"Bono calls for control over internet downloads"

[Niceman]

As for a subscription service--it would be killer, and on all of your devices (instantly)--it would be "virtual" ownership. You would have access to everything, plus open source stuff like bootlegs (if the band OK's them to be on the network). The price point would have to be between $10-$20--also have an ad supported free service (Freemium model)--and get all the labels to be on board. I am hoping Apple sees the light on this--subscription based iTunes would be amazing--

and again, this will happen--just a matter of when,and how long the music companies will scratch and claw to keep the "old" fantasy alive--a delay tactic that is actually making the situation way worse for the budding musicians Bono is intending to advocate for--

Count me out! Any music rental scheme is a scam and a rip-off!

Another part of the current crisis is the huge money the industry made when Cassettes all had to be replaced by CDs. It gave the industry the mistaken impression that they should be able to sell and re-sell the same product to us over and over again.

 

[VintagePunk]

Another part of the current crisis is the huge money the industry made when Cassettes all had to be replaced by CDs. It gave the industry the mistaken impression that they should be able to sell and re-sell the same product to us over and over again.

Bleh, how true. I just threw a ton of old cassettes in the garbage the other day. I've always hated cassettes.

 

[Niceman]

Bleh, how true. I just threw a ton of old cassettes in the garbage the other day. I've always hated cassettes.

I liked them in their day. I have a lot of fond memories attached to them..... but how can you compare the experience to a CD?

 

[65980]

I've always thought that vinyl and cassettes both sound better than CDs, because I love analog more than digital. Then again, I also think rock music peaked in 1969.

 

[toscano]

Count me out! Any music rental scheme is a scam and a rip-off!

Another part of the current crisis is the huge money the industry made when Cassettes all had to be replaced by CDs. It gave the industry the mistaken impression that they should be able to sell and re-sell the same product to us over and over again.

It's happening again.

It's called "remastered versions". U2 is just another in a long line of bands/artists/labels doing this.

I bought all the early stuff on vinyl and than bought everything again on CD (even stuff I already had on vinyl), I'll be damned if I'm paying a 3rd time (other than for the JT box set that is, that CD needed a remaster big time, but the original vinyl blows the remastered one away).

When it comes to reissues of music I've paid for twice, my conscience is clear regarding downloading for free. Still, I'm sure someone will say that this is the reason new bands are being stifled...

 

[Niceman]

It's happening again.

It's called "remastered versions". U2 is just another in a long line of bands/artists/labels doing this.

I bought all the early stuff on vinyl and than bought everything again on CD (even stuff I already had on vinyl), I'll be damned if I'm paying a 3rd time (other than for the JT box set that is, that CD needed a remaster big time, but the original vinyl blows the remastered one away).

When it comes to reissues of music I've paid for twice, my conscience is clear regarding downloading for free. Still, I'm sure someone will say that this is the reason new bands are being stifled...

True. But at least they can only get away with this one with our favorite music....

 

[U2girl]

I don't know if this was posted yet

Why I Agree With Bono - Seattle Music - Reverb

 

[toscano]

Yes, let's have isps monitor EVERYTHING.

Let's also have the US Mail, UPS and Fedex open up all shipments just in case.

Let's also have random traffic stops with no reasonable cause.

Finally, let's monitor all phone calls, you never know, someone *might* be planning a criminal act.

 

[VintagePunk]

I liked them in their day. I have a lot of fond memories attached to them..... but how can you compare the experience to a CD?

I bought vinyl for as long as I could, and then jumped right into cds when they still sold for $25+ each and there were only a handful of titles to choose from. Still ended up with a couple hundred cassettes, though.

It's happening again.

It's called "remastered versions". U2 is just another in a long line of bands/artists/labels doing this.

I bought all the early stuff on vinyl and than bought everything again on CD (even stuff I already had on vinyl), I'll be damned if I'm paying a 3rd time (other than for the JT box set that is, that CD needed a remaster big time, but the original vinyl blows the remastered one away).

When it comes to reissues of music I've paid for twice, my conscience is clear regarding downloading for free. Still, I'm sure someone will say that this is the reason new bands are being stifled...

Agreed. The only remasters I even own are U2 remasters, and that's because I'm a U2 fangirl completionist. I have bought several titles in more than one format, though, mainly cds, to replace some of those damn cassettes. Cassettes are the devil.

 

[BVS]

Still, I'm sure someone will say that this is the reason new bands are being stifled...

Why even bring this up? It makes no sense plus it just reminds us all that many of you keep avoiding this subject

 

[toscano]

Why even bring this up? It makes no sense plus it just reminds us all that many of you keep avoiding this subject

"us" ????

So you agree that the solution to the problem that doesn't exist (new bands not being signed, last I checked I heard a bunch of new bands on the radio this morning and still see debut album releases on a regular basis) is an unprecedented massive invasion of privacy that no one in their right minds would stand for were it done in any other aspect of life ?

 

[BVS]

So you agree that the solution to the problem that doesn't exist (new bands not being signed, last I checked I heard a bunch of new bands on the radio this morning and still see debut album releases on a regular basis) is an unprecedented massive invasion of privacy that no one in their right minds would stand for were it done in any other aspect of life ?

