Stefan Wood Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 I think Chuck should think about having a site for his catalogue -- offering samples to listen to, or full downloads at a price. Be a lot cheaper than producing a physical disc, especially since this is the way people are getting their music nowadays. The artists can still be compensated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 (edited) Chuck, I completely understand your anger and frustration, I just think the RIAA people never had the interest of the artist in mind, they seem to be completely on the side of the record companies, even when those companies rip off artists, as many of them do. I think there ought to be a way to at least curb online theft, but the thuggish, sloppy ways of the RIAA are not it. Edited May 1, 2008 by Christiern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 I agree with Chris about the RIAA tactics and have to wonder if they are doing anything about going after blogs as opposed to people with the file sharing software. You don't need software to follow a link to Rapidshare. Someone posted a link to one of those bloggers, someone who I think in general does things right, in the sense that if someone points out that he has offered a recording that is in print or easily available online, he replaces the link with a link to Amazon. This guy mostly posts links to godawful overproduced 70s drek that I couldn't care less about, but I check his blog regularly because every once in a while he will post something that Fantasy has put out, often an LP that has been reissued as part of a two-fer. To his credit he removes the link pretty quickly when I post a comment, but to my mind, if it takes me two minutes to go to AMG and Amazon and show him that something is available, he is hardly doing any checking at all by himself. But at least he acknowledges the connection between stealing music when legit reissues are available and the likelihood of future reissues. The problem really is his legions of fans who express outrage when they are late to a posting and only find the Amazon link instead of a download link. These jackasses act as if their candy bowl has been snatched away from them. In my opinion, Chuck should threaten to sue the asshole who gave away his label's music, and contact the site that hosts the blog to see what can be done from that angle as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted May 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 Yes, rather than just contacting the site, contact the company that hosts the site. If it's in the US, you have to agree not to host copyrighted material in your contract. You can use www.dnsstuff.com to find out who hosts the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 i am not being clever I think that is what he just said. We can all agree on that then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Skid Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 or as i said, those people had no intention of ever buying the mitchell anyway or that a true fan wants a good quality hard copy and not a 128 kps mediocre mp3" sound legit. i can see why it just rankles chuck. One problem is that many of those sites are not offering mediocre mp3's. Many are high quality VBR, or even lossless format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.