The real reason... we download

[mellyinsf]

The real reason people download music off the internet for free is because the record companies by in large are putting out crappy albums. Everyone knows that one song they love, but by in large the rest of the album is just well

When U2 puts out albums I don't even think about going to Kazaa. I know the whole album will be great, I want to own it, I love the pictures I get and I feel I've recieved a great product.

Yeah Yeah with the other reasons, technology has changed, why buy when it's free, etc.
Shame on the record companies for sueing people, they should make it worth our while to buy it not threaten with lawsuits

Just had to let that off my chest.... thanks for listening

 

[Laura M]

The real reason I download is because Im too poor to afford music

And because you can't buy certain bands msuic here.

 

[HelloAngel]

I don't download music... I don't agree with the practice or taking what is not mine. The record labels have been putting out crappy albums since the beginning of the industry - and while the most visable entertainers might have crappy albums, there are plenty of albums to lawfully purchase by excellent artists.

So, no, I don't agree with the shame put on the RIAA - because that is a slippery slope argument IMHO, and only leads to other in favor of pilfering arguments once other technologies develop.

I don't steal when I go out shopping to record stores, and I certainly wouldn't steal from the privacy of my own home. If I don't think I'll like a certain CD by an artist, I just don't buy it. Just like I don't watch certain movies, and I don't watch many television shows.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Since this is the most recent thread about downloading, etc. I thought it'd be interesting to quote this article, that originally appeared in Wired:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60350,00.html

Fear May Not Spur CD Sales
A barrage of copyright-infringement lawsuits from the recording industry may have succeeded this week in striking fear in the hearts of heavy file sharers.

But opponents of the Recording Industry Association of America's approach say its heavy-handed tactics are unlikely to prove effective over the long run. Rather than give up on file trading, they say, fans probably will either seek more-anonymous ways to swap music or collect tracks from artists not affiliated with the RIAA.

...

"If you're trying to instill fear, you may have success. But if you're trying to increase CD sales by getting people to stop sharing music, I don't think it will have any effect at all," said Brian Zisk, technologies director for the Future of Music Coalition.

Zisk believes some of the blame for falling CD sales lies not with file sharing but with the growth in popularity of other entertainments products, like DVDs, video games and even cell phones. As people spend more money on these items, they have fewer dollars left for CDs.
Michael Goodman, a Yankee Group analyst, said the recording industry's legal campaign appears to be having an effect on file traders, but is also stirring a consumer backlash.

According to Goodman, early indications show that the RIAA's crackdown has resulted in a decline in peer-to-peer file trading. In mid-June, simultaneous users for Fastrack (the network that supports Kazaa and Grokster) averaged about 4.5 million per day at its peak. By late August, the number had dropped to about 3.5 million users. While vacations may have been a factor, the majority of this decline is likely because of the threat of a lawsuit from the RIAA, he wrote.

Notably, however, the decline in CD sales accelerated during the period of reduced peer-to-peer file trading. On June 15, the day the RIAA launched a subpoena campaign against file traders, CD sales were down 6.1 percent year to date. In the seven weeks since launching the subpoena campaign, the decline in CD sales has accelerated 54 percent.

So what is the RIAA trying to achieve with this campaign? Who do they represent? I mean, sales have plummeted, so this is not good news for the members of the RIAA (the record labels). And who benefits from the settlements? The artists? Will the artists see any money from this?

BTW, HelloAngel, I partially agree with your sentiments (the part about the crappy albums ). No, seriously, I also don't download music (partly because I have a crappy dial-up at home). However, I don't see this just as downloading-to-have, but also as downloading-to-check-out. Just like radio, where you can check out music, you can look for new artists by downloading. IMO, this is a big part of the downloading pie.
You say you don't steal when you go out shopping to record stores. Neither do I, but I do often listen to records. Not only when I'm planning to buy them, but also just to check it out, to hear if it might be worth purchasing. Cutting off that area will decrease spending on music. I don't want to shell out $20 for a CD I don't know anything about and might not like (and yes, here in the Netherlands CD's are 20+ euros, so $20+).

C ya!

Marty

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i've downloaded some, but not nearly as much as others i know. mainly, it's the case of me not wanting to buy an entire album when i only like one song. in that case, once itunes expands to pc users as well, i'll definitely be going that route instead.

the other case is the rare times when a cd is out of print and i can't find it used anywhere, so i download the album. something tells me no one will care that i downloaded two andy taylor albums, one of which wasn't even released in america.

 

[MrBrau1]

Boycott all retail record stores in the month of October. It's a shame the artist will suffer, but the record companies must be taught a lesson. You can still support an artist by going to live shows. That's where they make most of their $ anyway.

 

[Elvis Presley]

I download because Im addicted.....

