Slashdot Mirror
Ipsos-Reid: More Americans Downloading Music
An anonymous reader writes "Ipsos-Reids ongoing research on file trading called Tempo again confirms a continuing rise in the number of Americans downloading music from the Net. Furthermore, almost a third (31%) of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online. Of course, having paid once from services like Rhapsody and PressPlay doesn't mean you were satisfied with the value. It does mean though that a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa. You can see the the report graphs here."
... through bandwidth costs. :-P
I haven't bought more than a couple CDs in the last two years, myself... On the other hand, if I didn't download music I'd just be listening to the radio with its horrid commercials.
You'd almost think a 'net company would know
So what you are really trying to say here is that more people realize that you don't have to go out and spend $15 on a CD. And better yet the smarter people use a free service as compared to a pay service. I thought we all new that.
We just launched a web site that is sort of like a free eBay or maybe something like an offline Napster: Trodo.com. What is Trodo? "Trodo is a place to trade stuff. It is a friendly barter system. It is a bazaar. It is place to swap stuff. It is a place to share. It is a place to meet people who have stuff you want. It is a place to find out-of-date and hard to find stuff. It is a place to give people stuff you don't want, and to get stuff they don't want." This is a legal, (currently) free, and easy way to exhcange stuff with other people, like CDs and books. After you pay for something and use it, trade it away and get something in return. As I said, we literally just launched. What do you think?
How to Download YouTube Videos
The Music Downloads YOU!
This is the same old song and dance that is allways reported, by everyone, over and over. When you report something new, tell me.
Very few will actually pay for music online to download when everybody else will download the same music, with no copy restrictions for free!
And that goes especially for you, BMG!.
Since you will no longer be selling uncrippled CDs, you will have forced me to find other sources of Music. I will therefor no longer buy CDs that I cannot play in the manner that I want, even if that manner is in compliance with copyright laws.
Thank you.
Dave
Just because someone downloads it doesnt mean they like it. Many people downlaod music that they would never buy and end up liking it and then buy the artists CD. The trading of music over the Net has greatly increased the different types of music that a person listens too. To bad the RIAA doesnt trust the studies that say this is true.
I'd be happy to pay for *good quality* versions of records that are no longer available, such as songs from soundtracks from one hit wonder bands, etc. I've had a lot of trouble finding these, even on kazaa napster winmx, etc, and even those that i find are poor vinyl rips. I think promotion of back catalogue is the best way forward here. eg. Shania Twain's first albums. Can you get those anywhere? Not in the UK...
It shows a larger proprotion of the downloaders have tried a pay service. I wonder if the proportion isn't more people, but less quality free stuff due to Napster shutdown, Aimster/Madser litigation, looping files, improperly named files, etc. and those Dl'ing for free, not admiting it due to possible litigation exposure.
The truth shall set you free!
I purchase plenty of music in CD and LP form. Some of what I listen to is obscure, some of it is quasi-popular, but very little seems to be online anyway. It's much easier and less time consuming for me to go out and buy the stuff from the local non-chain music store.
Occasionally I'll download a track or two to see if I like an album, so I can put it on my "buy" list if I enjoy it. It may take me a while to buy it, but I do if it's available.
Try besonic, a guilt free way to download music.
Don't forget to select your country if your germans not upto scratch (the site's english, but quite a bit of the popular music is German!)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Porn industry doesn't complain
"Its all free advertising, and we've got premium services that are making a profit"
If the record industry could follow this model then it would be less of an issue.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Oddly, this kind of report is one of the few things you won't find on KaZaa or Gnutella. Though something that made the industrial sheen bar graphs is.
Maybe when the prices of music, downloaded or retail, come down to new market levels I'll go back to blowing a day's wages on a handful of iffy albums.
This is yet another case of /. taking one study and then claiming that it must be statistically significant when it is probably not representative at all of most people. The TEMPO study is obviously geared towards somehow making it socially acceptable to steal music. I doubt whether it is as widespread as it reports, as most people think twice before destroying artist's livelihood.
After all it take takes real scum to steal music and then to brag about it. And the imbeciles who post here will probably egg them on all the while as they do it.
Well you know why popular music scene is full of "artists" like Britney Spears? It's because of people like them stealing music and destroying the chances of decent musicians.
Shurely shome mishtake?
Surely you mean:
Even though they can get it all in return for hosting viruses and trojans on Kazaa?
Even thought they can get it in exchange for their integrity on Kazaa?
Even though they can get it in return for sitting online for hours looking for a decent quality recording of a track?
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
Hmm... this one was interesting.
(First, does anyone wonder if this "anonymous reader" really exists, or if it's just michael making something up again?)
Anyway, here are the facts we have (from the summary).
1. A continuing rise in the number of Americans downloading music from the Net.
2. 31% of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online.
Let's review those for a minute. First: Piracy (or, to those zealots who says there's no guy with an eyepatch here), the illegal downloading of copywrited music without proper (in the legal, not moral sense) compensation is up. Second, thirty-one percent says they paid for some of the music they downloaded! So... how much did they pay for? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%? Who knows? I'd guess no more than a third. If that's true, we have less than a third of the pirates paying for less than a third of their music... which, if downloading is uniformly distributed, means less than 11% of all music being pirated is being paid for.
And based on this he claims "a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa."?
Yeah, right.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
I understand that artists need to be paid for what they do just like everyone else... and I don't have a problem with artists being paid MORE then everyone else... What I do have a problem with is there royalty system. The music labels need to come up with a way of making money for themselves... Endorse the label and not the song. Create a way for us internet people to get a hold of the newest and latest music online and not charge download fees...
I guess my point is...Libraries, slashdot, open source software...etc etc... all seem to remain alive without making people pay big bucks for what they offer.
BMG or SONY could come out with a really awsome way to organize our songs... or help us out with the quality of what we get... but they don't... they just complain.
Bottom line: This is 2002... Kazaa(which I hate), and GNUtella(which I love) is not going away...neither is the mp3 format... deal with it.
If I had to, I'd point my fingers at DIRT CHEAP recordable CD's, the lack of copy protection on music CD's, and DIRT CHEAP CD recorders.
I went to Circuit City for a plain-jane 40X CDROM, and I ended up buying a 32X CD-RW, not because it was $24.99, but because the plain CD-ROM was $49.99.
While I was there I bought a spindle of 100 generic recordable CDs, $7.99 with a $5 instant rebate. $2.99!
You notice that it says free...It doesn't break down if they were download illegally from a filesharing service or if it was from legitiatmate sources, such as DMusic.com or Mp3.Com or for that matter the artist's websites?
Free does not neccesarily mean "stolen". Sounds like you've bought into the RIAA position lock stock and yardarm.
The statistics aparently refer to the number of people who have *ever* downloaded music. Which means that you'd be fairly surprised if they didn't rise. No?
