Slashdot Mirror
Universal, Sony Cutting Prices on Downloaded Music
Don Symes writes "Sony Music and Universal appear to be getting ready to allow downloads of singles for $.99 and albums for $9.99 without crippleware or restrictions on personal copying/burning." Another semi-interesting piece submitted by several people is this propaganda from the recording industry. 2.8 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were seized in the U.S. last year (9 million world-wide); from that the IFPI extrapolates that 950 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were actually sold, world-wide. How do you get from 9 million to 950 million? Mostly hand-waving .
Thats funny, Ive always gotten my MP3s for free, I thought thats what EVERYONE did? They cant compete with free, ever, PERIOD.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
But the cable company set a lower bandwidth cap...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
... no wait, i won't.
-- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
Seriously, you can download stuff for free. Who's going to pay $10 for lossy music copies? I rarely pay that much for actual CD's.
About time they eased up on prices a bit, but that probably means they are getting over on us even worse than we all thought ;o) .
Regarding that CD-R article, I'm sure the RIAA would just love to ban the things. How about they just ban all dual-deck tape recorders too. Write you representatives folks. Don't let them lobby to take away all that is left of Fair-Use.
Yes, you heard correctly - secret watermarks. Want the music cheap? Sure, here you go. Of course, if you do trade it online, we'll get back to you on the number of times we find it on other computers and charge you full price plus treble damages. It's not as if we couldn't see through this business model by now...
And Just how is anyone suppose to make any money of the price slashing...might as well make them fr...oh wait minute they cannot go back on there descision can they? (sarcastic tone)
-"its not what is on the outside, its whats on the inside that counts"
i have not paid actual money for a cd in about a year now ... i will not pay for music until every major distributor of music is bankrupt. in most cases, 99 % of the money you pay for a cd doesn't go to the artist anyway, so let the CEOs starve.
...Althought $5-$8 would be a lot better. Problem is, if I buy an album, I want 44.1khz PCM data, and not a compressed stream with a not-insignificant portion of the data missing.
.94 cents buys .05 of an ounce of cocaine to line the nostrils of a record exec.
If my $.99 bought me the raw stereo PCM data to burn, MP3, ogg, or sample then I would consider this reasonable.
Of course the artists probably get less than $.05 of that sale. The other
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Seems like Sony's managed to pull its head out of its ass only part of the way. As has been stated before, no one's gonna pay for what can be gotten for free. Now, if people want to find obscure stuff that isn't floating around on most P2P networks, and Sony can offer that, that might be an incentive. Maybe offer a sliding scale for the quality, ie: 128 would NOT cost the same as something encoded at 160+.
We haven't won yet, but this could be the start of a massive change in the industry!
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
not 128kbs, but at LEAST than 196kbs, otherwise it isnt worth the cash outflow...
personally if im going to pay for something I want a solid object in my mitts, a physical CD, liner notes, pictures, etc....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
2.8 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were seized in the U.S. last year (9 million world-wide); from that the IFPI extrapolates that 950 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were actually sold, world-wide. How do you get from 9 million to 950 million? Mostly hand-waving.
I can only assume that Michael doesn't actually understand what the numbers he's quoting mean. Hard to believe, I know. 9 million == number actually seized. 950 million == estimate of how many actually produced and illegally sold.
Obviously it's difficult to have hard numbers about what CDs were NOT seized, but who thinks that it's unreasonable to claim that only 1 out of every 100 illegally produced CDs sold are actually found and confiscated?
In fact, it surprises be that it's as high as 1/100.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The one advantage of having lower $0.99 "per track" charges, is that once the artists' royalty percentage is rounded, it equals zero.
if no copy restrictions exist for downloaded music then what is to prevent a user from sharing newly downloaded songs with friends?
one person would pay to download, and everybody else would get it off him for free.
doesnt work.
The recording industry just wants someone to blame poor management on. The truth is that with Napster gone, it makes their job more difficult: they can't now pin it on just one company. It was easy to just sue Napster... Now they have to go after end-users, or find some way to tighten their bandwidth access.
Look at the ridiculous deals they signed just before the economy slowed here in the United States... The Mariah Carey deal, which failed. The Michael Jackson "biggest album ever" which sold about ten copies.
It's easy for the CEOs of these companies to place blame somewhere else, besides themselves. And the Boards and shareholders have so far wagged their tails, nodded their heads, and watched their portfolios halve in value.
They'll wake up... Someday... Maybe...
jrbd
Hopefully Amazon, Best Buy, or the other "resellers" make a good website to sell the things, maybe have 30second intro mp3s so you can "try before you buy" and what not. Hopefully they will make it easy to find the songs you want too. Current file sharing services don't do that for me. I'll pay $.99/song to get that.
Sony bets alot of other people will too. I'd wager they'll bet that I'd pay $5 extra to have them burn me a cd or two and ship them to me too or other "added features" (music videos anyone? tour footage anyone? live tracks anyone?)
And ... isn't money laundering something that makes money on its own too? In fact, the only relationship between money laundering and CD IP theft seems to be that, if there were no copyright, there would be no need to launder the money made.
In fact, wouldn't the best way to cut off the legs of organized crime in this area be legalization, or, heaven forfend, reasonable prices from the recording industry?
If these are the best arguments against piracy, I think I'll go steal some music now.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
And do you know what? This will flop. Terribly. Why? Because the same people who have been shouting that they'll pay for music will, in the end, not pay for music.
Once, a few years ago, I pirated music using Napster. I got quite good at it, amassing more than 5 GB of songs. But eventually, I had to face the facts: I was stealing music. A few of my friends asked me to justify what I was doing, and I couldn't justify it. I was stealing music. I thought about "making up", by buying all the CDs that I wanted music from, but I didn't. And do you know why? Because it would cost money.
I know it's not hip to agree with the RIAA on Slashdot, but in this case I feel that it's correct to. The pirate community has been screaming that they want low-price music, and now they're offering it to them. But it will flop, because in the end, people don't want cheap music.
They want free music.
The one piece of this puzzle that is missing is the webpage. Rather than retail singles on CD's through other companies, Sony should just set up a website, allow us to type in our CC number, and start grabbing what we want at a dollar a pop.
I'd be more than happy to legitimize my music collection, as I currently own all legitimate software. I will not pay, however, $16 per CD to legitimize the one or two songs I want from each CD.
If they provided formats I like: 320,160, and 128kbps and I could download one of each quality, I'd do it. Preferably MP3 and/or ogg. Ooh, and a pcm wav format also.
Hope they come around just a little more.
Torsten
Didn't we just have a story about how some company showed it could be profitable to sell audio cds essentially at cost (plus $X.XX shipping and handling)? It's great that music companies are getting into the swing of things by offering albums online at reduced prices (no jewel case, cover art, etc...), however $9.99 still seems too high for what you're getting. Maybe if real cds were ten bucks and the online version was, say, six I'd bite. For now I'll stick to the surprisingly varied and good used bins.
Green-voting, republican-registered, socialist-libertarian.
Information wants to be wide !
...
...
...
...
You migh say now: "Hello, woot, fuxx0r, %@/& !"
But someday all will be lost and there will be no wide information anymore, unless......
You sign this petition !
If we are able to get a whole albumn for 10$ then that doesnt seam like a price break. You are paying 10$ for a lower quality version of a 20$ higher quality product. They are just scaling price for quality.
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
You multiply by roughly 100. :)
It got me my Ph.D.!
Particularly because Sony is onboard, which owns Sony Classical. One thing that is REALLY weak on P2P networks is a good classical selection, and what's there is often badly converted and missing the ending sections.
I will definitely be using the service.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If I can get a reliable, accurate, high quality download of a track I want for $0.99 and have the ability to freely burn and copy it to my MP3 player, then I'm more than willing to spend the money. I can avoid Kazaa's virus ware, I can avoid bogus badly ripped versions, and I can get the tracks of any album I want. For 9.99 and a 50 cent CD, I can burn my own copy of the album minus liner notes/cover.
My suggestion to the biz, be smart, make the cover/liner notes available as a PDF file. And provide multiple remixes of the tracks to suit various tastes.
It seems like only last summer there were predictions of large increases in cdr prices. It's also true that Canada recently increased the levy on blank cdrs.
Further at least a few manufacturers have stopped making disks at all. I would expect that to put upward pressure on prices.
My own experience is that blanks cost slightly more this year than last. But then I'm not buying thousands of disks at a time.
That might have saved their butts two years ago, but now it's too little too late. They have made too many enemies. http://www.dontbuycds.org
How ya like dat?
Ten bucks is roughly what a record store pays the distributor for a CD. The music industry is just cutting out the middleman and keeping their profit the same. Not a bad thing to try.
"Here's an idea: Maybe if we give them something they actually want, they'll pay us for it."
"Wow...you think so? Well, let's give it a shot. Can't be any worse than that MiniDisc fiasco."
this is exactly what i've been waiting for...
99 cents is easily worth the price of a song, as long as the quality is decent.
and hey! i can feel good about having a 'legal' collection of mp3's!
i can't wait until cable television takes this approach. i would love to pay per channel rather than having a whole slew of junk that seems to grab my attention.. let's see, discovery, comedy central, learning channel....
