|
|
| hotlicks |
The following is an article from Playlouder.com
"PEOPLE WE LIKE ACT LIKE PRICKS"
Sad.
27.sep.02
Lots of people we like are to act like dicks in front of millions because they don't think they're rich enough, PlayLouder is disgusted to report.
Britney Spears, Eminem, Madonna, Nelly and Missy Elliot have all signed up to front a campaign against music piracy, in the same vein as the old "home tapping is killing music" bull-ish.
The ads will run in both print and visual media, and launch in the US in a fortnight, worse luck.
"Too many people don't realise that when you download a song you like from an unauthorised internet service, you're stealing music," spat Hilary Rosen, face gash of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). "We want to hit fans with the message that downloading music illegally is, as Britney Spears explains, the same as going into a CD store and stealing the CD."
Which is a good thing, unless you get caught, right? Right."
All i can say is thank christ the stones didn't sign up for it!!!
|
|
|
| stonesmik |
Hotlicks, I don't see your point. What they demand is only fair. It is a crime to copy their music. The government must take steps so their noises won't be copied at the EMI or Universal or whatever CD pressing machines anymore. These fine "artists" KNOW their "music" is shit, they just can't help producing it. But at least they want them kids to stay away from it. That's nice, that's right! I love these guys, as long as I don't hear anything from them. DON'T SPREAD THEIR EVIL SOUNDS!
|
|
|
| hotlicks |
Awk c'mon Stonesmik, surely Britney Spears isn't a 'shit' artist, as her interpretation of 'Satisfaction' leaves me breathless in it's emotional intensity. (I have to lie down after I hear it) It leaves Otis's version way behind..
[Edited by hotlicks] |
|
|
| Dr. Filth |
The debate I am anxious to see discussed is as follows:
Whose version of Satisfaction is better?
Britney Spears' or Samantha Fox's?
Or has someone gone over this before? |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
I always find this question perplexing - the dilemma 'tho is a purely commercial one and has no bearing on the artistic aspect of music
most of the problems connected with copyright law go to the nexus between the idea and the expression of that idea (the work)- as eliot put it - "between the idea and the reality.. falls the shadow" - the law protects the latter but not the former and it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to see where one beomes the other - and application of the law throws up some pretty weird results -why did george harrsion get pinched for the alleged lift from "he's so fine" yet chuck berry could do nothing but sit back and watch while brian wilson rake it in with Surfin' USA (actually, i bet he's still cranky about it)
in some respects the law is completely arbitrary - why should copyright expire after 50 years? - why not 25 or 10 or 100 - 'tho i suspect that's the law looking at it from the point of view that it will protect the artist for their lifetime but once he or she is gone well it's open slather (ed. note "open slather" - australian for "free-for-all"...sorry about that) and if their work survives that long well good luck to them - all that posthumous kudos is as good to them as the money
imho, if some-one else is making a buck off of somebody's elses work without at least acknowledging if not paying the source then that's a rip -off - commercial and artistic - and it's good to see that copyright laws protected muddy waters from the likes of jimmy page and (i'm somewhat surprised to have to say) robert johnson from the stones -'tho it was along time coming but with respect to "unauthorized" copying simply done for the sake of "spreading the word" then that is fine - access to music shouldn't be dictated by economic considerartions
also some artists should realise that people may be interested enough to listen to their "product" if it's not going to cost them anything but if they have to shell out - well, it's really not that important to them and they pass on it
ultimately, there's no getting around the fact that the technology is available for this to happen and that it is virtually impossible to police
the other thing 'tho is the sheer wrongheaded greediness of some people - that bullshit that lars bloke from metallica was going on with about how metallica fans that didn't pay for their music weren't real fans...jesus, what an asshole
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| lin |
I've heard sam fox version is not bad! What I hate is that mick jagger admitted he liked britney's version. (of course what he thinks in private is probably a diff matter) but god she nearly killed the song. vanessa carlton does a good version of paint it black, that song has been screaming to be covered.
if you listen to the "i am sam" soundtrack, not one cover version sounds half as good as the beatles originals. whereas I tend to like some of the stones cover versions. like bette midler LOL |
|
|
| stonesmik |
quote:
Dr. Filth wrote:
The debate I am anxious to see discussed is as follows:
Whose version of Satisfaction is better?
Britney Spears' or Samantha Fox's?
Or has someone gone over this before?
In 1972 Charles Bukowski was asked which presidential candidate he'd vote for. He said, he wouldn't vote since they only left him the choice between a warm and a cold turd...
|
|
|
| gypsy |
I'm willing to bet that Metallica's Lars Ulrich is playing a hand in all of this... |
|
|
| stonesmik |
You probably mean his free hand, don't you? |
|
|
| hotlicks |
Very well put! |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]