Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

wry1 · 09-14-2003, 02:44 AM

TIO, I hate to break it to you, but not "all" record stores have listening posts - and even those that do don't always have the CD you want set up in the listening area. Try to get some snot-nosed high school employee to go out of their way to load one up for you sometime....it'll be an education, I'm sure.

As for the inferior product being pushed on the public by the RIAA, I agree with everyone who has stated the obvious: that the record companies could give a rat's-ass about our wants and that the only thing that matters is $$.

I don't know about you, but I find it highly suspect that it took Apple - a company which as far as I know doesn't have a single recording artist under management - to implement a per-song process which actually makes sense. When Napster suggested it, the record industry scoffed and stonewalled. When BMI announced they were planning a per-song downloading program, the industry was even more hesitant to take a stand other than "not gonna' work..."

But when Apple just went ahead and did it...and it worked...now everybody is scrambling to join in.

I don't download. I've never found it necessary as my friends and I - between us - have most of the songs I'm interested in listening to. So if I'm out with my pals, we're assured of a good musical selection just from the tunes we bring along. However, I for one can completely sympathize with some college kid who cannot fork out $20 continuously for the opportunity to get that song or two that they actually like - while having to suffer through the 10 or so songs that they'd rather puncture their eardrums than listen to.

In Wall Street Gordon Gekko said, "Greed is good."

Bullshit.

Apple actually went with what the customer wants. What's so hard about that? Keep in mind that these record companies spend millions annually to test-market, using focus groups and other test beds to gather the public's input on a variety of artists; would it really have been so difficult to use these mechanisms to gather some insight into this matter?

The RIAA has nobody to blame for this mess but themselves. If they had been more interested in maintaining and/or growing their customer base, then Napster, Gnutella, KaZaa and the other file-sharing systems would not have been such a disaster to them. Their stubborn refusal to see the flaws in their marketing process has created a subculture where the RIAA - and the lawmakers who toady to their lobbyists - is now "the enemy".

You doubt that last part? Take for example the case of the 70-something man who is being sued by the RIAA because his 12 year-old granddaughter downloaded music when she came to visit him. I'll grant you that this took place over quite an extended period of time, but still: there is a definite need for some restraint and insight on the part of the RIAA. That said, there is also a need for parents to teach their children right from wrong, and that entails dealing with issues such as this one.

It's a morass of pro's and con's. I for one refuse to wholeheartedly support the RIAA. They have their rights (bought and paid for, I assure you!) and so do those they would persecute - people who either cannot afford to shell out Money for Nothing or people who are tired of the pablum packaged around a decent song or two.

Would it make it any better if people just refused to buy any CDs? Bankruptcy is not an attractive alternative - if any of you RIAA Nazis are reading this......

......Think about it.

09-14-2003, 02:44 AM	#55 (permalink)
wry1 Loser Location: Far too far from my Angel....	TIO, I hate to break it to you, but not "all" record stores have listening posts - and even those that do don't always have the CD you want set up in the listening area. Try to get some snot-nosed high school employee to go out of their way to load one up for you sometime....it'll be an education, I'm sure. As for the inferior product being pushed on the public by the RIAA, I agree with everyone who has stated the obvious: that the record companies could give a rat's-ass about our wants and that the only thing that matters is $$. I don't know about you, but I find it highly suspect that it took Apple - a company which as far as I know doesn't have a single recording artist under management - to implement a per-song process which actually makes sense. When Napster suggested it, the record industry scoffed and stonewalled. When BMI announced they were planning a per-song downloading program, the industry was even more hesitant to take a stand other than "not gonna' work..." But when Apple just went ahead and did it...and it worked...now everybody is scrambling to join in. I don't download. I've never found it necessary as my friends and I - between us - have most of the songs I'm interested in listening to. So if I'm out with my pals, we're assured of a good musical selection just from the tunes we bring along. However, I for one can completely sympathize with some college kid who cannot fork out $20 continuously for the opportunity to get that song or two that they actually like - while having to suffer through the 10 or so songs that they'd rather puncture their eardrums than listen to. In Wall Street Gordon Gekko said, "Greed is good." Bullshit. Apple actually went with what the customer wants. What's so hard about that? Keep in mind that these record companies spend millions annually to test-market, using focus groups and other test beds to gather the public's input on a variety of artists; would it really have been so difficult to use these mechanisms to gather some insight into this matter? The RIAA has nobody to blame for this mess but themselves. If they had been more interested in maintaining and/or growing their customer base, then Napster, Gnutella, KaZaa and the other file-sharing systems would not have been such a disaster to them. Their stubborn refusal to see the flaws in their marketing process has created a subculture where the RIAA - and the lawmakers who toady to their lobbyists - is now "the enemy". You doubt that last part? Take for example the case of the 70-something man who is being sued by the RIAA because his 12 year-old granddaughter downloaded music when she came to visit him. I'll grant you that this took place over quite an extended period of time, but still: there is a definite need for some restraint and insight on the part of the RIAA. That said, there is also a need for parents to teach their children right from wrong, and that entails dealing with issues such as this one. It's a morass of pro's and con's. I for one refuse to wholeheartedly support the RIAA. They have their rights (bought and paid for, I assure you!) and so do those they would persecute - people who either cannot afford to shell out Money for Nothing or people who are tired of the pablum packaged around a decent song or two. Would it make it any better if people just refused to buy any CDs? Bankruptcy is not an attractive alternative - if any of you RIAA Nazis are reading this...... ......Think about it.