(And since they also refer only to Americans aged 12 and over, it is even conceivable that absolutely *no-one* is presently downloading music, and the 'increase' comes simply from counting all the former 9-year old Napster users for the first time.)
When will surveys start asking the right questions?
The whole idea of downloading music is a neverending story. People will allways claim they do it because CD-prices are too high in their opinion. The record-companies on the other hand will continue to claim prices must be high because music is downloaden so often.
I won't claim I've never downloaded music but when the album is worth it I'll purchase it. Downloading just prevents me from buying and the regrets afterwards. Downloading and never buying therefor is quit lame in my opinion.
Downloading also gives me the opportunity to get familliar with different kinds of music. Record stores aren't very happy when people keep on listening without buying. P2P programs let you enjoy the listening in the comfort of your own home. As everybody can see there are some very legitimate reasons to download MP3. If everybody would follow such standards I think the entertainment industry would have much less of a problem with it.
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
Cute and even true, but almost always wrong. Come on, you know better than that. Yes, we all have our favorite band who has legal mp3's out. Yes, we all know about the legal files on mp3.com. But honestly, isn't almost all of what you (if you like mass-produced junk) and your cookie-cutter friends (like 90% of the world) like pirated?
If not, I'm sorry, and pleased to meet you. If so... take a number.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
over the last few years, a tiny number of gigantic companies have locked up all our aural culture tighter than a drum. they hold a monopoly on the ears of the general public. radio stations are almost universally owned by Clear Channel. concert venues of course belong to Ticketmaster. there's pseudo-competition in the record industry, but all the competitors there are equally soulless.
... but DAMN, do we like to fight amongst ourselves, and so many woul rather go with the status quo, too afraid to find our own way.
there has always been those who reject this hierarchy, but until now we've relied on word of mouth, dubbed tapes, lamppost posters and flyers to reach our audience. musicians are slow adopters, but we are catching on. CD-R's and MP3's are mainstream now. can enough like-minded musicians -- musicians who reject the whole corporate machine, and don't mind sacrificing money and fame to operate outside of it -- can enough of us band together to form a cohesive movement, or will we remain isolated and disparate?
geography is less of a barrier than ever. the music industry has never been in greater need of revolution. and independant musicians have never been as well armed as we are now
i suppose only time will tell.
dan
the overprivileged
http://www.theoverprivileged.com
i could live a little longer in this prison
...almost a third (31%) of shoplifters claim they have paid for at least some of the goods they got our of the shop!
Almost everythign there is to say about the issue has been said already in previous slashdot stories. So just about anything I could say would be redundant. Except I just realized something. Let's say I bought all music I wanted on CD and didn't download anything. I would be without all my music from foreign countries and without my video game music remixes! That's the real reason I don't buy CDs. They don't have the music I want and don't have. Seeing as I've already got all the classic rock ever on vinyl.
I'll make a deal with you RIAA. Release a CD with the best of OC Remixes and I'll buy two copies. Until then, make mine winMX.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
IMHO most of the sharing clients around are pretty average these days. Nothing compares to the leeching I used to do back in the napster days. Have tried gnutella, kazaa, DC et al... Seems to me that most of the good stuff is being hosted on "private" http/ftp that friendly irc folk will help out with. That is if you have the time to hang out on irc... I got plenty to share but seems to me that the demise of Napster was a coup for the scummy record companies. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
This is bascially what I do. Mostly all of the music that I listen to, I download first. It comes from various sources like binary newsgroups, kazaa, gnucleus, stuff uploaded to me, etc. When I find something that I really enjoy, I go out and purchase the records, by doing so I support the artists and give them an opportunity to creat more music that I will enjoy. I spend between $50 and $150/month buying albums, mostly online. I am sure that there are many people out there that do the same.
at my current connection speed, it would take about forever to download a typical 3.5 meg song... thank you AT&T Cable!!!
God its depressing when you go to a site that says 1 minute @ 56k and it takes you 90 seconds on yer cable modem...
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Sorry, RIAA and MPAA, but given the consistent mediocrity that you people have been getting away with for years, I simply don't trust you to give me the product I'm paying for.
What that means for you is that I will download movies on Kazaa or Imesh, and I will get MP3's before I pay one red cent to you. It doesn't mean that I want to rip you off, it means I don't want you to rip me off. It's basic economics that you don't seem to be understanding: I download 100 MP3's. Of those MP3's I find 4 or 5 that come from artists I decide I like. The rest get deleted because I decide they suck. I buy CD's that have been released by those artists to see if I like everything else they've done. I'd say that aside from a couple anthologies from 70's and 80's bands, and the copy of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" that I had to replace, I haven't bought a CD in the last 5 years that I didn't preview somehow.
Movies... same deal. I don't even trust Hollywood not to fsck up "Lord of the Rings", and won't see it until I'm done downloading it. If you people hadn't been consistently passing off crap for the last quarter century, I might be more willing to spend money on you, but as it is I'm not spending anything on you until I know that I'm getting what I pay for.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
" continuing rise in the number of Americans downloading music from the Net"
The number will rise till everyone is downloading music.
Kazaa is not free. Each popup cashes in on a little piece of my sanity...
...which is still better than the recording industry cashing in on a large piece of my wallet.
`I dare say you never even spoke to Time!'
`Perhaps not,' Alice cautiously replied: `but I know I have to beat time when I learn music.'
The giant record companies were once a necessary evil when proper recording equipment was very expensive and there were few channels for distributing music. Now it is easy to record at home, modify the recording on your home computer and burn your own CDs or put your music on the internet. I do like the idea of a musicians community where you can exchange resources and ideas, or at least network.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
I have an even better idea for how the record labels can make money... They can charge 1 time royalty fees to companies who make portable Mp3 players.
Example:
Sony makes an Mp3 player that can hold 100 songs...charge Sony royalties for 100 songs...for every product sold... They would make a fortune.
Then again...wait a second... Isn't sony also a record label? So technically they would be charging themselves for distributing songs? That can't be right.... So if Sony the label wants people to stop pirating songs... Why do they make MP3 players to play those illegal songs?
Things that make ya go hmmmmmm....
--
An active Open Source advocate.
The less money we make each fiscal year, the more we will blame piracy. Sure we are an overvalued service, which is slowly becoming obsolete, but we won't admit it.
Thanks to headstrong pirates like you, we can take our dwindling profit margins to the Congressmen we own, and force legislation that will put you behind bars, and/or force you to buy our product.
You are our best friend, Mr. Pirate, and we salute you.
Thank you.
The Industry
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The top 40 lists are guided by album sales, additionally, artist tend to write what sells. I am guessing that the crowd under 25 yrs old downloads much more than over 25 yrs old (completely unsubstantiated guess) that being said, the top 40 does have a lot more mature type sounds lately (more accoustic music, higher vocal quality etc...) Could the traditionally teeny bopper top 40 be getting more guidance from the older more apt to pay crowd? Could teenagers be robbing themselves of their 'right to vote' for the music of their choice? If they are is that something that still matters or will the top 40 fade in the shifting paradigms of the 21st century?
As I said that is all speculative.
I pay 100 Aus dollars a month for 11.5GB of downloads (yes, capped broadband) per month, 11 of which goes to Kazaa. Basically, i'm spending 90 bucks a month on entertainment. Sure, the artists don't get squat, but i'm still "paying" for what I watch.
Perhaps the record companies, movie companies etc should consider this in their business plan...
of course more people are downloading more music...it's on every commercial for broadband that i've ever seen. DSL, earthlink, roadrunner...and now that more people are signing on for these services, then yes, of course, more people are online to download more stuff!
Buying an Album shouldn't be like opening a gift bag. You should be able to know what's on the disc, before you buy it, to decide if you WANT to buy it. Sure, the radio plays 1 or 2 songs, over, and over and over.... and Most modern music stores will let you listen to a CD in store, but what if i want to listen to that music in context?
So i download it, give it a listen from my favorite armchair, and decide wether or not it's worth my $20. If not, it goes into the Recyclebin. I'm not a pirate, if i don't like it, i don't keep it. If i do like it, i buy it, and rip a higher quality MP3 straight from the CD.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Friday 9:15pm - Downloaded new Audioslave album
Friday 9:45pm - Listened to about 4 songs and realizing that it isn't anywhere near as interesting as I'd hoped it would be.
Friday 10:00pm - Hit some discussion boards to see what other people with similar tastes are listening to.
Friday 10:30pm - Dowloaded albums from Lightning Bolt, Beck, and Interpol.
Friday 11:00pm - Began listening to downloaded albums. Liked Lightning Bolt and the new Beck, but didn't care much for Interpol.
Saturday 11:00am - Trip to Newbury Comics (New Englanders know...). Buy 2x Lightning Bolt and 1x Beck. And also while there bought Johnny Cash and Sonic Youth on vinyl. Total outlay... about $65.
Saturday 4:00pm - Served with an arrest warant for illegally downloading music.
Sunday - Spent the day trying to explain the finer points of SoulSeek to my new friend Bubba.
Monday 9:00am - Allowed access to prision computer terminal to check on Slashdot. Awaiting bail...
Yup. I'm a criminal.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Actually no it isn't...Because since July 13, 2000 when I first registered boycott-riaa.com and threw together the website, I have purchased not one REPEAT not one, major label release. Nor have I downloaded any either. I don't feel the need. But I have bought close to 150 independent cds. The RIAA drove me to it, and you know what? Its usually much better music, production without overproduction, and usually much better priced as well. My shopping habits have changed as a result.
As for me and my cookie cutter friends usually most people are quite surprised to find that I'm not a 20 something geek that's pissed that I can't download for free, but instead a 50+ year old who works the system writing letters, meeting with congresscritters, attending events like Future of Music Coalition Policy Summitt or SXSW Educating consumers and artists alike.
Tha whole point is to make the RIAA, Hilary Rosen, The IFPI, and Jay Berman irrelevant. They are are a Maginot line to independent music. We just go around them. If an indie is given a chance to distriubte their work, get airplay without paying millions in "bagman" payola they will have a chance to make a decent living from their music. It doesn't take millions of sales to make a damned decent living if you aren't having 90% of every dollar in sales (of those actually reported) skimmed by corrupt record labels, And you pay the expenses out of your 10%.
Only time I EVER download any music is when I can't find it on CD anywhere. There is no point to download something and risk infection than rather buying the CD and having a hard copy.
Who is The Mole? Visit JulesTM for a new edgy Mac site!
I seriously doubt that only 26% of the downloading population is 18-24 yrs old.. I would guess that it's more around 40%. Downloading music is the new pasttime for college students (especially since you can do other things while it's downloading..)
I wonder if the survey respondents were including Windows (et al) sharing in their responses? (e.g. "Have you ever transferred music to your hard drive from a source other than your personally owned CD?)
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
Well you make a good point, if we lived in a perfect world where we all played nice in the sandbox but.
.org fool ya. Slashdot is a money making enterprise. May not have started that way, but you see the banner ads. And not from little companies. IBM, RackSpace, Sun, AND EVEN GASP MICROSOFT. Someone has to pay for all the bandwidth we eat up every day. And why not make some loot as well? I bet Taco and Neal do quite well, and OSDN gets a nice montly check fromt banner revenues.
.50c or a buck. But I gotta tell you any code I write that I deem econmically viable. I sell and sell and sell. I gotta eat, wife has to eat.
1. Libraries pay for books. You check the book out. Read it, bring it back. You aren't making a free photo copy and then letting your friends make a copy. And only one person can have that book at a time. And most importantly libriaries are subsidized and have to fight for the money they get, they do not just exist.
3. Open Source Software - Well it is a good model if you pay for service, or donate to the project, or even buy the gasp COMMERCIAL PAY VERSION. Which most people don't do. Most people in the community just dig around Source Forge for something they need. And we wonder why IT is staying in a slump. Anyway, OSS is a good way to get loads of people working on something, then take the good of it, and make it commercial.
4. Slashdot, SLASHDOT not make money? Don't let the
And what is this " Create a way for us internet people to get a hold of the newest and latest music online and not charge download fees" hmmm so if all music was for free, how would the label or the artist make money? Even less people would buy cd's. The money is not made in concerts, not too much, but from LP sales and merchandise. You think the stones made their entire fortune from touring? Years upon years of alblum sales.
Take a reality check. I am not gonna own a company and give you 2 million dollars to cut a record, so you can can just pay me my 2 million back one day. I am gonna want a piece, which is fair. Quid pro Quo. Most people around here still haven't realized that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I am for downloading tunes, but paying for them, whether it is a
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
There simply wasn't anything from the new music scene that people wanted.
And that isn't new. The same thing happens at my kids school when they have their sock hops.
I'm far more likely to hear AC-DC or Ozzie, than 'Flash in the Pan' band X.
Even The Osbournes focuses on what is basically an old band. Does anyone think that The Speers, or the Aguleras whould be as watched?
The new music isn't popular. It might be for a while, but it quickly fades. Even in movies. If the movie isn't just an advertisement for a soundtrack, it'll either be classical (LOTR, Green Mile) or Old (The Santa Clause, Jack Frost, even Goldmember).
Unfortunately, LOTS of old albums are unavailable. I've tried to buy TU, but couldn't. I've tried to buy Gregg Tripp, but couldn't. Even the Original Alannis album from her teeny bopper days. It's unavailable.
Thankfully, All of this can be downloaded. There simply is no other way to get it.
