Serious music fans don't download?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
On the E-music wiki page, this is a quote:
he type of college students who tend to participate in file-sharing either couldn't or wouldn't pay for music online, so eMusic is more targeted at avid music fans.[5] Gene Rumsey, general manager of Concord Music Group, says eMusic fans are not the typical college-age file sharers. They are more rabid fans who he believes are less likely to engage in online song swapping.[4] Serious music fans would also appreciate that musicians are actually paid for every download.[5]
the interesting part is of course the suggestion that avid music fans are people who pay for music. And that "serious music fans" equal people who pay for every download.
I know its a wiki page, but the quote is basically verbatim a quote from an actual article.
Why is this issue framed this way? So people who download music illegally are less serious music fans than those who go on e-music and pay or go to the store and buy a cd? Is a person who downloads music illegally really not an avid music fan?
Are people who download illegally less fanatical about music? Are they any less rabid than other folks?
This whole assertion is patently ridiculous. The college kid downloading illegally in his or her dorm room is most likely a more voracious and intense music lover than the middle aged person who pays however much for an e-music subscription. When I was in college, people downloaded alot of music. Somehow I dont picture e-music subscribers downloading a ton of stuff.
Isnt a person with 5,000 cd's downloaded off Bit Torrent just as much a rabid and voracious consumer of a huge diet of music, as the person with 5,000 cd's but all bought from legitimate stores and off iTunes or e-music?
Its one more attempt to demonize the illegal downloader, and trying to scare people into paying for music, when the majority of people stopped doing that years ago.
he type of college students who tend to participate in file-sharing either couldn't or wouldn't pay for music online, so eMusic is more targeted at avid music fans.[5] Gene Rumsey, general manager of Concord Music Group, says eMusic fans are not the typical college-age file sharers. They are more rabid fans who he believes are less likely to engage in online song swapping.[4] Serious music fans would also appreciate that musicians are actually paid for every download.[5]
the interesting part is of course the suggestion that avid music fans are people who pay for music. And that "serious music fans" equal people who pay for every download.
I know its a wiki page, but the quote is basically verbatim a quote from an actual article.
Why is this issue framed this way? So people who download music illegally are less serious music fans than those who go on e-music and pay or go to the store and buy a cd? Is a person who downloads music illegally really not an avid music fan?
Are people who download illegally less fanatical about music? Are they any less rabid than other folks?
This whole assertion is patently ridiculous. The college kid downloading illegally in his or her dorm room is most likely a more voracious and intense music lover than the middle aged person who pays however much for an e-music subscription. When I was in college, people downloaded alot of music. Somehow I dont picture e-music subscribers downloading a ton of stuff.
Isnt a person with 5,000 cd's downloaded off Bit Torrent just as much a rabid and voracious consumer of a huge diet of music, as the person with 5,000 cd's but all bought from legitimate stores and off iTunes or e-music?
Its one more attempt to demonize the illegal downloader, and trying to scare people into paying for music, when the majority of people stopped doing that years ago.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
There is that great new documentary on the music industry on Hulu. There is quote about how, the record industry, got people to buy records, lps. Then they got people to replenish their entire collections and buy tapes. So they made MORE money. Then when Cd's came out, people replenished their collections again. So they made MORE money. And now, that people are revolting, the record labels are crying foul.
The record companies and record industry made billions off of music fans. Of course they are pissed off illegal downloaders are eating into their profit margin. Who wouldnt be. The question though is, do we have a right to say, "hell no" to continuing to fund record companies who dont give a damn about us, the consumers, people who got them rich?
I'd rather wait, there's plenty of good music to listen too. I could never get to it all in my lifetime.
Ive had a few times where i bought a ticket knowing that i wouldnt be able to go cos of work/exams, but felt that buying a ticket was at least money gone straight to the musician.
i buy for Local Irish groups, or smaller bands. I wouldnt screw them out of money. I wouldnt lose sleep over downloading an old Stones or U2 record though.
why pay the record label when you can pay the artist.
I download a good bit, but there are certain bands i always buy when their music comes out.
hate me for it if you will
Charlotte 03
Asheville 04
Atlanta 12
Greenville 16, Columbia 16
Seattle 18
Nashville 22
Ohana Festival 24 x2
Yet you don't pay. Keep rationalizing dude.
