Exactly how stupid is the record industry?

This is the place where you can vent whatever's on your mind. Feel free to go off on extended rants or brief blurbs about whatever's rocking your world.

Moderators: D. Phillips, Jake

Mixmaster Shecky
Honorary GLONO Board OG
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: West Michigan

Postby Mixmaster Shecky » Thu Nov 29, 2001 10:35 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/techn ... 9MUSI.html

I quote:

"Mr. Richards (Dave Richards, a spokesman for Real Networks) said that while consumers might be accustomed to getting music free and to being able to move it onto portable music players, they also faced problems with the free music services. Namely, Mr. Richards said, the services can be slow and technically unreliable. "We're the opposite of that," he said."

Yes, we *hate* all that freedom and flexibility! Why won't some one give us a way to listen to mp3's that will tether us to one computer?

I don't get it-how do these idiots make millions?

D. Phillips
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 2892
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby D. Phillips » Thu Nov 29, 2001 12:56 pm

They make their millions by forcing buyers into a corner. Let's also not overestimate the taste and intellect of the common Britney Spears fan.

Stephen Macaulay
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby Stephen Macaulay » Sat Dec 01, 2001 10:07 am

To say nothing of things like Real Networks being rather ubitquitous (and annoying): Periodically, the Real Networks icon on my desktop starts blinking, and when I go to disable it, it opens a window suggesting that I upgrade. Let's say that instead of getting pissed when that happens I simply follow the instructions. Click-click-click. And before long, I am enmeshed in Real Networks. And so I begin to depend on it. And so they begin to make money off of me. Then if we just multiply that by X-number of PCs, they make those millions.

By the way: What do you suppose they mean by *Real*?

Mixmaster Shecky
Honorary GLONO Board OG
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: West Michigan

Postby Mixmaster Shecky » Sat Dec 01, 2001 7:43 pm

Well, there's no doubt our corporate taskmasters penalize us for trying to opt out of their business plans. Still, there's no way people are going to be stupid enough to subscribe to a service that so severely limits their choices.

I mean, I'd even subscribe myself if for (as an example) $15 a month, you could have a couple hundred downloads from a vast music catalog with your choice of mp3 quality (like 128, 160 or 192kbps at 44khz), especially if it meant a higher level of reliability and quality.

But not even morons are going to pay for an mp3 that you can't even listen to on your $400 iPod or any other computer.

At least I hope not...

Joshua
Honorary GLONO Board OG
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Postby Joshua » Tue Dec 04, 2001 2:22 am

This article had me in a snit when I read it, too. There are too many levels upon which music publishers are either completely clueless or just fucking themselves in the ass, so for the sake of argument I'll just point out one particularly ludicrous snippet in Shecky's post above:

Namely, Mr. Richards said, the services can be slow and technically unreliable. "We're the opposite of that," he said.

Well I, for one, am thrilled that Real has finally worked through those nasty little problems of finite bandwidth and flawed servers. I can't wait for this new Golden Age of networking.

Mixmaster Shecky
Honorary GLONO Board OG
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: West Michigan

Postby Mixmaster Shecky » Tue Dec 04, 2001 9:47 am

This just in: RIAA in hot water over age-warning labels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/politics/04LYRI.html

A quote from the article:

"...the trade commission and Congressional leaders have complained that the music industry has not taken other steps to limit adult-themed fare aimed at children. One Congressional aide who was briefed on the study said, "They are going to be embarrassed, and they should be."

But an industry executive rejected that view.

"We are not embarrassed; we stand where we stand," said Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, which lobbies for the recording industry in Washington."

Not to sidetrack my own thread, but I think this shows the mentality of the RIAA and the industry in general. They know selling adult material to children is where the money is at, and, issues of censorship aside, they're going to resist anything that cuts into their profits.

Clearly they want it both ways - to fastidously control what we do with the product they sell us, and to make sure we have very little to say about they way they do business.

I'm against censorship, but I do feel that kids shouldn't be listening to adult-themed music. The idea of a 12-year old buying the latests Eminem cd troubles me. The RIAA clearly feels otherwise.

Sugarcubes Forever
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1734
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 8:00 pm

Postby Sugarcubes Forever » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:38 am

Ha ha ha.

ITunes wins!

(I'm amazed that the Times still has that article in it's entirety for free and not behind some kind of pay wall.)

Mixmaster Shecky
Honorary GLONO Board OG
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: West Michigan

Postby Mixmaster Shecky » Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:38 am

And man, was I ever pissed back then! What ever became of that angry young man?


Return to “Rants and Raves”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests