Should we pay for Music?

alex73

I use Itunes a lot, download all my music from it. Very handy at only 99c a song or less.

But it seems many think they have the right to download music for free.

It seems soon they will have their internet connection cut.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15903/comms/the-day-the-music-piracy-died-in-ireland

Does anyone think they should NOT pay for music?

orourkeda

Yes. They went to the trouble of making it.

The least you can do is pay for it.

Mushy

Of course we should. The logic isn't hard to follow.

Kasabian

Pay for your music? . I would say yes.

alex73

Mushy wrote: »

Of course we should. The logic isn't hard to follow.

I agree, but it seems many don't (otherwise why the court case)

Nick_oliveri

Pay who, the artists or the middlemen?
This is in the context of digital distribution right?
Why, the middlemen, of course!!....

Superbus

Why pay for anything?

PirateShampoo

Why, its free on the Radio.

Some people get all high and mighty about illegally downloading but have no problem burning cd's and dvd's :rolleyes:

Pay should pay yes but I'd imagine the majority don't at this stage.

Mushy

Actually, the only downloads I do are for one band. And they use their own merch company(Burning Shed), so I know all the money is going to them.

The inevitable will still come in now, but I prefer having the actual disc. Then again, that goes to record bloody companies.

Kasabian

rarnes1 wrote: »

Some people get all high and mighty about illegally downloading but have no problem burning cd's and dvd's :rolleyes:

Pay should pay yes but I'd imagine the majority don't at this stage.

I burned my CD's to my laptop , as far as I know that is not illegal :pac:

OutlawPete

Of course we should pay.

All this whining from the record companies is bull.

It is about time they stepped up to the plate and gave consumers a reason for buying music over just ripping from YouTube etc.

They could include download packages that include photos, lyrics, videos etc.

Something else they could do is take your address at point of download purchase and the mail the CD onto you.

They could make it cheaper also, as obviously digital media is costing them less to produce.

Have download stations in HMV that you can use for free if you buy the CD.

The internet community is always a few steps ahead of them and if they hired the right people, they could easily catch up.

liah

I think bands like Radiohead (I think it was Radiohead?) had the right idea-- release the downloadable copy for free themselves, and allow people to donate if they are able to. The idea's been abused, but is still a better concept. They made money from site hits and touring shortly after, plus the donated proceeds. Not as much as they'd normally make, maybe, but I'd imagine it was more than enough to cover overheads.

I'd buy music and films if I had money, but I don't. Hard to feed myself and pay the bills most weeks never mind going out and spending fifteen euro on a new album or DVD. Does that mean I should not be able to enjoy music, TV or film, all because I've hit a rough patch? I don't think so, but that's just me. Others will obviously have a different mentality about it.

If I had the money to spend, I would download first, see that I like it, and then pay for it. A lot of people are like that, I think. And if I do have a bit of extra cash I don't mind buying music from small scale bands to show a bit of support.

I do, however, have trouble justifying the purchase of albums released by billionaires, though. There's plenty more people buying, they don't need my money, too (and yes, I recognize that "if everyone thought that way they'd have no money at all," except that's flawed, because not everyone does think that way).

alex73

I also burn my CD's from Itunes. Actually every time I purchase something they say to Back it up to CD.

I presume its Legal.

My name is URL

I rarely download or even buy music anymore.. due in part to the decline in quality lately, which is brought about by labels sacrificing less 'popular' artists and pumping money into publicising the likes of Lady Gaga and other crap. Sure they might sell records, but other genres are dying out because of it

old_aussie

hahaha, hahaha, hahaha they(the record companies) tried that in Australia and got their arse kicked in court.

http://www.iinet.net.au/copyrightcase

ISP's are not the police and courts all rolled into one.

If the record companies want to take action, take the suspected pirate to court themselves, don't get a vigalante to do it for you.

What if you paid for the song and downloaded it from torrents, not from itunes, they presume you are guilty.

Sharing is caring :rolleyes:

alex73

liah wrote: »

I think bands like Radiohead (I think it was Radiohead?) had the right idea-- release the downloadable copy for free themselves, and allow people to donate if they are able to. The idea's been abused, but is still a better concept. They made money from site hits and touring shortly after, plus the donated proceeds. Not as much as they'd normally make, maybe, but I'd imagine it was more than enough to cover overheads.

I'd buy music and films if I had money, but I don't. Hard to feed myself and pay the bills most weeks never mind going out and spending fifteen euro on a new album or DVD. Does that mean I should not be able to enjoy music, TV or film, all because I've hit a rough patch? I don't think so, but that's just me. Others will obviously have a different mentality about it.