Now with social networking and youtube I can hear the songs there without buying or downloading illegally.
The only thing I do that is not RIAA friendly is copy cd's from friends.
And what is the number one medium for music? Record Labels!!!!
I'd love to hear the percentage of aritsts in anyone's record collection where the music was purchased directly from the artist, and the artist came up with all of the funds for recording the album or the tour was completely funded by the artist and that's where you bought the album.
The only one's I have are Clap Your Hands Say Yeah's first one (before they signed to a record label for a distribution deal), NIN's latest two, Whalebones EP, and Entrance - Prayer of Death.
This equates to roughly .42 of a percent.
Everything else I owe to the record label that the artist was signed to, a magazine, a record store, or KEXP all of which I've payed money to.
"Vinyl or not, you will need to pay someone to take RA of your hands" - Smile05
424, xxx
When VCR's first came out, tv companies acted the same way. They felt taping a show, or being able to tape one, meant it was cutting into their profit. I know the economy is bad for everyone, tv companies included, but Comcast is a multimillion dollar company. I dont think people taping the latest episode of Scrubs is cutting into their profit margin!
The point is, the record company is always gonna feel people are stealing. Even if they set up a new way of distribution, which is what has to happen. Any album copied, is profit taken away from the record company.
As I said before, the record industry made billions off people. And now that it seems people no longer feel paying 20 bucks a pop for a cd is justified, the record companies are pissed
But filesharing is such a massive operation now. And cd sales are so low.
You cant stop the illegal downloading. And even if you could, fining a mother of 4, 1.5 million dollars aint gonna do much!
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
i used to have the same mindset until a couple days ago when i figured out how to download pretty much any album there is onto i-tunes for free. (google the album title.rar and you're sure to find a link) anyway, i have a huge cd collection, i don't own an i-pod, i still have a discman, i've spent tens of thousands of dollars on albums in my 25 years of life, but i'm not doin it anymore. it's kinda bullshit, i didn't ask for it to be like this. why should i be blowing my hard earned dollars on these albums that may or may not be worth the money while 99% of the population is just getting everything for free. i don't make a lot of money, not nearly as much as the musicians i listen to make. why should i feel bad for them because i didn't pay for their cd? they still make a shit ton of money off of touring and merchandise, and even if they aren't one of the wealthier bands, they sure as hell have more money than me. i used to think you should buy music to support the artists, but really, the music isn't gonna die, i mean no one is paying for music anymore and it's still here. if i was rich i would still buy all my cd's. but i'm not, and i was buying on average about three cd's a week, i can't do it anymore. i'm still going to continue to buy cd's from my favorite bands, or if i hear something that is really exceptional, i will support it, but other than that ive just joined the downloading community and i'm not ashamed.
:roll:
so you didn't go into detail about how stealing isn't just stealing
you didn't say what the huge huge difference was between stealing an album from a store and illegally downloading
you didn't explain why record companies need to die and how they failed miserably
and who all do you think is responsible for delivering those CD's and records that you love into your hands?
the library scenario and burning a copy for your friend are both stealing, but the effort to pursuit a lawsuit over those scenarios are more expensive then the loss itself.
As far as the VCR goes, that was seen as stealing, but since blank VCR tapes could only be used for recording off of television, the gov't enacted an extra 3% "royalty tax" that went to TV companies for any copyright issues that were being caused. The problem with Mp3 players and CD players is that music cannot solely be put onto those devices so they become exempt from a royalty tax.
I think most people are just sick and tired ofpaying 20 bucks for every single cd. Music is my life. Literally. Thats why I chose the name. But I dont think paying 20 bucks for a cd is right.
I think music should be obtained by any means neccessary. If a band wants to sue someone for downloading a record thats one issue. But when the RIAA comes after people who download 24 songs and are mothers of 4 kids, I think things really are getting out of hand.
I maybe could side with those suggesting downloading is wrong if the record company actually gave a crap about art, and music, and how it enriches our lives. And I think the answer to if they care about that stuff, if they care about the artists beyond if they are on the billboard charts and getting major hype, is pretty self evident.
