DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> fight the RIAA on march 22nd
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/20/2007 05:44:26 PM · #1
kind of an interesting idea. trying to get an indie song to #1 on iTunes in some kind of attempt to stick it to "the man."

the only reason i'm posting this is because they say they are going to donate a lot of the profit. ymmv.

//bumrushthecharts.blogspot.com/
 03/20/2007 05:58:09 PM · #2
An interesting concept, but iTunes?? Isn't iTunes one of the worst propagators of overbearing DRM? Isn't overbearing DRM one of the biggest issues with the RIAA?
I do think the idea has some merit; I'd love to see the RIAA and the major labels taken to task for their poor treatment of artists.
 03/20/2007 07:28:31 PM · #3
Originally posted by kirbic:
An interesting concept, but iTunes?? Isn't iTunes one of the worst propagators of overbearing DRM? Isn't overbearing DRM one of the biggest issues with the RIAA?
I do think the idea has some merit; I'd love to see the RIAA and the major labels taken to task for their poor treatment of artists.


But only because of RIAA. And Steve Jobs has openly criticized DRM usage as being a bad for sales/bad for consumer "loss-loss" situation.

They've also stood their ground against RIAA on requested price hikes.

It is a novel approach. I think I'll have to try that...

Message edited by author 2007-03-20 19:30:23.
 03/20/2007 07:34:19 PM · #4
I'm IN! I love the band Black Lab! I discovered them about a month ago from that preview song for the TV show "The Shield" and have been hooked ever since.

As a big fan of indie music, I'll do anything to help the little guy get noticed. :)
 03/20/2007 07:36:20 PM · #5
I'd do anything to help indie music too (and I will purchase the song) but I wish they'd pick an artist that I'll actually listen to!
03/20/2007 07:39:19 PM · #6
Originally posted by strangeghost:
I'd do anything to help indie music too (and I will purchase the song) but I wish they'd pick an artist that I'll actually listen to!


Check out this song.
 03/20/2007 07:46:23 PM · #7
Originally posted by L2:


Check out this song.

Not bad, I'll admit. Can I buy that one instead??
 03/20/2007 07:50:54 PM · #8
Im in the music doesnt matter. The user right is more important.



Message edited by author 2007-03-20 19:54:32.
 03/21/2007 08:07:01 AM · #9
Originally posted by kirbic:
An interesting concept, but iTunes?? Isn't iTunes one of the worst propagators of overbearing DRM? Isn't overbearing DRM one of the biggest issues with the RIAA?
I do think the idea has some merit; I'd love to see the RIAA and the major labels taken to task for their poor treatment of artists.


i think using iTunes is pretty novel because it represents the "new wave" of music distribution (i mean, it is the most popular "legal" download tool by far) and because being #1 on there actually means something.

these record execs bitched and moaned so hard about selling the tracks individually and it's been a gigantic success. that wouldn't have been the case with sites like allofmp3

i also read a very interesting first-person article by someone who has given up buying music BECAUSE of DRM yesterday. the whole situation is out of whack.

Message edited by author 2007-03-21 08:10:20.
 03/21/2007 09:20:58 AM · #10
Originally posted by muckpond:

these record execs bitched and moaned so hard about selling the tracks individually and it's been a gigantic success. that wouldn't have been the case with sites like allofmp3


Don't understand this bit. What wouldn't have been the case with aomp3?

e
 03/21/2007 09:41:06 AM · #11
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by muckpond:

these record execs bitched and moaned so hard about selling the tracks individually and it's been a gigantic success. that wouldn't have been the case with sites like allofmp3


Don't understand this bit. What wouldn't have been the case with aomp3?

e


i just mean that iTunes is far more popular than an independent-only site like that one.
 03/21/2007 09:52:46 AM · #12
What does DRM mean?

