>Froim: Paul Hughes
>why are the only paying these poor bastards less than a dollar per
>CD? Where is all that other money going. Lets see, I'm thinking for a
>I got it - the executives paychecks!!
In the music industry like any other kind of business 90% of everything is a
flop. Probably even more so in the music industry. 85% of all music you see
in the stores never makes back the production costs.
Oh and there is adult people in the music business making money .. uhhh bad
>Lets not forget those multi-million
>dollar hyping budgets in order to get N'Sync and Brittany Spears albums to
>market. Give me a friggin break!
Is marketing Unethical? You are not allowed to tell that you have something
to sell .. it is evil ???
> No, actually, the real difference here is that blacksmiths were being
> replaced by something that did their job better. That's called progress.
>Exactly! The internet is progress
Not if we let it destroy the economical system.
If it is possible and legal to just copy something for free we will never
know it's actual worth. How much would people be willing to pay for it. And
also how much is it worth for society. Forget about the free market. There
will be no market... only free.
>He made it, he promoted it, I listen to it. I hear it on
>the radio, I hear it on MTV. I recorded it on MTV. I play it whenever I
>Then along comes Napster and I can find the same song and record it on my
>drive - and now it's a crime? This is the most convoluted crap I have ever
>dis-privaleged to expose my brain to.
Oh but you are not able to listen to it on a walkman. You have to use a
videotape to play it back which is a hassle. And there are several other
reasons why you would want you music on a CD. Those reasons sort of
dissapear on MP3. It is a better medium in many regards than any other there
has been for music. Excluding sound quality. In short in the other mediums
there are barriers to entry that most people don't record their music that
way. At least not in a big way.
>> No one has proven that Napster is going to result in better music or ...
>No one has proven that its going to make music worse either. Nothing can be
>worse than the over-marketed hype they call music now-a-days.
That is your taste you are stating. Not really a valid argument.
>Then of course we
>have all the extremely talented musicians that I hear at small concerts
>this part of the country. They have not inked million dollar contracts,
>their music is easily as good as the rich pop stars. So what's motivating
>- perhaps the pure love of music? Oh I forgot, its not about the music in
>end - its the money, money, moneyaaa, .....moneyaaaaa!
Oh artist cannot make money???
>> Hey, Linux is not the only example of something really cool that people
>> made without getting paid for it. There will likely continue to be many
>> shining examples of what humans will do for free. And humans will
>> to do really interesting things for free.
Linux is very nice but it is a tool somebody has made so they don't have to
pay for the tools from other. Free hammers would also be nice for the
carpentry business but would destroy the hammer business. So you can turn it
around and say that if people want free music they should make it themself.
Just like the Linux crowd supposedly does.
>For now yes, but thats the whole point of my argument. There is going to
>point, when nanotechnology really hits hard and all this IP hogwash has to
Oh yeas ... let's destroy the economic system right now, so that we can
prepare for something that might happen sometime in the future. Remember
Nano is not here yet. It might never be or maybe only partial.
>Ah yes, but intellectual property is being used to squash new technologies
>eliminate the real potential of what the internet is.
It is a big world with many people making a living in different stages of
technological savy. We have to change the system slowly enough as not to
Max M Rasmussen, Denmark.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:29 MDT