DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM   

Go Back   DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM > Off Topic Lounge

Off Topic Lounge All Discussions Not Related To Drumming

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-26-2012, 05:02 AM
daredrummer's Avatar
daredrummer daredrummer is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,375
Default Buying music

I have never supported pirated music, limewire and free downloads; things like that. I have always just paid the 99 cents per song on iTunes.

A few weeks ago, a friend recommend that I could get music by checking out CD's from the library, downloading the music on the comp, and then returning it. That certainly seems like a better option than limewire, since someone paid for the CD's, but I was still a little hesitant to do it.

Then just a few days ago, another friend called me out for using home sharing (the itunes feature) to download music of my brother's iTunes library. I have always used home sharing and have never thought of it in the same vicinity of limewire, but technically, I'm not paying for that music.

So where do we draw the line on buying music? I think almost all would agree that it's unethical to use limewire and things like that, but CD's from the library? Friends or relatives iTunes libraries?

Just wanted to hear some opinions on this.
__________________
"Nowadays you could find a plumber, put him in a studio and make him sound good." ~John Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-26-2012, 05:21 AM
GRUNTERSDAD's Avatar
GRUNTERSDAD GRUNTERSDAD is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seminole, Florida
Posts: 14,746
Default Re: Buying music

I remember a few years ago Garth Brooks was upset that there were used record, CD, stores. He wanted everyone to buy new. So his logic, we would not have used book stores, used cars, Goodwill Industries, etc etc etc. You will never make everyone happy. I have mixed feelings on the library deal but I guess its no different than checking out a book and xeroxing a few pages to do a report or save for whatever reason. I'm not sure where the line is But Garth Brooks knows.
__________________
Follower of the Famularo Philosophy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2012, 05:42 AM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUNTERSDAD View Post
I remember a few years ago Garth Brooks was upset that there were used record, CD, stores. He wanted everyone to buy new. So his logic, we would not have used book stores, used cars, Goodwill Industries, etc etc etc.
Big difference between buying something used, and borrowing something to make a copy so that there are concurrent owners of one disc. The fact that a library or individual purchased a disc or song doesn't grant them the right to redistribute it.

The problem is, the folks who aren't in the business of making or selling music can't understand why music, movies, etc don't just belong to the world, as long as one person paid for it at some point along the way. It's a difficult concept to explain to those who feel everything on the net should be free.

When some of these kids begin to write and record music, and then can't figure out why nobody actually buys their work, then they'll start to understand.

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2012, 05:48 AM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by daredrummer View Post
So where do we draw the line on buying music?
There is no line. You buy music, period, unless you get a CD as a gift. And that probably won't even be possible within a few years when labels undoubtedly default to all-digital distribution.

Do the right thing, pay for what you get.

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:21 AM
bryanmurr's Avatar
bryanmurr bryanmurr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 152
Default Re: Buying music

I dont believe in pirating music. But..... I get tired of these artist that wine when you know they use to tape stuff. I watched an interview with Lars who said "back in the day someone would get a tape and bring it over and we would tape it and bring it to someone else." That is piracy. Unless you have bought every piece of music you ever had then shut up. Me and my wife share a iTunes account. We have totally different taste in music. We have over 8000 songs on our account. Of the 8000 songs we may share about 10 songs on our iPhone. I see no problem with this. And i never taped anything. I always liked to have the album. But i am the minority.

Also yes coping a cd from the library is piracy and so is xeroxing a book. Just buy the songs you want. Music is not that expensive. And artist loosing up....me and my wife sharing a iTunes account is the same as us sharing cds. There is a line. We should not have to buy 2 of the same song.
__________________
Its a drum and its a fish

Last edited by bryanmurr; 04-26-2012 at 07:31 AM. Reason: Just because
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:13 PM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanmurr View Post
me and my wife sharing a iTunes account is the same as us sharing cds. There is a line. We should not have to buy 2 of the same song.
Agreed, but that's never been a problem. If it was, the "public performance" laws would affect everyone who buys or rents or streams a movie, and watches it with their spouse.

The problem is with those who send out mp3s to people, post them in their entirety for free downloading, etc. And those same people defend themselves by saying "But I'm helping promote the band by spreading their music!"

I wonder if anything has any value to some of them. I hope they all write songs or software, and then try to sell them. Now that's Karma in action!

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-27-2012, 02:03 AM
daredrummer's Avatar
daredrummer daredrummer is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,375
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by bermuda View Post
There is no line. You buy music, period, unless you get a CD as a gift. And that probably won't even be possible within a few years when labels undoubtedly default to all-digital distribution.

Do the right thing, pay for what you get.

Bermuda
But you would agree that simply sharing music with family members or spouses is not unethical correct?
Other than doing this, I always pay for my music on Itunes.
__________________
"Nowadays you could find a plumber, put him in a studio and make him sound good." ~John Robinson
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-27-2012, 02:36 AM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

"Sharing" meaning what, letting everyone listen from a single device? And how extended is the family? Are you sharing music with 2nd cousins' spouses?

