| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Virtual Delivery Seen as Death to Discs LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Hollywood will win the war against illegal downloading but the battlefield will be littered with casualties, including the DVD and CD formats as physical means of distributing video and audio, according to a Forrester Research study released Tuesday. The study predicts that in five years, CDs and DVDs will start to go the way of the vinyl LP as 33% of music sales and 19% of home video revenue shifts to streaming and downloading. Part of that stems from the continued proliferation of illegal file trading, which has caused an estimated $700 million of lost CD sales since 1999. But it will be due more so to efforts by the studios, cable companies and telcos to finally deliver legitimate alternatives like video-on-demand, Forrester researcher Josh Bernoff said. "The idea that anyone who has video-on-demand access to any movie they are interested in would get up and go to Blockbuster just doesn't make any sense," Bernoff said. "(The decline) begins with rentals, but eventually I think sales of these pieces of plastic are going to start going away because people will have access to whatever they want right there at their television set." While consumers with VOD capabilities should grow within five years from 10 million to 35 million, or about a third of all U.S. television households, the association that represents disc makers does not believe that output will slow. In fact, the Princeton, N.J.-based International Recording Media Assn. estimates that the number of DVDs replicated each year in North America will increase from a current 1.4 billion to 2.6 billion by 2008. CD replications, though, are forecast by IRMA to fall by 15%-18% in the next five years, about half the rate of decline estimated by Forrester. "The consensus in the manufacturing business is that there will be a decline, but we don't see as drastic a decline," IRMA president Charles Van Horn said. "We see growth (in video and DVD), and I don't think it will be because there are more pipelines to feed. It will be consumers buying discs." Analysts also caution that the shift from hard copy to virtual distribution could be more gradual. "People like walking into the store and seeing the product. It's part of the entertainment," Barrington Research Associates analyst James Goss said. "The studios would be just as happy to sell something in a streamed form or a hard disc form. But once you download it to your computer, you're probably going to burn it onto a CD or DVD, so you'd end up with the same optical storage issues." The Forrester report lists a number of winners and losers from the expected changes. Among the beneficiaries are Internet portals (news - web sites) that enable on-demand media services, broadband suppliers such as cable and telcos and the creative community, which would profit from the removal of manufacturing and distribution costs and constraints. AOL Time Warner's decision to sell off its disc manufacturing plants was said to be proof of this trend. Media conglomerates could be among the losers if they do not have control of emerging means of distribution like VOD, Forrester said. Such retailers as Tower Records and Blockbuster will certainly feel the pain as sales and rentals shrink, though they may be able to sustain business by associating themselves with newer on-demand services. Major retailers including Wal-Mart and Best Buy are expected to survive by shifting CD and DVD floor space to sales of media devices. The shift could also present several opportunities for companies if they move quickly. Television companies have about three more years to release shows on DVD. By 2006, it is estimated that negotiations will start to focus on making content available on cable and Internet "basic VOD" tiers. Movies studios are also urged to press the development of Internet-based alternatives to cable VOD for movies-on-demand. "On-demand media services have the potential to turn pirate losses into gains even as they break the disc-based shackles that now hold back entertainment," the report concludes. ____________________________________- I tend to disagree. I want my packaging, I want my cover art, I want my fucking liner notes. Burned CDs and MP3s are for things I wouldnt want to buy and that alone. The only reason the record industry is cutting a loss is because they are putting out SHIT and everyone knows it, and figures out a way around it to get the tiny slice of good within the copius amount of suck that is pop music. Saying people will learn to live without the packaging and art and liner notes for stuff they actually like is akin to those who said we'd be getting our food in pill form. Not likely. If we want it, we want the box. We are a society built on presentation and you're going to have a tough time changing that. |
|
God, I hate statements like this. There is NO PROOF that file trading CAUSED the loss of sales. It is assumed to be a contributer to the loss, but not the CAUSE. Yeah, I'd say the cause is that people decided they don't want to spend $18.99 for two good songs on an album. Whether they downloaded those two songs illegally or just went without is secondary. |
I HATE spending 15-20 bucks for a CD that only has one or two songs on it that I like. Wnat me to pay for it, then put shit out I will be willing to pay for. MP3s are like a free sample anyway. As for DVD's, no way. Even with the advent of DVD Burners, downloading movies off the net in no way compares to legit DVDs or seeing at the theater. |
