I am a little confused. Do the songs that were purchased still have DRM in them?
The whole point is that the songs are not purchased, but licensed to a person to play via one device. That enables the RIAA to ensure that if you want to hear your music on a portable player, you will need to purchase the rights to play it on said device.
This might be of interest:
Then Gabriel (RIAA Lawyer) asked Parise (Song BMG Exec) if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"
Sucks, don't it? This is why the RIAA is evil and MUST be stopped.
I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
As a Librarian, I must say tisk tisk. Many of my compatriots would want to have your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
You have just shown your complete lack of ethics on a public forum. Happy now?
He showed that he can stand up for something instead of bowing dow to legal pressures from a RICO ready organization.
If you want to have the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, fine. But do not make it about ethics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco
Yeah!
He's worse than Hitler! And Bin Laden! Combined!!1!
Don't forget those Communists, Lenin and Stalin. (see picture in last post.)
As for ripping CDs as opposed to ripping them, don't forget there is a loss of quality and the resulting product is nowhere near that of the original quality.
OK Computer - #1 (U.K.) and 2,000,000 sold in U.S.
Doesn't change what I said. The mainstream majority either doesn't know them by name or couldn't identify most of their songs if they heard them on the radio. I know, I'm a big fan and while many of my friends know them, they're all really into music as well. But all the (hate labels, but) jocks and preppy kids back in high school, who listen to a ton of corporate pop and corporate rock, are completely unaware of Radiohead's existence.
Shoot, Elliott Smith won an Oscar for Miss Misery, which was played in one of the best known movies (Good Will Hunting) and many people I know who are into music don't have a clue who he is, his songs, albums, etc.
Doesn't change what I said. The mainstream majority either doesn't know them by name or couldn't identify most of their songs if they heard them on the radio. I know, I'm a big fan and while many of my friends know them, they're all really into music as well. But all the (hate labels, but) jocks and preppy kids back in high school, who listen to a ton of corporate pop and corporate rock, are completely unaware of Radiohead's existence.
Shoot, Elliott Smith won an Oscar for Miss Misery, which was played in one of the best known movies (Good Will Hunting) and many people I know who are into music don't have a clue who he is, his songs, albums, etc.
1) How can a band put out 5 consecutive #1 CDs and not be "mainstream"?
2) Elliot Smith is dead. And he didn't have any hit CDs. Despite that, no one who's "into music" doesn't know who he is, regardless of what you and your "alternative" friends think.
As a Librarian, I must say tisk tisk. Many of my compatriots would want to have your head.
He showed that he can stand up for something instead of bowing dow to legal pressures from a RICO ready organization.
If you want to have the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, fine. But do not make it about ethics.
Don't forget those Communists, Lenin and Stalin. (see picture in last post.)
As for ripping CDs as opposed to ripping them, don't forget there is a loss of quality and the resulting product is nowhere near that of the original quality.
Number 1, it's a punishable crime.
Number 2, it is not ethical to steal intellectual property, see number 1.
1) How can a band put out 5 consecutive #1 CDs and not be "mainstream"?
You tell me? They don't have a "mainstream" sound, they don't look "mainstream," they don't act "mainstream." A much larger portion of the music-listening population doesn't know who they than does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco
2) Elliot Smith is dead. And he didn't have any hit CDs. Despite that, no one who's "into music" doesn't know who he is, regardless of what you and your "alternative" friends think.
There's no absolute truth here. Some people who consider themselves music enthusiasts haven't heard of him. There are...shades of music lovers, so to speak, no distinct groups.
You tell me? They don't have a "mainstream" sound, they don't look "mainstream," they don't act "mainstream."
I don't think any of those things matter. If it tops the overall bestseller list, as far as I'm concerned, it's mainstream. Maybe not so much if it only topped a chart tracking a genre.
I really don't accept these fuzzy definitions that it's not mainstream if it doesn't have a certain sound, behavior or whatever, none of which can really be defined either. A group of alleged music fans not hearing of a group doesn't negate it either, because they might be so focused on certain kinds of music that they just don't see anything outside of their focus.
