Rant About Music
This morning i found this post on Digg.com. And I figure it warrants a little rantage.
Addmitedly, I rarely buy cd's anymore. In 2005 i only bought 2: The soundtrack to Star Wars Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith, and Nine Inch Nails - With Teeth. I rarely download music. If I find something that interests me (which is rare in this day and age of really shitty music), and if I really really REALLY like something and know I can buy it here (in Australia), I will make the effort to purchase it. Why don't I buy cd's anymore like I used to 10 years ago? Well for one, I have bills to pay that I didn't have to pay 10 years ago, and can't justify $30 for a CD whenever I see something that might be interesting. Yes, there are people out there who pirate music. Do all people who download music pirate it? Of course not. I bet there's a majority of people out there who just download it for their own listening pleasure. If the price of CD's wasn't so horrible, the music industry might find that more people actually buy it. On average, we pay around $30 for, let's say, a 12 track disc? That's $2.50 per song on that disc. It's way more than it costs to actually make the CD, in terms of plastic used, etc. Essentially, we're being ripped off and fucked in the ass from all angles.
But wait, there's more. The new technologies that have sprung up in the past few years, such as "copy protected" discs and (dare I say it) "DRM" are making things musical (and media) very annoying for even your average Joe who, say, may only have his computer to use as a CD player. Some of these technologies have been known to cause computers to crash, hardware to just plain crap out and stop working, and even install nasty software that not only limits or prevents what you can do with the CD that you paid for, but also acts as spyware, sending God knows what kind of information back to record company servers. (See Extended Copy Protection (aka Sony Rootkit))
And then there's the **AA in all it's wisdom. The RIAA and MPAA. The **AA love you. The **AA wants to protect your right to listen to music and watch movies. Oh, by the way, the RIAA itself has sued over 17,000 individuals from September, 2003 to December, 2005. This includes: 1 12 year old girl from New York, college students, and, my personal favourite, a dead grandmother who didn't even own a computer. The MPAA has also sued several BitTorrent sites for distributing pirated movies.
If the **AA love us so much, why do they act like a big evil and sue 700 odd people every month? Do they not realise that whether they like it or not, people copy music and movies? Do they not realise it's not always because of piracy? Do they not realise that there are a lot of people out there who will actually purchase music/movies because they have heard/viewed it via a download first? (the old "try before you buy" theory.) Technology gets better and programming gets smarter, and the **AA gets shitscared because people steal their profits (which, they make shitloads of money ANYWAY). If they are going to charge such exhorbitant prices for music and movies, I'm not surprised that piracy is out there. Who wouldn't want something for free rather than paying $30 for a music CD or $40 for a 2 disc DVD set?
Here's something to think about. Joe downloads a new release movie off the internet. He gets a copy which isn't of superb quality. It's watchable, but the sound is kinda tinny or the picture is a little fuzzy. But he really likes the movie, so he decides to spend the $12 to go and see it on the "big screen". He ends up deleting the inferior copy from his PC, and ends up buying the DVD when it comes out (and if he's lucky, he gets it at a reasonable price), and as a bonus, he gets extra features on his DVD, as he's a bit of a film geek and likes to watch "the making of" and other juicy content. A few weeks later, a friend stops buy with a new CD that he would like Joe to hear. Joe likes the CD enough to make a copy of it on his hard drive, temporarily until he can go out and buy a copy. Unfortunately, the CD Joe's buddy brought over has some nasty protection on it, and it crashes Joe's PC. As a result, he does a little research on the internet, and reads about the **AA's various methods of subterfuge and nastiness, and isn't impressed. He therefore does some more research and now only buys music that isn't under the umbrella of the **AA.
I find it funny that a record company association double crosses it's customers by promoting music, and then suing music lovers for the crime of wanting to listen to something new before forking out exhorbitant amounts of money.
I find it both ironic and sad that some music artists have to apologise to their fans for the copy protection that has been placed on their CD's by their record company.
I also find it very funny that the same bands post instructions (further down the page on this article) about how to get around said copy protection. How frustrating would it be to be an artist, to find out that the body that represents you, and your record company is effectively screwing your fans (and potential new fans) by not allowing them to listen to the music that you worked so hard on, in the way that they want.
I find it hilarious that copy protection on some cd's can be circumvented by such basic methods as drawing a line around the edge of a CD with a felt tip marker. The pen is mightier than the disc!
The **AA says they are winning the battle. But I wonder, why did it become a crime to love music? I have ripped some of my own CD's that I paid for to mp3 so that I can listen to them without using the disc all the time. Oops! I'm a criminal now. Now they are trying to limit ways in which technology works, too. Give it a few more years and I'm sure they'll be trying to ban music altogether. I understand that artists care about getting something in return for their art. I'm not against that at all. People want to make money and that's fine by me. But what the big corporations don't realise, that as a user, it's alarming and annoying to see that companies penalise their customers by enacting technologies that are of dubious legal standing, and not only that, will probably be cracked within a short period of time anyway.
Technology is here to stay whether the corporations like or not. People download or pirate music whether the corporations like it or not. (And no, I'm not saying that everyone that downloads music is a pirate...although that's what the RIAA would have you believe) I think it's a good idea that people can download music from services such as iTunes, even if for a small fee. Why? Because I think that's eventually where we are headed in terms of technology and all things digital. We've gone from live performance, to wax cylinders, to vinyl, to 8-track, to tape, to CD and now to digital... hopefully music will continue to exist for a long, long time. Maybe one day the corporations will see that it's pointless to keep suing individuals, and all it does is make them look bad.
But hey, that's my 2 cents on the whole thing. I may not be right, nor do I claim to be. It's just my opinion.