I mean, the article says they'll embed watermarks, but unless someone specifically knows about this plan and even on which music, they don't know what they're buying. Sort of like those copy-protected CDs - the companies tell you they're going to do it, but you won't know until after you've bought it. The honey trap will be set for the unsuspecting flies...
What you describe is copying, not stealing.
ever since I started to see local bands, musicians, and orchestras. Some of these guys have real talent. I would support them anyday by purchasing their CD, if they even had one. Some of them even offer their music in Mp3 and Ogg. Most of them do not even care if you copy them and sent it to your friends. To them, it's the exposure that makes them happy, so they can drive up demand and popularity, and they can get booked for local concerts. That's what real music is!
Coderz 4 Life
If these were in a high-quality lossless format it would quite likely be worth it. But mp3 -- yeah it sounds okay, but its not worth paying for.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
First, what bitrate will the songs come in? Ostensibly they'll come in mp3 format, if they're not going to be protected in some way. If it's 128kbps, forget it; I don't typically even warez music at 128kbps any more, and I certainly won't pay for that (lack of) quality.
Second; If, as the article asserts, the discounting of downloadable music is a recognization that a downloaded track somehow has less value than a physical CD, I have to ask what the prices are based on. As we all know, the price of audio CDs is based on what the market will bear; it is cheaper to make a CD and put it in a store than it is to make a casette tape and put it in a store, yet they still cost more. Obviously this is based on recognition of the fact that the online market won't bear as much profit and the music industry is only going in this direction because they know that the artificially-inflated prices of CDs won't last forever when more and more people are getting CD-R drives.
So where's the question in all this? It is thus: Whence comes the artificial valuation of music? And what is its future? Sony would seem to be its own enemy, in that it sells relatively inexpensive CD-R(W) drives (and overly expensive CDR media) and also sells music on CD which carries a seemingly arbitrary price tag which the music industry nontheless has been known to defend with financial violence, IE, they don't give new releases to stores which have dropped prices below their mandated floor. What effect do they really think selling albums for $9.99 which you are allowed to burn to a $0.40 CD? (again, more if it's sony; This is a price on memorex 100 spindles at fry's.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
First you assume that the 9 million CDs would and could be sold...
Second, you take the number of people in the US who listen to that genre of music, and assume that every single one of them bought that music illegally.
Third, you assume that everybody is a crook.
Fourth, you realize that you really like your job in the FBI, because that makes you "they" and them "those" and you can make "them" do whatever "we" want.
Simple administrative math. If you have problems understanding it, go talk to your System Admin... they all have the same basic course requirements.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
I discovered this amazing by using this thing call a... um.. oh yeah! A "calculator". I'm so brilliant!
This is $0.99 more that I am ever willing to pay a record company for a song. I would gladly give the artist the money, but never the record company. Back to good ole lopster and sending donations directly to artists.
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Im sure most of the 950 million comes from how many blank CD-R's were produced and sold in conjunction with the confiscated priated copies.
It's one of my two forms of social protest, that and underage drinking.
There were 1 billion CD-Rs sold last year. Logically, all but 50 million are being used for piracy.
The music industry is still trying to cover their own ass. They know they are going to lose this fight, so if they push everyone else out of the business first they can take it over like they have every other avenue.
Supporting them now is like caving to the first offer to a street vendor in Thailand.
I am bias and not afraid to admit it, we offer MP3s for $.10 - $.20 that are encoded at 128bit to 192bit. That's good enough to burn.
CD Cost: ~$1.50USD
MusicRebellion
By the way, about 2 years ago there were stories all over the news that the major labels had settled with the FTC over a suite it files against them of unfair marketing practices that were driving up the price of CD's. The claim was that as a result of the settlement we would see CD prices come down. Just the opposite has occurred, CD prices are higher now than they were at the time of the announced settlement. What isn't this getting any attention?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
9.95 a month, all the downloads you can handle.
emusic.com
I was just reading through the posts here and noticed a lot that read "well, I'm not going to do this, because the artist would only get $.05 of that $.99, so forget paying for these songs, I'll just go download them" or "MP3 is lossy, so I'm not going to pay an entire dollar for these tracks".
People, this is what we have all been screaming for...no restrictions on downloads and a fair price for the songs themselves, instead of $18-$20 for a CD that contains 2 decent songs and 12 crappy ones. If we don't take some kind of action and show these studios that consumers are willing to pay for decent service, that service is going to disintegrate and leave us with a lot of bad laws in its place. You have to crawl before you walk, and especially for a first offering, I don't think the details of this look bad at all. Please at the very least consider paying a couple of bucks the next time you get the urge to grab some music.
(Note: for all you people actively boycotting the RIAA for their other stunts/attacks, this post was not meant for you, but rather people who simply don't want to pay for MP3's)
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
hahaha that's a good one. It's Liquid Audio, so watermarked and incompatible with iPods etc. So, um, fuck that. They still don't get it, do they?
Let me save you the time of reading all the hypocritical comments, just read this one.
"This is a great start, but I'm not paying [current price] for a song/album. Maybe I'd consider [current price / 2], but it would have to be available in [some other format] and at [current sampling rate * 2]. And even then, I wouldn't pay without getting [a CD / liner notes / etc]."
99 cents a song is a steal. Let's figure there are 3 good songs on a CD nowadays (generous assumption). That's 3 bucks for a CD's worth of good songs. As opposed to 15+ dollars in the store.
But I'm sure people can justify not using this service anyway. Hell, I will admit that if I want some song, I'll probably get it off of KaZaA (I don't really listen to much music nowadays). But I'm not gonna criticize the system, I think it is perfect, they are biting the bullet and offering us a great alternative to stealing music. If this fails, it's not the record company's fault.
Mark
There is NO reason for a lower quality sound file (MP3, ogg, PCM, whatever). Give me a great quality copy, and I'll gladly give you my $0.99 per song.
Not bloody likely though...
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
The music files will be avaliable in Liquid Audio format.
"Liquid Audio files are scrambled so they can't be freely copied from computer to computer. But Universal has decided to let buyers burn the files onto conventional CDs in unscrambled formats, meaning they could be copied or moved freely from that point."
People wants MP3s. We have MP3 walkmans, players, car stereos, stereo components. We don't want a crippled version of song no matter the price.
Universal- will allow buring to CDs with you can then rip into MP3 format.
Sony- will not be allowing any burning
They need to stop their decreasing sales.
They don't want to invest more money in signing new bands and creating new music. So naturally they'll try to appease the masses and get the semi-legit folks that have downloaded illegally, to pay for their music at the rate most people have been saying they'd pay for music.
If that doesn't catch enough fish in the net, then they'll lower the price further, or have discounts, or anything that will get a majority of people to actually pay something for the music they probably already have gotten for free.
Then they'll switch to the standard tactics of screwing over everybody once they've gotten us back in the mindset that we need to pay for this stuff.
Liquid Audio.
It's regrettable, because this is a step in the right direction, but this won't fly.
The article mentions that the tracks discussed by Universal are to be in Liquid Audio format.
(More about them is available here)
Closed-format music that I can't play in non-Windows operating systems or in a dvd or car cd deck that can decode mp3 CD's doesn't interest me in the slightest. MP3 succeeds because it's portable and small. Liquid audio files may not be very large, but they're not portable at all (except to Rio players).
By the time I've converted to CD and then ripped to mp3 again, I've spent way more than $1 worth of time, and I'm inclined to just go get an mp3 rip of the song and have done with it.
Sorry guys, try again. They're halfway there, but it's got to be MP3, or bust. The really depressing part of all this is that when this fails, it will fail because the dirty thieves on the internet want something for nothing, not because they tied themselves to a wrongheaded proprietary format that nobody asked for and nobody needs.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
... was a Gone Jackals CD.
Why?
I couldn't find it online. Not on Napster, not on IRC, not on the web. Anywhere. Only place I could get it was some obscure online CD store. So I did.
What use is cheap music downloads if it's just the latest crap out of boy-band-du-jour? You can download that from anywhere free. Sell the bands that weren't quite as heavily advertised. Bandwidth is (well, marginally these days) cheaper for bands who won't sell high volume of CDs.
liquid = crap
Honestly, I cannot FATHOM that the number of CDR's they claim were seized actually were. Honestly, if 2.8Mega CD's were confiscated, where was the news coverage of the busts? I have never once heard of any of these busts on the news. There would HAVE to be at least a few big hauls of confiscation that would warrant news coverage. Hell, every time someone gets caught smuggling a couple of pounds of pot in, it gets news coverage.
The source of the data is missing from the Yahoo story, does anyone know who's ass this data was pulled from?
105.5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 55555555555555555556 actually to be more precise i figured this out by using ...... oh guess what... my brain.... dumnnut
It seems to me that Jon Barrett is grossly underrepresented on slashdot.
So let me get this strait. I am going to pay almost 60% as much for something that costs them network and storage space, is of an inferior quality to what I get on a CD, and requires that I spend good time creating my own low quality CD with my own equipment and CD-R. Sounds like its not any cheeper once you factor in the oportunity costs.
Most of us make more per hour than this is worth. This needs to be a service that allows me to do much more than I currently can to make it worth my while. Now if for 20 bucks a month you would keep my IPod filled with new (at least new to me) music that I will like (sort of Tivo like) then maybe we've got something.
Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
Instead of paying some zaibatsu $16 or $17 canadian for a cd's worth of mp3's I download them off gnutella, and send the artist $3. It's a hell of a lot more than they're gonna make off the record company for that.
Supporting them now is like caving to the first offer to a street vendor in Thailand.
Wish I had a mod point to throw at that statement...
This is, at the end of the day, a negotiation. A very unfair, one sided, bullshit negotiation that any worthwhile negotiator would walk away from- but it's what we have. So, the answer is not to cave at all. Continue to do what we do until the other side matches us. Very simple...
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
When it inevitably fails, it will provide just the documentation they need to lobby their congressmen for whatever infringement of rights legislation is in the hopper. I can't wait for the Draconian restrictions to come flowing out of Washington like spring rain.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
While not the final say, i thoroughly believe this is a move in the right direction, much, much more than the sharpie-breakable bs they tried. :-) ). if i bought CDs and MP3'ed them, it would net me maybe 12 - 15 CDs, with total of perhaps 30 songs i actually like (i am being optimistic here)
i think the important part of this, is that i no longer have to put up w/ all the filler songs, and for a reasonable amount of money (say, 200 bux), get a fairly decent library of music i like to listen to frequently (if i listened to popular stuff, that is - truth is i like classical -- which means they will be bargain-sold at 5 cents each
so, will there be problems? you betcha -- what is to prevent ppl from burning and selling their nearly free copies of music? copy to friends? etc
but when you think about it, the burning / selling should not so much a problem -- again, $1 per song, you bet i am gonna make my custom "all fav" CDs, vs. somebody else's compilation. i think it's the casual exchange that makes life difficult.
it would be nice if there was a "my music library" -- kinda like the o'riley online book club deal -- you pay to have a certain # of songs every month, and then you can add or subtract the amount... i mean, with that i wouldn't mind going w/ something like that -- except casual copying is still a problem, of course.
we will see -- i hope this venture succeeds; again, it's a step in the right direction, as small and challenge laiden as it is, it's better than cactus shield what whatever other crap that came around the corner and scared / pissed the heck out of us.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Someone should just cut out the middle man for good. The artists own the music, they should get most the money.
Just setup a site where the artists can upload their music and let them set a price required for it's DL. The site would then add a few cents to that (to cover costs) and would provide a burning service for $1-2 per CD (MP3 or CD Audio format). Just imagin getting a MP3 CD full of 60-100 songs for $10. With most of that going to the artists. Or an Audio CD with 15 songs for $3. I'd be all for that. Not that we'll ever see something like that.
It should be noted that the files are NOT released in a open format, but in Liquid Audio.. For which, to my knownledge, there is no Linux player. So its still a Windows-only format..
If the record labels were smart, they would allow you to download an album at a reduced price (maybe $10), PLUG pay another $5 (shipping included) to have a CD sent to you.
A lot of people like liner notes, and this would get the impulse buys of everyone who wants a song or album *now*, as well as up the total cost to just about that of a normal CD.
You should have stopped right there. The record companies are stating these numbers as fact instead of admitting that they are pulling numbers out of thin air. Their strategy is similar to the ONDCP's: design the numbers to fit the agenda. In the case of the ONDCP, they estimate higher drug usage when they want a higher budget, then they estimate lower drug usage to prove their efforts were successful. The record companies are giving an outrageous estimate to shock people into believing that there is a serious problem with piracy. Wait a few years, until the DMCA and other dragnets have imprisoned and fined a large number of people. Then the record companies will revise their estimate to prove that the legislation was effective in reducing piracy.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
If I could purchase songs at 99 cents a pop I'de certainly go for it... Only if I could listen to it on my pc and also turn the file into a mp3 cd...
But, it has to be a robust service. That means high bit rate, no restrictions, and I better have access to their entire catalog including brand new releases. It could be a bit cheaper though, since they don't have any distribution and packaging costs.....
First off, it sounds like at first these will be in Liquid audio format. After that, the article wasn't too clear.
No way in hell will I be paying basically $10 for that.
Well, what if they were MP3's with VBR of 80 - 312 Kbps, joint stereo? No. I still wouldn't do it. Why? Because I can sit somewhere and download em' for free.
I'm such a dick.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Ouch, didn't see that they won't be in MP3 format. Haha. I realize that this is an ironic comment considering my parent post, but no online music service will live unless they distribute MP3 files. Oh well, my bad...
Mark
My biggest concern with 700 people in an IRC channel would be trying to follow a conversation - this can be hard with only 40 people. Look for smaller channels!
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Oh goody.
I can't wait for the forced relocations, concentration camps, and elimination of the undesirable elements.
You may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but at least you managed to use the equality operator instead of the assignment operator.
See you in the camps.
I have seen pirate copies of my album sold in the street and it hurts to see the fruits of your hard work stolen on every corner. Since Ukrainian artists cannot make money selling their albums, they are forced to give endless concerts to survive.
Maybe he should come here to the USA, where the vast majority of artists can't make any money from their albums either, once all of the expenses are deducted from their meager royalties.
The question on my mind about the MP3 download is if the labels still deduct 10% from the artists royalty to cover "breakage" of the albums in transit, stores, etc?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
The guy supported international terrorism, I shed no tears for him!
...anyone would buy a cd these days anyway (It's not doing much good to the artist, I'd just as soon send them a personal check for $15) is for the case/cd art and insert that you get. Charging $10 for something that is normally $15 may seem like a deal to some people, but the record company isn't spending any money on materials or shipping. If anything, they would be making more money from digital sales like this than they would off a normal cd from a physical store. How much you want to bet the atrists don't see any of that extra cash? :\
IFPI is making a false assumption to bump up numbers. People who pirate CDs - either they buy the pirated one, or they won't buy it at all, since they can't afford USD $18. Therefore, counting all of them as a economic loss is unfair. And people who can afford to buy them are the ones that can also afford internet access, which means they'll download instead of buying the pirated CD. The best idea is to have CD-Singles that have 3-5 good songs, then charge around $8-10 for it. That's more reasonble than one megahit for $20.
:-)
And, given HIGH QUALITY analog equipment, someone can buy one so called watermarked 256kbps song, re-record it through the analog line, then distribute it as watermark-free mp3 on file-sharing apps. Analog loose quality over subsequent copies, but the first digital->analog conversion still works out well given high quality cables. Therefore, provided ONE person has the equipment and does it on the internet, then all the digital watermark efforts will go wasted. And I'm sure there's always at least one person who's willing to do it for the good of the community, or simply for the sake of pissing RIAA off
I'm sick of the people here who go around saying "I don't agree with the RIAA. I'm going to boycott buying their cds. It's ok if I pirate them then, right? Cause I'm still boycotting the RIAA?"
WRONG. If you want to boycot the RIAA, I can respect that. But by pirating the music you're just being a loser who won't pay for the music. The point of a boycott is that you say "I want this thing, but I disagree with so I'm going to deprive myself of the thing that I want because this issue is important to me."
If you pirate the music, all you're saying is you're too cheap to buy it.
According to the report, money from pirate CD's is going to support the drug trade, as well as organized crime.
Naturally, this means that the people who produce the content for those pirate CD's are to blame.
It's time to stamp out the source of this evil money pit. The artists!
As someone who has downloaded music for about 7 years now, this finally seems like a good idea. I have strongly opposed paying 16 bucks for a CD, but with singles at 99 cents and albums for 9.99, I'll most likely take a look at what they offer. If they offer crappy unknown groups then forget it, but if they actually sell the music that is popular and well-known then they have my money!
There has to be a catch - every bit of news about the recording industry that has come out over the last several years has gone to prove that they just Don't Get It. And now they're doing someting that seems clueful?
I don't like it. The other shoe must be ready to drop and it'll be mind-bogglingly stupid of them - it has to be, or I just might have to start changing my mind about the labels and giving them my business again!
Seriously - if the major labels will release music in a high-quality digital format, sell it to me for a reasonable price, and then let me burn it to my heart's content, I will be more than willing to buy it. Most of the music I've grabbed off Gnutella is the occasional single of something that's catchy, but just not worth buying a whole album for, or stuff I have already on LP. If you charge me a reasonable price, I'm actually happy to pay for it instead. No problem.
Right now the ridiculous economic and distribution model the RIAA member companies rely on encourages piracy. Make it cheap and easy to buy music and do what you want with it, and most consumers will be honest. The only danger I see is that these companies fought unrestricted music so long and so hard that consumers have started to see P2P networks of music as a resonable response. It'll be interesting to see if folks change their habits.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
you can always tell who downloads christian rock by their posts.
and come on 5gb? and you got quite good at it? what downloading things off napster? good for you! i see you managed to use a piece of software for what it was designed to do. of course thats more than i can say for some of my users but still.
and boy is it not 'hip' to agree with the riaa. you could think of all the money they embezzele(sp?) from artists, how they abuse a clear monopoly of distribution and even how they censor the world into what will fit in with the latest trends.
i have a fucking job. i have no problem paying for things, in fact if you werent collecting royal dalton figurenes or whatever, you would realize there isnt a heck of a lot to spend money on thats not crap and or bills.
all that said i will probably not use this service as im sure 9.99 is USD which works out to like 15 CAN so its the same as if i baught a cd anyways. Although cd stores arent open all the time and if i really must get that new bowie track right now it coudl be useful.
bottom line to me being a canadian its not cheaper at all, or at least thats how i see it working.
