Comments on: Jul 10th 2002, 20:27 GMT

By: Hooloovoo

Hooloovoo — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:49:44 +0000

@1 Hmm - I missed the reference on PA, I think I got to it thru UF

By: Beryl

Beryl — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:27:32 +0000

Excellent article. Pass it around. Better yet, send it to your congressperson.

By: entipy

entipy — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:20:16 +0000

[Quote] Free exposure is practically a thing of the past for entertainers. Getting your record played at radio costs more money than most of us dream of ever earning. Free downloading gives a chance to every do-it-yourselfer out there. Every act that can’t get signed to a major, for whatever reason, can reach literally millions of new listeners, enticing them to buy the CD and come to the concerts. Where else can a new act, or one that doesn’t have a label deal, get that kind of exposure? [Quote]

That’s the point, right? It pisses the “industry” and the labels off because they don’t have control over these artists like they do others. I’m sorry, but no money-grubbing corpo-scum assmunch would “own” MY voice…. nu uh… nooooo way…..

By: Lupus

Lupus — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:24:45 +0000

Well written article. I feel a bit better informed now - I don’t really download copyright protected music (once I think - a song I hadn’t heard in ages and couldn’t find). But the draconian lengths the record company executives are going to, trying to convince people that anyone who downloads, or allows someone else to download, free music is a horned demon preying on the efforts of the poor artists - that’s a joke.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

By: ekoostik

ekoostik — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:10:30 +0000

Yeah, i caught that off of PA. Interesting read, what i made it through at least.