Red music service USA only?

[bonocomet]

It's a subscription to a online music magazine, it's not a music buying site. When you buy a subscription to Rollingstone magazine, are you interested in every issue or article the same? Do you know who's going to be on the cover beforehand?

Like it's been said over and over and over again on this thread, no one is being forced into this, just like no one is forced to buy Time, Newsweek, Q, Rollingstone, Family Circle, etc.

Why is this so confusing.

 

[ramblin rose]

Exactly, and the reverse is true as well. Because someone might not care for this product doesn't make them amoral and cold-hearted.

I won't be able to try it (iTunes) but I'm interested to see how it works out....

I think the issue most people had was not about whether or not one subscribed, it's obvious, that if the product is not something of interest you definately should not subscribe.

I think the issue was that is was amoral and cold-hearted to not subscribe, but then illegally download the material. (and illegally does not include being able to download the same material through a legitimate service (free or otherwise). Obviously, there can't be anything wrong with that.

It seems that the material RED Wire has will supposedly be exclusive though, so it probably won't be available through other music services.

 

[Irishteen]

But why would you want to pay $60 to find out?

Then don't listen to the songs; it's not like there's a gun to your head saying listen or die.


Last I checked it was only $5 a month with two free issues; would two issues not be enough for people to decide if it's gonna be worth it or not? Yes, it's 60 a year but you're not being forced to sign up for a year, it's a monthly fee. $5 is hardly a lot to check if something is worthwhile or not.

 

[God Part III]

I had to join this discussion.

For the people doubting that this does not help, look it up:

2008 Report on the global AIDS epidemic

HIV/AIDS-related deaths have dropped in 2007. Best news is that one country in sub-Saharan Africa has proven that it is possible to reverse the trend: In Tanzania, less people were infected from HIV in 2007 than in 2006, and the same goes for AIDS-related deaths. Remember that this was the year that we began seeing the results of the $500.000.000 donation that Bill Gates gave to the exact same foundation that (RED)WIRE sends its money towards.
So don't tell me or anyone else that this medicine doesn't go where it's supposed to and that it doesn't work. Please be aware that the (RED) initiative is meant to distribute medicine, not solve the AIDS pandemic as a whole. Dozens upon dozens of organizations try to solve the HIV/AIDS, but all take different approaches.

And for everyone contemplating pirating/torrenting/in any way illegally downloading this music, **** you. Fine, it's not a charity, but it should be a bit harder for you stealing medicine from children than stealing money from a corporation. I don't care if you already support a charity, if you do, what is your problem with doing more, especially at this price? Unicef supplies antiretroviral medicine to African children for an average price of less than 10 cents per day - I would imagine the Global Fund can do this at around the same price. As has been said before, don't buy it if you don't want it, but just don't ****ing steal this music.

 

[LemonMelon]

Then don't listen to the songs; it's not like there's a gun to your head saying listen or die.

Obviously. Although I'm still not sure how that answers the question, considering there are other ways of finding the songs.

I'm not arguing against or in favor of (RED)WIRE, but the questions being proposed are simple and necessary, and forums such as this should encourage such debate. "Why would purchasing an entire year of the service be advantageous to the consumer (or even a month of it, for that matter)?", "How is it immoral to download songs that are "exclusive" to the service elsewhere for free?", "Realistically, how effective is (RED)WIRE, in comparison to other, similarly charitable services?", and so on.

No one is pointing a gun to your head, commanding you to answer these questions or die, so don't act like they're an inconvenience to you.

 

[Liesje]

I had to join this discussion.

For the people doubting that this does not help, look it up:

2008 Report on the global AIDS epidemic

HIV/AIDS-related deaths have dropped in 2007.

......

So don't tell me or anyone else that this medicine doesn't go where it's supposed to and that it doesn't work. Please be aware that the (RED) initiative is meant to distribute medicine, not solve the AIDS pandemic as a whole. Dozens upon dozens of organizations try to solve the HIV/AIDS, but all take different approaches.