I don't think any of those things matter. If it tops a bestseller list, as far as I'm concerned, it's mainstream.
No, they don't matter. He is confusing the term mainstream to mean that they are like other groups instead of the usage in this context that they are a well known and liked group. By his reckoning, Amy Winehouse's widespread popularity, millions of sales and well known name does not make her mainstream because her look, actions and musical style are not common among other musicians.
By his reckoning, Amy Winehouse's widespread popularity, millions of sales and well known name does not make her mainstream because her look, actions and musical style are not common among other musicians.
Not to mention her lack of positive impact among those that still have their sanity.
No, they don't matter. He is confusing the term mainstream to mean that they are like other groups instead of the usage in this context that they are a well known and liked group. By his reckoning, Amy Winehouse's widespread popularity, millions of sales and well known name does not make her mainstream because her look, actions and musical style are not common among other musicians.
Sorry, I guess you missed the context of my original comments about competition between well known but not mainstream artists vs. well known AND mainstream artists. I noted that on iTunes, a Radiohead ad was side-by-side a Madonna ad as an example.
There are multiple definitions for the term "mainstream." The mainstream artists I was referencing were corporate pop, corporate rock, and corporate rap artists who sing about their cars and living "the life" and being stereotypically in opposition to their parents. These "artists" MOST OF THE TIME, are ALSO popular with "mainstream" music listeners and thus have mainstream success.
Then there are the Bob Dylans and on a very different level, the Radioheads of the world. Yes, they have name recognition. Yes, they have some hit songs or records. What sets them apart from the Fall Out Boys and the Britney Spears is that they are generally divisive, mainly because they actually "have something to say." Dylan's probably the best example. Everyone knows his name, a few of his songs, but while many love his deep lyrics, there are likely just as many, if not more people who can't stand him because of his voice, what he sings about, etc. Radiohead is much lesser known band and divides people because of Thom's voice, some of their political messages, general dislike for what they produce, etc.
Yeah, I was making...generalizations. Most of the time, artists who put out mainstream, corporate, self-indulgent music (I call it crap) they achieve mainstream success. Much lesser-known artists like Radiohead (especially the Radiohead of today) generally don't achieve success even close to the level of what a mainstream artist has in terms of radio play, name recognition, and money. Are these GENERALIZATIONS always true? Of course not, but...generally, they are.
Sorry, I guess you missed the context of my original comments about competition between well known but not mainstream artists vs. well known AND mainstream artists.
I got it, but it 's now clear we are all talking about the same thing, we just differ on the terminology to describe it. Clearly Madonna is more well known, she has one of the most well known countenance in the world.
I do think your "well known but not mainstream" is a bit of an oxymoron if you are describing well known by means of their record sales and rankings, which is the biggest contention here. Perhaps calling them corporate sellouts would be more fitting.
I got it, but it 's now clear we are all talking about the same thing, we just differ on the terminology to describe it. Clearly Madonna is more well known, she has one of the most well known countenance in the world.
I do think your "well known but not mainstream" is a bit of an oxymoron if you are describing well known by means of their record sales and rankings, which is the biggest contention here. Perhaps calling them corporate sellouts would be more fitting.
Agreed. And by agree, I mean I concur, which is to say, we are in consensus.
Comments
I am a little confused. Do the songs that were purchased still have DRM in them?
Yes they do.
You have just shown your complete lack of ethics on a public forum. Happy now?
Yeah!
He's worse than Hitler! And Bin Laden! Combined!!1!
...Radiohead, while one of the better known indie bands, is still not well recognized by most, yet they were put head-to-head against Madonna...
Someone must be buying a lot of their CDs by mistake:
In Rainbows - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
Hail to the Thief - #1 (UK) and #3 (US)
Kid A - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
Amnesiac - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
OK Computer - #1 (U.K.) and 2,000,000 sold in U.S.
Someone must be buying a lot of their CDs by mistake:
In Rainbows - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
Hail to the Thief - #1 (UK) and #3 (US)
Kid A - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
Amnesiac - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
OK Computer - #1 (U.K.) and 2,000,000 sold in U.S.