After the label gets their cut, and the record store, and the band pays back the advance that paid for the studio time. The whole RIAA argument that the poor artists are going to starve because of music being copied is a load of crap. The artist is lucky to get one percent of the profits from an album. Most artists make all their money touring and on T-shirt sales and such at the concerts. So if you want to support music go to concerts. And buy lots of T-shirts.
Point is... we don't HAVE to pay to use Slashdot (as they don't force us)... The library issue is a good point... but have you ever been to a college or university? They may have to return the book but the photo copy machine gets its fair share of quarters too...
"so if all music was for free, how would the label or the artist make money?"
By being creative and not depending on royalties... Like I said in a pervious post...If they really REALLY were in a crunch and wanted money... They should stop selling the portable Mp3 players that one of there own companies makes.... Sony portable Mp3 player... Sony music labels.... Sony is still sony... Period.
Just my two sence though... you have a valid point.
What I want to know is if this falls under the same category as TV timeshifting, or recording your favorite show on a VCR/PVR and playing it back as much as you like.
Do you guys know of any applicable US laws / court cases?
I've been using Rhapsody for a few weeks, and it's a blast. For $10 (roughly the price of CD) each month, I get unlimited online access to a huge catalog of well-digitized music. Very simple and very good.
The $1 per track charge to burn to CD is pretty high, so I don't do that.
Just because record companies are swine, it does not mean that it's OK to steal stuff from them. Rhapsody lets me get (most of) the music I want at a very reasonable cost.
Highly recommended.
(No, I don't work for them, etc.)
SOVIET RUSSIA, Post 9/11 America; same thing thanks to Homeland Security.
Me emailing them, or sending letters probably wont do squat, but if the Musicians they represent said that crippled CD's weren't in there contract, bye bye.... Then maybe EMI/BMG et all would notice.
So, Email/Write to your favourite musician and tell them that you will no longer be buying there music because it's crippled, suggest that this might be a get out of Jail free card in terms of there contract etc....
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You'd better not cry,
You'd better download,
and I'm telling you why;
The DMCA is coming to town.
They're making a list,
and checking it twice;
They're going to enforce
those Digital Rights.
The DMCA is coming to town...
(chorus)
(refrain)
Canada limits Europian music on purpose because they are "promoting" their native artists. I just wonder who. Saline Dion, NoBrain Adams?. For a Christ sake they are the wors disaster in the music world. And I have to listen to them?. 99% of all Europian releases will never make to Canada. Before P2P and Mp3 you had to listen what gou't gives you to listen. Thanx to P2P and mp3. Now we are able to listen what we want. And the problem is not in p2p and mp3. But with all those restrictions our gou't put on the music. We phisicly don't have CDs we want in the stores. I wish I could just go and buy CDs I want. But I have to pay 4 times to get them from Europe. And it takes up to 2-3 weeks. Only solution is to give as big choise in stores. No they wanna control our minds trough music we listen. Sorry it'll not work. Give us freedome of choise in stores and mp3/p2p problem will disappear
Sunday 11:00am - Typed the word 'xmas' into eMule.
Sunday 11:01am - Typed the words 'christmas' into eMule.
Sunday 11:03am - Selected 15 RAR files of MP3s and started to download.
Monday 07:45am - Moved 5 downloaded albums into my not-shared folder and looked at the other 10 that are still downloading.
---------
Tonight I will spend some time deleted all the crap in order to burn one nice Xmas CD for my daughter. She will listen to it once today and probably once on Xmas day.
What a huge waste of bandwidth! But what other choice do I have?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
And based on this he claims "a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa."?
Yeah, right
Have you ever tried to search for a specific song? or an entire album? Its like pulling teeth! Factor that in with all the dial-up users or broadband users that allow 20,000 concurrent downloads (1.5mbps/20,000 = 75 BITS PER SECOND, plus overhead!) and those slow connections always have the stuff you want...
Then factor in non-mainstream tastes, and there are things you just can't find on KaZaa.
I'd rather pay money to download from a fast pipe, on demand. Give me at least 80kbps and I'm happy. Give me 175kbps and I'll have your children.
Once I've paid off this semster of schooling I'm getting a subscription to Emusic.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I download music on a regular basis. When I really like the album I always buy it. In fact, I just bought three last week after listening to the albums. Unfortunately, as some of you probably realise, its hard to find little known artists or artists who are more popular overseas than in the US. I ended up purchasing 2 albums from european artists and it cost me $25 (Can) vs $15 for most other CD's. Pricey, but well worth it.
At times I would just download songs I've already purchased since it was quicker to download them then to convert them in the computer for my MP3 player.
and how that is different than other entertainment media: money the industry spends (contracts, studio time, etc) is spent on future returns on this investment. So the idea is that you can spend half a million on a band with the hope that you will reap many fold over this.
Everyone mentions Britney Spears but also notice that her music is not what the record industry hopes for. What is best for them? Pink Floyd, Journey, etc. Remember that these old rock acts are not on the Billboard 200. Why? Because decades old music would represent 75% of the chart! These are the records that go quadruple diamond and will continue to sell... forever. Britney/N'Sync are good right now, but do you think those albums will be constant sellers in a decade?
So not only is trading cutting into these longterm sellers, the industry knows that if they don't sell Britney et al now, that is money that won't come around in the future.
[In an Economic view] Now this industry is making all these investments and their market is bottoming out. All their speculation tools are useless (since, as others have said, they don't know where to spend their money).
The big difference between the record companies and economic speculators is that the record industry can't invest more in mainstays! I mean there are only so many Zeppelin and Beatles hits comps they can release a year.
"Well they should only release good music!" Yeah, and when has that ever happened in any product industry? Software? Automobiles? Fast Food? Pffff. Pipedream justification.
What is music when you despise all sound?
And based on this he claims "a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa."?
Yeah, right
Have you ever tried to search for a specific song? or an entire album? Its like pulling teeth! Factor that in with all the dial-up users or broadband users that allow 20,000 concurrent downloads (1.5mbps/20,000 = 75 BITS PER SECOND, plus overhead!) and those slow connections always have the stuff you want...
Then factor in non-mainstream tastes, and there are things you just can't find on KaZaa.
I'd rather pay money to download from a fast pipe, on demand. Give me at least 80kbps and I'm happy. Give me 175kbps and I'll have your children.
Once I've paid off this semster of schooling and finished christmas shopping I'm getting a subscription to Emusic.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Furthermore, almost a third (31%) of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online.
The key word is "claim." The actual value is probably much lower, and getting increasingly lower.
The Ipsos-Reid results summary is very vague anyway... it doesn't say that poll respondants paid for a download service, just that they "paid for any music they have downloaded". They very well could have bought a CD of music that they downloaded online... I would think many people would consider that paying for the music.
It does mean though that a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa.
No. The number would be significantly smaller were people to know free services existed. Some friends who were left in the dark by Napster started to sign up for these pay services until I told them about the existance of free ones, at which point they quickly about-faced.
