Red music service USA only?

[Chizip]

Your money's worth is the saving lives bit. The music is the carrot.

wait wait, you cant have it both ways. if it really is "a profit oriented project and not a charity", well then there better be a product that is worth the money. if it's about giving money to save lives, and not about the actual product, then yes, it's a charity.

i don't think bono wants you to subscribe to this service just to give money to needy people, that's kind of against the whole principle of the thing.

 

[Screwtape2]

wait wait, you cant have it both ways. if it really is "a profit oriented project and not a charity", well then there better be a product that is worth the money. if it's about giving money to save lives, and not about the actual product, then yes, it's a charity.

i don't think bono wants you to subscribe to this service just to give money to needy people, that's kind of against the whole principle of the thing.

Exactly. The idea of RED is to get people to donate by buying things they want. If the product isn't worth it and you buy it anyways, that defeats the purpose of the whole thing.

 

[Screwtape2]

How did I know you would say that screw?

Am i psychic??

If you are complaining about the quality then you don't even begin to comprehend the point of it.

You get new songs from the killers, u2, coldplay, bob dylan, elvis costello and so many other great artists, and yet you dont think youll get your moneys worth??

Your money's worth is the saving lives bit. The music is the carrot.

I can't believe how selfish and cold people are

Selfish and cold? Believe it or not I'm spending money this Christmas for an organization that is more direct and helping people. So excuse me for helping out an organization that helps people everyday and that I know is having an effect.

That's what Bono would want. Helping out an organization you can believe in.

 

[ramblin rose]

Exactly. The idea of RED is to get people to donate by buying things they want. If the product isn't worth it and you buy it anyways, that defeats the purpose of the whole thing.

You're absolutely right. If you don't want the product you definately should not subscribe.

However, that's different than the people who will steal the music, because they want the songs, they just don't want to pay for the subcription.

Two different camps of people as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and I don't go for the argument of "oh, I contribute to XX charity, so that gives me the right to steal this particulary product". (Not talking about you Screwtape. just a general response to some previous comments.)

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Goodness me, holier than thou or what in this thread?

Back in 85, I didn't buy the the Band Aid single but taped it off my friend. I and everyone I knew refused to buy the We are the World single (crimes against music ) I've been donating to Oxfam for over 20 years. I sleep well at night and God hasn't smote me. Yet.

 

[U2girl]

Some attitudes...5 stars.

 

[Liesje]

I can't believe how selfish and cold people are

I'd rather donate $60 to World Vision or something and continue getting music through a free (LEGAL) service I get through my employer. Wow what an asshole that must make me...

 

[dan_smee]

I'd rather donate $60 to World Vision or something and continue getting music through a free (LEGAL) service I get through my employer. Wow what an asshole that must make me...

If you obtain this music for free when you could pay then yes that does make you an arsehole.

Why donate to world vision when most of the money goes towards buying bibles. We'll give you food if you read this chapter. Don't say that it doesn't happen, because it does.

 

[Jamila]

I think the bottom line is - subscribe to (RED) WIRE if you want to & don't subscribe to it if you don't want to.

Contribute directly to social change organizations if you want to & don't contribute to these organizations if you don't want to.





I do have to agree that downloading these files for free is not a fair thing to do seeing that the service is set up to help end AIDS in Africa. You must live with your sense of morality & I will not preach to you what you should do because we all learn at different times in our lives that we reap what we sow.

Let's try to keep the discussion in this thread respectful of each other. We can disagree with each other without becoming disagreeable people.



www.theglobalfund.org

 

[mwheelonh]

You know, I'd be far more likely to subscribe if the dang thing actually worked...been sitting on the sign-up page after hitting the submit button for over an hour now (3 attempts, 20 min each).

 

[Liesje]

If you obtain this music for free when you could pay then yes that does make you an arsehole.

Why donate to world vision when most of the money goes towards buying bibles. We'll give you food if you read this chapter. Don't say that it doesn't happen, because it does.

