I think it's the case they re-assess the concept of intellectual property: I can't download and listen to a song, but I can listen to it for free on an internet radio or via Grooveshark?
They just need to accept the fact that the world has changed dramatically since the 60s, the entertainment industry has become too expensive and not everybody can afford to pay their prices, but still, because of the marketing they generated, people want to use their products nonetheless. Result? If I can't afford it, I'll get it for free, since it's easier that way.
It's their own greediness that is damaging them.. besides I would like to really quantify this "damage", considering that I haven't heard of a high profile music star being broke lately..
How should people feel when they say that Tom Cruise's daughter had, at 4 years old, a $130.000 Xmas list?! I mean, hellooooo?!? Reality check!!!
F**k them I say, I don't need your industry, I know who to rely to if I want good music and good movies.
In the end of the day, it's their fault if blockbusters like Pearl Harbour get so publicised and little masterpieces like Dark Blue World barely make it to the cinema screens.
Last edited by Sternjaeger II; 01-20-2012 at 11:35 AM.
|