If I had the money to spend, I would download first, see that I like it, and then pay for it. A lot of people are like that, I think. And if I do have a bit of extra cash I don't mind buying music from small scale bands to show a bit of support.

I do, however, have trouble justifying the purchase of albums released by billionaires, though. There's plenty more people buying, they don't need my money, too (and yes, I recognize that "if everyone thought that way they'd have no money at all," except that's flawed, because not everyone does think that way).

So does this Logic apply to everything.... I don't have the money so I steal Drink to enjoy myself?

I also don't have the money for everything I would like in Life, That does not give me the right to steal what I want.

bonerm

Yeah we should pay something. However I don't think it should be a "per song" model. I reckon an annual licence/subscription would be the best way of getting some money back to the artists.

I just think it's funny that at this point there is an entire generation who have grown up never having ever bought music and that they almost consider it a natural right rather than just an unexpected side-benefit that exists thanks to the way they internet works.

Nick_oliveri

alex73 wrote: »

So does this Logic apply to everything.... I don't have the money so I steal Drink to enjoy myself?

I also don't have the money for everything I would like in Life, That does not give me the right to steal what I want.

Its cloning. You cant clone drink.

Mike 1972

There are lots of (legally dubious*) ways to obtain free music besides downloading.

I wouldnt mind paying to download music provided:
1) The price was reasonable
2) There was no DRM restrictions
3) I wasnt forced to use horrible proprietry software like Itunes to download/play it.
4) I have access to the entire back catolouge of all the major labels (+ indies of any significance)
5) Decent quality. Not 128 Kb/s MP3 (or worse WMA)
6) The money actually reaching the artists.

But TBH I havent bought/downloaded music for several years now since theres damn all worth downloading (legally or otherwise) that I dont already have.

* = mostly

lonad wrote: »

I burned my CD's to my laptop , as far as I know that is not illegal :pac:

Youd be suprised

liah

alex73 wrote: »

So does this Logic apply to everything.... I don't have the money so I steal Drink to enjoy myself?

I also don't have the money for everything I would like in Life, That does not give me the right to steal what I want.

It's copying and sharing.

Basically, the equivalent would be more.. "I don't have the money for a new shirt so I'll borrow my mate's shirt instead 'til I can afford one of my own."

alex73

liah wrote: »

It's copying and sharing.

Basically, the equivalent would be more.. "I don't have the money for a new shirt so I'll borrow my mate's shirt instead 'til I can afford one of my own."

"Borrowing" a Shirt is one this, the property is given from you to your friend.

Copying it is another thing.

minidazzler

liah wrote: »

It's copying and sharing.

Basically, the equivalent would be more.. "I don't have the money for a new shirt so I'll borrow my mate's shirt instead 'til I can afford one of my own."

I like this comparison, I am searching for holes in it, but can't find any! *Yoink* I am stealing that for future use.

I ean, I am borrowing that until I can think up my own one!

Pyr0

I don't really buy albums anymore these days, only special editions and the likes. I go to see the band live and pay in of course, I buy a tshirt or two if it's resonable and good quality, I even suggest bands to my mates and drag them along to the gigs. They're making more money from me doing all that than they would if I just bought the album. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it !

Just last week I spent 170 euro on band t-shirts alone, 6 of them were for the one band, their getting enough from me !

My name is URL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4

Kasabian

Mike 1972 wrote: »

)
Youd be suprised

I have checked this out and noone can tell me if it is or not. I am going with the opinion that because the music is on my hard drive and not being shared then it is not.

4zn76tysfajdxp

I still buy, mainly because I like owning the CD. I enjoy leafing through the liner notes and admiring the artwork as I'm listening to it for the first time or ripping it to my computer. Also, a lot of the albums I want to get are out of print or a little rare* so it's easier to just buy a second-hand copy of the CD from eBay rather than spending ages looking for a non-existent torrent online.


*This makes me sound like some pompous muso. Don't worry, I'm not. Not a muso, that is.

LizT

I pay for all my music on itunes. It costs more but at least I don't have to watch my back. We've all heard the stories about people (i.e. Individuals illegally downloading music for themselves, not selling it on, etc) getting caught and being fined. I know the likelihood of this is minuscule but I'd rather not take the chance.

Ghost Train

liah wrote: »

It's copying and sharing.

Basically, the equivalent would be more.. "I don't have the money for a new shirt so I'll borrow my mate's shirt instead 'til I can afford one of my own."