I would say immediate family is fine - spouse, children, siblings, parents (although the legal system differs.) The problem with you sharing music with them, is that some of them will 'share' it with someone else, who will 'share' it with someone else, etc etc. It goes way beyond family, and a single 'gift of music' can rob an artist and songwriter or dozens, maybe hunderds of sales. If one person posts it on a download site, that means several thousand sales lost.

If you were an artist, you'd understand. And no, the paltry handful of established artists who've come out and said they're giving away their music don't count. Consider how many albums Radiohead sold before pulling that stunt. And still they said pay what you want... and there was a minimum payment! Even their 'free' album wasn't free. Writers and musicians and singers don't do this for charity.

I'm not saying everyone can be a perfect angel about this, but people do get creative when it comes to rationalizing giving music away, or getting it without paying.

Sorry to rant, I realize that most people can't possibly understand. Artists and labels and music sellers are still trying to find exactly the right words.

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-27-2012, 03:27 AM
mxo721 mxo721 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ventura ca
Posts: 318
Default Re: Buying music

I always buy music I want, I really like the option of buying a single song, as there hasn't been a c.d in many years that I liked more than 2 songs. 99 cents in more than reasonable for something you're going to listned to many times. I've seen some people go so far to get free music, it's like...just buy it dude seriouly.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:32 AM
Midnite Zephyr's Avatar
Midnite Zephyr Midnite Zephyr is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Surf City, CA
Posts: 2,799
Default Re: Buying music

They had a thread a couple days ago about a new RUSH song which led me to the RUSH website, which led me to the RUSH discography page, which led me to Amazon, which led me to the Retrospective II album that now resides in my computer. I don't have the nice disc and the artwork in the nice CD case, but the songs were only $10. That's pretty much the price for most albums.

Now what if I have a cassette that I purchased in the 80's. Would it be unethical to borrow this same album from the library and make a copy of it? I mean, I did buy the recording at one time.
__________________
I see my light come shining
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:39 AM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Purchased tapes absolutely deserve a free upgrade to digital quality!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:50 AM
Midnite Zephyr's Avatar
Midnite Zephyr Midnite Zephyr is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Surf City, CA
Posts: 2,799
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by bermuda View Post
Purchased tapes absolutely deserve a free upgrade to digital quality!
That's what I'm talking about.... :)
__________________
I see my light come shining
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-27-2012, 06:12 AM
DSCRAPRE's Avatar
DSCRAPRE DSCRAPRE is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Packer Country
Posts: 762
Default Re: Buying music

I've been having this conversation with a lot of people lately. I can't understand how some people don't understand this.

Music is art. Art should be valued. If everything is free then nothing has value. If people love music, then it should be valuable enough for them to pay for it.

That said, I haven't paid for every piece of music I own, but I can count the exceptions on one hand. They're all either:

A) Songs that are now out-of-print so there is no "legitimate" way to obtain them, or,
B) Songs that I already own but I can't put on my computer (This is the case for only two songs I have)

If music is worth enough to steal, then it's worth enough to pay for.

To answer the OP. Copying CDs from the library is exactly the same thing as torrenting.
__________________


It's pronounced "Dee-Scrape-Ruh".

Proud owner of a Ludwig Acrolite
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-27-2012, 11:04 AM
BassDriver's Avatar
BassDriver BassDriver is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 726
Default Re: Buying music

Is copying really theft?

http://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4

http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html
__________________
Check out some of my drumming on my youtube channel:http://www.youtube.com/user/Drumosity
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-27-2012, 11:53 AM
kettles's Avatar
kettles kettles is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rotorua, New Zealand
Posts: 1,201
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSCRAPRE View Post
To answer the OP. Copying CDs from the library is exactly the same thing as torrenting.
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure libraries have to pay for the right to lend out CDs. Not saying it's ethical to then copy them, but at least some money is heading to the artist.

In the libraries I go to you actually have to pay to borrow CDs, it's a couple of bucks
__________________
Hi, I'm Andrew.
My old band, come download our stuff
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-27-2012, 01:10 PM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by kettles View Post
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure libraries have to pay for the right to lend out CDs. Not saying it's ethical to then copy them, but at least some money is heading to the artist.
How does copying a CD send money to the artist?

Quote:
In the libraries I go to you actually have to pay to borrow CDs, it's a couple of bucks
Does that money go the artist?

I concur with DSCRAPRE: "If music is worth enough to steal, then it's worth enough to pay for."

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-27-2012, 01:50 PM
Balto
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Buying music

All of us as musicians should see this discussion as something very easy to grasp. Music has to be paid for, period. If we want people to continue to create beautiful, musical works of art, then we need them to be able to make a living at it. Just like an Architect, Doctor, Carpenter, etc. We as musicians should want to pay for it. Paying for something puts more worth on it. Makes us appreciate it that much more. It all seems pretty straight forward to me.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-27-2012, 03:54 PM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balto View Post
All of us as musicians should see this discussion as something very easy to grasp.
At the core, yes. But there's a difference between those who play casually, and those who are in the business.