The American Way: don't tell me there's no such thing as a free ride.
If you want to post offtopic comments like the parent, the best way is to write in your Slashdot journal and then link to it in your sig.
CD's cripple you!
I'm afraid one day I'm going to accidently click YES to upgrade. And I have a pop-up killer on my computer.
> It does mean though that a sizeable
r eaks-dirtyhardcore-swingin' east-west-gothic-oldschool-psychedelic-rapcore-bri t-grunge-crossover indie-ska-raggae-dope-jungle b-side-bonus-hidden-track-bootleg on Gnutella. But: in the glorious days of Napster, you could at least find a lot, and you could do so in essentially no time. Everyone used Napster, because there was nothing else, except for a few crazy geeks working on GPLster 0.1alpha. And everyone was connected to the mighty master server. If a new album of a just somwhat well-known band like Royksopp came out, it was very likely that someone would buy and rip and share it the very same day. If the band was less well-known, like Fettes Brot, you'd still find lots of them after a few months, at least all the singles you heard on Fooland's local MTV.
> audience are willing to give these record
> industry endorsed services a shot even
> though they can get it all free on KaZaa.
They can get it all free on KaZaa? All as in everything and free as in no expenses? This is, to say it rather calmly and politely, bullshit.
Short explanation: You only find a very limited selection of audio on KaZaa and it's not really free.
Loooooooong explanation: I don't have to mention that you never got everything on-line, people who find every piece of audio they want on the net obviously have brains the size of the U.S. Top 40 playlist. It doesn't need explanation that you won't find every alternative-funky-industrial-free-celtic-drum'n'b
Today, however, it's totally different. There are all kinds of special protocols that conenct clients to even more specialised servers. Looking for a manga soundtrack? There's a dedicated server, but you need to install the SuperShare client, find that server (the SuperShare servers aren't all in the same network, it's fragmented into little groups all doing their own thing) and first offer it a selection of 10GB of manga soundtracks to even get connected. Gnutella(2) is a nice standards that quite some clients and lots of people have in common, but it's not working much better, unless you're looking for Britney Spears and the like. Sure, there's still lots of that. But it takes quite long until you are first connected to some peers, then the client detects some UltraPeers and ÜberPeers and whatnot, then it slowly fills the slots with the new peers that support Gnutella 2, which is supposed to provide better searching, but isn't any good in practice because only very few clients support it.
Consequently, you're always only searching a small fraction of the available ressources and less then half of your findings will really be available for download. To me, the whole p2p community has devolved into an unorganized mess that doesn't go anywhere. Finding and downloading music has become a full-time-job, it's ridicuouls.
Maybe there are some kids who don't have anything better to do with their time and still consider services like this 'free', but if your time is worth anything, you're better off buying everythign in a store right away, and also do your browsing there.
Or maybe I'm just an idiot who doesn't know how to effectively use the new p2p clients? If you think so, I challenge you to find several tracks of Radioboy's famous album 'The Mechanics of Deconstruction', the video clip of Playgroup's 'Number one', and an ISO of the PSX game 'Kurushi'.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
I feel like Pheobee when she watched "Old Yeller".
Did I just admit to watching "Friends" on slashdot?!!
Community radio is supported mostly by the community (duh). It depends on local businesses sponsoring programs which it airs, and local listeners pledging money during fund drives. Without that money, we can't exist. At my station, there are 3 full-time, salaried employees, and the rest of the ~100 people who work there are volunteers. It's a fairly noble effort (not as noble as feeding the hungry or anything, but noble still).
Anyway, there are lots of community radio stations. There's a listing at the National Federation of Community Broadcasters website. Look for one in your area and check it out. If you appreciate what you hear, please consider supporting them. Even with most people volunteering, running a radio station is expensive, and if these stations go away, we're all seriously screwed into listening to to the (largely) crap that the commercial stations feed us.
I'd be happy to pay for the music I get online, provided...
I do download music from the net. But what I download I either delete or I buy the CD of it. When I get the CD, I rip the tracks and put them in my junkbox machine (e.g. my Linux file server) and play them there. The CDs are stored and not sold, given away, or even loaned. But if the CDs eventually no longer work, then I will certainly reconsider my plan. If I can pay to download and that works, fine. But if none of the pay-for methods work, what else can I do but steal the music?
Artists ... is your label ripping you off by not making your music work for me?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Sell music like bottled water. What do I mean? Think about it. Water is a resource you can get for free just by turning the faucet on, and yet, people still 'buy' it in bottled quantities. In essence, they're paying money for something they can get virtually free. If the RIAA's logic was correct (and we applied it to the bottled water industry), shouldn't these same businesses selling bottled water be bankrupt by now? After all, you can get water anywhere, so why get it from a bottle, right? Of course not. Companies like Perrier are making money buy adding value to their products, despite the fact that you can get water for free.
The bottom line is that the RIAA should look to these other industries and see that it is quality, and not the availability that determines whether or not I will buy any of their products. So what if some guy downloads one of your albums? Can you give him an incentive to buy the physical copy of the album? How about giving him an autographed and signed copy from the artist? Can you justify the $20 that it costs just to buy an album? If there is no difference betweeen the quality of your distribution and the quality that someone downloads from the Internet, how can you convince me that my $20 was well spent?
The record companies make a lot more money if one album sells 10 million copies, than if 10 albums each sell 1 million copies, or 100 albums each sell 100,000 copies. Each album has inherent costs in promotion and distribution. The record company has to pay to get it played on the radio, pay for a video, and pay MTV to play it. They don't want you being exposed to a wide variety of music. It means less profit and more work for them. Hence the killing of internet radio and the attempts to kill sharing. If you only get to hear Britney and *N'Sync, then that's all you'll buy, and that's all the record company has to pay to promote.
Stop it.
Sit there and mull that over a bit.
Think about the implications.
By trying to contratually (EULA) or technologically (broken CD s) strip away our fair use rights granted under copyright law, media companies are stealing from the commons. (Ok, so this is the complimentary argument to their "TIVO users are thieves".)
I do agree that if consumers are ill-informed enough to buy into something, that they get what they pay for. If they start getting pissed that they can't listen to their Briteney'N'Sync in their imacs and returning them, maybe things will self-correct. If you sign that EULA, you agree to abide by its terms. You can sign away any rights you want to in a contract.
But make no mistake about it, copyright is an ARTIFICIAL state of affairs. Hell, look at what happened with "It's a Wonderful Life". It was of little value until it had been RETURNED to the public domain . Then the cable companies started using it for cheap holiday filler, and it became woven into our common culture. And this was something that the media companies (unknowingly) did.
