lable is rasing their products, the money has be going somewhere and it's most likley not musician. Maybe if this continues, the record companies wont be so greedy in raising their prices and will have music accesable to ALL.
It's not like the CDs cost so much to make, or that they cost so much to record. This is just greedyness at it's worse.
Let's use maddox's argument:
"Now look at CDs. How much does the average CD cost? I figure $14. For $14, you get a case, a paper jacket depicting the artist, and a CD. Which of these two mediums are most likely to be more difficult to
manufacture? How much does it cost for the plastic and coating of a CD? I've found that the plastic in a CD costs less than 3 cents to press. So how the hell is the extra $6 justified??? The CD jacket? Couldn't be,
most CDs I have only have a single piece of paper on the inside and the back. The case couldn't be what's costing us all the money, since the plastic in a CD case costs little more than the plastic in a CD. Take a look
at these figures:
For 500 C40-49:59 "Ready for Retail" Cassette Tapes with J-card + 4 panels costs: $983.00
For 500 "Ready for Retail" Compact Discs with 4 panels and tray card costs: $1725.00
What justifies the difference in almost $800 in price? The truth is that the music industry is greedy. They can charge us anything they want for music because they have enough money to buy the rights to an artist. The price of CDs should have been drastically reduced by now, to at least the cost of a tape if not less, but it hasn't. That's why all the big shot executives poop a brick when people started distributing music in MP3 format over the internet. Finally, people could get out of their web of bullpoop and only listen to music they wanted to listen to, at a user-established cost. Good I say, let them suffer. It's about time they got screwed like they've been screwing us for all these years. "

You know what? You're exactly right.

If they wanted to, the music industry COULD charge $50 a CD, and no one could do anything about it. You're right, it IS unfair, and it IS bullpoop. It's also not fair that the speed limit on the main roads near my house is only 35 mph. It's also not fair that I only get 12-18 hours of work a week while other people get 24-30. It's also not fair that food costs money.

You know what that's called?

Life.

Life's not fair. Get used to it.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is THEFT. Regardless of how you try to argue it or how you try to justify it, it's theft, and that's a crime. So again, don't go crying when the RIAA sues you for illegal downloading, because you've got it coming....and your "it's overpriced," "it's unfair," "it's a monopoly" speeches and whatnot isn't going to cut it in a legal case.

So whether I think it's fair or not, if I go faster than 35 mph on my roads and get pulled over, I'm still breaking the law, and have to face the consequences. Whether I think it's fair or not, if i steal food that i think i shouldn't have to pay for, it's still breaking the law, and i have to face the consequences.

And whether you think it's fair or not, if you download music illegally, it's still breaking the law, and you will risk those consequences. However, it all boils down to the fact that life is not fair.

Quote:

I never said their music isn't good or is sucky, I said them as human beings are sucky. They all have one thing common other than their sucky human being status: THey're all filthy rich and would rather flip off their
own fans than give that up.

Ummm....no you did not. You must obviously think that I'm too stupid to go back to the end of page 2 and look at your post.

In case you forgot, here is the EXACT context of your statement:

"You've got your eminems, and your Dr. Dres, your metalllicas and your 50 cents who all are against illegal downloading. All these names have something in common, they're all filthy fliping rich. And, their music isn't even that good"

So don't even try to tell me otherwise, because it's RIGHT THERE. And, in case you think of editing it to say otherwise after the fact, i've already screenshotted it.

Quote:

Everything you've said is oppinion and not die-hard fact. The only difference is i've given some numbers while you've stuck to your "IT'S STEALING OMGUSUCK" argument.

How do numbers help prove your argument that music is an art form that should not be priced? They don't. You giving numbers on this and that, how much CDs cost compared to how much cassettes cost do nothing to the argument that I was referring to. You saying that music shouldn't be sold is an OPINION.

Me, on the other hand, giving the actual dictionary definition of the word steal, and then using it in context, IS in fact a die-hard fact.

Quote:

I really think Fugazi is the ultimate "flip you" to the record industry. They are really big in the indie scene, they care about their fans well being, their money and everything about them.
They are self sufficient and they know they don't need to treat their fans like poop to be big.

That's the model of how artists should be. They CARE about their fans enough to let them LIKE their music.If they get some money their way, that's the way everyone should be.

This is absolutly true. You'd be surprised how much Bob Dylan I found. I found all of his pre-70's albums. I went to Tower records yesturday and found NO Bob Dylan. No Bob Dylan! A LEGEND like Bob Dylan not
getting an availablity on such a place like TOWER RECORDS?

I'm not quoting ALL of those celebrity quotes, but I can pretty much sum it all up in one analogy that you would most likely think has no relation to the subject at hand.

Napster, LimeWire, Kazaa, Morpheus, Acquisition, BearShare, etc....they're all p2p programs which allow a user to download music illegally. Even though artists are speaking out against the RIAA and are all pro-downloading, it doesn't make it any less illegal. It's all because of a select few that DON'T like the downloading. It's just as the old saying goes: a fewbad apples ruin the whole bunch.

Marijuana, PCP, shrooms....they're all illegal drugs. Now, even if high-ranking celebrities and respected people speak out against the fact that they're illegal, it doesn't make these substances any less illegal. It's all because of people that DON'T want these substances to be legal because they don't like the substance. Those fewbad apples are ruining the fun for everyone else.

Catch my drift?

