Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
Half the kids on this forum weren't there for Napsters glory anyway. I think i was 16/17 when it happened and that was somewhere around 10 years ago.
I'd bet money the same kids will lament the downfall of newspapers, which is what lars was complaining about, albeit for music.
I don't agree with him, all figures and sales show that downloads actually increase sales. But I wouldn't say he was being greedy when he did that.
Napster at its outset probably did drop sales exponentially. The issue there was you were looking at artists who were being picked up on a sound-alike basis and that probably didn't have albums strong enough to warrant sales.
Music fans are such stupid bastards in general (what other medium has a phrase as stupid as "music is my boyfriend") that you're never allowed to touch the sacred cow. Zappa and Snider went to congress, but I guess that was ok since they were keeping music the way it was.
When Lars goes to Congress to keep music the way it was theres holy hell. People are just pissed because they thought he was trying to take away their free ****.
|
Saying arguing against the government censoring music is the same as arguing against downloading is very disingenuous. You might see them both as "keeping the music the way it was" but censoring music restricts creativity and inhibits musicians whereas downloading levels the playing field between underground and mainstream acts. It also makes exploring music accessible to all facets of society as opposed to the ones with more wealth. I don't really see how you can compare the two. All Lars did was the lay the foundation for the RIAA's war against the modern music fan.