right you lot
I started this argument and i've got this 2 say
' Mike; please don't rip Faithless off. I'm really keen to hear the mixes
but I'd rather wait'
the above is a 'girly' comment -
we all love faithless
i can't wait 2 hear the mixes I want them now!
I and all of u will still buy the original release when it comes out -
therefore faithless are not being ripped off.
Faithless are not that naive as i fear u r being stuart that if they release
a cd promo in the current napster climate that it won't end up on the net.
The KNOW it probably will and will increase their fanbase if it does - just
like dre and madonna as a learned contributor pointed out.
We all love faithless and I cant wait 4 V2001 - but some of u sound so
bloody sanctimonious as keepers of the faithless music or some weird crap
like that.
So lets keep trading bootlegs and downloading songs but buy the originals
when released - i hear the cry!
so 'leave your mobile phone at home and come alone'
pete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Faithless mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 18 April 2001 08:49
Subject: mp3 debate stuff
>
> Having been one of the first people to jump into this debate, I'll try
> to keep this to the point...
>
> In my opinion some of the pro-Napster arguments recently posted here are
> so full of holes it's unbelievable. Some of the points made essentially
> seem to boil down to "it's OK to steal from somebody who's a bit rich,
> because they won't miss it as much".
>
> I do agree that Napster can often be a useful (but uncontrolled)
> promotional tool for some tracks/artists that people wouldn't otherwise
> have heard, so the fact that the mixed version of "We Come One", as
> played on British radio, probably isn't too bad because it encourages
> people to go out and get the whole, unmixed proper track. Putting up all
> the unmixed tracks from the new single, however, simply _is_ going to
> reduce sales of the CD. The number of people who would buy it, but don't
> bother because they can get the MP3 instead, is going to outweigh the
> number of people who go and buy the proper CD _because_ they've heard
> the MP3. That's because people are lazy.
>
> As for "bands should make their money from concerts"- bands don't make
> all that much money from concerts (usually)- there are a _lot_ of costs
> involved, particularly in a tour, and a lot of artists who tour are
> doing so in order to try to get people to buy their CDs, which is where
> their revenue actually comes from. And of course, bands can't be
> everywhere at once, so concerts can only play to select thousands of
> people, whereas CDs are available worldwide. If bands needed to make all
> their money from concerts, ticket prices would jump up- and less people
> would turn up.
>
> And as for the classic can't-afford-CDs-they're-too-expensive-so-let's-
> just-get-the-music-illegally-and-that's-OK comments... it's a laughable
> logic. If we were talking about starving people stealing food, then
> there's a possible debate here. But what we're talking about here is
> music- a leisure, luxury item. You don't _need_ it. If you can't afford
> it or you don't want to pay the asking price for it, then- NEWSFLASH-
> you don't buy it, and you don't own it. Tempting though it might be, you
> don't want into a Rolls Royce (posh car) showroom and drive off with the
> most expensive car for nothing, simply because you can't afford it
> therefore they should give it to you for free.
>
> To say that CDs are so expensive that only Bill Gates can afford them,
> or will be soon... if that becomes the case, then that's precisely
> _because_ CD sales have dropped because of Napster, and bands need to
> get their money somehow, so have to charge more because they're selling
> less. Napster is pushing _up_ the cost of CDs, and then using the fact
> that CDs cost a lot as a defence. Pile of crap.
>
> Apart from that, CDs are priced related to what people will pay- if
> people can't or won't pay certain CD prices, the CD won't sell.
>
> The people who use Napster to download tracks that are easily found in
> shops, instead of buying them, are thieves. There are far worse crimes
> to commit, and nobody is dying or starving as a result, but musicians
> are getting less money because people are indirectly stealing from them.
> This is the state of play that I don't have major objections to- but
> when people write long arguments about _why_ stealing things is
> absolutely fine and is good for everybody, I have to laugh. Then
> despair.
>
> Stuart.
>
> --
> Stuart Bruce - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.atomiser.demon.co.uk
> http://www.stuartbruce.co.uk
>
> --
> This message was sent through the Faithless Mailing-list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> UNSUBSCRIBE FAITHLESS in the body of the message.
>
--
This message was sent through the Faithless Mailing-list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
UNSUBSCRIBE FAITHLESS in the body of the message.
