how-to block ads
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to thender
Re: DRM makes paying for something worthless.
said by thender  :If I bought a tape I wouldn't expect a free CD, but I would expect that I can play it in any tape player I want, whenever I want, and that I can back it up if I choose to. That was my arguement. Fair enough and not to sound like a RIAA shill as someone else accuses me of, when Itunes only sells songs that can only be played on Ipods unless you do a bunch of other onerous crap first, well that's not the RIAA's fault that's totally on Apple. I can buy a song from Napster or Yahoo Music and it will in fact work on MANY MANY various MP3 players. Not Ipods, but that's Apples fault again.
The problem is the record companies wants DRM because of all the idiots that download the stuff illegally on the net. And I can see the point where people don't want DRM on thier stuff. I don't want it. If illegal downloading was never a problem I'm sure DRM wouldn't even exist.
So the record companies aren't going to stop DRM until people stop illegally downloading songs and pay for music and people aren't going to pay for music until the record companies abandon DRM. Both sides have thier heads up their butts and both deserve to burn in hell for making life hard for the rest of us who are honest hard working people.
The record companies also need a different price model since a song from the 70's shouldn't cost the same as a new release. A new song probally could be priced slighly higher and older songs be priced lower. There are probally hundreds of thousands of songs that hardly ever get bought because people deem 99¢ too much for a 30 year old song, but people would be more than willing to pay say 29¢-49¢ for it. 10,000 X 29¢ is more than 1000 X 99¢, but what do I know? | |
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| Judging music price by age is bullcrap. 50 Cent's latest shit vs Jeff Beck's Diamond Dust/Led Zeppelin's Achilles Last Stand/Pink Floyd's Dogs, and 50 cent would be worth more?
How about selling FLAC files that are lossless, without DRM, that can be converted to a format your player can play? This way, instead of downgrading from CD quality to compressed to CD quality, we can be back where we started 20 years ago - with CD quality and fair use rights relatively intact. And we're not even at that.
DRM doesn't stop stuff from going online. Why would I want to download someone's 128k WMA shit(assuming the DRM were cracked) when I can download an --alt-preset standard MP3 that'll sound better and work on more devices, or a FLAC/APE lossless copy?
It's not even like they're "protecting" something worth downloading.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