|
|
"This must be my lucky day. I'll take the rapists for 100 please." "That's therapists....." |
My Mr. Show Season 3 DVD shipped last night! |
See how now it is assumed that file swapping is the cause? There is some validity to "repition makes truths".... |
|
. But I do pay for them in a sense. I rarely download movies. I'm never satisfied with their quality. Too few people know how to properly rip a DVD. . So I rent movies like crazy, but rip them to a really high quality DivX before returning them. I have around 200 movies now. My little brother has around twice that. . I have a computer hooked up to my tv, and its only job is to play movies. . Hmm. I guess I'm paying more for movies now than I did before I started my illegal collection. Go figure. . But I've set up a trading system online for like-minded people to mail cds to each other. So that'll contribute to the downfall of DVDs I guess. But not much. It's small and private. . The thing I do miss about DVDs is the extra stuff on there. I like commentaries and stuff like that. But I hate DVD menus. |
Sony has that capacity and I am suprised they have not tried that yet. $50-70 for dvd movie, soundtrack and game. Like Spider Man..... Hey, TBone, you are not on Tesla or FileTopia, are you??? |
|
I cannot get gnucleus to connect at all. That's why I switched to the filetopia concept. I tried MIrc once, but did not like it so much. |
I drove half hour out of the way to get Mr. Show season 3 on Thursday, haven't done much else but watch it over and over since... Mustardayonaise |
neither do i. |
|
If they sell anything called "mustardayonaise" in your land, id say its another checkmark on some sort of checklist, somewhere. |
Mayostard. Mustardayonnaise. Mustmayostardayonnaise. |
|
You all know what the problem is. I just want to give an example. Beck. Why the fuck is "Loser" still being played in medium rotation, 10 years or so after it first came out, when Beck has released so much beautiful music? Even singles -- "Devil's Haircut" is a much better and much less annoying song than "Loser". How come you don't hear that one on the radio? Why is Elliott Smith not as popular as he could be? In Elliott Smith you've got beautiful melodies, intelligent but simple and accessible lyrics, skillful musicianship, etc. So why isn't he on the radio? I know this question has been asked a trillion times since time began, but seriously, why do so many people prefer shit over gold? Why are talentless imbeciles like Linkin Park so popular and the Melvins aren't? Why Alannis Morrissette and not PJ Harvey? I just don't understand. And, considering this culture of mediocrity we've got, how is it that Radiohead, a truly good band, *is* popular? How did they break through? |
|
i hate linkin park so much more than i could even imagine to hate limp bizkit. at least with bizkit at times there was some presence and show, and they and korn at least had identifiable members in their bands. i tellz ya, ever since Bush and matchbox 20 you're lucky if you can name more than one member of any popular band. they're not rock stars anymore in any sense. and linkin park - please, i thought with time at least maybe a couple bands would shine through and at least perfect nu metal to a tolerable level and make it arty and interesting and that would break through... instead its gotten lower and lower in the common denominator dept. Linkin Park are a warmed over Stabbing Westward who are a warmed over NIN... take that formula and add the WORST WHITE RAPPER in the history of white rappers, and each chorus straight out of the Backstreet Boys songbook, and you've got Linkin Park... GRRRR |
the lawsuits begin... |
alright. carry on. do you bother with commerical radio spider? The masses in general have terrible taste, or so it would seem. Lowest common denominator? I dunno. "And, considering this culture of mediocrity we've got, how is it that Radiohead, a truly good band, *is* popular? How did they break through?" I asked myself this very question this weekend driving to San Diego. I broke down and went and bought a used copy of the latest Coldplay. Yeah yeah, im like really behind right. No matter. I was thinking and remarking with the wife how refreshing it is that their lyrics are really well written. Some of the best britpop ive heard in a while. How they peaked through is beyond me. The masses surprise me at times. Take Queens of the Stoneage for example, why did it take them over 5 years to get noticed? They've been rockin for quite sometime, but you know, their latest stuff is by far, the most watered-down and mainstream. People don't like change in their sounds. They need to be eased into new things. Familiarity sells. They don't like to be challenged, they don't want to actually interpret lyrics. The Linkin Parks out there make easily decipherable lyrics each album sounds nearly like the last crap song played. And then of course you have the whole monopoly of commericial radio to perpetuate album sales which is just shit. |
