cybercoma Posted November 12, 2005 Report Posted November 12, 2005 I'll tell you what, I've purchased a hell of a lot more CDs since I began downloading music from the net years ago. MP3s to me are like an advertisement. If the band is good enough, I end up becoming a fan and buying their stuff/going to their concerts. I think the net has probably done more good than harm to the music industry. Movies are a different story altogether. Quote
BHS Posted November 12, 2005 Report Posted November 12, 2005 Not that I agree with cybercoma's stance, but I did find it ironic that the band leading the charge against Napster a few years ago was Metallica, who made millions pandering to teenage rebellion. I wonder how many fans they lost, when it became clear that they were as corporate as any pharma company protecting it's AIDS medicine copyrights. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
cybercoma Posted November 13, 2005 Report Posted November 13, 2005 I look at mp3s as a tool for people to explore new music and genres that they might not otherwise listen to or have access to. I think the free-trade of MP3s does more good for the music industry than harm. Movies are a little different. After you watch a movie once, what's the point...really? Now if it's a really great movie that you know you'll watch over and over, then maybe you'll buy the DVD. I dunno. Same could be said for videos though. It could offer people a chance to see independant films and more artistic creations that they might not otherwise have access to. Music and video art is a grey area. Obviously you wouldn't want to be ripped off for a counterfeit Van Gogh, so the same can't be said for paintings and other art; however, if it weren't for prints and books on art, a lot of people wouldn't be exposed to half the paintings and sculptures they are now. Artists should be paid for their work, but if no one knows about them...how are they ever going to become marketable? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.