-
and not because I'm some audiophile snob, but because I DJ as a hobby and having it on vinyl is the only way to go. I have tried the jogable cd's, I have tried the usb scratch pads, and none of them yet come close to matching vinyl+good tips+my tech 1200's.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Yeah, but that was years ago. RIAA should have reduced their prices long ago. At the very least when Napster hit the scene. Instead they sued Napster into oblivion, increased their prices, and watched more P2Ps pop up. Now they want to drop prices and hope people will come back? No, it doesn't work that way.
If you could have sold 486 technology to IBM in 1980 you could have made billions of dollars. Now, you can't sell 486 technology to anyone, period. In 1980 you were in a good bargaining position, today that bargaining position is gone.
Likewise, the RIAA was in a monopoly position for decades. They were in a good bargaining position, still, in 1990 and could have reduced prices to fend off the "need" for users to go to P2P to get their music. Now, P2P is everywhere and they can't control it--and now they want to make a counter-offer? It doesn't work that way... They are no longer in a position to negotiate.
I will no longer pay for music, period. Only if I happen to be at the mall and happen to remember a CD I want and happen to know that there are at LEAST 3 tracks that I want. That last criteria (minimum 3 good tracks) is usually the deal-breaker.
Fact is, many people (including me) have been exposed to free music. Not only is it free, it can be obtained in a heartbeat and without having to identify yourself or give up personal information or a credit card number.
Even if the price is 1 penny per song I am not going to leave P2P to go to some corporate website to give them my name, address, phone number, credit card number, and email address to get my music. P2P is safer, more convenient, and faster.
Sorry, game over.
MD5 is a hash function, yes, but it's designed as a fingerprint, not a watermark; it's fragile on purpose.
There are hash functions that are much harder (though probably not impossible) to alter without mangling the sound.
From page 7 of the IFPI document:
Since Ukranian artists cannot make money selling their albums, they are forced to give endless concerts to survive.
I guess I should feel bad... except that this is the situation for all musicians everywhere, regardless of piracy. Musicians don't make money selling albums. Period. Especially musicians who have signed a recording contract.
Having been a musician myself, I have only one response to Katya Cilly: If you hate playing music so much, go get a real job.
I don't support piracy, but honestly, I never cared about it with regard to my own stuff. The point of recording music is so that other people can hear it and enjoy it when I can't be there to play it live. If somebody bought my CD and made copies for all their friends, great! Maybe all their friends would come to my next show. Nothing compares to playing a live show. That's what being a musician (or any kind of performance artist) is all about. If you don't like doing it, then being an artist is not the profession for you, and you should look for something else.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
You're completely, 100% wrong. Yeah, it will flop, but not because people won't pay. It's silly to assume people don't pay for music. People pay for music all the time. How else do you think the recording industry stays in business? No, piracy is most certainly not why this will fail. It will fail because the suits misunderstand their thetarget audience for this service.
I have ~18GB of MP3 files. They are all, to the last file, arranged in complete albums, with proper ID3 tags for each file. Why? Because I bought the CDs and then ripped and encoded them myself. Napster was useless. You got iffy quality, screwy naming conventions, weird ID3 tags (if you got them at all), and the files sometimes (mostly) had defects. Even if I didn't want to pay, I'd still pay rather than listen to the crap you get off Napster (or Kaazaa -- same problems there).
I require two things for digital music: The complete album in high bit-rate MP3 format. I do not want single songs. I do not want proprietary (read: non-MP3 or non-OGG) formats with built-in "digital rights management". I do not want to "burn" anything. Why the heck would I burn a Liquid Audio (whatever the hell that is) on to a CD-R? I want the music on my fileserver where it belongs. Where my AudioTron downstairs and my workstation upstairs can get to them. Where I can stream them from work. I might even put them on a portable MP3 player, but last time I checked the portables didn't support "burning" or formats besides MP3.
I'd love the chance to pay $10 for a complete album. As long as it's in MP3 format at a decent bit-rate. But this "service" can't give me that and therefore is completely useless. It will fail because they are going about it all wrong -- not because people don't want cheap music.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
This is an old problem in research that has already been solved by the "Rhino problem". I'm not saying this is the method they used, but it might be of interest to some of you.
The problem is how to count the number of Rhinos in the wilderness when you know you can't find them all and count them.
The solution is to capture 100 Rhinos. Tag all of the Rhinos and then release them. After a period, you go back out and capture another 100 Rhinos.
Let's say that out of the one's you've captured, 10 have your tags on them and 90 don't. From this you can extrapolate that you have 10 times the number of Rhinos in the wild than you originally tagged, or 1,000 Rhinos.
Don't know if they used the method or not, but its normally accepted as good research methodology.
In the pirate report (the last link to a pdf file) IFPI says that amount of pirate CDR recording increased in Denmark during the year of 2001.
However, it was recently made legal to make digital copies of CDs and it has been so for the entire year 2001. You can even borrow CDs at the library and copy them at home legally.
It is still illegal to sell such copies, so it is possible IFPI is right and danes are too stupid to just borrow from the library and friends, and instead buy copies of real pirates. But it doesn't seem likely.
Scene: A crowded bar
Enter a cloaked figure. Under the cloak he carries a cease-and-desist order, the trade weapon of the RIAA. He approaches a group of people.
RIAA member: *waves hand once through air as he speaks* You will buy only pirated CDs.
Group of people: We will buy only pirated CDs.
At least when smoking under 18 and drinking under 21 in the US are concerned.
:P
;)
It's 'bad' and 'wrong' and you can 'get in a lot of trouble for it!', but no one ever does unless they parade it around in the streets.
At least for citizens, copying discs and sharing music has gone the same way. Ooh, the big bad RIAA boogeyman will get you! Please.
They need to face the fact that they're done for. They could come up with ways of increasing revenue, but pure music sales is going the way of the dinosaur. To quote a horde of trolls, "You don't need to be a Kreskin.."
Honestly, the local scenes, there's bands out the arse selling their music on cd-r's. Some of them with technical know-how have websites where you can order their stuff, and it comes on a shiny cd-r, straight to your door.
Will these people listen to the RIAA if they make it 'big'? Some. But look at the 'professional' music world. There's quite a few bands out there who are not-confirming but shrugging their shoulders at the idea that it's okay to, say, rip some discs and send some tracks to your friends. They know it's free advertising, and they know that it won't bankrupt them as the cassette tape was supposed to. (They just don't want their labels to hear them saying such - cd's are still a top way to get your music into listener's hands!)
Eventually, artists, one by one, will give the RIAA the finger and say, "We don't need you." When that happens, it's over.
Xerox, I believe it was, came up with an idea of publishing on demand - printing books as people request them, using the latest and greatest computer/storage/etc. technology. No more warehouses chock full of books that sit and collect dust for ages. Less overhead cost. It's catching on, slowly, but things like that are the future.
I wonder when bands will invest in banks of burners to do the same for fans? Or even a different commercial entity. You could easily sell a disc for $10 and make money, while still giving the artist more than they get from the labels.
You just won't be able to afford cocaine habits
Of course, the labels don't really want this to work. They want it to fail so that they can go back to Congress and say "See! We lowered prices and they're still stealing! They wont pay 99 cents! We're bleeding from our arteries here! You guys have to do something to protect our profits, er, the artists!"
If they want to make this work they have to devote themselves to it. But for a label there's not much reason to do it. There's no way that selling over the internet isn't going to cut into their gross for a while. People wont pay $16 for an album's worth of MP3s.
But it's not a zero-sum game, because RIAA can't control their end-users. Their music is digitalized and distributed for them, at no cost to anyone. Actually, for RIAA they may just be stuck.
Music distribution is no longer tricky. Just stick mp3s on your website. Finding new talent can be done just as well by a bunch of independents as it can by a giant music conglomeration.
In the next decade, music may just go back to being an art instead of an industry.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I have been using Ogg files for a while now. I like them much more than mp3s (mostly political). And they play wonderfully on my Zaurus with tkcPlayer.
Since ogg doesn't have the licensing issues that mp3 does, I would like to see some big companies use it. It would save them money and give mp3 licensing the finger.
the record companies, fuck 'em, they've had their day. if a different and non-totalitarian form of musical distribution comes to light so be it, if it doesn't work i'm sure some huge company would be glad to start new record companies in the future...
you can go ahead and buy your $16.99 CDs, i'll download every Gravity Kills song ever made, and mail the band $17.00, and they'll make about 8X what they would've if i'd purchased their 4 CDs.
personally i like physical media and therefore buy almost exclusively from used CD shops. it's, for now, the best i can do to acquire physical media while giving the least amount of support to the recording industry (especially when i buy the 'demo only' CDs). it's unfortunate that i am also not supporting the Bands who make the music, but that's just the way it is for now..
They want free music
i don't care about 'free'-i care about where the money's going...
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
Funny how none of this concerns me one bit. I don't care if CD's are $1 a peice, I still probably wouldn't buy them. I don't go on file-swapping networks to get music either. I listen to my radio in the car, and that's enough music for me thank you very much.
