There's nothing terrible profound/prophetic here
Not really. Still, what he says about Durst is correct but then Limp Bizkit were always a fucking joke.
when Lars Ulrich took Napster to court.
Robert Smith articulates it more eloquently here:
aye, like I'm going to read that
What he's doing there is claiming that someone who writes 25 songs in a year (that /they/ think are 'good' enough to be heard by someone else) should be on £25,000 (the median national wage) by default.
Which is a nonsense. A complete and utter nonsense.
You're worth what the market will pay. Tough shit if you can't earn your £25k with those 25 songs that you've put your heart and soul into.
He was kinda doing ok up until that point, though. And I still stand by my broad support for respecting the copyright of an artist: there's sufficient legitimately freely available music being distributed with artists' consent to make wholesale copyright infringement by listeners a pretty pointless and hollow activity.
Which is not to say that artists are always logical by being overly protective and precious about their dittys - the best 'justice' for those who attempt a total lockdown on their work is simply to ignore them, not to continue to download and listen to their music and give them the oxygen of publicity.
My beef is watertight, bro.
to the annoyance of many people I know... it's just that he went about it in the wrong way.
None of the counterarguments hold any water for me. Just one example: "it's not like every single illegal download is one lost sale". I know that, I'm not stupid. And?
in some kind of monster he admitted he was wrong
all I know is who really cares about what he has to say. It's like he voted himself somebody of merit.
Sure you can't look a gift-record label in the mouth, but you also can't bite the hands that feed you, e.g. the fans that spend their hard earned money on their records. Considering the dire quality of pretty much all their release post-black album, I'm not going to hand over any money until I've had the chance to at least stream the album before hand. So that I can make up my mind if it's any good or not.
If he doesn't understand that then he's an idiot.
Point in hand, I've been listening to the new Deftones album on Spotify for a week now. I realise how much I love, so I buy the mp3 version for my phone. The other day I started looking around for a vinyl copy to buy as well. See the difference Lars?
The difference is, you're mental.
what's so odd about that?
You've honestly never bought a cd twice after losing the first one?
...one of whom is me, but there is a massive majority of people that are not doing that.
They knew they handled it badly, hence the contrition of tone afterwards, and stuff like giving away something like 6 or 7 live albums for nothing with a code you got inside St Anger. But the central point... lots of people grabbing albums for nothing, because they can... still stands.
For years the record labels creamed a large amount of money off people who could afford to spend £15 on a Britney album because they liked one or two singles and didn't really care a great deal.
...but I maintain that by and large the proliferation of getting stuff for free is not because people are protesting against record companies but... because they can.
and then i realised that ive bought things on vinyl recently that i already own on cd.
Now im not sure who is mental.
worse these days. Death Magnetic has got some atrocious stuff on it.
Haha. hahahaha. no.
End of contribution.
and from someone who knows what they're talking about. I love it when a consumer who hasn't bought music in years blasts the artist for daring to not like or approve of this "new model" that ONLY benefits the lazy downloader.
no matter how wrong it is.
I thought the research showed that illegal downloaders spend more on music than others, so consumers who haven't bought music in years isnt really a fair characterisation (admittedly I dont understand how that squares with falling music sales).
I think Smiths argument is pretty weak, seems to be based upon a world where everyone pays nothing which is a bit extreme
the actual number of sales was generally boosted by people who didn't care that much.
I guess in my view music is somewhat like TV, in the sense that a lot of us like a lot of programmes but few of us bother buying all the shows on DVD that we enjoy. If you could only see a couple of episodes on TV ever on endless repeat and the only way to see the whole series was to own the DVD/VHS then we'd all have been buying loads of them.
Now we have access to music via lots of means so only the people who really love a band enough will buy it. Obviously this analogy has a lot of wonky bits, particularly in the field of consuming and reconsuming of TV vs. consuming and reconsuming of music (and plots between episodes, etc.) but I think it's broad enough to put across the gist of what I'm saying.
Fundamentally the only way musicians will make big money now is via live performances, incredible popularity (so that their music is bought by people who love them enough) and being paid for the 'broadcast' of music. It's really that last thing that isn't happening but then I don't see how music can be the EVENT that a show like Game of Thrones is to the point where it can weather all the free downloaders who watch it.
because, Lars Ulrich is a cunt.
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild |