Tell you what, Chili Peppers. I'll not only not download your new album, but I won't buy it either! How's that? Feeling better already, aren't you?
Jay
It smells like a pre publicity scam, since Warner copped a fine for Music Payola scamming in the US, thanks to the redoubtable Eliot Spitzer! They are deperately seeking alternate ways to seek free publicity for the upcoming album, from a so yesterdays band!
Four years between drinks is a life time, in this industry!
Besides which, if you read the standard big 4 label recording contracts the real dollar income earned minus assorted fees and charges is far far less!
It stinks, the level of this storm in a tea cup, free publicity it is generating!
Ian
Poor quality copies make Flea sad?! Darn, Californication was produced so badly that I almost got deaf listening to it, it sounds like pure utter crap. I saw the video from the new album, and the sound was terrible too. I do not advocate downloading, but crying about loss of quality where there is no quality to lose is somewhat ridiculous. I am also fascinated that you label this band mainstream, as in the mid 90s they used to be alternative, didn't they? Things change, apparently.
Oliver
Well, if the quality of the download is the major concern, then I hope that some commiserating hacker will endevour to create rich, 458 kpbs-quality versions. That way the poor Peppers will be soothed knowing that they won't get any richer, but their beloved fans won't be listening to crap either. Everybody happy then ? Thought so.
Pascal.
P.S. : by the way, the Peppers don't have to worry about me. I never download music and I wouldn't be caught dead buying theirs.
Interesting appeal from the RHCP members. One of their arguments is laughable, though. They mention "poor quality music" talking about downloads. Knowing that fans often encode illegal downloads in high quality MP3 (i.e. 300kbps), is it better to listen to this or to the AAC 128kbps that iTunes sells ?
In other words, if you want high quality sound, buy the CD. Don't buy online at all ;-)
Florent
I was not planning to download their album, hell I didnt even know they had a new one, but lets see.
Aformentioned album on iTunes (Evil apple DRM an all, in a nice compressed format) £14.99 Real CD, with jewel case and everything from amazon.com (inc pnp) £12.45
They really should be encouraging people to download this thing, I dont want to even think about how much more money they make for everyone that uses iTunes instead of going for the CD.
btw, I attempted to post this on their site, but got as far as the free messageboard signup requiring a credit card number, somthing I tend not to give out unless I want them to take my money.
-Ralph
Why should I bother downloading their latest album, it'll only sound like every album they've released since "blood, sugar, sex, magic" anyway....
Ian
More uncontrolled sobbing now - this time from Hollywood, which is apparently losing $6.1bn a year to piracy. For shame:
With regards to your story "Piracy reduces Hollywood to penury", perhaps the MPAssA might be better spending its money on making DVDs a more attractive purchase rather than setting up tens and maybe hundreds of fake p2p servers and lawsuits. DVD extras were originally supposed to be an added value compared to video cassettes, but that theory was scuppered when they decided we had to pay a premium for a movie with extras.
Dan
So let me guess, they compared the estimated number of pirated copies to their retail value and determined that those X copies, purchased legally would have amounted to 6.1bl in profit?
WRONG! If there really was 6.1bl to spend on pirated copies, they would have bought a lot more of them. The truth is we need to find out how much was spent on the pirate copies. That's the money that likely (and only likely) would have found its way into hollywood's pockets. Since a lot of that illegal trade is actually happening for free (via download) or for 0.20c blank disks, there's not a lot of profit for hollywood to get back. These people aren't going to spend their money on the movies, so they're a non-issue in terms of the market.
Sure, there's some good quality fakes being sold on retail shelves for full price, but we track them down from time to time and put them out of business.
Michael
Oh boo bloody hoo - I cry giant sticky crocodile tears for the poor starving wastrels of the MPAA and their waiflike movie execs.
Dont spose they'd consider suggestions like "make some good movies again", "stop treating your consumers like thieves", "examine your own policies" - perhaps they'd actually find some solutions to their problems.
I stopped being a Nice Guy when a movie I'd bought and paid for wouldnt play on a DVD player I'd bought and show on a TV I'd bought, in the right region (wtf is region coding all about anyway?) wouldnt play because it couldnt ascertain if the DRM was valid.
wucking fankers.
Paul
Nice article on the MPAA's latest whinge about movie piracy. Here's something that really gets on my tits about their stance on hookie DVDs...
The MPAA claims that money made by pirates goes to fund the drug industry, but the money Hollywood's greatest actors make from legal movie sales ends up in exactly the same place.
-Gareth
A fair point, well made.
The Red Hot Chili Peppers may well have something to say about the next outrage: more "illegal" downloading, this time perpetrated by none other than Microsoft, which is offering Office users several snappy versions of "Happy Birthday". Cue breach of copyright, lawyers circling, etc, etc...
You'll also notice that the copyright on Happy Birthday is why restaurant chains have penned their own birthday songs, so you won't hear Happy Birthday whenever you have your birthday at Chili's, Chevy's or T.G.I. Fridays, God help you.
Tim
Actually, I think the alleged-copyright holders already lost on the tune to "Happy Birthday To You". Because it was an older tune, as you note, "Good Morning To You", the tune passed into the public domain. The lyrics are perhaps still under copyright, but if somebody just wants the tune, it's okay.
After all, Mildred and Patty would not have bothered to write the tune had they not had the incentive of knowing that a corporation would still be licensing their precious lyrics a century later....
Fred Goldstein
How on earth does copyright subsist until 2030 on a song composed in the 19th Century and amended in 1924? I know the Mickey Mouse Act extended copyright beyond 75 years to 95 but this is ridiculous.
Ian
You are obviously unaware that MIDI files are just instruction-code that is sent to a synthesizer or synthesizer-chip on a PC's soundcard to play specific notes using specific sounds on said synthesizer. It is not the equivalent of a pre-recorded performance by a person or persons which would garner ASCAP or BMI performance fees to be payable to the copyright owner.
Nice try, though.
Scott
You wrote: It is, of course, entirely possible that MS has already struck a deal with Warner by which it can punt this cheerful ditty, in which case can it please ask the media monolith for a version which does not sound like it was knocked up by a five-year-old xylophonist in training for a career with Muzac Corporation?
I reply: Urm... on this side of the pond, "getting knocked up by a five year old" takes on a slightly different connotation. I'm also not entirely sure it's possible...
Jay
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/09/letters/
