[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Yup. A lot of narrow minded people too.

If not wanting to wrap Roy Orbison up in clingfilm makes me narrow minded, then narrow minded I am

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

It makes total sense. I download a CD, I start to take a liking to the artist, I buy their records because I want the artwork, additional media, lyric book and the fact that I want to support an artist that I like.

See my earlier points on finding out if an artists music is for you.
You do not need to download. There is no need to download.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I still buy the same amount of CDs as I have for the last 20 years... I just have a much larger collection of music. Most of which I never listen to anyway.

If you have a vast collection, but don't listen to it all, and still buy as many CDs you used to, would it not make more sense to buy the albums you want to listen to and not download the ones you are not going to listen to?

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Look at downloading as an extended form of the radio. Only I get to listen to the entire thing as opposed to the single...

You can look at the moon as a giant ball of cheese, but it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

And in case you haven't noticed... People are still buying music. Money is coming in. It's just going into the pockets of more people as opposed to a select few.

This makes no sense.
Why does the fact that everyone in the music industry gets their work ripped off to an extent balance things out so more people get more money?

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

wow.

Don't tell me i've given you a moment of revelation

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

It's what you listen to on the radio, TV, etc. with the Internet you get to listen to a wider variety of artists than what major or local labels would promote.

Yes, you get to hear a much wider range of music and artists, but do you need to dowload their entire works if you've heard a decent sample and decide you like them.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I dunno about you, but before the Internet I bought what was advertised on TV, played on the radio, whoever they were interviewing that I found interesting, etc...

Let's see, I found Meat through a TV ad for Woolworths, Roy Orbison when my mum gave me some of his tapes the day he died, Joe Cocker when he brought out Unchain My Heart and I saw the vid on music TV, Guns N Roses because I was 15 once .......

I found good music by accident mostly, not because a shadowy orginazation was wafting it under my nose.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I can name dozens of artists who I would NEVER have heard of if I didn't download their music.

Do these artists not have ANY of their work available without downloading it?
Do they have nothing on youtube that you can form an opinion on wether you want to buy their product?
Because if they haven't, quite frankly, it's their own bloody fault

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Do you hear Stratovarius complaining?
Symphony X?
Vitalij Kuprij?
Mark Boals?
Yngwie malmsteen?
Tony macalpine?
Planet X?

No.
Mostly because I have no idea who any of them are

Smaller bands need a fanbase to get them going, so are much less likely to complain about being ripped off.
They are too busy being glad someone cares enough to listen.

Artists like Meat have served their time. They are good at what they do, and they are well known for it. They've worked hard for what they've got so good luck to them.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Who DO you hear complaining?
Metallica
Puff Daddy
JayZ
Etc...

If I was losing the kind of money those guys are losing, I might complain myself.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Than you have artists such as NIN and radiohead, who rather than fight reality, they embrace it.

Good for them, but it doesn't change the law's position on what an artist is due.