So does that mean I'm pirating music? The old oldies Rock'n'Roll station plays all the good old stuff I'm interested in. I need nothing more.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
I'm planning on buying songs I like, and finding them on a P2P network as MP3 anyways..
I want the MP3, for my computer, my portable, and car stereo, NOT this Liquid format.. But I also want to pay for my music. I also prefer 192 bit or higher for quality, so that's what I'll download.
So I will do both, to show my support.
"nothing a month, yeah, i think we can swing that"
The problem I have with the 'this is stealing!' arguments is the fact that we are still paying for access to our music. How much did you pay for your computer, and internet connection? Last time I checked it wasn't free. Not to mention the time a person takes to track down those killer, rare tracks, finding new bands, etc.
Just because a system changes so that a formerly overpaid provider of music (record labels), no longer makes gobs of an unbelievable amount of money, doesn't make it stealing. Industries and technologies change. It is up to business to keep up, not for them to tell us to slow down because they aren't making money anymore. Music will not die because of this. It will always be around. Just how we access it will change, how artist make money from it will change.
Too bad Sony doesn't release any music I want to listen to.
If Sony and the other labels had offered this low-cost downloadable music option a year or two ago I think it would have revolutionized their business model and been a roaring success.
Unfortunately, they've left it so late that I fear (like others who have posted here) that it will fail.
Why?
Simply because music theft has become an "acceptable" activity in the eyes of too many Net users.
Pirates have learned to justify their activities by citing figures that indicate the recording artist sees only a tiny percentage of the sticker price for CDs.
If the recording companies had moved in while there were still pangs of guilt associated with the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted music then they could have pulled it off.
I predict that some people will opt to buy legal downloads (just like some have signed up to the subscription-based online services offered by record labels) - but the vast majority will continue to get their music for free.
This is unfortunate for all concerned because it means that we'll all end up paying more for our music.
Just watch the demise of the audio CD within the next two years.
The recording companies will force everyone to move to a new format with built-in DRM. Okay, so it won't affect hardened pirate (nothing ever will) but the recording industry will go ahead and do it anyway -- and we'll all end up having to buy new players just to gain (legal) access to the latest releases and paying the premium required to offset those development costs.
The solution?
The recording companies should give the damned music away for free!
No, I'm not kidding.
Let's face it -- they're effectively doing that every time a music vid screens on TV or when an FM station plays a track. Sure, there's a fee paid for each public performance -- but there's nothing to stop people from recording those broadcasts and burning them to disk or CD. Hell, I've got a great (and growing) collection of MPEGs containing all my favourite music videos. When it comes to "pop" music, I just capture what I want from free-to-air broadcasts and burn it to VCD or SVCD. I don't have to download MP3s -- I just record the audio and video track.
Artists and recording companies should put all the music on the Net for free and switch to other revenue streams.
What other streams?
1. Product endorsement (how much does Britney Spears make from her Pepsi commercials??)
2. Live concerts. Let's face it -- how does any recording artist justify earning millions of dollars for a few weeks in the studio cutting a new album?? Perhaps they could do some *real* work for their money -- just like the rest of us have to.
And there are an armful of other revenue streams that could be generated by giving away free music.
Perhaps it's time that the recording industry realized (just as the manufacturers of carbon-paper, horse-shoes and vacuum tubes had to) that the market has changed and old products and business models may no longer be valid.
The MPAA will have to take the same long look at itself -- and perhaps actors will have to realize that a couple of months work simply isn't worth tens of millions of dollars.
Alternatively: 105.5 (note the dot above the last 5)
As long as they are just used for tracking and not for devices that check watermarks to check weather they should play the music. Basically, I will be able to play my music anywhere I want, share it with friends, post short "fair use" samples on my website etc. I guess very few of us download the stuff from gnutella to save $1 per song. It's more for instant access and to avoid buying CDs full of junk. Where do I sign up? :-)
They're getting clueful, finally. US$0.99 for an mp3 is a tad high, though. Lower quality rip, etc. Don't forget the VAT for European markets. US$9.99 per CD is about right, though I'd prefer to buy per song (song that I want) anyway.
....damned near all of my collection is one of the following:
1. Out of print.
2. Artist-approved.
3. Ripped from CDs I own.
4. Ripped from CDs I own(ed).
5. The one good song on an album.
6. Never, EVER going to be released in the US (which, with my connections, sucks)
I'm not averse to buying music- I blew a good 300$+ on CDs simply by having heard several track of an album off of FTP, etc. I *am* violently averse to not getting my $$ worth. In short, if I don't like 90% of the album, it is NOT worth the money. Period. I use FTP/P2P as a "try before you buy" foil- and most of the stuff I've found that I like enough to research out turns out to be be one or two good songs on an otherwise crappy album.
I'll pay 15$-20$ for something I *know* is good. I *HAVE* in the past, and will in the future (namely Juno Reactor albums). I am NOT going to pay 15$-20$ for a single and forty minutes of filler.
Considering the amount of $ the artists I like get from CDs versus the amount they get for merch (coupled with album availablity).... I've chosen to support the artist over the label. Which means I end up spending more money- tickets, drinks, t-shirt, etc.- but with the added benefit of usually meeting the band members and having a quality experience. A show is worth the money- and I wouldn't be going to shows without the audio experience of having found the band by accident on someone's server to begin with.
Support the artists directly.
He is too busy boffing a RIAA spokesperson to care what he's saying...
of these CD's and CD-burners were sold by Sony?
We should all go out and buy a couple of singles just to show them that they are heading in the right direction.
...about the cheaper downloads.
*looks up from Kazaa* "Huh?"
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
...some of the IFPI staffers don't power up their copy of Morpheus, KaZaa, BearShare or any of the other P2P apps and snatch music on a daily basis.
grep >= ! == $your
sounds allright.. i'll probably buy a few albums at this price, if i have time to buy any this summer.
I've only gotten a couple of paragraphs into that IFPI report and already I have to respond.
The victims include the artists whose creativity gets no reward; governments who lose hundreds of millions of tax revenues; economies that are deprived of new investment; consumers who get less diversity and less choice; and record producers who are forced to reduce their artist rosters because it is impossible to compete against theft.
Let's be clear about this piece of propaganda. First off, I don't believe the recording industry is losing any significant amount of sales due to piracy. Having said that, the consumer *and* the artist are being victimized by *the recording industry*.
Consumers are fighting back by refusing to pay these pimps for someone else's work. That is the free market at work. (Refuse to be a victim! Boycott the recording industry.) I'm really hoping more artists will get fed up too (like Courtney Love apparently has) and find alternatives to promote their music and reach their fans. Death to the major record labels!
Proper government (if there is such a thing) by definition can never be a victim. But pandering like this, to the only people in society permitted to enforce their will with guns, sure can't hurt their cause, can it? Besides, if there are hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue being lost because of $4.3 billion in (hypothetical) lost record sales, the problem is excessive taxation, not piracy.
The price is perfect. For $10 you can mix a CD that only has the music that you want, instead of having to buy one that only has one or two songs that you like and the rest is filler.
This puts the ball in the consumers court now...and it will be up to them to show they are willing to pay a reasonable fee to burn legally.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Assuming Sony and Universal's proposal were a success, how useful would it be to the unix world? Liquid Audio has a free player for Windows and for Mac, but how about the rest of us. Can anyone find a player for BSD, Linux, etc? Otherwise, though potentially profitable (I guess that is the bottom line), it wouldn't be very useful to me.
The 'pirated' disks may be those duplicated for personal use, and based on the paper, many may have even been legal under fair use doctrine. There would be no uproar if they were copied onto tapes for friends. They are already compensated by a kickback from all recordable disk and tape sales, AND inflated prices for CD's. The two combined provide millions to the record labels. The industry first said that the kickback was enough to counter-balance piracy losses. Then they said that the inflated prices were neccesary for survival against piracy. Now what do they want, tax subsidies? They are already getting several by 'helping' so-called developing nations by using them for slave labor, er, production.
This is just an attempt to to double-dip (or is this tripple-dip?), and collect even more money for alledged losses.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
So they're saying everyone with a burner has done an average of several dozon illegal music CDs which has been siezed by the police? I must be blind.
I suspect that the 20th century will be viewed as an aberation as we move to a "Star Trek" economy of art, where no one watches TV anymore (or listens to the radio, etc). Instead, people will prefer to attend live performances, usually by firends or family, occasionally by a recognized star. Like the Grateful Dead always did, recordings will be used primarily to introduce someone to a performer; the "true experience" will be the live concert.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
This is the whole point of failure for the subscription P2P concept. Why on Earth would I pay some company to allow me to try to download a song off of your PC, only to have you disconnect or shutdown at 73% complete?
If I'm paying anything remotely close to current in-store CD prices, I better 1) be guaranteed successful download; and 2) have equivalent quality to the actual CD.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
The cable broadband providers should simply make an agreement to mirror content locally for a slice of the pie. This would allow Sony and Universal to off load bandwidth costs for a small cut of the pie going to Cable Companies.
Why do they not do a direct mp3.com sale where if you buy from their site they give the band half and they take half? Most people would love that! Buy from the major label directly, the major label gives half to the artist since it doesn't have to have a middleman for that sale. Of course Sam Goody, et al. would go ape shit over that!