 

[mellyinsf]

Boycott all retail record stores in the month of October. It's a shame the artist will suffer, but the record companies must be taught a lesson. You can still support an artist by going to live shows. That's where they make most of their $ anyway.

Bad idea, what about the people who work at the record stores, they should not lose thier jobs. I don't think the record stores acutally have anything to do with the record companies.

 

[mellyinsf]

Linking stealing cloths and CD's is apples and oranges. Music is played on the radio for free all the time. Anyone who has ever bought a blank tape and recorded thier friend's favorite mix should also be acussed of stealing. What in theory is the difference between a tape player with a record button and Kazaa?

First and formost, artists should get paid. The fact is most artist get little to nothing from CD sales (the average is less then $0.03). Why do the record companies charge so much for a CD? Could it be time to lower the prices? Most other business in the face mass exidos try other methods to retain thier customers, why are the record companies not doing the same? Creativity amoung artist I would think is abundent but the record companies are not being creative, they are being hostile and alienating many who do so inocently, download a song on occasion.

Imagine if a CD was say $4.00 instead of $16.00. I think many people would find it a big waste of time to go buy a blank CD, spend an hour or two downloading each and every song from Kazaa.

 

[typhoon]

The real reason people download music off the internet for free is because the record companies by in large are putting out crappy albums. Everyone knows that one song they love, but by in large the rest of the album is just well

I always thought that was a funny argument. If I thought there was really nothing but shit out there, I wouldn't download at all...

I guess it's always fun to try to blame the music industry somehow, though.

 

[mellyinsf]

I always thought that was a funny argument. If I thought there was really nothing but shit out there, I wouldn't download at all...

I guess it's always fun to try to blame the music industry ehow, though.

It is kinda a funny arguement. Here is the top ten albums out right now. I thought it was kinda funny. I like coldplay, I bought the album. They round out the top ten.

Mary J. Blige, Love & Life
Geffen | 000956* | Interscope

Hilary Duff, Metamorphosis
Buena Vista | 861006 | Walt Disney | (18.98 CD)

Various Artists, The Neptunes Present... Clones
Star Trak | 51295* | Arista | (11.98/18.98)

Alan Jackson, Greatest Hits Volume II And Some Other Stuff
Arista Nashville | 53097 | RLG | (12.98/19.98)

YoungBloodZ, Drankin' Patnaz
So So Def | 50155* | Arista | (12.98/18.98)


Beyonce, Dangerously In Love
Columbia | 86386* | Sony Music | (12.98 EQ/18.98)

Evanescence, Fallen 2
Wind-up | 13063 | (18.98 CD)

Soundtrack, Bad Boys II
Bad Boy | 000716* | UMRG | (11.98/18.98)

Chingy, Jackpot
Disturbing Tha Peace | 82976* | Capitol | (11.98/18.98)

Coldplay, A Rush Of Blood To The Head 2
Capitol | 40504* | (12.98/18.98

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Here's another interesting article about downloading/sharing music (and again it's from Wire):
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/fileshare.html

Summary (directly copied from Slashdot):

What The RIAA Gets Out Of File Sharing
"Wired have a fascinating article about a company called BigChampagne which sells regional P2P download statistics to most of the major record labels. When the labels know what people are downloading, they know what to put on the radio, and sales in the area increase. The record industry's lawsuits against file- sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance."

So even record labels see the positive aspect of downloading/sharing music through P2P networks!

C ya!

Marty

 

[HelloAngel]

I think if the industry reduced prices, they might see the crisis ease... but for me, I've grown to like very little of what is out there - and no matter how many P2P networks there are, no matter how great iTunes is, the industry will never be able to force me to purchase something that I do not want to listen to, or bitch enough in the news about the state of things to convince me to go to the record store and help them out.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

every medium that has ever come out has eventually gone down in price after it's release... except for CDs. they actually went up in price. think about it... in the 80's, when a successful movie was first released to VHS it cost like 90 bucks... now a video would cost like 10 bucks, and you can get a new movie on high quality dvd for no more than 20 bucks. meanwhile CDs are the same damn price they were when they first came out, if not more.

riddle me this one batman... i can buy 50 blank CD-Rs for like 10-12 bucks... yet they charge me 15 bucks for 1 studio CD by an artist, and the artist is only getting like 10-20 cents off each CD.

so let's try to figure this out... 50 cds at 12 bucks... that comes out to .24 cents per CD. And of course there's a mark up by the store and the people who made the CD-Rs, so let's make it more like .15 cents per CD. Now let's say it's a major artist with a sweet deal... .50 cents per CD. add a total of 1.50 for advertising, label design, employees, and various other overhead. So now we're up to $2.15 cents to make one CD. Let's use an average price of $15.99. Take $2.00 of markup profit for the store that sells the CD, and the amount going to the recording company comes out to $11.84 per CD. Now let's say the album sells 3 million copies world wide... what are the final stats for this?