'Til next rant,
~Frostilicus~
Addmitedly, I rarely buy cd's anymore. In 2005 i only bought 2: The soundtrack to Star Wars Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith, and Nine Inch Nails - With Teeth. I rarely download music. If I find something that interests me (which is rare in this day and age of really shitty music), and if I really really REALLY like something and know I can buy it here (in Australia), I will make the effort to purchase it. Why don't I buy cd's anymore like I used to 10 years ago? Well for one, I have bills to pay that I didn't have to pay 10 years ago, and can't justify $30 for a CD whenever I see something that might be interesting. Yes, there are people out there who pirate music. Do all people who download music pirate it? Of course not. I bet there's a majority of people out there who just download it for their own listening pleasure. If the price of CD's wasn't so horrible, the music industry might find that more people actually buy it. On average, we pay around $30 for, let's say, a 12 track disc? That's $2.50 per song on that disc. It's way more than it costs to actually make the CD, in terms of plastic used, etc. Essentially, we're being ripped off and fucked in the ass from all angles.
But wait, there's more. The new technologies that have sprung up in the past few years, such as "copy protected" discs and (dare I say it) "DRM" are making things musical (and media) very annoying for even your average Joe who, say, may only have his computer to use as a CD player. Some of these technologies have been known to cause computers to crash, hardware to just plain crap out and stop working, and even install nasty software that not only limits or prevents what you can do with the CD that you paid for, but also acts as spyware, sending God knows what kind of information back to record company servers. (See Extended Copy Protection (aka Sony Rootkit))
And then there's the **AA in all it's wisdom. The RIAA and MPAA. The **AA love you. The **AA wants to protect your right to listen to music and watch movies. Oh, by the way, the RIAA itself has sued over 17,000 individuals from September, 2003 to December, 2005. This includes: 1 12 year old girl from New York, college students, and, my personal favourite, a dead grandmother who didn't even own a computer. The MPAA has also sued several BitTorrent sites for distributing pirated movies.
If the **AA love us so much, why do they act like a big evil and sue 700 odd people every month? Do they not realise that whether they like it or not, people copy music and movies? Do they not realise it's not always because of piracy? Do they not realise that there are a lot of people out there who will actually purchase music/movies because they have heard/viewed it via a download first? (the old "try before you buy" theory.) Technology gets better and programming gets smarter, and the **AA gets shitscared because people steal their profits (which, they make shitloads of money ANYWAY). If they are going to charge such exhorbitant prices for music and movies, I'm not surprised that piracy is out there. Who wouldn't want something for free rather than paying $30 for a music CD or $40 for a 2 disc DVD set?
Here's something to think about. Joe downloads a new release movie off the internet. He gets a copy which isn't of superb quality. It's watchable, but the sound is kinda tinny or the picture is a little fuzzy. But he really likes the movie, so he decides to spend the $12 to go and see it on the "big screen". He ends up deleting the inferior copy from his PC, and ends up buying the DVD when it comes out (and if he's lucky, he gets it at a reasonable price), and as a bonus, he gets extra features on his DVD, as he's a bit of a film geek and likes to watch "the making of" and other juicy content. A few weeks later, a friend stops buy with a new CD that he would like Joe to hear. Joe likes the CD enough to make a copy of it on his hard drive, temporarily until he can go out and buy a copy. Unfortunately, the CD Joe's buddy brought over has some nasty protection on it, and it crashes Joe's PC. As a result, he does a little research on the internet, and reads about the **AA's various methods of subterfuge and nastiness, and isn't impressed. He therefore does some more research and now only buys music that isn't under the umbrella of the **AA.
I find it funny that a record company association double crosses it's customers by promoting music, and then suing music lovers for the crime of wanting to listen to something new before forking out exhorbitant amounts of money.
I find it both ironic and sad that some music artists have to apologise to their fans for the copy protection that has been placed on their CD's by their record company.
I also find it very funny that the same bands post instructions (further down the page on this article) about how to get around said copy protection. How frustrating would it be to be an artist, to find out that the body that represents you, and your record company is effectively screwing your fans (and potential new fans) by not allowing them to listen to the music that you worked so hard on, in the way that they want.
I find it hilarious that copy protection on some cd's can be circumvented by such basic methods as drawing a line around the edge of a CD with a felt tip marker. The pen is mightier than the disc!
The **AA says they are winning the battle. But I wonder, why did it become a crime to love music? I have ripped some of my own CD's that I paid for to mp3 so that I can listen to them without using the disc all the time. Oops! I'm a criminal now. Now they are trying to limit ways in which technology works, too. Give it a few more years and I'm sure they'll be trying to ban music altogether. I understand that artists care about getting something in return for their art. I'm not against that at all. People want to make money and that's fine by me. But what the big corporations don't realise, that as a user, it's alarming and annoying to see that companies penalise their customers by enacting technologies that are of dubious legal standing, and not only that, will probably be cracked within a short period of time anyway.
Technology is here to stay whether the corporations like or not. People download or pirate music whether the corporations like it or not. (And no, I'm not saying that everyone that downloads music is a pirate...although that's what the RIAA would have you believe) I think it's a good idea that people can download music from services such as iTunes, even if for a small fee. Why? Because I think that's eventually where we are headed in terms of technology and all things digital. We've gone from live performance, to wax cylinders, to vinyl, to 8-track, to tape, to CD and now to digital... hopefully music will continue to exist for a long, long time. Maybe one day the corporations will see that it's pointless to keep suing individuals, and all it does is make them look bad.
But hey, that's my 2 cents on the whole thing. I may not be right, nor do I claim to be. It's just my opinion.
'Til next rant,
~Frostilicus~
posted by FrostilicusFrost at 6:47 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home