Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:16 pm
by seremtan
the 'unfair' argument is weak. the BBC paid to record those symphonies, just like deutsche grammophon or anyone else, only they gave them away at loss, which they're entitled to do. there's no law says you have to charge for what you offer people
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:07 am
by mjrpes
ahhhhhh!!! can't stand recording industy ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:16 am
by mjrpes
seremtan wrote:
the 'unfair' argument is weak. the BBC paid to record those symphonies, just like deutsche grammophon or anyone else, only they gave them away at loss, which they're entitled to do. there's no law says you have to charge for what you offer people
weak? it's beyond weak. it's completely barren of even a semblance of what is good for society. this is the type of thing record companies, if at all, should be discussing in private like cirgarette companies and nicotine... no one is taken by the argument and everyone is taken aback by their absurd claims. releasing music to the public by a composer whose work has been in the public domain for centuries is wrong? it might as well be wrong to download an e-book of Plato's Republic because electronic media has an 'unfair' advantage over printed media.
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:06 am
by Chupacabra
seremtan wrote:
the 'unfair' argument is weak. the BBC paid to record those symphonies, just like deutsche grammophon or anyone else, only they gave them away at loss, which they're entitled to do. there's no law says you have to charge for what you offer people
deutsche grammophon (sp?) is a kick ass company.
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:05 am
by seremtan
yes. i like their yellow label
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:06 pm
by Chupacabra
haha. every single DG cd i have is of exceptional quality (the music is performed very, very well and the audio quality is great).
edit: i didnt read the whole article that foo posted up above. were they one of the ones complaining? i hope not.