Mickey Mouse would not be worth anywhere near so much if people everywhere didn't recognize him. Disney owes that value to Mickey being part of our common culture -- and copyright is a temporary grant of use THAT MUST BE RETURNED to the public domain.
standard Discordian disclaimer : parts of this are blatent lies, parts are true -- use your head and figure it out for yourself
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
From the ipsos-reid webpage:
"Data for this release was collected between September 26th and 30th, 2002, via a nationally representative U.S. sample of 1,113 respondents aged 12 and over. With a total sample size of 1113, one can say with 95% certainty that the results are accurate to within +/-2.94%"
But wait, it's worse. The samples for each time period are just a fraction of 1,113. And there's no attempt to look at meaningful correlations, for example increasing bandwidth. This is worthless data. It's worse than a PEW "study." It starts with the premise that "Downloaders" are a threat to the recording biz, and then it shows some graphs to support that conclusion.
These three samples could not possibly representive. And even if you wanted to accept the samples, the margin of error is so great that the greatest differnce reported (between August and September) is more likely than not to be completely wrong!
I think the problem the RIAA does not realize is the fact they are falling victim to the laws of economics--the invisible hand has slapped them hard.
When you start pricing album-length audio CD's at US$18 per disc in what amounts to a cartel-like situation customers are LESS likely to buy CD's produced by RIAA member companies because the customer thinks the record companies are gouging them for high prices. Anyone who's read up on basic microeconomics know that high cartel good prices encourage ways to undermine the cartel, hence the reason why file-sharing sites have become all the rage in the last four years.
If the RIAA had been a bit more enlightened they should have priced CD's at round US$11 per album-length disc, which would have drastically cut the economic incentive to pirate music. After all, is there rampant piracy of DVD's here in the USA? Of course not, given the fact that the MPAA allows DVD's to be sold at reasonable prices (US$20 per disc for new releases, US$15 or much less for older releases).
"You can see the the report graphs here." ...and reports and graphs are always so honest, you can believe them without any corroborating evidence or other reports. ;)
I don't mean to be rude, but how exactly did you transmogrify jazz.ca into jazz.dv?
I hate that station, alot, but I felt it necessary to fix the link :P
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
...and they still can't come up with a successful model that will allow them to make a buck from downloadable music. They're a bunch of F**K- ups, what can I say? There's truly no other way to describe these morons. For the TEN MILLIONTH TIME let me try to explain it to these pure idiots: The consumer is willing to pay for downloadable music under the following conditions: First: It must be reasonably priced. The guys who think I'm going to pay a buck a cut for a 128k quality MP3 are nuts! 35-50 cents is more like it. A monthly flat rate for stuff over a year old makes even more sense. Second: I want to be able to play MY songs (emphasis on MY) on my computer, in my car, on my boombox, on my portable player, and anywhere else I see fit. Third:I want a GOOD SELECTION OF SONGS! I HATE the crap coming out on CD these days. Also, I NEED A SOURCE TO HEAR all kinds of music! I half give you credit for this one: at least you got half a clue and stopped biting the hand that fed you with Internet Radio (kinda). Finally:This paranoia over 'copy protection' has simply got to stop! There's a saying that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush! Perhaps it's time that you guys learned that saying, 'cause right now the bunch of you get NOTHING from the bush!...except for Hilary Rosen -maybe- *wink*
I don't know what is up with slash code, but I wrote this post in less than 5 minutes. For some reason, the "form timed out" and said I couldn't post this message...
It seems that the code lied to me!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
As I write this message, I am listening to some J-pop MP3's. Previously, I have only listened to and bought classical music, and I have more than 50 classical CD's. Several of them are even the same pieces only with different performers. After arriving at college a few months ago and making use of the local file-sharing system, I have been exposed to types of music I never thought I would like. A few days ago, I paid 50 USD for a J-pop CD from Amazon.com, the first non-classical CD I have bought in my life (and I plan to buy more). The record companies are foolish not to see that they are effectively getting free advertising from the spread of easily distributable music.
is the !slashdot interpretation correct that 69% of people who downloaded music didn't pay for it?
there's the teensiest cultural bias in these stories...
(my point is obvious right?)
My usage of Kazaa and Direct Connect would drop significantly if such a service was available. I think it is really strange that such a business opportunity has been overlooked by the record industry. I would generate more revenue for them this way than I do today. This year I have bought seven CD:s so far. This model would have me buying 12.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
A few weeks ago I was listening to some great music I'd downloaded, and figured I'd go out and buy the artist's CD. Went down to Virgin Megastore and what did I find? This relatively new artist's CD was priced at $24 CDN ! Forget it. If prices were reasonable, SURE I'd buy some CDs, but that was ridiculous. I'll wait a couple more years and try again.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I heard a customer in the electronic dept of Sears speaking with a sales person about buying a computer. He said "I wanna be able to download CDs and use a CD burner" and the sales person said something to the effect of "this Compaq model can do that for you." I guess RIAA will be suing Sears now.
The RIAA would rather have no music industry as opposed to a music industry where they don't control their own profits.
... for their hardware will dual boot GNU/Linux, does now (for the most part, goofy video connection cables notwithstanding) provide as much openness as Intel and, with the advent of Palladium, soon to be much more openness.
This is part and parcel to the monopoly mindset. Recall the AT&T fought its breakup tooth and nail, despite the fact that now, as one competitor among many in an industry that has grown by orders of magnitude due to competition, they make vastly more money than they did as a monopolist, and despite the fact that many, many economists and analysts were predicting exactly this behavior.
Microsoft is another example: with Palladium and DRM they are flirting with the very real risk of making their entire product ("the PC" in most people's minds) so crippled and singularly unattractive to consumers that it will go the way of DAT tape (not extinct like the original DivX pay-per-view DVD scheme, but relegated solely to professional use). They lock out GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, and anyone else who might wish to compete on the Intel/AMD platform and lock in their monopoly, only to kill the feature that made the Intel platform appealing over the Apple, Atari, etc. platforms, despite the other's superior software and (in many cases, at the time) hardware: the apparent openness and competition that existed on the IBM compatible side of the fence. Once that is gone, all Apple has to do is continue business as is
Suddenly the equation shifts, and Microsoft becomes a legacy providor on a closed platform no one wants to stay with. They get the 100% market share they so desire, in a rapidly shrinking market. The odd thing is, the cartel oligopolist and the monopolist prefer this to outright competition, even though they stand to make so much more money in a vastly larger competative marketplace!
The recording industry is no different. In an industry saddled with incompetent people at so many levels, and the fear of competition that incompetence breeds (remember how poor AT&T service could be, back in the monopoly days, or how poor SBC Ameritech service remains?), they would rather cling to 100% of a tiny (and shrinking) market they control, than face the uncertainty of having to compete on their merits, even in a market place orders of magnitude larger, where even despite their incompetence they would likely earn vastly more money.
