Correct, they have not need to steal it because they stream.
1 Like
True, hence they had to think HOW to provide value instead of making their music hard to copy which is next to impossible!
I also don’t believe record companies have a better control on this, it’s just HARDER to copy, as it’s a larger file. I think Video piracy is much much bigger today than music piracy hence the move to streaming by almost all major studios to essentially circumvent the inevitable.
Imagine this, you can get a GREAT SACD, with best quality audio, supporting material, original artwork, etc… a code for $10 discount on the original artist next concert? Would you download a crappy mp3 instead or buy the record?
Interesting you quote parts and not the rest that negates your argument. Consumers have spoken loud and clear, they do NOT value a basic CD selling for $20-30 a piece! They don’t, they either stream, download, or listen for free on youtube.
Music industry ONLY options are:
(a) Sell a BETTER MEDIUM, higher quality, providing EXTRAs beyond a WAV file
(b) Get into streaming
Anything else is a losing battle!
1 Like
You completely misunderstand.
My position is only that the industry can price their product any way they wish. You do not get to steal it merely because you conclude it is too expensive.
The industry is in no way wrong for objecting to theft.
2 Likes
For the sake of logistical inquiry, what would happen if as of tomorrow, all new music was only released on vinyl and all streaming services ceased to operate? What if the only way to hear new music was to buy a physical record or listen to radio with advertising, like it was prior to about 1980?
It reminds of an article I read a few years ago in which the Kremlin took all of their government documents off line due to the risk of cyber attack and espionage. Everything, like prior to the internet and digital revolution, was being stored in file cabinets.
If the music industry turned back the clock and returned to a time during which pirating was minuscule compared to today, when they held all the cards, would that move work? I realize it would take an adjustment period, but would the population’s love and need for music eventually cause them to adjust?
I’m not advocating this, just wondering about its feasibility. All moral arguments aside, the problem seems to be the digital medium.
I think this is what the resurgence of vinyl is all about.
You’re wrong again, industry can price their products anyway they want, IF people are willing to pay! Current pricing and selling them the way they are is WRONG as customers have SPOKEN! It’s like saying, car industry needs to sell every basic econ car for 100K, and HAVE to buy it from specific dealer. People are saying, OK, if you’re selling an inferior product, that costs so much we would buy other alternatives, will find a non-dealer who sells it for 20K.
In Music industry, CD was outpaced by technology, industry didn’t respond well, and they lost BIG. They’re now playing catchup and even this lawsuit is an idiotic move, they instead must focus on offering their music in a better format, method to the new consumers.
1 Like
It seems the court thought their argument was sound. Lol. Billion dollar verdict, not so idiotic, IMO.
Vinyl has been a consumer decision because it’s super cool and hip. I don’t see it as a tactical move by the industry to thwart piracy. I’m sure the industry is very surprised by how vinyl has overtaken CD’s. It just seems vinyl is inherently anti pirate because it can’t be file shared. Why not just make vinyl the only way to access new music? I doubt the public is going to stop buying music, quite the opposite, turntable sales would skyrocket.
IMHO, there’s not much value in declaring the other “wrong” on matters of personal interpretation. Elk is not wrong for his view, just as you are not wrong for having your interpretation.
It is cool and hip because of the marketing of it. I think they are more devious than we think. 
And let me say I am a vinylphile from way back. I think it is cool - but for the masses to think that? I think there is some marketing sizzle going on.
Heck they used to say me recording my albums on cassette was thievery. Haha. Whatever
Agree 100% !
1 Like
Jack White has certainly helped. I think part of it has to do with meaning. For me, having Tidal and 50 million songs is overwhelming. It’s a bit much. I’m overwhelmed by exploring and organizing it all. In many ways, the days of getting a CD or two each month was a more meaningful and intimate experience. I really got to know each recording.
Back in the 1990’s I used to legally trade Grateful Dead and associated approved jam band bootlegs over USENET. One day a box of 20 shows arrived of various bands. It felt like something had been lost and I slowed down my trading substantially so I could receive a show or two and have a couple of months to get to know the recording.
With Tidal, I’m off the races, so much to listen to, it’s all there, yada yada. I do like aspects of it, but in having access to so much, meaning has been diminished - for me.
Thus a part of vinyl’s resurgence, I hypothesize, revolves around increase in meaning. I’m all in on digital, but do question the experience.
1 Like
I agree with you. Maybe people are starting to figure it out. I still miss the ritual - 5 songs … turn it over. When I started buying cds I realized I was sitting there for an hour uninterrupted and I would get antsy. Not so w albums. Interesting in this consumerism world we live in. Next thing you know we’ll have phones w cords on them!! Lol
1 Like
According to the second article (from Variety), the case was brought both by record labels and by music publishers. Two groups that don’t always see eye to eye, to put it mildly.
Intellectual property, whether books, music or movies, is the way actors, authors, composers, musicians, and a whole lot of other people make a living.
I guess I really don’t understand the argument that it is okay to steal. If somebody ripped off PS Audio’s products and offered identical counterfeit products for 20% of the price, would that be okay? Would we accept the excuse from a buyer of the counterfeits that Paul deserves this, because PS Audio gear is too expensive? Seems pretty lame.
But we live in interesting times. . . .
So when is it stealing - and when is it just a rip off for the artists? We have these streaming companies paying an artist .000000001 cent per spin. And now I have artists who used to be for ‘the people’ charging 150 per ticket - and 1000/ticket for a VIP which gives you nothing but better seats / a poster / and a tshirt. So in the end I really wonder whose zoomin who? I really think the above scenarios are the big picture. The rest is a distraction.
I’m not arguing you are wrong. As I said, we live in interesting times.
Haha. I’m not arguing either. Just bringing it up for conversation.
And getting back to my point on albums. The marketing of them - solves these issues. I have a degradable format which people have to repurchase over time. You can copy them - but it is a bit clunky to do so and the sound on the copy probably will not be quite the same as a file copy
in the digital world making it less likely someone would copy it (although trust me - my example about cassettes was real in the 70s. The industry was flailing about tape decks back then as well) . I bet artists make more per vinyl sale. That would be interesting to know.
I just find industries do subtle marketing to sway mass opinion.
I’ve had artists - ‘no phones at concerts because of copy infringement’. How stupid is that? The guy would be getting free advertising on a 1 minute post to Facebook. Lots of people stumbling over their own feet here.
1 Like
On cat the gets it is Joe Bonamassa. His You Tube channel is packed with concert videos shot by fans alongside of the “official” videos.
IMHO, “Free” streaming services such as Pandora with offline listening sort of creates an expectation of what the digital content is worth, unfortunately.