While I'm totally cool with the concept of (RED) and buy their stuff, it's been argued that new infection rates are leveling off and declining in these areas b/c there just aren't as many people left to become infected (hence why the infection rates are increasing in other areas of the world where the pandemic has not reached the scale it has in Africa). I'm not saying one is right or one is wrong. Like you are saying there are a LOT of different organizations and initiatives working on this issue. I don't think any one is wholly responsible for "reversing" the pandemic, perhaps none of them are. We are lucky that as western consumers we can pick and choose which ones we support. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I like to believe that the money from (RED) goes to the Global Fund, and the GF distributes it appropriately, but that cannot be proven with such broad figures.

 

[Chizip]

i have a feeling that red profits are a drop in a bucket compared to the 500,000,000 dollar check bill gates wrote.

 

[Liesje]

Yeah so we should all be buying Microsoft products! ..... or not.

 

[u2search]

sadly, in the terms and conditions it says only residents in the US, Canada and the UK can purchase music from Red Wire

I still can't get my head around this, if it's true

 

[God Part III]

While I'm totally cool with the concept of (RED) and buy their stuff, it's been argued that new infection rates are leveling off and declining in these areas b/c there just aren't as many people left to become infected (hence why the infection rates are increasing in other areas of the world where the pandemic has not reached the scale it has in Africa). I'm not saying one is right or one is wrong. Like you are saying there are a LOT of different organizations and initiatives working on this issue. I don't think any one is wholly responsible for "reversing" the pandemic, perhaps none of them are. We are lucky that as western consumers we can pick and choose which ones we support. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I like to believe that the money from (RED) goes to the Global Fund, and the GF distributes it appropriately, but that cannot be proven with such broad figures.

Perhaps I didn't clarify. There is no way that only the Global Fund can be held responsible for the slightly positive statistics in the AIDS struggle - I work as a fundraiser for Unicef myself but urge the people I meet to support other NGOs, as there are somethings Unicef can't do that others can - and vice versa. I believe that information and testing and broad availability of the medicine will eventually prove successful, but there are many hurdles to overcome. What excites me about the work that Unicef are doing, though is their work in making sure HIV-infected pregnant women receive the right information and drugs so that their future children will become AIDS-free. The ultimate goal should be a new generation of Africans that are informed and aware - but that'll take a while. For now, I see it as simple justice that the people infected get the necessary treatment. It's not that expensive, as I pointed out, and surely, the goal is rid the world from HIV/AIDS, but the first step must be to care for the victims of the disease. From what I understand the Global Fund was the biggest distributor of antiretroviral medicine in 2007 - and will probably continue to be, with increasingly better internal infrastructure and means of distribution - and a partnership with WHO and UNAIDS surely won't slow down the process. I understand your skepticism, and surely the broad figures cannot prove the Global Fund's role - but I view the glass as half full on this one.

Tanzania in particular though: The positive trend simply cannot be due to already insane numbers of infected people - One of the reasons they have been able to reverse the trend is because the situation hasn't gone out of hand like in Rwanda or Swaziland. My impression is that the Tanzanian development is due to a relatively peaceful country (i.e. less trouble for NGOs to do their bit), a cooperative government and a relatively small percentage of people living with HIV/AIDS (6.2% compared to some Central-African countries with up to 25%).

 

[Liesje]

Tanzania in particular though: The positive trend simply cannot be due to already insane numbers of infected people - One of the reasons they have been able to reverse the trend is because the situation hasn't gone out of hand like in Rwanda or Swaziland. My impression is that the Tanzanian development is due to a relatively peaceful country (i.e. less trouble for NGOs to do their bit), a cooperative government and a relatively small percentage of people living with HIV/AIDS (6.2% compared to some Central-African countries with up to 25%).

I agree with this. But again looking at general figures often sways the picture. Maybe it is different now but when I was in Tanzania a few years ago, some rural areas had infection rates at 50% or more and to me that is not acceptable regardless of how the national average stacks up against the rest of the continent. Tanzania has some very populated but well developed cities so it makes sense there's going to be a huge range of infection rates throughout the country. We went out to visit some people in a village and so many were affected, held a little boy on my lap that was already infected. The worst thing is that for many aid had always been available to them, and for free, but these places are so far off the beatin' path that there's no effective way to distribute their free drugs. We talked to one guy who lived with HIV for over 7 years until a church group came in, gave him a goat and a bike (not money or drugs) and with that he was able to get to a hospital and start treatment and make money off his goat by milking it and breeding it.