It is a very odd mentality, but one that is well documented and recurrs over and over again in the industrialized world, and is arguably one of the best arguments for why monopolies should be illegal, and not merely tolerated and "guarded against" should abuses arise (which doesn't happen when the government chooses to willfully ignore its duty under the law *cough* Baby Bush's DOJ *cough* anyway).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So what's the legality of paying for the song from a pay service and then downloading a [bootleg] MP3 of the same song that will play on my car MP3 player (which is where I do 99% of my music listening) from a filesharing network?
A great place to download mp3's is emusic. $10/month. no DRM, no proprietary player crap, no technical restrictions. Just all you the 128k mp3s you can eat.
If you're looking for the latest stuff you heard on the radio, it's ain't here. But there is a lot of good stuff if you're willing to dig around. In addition to serious bands that didn't quite make it ( lots of They Might Be Giants and Sonic Youth, for example and checkout Airplane Man's Moanin') they have incredible breadth: In addition to some hard to find symphonic and a great Chilean Reggae band (no, really!) they have hours of George Carlin, and even Noam Chomsky if you're into that.
I have no connection with emusic, other than being a very happy customer.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Unproved assertion, bad assumption, flawed argument.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
(I.A.N.A.L., but...) I'm fairly sure that all my downloads are legal. I own CDs for everything that is copyrighted. I'm too damn lazy to rip my CDs for easy playing on my computer, so I download it via KaZaAlite.
I used to listen to them for years and that's where my dial was always pointed by default (btw, the correct url is Jazz-FM). But even they are not what they once were. They started off way back in 1949 as CJRT, part of the then-named Ryerson Institute of Technology (thus the RT) - a low-power student station for courses in broadcasting. They managed to carve a niche in non-commercial non-mainstream music (jazz and some blues, classical and folk). Eventually, they were spun off into a stand alone entity and Ryerson got a new station (CKLN).
Unfortunately, with the recent re-birth from "CJRT" to "Jazz-FM", they lost focus, (and Ted O'Reilly, their most recognizable voice, who apparently quit in disgust after 37 years) and moved to a more soulless MOR jazz format.
But the (IMO) most egregious wrong that they committed in their march toward banality was that they stopped airing the BBC comedy The Goon Show (a classic radio comedy and much of the inspiration for Monty Python), which had been playing on their station for as long as I can remember. For that I will never forgive them. The Goons are yet another victim of the march toward radio banality.
I have completely given up on radio and now only listen to it as a source of news and information. I don't buy commercial CD's and I don't download copyrighted mp3's. But I love music and get my fixes through independent artists - you can find a tremendous amount more variety and a surprising amount of quality there.
Sigs are bad for your health.
I recently got back into listening to vinyl... you know, those 12" black things that are (gasp!) analog. I'm finding this hobby really fun for a few reasons...
First, there's an amazing amount of stuff that's out there and DIRT CHEAP. Scour around used record stores, record shows, yard sales, etc and there's a ton of material to be had for a buck or less if you're willing to look.
Next, it sounds better than CD. No one is going to convince me otherwise. I can listen for hours and hours and enjoy every minute of it. Even the best CDs that I have are fatiguing to listen to after a while.
And finally, even under the most assenine RIAA intupretation of the law, this is completely legal and the record companies don't see an additional penny from me.
I just find it really funny that the industry gets all riled up over downloading, but my digging into used vinyl is actually worse for them yet there's not a damn thing they can complain about.
(of course we know that the RIAA has tried to stop the sale of used CDs but was summarily shot down because the practice is protected by the "first sale" doctrine of federal copyright law)
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
For the first time in over 3 1/2 years. Yet somehow I seem to procure at least 5 albums worth of music a week.
How do I do it? I'm not telling. Why do I do it? I made a commitment to the recording industry that I would not pay for anyones music unless I hand my money *directly* to the artist for that music.
I was lucky. The other night I got to see one of my old Heroes, and he was selling records.
stealing, taking something with the intent to permently deprive etc......
I'm sure you know this already but.
I make a 'copy' of X, the copyright holder still has X and I have a 'copy' of X all that has been done is to put another, all be it illegitimate X in the world.
I steal X, the owner no longer has X and has been permently deprived.
Case A: I just breach the copyright, this is not stealing. As I like to call it, I have scrumped a copy, there will be copies tomorrow and copies next year, I've just obtained one without permission.
Case B: I've stolen.
n.b. Scrumping is the find English art of running into someones garden (usually as a child) and picking an apple from an apple tree without getting caught.
It is normally expected by apple tree owners that children will scrump and it's largely overlooked or ignored.
If the branches overhand the road then you are allowed to pick the apples, this is not scrumping it's your right, if they overhang your garden then you must ask the owners permission(otherwise your scrumping).
Have I just found a presedent for copying IP, I'm not longer a Pirate I mearly scrump music.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
this cool pic
a cookery lesson
A Love Spell
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Unproved assertion
Assertion of original post: music industry works via investment on future returns.
Since I thought this was "known" I didn't have to prove it. Read an example on how this works.
Supporting metaphor: market bottoming out. Not primary assumption.
Your counterpoint: take non-central point, simplify argument to that, gesture authoritatively, ignore.
What is music when you despise all sound?
I know it was rated and meant to be "Funny" but really it is not quite so funny.
Artists that want the most exposure will probably stay with the labels. Piracy gives them more exposure as well, and keeps their sales up. The Labels don't mind piracy if it is not rampant and will work to get it back down to the levels it was at when we all had dual tape decks in our stereos. A little bit of spreading around of big name artists by casual pirates helps sales and helps keep no-name undiscovered artists undiscovered.
If file sharing would only share undiscovered talent it would be a REAL threat to the industry (such as what we saw when IUMA started back in the early 90's), as it is now its just an excuse for these companies to get more retrictive laws passed (DMCA) and keep people from learning about too much new and different talent.
Ouch. I may be looking back at 35, but I'm not ready to move to Florida yet! The dates in pre-history come from the web, not my aging brain cells ;-). But the changes have been, for the most part, in the last 2 years or so, so the old days aint too far back. The station was always a holdout against lowest common denominator programming, but it has shifted a little in that direction and lost some of its unique appeal. But it's still probably the best we've got.
I still listen to "A Prairie Home Companion" now and then.
So do I. You know that it is a production of Minnesota Public Radio, not a local show, right?
But hey, I like the station. I guess it works for me so I'll listen to it.
No slight intended. I really meant to damn the station with faint praise. They're still one of the few listenable stations on the dial here, but not as good as they used to be. I'll admit that I still tune them in from time to time.
I only started listening to this station recently so I did not experience the loss of "The Good Show" at all.
The Goon Show was classic radio comedy produced by the BBC in the 50's and early 60's (even before my time!). It was silly, irreverent, and damned funny. It played on the station up until last year or so, but it was only 30 minutes out of a week and easy to miss. It forged a lot of the comedy style that Monty Python's Flying Circus would later adopt (and by which they would openly admit to being influenced). I hope that you know what Monty Python is (if not explicitly, you will know Monty Python implicitly by spending time here at Slashdot).