But anyway I'll start buying downloadable music when 3 things happen:
1) I get on broadband (fuck the Man for keeping me off)
2) They offer it in a nice standard open format that loses minimal quality
3) And some nice indie labels start doing it.
Walter what's a pedderass?
Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
Three weeks ago, Maverick offered a Meshell Ndegeocello track in a 192 kbps mp3 file for 99 cents. I haven't seen anyone mention the Slashdot story.
Maverick did it right, as far as I'm concerned. Phooey on this Liquid Audio crap.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
And I'm more than impressed with MusicRebellion's site. I think you guys may be on to something there...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"you have to do is take something you're not entitled to."
In the case of the music, you are 1) taking a copy you created, so it is yours and you are entitled to it, or 2) taking a copy given to you. It's a gift, so you are entitled to it.
You would still go to all the trouble of searching for and downloading a song that may not even be what you are looking for for free, when for a measly buck get a sure thing and listen to it legally forever?
Talk about cheap, lol.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
But Universal has decided to let buyers burn the files onto conventional CDs in unscrambled formats, meaning they could be copied or moved freely from that point.
Do you have something against the ability to trace the original source in the case of wide spread distribution? No, really. I'm curious.
I'm a musican and (inept) recording artist, and actually, I think this is really encouraging. If people get used to paying $10 for an album with their credit card, well, it's the easiest thing in the world for me to offer my albums online for $5 (and in good old MP3 format, at that). The only real barrier to independent distribution is that the public is too hooked on plastic discs. And, hey, at $5, if I can just get 300 downloads a month, I'll be making more than the average schoolteacher - and that's a number that shouldn't be too hard to reach if I play shows every other weekend at various venues.
What's happening to music is almost communist; with digital recording, digital mastering, and digital distribution, the means of production are squarely in the hands of the people.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I want a program I can download from the record companies that will scan my MP3 directory and tell me how much I need to pay to legitimize my collection. They don't have to encode music for me, pay for the servers and pipe for me to get music, I can get my MP3s through my own means. I just want the license to legitimately listen to what I want on my computer, MP3 player, etc. I will even deal with the shitty quality.
There's no reason that they couldn't charge me $0.05 per song or less. Hell, it's resonable to expect that it's $0.99 for the first ten MP3s, $0.50 ea for up to 100, $0.05 for up to 1000, and a penny thereafter. No cost to them, no loss, it's basically free money. Now, if/when I ever get audited for my music I come up green and not red on their Good Boy/Bad Boy list. Everybody wins, except probably the artist, but then again, they're the ones who sold their rights to the music. It's a fucked up system, but this would at least appease two of the three parties in the tight spot.
Regardless, until then, CDs are too overpriced and inconvenient for me. Call me a bastard, I'll deal.
--
That's weak. That's like me taking what I want from a store and saying "but I had to buy a car and gas, drive over here, and spend a half-hour looking for what I wanted" when they complain that you didn't pay.
I can spend all the money I want on, say, chewing tobacco. That doesn't mean I shouldn't pay for my car repairs.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Once, a few years ago, I pirated music using Napster. I got quite good at it, amassing more than 5 GB of songs. But eventually, I had to face the facts: I was stealing music. A few of my friends asked me to justify what I was doing, and I couldn't justify it. I was stealing music.
Stealing from who, and how? Not stealing from the artists, they don't get paid anything signifigant as it is, and your additonal $0.000128 contribution isn't going to be doing them a lot of good.
Not stealing from the record labels, as they are not "out" any money by you having a copy of "thier" song. They are not even out any *potential* money, becuase, as you mentioned, you would not have bouch the music anyway.
You could call me a thief for freeing a slave, but that doesn't mean I'm morally wrong. While, *legally* I may be wrong, laws do not define morality. It is no more "wrong" to copy and listen to music than it was "wrong" to, say, be a Jew in WWII Germany.
Copying and listening to music is in no way morally wrong.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
If you can burn these things to standard CD-Audio, wouldn't it stand to reason that you can convert them directly to MP3, wihtout the middle step? Obviously, someone would have to write a utility, but I can't see why it couldn't be done.
Of course, they still haven't realized that the natural price is zero. But it's a matter of time.
That is truely amazing. Given the chance to take free music, people will take it. I guess you could say that means that the natural price is zero.
You know though, given the chance, like say during a riot, people will take TVs and stereos and just about anything else they can carry for free. And if there is some kind of contest with prizes, people will take things for free then as well. So i guess that means that the natural price of all material objects is zero too huh?
And there are contests that give away money for free, and people take it! And don't give anything in return! I guess that means the natural value of money is zero?
Of course even if the natural value of money wasn't zero, there are people who voluntarily work for certain groups without charging anything at all! Sure, there are some people who demand money for their time and energy, and some companies that will pay them, but they are about as silly as the people who pay money for legal copies of music, don't you think? So clearly the natural price of an employee is zero.
So enjoy your free music, since you don't get paid for working. You do work for free don't you, since you aren't a hypocrite right?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
the artists aren't offering a deal where you can only buy the tracks you like, they're offering a full album for $15 or $20. if you don't like it, then don't steal the pieces you like and clain it's justified because some of the music doesn't suit your sensabilities.
it never ceases to amaze me how fast morality is forgotten when it becomes easy to commit immoral actions.
It's obvious you don't have a clue about the music business.
Most artists do not own their own music
To be fair this is actually their 2nd offer.
There is no such thing as "copyright theft"(and he IS a lawyer):
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_9/scott/
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Like the title says. Forever is a long time. Got any pre-System7 Mac software laying around? Tried to run it recently? I have more than a little old software from my DOS days that I would have a hard time running without jumping through hoops. However, I have old data from back then which is easy to look at (if I cared to).
I get your point, and it's a good one, but why should I have to tote a binary around with my data? Wouldn't you rather have all those Webshots images in TIFF (or whatever) so that when you want to print five years from now you can? Who knows if their software will work on Windows2008, with the printer driver you have, etc. It's orders of magnitude more convenient/elegant/etc to have data which requires no special software. I'd almost say it's a requirement.
Here's a real-world example: I had to deal with an old DOS 6.22 era Clarion-based database software installation last year. They were upgrading (because of 2K bugs, oddly enough) to Windows 2000. They got Windows installed, but the old DB software wouldn't run under Win2K. Fine, they said, just get our data out of the old database and into the new one. Guess what? No tool to do that. No way to know what their file format was, either, so forget abotu writing a filter. What are they doing? They are running the old software on a Windows 3.11 machine and the new stuff on their Win2K box. They figure it'll be a couple years before all their customers have been serviced and are integrated into their new system. Then they'll no longer need their old data files -- and the proprietary viewer needed to get at their old data.
No, I think I'll take data -- especially if I purchase it -- as independant from any specific binaries (and their operating systems) as possible, thank you very much. I'll decide what vewier I need.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Hilary, log in if you're going to post.
ummm... no.
what I'm saying, maybe not clearly, is that businesses should figure out how to tap into the new system to make money, not force us to conform to archaic models. If they offer easy access to a wide variety music on-line at a reasonable price(as this seems to be an attempt at), then they can make money. Especially if they can provide guarantees about things, such as availability of artists, access speeds, and other levels of service. Or maybe, they'll start offering cd's at reasonable prices in order to compete with on-line sales. Personally I like buying cd's. For the shiny newness, for the smell of the new liner cover, the liner notes, the extra multimedia stuff. Even just the physicality of holding it, and putting it on a shelf for people to see.
If they continue to try and bend the system in their favour, prevent emerging technologies, and fair usage rights they will continue to be left behind.
I just don't agree that because they have been making a lot of money ripping us off, they should continue to be able to make that much money or more for enternity.
not 128kbps, but at LEAST than 196kbps
I'd like to see people say "between 100kbps and 175kbps" for once. The technology and software has reached the point where using CBR is just stupid and (significantly) hurts sound quality. No one should be using anything but VBR mp3s (unless they're using ogg). If you're one of the people that knows what a bitrate is *and* notices a difference in quality between mp3 and original raw, then you should be using VBR-encoded MP3s, not CBR.
IMNSHO, of course.
May we never see th
here it is again...
oh, I see, you're just an ass wipe
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...Osama bin Laden.
Yeah, right, now that cable's capping bandwidth and
prices are going up, they suddenly have an
inexplicable change of heart. They know full
well that with bandwidth-capping apparently
catching on, sales will suffer, and they
couldn't give a rats ass, because it will
ensure that CDs rule. "Oh, but juuuuust in
case, we'll price things to minimize the risk."
And since it's likely too late for ANYONE to
bet all on online content delivery, they'll
dabble enough to save face in the public eye.
"We have heard the people, and we gave it our
best, but it just didn't work out. Boo hoo.
Good thing we still provide $16 CDs and $5 CD "singles"!"
Pure fscking evil. Embarrassments to humanity.
Liquid Audio is a horrid format, besides having DRM on it.
Making it MP3 isn't going to magically fix anything if they release it a fixed rate. Offer three choices: 128, 192 and a high quality option that is either Ogg (natively VBR) or variable bit rate MP3 produced by the LAME encoder with r3mix settings. (Check out www.r3mix.net for info on it, they did hearing tests and it's the best size/quality option there is.)