You and your mate can't wear the shirt at the same time though, unless its a very large shirt

liah

Ghost Train wrote: »

You and your mate can't wear the shirt at the same time though, unless its a very large shirt

K, change "shirt" to "packet of taytos."

4zn76tysfajdxp

minidazzler wrote: »

I like this comparison, I am searching for holes in it, but can't find any!

Don't be ridiculous, T-shirts have three holes. For ease of wearing.

Diabhal Beag

9/10 I don't pay for music. If I have extra money in my paypal I might buy from itunes but if I don't download it for free I probably wouldn't buy.

Would the artists rather have no listeners than people who "steal" their music but go to their gigs etc?

PeakOutput

alex73 wrote: »

I use Itunes a lot, download all my music from it. Very handy at only 99c a song or less.

But it seems many think they have the right to download music for free.

It seems soon they will have their internet connection cut.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15903/comms/the-day-the-music-piracy-died-in-ireland

Does anyone think they should NOT pay for music?

of course the artist and everyone involved in making it should be paid

there are more ways than one for this to happen

some say the industries lack of willingness to change and adapt to the internet generation is reason enough to ignore them and download for free i dont really agree with this but the industry does need to work harder to figure out new ways to make money as selling cds in brick and mortar stores simply wont cut it from now on

o1s1n

lizt wrote: »

I pay for all my music on itunes. It costs more but at least I don't have to watch my back. We've all heard the stories about people (i.e. Individuals illegally downloading music for themselves, not selling it on, etc) getting caught and being fined. I know the likelihood of this is minuscule but I'd rather not take the chance.

You're taking more of a chance crossing a road then you are downloading music. But I'm sure you'll have no problem doing that.

Record companies are trying to put this fear in people via piracy warnings on everything. In reality there's nothing to be afraid of at all. It's similar to the fear they try and put in you with tv license ads.

As previous posters have mentioned, there's nothing stopping you taking a hard drive or even a USB stick to someone elses house with songs on it.

Hank_Jones

The only real problems I have are with the price of music.

Forking out €20 for an album is very steep.
I would think the profit margins on music are massive, especially if you are downloading from Itunes.
From Itunes it is basically just a digital transfer and it costs €10-€15 just for that?
They really should be trying to lower the price of music, but still be improving the quality.

Strange how U2 haven't had a good album in 10 years, yet are pushing hard for this. :rolleyes:

amacachi

Haven't bought or downloaded music in nearly two years I'd say. Just so little that appeals to me.
Actually I have downloaded some stuff, all commercially unavailable mixes etc., don't think anyone's losing out.

Mike 1972

PeakOutput wrote: »

but the industry does need to work harder to figure out new ways to make money as selling cds in brick and mortar stores simply wont cut it from now on

TBH theyre at least a decade too late.

During the 1990's as CD's (largely) replaced Vinyl and cassettes. the industry (already well used to screwing customers, artists and independent retailers alike) grew even more greedy and complacent when they discovered they could sell customers overpriced music that they already owned.

The internet has proven to their comeuppance. And while they blubbered and dithered over how to respond to the fact that technology has rendered all their business models obsolete and irrelevent an entire generation has grown up to regard free music as an entitlement. Whether they are right or not is pretty irrelevent.

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Forking out €20 for an album is very steep.
I would think the profit margins on music are massive, especially if you are downloading from Itunes.

Given that the distribution costs are almost zero....... well yeah !

TPD

I do download music. When a band I like is playing a gig near me, I'll go to see it and buy a t shirt or something. Or when a band is giving away an album for free/donation, I'll give them some money.

I don't like giving music industries more money and therefore more power to interfere with my freedoms. They either need to change or GTFO.

PeakOutput

liah wrote: »

K, change "shirt" to "packet of taytos."

its still not the same you cant make more taytos

by copying the cd you are producing a new product that would have had to be purchased had you not created it

you can give your purchased cd to your friend no problem at all copying it and giving it to them is stealing(im not judging i have done it but dont kid yourself about what your doing)

PeakOutput

TPD wrote: »

I do download music. When a band I like is playing a gig near me, I'll go to see it and buy a t shirt or something. Or when a band is giving away an album for free/donation, I'll give them some money.

I don't like giving music industries more money and therefore more power to interfere with my freedoms. They either need to change or GTFO.

so you prefer the current state of affairs which is illegal downloading causing the record labels to fail / be bought over which means fewer people in control of what is released which means less distribution of wealth. it also mean they have too much power in the industry and can choose what they will or wont release(they can even pay people NOT to release music and they do do this). so by illegally downloading you are actually increasing their control over you not decreasing it

cornbb

Yes, you should pay for your music. Yes, it sucks to be paying a middleman who are probably screwing the musicians, but at least that way the artist gets paid. Better to get paid something than nothing at all.