This is no place for facts.
I am a little confused. Do the songs that were purchased still have DRM in them?
The whole point is that the songs are not purchased, but licensed to a person to play via one device. That enables the RIAA to ensure that if you want to hear your music on a portable player, you will need to purchase the rights to play it on said device.
This might be of interest:
Then Gabriel (RIAA Lawyer) asked Parise (Song BMG Exec) if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"
Sucks, don't it? This is why the RIAA is evil and MUST be stopped.
I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.
I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.
As a Librarian, I must say tisk tisk. Many of my compatriots would want to have your head.
You have just shown your complete lack of ethics on a public forum. Happy now?
He showed that he can stand up for something instead of bowing dow to legal pressures from a RICO ready organization.
If you want to have the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, fine. But do not make it about ethics.
Yeah!
He's worse than Hitler! And Bin Laden! Combined!!1!
Don't forget those Communists, Lenin and Stalin. (see picture in last post.)
As for ripping CDs as opposed to ripping them, don't forget there is a loss of quality and the resulting product is nowhere near that of the original quality.
Someone must be buying a lot of their CDs by mistake:
In Rainbows - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
Hail to the Thief - #1 (UK) and #3 (US)
Kid A - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
Amnesiac - #1 in the U.S./U.K.
OK Computer - #1 (U.K.) and 2,000,000 sold in U.S.
Doesn't change what I said. The mainstream majority either doesn't know them by name or couldn't identify most of their songs if they heard them on the radio. I know, I'm a big fan and while many of my friends know them, they're all really into music as well. But all the (hate labels, but) jocks and preppy kids back in high school, who listen to a ton of corporate pop and corporate rock, are completely unaware of Radiohead's existence.
Shoot, Elliott Smith won an Oscar for Miss Misery, which was played in one of the best known movies (Good Will Hunting) and many people I know who are into music don't have a clue who he is, his songs, albums, etc.
Doesn't change what I said. The mainstream majority either doesn't know them by name or couldn't identify most of their songs if they heard them on the radio. I know, I'm a big fan and while many of my friends know them, they're all really into music as well. But all the (hate labels, but) jocks and preppy kids back in high school, who listen to a ton of corporate pop and corporate rock, are completely unaware of Radiohead's existence.
Shoot, Elliott Smith won an Oscar for Miss Misery, which was played in one of the best known movies (Good Will Hunting) and many people I know who are into music don't have a clue who he is, his songs, albums, etc.
1) How can a band put out 5 consecutive #1 CDs and not be "mainstream"?
2) Elliot Smith is dead. And he didn't have any hit CDs. Despite that, no one who's "into music" doesn't know who he is, regardless of what you and your "alternative" friends think.
3) Are you high?
4)
He showed that he can stand up for something instead of bowing dow to legal pressures from a RICO ready organization.
I thought the best way to "fight" them was to support non-RIAA labels. I think copying RIAA-affiliated music only bolsters their arguments.
To me, "fighting big music" and still listening to their product is almost as two-faced as the RIAA is.
As a Librarian, I must say tisk tisk. Many of my compatriots would want to have your head.
He showed that he can stand up for something instead of bowing dow to legal pressures from a RICO ready organization.
If you want to have the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, fine. But do not make it about ethics.
Don't forget those Communists, Lenin and Stalin. (see picture in last post.)
As for ripping CDs as opposed to ripping them, don't forget there is a loss of quality and the resulting product is nowhere near that of the original quality.
Number 1, it's a punishable crime.
Number 2, it is not ethical to steal intellectual property, see number 1.
All he stands for is anarchy.
1) How can a band put out 5 consecutive #1 CDs and not be "mainstream"?
You tell me? They don't have a "mainstream" sound, they don't look "mainstream," they don't act "mainstream." A much larger portion of the music-listening population doesn't know who they than does.
2) Elliot Smith is dead. And he didn't have any hit CDs. Despite that, no one who's "into music" doesn't know who he is, regardless of what you and your "alternative" friends think.
