Where do you buy music?

[S-Des]

I think I did. Inability to adapt to a quick change in consumer behaviour is the main culprit.

Along came Napster, and suddently, all the music of the world was at your fingertips, directly into your computer with the click of a button. Yes, it was cheap. That's one thing. But first and foremost, it was EASY. People who COULD and WOULD pay for their music stopped doing so because the record companies couldn't match the ease ans swiftness of P2P.

It took years before the industry reacted. And when they did it was too little too late and too goddamn wrong. Hiked record prices and slapped copy protection on both discs (so that they often couldn't play in the buyer's hardware) and downloaded files (so that they coudn't play in the buyer's mp3 player of choice).

Then, cue iTunes. Immediate success, because it's users were iPod devotees, so they didn't care that the songs were drm coded for iPod only (at first. I don't know how it works these days). It was easy to use, fast and had all the popular music on it. And yep, people payed. Imagine that.

They're still missing the mark. I saw the Lisa Lampinelli concert on Comedy Central and fell in love (she is the most foul, politically incorrect person I've ever seen ). The same concert that I could have taped for free was available for $.99 per bit, or $10 (or so) for the album. If it was $5, I would have downloaded it, but to charge $10 for something that is being given away for free???

I try to only use P2P for stuff I've already purchased. Fuck them if they think I'll pay a band twice for the same thing. When I was growing up, we all traded records, taped songs off the radio, etc... No one thought it was bad or said it was hurting the artists. When you watch a movie on Satellite, they offer to help you sync your recorder. If it wasn't abused, P2P would be a good thing. However, people who simply download everything do harm the industry. I still think $.99 is a rip-off for a song. When CDs came out, they jacked the price, even though the media was cheaper. It was a blatant rip-off that was trying to take advantage of a public that wasn't technically inclined enough to know they were being screwed. Now buying each song off an album via download in total costs about what a new CD costs (without any of the packaging they claimed added so much to the price).

When I buy CDs, I go to a used CD store (which makes $0 for the artist). When I buy online, they make a little. They're whining about losing money means nothing to me in the face of astronomical ticket prices for concerts and overpriced videos. The music industry is bloated, and making millions (billions) for the people at the top, while the vast majority of people involved make squat.

 

[Guest]

This is a very important conversation to have. I've had it with high school age kids, and they feel no compunction at all to downloading music.

They have all the excuses ready...

• the artist is already rich
• the publishers keep most of the money
• my friend let me burn a copy - that's legal
• I'm just trying to see if I like it--if I like it I might buy it
• I already have bought other tunes from the same artist
• I can't afford it. When I can, I'll buy it.
• I'm not reselling it, so it isn't copyright violation
• I wouldn't have bought it anyway
• Copyright allows Fair Use. That's me (simply because I say it is)
• Copyright allows for education use. I'm a student.

Nor, do some see any issues with downloading term papers. One kid I know got flunked for copying an entire paper from the web. He objected to his grade, by saying "I put it all in quotes!". Another got tagged by his teacher for copying 95% of his term paper. They don't understand why they cannot do it. I believe it is a logical extension of their thinking music is free, therefore someone else's work is also free to them to use.

Liar makes good points that the industry has been slow to adapting to the convenience of downloading. Nevertheless, downloading and enjoying music you haven't paid for is stealing. Even if you wouldn't have bought it otherwise, if you're listening to it and enjoying it, and haven't paid for it, it is stealing.

People will say, "I haven't stolen anything--they still have their song. It's not as if I shoplifted a CD they then no longer have to sell." If I sneak into a hotel room and spend the night, they still have their hotel room, but I have avoided paying for a service I enjoyed. If I take a download for a song someone took the time to write, perform, record and publish, then I am enjoying the benefits of their service without paying for it. That, is stealing.

Now, I'm not critizing people who do it. I'm only critizing those who do it, and think they are doing nothing wrong. We all do it to some degree. Most of our AV's are someone else's work unless you've taken the photo or made the drawing. If there was a mechanism for a photographer to say, "If you like my photo and want to use it for an AV, then pay me one cent per day" I'd pay it, but so far the internet has not solved the problem of micropayments.

That's my justification, but I know I'm wrong to take them. I know enjoying some videos on Youtube is wrong.

As I said, this is an important conversation, and as creators of intellectual property, we need to have it. Nothing will be resolved here, but we need to think about these issues.

 

[Liar]

People will say, "I haven't stolen anything--they still have their song. It's not as if I shoplifted a CD they then no longer have to sell." If I sneak into a hotel room and spend the night, they still have their hotel room, but I have avoided paying for a service I enjoyed. If I take a download for a song someone took the time to write, perform, record and publish, then I am enjoying the benefits of their service without paying for it. That, is stealing.

