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.
ntscdan
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.
Don't buy if it's too much. I've said it before, if they charged like $10 for a CD I think the record companies would be way ahead. I pass up a lot of cd's because they cost too much. I usually buy them when they are $12 or less, I rarely will pay more than that. So instead of spending $100 on 8-10 cd's, I'll spend $25-30 for 2 or 3.

Pirating of music occurs because music is too expensive for most young people. I understand that some will steal no matter what the price. However, the incentive to pirate drops with the price.
Bicycles are also too expensive for young people to afford. And cars. Though I'm quite certain that if we could transmit them cleanly, as in white collar electronic form, we would find a way to justify their theft as well. If a photographer's image cannot be used without permission from the artist, why do you feel entitled to take freely from the music industry?

My brother works with some of the biggest names in the music industry, and Ntscdan, the artists do make MUCH bigger money than the anyone else in the loop. It's part of their contract that they pay only a percentage to the company, managers, etc. Look, these people make bank--like most people in the overpaid entertainment industry--but it seems to me that as avid internet users, we have simply devised a rationale for supporting our habits. I just paid $130 for a cell phone, one that cost maybe $5 to manufacture. Do you think I have the right to steal it just because of the markup?

I do not work in the music industry, but I am writing a novel. And no, I am not about to give it away over the internet, or accept that the public will download it for free without my permission. Because in some traditional vault of our culture, that is still considered theft.
I will say that for anyone interested, my dad will burn you a CD of the pop band I used to drum with: Girl with 100 Heads. Now THAT you can have for free. Hey, we were voted the best unsigned band in the northwest by the readers of a prominent music mag...and then we broke up!