alright. carry on. do you bother with commerical radio spider? The masses in general have terrible taste, or so it would seem. Lowest common denominator? I dunno. "And, considering this culture of mediocrity we've got, how is it that Radiohead, a truly good band, *is* popular? How did they break through?" I asked myself this very question this weekend driving to San Diego. I broke down and went and bought a used copy of the latest Coldplay. Yeah yeah, im like really behind right. No matter. I was thinking and remarking with the wife how refreshing it is that their lyrics are really well written. Some of the best britpop ive heard in a while. How they peaked through is beyond me. The masses surprise me at times. Take Queens of the Stoneage for example, why did it take them over 5 years to get noticed? They've been rockin for quite sometime, but you know, their latest stuff is by far, the most watered-down and mainstream. People don't like change in their sounds. They need to be eased into new things. Familiarity sells. They don't like to be challenged, they don't want to actually interpret lyrics. The Linkin Parks out there make easily decipherable lyrics each album sounds nearly like the last crap song played. And then of course you have the whole monopoly of commericial radio to perpetuate album sales which is just shit. |
alright. carry on. |
airtight. carrion. |
|
who the fuck is buying fullscreen movies, and why do they even make them...? And why do i, ME, have to point out the difference to other people in movie stores sometimes because the damn clerk doesn't even know the differnce? Or because (and this is always the most painful) they actually think that 'fullscreen' is the original, and widescreen is cut off at the top and bottom. "Oh please, please cut off the sides of the movie! I don't need to see the whole thing as it was originally inteded to be shown! i don't want it to be the same as in the theater! I don't want the director's vision! I want to miss half the movie so that it looks really really big on my screen!" why is there even a market for this shit. why god, why. |
finally, god can weep for the humanity that never existed. |
Tool is another anomaly -- talented and popular -- but it's easy to see why so many people like them. Their songs are accessible and have several layers, so they can appeal to people with different musical requirements. (#1 - they rock, flat out. #2 - they're good [great, in Danny Carey's case] musicians who write creative songs that don't rely on formulas. #3 - they write interesting lyrics on unusual topics). What's not easy is how someone could like them *and* other shitty bands....like Linkin Park. Rowlf is right on. |
|
|
|
|
*********** But not to hear Congress tell it. Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee studying this, said "When Congress sits idly by in the face of these [file-sharing] activities, we essentially sanction the Internet as a haven for thievery", then went on to charge "over 10 million people" with stealing. [Steven Levy, Newsweek 3/11/02]. That's what we think of consumers - they're thieves, out to get something for nothing. Baloney. Most consumers have no problem paying for entertainment. One has only to look at the success of Fictionwise.com and the few other websites offering books and music at reasonable prices to understand that. If the music industry had a shred of sense, they'd have addressed this problem seven years ago, when people like Michael Camp were trying to obtain legitimate licenses for music online. Instead, the industry-wide attitude was "It'll go away". That's the same attitude CBS Records had about rock 'n' roll when Mitch Miller was head of A&R. (And you wondered why they passed on The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.) I don't blame the RIAA for Holling's attitude. They are, after all, the Recording Industry Association of America, formed so the labels would have a lobbying group in Washington. (In other words, they're permitted to make contributions to politicians and their parties.) But given that our industry's success is based on communication, the industry response to the Internet has been abysmal. Statements like the one above do nothing to help the cause. Of course, communication has always been the artist's job, not the executives. That's why it's so scary when people like current NARAS president Michael Greene begin using shows like the Grammy Awards to drive their point home. Grammy viewership hit a six-year low in 2002. Personally, I found the program so scintillating that it made me long for Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White, which at least was so bad that it was entertaining. Moves like the ridiculous Elton John-Eminem duet did little to make people want to watch again the next year. And we're not going to go into the Los Angeles Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning series on Greene and NARAS, where they pointed out that MusiCares has spent less than 10% of its revenue on disbursing emergency funds for people in the music industry (its primary purpose), or that Greene recorded his own album, pitched it to record executives while discussing Grammy business, then negotiated a $250,000 contract with Mercury Records for it (later withdrawn after the public flap). Or that NARAS quietly paid out at least $650,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit against him, a portion of which the non-profit Academy paid. Or that he's paid two million dollars a year, along with "perks" like his million-dollar country club membership and Mercedes. (Though it does make one wonder when he last entered a record store and bought something with his own hard-earned money.) Let's just note that in his speech he told the viewing audience that NARAS and RIAA were, in large part, taking their stance to protect artists. He hired three teenagers to spend a couple of days doing nothing but downloading, and they managed to download "6,000 songs". Come on. For free "front-row seats" at the Grammys and an appearance on national TV, I'd download