I haven't been paying much attention to anything lately...what is this poll referring to?
Are you going to pay for "Summer's Killing Us" because of what The Hip's record company released in the news?
There was a big flap over the fact that people had obtained copies of VS without paying. Basically all bullshit...a couple angry people in the upper ecehlon dropping out of context quotes from the band. There's a thread and/or news update about it entitled, "It's UnHip to Download" or something along those lines. Hope this helps
-Jenna
I'm pretty sure the hip themselves don't appreciate us downloading their singles for free.
Don't be so sure:
PL: Well, I don't have any problems with Napster at all because you know that if it's not Napster it's something else. The exchange of music is a cool thing…it doesn't hurt anybody. Songwriters should be paid for their songs, two cents or three cents (or whatever), it's just the whole principle of the thing. Napster's format is quite like radio or video and to pay a certain fee to a songwriter or an organization might be an idea. But the exchange of music doesn't hurt anybody, and it certainly doesn't hurt musicians. I think what Napster does is get people a lot more into music than they would be if Napster wasn't around. I think it helps.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.canehdian.com/thehip/paullanglois.html">http://www.canehdian.com/thehip/paullanglois.html</a><!-- m -->
This was all a big publicity stunt by Universal (and CRIA). It is comical that they release a song by a band as popular as the Hip MONTHS before the full CD comes out, then cry foul when thousands of people try to download it "illegally". How many of those people who tried to download it illegally are going to buy the full CD? How many were based in the US and had no access to Puretracks?
I paid for both tracks to have the opportunity to listen to them well before the album came out because I'm a big fan. But what about the casual fan who wants to pay for the songs once, not twice?
Another issue - files from puretracks don't work on iPods - only the most popular digital music player out there. I mean in my case I downloaded the tracks the day each of them were released, then I had to burn them to CD, and then rip them as MP3s so that I could listen to them on my iPod, which is how I listen to my music 95% of the time. If I was a casual fan and I knew I'd purchase the CD when it came out, why would I go through that kind of hassle?
I can certainly understand the issues with peer-to-peer services, but I think Universal and CRIA picked a piss-poor example to try to get people on their side. It would be one thing if that many people downloaded the song illegally AFTER the album had been released, but that certainly wasn't the case.
There's my rant for the day!
Ahh gotcha..
I paid on puretracks for both songs - because I couldn't find them with Kazaa at the time. I'm in agreeance that if people are going to buy the album anyways, why should they pay twice for the same tracks.
I'll buy the album, as always with the Hip, because I know it will be solid.. it is extremely rare to find a weak track on a Hip CD.
Bands with albums that contain only one or two decent songs are what I think Universal should be more concerned about... and maybe they should be focusing on selling better music rather than ragging on fans..
I don't know if that's good business sense but at this rate, I don't blame anyone for downloading *most* of the music that is out there.