Wow, a bit presumptuous aren't we? So, if someone comes to your door singing Christmas carols and offers you a Christmas cookie you are an asshole for accepting because you should have bought your own cookie at the supermarket? Riiiiight.

I get music for free because I work at a university that uses the Ruckus music service. It's FREE dude, look it up. They make all their money through advertising, not selling music. I don't know anything about this (RED) music or what they are offering but if Ruckus offers the same songs for free that's not my problem. If (RED) wants to make money off of something that other services offer (legally) for free then they need to differentiate their product (as I'm sure they will). They are a business model, not a charity.

The World Vision thing was just to illustrate a point you clearly missed. I've never donated to World Vision.

 

[Liesje]

I do have to agree that downloading these files for free is not a fair thing to do seeing that the service is set up to help end AIDS in Africa. You must live with your sense of morality & I will not preach to you what you should do because we all learn at different times in our lives that we reap what we sow.

Jamilla, there are already services that allow you to download legal (DRM) music for free that having nothing to do with AIDS in Africa. You cannot possibly condemn people for taking advantage of that. Do you routinely offer to pay for things that are usually free?

The point is that if people are going to pay more or pay at all for something like this then they'd better have something to offer. I don't think the purpose of (RED) is to guilt people into spending money on products they don't want or need.

 

[Irishteen]

I get music for free because I work at a university that uses the Ruckus music service. It's FREE dude, look it up. They make all their money through advertising, not selling music. I don't know anything about this (RED) music or what they are offering but if Ruckus offers the same songs for free that's not my problem. If (RED) wants to make money off of something that other services offer (legally) for free then they need to differentiate their product (as I'm sure they will). They are a business model, not a charity

Red are offering exclusive songs by artists and I think that's their selling point. I think that's why there's so many complaints going on in this thread. If the songs are truly exclusive then there would be no other legal way to obtain them. Of course if the songs aren't exclusive then Red loses half of what differentiates it from other services.

Maybe you should of read up about more on Red before commenting. Not an attack or anything just saying that this thread is a little hostile so it might be a little better not to make comments that could get you a really negative response from some people.

 

[ndmaxfield]

If you obtain this music for free when you could pay then yes that does make you an arsehole.

Why donate to world vision when most of the money goes towards buying bibles. We'll give you food if you read this chapter. Don't say that it doesn't happen, because it does.

My problem is that only HALF the fee goes toward charity (according to what I read). Where's the other half going? If it's going into the pockets of some administrator, I don't like the concept. I won't steal the music, but I'd rather have all my money go to the charity than half.

 

[ramblin rose]

My problem is that only HALF the fee goes toward charity (according to what I read). Where's the other half going? If it's going into the pockets of some administrator, I don't like the concept. I won't steal the music, but I'd rather have all my money go to the charity than half.

Product (RED) is a business not a charity. As it states in the service offering, some of the money goes towards charity and the other goes towards running the business, the same as the other companies offering Product (RED), i.e. Starbucks, GAP, Armani, Dell, etc.

The point is if you want the product you buy it, if you don't you don't.

 

[Irishteen]

My problem is that only HALF the fee goes toward charity (according to what I read). Where's the other half going? If it's going into the pockets of some administrator, I don't like the concept. I won't steal the music, but I'd rather have all my money go to the charity than half.

Half goes to charity, the other half goes to help run the site, the company, pay the artists, the labels whatever else there is.

RED is not designed to be a charity; think of it as a company that donates half of its earnings to charity as opposed to a simple charity.

 

[Jamila]

Jamilla, there are already services that allow you to download legal (DRM) music for free that having nothing to do with AIDS in Africa. You cannot possibly condemn people for taking advantage of that. Do you routinely offer to pay for things that are usually free?

The point is that if people are going to pay more or pay at all for something like this then they'd better have something to offer. I don't think the purpose of (RED) is to guilt people into spending money on products they don't want or need.

No one ever said that (RED) was there to guilt anyone into doing anything that they didn't want to do.


Do whatever it is that you want to do but stop putting words in my mouth, please.