$450,000 for the cost of each CD
$1,500,000 paid to the Artist
$4,500,000 for misc. overhead (advertising, etc)
$6,000,000 store profit
$35,520,000 to the record company


now these numbers are by no means exact... but i'd guess they're fairly close.

these numbers are rediculous... you're telling me the record company can't cut costs of CDs even more? They can, but they won't.

THAT is why I download

 

[Salome]

usually when I hear about a band that interests me I d/l some of their stuff
if I really like it I'll buy the cd and delete the downloads from my harddrive and
if I don't really like it I just delete the downloads from my harddrive

I don't get who loses money on that

then again I don't think the RIAA is after me

 

[mellyinsf]

Headache in a suitcase I just could not agree more. Thanks for the stats. All I have to say is exactly

I don't want to make anyone mad here, sorry if I've rubbed the wrong shoulder, espcially hello angel

 

[Angela Harlem]

I might be wrong, but it looked like HA's angry face was at the state of what is currently out there, not you melly.
I agree with you and Headache, its the price that gets me. I dont buy many cds and dont download much more, just random songs every now and then but if the prices were realistic, I would not hesitate to buy them instead. And your point about downloading just being another form of hitting the record button on a tape deck or copying directly off the radio is true.
Its not a black and white issue though, there's truths in both ways of looking at it. The recording industry pissed me off long before the internet sucked their profits though.

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

I look at downloading as a way to be able to get the two Daniel Beddingfield/Atomic Kitten/Appleton/All Saints/Spice Girls/random crappy pop group songs that I like.

Let's face it - downloading has been instrumental in feeding our guilty pleasures.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Here's another interesting article about the music business, contrasting it with the approach of the movie business.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~78~1626541,00.html

Recording industry's missteps

By Michael Booth

The best-selling "Chicago" movie soundtrack is available on CD starting at $13.86.

The actual movie, with the soundtrack songs included, of course, plus additional goodies ranging from deleted musical numbers to the director's interview and a "making-of" feature, can be had for precisely $2.12 more.

Therein lies the problem for a critically wounded music recording industry: The "Chicago" CD looks like a rip-off, and the DVD looks like a steal.

Nearly everything the record companies have done wrong in the age of downloading has been done right by the movie studios.

It does not really have any direct connection with downloading, it's just a commentary with some suggestions for the music industry to go forwards.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Angela Harlem]

$$$

ja.

 

[MrBrau1]

Ya know those bootlegs U2 have no problem with fans downloading and sharing at U2Bloodredsky.com?

Well, thanks to the RIAA, they're gone. Another victory for evil.
Boycott now.

 

[SkeeK]

universal have announced they will lower the price of their cds. good move methinks

 

[mellyinsf]

universal may set a new trend for all record companies.

but then again we must wait and see, "lowering" their prices may only mean a few dollars. I would like to see $10 taken off the price tags

 

[HeartlandGirl]

usually when I hear about a band that interests me I d/l some of their stuff
if I really like it I'll buy the cd and delete the downloads from my harddrive and
if I don't really like it I just delete the downloads from my harddrive

I don't get who loses money on that

then again I don't think the RIAA is after me

I would also like to see the price of CDs drop from near $20 to $10. I would buy a lot more CDs at $10 a pop than I do at $20. I can justify the ten bucks even if I only like a few songs, but as prices are now, I've only been buying CDs from artists whose entire albums I have liked in the past. For twenty bucks, I have to make sure I'm getting my money's worth. At ten, hey, it's not so bad if the rest of the album isn't so great.

 

[yeblik]

I do not download (I think I've downloaded a grand total of one song in my entire life -- partially because of a lack of technical competence ), but then again I haven't purchased a major label release in years either. I'm pretty much an indie only music listener now. And the music business is certainly one of the (if not the ) most screwed up businesses in the world. But I have problems with the idea of downloading at will, because for many of the artists I love, there is a direct correlation between cd sales and having enough to pay the bills and support their families.

Even if artists make more money from doing live shows than selling cds, why should they give away their work? Would you like to be paid only for part of the work you do? And for artists who play smaller venues (vs large halls and stadiums) the difference between making a profit and sustaining a loss on a particular night may be whether or not it snows.

I agree that most major label cds are priced way too high, but I just very happily paid $20 USD (plus approx. $6 USD more for shipping) to buy the new cd by The Church (titled Forget Yourself ). And I would willingly pay more for it (I'll probably end up buying multiple copies and versions of it). It's on an indie label (Cooking Vinyl) and I purchased it through the band's official website, so their profit on it is higher than if I bought it at a retail store, or at another online source. I've been following the progress of this album through their website, on bulletin boards, in chat rooms, from it's inception. I understand that their costs are disproportionately high compared to those of major label artists. I would not even consider obtaining it from any source which does not compensate them for their work.