There's no absolute truth here. Some people who consider themselves music enthusiasts haven't heard of him. There are...shades of music lovers, so to speak, no distinct groups.
3) Are you high?
Grow up.
You tell me? They don't have a "mainstream" sound, they don't look "mainstream," they don't act "mainstream."
I don't think any of those things matter. If it tops the overall bestseller list, as far as I'm concerned, it's mainstream. Maybe not so much if it only topped a chart tracking a genre.
I really don't accept these fuzzy definitions that it's not mainstream if it doesn't have a certain sound, behavior or whatever, none of which can really be defined either. A group of alleged music fans not hearing of a group doesn't negate it either, because they might be so focused on certain kinds of music that they just don't see anything outside of their focus.
I don't think any of those things matter. If it tops a bestseller list, as far as I'm concerned, it's mainstream.
So you'd consider Bob Dylan mainstream?
There's a difference between mainstream and simply well known.
I don't think any of those things matter. If it tops a bestseller list, as far as I'm concerned, it's mainstream.
No, they don't matter. He is confusing the term mainstream to mean that they are like other groups instead of the usage in this context that they are a well known and liked group. By his reckoning, Amy Winehouse's widespread popularity, millions of sales and well known name does not make her mainstream because her look, actions and musical style are not common among other musicians.
So you'd consider Bob Dylan mainstream?
There's a difference between mainstream and simply well known.
By his reckoning, Amy Winehouse's widespread popularity, millions of sales and well known name does not make her mainstream because her look, actions and musical style are not common among other musicians.
Not to mention her lack of positive impact among those that still have their sanity.
So you'd consider Bob Dylan mainstream?
There's a difference between mainstream and simply well known.
I think there's a difference between "just" being well known and enough people being willing to buy stuff to put them #1 on a CD chart.
No, they don't matter. He is confusing the term mainstream to mean that they are like other groups instead of the usage in this context that they are a well known and liked group. By his reckoning, Amy Winehouse's widespread popularity, millions of sales and well known name does not make her mainstream because her look, actions and musical style are not common among other musicians.
Sorry, I guess you missed the context of my original comments about competition between well known but not mainstream artists vs. well known AND mainstream artists. I noted that on iTunes, a Radiohead ad was side-by-side a Madonna ad as an example.
There are multiple definitions for the term "mainstream." The mainstream artists I was referencing were corporate pop, corporate rock, and corporate rap artists who sing about their cars and living "the life" and being stereotypically in opposition to their parents. These "artists" MOST OF THE TIME, are ALSO popular with "mainstream" music listeners and thus have mainstream success.
Then there are the Bob Dylans and on a very different level, the Radioheads of the world. Yes, they have name recognition. Yes, they have some hit songs or records. What sets them apart from the Fall Out Boys and the Britney Spears is that they are generally divisive, mainly because they actually "have something to say." Dylan's probably the best example. Everyone knows his name, a few of his songs, but while many love his deep lyrics, there are likely just as many, if not more people who can't stand him because of his voice, what he sings about, etc. Radiohead is much lesser known band and divides people because of Thom's voice, some of their political messages, general dislike for what they produce, etc.
Yeah, I was making...generalizations.
Sorry, I guess you missed the context of my original comments about competition between well known but not mainstream artists vs. well known AND mainstream artists.
I got it, but it 's now clear we are all talking about the same thing, we just differ on the terminology to describe it. Clearly Madonna is more well known, she has one of the most well known countenance in the world.
I do think your "well known but not mainstream" is a bit of an oxymoron if you are describing well known by means of their record sales and rankings, which is the biggest contention here. Perhaps calling them corporate sellouts would be more fitting.
I got it, but it 's now clear we are all talking about the same thing, we just differ on the terminology to describe it. Clearly Madonna is more well known, she has one of the most well known countenance in the world.
I do think your "well known but not mainstream" is a bit of an oxymoron if you are describing well known by means of their record sales and rankings, which is the biggest contention here. Perhaps calling them corporate sellouts would be more fitting.
Agreed.