4 ms·

In the comments to the article, the outright lack of respect for property rights and the constant childlike reference to the "MAFIAA" is absolutely appalling.

by chops 18y ago

In the comments to the article, the outright lack of respect for property rights and the constant childlike reference to the "MAFIAA" is absolutely appalling. Though spotify does sound like a neat service.

Radix 18y ago
Why? There position might be silly, but what's wrong with the idea of the RIAA companies dying? I hope it happens. I don't like it when I read a billboard article that showcases an executive who is proud of the pussycat dolls, and some rappers he's backing, and an article about Kate Perry. I guess "I kissed a girl" is catchy, might fit well in a party. But damn it, why doesn't Zooey Deschanel get any airtime? She's much cuter and I like her music better. Well, "she's not mainstream enough". Perhaps, but I hope, and don't believe, that the population is as homogeneous the industry seems to think. If the business model of the major labels fails then perhaps the new boss will be a more decentralized organization, where music is passed around based on social networks by people instead of pushed into the network by large companies who choose what is and isn't allowed to be popular, and perhaps artists can make more, since less money is going to keep the business structure up and distribution is cheap. This seems like a great service, I'm glad someone implemented such a great idea. But, I still hope some of the major labels die. ...I wish it was available in the US.
- chops 18y ago
 I can fully respect someone who simply doesn't wish to support an organization they don't like by not purchasing their items. One, however, is not morally justified in then simply taking the items they are otherwise unwilling to pay for. The artists voluntarily agree to release their music through the RIAA. If you don't like the RIAA, but you like their music, you don't have a right to their music by virtue of the fact that you simply want it. This my beef with the comments. Regardless of the legality of it, redistributing an artists' work without their approval. Piracy is wrong, whether it's software or music. But a site like "TorrentFreak" is certainly going to be crawling with people who have absolutely no respect for property rights. A service like Spotify (with agreements with the record companies) is offering the music in a free-as-in-beer streaming service, which, although they're not MP3s, they are still free music in a much more highly customized format than radio broadcast (and even web listening services like last.fm), and that's a sign that the RIAA is at least willing to support modern services. But the pirates on TorrentFreak remain vehemently opposed to the free music on Spotify simply because they took the legal route of working with the content producers. This is why I am appalled (though not terriby surprised) by the comments on the article.

by chops 18y ago

Radix 18y ago

Why? There position might be silly, but what's wrong with the idea of the RIAA companies dying? I hope it happens. I don't like it when I read a billboard article that showcases an executive who is proud of the pussycat dolls, and some rappers he's backing, and an article about Kate Perry. I guess "I kissed a girl" is catchy, might fit well in a party. But damn it, why doesn't Zooey Deschanel get any airtime? She's much cuter and I like her music better. Well, "she's not mainstream enough". Perhaps, but I hope, and don't believe, that the population is as homogeneous the industry seems to think. If the business model of the major labels fails then perhaps the new boss will be a more decentralized organization, where music is passed around based on social networks by people instead of pushed into the network by large companies who choose what is and isn't allowed to be popular, and perhaps artists can make more, since less money is going to keep the business structure up and distribution is cheap. This seems like a great service, I'm glad someone implemented such a great idea. But, I still hope some of the major labels die. ...I wish it was available in the US.

chops 18y ago
I can fully respect someone who simply doesn't wish to support an organization they don't like by not purchasing their items. One, however, is not morally justified in then simply taking the items they are otherwise unwilling to pay for. The artists voluntarily agree to release their music through the RIAA. If you don't like the RIAA, but you like their music, you don't have a right to their music by virtue of the fact that you simply want it. This my beef with the comments. Regardless of the legality of it, redistributing an artists' work without their approval. Piracy is wrong, whether it's software or music. But a site like "TorrentFreak" is certainly going to be crawling with people who have absolutely no respect for property rights. A service like Spotify (with agreements with the record companies) is offering the music in a free-as-in-beer streaming service, which, although they're not MP3s, they are still free music in a much more highly customized format than radio broadcast (and even web listening services like last.fm), and that's a sign that the RIAA is at least willing to support modern services. But the pirates on TorrentFreak remain vehemently opposed to the free music on Spotify simply because they took the legal route of working with the content producers. This is why I am appalled (though not terriby surprised) by the comments on the article.