grammys

[whitak24]

so i watched a bit of the grammys last night. i got to see bob dylan and DMB perform, both of which did a great job. got to see a few of the awards presented, which was lame. the jokes were so flat it was like a glass of pop that had been sitting in the sun for a couple days. the acceptance speeches were so loopy (i saw U2 get best rock song, alicia keys get best song, and the o brother, where art thou people get best album). all of the people (particularly keys) were so incredibly inarticulate that i got sick of watching it and turned it off (ok, actually i turned it off when outkast started performing). i mean, these are people who are on the public stage constantly, and yet they can't put together an intelligent 4-sentence speech saying "i'm surprised, excited, and honored to be given this award" :rolleyes:

but the actual reason for this post was to bitch about the stupid president of the Recording Academy (or whoever he was) who had to give a 5-minute propaganda session on the evils of illegally copying music. what really pissed me off is how he kept equating "ripping" music with illegal copying. damnit, under any interpretation of copyright law whatsoever, i can rip my own cds onto my own computer all day and i am not breaking the law. now if i were to put those out on the internet for others to download, some might argue that under some interpretations of copyright law, that is illegal. fine, but let me do what i want to with my music.

ok, that's my grammy rant. thoughts from anyone else?

[Nanotech9]

Originally posted by whitak24
damnit, under any interpretation of copyright law whatsoever, i can rip my own cds onto my own computer all day and i am not breaking the law.

um, didnt they rule that a backup of the CD has to be made on a non-similar media type? and that a computer doesnt count as a non-similar media type...

[Markel]

Originally posted by whitak24
ok, that's my grammy rant. thoughts from anyone else?
Both of my grammies have been dead for some time. ;)

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Nanotech9


um, didnt they rule that a backup of the CD has to be made on a non-similar media type? and that a computer doesnt count as a non-similar media type...
my understanding is that copyright law was updated in the late 80s and it basically says that once you buy intellectual property, you can do anything you want with it, as long as it is for personal use. so if you want to rip cds, make your own "complilation" album, and burn it, as long as you are using it for personal use (and not public performance or sale) then you are leagal.
as always, i could be wrong.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Markel

Both of my grammies have been dead for some time. ;)
only one of my grammies is dead, which is why i can have a rant about the suviving one :D

[Grimm]

Well, don't buy music.

I have greatly reduced my music purchases. In the past year I have bought probably 3 CDs. All old Beatles CDs for $8 or less.

If you must have new music. Buy used CDs. It's not a perfect situation, but it prevents the music company from gaining the extra revenues from selling a new CD.

The music industry makes a lot of money. They hold monopolies on their products. If you want a Tool CD you have to buy it from one manufacturer. They have kept CD prices artificialy high for years with their monopolies. The artists who create this music only get 50 cents to $1 out of each CD, which sells for $15 to $20. An author gets the same fo a book that sells for $7 to $9. A CD is even cheaper to manufacture than a book. Does anyone else see a problem here?

[Memo]

Originally posted by Grimm
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

I don't see a problem with it. It's a product. If you want to pay the price, then buy it. If you aren't willing to buy it, then don't buy it or just download mp3s. I don't see a reason to bitch. I don't see where people get the idea that music should be cheap or free. It's a business.

And about the Grammy's. They're just a bunch of crap.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Grimm
Well, don't buy music.....Buy used CDs.
i actually only own about 3 cds that i didn't either get free or buy off half.com.
as far as downloading mp3s, i don't have a problem with it, but i am also a big fan of having the whole album. with many albums, the front and back covers, the cd itself, the linear notes, etc are all part of the work of art. and i like having that "complete package" enough that i'm willing to pay for it (as long as it's not more than about $4, used)

[attgig]

Originally posted by Grimm
The music industry makes a lot of money. They hold monopolies on their products. If you want a Tool CD you have to buy it from one manufacturer. They have kept CD prices artificialy high for years with their monopolies. The artists who create this music only get 50 cents to $1 out of each CD, which sells for $15 to $20. An author gets the same fo a book that sells for $7 to $9. A CD is even cheaper to manufacture than a book. Does anyone else see a problem here?

yup~! this really pisses me off...
Record companies got caught or exposed a couple years ago that they were artificially raising prices by at least 2 bucks :(
stinkin record companies :angry:

And what pisses me off was that back about 8-10 years ago, I bought cd's from the Wiz (now 'Nobody Beats the Wiz'for all you nyc folks) for about 12 bucks. - $11.98. Now how the hell do they raise prices on cd's when costs go down for media/producing~! freakin that pisses me off like crazy.