twice that amount! But…who's got time to download that many songs? Does Greene really think people out there are spending twelve hours a day downloading our music? If they are, they must be starving to death, because they're not making a living or going to school. How many of us can afford a T-1 line? This sort of thing is indicative of the way statistics and information are being tossed around. It's dreadful to think that consumers are being asked to take responsibility for the industry's problems, which have been around far longer than the Internet. It's even worse to think that the consumer is being told they are charged with protecting us, the artists, when our own industry squanders the dollars we earn on waste and personal vendettas. Greene went on to say that "Many of the nominees here tonight, especially the new, less-established artists, are in immediate danger of being marginalized out of our business." Right. Any "new" artist who manages to make the Grammys has millions of dollars in record company money behind them. The "real" new artists aren't people you're going to see on national TV, or hear on most radio. They're people you'll hear because someone gave you a disc, or they opened at a show you attended, or were lucky enough to be featured on NPR or another program still open to playing records that aren't already hits. ... ******** |
Dag. |
|
If I were clueless as to how things really worked, I would think that signing a contract would mean that a label would pay me to record my music and help me tour, and in return I would give them a cut of the sales and ticket revenue. It wouldn't occur to me to think *they owned my voice* and that *I* would be getting a cut of *their* earnings. |
the recording industry is like the oil industry. it is making a violent last grab before it loses all of its influence. their power is in distribution channels and distribution channels are now moot. |
fuck me running. |
the thing that baffles me is that artists sign over ownership of their music all the time. i don't understand that. id rather play truckstops and coffeshops than sign over total ownership. fuck that. |
|
I question whether the likes of Metallica or Brittany Spears mega pop stars would agree with her, muchless care. She says it best when she says her last hit album was in 1975. She stands to suffer the most when the RIAA pushes its lawsuits and I don't think she's the type of artists labels are seeking to protect. Lets face it, she's a has been with only a small, dedicated, aging audience. However, i think her position can be applied to megastars on a grand scale. Just recently, i went and bought Coldplay after I downloaded a handful of tunes. Granted it was used, but what the hell. Unfortunately, I don't think her position will be realized by the RIAA. |
milion dollars for my music] yeah right no way i don't believe it for a second |
i wouldnt sign over ownership of the music, period. Exclusive distro of specifically CDs, tapes and albums for X amount of years, yes. back in atlanta, our band was briefly courted by Koch distribution. Nico and I have given consideration to the idea because it was a real possibility. And if someone is offering me a million dollars, im pretty sure I got something good on my hands and would be confident in the power of renegotiation or take the music elsewhere. Id rather make half a mil on a medium sized label than sell it all off for the mil and screw myself down the road. |
Fuck it. Collect records instead of mp3s. |
Fuck the RIAA, they're out of their fucking minds. |
I've been so bitter about new music lately. Nothing compares to my old Big Star records. And then in the past week, I've sort of been on an indie kick again, and downloading mp3s..and because of those downloads I've actually gone out and bought albums I would not have bought otherwise. So y'know...whatever.. |
in honor of the RIAA getting $2K from a little girl and her single mom in the projects, i've stolen several GB of music tonight. AND I AIN'T STOPPING. you mother fuckers. |
|
I've got the magic stick. If I can get hit once, I can get hit twice. I'll show you maggggic. Err. Ooops. |
|
|
A desperate American recording industry is waging a fierce fight against digital copyright infringement seemingly oblivious to the fact that, for practical purposes, it lost the digital music sharing fight over five years ago. In Canada. "On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use." -- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision The Copyright Board of Canada administers the Copyright Act and sets the amount of the levies on blank recording media and determines which media will have levies imposed. Five years ago this seemed like a pretty good deal for the music industry: $0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape, whether used for recording music or not. Found money for the music moguls who had been pretty disturbed that some of their product was being burned onto CDs. To date over 70 million dollars has been collected through the levy and there is a good possibility the levy will be raised and extended to MP3 players, flash memory cards and recordable DVDs sometime in 2003. While hardware vendors whine about the levy, consumers seem fairly indifferent. Why? Arguably because the levy is fairly invisible - just another tax in an overtaxed country. And because it makes copying music legal in Canada. A year before Shawn Fanning invented Napster, these amendments to Canada's Copyright Act were passed with earnest lobbying from the music business. The amendments were really about home taping. The rather cumbersome process of ripping a CD and then burning a copy was included as afterthought to deal with this acme of the digital revolution. The drafters and the music industry lobbyists never imagined full-on P2P access. As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada. This is a fatal oversight, because P2P networks are international. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution. In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers. Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself. The premise of the RIAA's litigation is to go after the "supernodes," the people who have thousands, even tens of thousands of songs on their drives and whose big bandwidth allows massive sharing. The music biz has had some success bringing infringement claims under the DMCA. Critically, that success and the success of the current campaign hinges on it being a violation of the law to "share" music. At this point, in the United States, that is a legally contested question and that contest may take several years to fully play out in the Courts. RIAA spokesperson Amanda Collins seemed unaware of the situation in Canada. "Our goal is deterrence. We are focused on uploaders in the US. Filing lawsuits against individuals making files available in the US." Which will be a colossal waste of time because in Canada it is expressly legal to share music. If the RIAA were to somehow succeed in shutting down every "supernode" in America all this would do is transfer the traffic to the millions of file sharers in Canada. And, as 50% of Canadians on the net have broadband (as compared to 20% of Americans) Canadian file sharers are likely to be able to meet the demand. The Canada Hole in the RIAA's strategic thinking is not likely to close. While Canadians are not very keen about seeing the copyright levy extended to other media or increased, there is not much political traction in the issue. There is no political interest at all in revisiting the Copyright Act. Any lobbying attempt by the RIAA to change the copyright rules in Canada would be met with a howl of anger from nationalist Canadians who are not willing to further reduce Canada's sovereignty. (These folks are still trying to get over NAFTA.) Nor are there any plausible technical fixes short of banning any connections from American internet users to servers located in Canada. As the RIAA's "sue your customer" campaign begins to run into stiffening opposition and serious procedural obstacles it may be time to think about a "Plan B". A small levy on storage media, say a penny a megabyte, would be more lucrative than trying to extract 60 million dollars from a music obsessed, file sharing, thirteen year-old. If American consumers objected -- well, the music biz could always follow Southpark's lead and burst into a chorus of "Blame Canada". Hey, we can take it….We'll even lend you Anne Murray. |
with taxes! that's how we kick it up here. taxes solve everything. |
. Unless it also made copying legal, as in Canada. . Canada rules. My s/o had a roommate who was from... somewhere up there. I forget where. She had this gigantic Canada-centric map of North America. . You all know each other, right? She had brown hair. . I should move to Canada. |
|
the two-and-a-half-year-old of whom i was a nanny this summer was a blueberry fiend. one weekend, when i was off-duty, her parents took her blueberry picking. the next day, when i was on-duty, this child, who was in the midst of potty training (but out of pull-ups), pooped ALL DAY LONG. the poop was blue. i was payed well for this, and its a damn good thing, and by the time i left she was potty trained. i dont claim full credit, but i still felt proud of that (and relieved to be leaving) at the end of the summer. |
Nate, you walked from the dirty harbour on dirty lake ontario, towards china town on a summer night, possibly garbage night. Yer damn right it smells. "It seems somehow wrong for money to go to the RIAA every time I steal a movie." Don't worry about them, i think it would work something like CanCopy. That's when ever bussiness running a photocopier pays a tiny little bit per copy which goes to the CanCopy org. Then people who produce copywritten publications (like magazines or books) can sign up with them and get cash to make up for all the royalties on copywritten shit that people photocopy every year. For example, one of my old school teachers signed up with them. He's a well known illustrator, and they took note of how many magazines or books he's been in over the years, put it through some formula, and gave him $300. |
i'm spoiled, though. i don't live inland. or next to a big stinky lake. |
Mon Dec 22,10:02 AM ET By Brian Deagon The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington dealt the recording industry a major defeat Friday in the industry's fight against music file swapping. The court threw out a lower court ruling that forced Verizon Internet Services Inc. to give names of file swappers to the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) Inc. Separately, the Dutch Supreme Court on Friday said the popular file-sharing program KaZaa is legal to use. Both decisions pertain to one of the fastest growing uses of the Internet - the exchange of music, video and other forms of content between one person and another. The music industry blames the trend for an unprecedented decline in music sales and has used the courts to fight the practice. The industry argues that music swappers are infringing on its copyrights when files are