i do agree with emi now..but i think instead of them putting these obnoxious
warnings on their music they need to have an active part in providing the
market with places to hear music for free. this is something that really
gets on my tits.
people p*ss and moan about how chart music is rubbish and doesnt deserve to
be the money-making bandwagon it is but no one encourages the free listening
of random music you've never heard before. surely its in the artists
interest to let people hear them for free for a bit in order for anyone to
actually decide they like them. guess the question is where you draw the
line for "a bit". i reckon there should be radio stations that have a high
turnover of new and varied music, so people cant predict whether or not they
want to record the tunes or not...kind of like john peel's idea of radio but
all the time (not just a couple of hours that people can record).
i still find it crippling moneywise to try and find music i really enjoy.
the listen before you buy idea on some online shops is great but my computer
is s**t and these shops stock limited types of music.
plus we shouldnt force people to have to spend a fortune on a computer in
order to listen to new music.
music for the masses..yeah!
From: "Cyclone Wehner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 313 Detroit <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: (313) EMI Anti-Piracy Statement /Electric Institute
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:05:11 +1100
I got an Australian album by an Australian artist lately with an FBI
warning
- have they totally absorbed us now, the US? Seems like Howard sold off the
whole country with that trade deal... ;)
> Alex Bond wrote:
>
>>I've tried all manner of topics today:
>
>>gay dwarves as ear plugs
>>rhythm is rhythm secret hidden message in music from captain birdseye
> fish->fingers
>
>>none of them goers *i give up*
>
>>hahah.today
>
> OK try this Alex:
>
> 'The Electric Institute' (a case of 'just buy it' imho) is the first EMI
> CD I've bought for over a decade. So this anti-piracy statement on the
> inset of the jewel case is new to me:
>
> "This recording and artwork are protected by copyright law. Using
> Internet services to distribute copyrighted music, giving away illegal
> copies of discs or lending discs to others for them to copy is illegal
> and does not support those involved in making this piece of music -
> especially the artist. By carrying out any of these actions it has the
> same effect as stealing music..." etc.
>
> Now, I personally try to be scrupulous about music as I'm sincerely
> passionate about all music but especially 'advanced' electronic music.
> This means I've never illegally downloaded music. However I have
> received music from mates which might have been acquired in that way and
> I've sometimes made copies of CDs (or digitised vinyl) for friends.
>
> This is someone who actually *wants* to safeguard the income of
> musicians and the music biz (yeah all of it, including Madonna!) - But
> in EMI's view, *I'm* a crook too, as would many millions of people like
> me be as well (we do exist!)
>
> It makes me think that maybe EMI's view is extreme or unreasonable, just
> plain unrealistic, maybe just plain pointless.
>
> What do other people think?
>
> Alex, I'd particularly like to know your view, given that you were
> co-executive producer?
>
> I bet you won't say if you agree with EMI or not!!!! ;-)
>
> Ken
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
