So, for instance, I have a CD stereo system in the house plus an mp3 player (no ipods for me lol) for when I’m out and about. It appears the MBG would like me to pay twice for the same music so I can play it on both systems; not necessarily when I buy the music but possibly within the price of the mp3 player. All because they ‘think’ that I am doing something illegal. Nice business model.

The record companies are dinosaurs that are too used to having everything their own way, for too long. Finally, the combination of affordable technology and the internet is beginning to make artists see the light. These people complain about how much they lose through piracy, but what they don’t make so obvious is how much profit they still make. Look at Microsoft, they are possibly the number one target in their market, they don’t seem to be broke. Piracy is an inevitable result of the market wanting a product cheaper than what is being asked - it really is that simple. These groups should concentrate on.. Oh yeah, they wouldn’t be able to siphon anything off for themselves then, would they..

The Canadian government has been lobbied for a several years by the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA. Don’t ask me what they’re called, I’m too lazy to look that up this early in the morning. Suffice it to say that they managed to have a 25 cent (12.5p) levy added to the cost of CDs and DVDs (per disc) and that hasn’t slowed people copying music, legally or illegally. The same Canadian association that pulled off that levy is also lobbying the Canadian government (read: Business-over-people conservative government, with an emphasis on the “con”) to add a levy on iPods, as high as £12.5 to £25. they’ve not been successful to date, but like any good leech, they’re tenacious.

Run-amok music pirates annoy me, but so do stingy, forever-producing-middle-of-the-road dross record labels, those that sit on as-yet-unissued catalogues of old vinyl, or putting so few dollars behind new artists that don’t fit a specific marketing niche that they can hardly succeed, all the while happily hyping Britney mediocrity.

Sure, I borrow a few mp3s from the ether every now and then - but mostly to replace my old vinyl library or while discovering new artists. Indeed, the latter has caused me to buy far more CDs than I ever would have, had I not illegally downloaded the mp3 to begin with. I can point to 100 CDs in my collection, some rather pricey, that I’d never have bought had I not heard a song on a streaming audio station then downloaded a few of their tracks to sample more.

I want what I want, and I’m happy to pay for it, but this I submit to the RIAA and the MBG: perhaps you might start giving all of us what we want, and not what the lot of you sitting in a record label board room “group-think” yourselves into thinking we need which is usually CRAP. Then maybe we’ll be ready to pay for your product again, instead of trying to find any other way to satisfy our tastes without filling your greedy pockets.

Sorry for the rant Mark, but you got me going with this post.

Oooo-errr, Jacques. Got out of bed the wrong side?

No no no. I’m in a perfectly good mood. But this subject always raises the hair on the back of my neck. A timely blog entry Mark, and, as usual, entertaining to read. Please don’t tell me you’re going to start charging an audience tax?

I have 13 MP3 players, most are very cheap low capacity players. I use them for listening to recordings I made at my place of worship and for theocratic recordings of audio books and magazines that I am permitted to transfer to MP3 players. I also use them for lending to others who want to listen to the same recordings. I do not have ANY commercial music on any of my mp3 players. There are many like me. Just because a player CAN hold illegal copies of music does not mean it DOES.

Good point Cheryl, owning an mp3 player should never imply guilt by association. In your case they most certainly do no, in my case, I admit some are illegal downloads, but my CD spending has increased because I did those downloads.

I have one question for you, what in the world are “theocratic recordings”? You might want to look up “theocratic” and replace it with “theological”.

But this isn’t an English language blog, but the use of that word made me giggle.

I can understand why you question the way I used that word. I did look it up as you suggested. No, I don’t want to replace it. I respect that this blog is not intended for English language instruction nor for Bible discussion, so I will just say thanks for your comment and suggestion.
Cheryl

Its nice to be able to buy CDs or DVds that you can copy to your own, other media for different players. If there is copy protection, it can usually be broken.

Its the price that defines wether I buy. I bought a CD + DVD compilation for £9.99 and it was good, so its on my MP£ and MP4 player - and we also went to see the artist on tour.

Most of the music I have bought on CDs, apart from a few lent to me by friends.

KJR

Cheryl, iconoclastically speaking, the verisimilitude of your digressive proclivities does verily mimsy were the borogroves primaquine trepidation - but only theocratically, of course.

You’re absolutely right, language really doesn’t matter! As long as whatever one says is “sort of - kind of” related to what they they are trying to say in an “oh-you-know-what-I-mean” kind of way, right? Why use the right word when there are so many other fancy, unused words waiting in the offing that sound so much better? Cheryl, I appreciate the grammar lesson and will endeavor to improve. Whatever was I thinking?