No, it's not.

Is it wrong? Most likely. Is it theft? No.

And we're doing it a disservice by calling it that. Because then people can point to a technicality and say "I'm not stealing anything, they still have their song." and think they're scot free.

 

[oggbashan]

I go to two local secondhand music stores for CDs and cassette tapes for my car.

I also get cassettes from several local charity shops, especially one that sells them all at 10p (approx 5c) each.

I am transferring some of my CDs to my hard drive.

I haven't decided whether to transfer my 78rpm records. I like handling the original shellac.

Og

 

[S-Des]

[*]Copyright allows for education use. I'm a student.

Sweet, I didn't know this. I'm a music teacher and often download songs to go over them with students (and don't share them with the students, insisting that they buy them on-line or via CD). That might put me in the clear.

 

[Liar]

They're still missing the mark. I saw the Lisa Lampinelli concert on Comedy Central and fell in love (she is the most foul, politically incorrect person I've ever seen ). The same concert that I could have taped for free was available for $.99 per bit, or $10 (or so) for the album. If it was $5, I would have downloaded it, but to charge $10 for something that is being given away for free???

*shrug*

Would you pay for this?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/24.jpg

The only difference between this and a download you pay for, is packaging. And the concert you saw wasn't free. (nor is the box above, Kiefer Sunderland doesn't work pro bono afaik and post airtime DVD sales are part of the projected budget) It just wasn't payed for by you, but by advertisers. (And do you get Comedy Central for free, or do you pay your cable operator?)

But yeah, things are still often over priced. Lots of things in life are. That's why there's a market for Rotex watches.

 

[S-Des]

*shrug*

Would you pay for this?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/mi_liar/24.jpg

The only difference between this and a download you pay for, is packaging. And the concert you saw wasn't free. (nor is the box above, Kiefer Sunderland doesn't work pro bono afaik and post airtime DVD sales are part of the projected budget) It just wasn't payed for by you, but by advertisers. (And do you get Comedy Central for free, or do you pay your cable operator?)

But yeah, things are still often over priced. Lots of things in life are. That's why there's a market for Rotex watches.

To be honest, no I wouldn't. I'd tape it from TV (yes, I'm cheap enough that I'd tape all 24 episodes seperately). As far as I can tell, there's nothing "wrong" with that, although I'm sure some would argue the point. As for downloads, when a student asks for Paradise City by GNR, I could buy it (even though it's for them), or I could download it. Keeping in mind I bought the tape when it came out, I had the CD for several years, please forgive me if I don't care if Axl is going to starve if I download it this time around (he's a complete ass anyway ). If it's for my use, I always try to purchase it (not everything is available via I-Tunes). If it's for students, I'm more likely to just download it. So if educational purchases is a legit reason, then I'm good with that. The students I expose music to might never have heard of the bands otherwise. I ALWAYS tell them to buy it and remind them of several sites they can buy it cheaply from.

I admit it's moraly ambiguous (leaning towards sleazy), but in a world where we make those choices every day, I at least try to be responsible.

 

[Guest]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing "wrong" with that, although I'm sure some would argue the point.

In the famous Betamax case, recording for purposes of time-shifting was ruled legal.

Those who buy TV programs on DVD are paying for the convenience.

 

[DeeZire]

Okay, let's say I'm an independent musician. (I am, actually) I spend $10k making my CD. I have 1000 copies. (CD's cost a buck a piece to manufacture, but I spent the other $9k on studio time, musicians, art work, blah blah blah.)

I go down to the coffee house and do my CD release party, but since I'm unknown, I only sell five CD's. One of the CD buyers loves my music so much, they post it on Limewire. My song 'I fucked Ann Coulter in the Ass' becomes a huge hit on the internet. In the meantime, I have contracted mononucleosis from that little blonde groupie I knew I shouldn't have taken home.

As I'm recovering from my illness, I'm getting emails from all over the country: "Love your CD." "You're the best." A 'Fuck Ann Coulter in the Ass' fan club springs up. The cover of my CD is showing up on T-shirts, bumper-stickers. My CD is changing peoples lives. (Some for the better, some for the worse.)

I've sold five CD's so far. I'm still $9,950 in the hole. (I sell my CD's for $10 a piece, because I'm a sucker.) I book another show at the coffee house, but this time I don't sell any CD's, because everyone already has a bootleg copy they got from Limewire. (I take that back. My mom buys one, but she forgets to pay me. She's at that forgetful age.)

How do I get my $9,950 back? If I don't get my $9,950 back, I won't have the money to make my next CD, which is tentatively called "Dick Cheney's Little Dick."