"Unprecedented massive invasion of privacy"? No, I haven't supported anything of the kind.

So because there are new bands being signed right now, there is no problem? At least you're entertaining. Sales in general are dropping at a staggering rate and if things continue the way they are, i.e. generations feeling entitled to free music you will have nothing but Britney Spears acts to listen to. Sure you might find an act you like online but they won't be able to come tour hometown because those types of acts will no longer be able to make a living with music. Like I said, the day of Pearl Jams, Radiohead, etc will soon be gone.

 

[ultraviolet353]

by the way--just to throw this in--I firmly believe the state of radio in the US has done as much or more to hurt the biz than file sharing. I truly believe the majority of downloaded music is stuff you would ordinarily not buy anyway. Since it's free, people experiment way more. I highly recommend Bob Lefsetz' blog on music and pop culture. He uses Spotify and loves it--in his mind, subscription services are the future.

I am not sure why there is so much hate on the sub model. Access to everything for a nominal monthly fee. Add to that an engine where you are recommended new music and artists you will love, and you have a sure fire winner--just see what Spotify does when it is released in the US. It would be easier and more enjoyable than filesharing and would convert many downloaders into paying customers every month.

Don't get caught up on the renting thing--you would not notice the difference at all and have access to EVERYTHING, discover way more, and pay less than you did in the CD days for a year's worth of music. Plus, the biz would benefit with a steady revenue stream with more customers. The bottom line is they need to do something different than what they are doing now--which is simply a war of attrition. All the while millions of potential customers are being bred to expect that music is free.

 

[Niceman]

by the way--just to throw this in--I firmly believe the state of radio in the US has done as much or more to hurt the biz than file sharing. I truly believe the majority of downloaded music is stuff you would ordinarily not buy anyway. Since it's free, people experiment way more. I highly recommend Bob Lefsetz' blog on music and pop culture. He uses Spotify and loves it--in his mind, subscription services are the future.

I am not sure why there is so much hate on the sub model. Access to everything for a nominal monthly fee. Add to that an engine where you are recommended new music and artists you will love, and you have a sure fire winner--just see what Spotify does when it is released in the US. It would be easier and more enjoyable than filesharing and would convert many downloaders into paying customers every month.

Don't get caught up on the renting thing--you would not notice the difference at all and have access to EVERYTHING, discover way more, and pay less than you did in the CD days for a year's worth of music. Plus, the biz would benefit with a steady revenue stream with more customers. The bottom line is they need to do something different than what they are doing now--which is simply a war of attrition. All the while millions of potential customers are being bred to expect that music is free.

My objection is that I am spending money and do not get to own anything at the end of it....

 

[ultraviolet353]

Yes. But it is an ongoing monthly payment. So you wouldn't notice diference in the application. And you would be spending less money. THere would be no "end". Unless you stopped listening to music. Plus a killer service that captured the cultural zeiteist would be ableofo keep prices low. It's coming. There is no way around it. Sub is the model of the future. There will not be physical ownership on the future but it will be just as good, e and even better.

 

[Niceman]

Yes. But it is an ongoing monthly payment. So you wouldn't notice diference in the application. And you would be spending less money. THere would be no "end". Unless you stopped listening to music. Plus a killer service that captured the cultural zeiteist would be ableofo keep prices low. It's coming. There is no way around it. Sub is the model of the future. There will not be physical ownership on the future but it will be just as good, e and even better.

There will certainly be physical ownership! I will not be using subscription, no matter what industry wants me to!

For me, it is as simple as wanting to control what I've bought! What if George Lucas decides to edit out a scene of a movie and the subscription company makes the old version unavailable? I'd better have backed up my copy somehow. What if U2 decided to change a line in Mysterious Ways (She's see the Man inside the child) and change it to a silly line (And no question she knows why.) I should let them change my copy? Oh no, they don't get to do that. I still have the physical copy.

And what if I don't want them to know how often I listen to what songs? What if I care about my privacy???

And if we pay them for every song released, that's the end of musical Darwinism, isn't it? Music doesn't have to be good anymore to get released. It's all up to what some executives like....

And whatever tech they develop to prevent me from physically backing up will be worked around. I will do whatever I need to do to actually own what I have paid for....

 

[ultraviolet353]

Do you have a problem with your telephone, cable, cell, company? All rentals.

You are standing on ceremony when the experience will not only be identical to physical ownership--but also will be much better. As for your concerns, that is the problem you have now--the sub services are incomplete.

For a sub system to work--everyone would need to be on board. Again, this is what WILL happen--just a matter of when. Hopefully they do not wait until it is too late--it almost is. I understand your concerns, but I do not think you can fully appreciate the sub model until there is true paradigm shift in the business model.

Netflix is the only model out there that hints at the future. I have never met anyone who hasn't been head over heels in love with the Netflix service.

Like I said--if the experience is virtually the same, and you are spending way less, what is the real problem?

 

[Niceman]

I do subscribe to telephone, internet, electricity, and I even have to make a regular payment for food; true. But that is because I have used up the previous month's delivery.