Unfortunately the RIAA has never cared about bands such as The Church (except for a brief time when they were signed to Arista and were touted as -- and you will get a laugh out of this -- "the next U2"), all they are interested in are the bands/artists who bring in boat loads of cash. And for the average fan it's hard to see how those acts are missing the profits of a few downloaded cds. But there are far more bands in the "just barely making it" or "not quite making it yet" catagories. And these are the ones which are really hurt.

Ok, ok, ok end of rant.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

usually when I hear about a band that interests me I d/l some of their stuff
if I really like it I'll buy the cd and delete the downloads from my harddrive and
if I don't really like it I just delete the downloads from my harddrive

Same here.

Two other reasons I download: I'm poor right now.

And also, when I lived in my old town, their CD selection of the bands I liked was very, very limited...greatest hits and maybe a couple of other CDs, and that was really it. And I'd already have those CDs.

So, as I got into bands like U2 or Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, and wanted to hear more of their albums, I had to resort to downloading the songs off of Kazaa and other various things. A lot of the albums from my favorite bands were burned off the computer because they weren't sold in that town.

Course, now that I've moved and live closer to a big city which has a very nice variety of albums, and now that I'm looking around for a job...that could change.

I'll still download, though. I like checking out songs by artists that may not sell very well here and everything.

Angela

 

[melon]

You know what? I bought more albums at the height of the "Napster" era than I ever did. Sure, I downloaded some songs, but the RIAA should see the CD collection I amassed as a result of exposure to different musical genres that I would otherwise have never known about.

But therein lies the problem. If I buy, for example, a Brian Eno album, that doesn't sit well for the RIAA, because what they really want is for me to buy the new Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera album. Fifteen million copies sold on one album is far more profitable than 15 million copies sold on 15 million different albums. What the music industry really doesn't like about P2P sharing is that they no longer have any control as to dictating our listening habits anymore. I would really like to challenge their statistics, and, rather than look at their biased lump-sum sales statistics, lets see the stories of the once-"obscure" bands who have benefitted from downloading.

If I amassed a large CD collection as a result of these programs, I'm sure that there are many more like me.

Melon

 

[Chizip]

my thoughts exactly melon


plus, i download to stick it to the man

 

[yeblik]

And also, when I lived in my old town, their CD selection of the bands I liked was very, very limited...greatest hits and maybe a couple of other CDs, and that was really it. And I'd already have those CDs.

A lot of the albums from my favorite bands were burned off the computer because they weren't sold in that town.

Course, now that I've moved and live closer to a big city which has a very nice variety of albums, and now that I'm looking around for a job...that could change.


Angela

Not to bash anyone, but I live in a very rural area and decent shops are nowhere to be found, and I am able to obtain obscure cds (all i seem to buy anymore is obscure cds) by hunting them down online. Cash, or lack thereof, does play a large part in that hunt however, but I've found very good bargins by buying overseas and having it shipped to me instead of buying an import from a record store.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

I originally posted this as a reply to a thread in the MP3-forum, but I think it's also appropriate here.

For affordable CD's, look around a bit. From reading some posts on this forum it seems that Best Buy is cheap in the USA. Other sources may be online shops around the globe. I've found a shop in Hong Kong which offers CD's for less than 11 euro (converted) including free shipping!
http://www.cd-wow.com.hk
This shop has subsidiaries around the globe, so it's not just a small Hong Kong shop. In fact there's also a Dutch CD-Wow and a German one (and many more). However, they are more expensive than the Hong Kong outlet (with a price of 15 euro and 13 euro for a regular CD respectively). At the beginning of this month I ordered 2 CD's there (The Beatles with Rubber Soul and Emmylou Harris with Stumble Into Grace). A week later I received the CD's (in two separate packages) and they are like the regular CD's you buy in the shops. My credit card statement also didn't reveal any surprises (2 CD's, less than 22 euro).
Now, the selection of the shop isn't that big as some other online retailers like Amazon. But you can find most recent CD's there and quite a lot older titles. You can always try to find it there, but some very indie acts are not available there. My search for 'Church' did not reveal any CD's by The Church, just some albums by Charlotte Church. You can't have it all...

11 Euro per CD is not much. If it is cheap enough when there are only 1 or 2 good songs on it, that is something subjective. But a single also costs 5 euro (7 for a maxi-single) and you also buy that one for only one song.

C ya!

Marty

P.S. The US version can be found at http://www.cd-wow.net There the CD's are $13,95 including shipping.
P.P.S. For comparison sake, here in the Netherlands most CD's are 20 euro or more!