This is the dilemma faced by musicians today., Granted, this example is an exagerration, (except for the 'little dick' part) but, hopefully, it will allow you to see the situation from the musician's perspective.

 

[Guest]

Thank you DeeZire.

 

[Liar]

This is the dilemma faced by musicians today., Granted, this example is an exagerration, (except for the 'little dick' part) but, hopefully, it will allow you to see the situation from the musician's perspective.

it's an exagerration to the point of ridicule, describing a situation that is far from the reality for most independent artists.

I'm one of them. I'm in a band releasing it's own music, bleeding money into equipment and viral marketing for the sheer love of making music and preforming.

We write and produce our own material, we play clubs and local venues for free and sell a handful of CDs (cd-r demos, it's all we can afford) on every gig. People actually ask if they can buy high quality mp3's (or lossless) from our website. And they will soon, when we get the logistics for it set up. (The shop is all there but not opened. Buerocracy is our problem there. Selling homemade CDs at gigs is considered "non profit culture", so it's not a business income. Selling downloads, is. And soince we're all students in the band, we could lose our guvment granted students loans if that works out too well.)

None of our tunes have to our knowledge ever turned up on Limewire. Because to get spread there, people must alredy know who you are and search for you. But we would LOVE to have one of our songs spread like wildfire over the Internet. Short of a major label record deal with management and marketing money, that would be the best thing ever.

Because then I could call up any club in the city and say "You know that Ann Coulter assfucking song? Yeat, that's us." And get a paid gig booked in five seconds. We could tour and sell tickets, get press coverage, possibly air time (and radio play pays monies, at least some). And our upcoming album "Dick Cheney's Little Dick" would have a buzz and a potentional fan base before we even released it.

And when we do, it's sold via our website as downloads in the 50c / song bracket, or a rebate for the whole album package. Old School CDs will be available pending preorders. Sure, some would spread it for pirating, and many would probably not pay. But on the net whole, a file sharing hit, or a Myspace buzz (ever heard of Arctic Monkeys?) will mean the stepping stone from unregognized to established.


Look, I'm with you in principle. Filesharing or infringement in general of copyrighted material is wrong. But you're waving scarecrows here that are not doing the actual issue any favor.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

For those of you that say you buy from Itunes:

I think Itunes charges around $1.00 per song. I download the MP3 file from the site that I linked, then transfer it into Itunes from my PC. Itunes does the conversions for Itunes and Ipod, but it's only 19 cents per song.

 

[Guest]

For those of you that say you buy from Itunes:

I think Itunes charges around $1.00 per song. I download the MP3 file from the site that I linked, then transfer it into Itunes from my PC. Itunes does the conversions for Itunes and Ipod, but it's only 19 cents per song.

Yes, but does the artist and publsher see any of that 19 cents?
Have they agreed to permit the site to sell their product?

 

[DeeZire]

Sure, some would spread it for pirating, and many would probably not pay. But on the net whole, a file sharing hit, or a Myspace buzz (ever heard of Arctic Monkeys?) will mean the stepping stone from unregognized to established.

Your post brings to light an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, you're saying that having a file sharing hit will be a stepping stone to success for your band. On the other hand, in your earlier post you said the consumer is leaning away from purchasing 'old school CD's' and towards mp3 singles. So, if mp3 singles can be found for free, and the consumer's preference is for singles, how is the creator reimbursed for their work? Or, more importantly, how much is the creator being ripped off by those 30 or 40 percent who refuse to pay for those singles?

The problem here, illustrated by the original poster, is that many people feel entitled to free music. Even after reading (I assume he read) the explanation about how it costs money to make music and distribute it, the OP is still intent on paying 20 cents for his MP3's, cutting the creator out of the revenue stream.

It's this feeling of consumer entitlement that makes old school musicians like me bristle at the mention of Limewire. Your quote that "downloading pirated music isn't theft," is only promoting this feeling of entitlement. I honestly don't know where this feeling of entitlement comes from. My guess is that the younger generation grew up with Napster and Limewire as the business model, rather than the old fashioned record store, where stealing a single would entitle you to a trip downtown to the police station.

I wish you success, my friend. All you need now is to write a song about fucking Ann Coulter in the ass. (I have some ideas for that song, if you're interested.)

 

[SlickTony]

I don't consider myself a music thief, but I haven't bought music in years. I bought it at Borders and this used place near my house when I did.

Every year my sister sends me a mix CD of things she thinks I'll like. I don't know where she gets them. On line radio, plus CDs she has bought, I think.

I got some things from Limewire, but haven't in a while.

 

[past_perfect]

I honestly don't know where this feeling of entitlement comes from. My guess is that the younger generation grew up with Napster and Limewire as the business model, rather than the old fashioned record store, where stealing a single would entitle you to a trip downtown to the police station.

