It is not copying. It was not Napster. It is not lousy sounding mp3. It is the consentration of ownership. It is lousy pseudo-music that is behind declining CD sales for long before Napster. That is what causes stupid business types to make lousy artistic choices and loose market. It is pouring shcool money into football rather than music because people who like music cannot be trusted to vote the party line. Protection on cd's comes from needing somebody to blame for lousy product. A few great artists cannot compensate for a sick industry.
The music companies do something wrong
I still refuse to buy copy protected CD's. One of the companies seem to having everything they put out protected.
So I do not own the new Norah Jones, the remixed Beatles album and a whole bunch of other music that I just put back on the shelf. Why should I be restricted from having the tunes on my computer...in the car....ipod etc? Especially considering the high prices for new material.
Plus why is that I can buy movies on DVD for ten bucks and yet back catalogue of music stuff is still expensive? Movies cost real money to make compared to "records" so it goes to show you how much dough there is in it for the majors. Plus the fact that on movies people are much more likely to collect residuals where as most of the musicians get zip.
So I do not own the new Norah Jones, the remixed Beatles album and a whole bunch of other music that I just put back on the shelf. Why should I be restricted from having the tunes on my computer...in the car....ipod etc? Especially considering the high prices for new material.
Plus why is that I can buy movies on DVD for ten bucks and yet back catalogue of music stuff is still expensive? Movies cost real money to make compared to "records" so it goes to show you how much dough there is in it for the majors. Plus the fact that on movies people are much more likely to collect residuals where as most of the musicians get zip.