But, like you say, I think the government plays a big role their. They don't have separation of church and state, so the state lets the churches use their money and resources because typically churches are much better at reaching communities (and they try a lot harder).

Personally I think the grassroots orgs are the best at reaching people and giving them the resources that they need (not necessarily hand outs of money or food, but resources that allow people to start generating income for their families) and I can only hope that's where (RED) and Global Fund money is going but it's hard to say. That's why a part of me prefers to just give directly to organizations whose work I have seen with my own eyes. I just hate losing such a big chunk to the administration and bureaucracy.

Anywho, that had nothing to do with music...

 

[mama cass]

I still can't get my head around this, if it's true

hi! i emailed Red Wire about this, and they replied really quickly and said they're working on extending the service to other countries as soon as possible, so don't give up hope!

 

[u2search]

hi! i emailed Red Wire about this, and they replied really quickly and said they're working on extending the service to other countries as soon as possible, so don't give up hope!

Thank you for finding that out so quickly. I hope they fix it before the official start 10 dec.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

I don't see the big deal - If one doesn't want to subscribe for the whole year, couldn't they just subscribe the month that the song they want is up, then cancel it? To go back to the magazine analogy, like buying a single issue.

 

[Jamila]

Perhaps I didn't clarify. There is no way that only the Global Fund can be held responsible for the slightly positive statistics in the AIDS struggle - I work as a fundraiser for Unicef myself but urge the people I meet to support other NGOs, as there are somethings Unicef can't do that others can - and vice versa. I believe that information and testing and broad availability of the medicine will eventually prove successful, but there are many hurdles to overcome. What excites me about the work that Unicef are doing, though is their work in making sure HIV-infected pregnant women receive the right information and drugs so that their future children will become AIDS-free. The ultimate goal should be a new generation of Africans that are informed and aware - but that'll take a while. For now, I see it as simple justice that the people infected get the necessary treatment. It's not that expensive, as I pointed out, and surely, the goal is rid the world from HIV/AIDS, but the first step must be to care for the victims of the disease. From what I understand the Global Fund was the biggest distributor of antiretroviral medicine in 2007 - and will probably continue to be, with increasingly better internal infrastructure and means of distribution - and a partnership with WHO and UNAIDS surely won't slow down the process. I understand your skepticism, and surely the broad figures cannot prove the Global Fund's role - but I view the glass as half full on this one.

Tanzania in particular though: The positive trend simply cannot be due to already insane numbers of infected people - One of the reasons they have been able to reverse the trend is because the situation hasn't gone out of hand like in Rwanda or Swaziland. My impression is that the Tanzanian development is due to a relatively peaceful country (i.e. less trouble for NGOs to do their bit), a cooperative government and a relatively small percentage of people living with HIV/AIDS (6.2% compared to some Central-African countries with up to 25%).

God Part III, I truly appreciate your contribution to this thread. I have found that too often in these forums that people speak authoritatively about issues that they have no real knowledge about.

That has happened in this discussion & I appreciate your well-researched opinions.


I will only post this last response to the discussion of (RED) & the Global Fund.


Anyone who really knows what is happening in the field of international health care delivery, especially when it comes to HIV/AIDS, wil accept the fact that the Global Fund is the most EFFECTIVE international organization delivering life-saving medications around the world to some of the world's poorest people.


Anyone who really knows what is happening in the field of international health care delivery will also know that the Global Fund has a transparent mechanism by which countries & NGO's in those countries can apply for GF grants. Once given the grant money, the countries & NGO's must then substantiate their claims on how the money was used by them before they are granted more GF money to use in health care delivery in their countries.


Anyone who doubts the effectiveness of the Global Fund or of the effectiveness of (RED) money which goes into the GF only has to take the time to visit the GF website and look at how the organization works.


The GF doesn't just award to countries but to NGO's and grassroots organizations in those countries.


If you don't know the Global Fund, then you should if you want to offer comments on it.



The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

 

[ramblin rose]

I was able to signup for the two free issues. No credit card required for that.

 

[MadForIt]

In the new edition Sir Noely Gallagher is in it

Here is a clip!

YouTube - EXCLUSIVE NOEL GALLAGHER PERFORMANCE AVAILABLE NOW! WITH (RED)WIRE: http://www.redwire.com