<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on Another Voice Says Recording Industry Stupid</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:11:17 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by BJ</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/07/120443.php#comment-12558</link>
<description>The problem here is that the rationing of revenue (to artists, labels, stores, etc.) that makes sense with physical distribution doesn&#039;t make sense with electronic distribution. And, of course, the recording companies know that, so they&#039;re trying to game the legislatures and courts to preserve their stake. 

With reasonably priced online sales, the artists would still get paid - they&#039;re the only indispensible people here - but the distributors&#039; share has to come down. In a world where recording and distribution costs are so low, the share labels get should be much lower. In general, I think it will reflect the value they bring in promotion - since that&#039;s about the only thing they still bring to the table.

I wonder how long it&#039;ll be before they haul someone like Tom into court and really regret it.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">12558@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:11:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/07/120443.php#comment-12523</link>
<description>Yes, Jim, hint hint. On the serious side, good PR is ultimately good customer relations, something they lost utterly somewhere over the last 20 years.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">12523@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:18:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mark Saleski</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/07/120443.php#comment-12521</link>
<description>i&#039;ve always wondered the same thing.

...and you &lt;b&gt;never&lt;/b&gt; hear it mentioned in &lt;b&gt;any&lt;/b&gt; mainstream media.

big surprise.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">12521@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:12:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Jim S</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/07/120443.php#comment-12520</link>
<description>exactly what I&#039;ve been saying for years,Tom.....

Eric, Ilove the subtle PR hints!</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">12520@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:06:56 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Tom Johnson</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/07/120443.php#comment-12514</link>
<description>This issue makes me wonder what the RIAA would say if they were to drag me into court for the - literally - couple dozen mp3 files I have on my computer, and then I pull out the CDs I bought because of them.  Maybe I&#039;m one of the few, but I&#039;ve used mp3s for years to test out artists I&#039;m curious about.  If I liked &#039;em enough, I went and bought the discs.  If not, I deleted them and forgot about them.  I don&#039;t know what the plan is or how the RIAA will accomplish finding downloaders, but I would really like to see someone show up in court with their CD collection, which gives them the right to have those mp3s in the first place . . . </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">12514@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:10:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>