As I don't plan on using up NLOTH, I do not expect to have to keep paying for it.

Sorry. I have strong feelings on this one. I don't doubt that some people will be delighted to rent their music, I am not one of them. I don't even rent movies!

It would be one thing if NLOTH were in danger of disintegrating if the record company didn't upkeep it, but that's not the case...

 

[Niceman]

You could consider things the other way. Do I expect to get paid in perpetuity for the work I did last week? Not usually.....

 

[digitize]

Technically, "owning" any copyright intellectual property (movie, book, music, etc) is still "renting" it anyway. You don't own the content at all - it is owned by the copyright holder, and "ownership" is actually just an indefinite license to use the content on a medium that you do indeed own (when it is sold to you). However, the copyright holder would still be at perfect liberty to arbitrarily tell you to get rid of that content.

 

[Salome]

people don't want to pay for recorded music
and they fume when there's talk about optimising concert ticket prices
still they reckon this won't hurt the overall quality of music

 

[mikal]

i'm all about a subscription as long as i'm allowed to keep the music. i mean, what could stop me from burning the "rented" music on to CD or synced to my mp3 player?

 

[digitize]

i'm all about a subscription as long as i'm allowed to keep the music. i mean, what could stop me from burning the "rented" music on to CD or synced to my mp3 player?

Digital Rights Management, unless you're okay with massive file sizes or quality loss.

Hell, with Trusted Computing bullshit, that might not even be an option in the future.

 

[Niceman]

Technically, "owning" any copyright intellectual property (movie, book, music, etc) is still "renting" it anyway. You don't own the content at all - it is owned by the copyright holder, and "ownership" is actually just an indefinite license to use the content on a medium that you do indeed own (when it is sold to you). However, the copyright holder would still be at perfect liberty to arbitrarily tell you to get rid of that content.

I wish them luck if they tried! I still have my copy of the Salome outtakes........

Now, if Edge had had the power to delete them from existence??? I guess he would have. Good thing he didn't have that power....

 

[Niceman]

Digital Rights Management, unless you're okay with massive file sizes or quality loss.

Hell, with Trusted Computing bullshit, that might not even be an option in the future.

Massive file sizes is just a matter of time. I remember when a 40 meg hard-drive was considered massive.....

 

[ultraviolet353]

Digital Rights Management, unless you're okay with massive file sizes or quality loss.

Hell, with Trusted Computing bullshit, that might not even be an option in the future.

I would think it will live on a cloud--so not really DRM'd, but would need.

As for continuing to pay for NLOTH after you have it--I understand you do not like the sub model, but I believe are still viewing it through the prism of the old model. Ownership would be a moot point--you would have access to the entire universe of music--everything--even open source stuff--bootlegs, etc. User groups, genius recommendations--etc. I am a music LOVE--cannot get enough. maybe you only listen to a few songs a year--or just U2--and yet it would still make economic sense to you.

But if you are against it--then so be it--but I have a hunch if you tried it (and again, this is if it is done RIGHT), you would love it.

 

[Niceman]

Thank you for thinking you know my wants better than I do, but I am quite sure that I would rather buy my albums and own them. I don't even like to buy music by Mp3. I do buy a lot of music, and plan on continuing.

The day that I cannot buy physical copies of media is the day that I will get all of my media for free. So, the industry can take it's pick.....

 

[Niceman]

Libraries are free. If you want to own a book you pay for it.

Digital libraries will be no different.

 

[VintagePunk]

I would think it will live on a cloud--so not really DRM'd, but would need.

As for continuing to pay for NLOTH after you have it--I understand you do not like the sub model, but I believe are still viewing it through the prism of the old model. Ownership would be a moot point--you would have access to the entire universe of music--everything--even open source stuff--bootlegs, etc. User groups, genius recommendations--etc. I am a music LOVE--cannot get enough. maybe you only listen to a few songs a year--or just U2--and yet it would still make economic sense to you.

But if you are against it--then so be it--but I have a hunch if you tried it (and again, this is if it is done RIGHT), you would love it.

I agree with pretty much every point that Niceman has made, I would hate the subscription model.

What happens if you run into, say, a 6 month period where money becomes very tight, and you can't afford to spend money on music? Now, I'd still have my cds/purchased files to listen to. I guess with the subscription model, I'd be SOL.

 

[SeattleVertigo]

I love the subscription model. I've subscribed to Rhapsody for several years, and there are so many advantages to it. I've discovered so many more bands than I was ever able to before. Almost any band I can think of, I can find their albums on Rhapsody. (There are a few exceptions; the Beatles aren't on there yet, and Bruce Springsteen used to be, but isn't anymore. Most of Peter Gabriel's stuff isn't on there, thought it used to be. Still, almost any band someone names, I can almost always go check out their stuff. Love it.)

I love to check out peoples' lists of favorite music in the Just the Bang and the Clatter section here, and develop playlists in Rhapsody. I've learned about so much great music that way.

I can still buy physical copies of the stuff that I really like.

I'm excited to see what Apple comes up with now that it looks like they're ready to dip into the subscription model.

$10 or $15 a month is an incredible bargain to have access to millions of songs.