 

[bonocomet]

Some people are missing the point here of Product (RED). Only part of the money is supposed to be donated to charity, thats exactly what Bono and Bobby Shriver intended. It's supposed to be a win/win/win situation for all 3 parties. (Consumer/Company/Charity) The consumer should not really be feeling like they only made a partial donation... you received the same product you would have spent money on anyways... but the company is giving some of that money to charity (not the consumer) These companies are giving the donation by choice. You are buying products that you may have bought anyways with NO money going toward charity.

It's a simple idea really. But it has nothing to do with whether you donate to any charity at all.

 

[Unknown Caller]

My main problem with the whole thing is that I don't want to pay $60 a year because I want one song. Shouldn't there be a way to get just that one song that I want? That's why this whole thing fails.

 

[bonocomet]

Well it's no different then someone who just wants one song off of a collection or an album... or one of anything that comes in a "set".... It just might not be an option. There will always be things that we want just a piece of and not the whole thing. I have a lot of albums like that. Before the days of the internet we were used to buying a whole album for just one song. Maybe people nowadays are a little spoiled?

 

[Irishteen]

My main problem with the whole thing is that I don't want to pay $60 a year because I want one song. Shouldn't there be a way to get just that one song that I want? That's why this whole thing fails.

But how do you know you'll only want one song? You could love the other songs as much or more.

 

[LemonMelon]

But how do you know you'll only want one song? You could love the other songs as much or more.

But why would you want to pay $60 to find out?

 

[Unknown Caller]

But why would you want to pay $60 to find out?

Exactly.

 

[bonocomet]

Because it's supposed to be for fun, for people who want to try new music, who like getting surprises, etc... (and the donation thing is just a bonus). It's not for people who are only interested in buying something that is not the above. If you are not interested in that... don't join.

 

[Iskra]

This place cracks me up.
The world is full of problems and people are going to find ways to complain about a fundraising site.
Only U2 fans...

 

[ramblin rose]

But why would you want to pay $60 to find out?

It's a subscription to a online music magazine, it's not a music buying site. When you buy a subscription to Rollingstone magazine, are you interested in every issue or article the same? Do you know who's going to be on the cover beforehand?

Like it's been said over and over and over again on this thread, no one is being forced into this, just like no one is forced to buy Time, Newsweek, Q, Rollingstone, Family Circle, etc.

Why is this so confusing.

 

[Jamila]

This place cracks me up.
The world is full of problems and people are going to find ways to complain about a fundraising site.
Only U2 fans...

Exactly.....really sad to see such a cold-hearted discussion when there are people that I know who are literally fighting for their lives.


If you don't want this service - fine. But don't put down others that are willing to participate.



Mulago Positive Women’s Network

 

[waynetravis]

£48 a year to get a mixture of 50+ songs? I'm game!!

 

[Utoo]

Red are offering exclusive songs by artists and I think that's their selling point. I think that's why there's so many complaints going on in this thread. If the songs are truly exclusive then there would be no other legal way to obtain them. Of course if the songs aren't exclusive then Red loses half of what differentiates it from other services.

Half goes to charity, the other half goes to help run the site, the company, pay the artists, the labels whatever else there is.

RED is not designed to be a charity; think of it as a company that donates half of its earnings to charity as opposed to a simple charity.

RED is designed to be a business model that takes something you'd already spend money on and donate part of those proceeds to charity. Not terribly hard to understand.

If the product isn't something that you'd spend money on in the first place, no sense in complaining.

I agree with Irishteen----the reason people are complaining is that this music is supposed to be exclusive to the site. People feel like they're entitled to be able to purchase any product they want (i.e., a single song) or be able to get it for free in some way just because U2 has made it and it's the "right" thing to do for their fans, which is BS.

 

[Liesje]

RED is designed to be a business model that takes something you'd already spend money on and donate part of those proceeds to charity. Not terribly hard to understand.

If the product isn't something that you'd spend money on in the first place, no sense in complaining.

Exactly, and the reverse is true as well. Because someone might not care for this product doesn't make them amoral and cold-hearted.

I won't be able to try it (iTunes) but I'm interested to see how it works out....