|
Frawgster
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 7:58 PM
Priceless. |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 8:06 PM
I'm working getting a copyof the ad as I type this..... |
|
andyr0ck
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 8:12 PM
nice one. i always previously thought RS was a bit of a square [makes the motion weith hands] mag. good on 'em. at the end of the day, it's only the greedy fat bastards who own and run the major labels that give a f**k. who can blame the weak little turds, really, it is a lot of money, and they don't have enough already. and they are weak. or something. |
|
Cryxan
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 8:35 PM
A half page?? Wooooooooow nice! :D |
|
NeoFlash
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 8:36 PM
:lol: |
|
NeoFlash
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 8:38 PM
I have gb of mp3, ogg, wma, and divx movies, all on many lans on colleges and offices on sdsl my dad puts them on. Take your choice of format!!!! It's free!
Enjoy it. It's free people. FREE!!!!!!! F*ck the RIAA!!! |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 9:35 PM
:D |
|
milladrive
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 9:44 PM
I love it! Reminds me of what Lennon used to do. :D |
|
mcarp555
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 9:57 PM
Yeah, he and Mattheu were great in the "Odd Couple", weren't they? |
|
Your-Mom
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 10:02 PM
Sweeeet!!! I wish I had the cash to print a half page ad in the NY Times. My message wouldn't be as nice though! :biggrin: |
|
milladrive
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 10:11 PM
lol@carpie! :lol::lol: |
|
NeoFlash
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 10:12 PM
That was a great movie. :-) |
|
milladrive
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 10:56 PM
Nice pic. ;):D |
|
SuperB
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 10:58 PM
Oh my god - That's so perfect. |
|
Wordsense
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 10:59 PM
i agree with Frawgster's "PRICELESS" comment...
|
|
milladrive
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 11:04 PM
Wish I'd picked up a copy. :( |
|
RUBiX
|
Date: October 28, 2002 @ 11:09 PM
milla was talking bout John Lennon, not Jack Lemmon...lol Nice work on gettin confused on that one :D |
|
shoshidge
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 12:06 AM
maybe Rolling Stone isn't as irrelevant as I thought, or maybe that's what they WANT me to think
|
|
attila
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 12:23 AM
That was great. |
|
attila
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 12:29 AM
Just goes to show, sarcasm has it's place everywhere. ;P |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 1:21 AM
I remeber when Rolling Stone was a pretty hot mag...thenit went corporate..as in Vivendi Universal owned and it was even further downhill. From the bottom of RollingStone.Com ©1996-2002 Vivendi Universal Net USA Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
©Copyright 2002 RollingStone.com |
|
jank0
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 1:29 AM
The Rolling Stone isn't owned by Vivendi Universal, only the Website is. The Rolling Stones is published by Wenner Media. The Website was created under license by Emusic and went to VUNet when Vivendi bought them. It's kind of like Wired.com and the Wired magazine ... |
|
jank0
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 1:33 AM
Uhm, Rolling Stone that should be, not Stones :) |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 1:47 AM
Ah ok....I haven't bought it since Dave Marsh left.....Thanks Janko for clarifying that. |
|
RyanS
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 6:18 AM
gotta love it :drool::lol: |
|
goldenpi
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 8:40 AM
I would have prefered an ad containing the URL of this website through. |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: October 29, 2002 @ 9:43 AM
Donate Donate Donate...maybe we can take out an ad. Right now we have enough to advertise in maybe the Fincastle Herald. |
|
TheBigCheese
|
Date: October 30, 2002 @ 6:40 AM
Yay... Death to the RECORD EXECS!!!
|
|
Remye
|
Date: October 30, 2002 @ 1:11 PM
All the news that's fit to print.. and all the sarcasm that can be fit on half a page.. gotta love it!
