I Will Deny You
17th March 2002, 22:30
I'm a pro-Napster and Napsterish software person. I don't think that MP3-sharing has hurt record companies very much, and sharing music has only helped people discover new artists and get rare/live songs.
I know that this view is pretty typical for a college student in her early twenties who has two computers in her apartment and has been listening to music for all her life. But please don't get fed up with me. I'd like it if you would read this, since I'm really sick of getting crap from people for being pro-MP3.
So here it goes: With independent music promoters (http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/index.html), or "indies", major labels have been shoving music down our throats. When we pay $18.99 for a CD, a lot of that money is going towards more indies . . . I think that what the record companies are doing is very wrong, and I don't like supporting them.
Also, major labels suck. The only two major-label artists whose CDs I bought last year were Alicia Keys and Mos Def. They didn't get me to buy their CDs by wearing bootie shorts or putting car crashes in their videos. (I don't even get Mtv, since I have no cable.) They got me to buy their CDs by simply making good music. So in other words, if someone makes good music I'll buy their CD no matter what label they're on.
So in other words, major labels are ripping off the music fans. But did I rip off the major labels at all in 2001? Well, kind of. I burned one CD. That's all. It was a dance album (I dance, in case you didn't know), and the name of the artist who made it is so embarrassing that I won't even tell you who it is. But it was a so-so album. I kind of liked dancing to it, but the major question is: If I didn't have access to AudioGalaxy and a CD burner, would I have gone out and bought the CD? The answer is no. I would not have. It's an okay CD, but not good enough for me to waste twenty bucks on. So the major labels didn't lose any money.
Well, that's why I'm not against Napster-ish stuff. (I only refer to Napster because it's the only universally-recognized name in MP3 sharing. I haven't actually used Napster in a long time.) I downloaded a few songs that surely weren't good enough to make me buy a CD. So far this year, I downloaded a live song by Soil, whose album I bought when they opened at a concert I went to and kicked ass. No booty shorts, no expensive videos, no stripper-like dance moves. Just a good band. The only thing I've done online so far in 2002 that's music related is buying an album on VINYL (yes, I own a record player) from stonerrock.com.
But lately, a trend has emerged that I am against. It's the swapping of movies over the Internet. When I download a few songs off of an album to see if I want to go out and buy it, I'm only sampling. As I said, I only burned one CD last year. But when people download movies, they're not sampling. They download the entire thing. And I really doubt that anyone would download a movie and then go out and rent or buy it if they enjoyed it. With movies, people are flat-out stealing them. And while I have very little sympathy for big studios that are losing money because twelve-year-olds are downloading Freddy Prinze, Jr. movies instead of buying them, I think that sharing movies is wrong. I think there's a big difference.
Sorry that was so long. Does anyone agree with me?
I know that this view is pretty typical for a college student in her early twenties who has two computers in her apartment and has been listening to music for all her life. But please don't get fed up with me. I'd like it if you would read this, since I'm really sick of getting crap from people for being pro-MP3.
So here it goes: With independent music promoters (http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/index.html), or "indies", major labels have been shoving music down our throats. When we pay $18.99 for a CD, a lot of that money is going towards more indies . . . I think that what the record companies are doing is very wrong, and I don't like supporting them.
Also, major labels suck. The only two major-label artists whose CDs I bought last year were Alicia Keys and Mos Def. They didn't get me to buy their CDs by wearing bootie shorts or putting car crashes in their videos. (I don't even get Mtv, since I have no cable.) They got me to buy their CDs by simply making good music. So in other words, if someone makes good music I'll buy their CD no matter what label they're on.
So in other words, major labels are ripping off the music fans. But did I rip off the major labels at all in 2001? Well, kind of. I burned one CD. That's all. It was a dance album (I dance, in case you didn't know), and the name of the artist who made it is so embarrassing that I won't even tell you who it is. But it was a so-so album. I kind of liked dancing to it, but the major question is: If I didn't have access to AudioGalaxy and a CD burner, would I have gone out and bought the CD? The answer is no. I would not have. It's an okay CD, but not good enough for me to waste twenty bucks on. So the major labels didn't lose any money.
Well, that's why I'm not against Napster-ish stuff. (I only refer to Napster because it's the only universally-recognized name in MP3 sharing. I haven't actually used Napster in a long time.) I downloaded a few songs that surely weren't good enough to make me buy a CD. So far this year, I downloaded a live song by Soil, whose album I bought when they opened at a concert I went to and kicked ass. No booty shorts, no expensive videos, no stripper-like dance moves. Just a good band. The only thing I've done online so far in 2002 that's music related is buying an album on VINYL (yes, I own a record player) from stonerrock.com.
But lately, a trend has emerged that I am against. It's the swapping of movies over the Internet. When I download a few songs off of an album to see if I want to go out and buy it, I'm only sampling. As I said, I only burned one CD last year. But when people download movies, they're not sampling. They download the entire thing. And I really doubt that anyone would download a movie and then go out and rent or buy it if they enjoyed it. With movies, people are flat-out stealing them. And while I have very little sympathy for big studios that are losing money because twelve-year-olds are downloading Freddy Prinze, Jr. movies instead of buying them, I think that sharing movies is wrong. I think there's a big difference.
Sorry that was so long. Does anyone agree with me?