Bottom line: I'm not paying for music that's noticeably watered down. Respect the consumer and we will respect you.
if record labels are selling their artists music over the net what is the point of an artist signing with a record label?
the artists in theory could sell their music from their own website and set up their own marketing agency and reap the rewards.
"The economic losses due to piracy are enormous, and they are felt thought the music value chain. Piracy also nurtures organized crime across the world, and it stunts investment, growth and jobs."
The words just aren't there........`s/thought/through/g; #moron`
oh wait, this just in.
Experts from the JUST_SUBMIT Group, a lying bag of lobbyists, have just released a advisory stating that pirating not only caused 50,000 deaths last year but may cause the Apocolypse.
"We got a communique from their leader, Satan the celestial terrorist, stating that the seventh sign is nigh. We're not real sure what nigh means but we have a team of lawyers ready to bring several law suites against Satan and his company, Hell Inc." stated Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA. "Not only do we have copyrights on "Satan" and "Hell" but most of his deamons appear to operate peer to peer networks. They could face trillions of dollars in damages."
For more information please read this document.
I don't know if it's an American or Canadian commercial, but there is a commercial that shows how buying drugs supports terrorists.
Paying for music means that a certain percentange (remember, zero's a percent!) goes to the artist, and a certian percentage of that (100 is a percent) is spent on that artist's crippling drug addiction. Therefore, Paying for music supports terrorists!
I always make sense (or cents... depending)!
Toora Loora Toora Loo Rye Aye
This is my formula... feel free to make it your own.
My on reckoning of "theft" would make it impossible to "steal" from Columbia Records (or Sony... or whomever).
No tears shed for those corporations... or the artists who consent to their exploitation.
the most mysterious thing you'll see today
So what happens if someone steals cd's from your car that you've burned with these watermarked files and posts them online? Will the record companies slap you with a lawsuit or throw you in jail? Seems like it would be pretty easy to get rid of the watermarks anyway.
Well the figures are about right.
Last year I did burn 850 million illegal copies but I only listened to them once so that was legitimate wasn't it ?
The sooner the music companies start selling music online at a reasonable rate, the more of their market they will retain.
So, they're burnable, but they are liquid audio...
How the heck do you get a CD player to read liquid audio format?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
-1, Mindless abuse [nt]
Calling that little PDF hand waving is being too generous, it's fraud. Notice the little bar graph about "disc piracy" and how CD-Rs are fuelling the growth of piracy?
Well, take another look, this time at the cute pie graphs. You'll notice that while CD-R piracy increased from 165 million copies in 2000 to 450 million copies in 2001, cassette piracy dropped from 1.2 billion to 900 billion.
Out with the trusty HP calculator: 450 - 165 = 285, and then 1200 - 900 = 300. Oooh, look at that: 285 < 300. Cassette piracy dropped more than CD-R piracy increased.
Lets add in the pressed CDs: 500 million in 2001, 475 million in 2000. That would mean an increase of 25 million. So, takin all formats into account, we have an increase of 10 million. A whopping 0.5% increase from 2000!
Gee, wonder why they didn't include cassette piracy in that bar graph, huh? Would have spoiled their party.
Now, if my sources are correct, the annual growth of the population of the world is somewhere around 1.3% annually, which is more than 0.5%. I guess this means that piracy per person, at least where physical copies are involved, dropped.
But of course, the goal is to levy tax on CD-Rs as "compensation" to the music publishers, so why look at the facts?
Do they mean 9 million home burned CDRs? Or 9million CDRs burned in some factory in China or Mexico? Nothing to do with mp3's or p2p I bet! Just the same old Pirating that has been done since 78's.
People, think about it - 16 tracks on a $16 CD - about a buck a track... so 99 cents is some kind of discount?
Pluzzzze... I want to see 25 cents per track for oldies, 50 cents for more recent stuff, and 75 cents for the new crap (= 3 months old). Until then, they can keep their music...
Including lyrics would be a GREAT way for the music industry to differentiate their mp3s from the home-ripped ones currently in circulation..
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Where do you buy your cocain?
1. To take and carry away feloniously, as the personal goods of another. To constitute stealing or theft, the taking must be felonious, that is, with an intent to take what belongs to another, and without his consent. Let him that stole, steal no more. Ephesians 4. 2. To Withdraw or convey without notice or clandestinely. They could insinuate and steal themselves under the same by submission. 3. To gain or win by address or gradual and imperceptible means. By downloading media for free, I am not stealing since no one is losing anything. If I can't get it for free, I wouldn't buy it because I think I can live without it. Damn jewish CEO's need to share the wealth.
If these complaints really were a problem, give people options. Other people here have been saying they'll settle for nothing less than 44k PCM. That's great, but I don't have the bandwidth to download 44k PCM's.
Give people options - CD quality PCM, mp3 and ogg of varying rates/quality, possibly with price varying according to quality/file size.
No doubt there will still be some saying - I want obscure format X - but the vast majority should be served.
I've stated as much in my post.
If an artist is quality, the work is worth the price. Flat out. If an artist does not live up to expectations, then the work is NOT worth the price. This does NOT mean that the gig is not worth going to- the artist still gets the dollar, and I get a better experience for it.
Morality is relative- the fact you choose to post anonymously proves as much. Try some namecalling with a fucking username so you can lose some karma.
Australia moved a few years ago to remove all the tariffs on CDs, DVDs and tapes. This caused a bit of annoyance in the local music scene, with artists complaining that overseas music would get too cheap, and no-one would buy Australian stuff. In fact, CDs have gotten ridiculously cheap. I can buy a full top twenty CD for around $20 ($USD10). The new pricing scheme may seem cheap in the US, but to Australians, it is roughly what CDs cost already. In places like Indonesia, Thailand and China, CDs cost next to nothing by western standards, given the availability of high-quality pirated music. It seems that this "deal" is only a bargain for a few people in very wealthy countries who already pay too much for their music. For everybody else, this is no incentive to stop the downloads at all.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
Popular download networks such as Audiogalaxy and Limewire announce that they will offer totally free downloads of singles with absolutely no charge or restrictions. w00t w00t!
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
It is a truism in the war on drugs that the police at their most efficient capture about 10% of the total trade; vicious police states may be able to get that as high as 30%. The principle is being erroneously applied here.
My bet is that within days after they start implementing thsi crap, someone is going to write some script that will alter the unique number, or scramble it, or remove it or whatever rendering the whole scheme useless. The huge encryption of DVDs is decoded, compressed, and encoded again into divx format within 4 hours on a fast machine, ready for distribution. So waht was the point of the whole encryption? Gentlemen, look at the bright side of this. A couple of dozen programers were employed writing this software. Who cares that the end result is useless. They are already paid and gone. In the end it was the record lables that get ripped off paying for labor. --contributing to piracy of all media
The downloads are in a proprietary format named LiquidAudio. It requires special LiquidAudio software to play it (i.e., probably won't work with your software/MP3 player). The software is not available for Linux, and will never be (as an open-source kernel cannot guarantee a secure audio path to the D-A converter). As such, while the format is freer than the rent-a-song service offered earlier, it is still too restricted. Sorry, not interested.
Player manufacturers can put in MP3 playback because the format is "grandfathered"; i.e., it was already in wide use before the RIAA took note of it. If they were to add support for OGG, they would be giving support to a new format which specifically precludes DRM, and would open themselves up to lawsuits. And believe me, the lawsuits would come thick and fast; the RIAA has a virtually bottomless budget to "put out fires" such as this, and would sue aggressively.
2.8 Million pirate CD's were seized in the US.
9 Million pirate CD's were SEIZED worldwide.
An estimated 950 million pirate CD's were sold.
The number of CD's SEIZED will always be a subset of those SOLD (unless law enforcement suddently grows brain cells). Hence these numbers make perfect sense.
Try thinking before speaking. Fighting the MPAA et all is great, but blind faith simply makes you look like the rest of the sheep.
Since the RIAA claim to have figures that state that approximately 950 million copies were sold illegally
Step 1. Lower the price of legitimate CD's.
Step 2. Since the price of legitimate CD's will be around $3-5 a piece, the people who actually PURCHASED illegal discs will buy legal ones.
Step 3. Make much more profit, stop wasting money on frivolous research showing that there is X amount of piracy (since it really doesn't exist too much anymore since people are WILLING to pay for CD's).
Step 4. Sit back and watch the dough roll in....
This would probably work! Think about how many more people would actually PURCHASE the music instead of downloading it?
Also, I love the fact that the article states something about that Eminem's new release had RECORD sales! What does that tell you? I bet that most of the people that downloaded the CD went right out and bought it when it was released. Preview before purchasing - works well for weeding out the crap....Of course, the RIAA will never go for it, since people would actually stop buying 95% of the crap they release anyhow....
If you actually download the thirteen MB Liquid Audio player and read the clickthrough licence, you'll find the following juicy clause among the usual "w3 0wnZ j00" legaleze:
Oh, and your passport contains your credit card number, and you agree that it's not their fault if you get scammed. And the player can disable itself any time it likes. By the way, if you want to convert to a sane format, you have to actually physically burn a CD as raw and then rip it, you can't just "save as".
This is just another "music locker" rental scheme, with a (grudgingly provided) tortuous method to get yourself out of it. Maybe. Perhaps.