Quote:

Stereotype or not, you tell me one person in the head of a major record lable who hasn't gotten filthy fliping rich from signing musicians and whore their music.

That's why the music business is so successful: it's a way to get to a HUGE amount of money. And there's nothing wrong with that.

So AGAIN, the negative anti-rich-people stereotype continues. And again, ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder. You claim that music prices are outrageous, while I don't mind dropping a fewbucks for a CD.

Quote:

Yeah, god forbid someone sells 13 million albums, at $13 a peice, making 69 million dollars. Because you know waht? Private jets are VERY important.

[color]Again, who are you? Who are you to criticize people for what they do with their money? If they want a private jet, and they have the money for a private jet, then they can buy a private jet. If they want a second house that's fully decorated, and have that money, then why not? Indulge yourself. You have some problem against people that are filthy rich?

Quote:

and if we DO get permission from the creator, and download maddona and offspring, and any other band that says it's okay to download their music, it is stil stealing? Yes, it is.
Then WHO'S PROPERTY IS IT? If musicians have no say in weather their music can be given away or not, then who owns their music? The record lable. They control these musician's LIVES.

So far, I havn't heard anything like that in a RIAA vs victim court case, and frankly, it'd be interesting to see.

But again, the record label reference. You make it seem like all these artists are miserable, with the record labels telling them what to do.

Why don't all these artists that are pro-downloading all get together and form their own record label, in which they can do what they want with their own music? Wait until their contracts are up, and then do it.

Apparently they don't care that much.

And besides, did it ever cross your mind that some of those artist quotes were said just to get on their fans' good sides? "Give the people what they want," that's one of the foremost rules of showbiz and music making. Let people hear what they want to hear, and then they can do no wrong in their eyes.

Quote:

And anything you say against what I say, it too, an oppinion. No poop it's my oppinion, just how it's your oppinion. There's a difference, i'm doing a much better job at giving facts, statistics and quotes trying to prove
mine where as you've stuck to yoru "It's stealing, nuff said" argument which isn't holding up.

Again, your numbers and quotes and research isn't doing jack to support your "music is art, and art can't be priced and sold" opinion. It really isn't at all, and it's holding up even less than my "it's stealing, nuff said" argument. Because despite all your numbers, and despite all your celebrity quotes, it doesn't change the fact that it's STILL ILLEGAL.

Even up to this point, your ENTIRE argument as been "Record labels completely own the artists, and control THEIR music, and CDs cost too much, and this and that, and it's not fair." That's pretty much your argument. "It's not fair," and "it's flipped up." And "It's not fair" doesn't quite hold up as well as a dictionary definition of what the fact of the matter is.

Quote:

The simple fact that when napster had it's hight in popularity the music industry was up 11%, and then once it ended it was down 3% should be enough to sway any oppinion.
We're not hurting these big corperate musicians, wer're HELPING THEM, as much as if pisses me off.
"A friend suggests there might be a connection between the closing down of Napster earlier this year and the sharp, unexpected downturn in record sales during the first half of 2001. According to SoundScan, a
company that tracks record sales, the industry's gross sales dropped 5.4 percent in the first half of this year.
Even taking into account the near death of the CD single, album sales still dropped 3 percent.
Since this sudden decline in sales happened during the same period of time that court-ordered changes essentially gutted Napster, which was supposedly robbing the industry of millions of sales by allowing fans to
trade sound files for free on the Internet, my friend makes a provocative suggestion: Napster actually helped sell records. "

Ever take into account the following possibility?

"Gee, Napster got shut down. That's flipping stupid. Because of that, now I'm not gonna go out and buy their CDs, in a fit of childish boycott rage."

Quote:

Metallica is just one band, prety much only them were holding the band against Napster or wherever.

Actually, it wasn't even Metallica who was holding back Napster. It was mainly Lars. And Lars Ulrich doesn't represent Metallica as a whole.

Notice that the entire time he was up there flapping his gums, you didn't hear ONE word or read ONE statement from Hetfield, Newstead or Hammet.

Just because one member of a band stands up and says something doesn't mean that it's the representative opinion of the band as a whole.

Quote:

Let's step back alittle.
Here's what we know:
It's actually helping the record industry and there is a vast amount of people who are FOR their music beign downloaded because it is helping them get recognized in the world whie still not selling out and become another pawn in a big record lable's game.

If it's helping the record lable and everyone is winning, why the big fuss? It's a victimless crime with moer winnners than losers. Around Millions of millions compared to 4 losers in a metal band.

I will step back a little as well, and add to what we know:

Free music downloading from p2p programs has been deemed illegal, and continues to be illegal because of the record labels not getting kickbacks from the sharing of that music when they SHOULD be getting money from the selling of CDs (something that you think is greedy and not fair). This is despite artists publicly saying that they don't care, since the record labels tell the artists what they can and cannot do (something that you say is not fair). Yet people still continue to download music illegally, and instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they complain about the RIAA doing what the law says they're justified in doing (something you say is not fair), all because they're too cheapskate to drop $13 on a CD (a price that you think is over-priced).

So really, when we get down to it, the entire anti-RIAA argument is really just made up of stuff that people think is not fair, becuse they don't want to pay the amount of money that record labels are asking, because the record labels have too much money. That was pretty much the main argument I heard back in the day, too. That "they've already got too much money." When really, arguments of "they have too much money," and "it's not fair" hold up less than a bra made out of dental floss.[/color]