exchanged across the Internet using peer-to-peer, or P2P, file-swapping software. Leading P2P software firms include KaZaa, Morpheus, Grokster and eDonkey. "There are 80 million consumers worldwide who actively use this software," said Marty Lafferty, chief executive of the Distributed Computing Industry Association. At any given moment, he said, 5 million files are being traded, or 2.5 billion files each month. The DCIA hopes to hammer out licensing agreements between content providers, ISPs and makers of the file-sharing software. Such agreements would require consumers to pay for much of what they now get for free online. The court decisions announced Friday, Lafferty said, are just "Pyrrhic victories for one side that do not move the ball forward the way we think it needs to move forward." In short, he said, the technology advances at a pace much faster than the recording industry can react to. Some celebrated Friday's rulings. KaZaa founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, in a statement, called the Dutch decision "a historic victory for the evolution of the Internet and for consumers." Verizon's lawyer, Sarah Deutsche, also issued a statement calling the latest U.S. court ruling "an important victory for all Internet users and consumers." The RIAA, having failed in previous efforts to shut down P2P networks, has redirected its efforts against individuals who illegally trade copyrighted files. The quickest way to identify them was to make Internet service providers reveal their names. Friday's court ruling will thwart those efforts. "This is a disappointing procedural decision, but it only changes the process by which we will file lawsuits against online infringers," said Cary Sherman, RIAA president. "The decision in no way changes our right to sue, or the fact that those who upload or download copyrighted music without authorization are engaging in illegal activity." The RIAA said it will keep filing copyright infringement lawsuits against illegal file sharers. But that effort will be costlier and more time consuming, in that it will have to file anonymous John Doe lawsuits and then try to identify the individual. The RIAA had used provisions in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites) to make Internet service providers disclose identities of file swappers. While many ISPs have revealed customer names - leading to lawsuits being filed against several hundred individuals - Verizon refused to comply. It argued the copyright law does not apply to an ISP "acting merely as a conduit for an individual using a P2P file-sharing program to exchange files." As long as the network provider is not storing the material, it said, it is not breaking the law and cannot be forced to hand over customer identities. A three-judge panel, in a 2-1 vote, agreed. The Dutch court ruled that developers of software like KaZaa are not liable a week earlier in Canada the courts decided that P2P downloading for personal use is legal, but uploading is illegal |
I'm downloading the X-Files episode in which Scully gives birth to Mulder's baby as we speak. And I'm listening to "Get Your Hands Off My Woman, Motherfucker" as well. Yeeeeeee!!!!! |
go on Kazaa and get a few bsides - "the best of me" in particular is quite good |
go on Kazaa and get a few bsides - "the best of me" in particular is quite good |
I also am pleasantly surprised by the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. They're much more melodic, mellow, and pretty than I expected. I like "Head Up High" a lot. I'll queue up the Darkness' b-sides now. |
|
I also found a cover they did of radiohead's 'street spirit' that must be heard, you can get it here: http://www.n00b.org.uk/thedarkness/ i forget which one it is you have to download, but just right click save target as on a couple of them and i'm sure you'll get the right one. |
fans of bizarre underground pop music, and I guess that includes the Weenheads in the howse... download tracks from the Unicorns, or get the album, titled "who will cut our hair when we're gone?" get 'tuff ghost', 'jellybones' or 'i dont wanna die' or basically anything... they're a bit of a grower type of band, but they've put out one of the ten best albums of the year... |
http://www.alien8recordings.com/MP3/tuffghost.mp3 |
(I use SoulSeek instead of Kazaa -- the features are much better and there are tons more users.) Last night as I drove from DC to PA, I was listening to a radio station (91.3 FM) that was playing the weirdest music I've ever heard on air. It was 3 long (10+ minute) tracks of strange ghostly atmospheric music, with lots of wind blowing sounds and whooshing panoramic synthesizers and occasional plinky guitar-like soudns that weren't really playing a tune. It was music you'd expect to hear in one of those big haunted houses /hayride attractions that pop up around Halloween. And then, just as I became convinced that this was a college radio station's idea of rebelling against the ubiquitous Christmas music, the next song was a standard country/western song, which was then followed by a Baroque hymn that sounded like one of JS Bach's. When I got home, I googled for 91.3 FM and found a radio station for the College of Eastern Maryland, which fit the location I was in, but their programming schedule showed NPR Marketplace for that timeslot. So what the hell was I listening to? The world will never know. |
This of course happened mostly just when CD's started replacing vinal records. It's been funny that CD's cost a lot more than vinal records but cost a lot less to make. |
|
|