And now the penguin on top of your telly will explode.
Sigs are bad for your health.
My uncle recently mentioned that he wanted to get DSL... just to download music. He's more or less computer illiterate, but sees that this is the "in-thing" nowadays.
Flame me if you want, I realize that piracy is happening because of the amount of crappy music and crappier pricing, however I believe this is the point at which things get out of hand.
Having a few kiddies downloading the newest tunes, whatever, they wouldn't have likely bought them anyways. But when an adult basically subscribes to a service just for piracy? That's just bad.
Also, all things considered, after the first month or so he'll probably only download music equivilient to what he could have bought for the price of DSL/cable anyways (1-2 CD's a month).
It makes me wonder though, how many people *just* use the internet for piracy? You'd do just as well to buy your music second-hand, rather than poring money into DSL+burner+CD's+etc,etc and pissing (whether they deserve it or not) the music companies off.
I have thought it over, and I wonder: who gave the government _its_ monopoly over our lives?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
There's one very good reason I'd pay a nominal fee for songs from a pay site rather than getting it free from Kazaa:
:)
"REMOTELY QUEUED"
Don't you just hate waiting 7 hours for a 5mb MP3 file
Anyone in the business has to realise this, and I think many of them (alas, not the RIAA) do: "it's illegal" isn't enough of a reason for many people to switch from Kazaa to a paid service. They can stamp their feet and shout "but.. but.. it's ILLEGAL dammit!" as much as they like - it won't change the human nature of getting as much as possible for as little in return. Especially when there's no visible "theft" of anything tangible, making the person feel far less guilty.
They have to make the effort of offering more than the competition, in this case Kazaa, for people to see it as a good enough reason. Fast, instant downloads with no queues is a good starting point. Offer enough and price it reasonably - and nobody will have a decent reason to pirate it.
Due to kazaa, napster, ftp servers, and limewire, I will never need to buy any Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Rush, Hendrix, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, and many other bands, because I got all their music that I could ever want for free online. Had I not been able to download the mp3s, I would have dropped some serious buckage on the albums. The choice between high quality music and spending huge amounts of cash versus reasonable quality music for free isn't really a choice in my mind. Sure, you may point to yourself as a good example, but people like me outnumber you by a good margin.
YOU make Slashdot feel violent!
Mutant spotted in sector 542747. All units converge for memetic cleansing!
A few points:
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
You know, no matter what you really think, there will always be those who try and steal movies, try to get WHATEVER they can for free, and so forth. You can't really stop them. For the rest of us, we have every ab. right to protest. I think the original napster idea worked greatly, and I think it would be a good model. ($10 or whatever monthly fee (maybe a yearly plan would be better, or maybe on a per download basis, if companies really tried, they could find a pricing plan that would satisfy all the customers) money that would be SURE to go to the artists, available on a napster like program [p2p or whatever, so even rare music could be found], and unlimited downloads, in a non-DRM format.) I really don't think people are that evil and willing to steal that much, so maybe if we just made it easier for people to get what they want, when they wanted it, in the format they wanted it, maybe then they'd be willing to pay for it. If only a bunch of artists got together (and maybe some who were willing to bring in new talent; artists who really love the music and not the fame) and did that to the original napster and broke off from the RIAA, now that'd be something, wouldn't it?
I support publik eduscatation!
Thanks for the humor, I liked it. :)
Seriously though, interpreting one's actions has everything to do with the context in which they take place. Let's say that you live in some country where a cartel has cornered access to food, and feeding your family now costs you 90% of your income... not because there aren't enough food producers, but because the cartel has artificially restricted supply simply to squeeze more profit out of people. What does stealing twinkies amount to in this case? You can bet that way before stealing becomes a question of actual survival, there will be a revolt by the populace to recover their dignity and their ability to go about life without being squeezed at every turn.
I'm not saying that the recording industry controls a product whos scarcity can kill. But I *am* saying that the spectrum of concepts are similar, and it would be a mistake to miss these concepts by getting hung up on humor.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
> probably much lower, and getting increasingly
> lower.
Over the past couple years, I've started getting into blues and jazz (the old, good stuff; not the new, pretentious shit.) At first, I downloaded songs from Napster. This was alright, but it was hard to find really a lot of really obscure stuff. I also had half-downloaded versions of a lot of songs.
Periodically, the Napster mp3s would all get wiped out due to my lazy-assed administration.
Then I subscribed to eMusic. This was really cool, in that I could get full albums of a lot of stuff I'd previously downloaded. Like with Napster, I could get ahold of a lot of different artists, this time with full albums. Again, I was frustrated by the lack of comprehensiveness in the album collections -- it's not like Blind Willie McTell or Billy Murray are a big sellers in these post-wax-cylinder days; they should have the full collections up, goddammit. Eventually my subscription ran out.
Predictably, the eMusic mp3s all got wiped out due to my lazy-assed administration.
So I bought the CDs I'd downloaded. The music collections were much more complete (e.g., BWMcT's obscure duets with his tone-deaf wife, with lyrics railing against "shine"), and the difference in quality was startling (Leadbelly's "House of the Rising Sun" was way different on CD -- full, rich, deep.)
So now I have permanent backups of these Ogg files. I won't subscribe to another music download service, because the quality is less for a little less price and no more convenience. I *will* buy more rippable CDs from artists I've become familiar with. I *would* buy CDs from other artists if I could hear more samples of their songs, as this was how I got into this stuff in the first place.
In my case, downloadable mp3s genuinely *did* work as music advertising (Napster). They didn't work as a way to replace CDs at all (eMusic). They have very much affected which and how many CDs I buy. This is not bullshit! This is not zealotry! This is what has worked best for me.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
I guess I don;t really apply because before this whole napster/kazaa/irc filesharing concept came to be I was a tape-person. I owned cds of course, but I recorded alot of my music off of friends' cds and such. Granted this wasn't the best sounding, but neither are alot of poorly ripped mp3s out there. My point is I pirated music, I still do (except the occasional cd i buy every month or 2) and the introduction of these filesharing programs is just the new level. Tapes used to be decent sound for the time, now mp3s have taken their place.
The problem ... is that we have run out of dinosaurs to form oil with.
Scientists working for the Department of Energy have tried to form oil using
other animals; they've piled thousands of tons of sand and Middle Eastern
countries on top of cows, raccoons, haddock, laboratory rats, etc., but so
far all they have managed to do is run up an enormous bulldozer-rental bill
and anger a lot of Middle Eastern persons. None of the animals turned into
oil, although most of the laboratory rats developed cancer.
-- Dave Barry, "Postpetroleum Guzzler"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...