In the FWIW department, I download from Walmart, albeit, not very frequently. Just for the best track or two from albums I like. Still actually purchase the entire (physical) CD on occasion. :D
 03/21/2007 10:05:43 AM · #13
drm = digital rights management = a bunch of incompatible "protection" systems that are driving people to drinking. and pirating.
 03/22/2007 08:51:55 AM · #14
one final bump. today's the day!
 03/22/2007 11:41:20 AM · #15
Originally posted by muckpond:
drm = digital rights management = a bunch of incompatible "protection" systems that are driving people to drinking. and pirating.


DRM is what made my $450 purchase of a digital camcorder useless. It is also why I won't buy another Panasonic product.

I bought one of their AV-digital camcorders. But found NO ONE could ever view the videos because they were using a proprietary DRM format called .asf

It was billed as an MPEG4 camcorder. It wasn't. It used MPEG4 compression algorithms but the files were Microsoft's .asf

And that isn't even the worst of DRM. DRM is slated to lower the quality of HDTV unless all your hardware is certified. How about that, you spend thousands of dollars on HDTV and HD-DVD, etc. And find that because you're not using a cable that supports DRM instead of getting your 1080 HDTV resolution you find yourself dropped down to a measley 480 DTV resolution.

Oh, and if the vendor fails to continue supporting that particular DRM you find all your investment lost.

DRM is also what restricts many cell phones from being accessed for ringer tones, etc. So after spending $100 on ring tones. You find that you can't port them when you get a new phone.

DRM = a bunch of politicians being paid lots of money to give the content holder companies all the rights so that they can abuse the people and completely do away with ownership.

That is the final goal of DRM. Not to let you own any DVDs or CDs. Rather, to make all such media a "pay-to-play" system. So that every time you listen to a song you pay to do so.

03/22/2007 11:55:57 AM · #16
Originally posted by theSaj:
... So that every time you listen to a song you pay to do so.

Yikes! Who needs to listen to music anyway?!

I wonder, would that exempt radio stations? What would they do if they couldn't have the media available?

Envision the future of have vs have-nots...those who have the money will host "music-fests" where the neighborhood have-nots could come and listen (for a small fee). Of course then they'd have to have a way to shield the sound so noone can delight their ears without paying. Body searches would be standard to prevent illegal recording on miniature devices. Hmmm...raises another point. If the have-nots haven't heard music lately will they recognize what's popular? Will "popular" songs then be driven by the tastes of those who can afford the music?

Interesting. I think there's a futuristic novel in here somewhere.
 03/22/2007 07:15:04 PM · #17
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by theSaj:
... So that every time you listen to a song you pay to do so.

Yikes! Who needs to listen to music anyway?!

I wonder, would that exempt radio stations? What would they do if they couldn't have the media available?


There is a long history of "payola" between the radio stations and labels. The labels realize that they sell music largely because radio stations play it. So record labels have for years "paid" radio stations to play their music.

There repeated settlements, fines, etc. But they're like $10 million which is nothing.

Already in the DMCA there are exception clauses for broadcast radio stations. While at the same time, RIAA killed web radio with outrageous fees that are just unrealistic and were based on the peak rates at a peak time of the web. It's been criminal.

The reason why RIAA fought for such high fees. NOTHING to do with copyright. Rather, market control. Most web based radio stations were playing "independent labels". What they don't tell you is that during Napster. CD sales actually increased. But those who saw the most increase were the smaller independent record labels who's music finally got attention by floating to the top. Not for the ads and money paid to radio stations...simply because it was good.

RIAA didn't like losing control on the market and they paid millions lobbying Congress to pass insane laws to kill web radio. It still exists, but most web based stations died. Many only still exist because they haven't yet paid the retroactive fees. Many have expressed if the final court decisions fall in RIAA's favor they will have to pack up. Already RIAA wants increases. Most which put the total royalty rate for playing a song well beyond the advertising revenues of webcast stations.
 03/22/2007 08:24:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by theSaj:
< D E L E T E D >

I think you've said enough...

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 01:06:28 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 01:06:28 PM EDT.