|
|
jmweirick
|
Date: October 30, 2002 @ 9:31 PM
a very good article. share on! |
|
mtekk
|
Date: October 30, 2002 @ 11:27 PM
look'n good for the hood, eh? yeah it is telling us what we have always knowen |
|
ArtfulDodger
|
Date: October 31, 2002 @ 6:55 AM
Didnt realize the rolling stone had balls to allow this to be printed. money talks. |
|
ArtfulDodger
|
Date: October 31, 2002 @ 6:57 AM
hmmm wonder how much this ad cost? |
|
billhudson
|
Date: October 31, 2002 @ 6:23 PM
Tick,tick,tick |
|
Stardaemon
|
Date: November 1, 2002 @ 4:34 PM
Heh! I like it!:) |
|
sirald66
|
Date: November 1, 2002 @ 7:20 PM
Booyah! |
|
princess-angry
|
Date: November 2, 2002 @ 12:00 AM
umm.... that better not be true of them..... but hey.... oh I get it!!! he he |
|
Stopheles
|
Date: November 3, 2002 @ 4:45 PM
Funny letter. A real shame that the statements are such crap. I mean, come on: A teenager with a harddrive is TEN TIMES more likely to buy music? Could I see a footnote on that? Cuz, from my familiarity with common sense, a teenager (or, really anyone) who can get something for free doesn't end up paying for it.
Where's the debate? If there was a website with downloadable .pdf files of new novels, it would have been shut down in an instant. The fact that this is music, mainly, doesn't in any way change the fact that it is copyrighted material.
The whole concept that file-sharing exposes people to new artists is moot; so what if a teenager who is downloading Radiohead's albums finds Wire on someone else's harddrive? The chances are good that they'll just download all of Wire's tracks as well.
Releasing music, hell, even being able to MAKE it takes money (as well as time not spent at a day job). Not buying a record you enjoy is a way to take money away from the bands who make that music, which cuts into their ability to make a living. It's not an issue with mega-band assholes like Metallica, but it sure as hell affects anyone in the smaller scenes. The difference between a record selling 11 million and 9 million isn't anywhere near as career-ending as the difference between a record selling 300,000 and 95,000 -- a band on an indie label who undersells that much doesn't get a second chance.
Anyhow, again, funny ad. And I don't think that the RIAA is acting particularly well, but file-sharers need to recognise that there's actual musicians being affected by it (being dropped by panicking labels, losing money on independent releases) and not just executives. A midground between the two sides is probably the way to go. |
|
Spica
|
Date: November 5, 2002 @ 7:34 AM
"If there was a website with downloadable .pdf files of new novels..."
-There IS; I am hosting 2-3 gigs of new and old books. Along with 95 Gigs of movies and mp3s. Where? I am not telling you.
"file-sharers need to recognise that there's actual musicians being affected by it (being dropped by panicking labels, losing money on independent releases) and not just executives."
-hmm, no...no; It IS in fact only EXECUTIVES who are affected by it.
Because 'actual musicians' don't work with labels in the first place.
As for the file-sharers: How about this, I only start caring when it begins to affect ME PERSONALLY.
But I doubt it ever will, since I am still far from having heard all the good music that's already online; I am not even concerned about new releases yet.
|
|
Stopheles
|
Date: November 6, 2002 @ 9:27 PM
Spica, if you really think that the only 'actual musicians' are the ones who don't work with labels, can you name me some?
Are you saying that Miles Davis/Run DMC/Radiohead/Sepultura/Dead Kennedys/Man is the Bastard(insert any musician here)aren't valid artists, because they deal with people who helped them market their work worldwide in order to make a living doing that work to make a living? |
|
Spica
|
Date: November 6, 2002 @ 11:23 PM
by saying "'actual musicians' dont work with labels" I gave you a _new definition_, accept it or don't.
As for your list of bands(artists?): frankly, I have never heard of any of them (that is the truth). So whoever "helped them market their work" probably didn't do a good job of reaching out to me.
Really good music will market itself without the help of RIAA, assuming a $100-$200 startup capital. |
|
Stopheles
|
Date: November 7, 2002 @ 3:46 AM
You've never heard of Miles Davis. What can you possibly contribute to a discussion of the music industry's ability or inability to promote vital new music? |
|
Stopheles
|
Date: November 7, 2002 @ 3:47 AM
Also, again, please name me some of the artists whose work you enjoy NOW who don't work with any organised distribution network. |
|
OTOSOL
|
Date: November 7, 2003 @ 1:10 PM
Thank you for this. I am one of those people getting fucking sued for 2.2 million dollars. The same people who shove advertisements in my face and whom I buy hundreds and hundreds of cds from are suing me for 2.2 million!!! Give me my vinals. The cd is dead. |
|
Navigation