Excuse me if I hold out for mp3 or ogg downloads that don't assume that I'm a thief who may have to be cut off at any time.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
But only if the majority of music being "shared" online was of birds singing, running water etc etc.
Yes, I know recordings of that stuff exist, but I'd be willing to wager that it's not what most people use file-sharing systems to find.
So you have air, which occurs naturally, that you want to sell vs. a musician trying to make a living making music you like. One is available naturally and requires no human interaction. The other, generally, requires people to make it.
Why are all of you so against supporting the musicians? Forget the labels, send anonymous monetary donations directly to the artist. But do something for them. They're doing something for you.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
Unless they've changed the format, there's a set of tools for Windows that converts Liquid Audio files straight to .WAV. I used them to burn some of my legally purchased Liquid Audio files on CDs and make MP3s of them (for XMMS). Look for a2b2wav and other such tools on Google.
F.O.Dobbs
This is an idea that I've always had in my head, and at last I can get it out of my head and put it in print.
I think it would be good if artists united in a global effort to start an independent recording association (not affiliated with the RIAA, Sony, Universal, Columbia, etc...). This association would of course be non-profit (unlike traditional record labels). The way it would work is simple: the artists would have full control over stuff like sales and organization fees (to keep the organization stable!), and the artists would distribute their CDs this way - say, they would send their songs either over a private network or on a CD to a state CD-burning factory (located in the state capital or something), where several copies of the CD would be pressed and distributed according to the artists' instructions. I calculate that this way, average CD prices should never exceed $6 per CD, which is way better than nowadays. This 8-dollar estimate I came up with factors in the cost to produce the CD, the cost to ship it, and the amount of money the artist gets DIRECTLY. And since it would never be more than $4 to make and ship a CD, you give the artist about $2-$3 per CD, which is EXCELLENT compared to what they get now.
At the time I wrote this I didn't have all of the tidbits of how this would-be organization would work, but I'm sure that if the artists really wanted to do something like this, they would be able to sort it out.
Do you like the way the above seems to work? If you do, I already have a working acronym: AIRO (for Artists' Independent Recording Organization). If you don't, you may as well be at Sam Goody or FYE buying their CDs for near $20...
I worked in a record store at the time CD's were introduced. We had some informational material from Sony etc. that stated "LP's will continue to be produced, alongside CD's, but the cost of CD's will drop till the point where there's no point in buying vinyl" and "over the next few years we will re-release our entire back catalog onto CD". What actually happened was that the price of albums was RAISED to match CD's before albums disappeared. And now, 18 or so years later, the back catalog has failed to appear. There's STILL stuff I want to buy on CD that I cannot. For that music, mp3 off the net has solved my problem. I would not have minded spending $10 or so per album to replace them. But most of the time that wasn't provided. And now I get to download an album for $10, but if I want media I have to burn my own? Where do these clowns get off?
The article (the pdf file) states piracy costs the music industry US$4.3 billion every year, worldwide (on the second page). On the same page, it itso states that the music industry makes about US$ 535 billion annually (this is the gross product, not net profit, but anyway).
/. article, i'm to lazy to go find it).
You don't needs a degree in mathmatics to figure out that 4.3 out of 535 is only a little over 0.80%. So how exacly is this killing the music industry?
And sony was going to pay the artists about US$ 0.0023 per downloaded song, IIRC (older
The artists who made the songs in my (modest) 893 song mp3 collection would receive just over US$ 2.05 together.
Now they (sony) wants to charge US$.99 per song. The magic maths shows that the artists get only about 0.23% of what i pay for the songs.
So how is this helping the artists again?
I hesitated posting this because it is not really my torch to bear. Finally though, I decided to toss this out there anyway. I'm in the midst of moving so I don't have much time to reply to replies - guess we'll just see how it goes. Consider it a 'speak now..." moment.
Generally speaking--and not intending to demean a musicians' effort--it takes much more time to produce any sizeable program than to produce music. Sure the musician may have been "thinking" of the music for years, becoming inspired, etc. but in the end it's just some number of hours in the recording/editing studio. Programming a decent sized program can be matters of months. One of my projects was actually 1.5 years.
Would you like some examples of albums that took more than 1.5 years to create? I could provide you with a few. I could provide you with even more examples of albums that took months. But let's look closer. In the 1.5 years spent on that project was any time spent pseudo-coding or plotting out what the program should do and how it should do it? If so, that would fall under "thinking" of the program, "becoming inspired" etc. Or, was every second of the 1.5 years spent typing in actual code? If you want to extend this argument to ridiculous proportions you could say that time spent compiling the code doesn't count toward the 1.5 years either. After all, you're not doing any work while it compiles, the compiler is. But isn't that going a little too far?
Music, especially good music, can take just as long as programming can. Saying you didn't intend to demean the efforts of musicians doesn't excuse you or make your demeaning statement go away. What if I say I think making good music takes more effort than programming does. Who's right then? Honestly, neither of us. Both activities take a great deal of effort. You just don't want to admit that.
Musicians, on the other hand, should make their money doing live performances. I don't think anyone would pay a programmer for live performances.
I, myself, would love to see programmers go on tour. I probably would pay a programmer some money to come fix up a little program for me. But he or she'd have to come to my house, to my city to do it. Even so, that's not a fair comparison. Playing a live show every night or (every other night) is not the same thing as spending a few hours coding a night.
Let's see you spend 8-12 months a year sleeping on a bus, or in hotels, running around on stage (yep, that's being athletic and staying in shape) every night with maybe one or two off here and there. Then come back and say that that is the only thing a musician should get paid for. And that if you're not doing that you shouldn't get any income. And that you should never get time off (like how programmers can get vacation time from work). Because if the musicians stop touring the income stops too. And where is the time to write new songs? While sleeping on the bus?
Or, consider this scenario. Musicians often have a hard time getting health insurance. (Just ask Willie Akins if you don't believe me.) Now what happens if a musician breaks a foot while on tour? This limits, especially if they are a drummer, their ability to participate in the only (according to you ) legitimate work a musician can do. Meanwhile, the medical bills are piling up, they've got no insurance and no way to make any income. Granted, breaking a foot will impede the recording process too. But my point is that by saying musicians should only get money from live performances you are saying that if they are injured they are not worth getting any income while they heal. Unless they happen to be rich and can afford all the bills without insurance they are screwed. (I don't actually expect you to care about that, I'm just pointing out a view from another angle.)
I propose that the only value of a programmer is fixing something when it goes wrong. The initial cost of the program should be zero. It's got cultural value as something computer users can share and discuss, but it has no economic value. From now on all of your programs should be available to everyone for free. We will only pay you to fix problems. That 1.5 years you spent on that one project is worthless. To make this match the 'on tour' philosophy a little better you have to come to my city to do it. You can fix it once, and everyone in this city (who shows up) can get the fix for a cost. Then you have to go to the next town to fix it for them. And so on and so on. That's the only way you should get to make money from programming. If you break a finger and can't program that's just too bad.
You do the recording, you're done and watch the money come in. With programming, if you're not constantly improving your product (i.e. spending more development time on it), your product will quickly fall off the radar screen.
How many musicians truly make a living off of a single album? I'm sure there are a few. Some probably do it off of one song. But it's hardly the majority. So, while programmers have to continue to improve their programs, musicians have to improve their music (writing new material etc etc.) or they, too, will drop off the radar.
For me, the value of recorded music is that I can buy a CD once, and then listen to the contents whenever I want however many times I want. I'm pretty selective so when I plunk down the money I'm pretty sure that 10 years from now I'll still be listening to that CD. 15 bucks is damn well worth 10 years of getting to listen to the music. 'Course, I'd rather pay the musicians directly, but that's another story.
They will be compensated. When they do concerts. If they want to earn more money, they'll have to work harder and do more concerts.
So let me get this straight. Musicians should spend months (note the plural there) working hard on music for you to enjoy for free unless they happen to play a show in your town and you happen to be able to make it? Pretty flimsy set of circumstances there. Meanwhile you get the benefits of their labor (listening to the recordings) while giving nothing back to them.
This is what you really want. You want the music and you don't want to reward the artist. All your rationalizations are just a façade to cover this up.
You see, your actions are just like what the RIAA does. (The specifics are different, but the intent and the outcome are the same.) They want to protect their income by screwing over the music fans and the musicians. The fans, in turn, want to protect their money by screwing over the RIAA and the musicians. Exactly how are you better?
How 'bout this: if you only think live music is worth paying for then only listen to live music. Get rid of every recording you have. If recorded music is really just a transitory experience for you, one of no economic value, then why do you need a collection of it? On the other hand, if the recording is worth keeping around, maybe it has some value to you. And maybe you could let the artist know that by helping them pay the rent, or have food, or pay medical bills. Even if they're not on tour.
To circle back around to programming, that would mean my proper channel for telling you that your program is not worth my money is to not use your program whatsoever.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
Even though I suggested I wouldn't be able to respond to replies immediately that does not mean I'm not interested in continuing the discussion. Nor does it mean that I would never reply. It just might take days, instead of hours.
OTOH, I'm aware that things come up which keep people from getting to less important stuff like slashdot. So if that's the case, I apologize.
Just trying to keep the ideas flowing. The worst thing that happens is that we both continue to re-examine and sharpen our arguments.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.