Sorry, but this is rubbish. Old farts like me were taping records we couldn't afford or didn't want to afford, because we had other priorities - like investing in musical equipment for instance. I had no compunctions back then, and although I rarely download music now, I don't consider this any different.

I had been a musician for about 20 years and had the good fortune of playing with exceptional talents and gifted musicians - none of which were in for the money, but for the love of music, for the buzz of playing in front of an appreciative audience, the kick of creating and expressing themselves. In other words - sharing.

If you knew anything about the music business, you'd appreciate that being able to live of that hobby, or even balance your input, you either have to be fucking lucky, have unusual charisma, or be a market whore, hitting a popular vein, or don't mind writing jingles for mcdonalds.

 

[DeeZire]

Sorry, but this is rubbish. Old farts like me were taping records we couldn't afford or didn't want to afford, because we had other priorities - like investing in musical equipment for instance. I had no compunctions back then, and although I rarely download music now, I don't consider this any different.

"or didn't want to afford" Your quote is the key to my point. Put ten CD's on a table at a concert, with a deposit box for payment, walk away, come back, and find ten CD's gone and $30 in the deposit box. It's just human nature. Some people respect private property, some don't. Unfortunately, free downloading makes it a lot easier for the people who don't respect private property because they can do their stealing anonymously.

If you knew anything about the music business, you'd appreciate that being able to live of that hobby, or even balance your input, you either have to be fucking lucky, have unusual charisma, or be a market whore, hitting a popular vein, or don't mind writing jingles for mcdonalds.

Not sure what this has to do with stealing music, but if you knew anything about me, you wouldn't have said "If you knew anything about the music business..." I've been in the music business for 30 years, paying my bills with the money I make in music business, and that's why stealing music is a big deal to me. I'm not talking about a hobby, I'm talking about a mortgage payment.

I agree that it's tough to make a living in this business, and Limewire has made it 30 to 40 percent tougher.

 

[S-Des]

Sorry, but this is rubbish. Old farts like me were taping records we couldn't afford or didn't want to afford, because we had other priorities - like investing in musical equipment for instance. I had no compunctions back then, and although I rarely download music now, I don't consider this any different.

Agreed. Smart bands got ahead of the curve and gave away some of their songs to generate interest. In the last few weeks I've heard several guests in Love Line who were in bands (ranging from famous musicians in side projects to startup bands) advertising the songs you could download for free from their MySpace page. I've looked for a lot of hard to find tunes on several sites (paid and otherwise) and it's far harder to get them then people imagine.

Since this has turned into a credentials contest, I've been a performing musician for 22 years, with my biggest show being in front of 50,000 people (that and $1.50 will get me coffee from Starbucks ). Now I'm in the sound reinforcement end and have a number of friends who are in the upper end of the Chicago scene. None of them complain about Limewire. As Liar said, anyone who got that much buzz from an internet single would immediately get attention from record labels and have all the shows they could ask for. Most bands would kill for that kind of exposure, some others complain that they're not getting paid enough for it. To each their own . . . it's a free country and you have every right to complain if you think you're being screwed. But like everyone else, we traded music like crazy from the time I was 15 - 25. It was also common to tape songs off the radio. It's funny that I have to pay for a song that I'm perfectly within my rights to tape off the radio (or the digital version with no commercials on satellite). The thing that is unfair is when entire albums are traded, I agree that then you have passed the tipping point to where it's hurting the artists.

 

[DeeZire]

The thing that is unfair is when entire albums are traded, I agree that then you have passed the tipping point to where it's hurting the artists.

See? I knew we'd agree on something. I think, since we're all in this together, (consumers and content providers) we should find ways to respect each other. Part of that respect should come from the fair use aspect of copyright law. If copyright law is ignored (as it is in illegal downloading) then the respect is gone and we've entered into an adversarial relationship. Plus, it brings up the question of whether or not we want to support a culture that doesn't pay it's musicians, writers, artists, etc. and that would be a thread in itself. (Gotta give credit to the LIT website, which requires copyright clearance for images, and stories.)

This isn't a he-said she-said credentials kind of discussion. It's a matter of perception - where do we draw the line between fair use and piracy? Some people are not even aware of the fact that there is a line. If we could get more people to notice the line, through education or peer pressure or whatever, then I think we could all benefit from a more supportive relationship, which could result in better product for the consumers.

 

[shereads]

iTunes. Because for once, Mac users get maximum compatibility.

 

[SesameStreet]

Napster. You can join and pay $10 a month ofr unlimited downloads. And Napster has already gone through the court battle over paying royalties to the artists.

 

[SlickTony]

My daughter sent me an iTunes card for my birthday.