Support indie labels or pay musicians directly where you can. Musicians need to rebel or form a union or something, the fact that four companies control 80% of music distribution and reap the lions share of the revenue in the Internet age is a disgrace.

But that shouldn't be an excuse to pay nothing at all.

WindSock

I really have no trouble downloading music. You make music, people enjoy it. You generate income from your gigs.
Entertainers make far too much money from sales of their records.

4zn76tysfajdxp

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Why, its free on the Radio.

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/home_taping_is_killing_music.gif

liah

PeakOutput wrote: »

its still not the same you cant make more taytos

by copying the cd you are producing a new product that would have had to be purchased had you not created it

you can give your purchased cd to your friend no problem at all copying it and giving it to them is stealing(im not judging i have done it but dont kid yourself about what your doing)

I take it you've never made a mix tape with a cassette and the radio, then.

Basically it breaks down like this: If someone lets you borrow a CD, you copy that CD and save it for just yourself (which is what 99% of filesharers do) and do not give it to anyone else, it's the same as borrowing a tshirt or anything else. Do you think that is wrong? Is the person who let you borrow it wrong? I don't think so.

Like I said previously: if I had the money I would pay for it. I do not. I don't give my music to anyone else, and what anyone else chooses to do with what they download isn't my business or fault. The majority of music being downloaded is created by millionaires. They have everything they need, more than everything they need. So do the record company employees. I don't. They'll survive without a couple bucks. Sure, they'd probably wipe their arses with it. Me? I need that couple bucks. And I'd also like to try to enjoy life a little, too. They can make money off of gigs and merchandise and the other millions of people who actually will buy the record.

Everyone has the right to enjoy the little things in life.

But then again, I'm a socialist rather than a capitalist.

Before typing this, I deleted my Leftism album and tested how long it took to get it back into my iTunes.. I got 850 kb/s download speed from the first result on Google and it took 20 seconds to un-rar and add to iTunes.
It took roughly two and a half minutes before I could listen to it.. Faster than ripping a CD or using iTunes store. If I was a millionaire, I'd still do it this way out of convenience.

Is it right or wrong? Read this article to see how the music industry works and then decide what to make of it..


And mods, I presume a google result isn't against the charter when discussing piracy.

yogy

Bands make most of their music from live gigs. Record companies take the lion's share of album sales which is used to promote new talent.
In the age of the internet the need for record labels to get you heard is becoming less and less..
I haven't bought music for years..

However I spend the guts of 1500€ or so a year on supporting artists..
by going to as many festivals and gigs as my pocket allows!

twinQuins

PeakOutput wrote: »

its still not the same you cant make more taytos

by copying the cd you are producing a new product that would have had to be purchased had you not created it

you can give your purchased cd to your friend no problem at all copying it and giving it to them is stealing(im not judging i have done it but dont kid yourself about what your doing)

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

PeakOutput

liah wrote: »

I take it you've never made a mix tape with a cassette and the radio, then.

Basically it breaks down like this: If someone lets you borrow a CD, you copy that CD and save it for just yourself (which is what 99% of filesharers do) and do not give it to anyone else, it's the same as borrowing a tshirt or anything else. Do you think that is wrong? Is the person who let you borrow it wrong? I don't think so.

it isnt the same as letting your friend borrow your t-shirt. it is the same as buying / stealing a t-shirt and then using sophisticated technology to make an exact copy of it and giving that to your friend allowing both of you to wear the now two stolen tshirts at the same time

The majority of music being downloaded is created by millionaires. They have everything they need, more than everything they need. So do the record company employees. I don't.

im going to assume you have a job. by your logic someone who is homeless and has no money is entitled to steal your property because you have everything you need to survive and you will survive without the 20quid they take from your pocket

They can make money off of gigs and merchandise and the other millions of people who actually will buy the record.

but what if everyone took your view?

Everyone has the right to enjoy the little things in life.

so you feel you have the right to steal?

But then again, I'm a socialist rather than a capitalist.

and its that sort of unsustainable opinion on the world that is the reason no socialist should ever be in control of anything important

PeakOutput

Morkarleth wrote: »

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

and being blindly ignorant dosnt make it right

4zn76tysfajdxp

Ooooooh! It's on naw!

twinQuins

PeakOutput wrote: »

and being blindly ignorant dosnt make it right

Care to point out where I said that?