I aint crying over the record companies losing profits. Its meaningless to me. We may owe the artist something but I dont owe Sony, Warner Bros, Arista etc... a damn thing. We ALL have products in our home by those brands and companies. We bought cd's and records and cassettes by those companies, way back when.
I have no sympathy for people whose lives are merely profit driven.
Has anyone ever paid $20 for a cd? I've never payed more than $15, and often pay more likte $10.
A few purchases online but that's it.
recently bought 1TB external harddrive. Demonoid, here I come!
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
I didn't see the need to go so in depth into the topic, espeically considering how many of these points the OP already addressed. There is a very big difference between downloading a non-tangible product that takes funds from a major conglomerate and stealing from a local independent store, if you would rather stand by a principal that stealing is the same no matter what then there's really no discussion to be had. Downloading an album is essentially a vote with your dollar.
Record companies absolutely need to be restructured fundamentally on how to promote music and how to make money. The companies saw that they were no longer making as much money from physical product so they're response was to rely almost solely on short terms solution, pushing uber-mainstream acts that are guaranteed to sell millions of records.
That was fine in the earlier part of the decade and late 90's, when boy bands and industry created bands (creed, limp bizkit) were all the rage, but years later established acts are getting old and no one is around to replace them. This isn't due to a lack of talent but to some terrible promotion and reluctance to develop talent that might not be very successful. As a result the record companies have intentionally devalued their own product, all done before illegal downloading was any kind of threat.
Radio has been perverted by these conglomerates to pushing the same acts, so instead of radio being a place to discover music and something that is a local entitiy, its been largely galvanized and literally commercialized as the music itself is closer to ads for these companies products, the albums.
The point of my original post was just to say how ridiculous it is that some people see buying albums as a moral superiority as well as that record companies need to be fundamentally changed which I don't think can really happen until their is something of a fallout. I certainly realize who is responsible for getting these records into my hands, but that doesn't mean I have to like how they do it.
I think most people are just sick and tired ofpaying 20 bucks for every single cd. Music is my life. Literally. Thats why I chose the name. But I dont think paying 20 bucks for a cd is right.
I think music should be obtained by any means neccessary. If a band wants to sue someone for downloading a record thats one issue. But when the RIAA comes after people who download 24 songs and are mothers of 4 kids, I think things really are getting out of hand.
I maybe could side with those suggesting downloading is wrong if the record company actually gave a crap about art, and music, and how it enriches our lives. And I think the answer to if they care about that stuff, if they care about the artists beyond if they are on the billboard charts and getting major hype, is pretty self evident.
I aint crying over the record companies losing profits. Its meaningless to me. We may owe the artist something but I dont owe Sony, Warner Bros, Arista etc... a damn thing. We ALL have products in our home by those brands and companies. We bought cd's and records and cassettes by those companies, way back when.
I have no sympathy for people whose lives are merely profit driven.[/quote][/quote]
muric is my lifes post^^^
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Answer me this question.
You more than likely wouldn't hear from these bands if it's not for RECORD COMPANY support. Of course record companies want to make money, they put down a lot of money (and therefore risk) when they sign a band and pay to record them. Do you not think these companies should get some sort of compensation for signing these bands/taking these risks?
Another question.
What about a label like Arts and Crafts (if you didn't know, its Broken Social Scene's label, run by Kevin Drew). Is Arts and Crafts an evil label? I have no problem giving Arts and Crafts my money, as I LOVE what they've done. They care about art 100%, yet I somehow doubt you've bought any cds on that label, even though they are all about their art, and their scene.
CDs cost around $25 for new albums in UK & Ireland. Its pretty ridiculous
Interesting question. I think that people who hoard music for the sake of saying that they have everything might not necessarily be that serious about the actual content. I admit to downloading free promotional MP3s, but if I love the song, or the band is really good, I'll want to own that album. I consider the shelves of music around the house an expression of us that goes beyond what's playing through the speakers at any given moment.
And, yes, the artists should get paid, but I really like the CDs we've bought at shows. Those $10 "souvenirs" that the bands cart from city to city feel really special to me.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best."
~ FZ ~