Serious music fans don't download?

mookeywrench

musicismylife78 wrote:

what about public libraries though. My local library has many cd's for borrowing. Is copying cd's you borrow from the library stealing? Or how about making copies of an album from a hard copy a friend bought?

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

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.

musicismylife78

Tiki Barber wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

even the most hardened illegal downloader wants the artist to get paid. I think its a question, however, of the greedy billion dollar corporations and record labels who whine about not making money off it.

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?

You could always not buy the new format... IMO artists should be paid for their work, and recod companies need to compensated for signing the band/studio time etc... I think those serious about supporting music should pay for it. I'm 18 and work my ass off for my CD collection, but I paid for everything on there.

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.

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.

soulsinging

musicismylife78 wrote:

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.

Has anyone ever paid $20 for a cd? I've never payed more than $15, and often pay more likte $10.

mookeywrench

side note: how can someone's life literally be music?

LONGRD

I'm a serious music lover but I haven't bought an album from a record store since Avocado.

A few purchases online but that's it.

recently bought 1TB external harddrive. Demonoid, here I come!

Stu42

mookeywrench wrote:

Stu42 wrote:

Stealing is most definitely not just stealing. There is a huge huge difference between downloading and album and stealing from a local store. The fact is, that the record companies as they exist now need to die, they need to fail miserably and be rebuilt. I don't download at all, the only album I've every downloaded was Dark Night of the Soul, and thats because it's not getting an official release, but I don't buy albums because its a so-called "right" thing to do, but becasue I love having cds and records and having a physical product. Thats how I enjoy music, but really, the downloaders are the one who are in the right, even if they don't know it.

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?

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.

keeponrockin

musicismylife78 wrote:

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.

prytocorduroy

I download on occassion if I'm unsure of an artist. If I like it, I will go purchase the CD, which usually follows with the purchase of merchandise/tickets/etc. If I do not like it, it will get deleted. The artist and record companies will get my money and some if the product is quality to me. I treat downloading like those song sampling headphones at record stores. I want a preview of my purchase.

JordyWordy

soulsinging wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

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.

Has anyone ever paid $20 for a cd? I've never payed more than $15, and often pay more likte $10.

CDs cost around $25 for new albums in UK & Ireland. Its pretty ridiculous

blacknapkins

"Are people who download illegally less fanatical about music? Are they any less rabid than other folks?"

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.

soulsinging

JordyWordy wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

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.

Has anyone ever paid $20 for a cd? I've never payed more than $15, and often pay more likte $10.

CDs cost around $25 for new albums in UK & Ireland. Its pretty ridiculous

Jesus christ!

FinsburyParkCarrots

soulsinging wrote:

Jesus christ!

It can be worse for old albums. In 2000, I went to buy a CD of Trout Mask Replica. I'd had it on vinyl for years but wanted a new copy. I went into HMV and a single (not double) CD of the album was £25 ($41.09 by today's exchange rate ... not sure how that worked out in 2000). I ended up buying it in an independent store for £5.

DewieCox

Man, I think I paid around $35 for all of Pink Floyd's double albums, The Wall,<<live, Pulse, Delicate Sound....

I usually paid less than $15 and often around $10 thanks to good ol walmart. Anything that they didn't carry I had to pay out the cornhole for.

Stu42

JordyWordy wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

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.

Has anyone ever paid $20 for a cd? I've never payed more than $15, and often pay more likte $10.

CDs cost around $25 for new albums in UK & Ireland. Its pretty ridiculous

You have my sympathies, that is absolutely terrible, who can afford that? Are used cds just as bad?

keeponrockin

blacknapkins wrote:

" 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.

What he said.

JordyWordy

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Jesus christ!

It can be worse for old albums. In 2000, I went to buy a CD of Trout Mask Replica. I'd had it on vinyl for years but wanted a new copy. I went into HMV and a single (not double) CD of the album was £25 ($41.09 by today's exchange rate ... not sure how that worked out in 2000). I ended up buying it in an independent store for £5.

Tell me about it. Pink Floyd's "Pulse" costs €45 in shops here, or it did until recently anyway.

Yeah, so thats a reality check for americans who bitch about the price of music, the average cost is literally doubled over here!!! lol.

... and itunes tracks cost 99 cents(European), or 99 UK pennies.....thats a fair bit more than 99 US cents. It all adds up very quick. From what ive seen second hand stuff is pretty good in parts of the UK, but in Ireland, there's not really the numbers of people to sustain a 2nd hand Music industry. its a small market so the prices for 2nd hand stuff are pretty shit too.

It generally saves me about €5 per CD if i buy online from USA and get it delivered here. (the Ten Redux set being a noticeable exception, lol).