On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
You guys just need to get back to the big city :-)
not true. in fact, i would argue that the difficulty of finding good music is widespread throughout the states. i attribute this to the clueless, braindead fools who are governed by the radio...and we all know the stupidity of the people who control the radio stations. yet, go to just about any country in europe (i say europe because my firsthand knowledge is limited) and you can easily find just about anything you want. i have far better luck finding many american bands in europe than in america. why? because many albums are simply not _released_ in america. a lot of albums that are released in america are released in europe first (even american bands). then again, just listen to european radio. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
You guys just need to get back to the big city :-)
not true. in fact, i would argue that the difficulty of finding good music is widespread throughout the states. i attribute this to the clueless, braindead fools who are governed by the radio...and we all know the stupidity of the people who control the radio stations.
So what you are complaining about is market forces? -- You can never go hunting With just a flintlock and a hound You won't go home with a bunting If you blow a hundred rounds -- Tom Waits, Just the Right Bullets
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, petro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
You guys just need to get back to the big city :-)
not true. in fact, i would argue that the difficulty of finding good music is widespread throughout the states. i attribute this to the clueless, braindead fools who are governed by the radio...and we all know the stupidity of the people who control the radio stations.
So what you are complaining about is market forces?
When the market is "what a bunch of guys in suits decide is what I should be able to buy" -- YES! The reason unauthorized copying takes place to the extent it does is the absolute disreguard for "the market" that those making the decisions on what is available and/or what is promoted have for those "market forces". When was the last time that actual supply and demand actually made a difference in how much you had to pay for a movie or DVD? Who else are you going to get it from? The bootleg market is the only real competition these conglomerates have. alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, petro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
You guys just need to get back to the big city :-)
not true. in fact, i would argue that the difficulty of finding good music is widespread throughout the states. i attribute this to the clueless, braindead fools who are governed by the radio...and we all know the stupidity of the people who control the radio stations.
So what you are complaining about is market forces?
When the market is "what a bunch of guys in suits decide is what I should be able to buy" -- YES!
Funny, I don't think the people running Cleopatra Records, or any of a number of smaller labels wear suits all that often.
The reason unauthorized copying takes place to the extent it does is the absolute disreguard for "the market" that those making the decisions on what is available and/or what is promoted have for those "market forces".
The reason unauthorized copying takes place is because it is at least one, and sometimes two orders of magnitude cheaper to copy a CD (depending on whether you go to tape or another CD) than it is to go buy one. People, when given a choice, will almost always opt for the *CHEAPEST* method of obtaining a desired good or service.
When was the last time that actual supply and demand actually made a difference in how much you had to pay for a movie or DVD? Who else are you going to get it from?
I don't buy movies or DVDs, mostly because any cost to me is more than it is worth. For music, I would prefer to give the money directly to the artists, but until they start selling direct, I'll continue to buy what I can find. As to supply and demand entering into it, I've purchased stuff for two to three times store prices from Europe, simply because there isn't the demand in this country for the artist I wanted to hear. When one has tastes outside the mainstream, be it in music, clothing, guns, or whatever, one has to pay the price. -- You can never go hunting With just a flintlock and a hound You won't go home with a bunting If you blow a hundred rounds -- Tom Waits, Just the Right Bullets
petro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
You guys just need to get back to the big city :-)
not true. in fact, i would argue that the difficulty of finding good music is widespread throughout the states. i attribute this to the clueless, braindead fools who are governed by the radio...and we all know the stupidity of the people who control the radio stations.
So what you are complaining about is market forces?
Actually I think that was Alan who wrote that, not me. But I imagine he is complaining against the copyright system acting against market forces (like Napster). Personally, I rather like copyright laws for the most part. Far less pernicious than patents (which were OK when they were for inventions, went downhill when they started patenting algorithms & now that drug companies are trying to patent chance discoveries it's turned into a total mess) and trade secrets (which shouldn't be the business of the law at all. A secret is a secret until it's out, then it isn't. If one of your employees lets your secrets out, well you should have paid them enough to make them want to keep them.) Something odd seems to have happened to copyright in the music business though. Copyright law usually acts to protect the originator of a work (at least it does over here), for example authors license print publishers to distribute or sell what they write, but they don't usually permanently lose rights over their own work. For reasons I cannot claim to fully understand, music publishers tend to buy the whole copyright of a work, the originators signing away their entire future interest in it. I suspect it has something to do with the relative weight of lawyers on each side. Or maybe authors are just more savvy than musicians as far as small print is concerned. Ken Brown (5000 Kms downwind of Bermuda)
petro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
You guys just need to get back to the big city :-)
not true. in fact, i would argue that the difficulty of finding good music is widespread throughout the states. i attribute this to the clueless, braindead fools who are governed by the radio...and we all know the stupidity of the people who control the radio stations.
So what you are complaining about is market forces?
Actually I think that was Alan who wrote that, not me.
It's rather obvious from the nested >s that you didn't write it.
But I imagine he is complaining against the copyright system acting against market forces (like Napster).
Napster isn't a "market force", they produce no revenue, they make no money. Yet.
Personally, I rather like copyright laws for the most part. Far less pernicious than patents (which were OK when they were for inventions, went downhill when they started patenting algorithms & now that drug companies are trying to patent chance discoveries it's turned into a total mess) and trade secrets (which shouldn't be the business of the law at all. A secret is a secret until it's out, then it isn't. If one of your employees lets your secrets out, well you should have paid them enough to make them want to keep them.)
I disagree with none of that, except that if an employee deliberately leaks a "Trade Secret" that they were bound by contract to keep, then the businesses bitch is with that employee.
Something odd seems to have happened to copyright in the music business though. Copyright law usually acts to protect the originator of a work (at least it does over here), for example authors license print publishers to distribute or sell what they write, but they don't usually permanently lose rights over their own work. For reasons I cannot claim to fully understand, music publishers tend to buy the whole copyright of a work, the originators signing away their entire future interest in it. I suspect it has something to do with the relative weight of lawyers on each side. Or maybe authors are just more savvy than musicians as far as small print is concerned.
Wave a fist (even a small fist) of money in front of an Artist, and for the most part whatever brains they had in the first place disappear. Artists (musicians, writers, whatever) *sell* the rights to their work. It's their choice. Music labels then take the risk of packaging and distributing that music. Their choice. The "High" prices one pays for a CD make it possible for there to be a *lot* more artists work to be distributed (ok, it's often the "500 channels of shit on TV") since the profits from one artist will offset losses from a few others. -- You can never go hunting With just a flintlock and a hound You won't go home with a bunting If you blow a hundred rounds -- Tom Waits, Just the Right Bullets
participants (4)
-
Alan Olsen -
Ken Brown -
petro -
Warren Piece