Musicians who do this for a living try to sell their music. What a nerve, eh? Doesn't matter what genre, they expect to get paid for creating music. Ultimately the listeners decide what they like and will pay for. But to like the music enough to steal it and not pay is just wrong. If the artist is making music that people want to hear, they should pay. If people don't want to hear it, then they shouldn't be downloading it.

Musicians who don't do this for a living often don't have a clue about it. They think there are a bunch of fatcat artists who can afford to lose thousands, maybe millions of sales. They think there's no harm downloading a song for free or getting the file from a friend, and then think nothing of passing it along to someone else or even posting it for public download. They somehow rationalize this as promoting the artist, to help them sell more music I suppose?

I'm probably beating a dead horse here... those who get it, get it. Those who don't will always find a way to rationalize their actions.

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:07 PM
kettles's Avatar
kettles kettles is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rotorua, New Zealand
Posts: 1,201
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by bermuda View Post
How does copying a CD send money to the artist?
It doesn't, that's not what I said. I said that when it gets borrowed, money goes to the artist. So it's not the same as downloading where NOTHING goes to the artist. Still not saying it's right to do so, so I'm not disagreeing here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bermuda View Post
Does that money go the artist?
I'd assume part of the money does go towards paying the royalties for borrowing, hence why they charge for it. I don't know for sure, I've never worked for a library. But it does make sense. Otherwise what musician would be happy about libraries lending out their works without receiving any payment?
__________________
Hi, I'm Andrew.
My old band, come download our stuff
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:00 PM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by kettles View Post
I'd assume part of the money does go towards paying the royalties for borrowing, hence why they charge for it. I don't know for sure, I've never worked for a library. But it does make sense. Otherwise what musician would be happy about libraries lending out their works without receiving any payment?
If the artists don't get a fee every time the CD is checked out, you can be sure they're not happy about it!

Do authors get anything when their books are checked out instead of being purchased new?

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:18 PM
larryz's Avatar
larryz larryz is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,905
Default Re: Buying music

I'm totally on board with the argument that an artist or band should always be justly compensated for the time, effort and expense they've put into making a recording that gives the end user aural and physical pleasure. Physical? Yeah just look a tthe millions of runners, walkers and other fitness enthusiasts who listen to their iPods when exercising. Music helps them to become healthier human beings. Why shouldn't the hard working composers get compensated for that?

This argument is at least 40+ years old now. I just saw an old ad in a music magazine from the 1970s urging record album customers to not break the law but taping lps to blank cassettes to share. I think it all boils down to our current society where people demand instant gratification in every aspect of their lives. Also the demise of the album format of buying music. Though it's back on the rise again, slowly.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:26 PM
kettles's Avatar
kettles kettles is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rotorua, New Zealand
Posts: 1,201
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by bermuda View Post
If the artists don't get a fee every time the CD is checked out, you can be sure they're not happy about it!

Do authors get anything when their books are checked out instead of being purchased new?

Bermuda
Google says in the UK - yes, in the USA - no.
__________________
Hi, I'm Andrew.
My old band, come download our stuff
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-27-2012, 06:38 PM
Bad Tempered Clavier's Avatar
Bad Tempered Clavier Bad Tempered Clavier is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Default Re: Buying music

I'm not about to condone downloading-without-paying in general as there seems to have been a great deal of discussion about that. However, on a related note, in the UK everyone who owns a TV capable of receiving broadcasts from the BBC is obliged to buy a TV license (unless they can prove that they watch every other kind of TV other than that produced by the BBC). Currently the TV license fee is around 145 GBP per year per household and all the broadcasting departments of the BBC - including BBC national and local radio as well as online content - are funded by the license fee.

In the year 2009/10 revenue collected from license fees made up a total sum of about 3.5 billion GBP. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC is obliged to cater for audiences of all types of music from classical to folk to country to jazz to rock and pop and so on. Their flagship national pop/rock-music radio station is Radio One. Like a lot of radio stations, Radio One has a playlist of tunes that have been especially selected by the station controllers to be played regularly on a daily basis across a variety of programmes in order to give those tracks the maximum exposure that can be afforded. There is even a hierarchy; so bigger-name acts make the A-list, the B-list will be for up-and-comings, and C is for not-yet-heard-ofs and soon-to-be-forgottens (roughly speaking). A-list songs will be played about 20 times a week in prime-time slots, B is 10 to 15, C about 5 plays a week.

What this means is that the approximately 25 million license payers in the UK are effectively funding advertising for artists which ensures that after the requisite 4 weeks on the playlist prior to release, the songs will inevitably chart highly when they are eventually released. Most people buy what they are told to buy so having listened to the same 12 songs for a month it's no surprise what they'll go for when they step into a store to buy a record. So the nation pays for a radio station that plays records by Rihanna (or whoever) all week long and when the record is released it sells by the truck load thanks to the exposure provided by public-service broadcasting (including a similar amount of airtime on national BBC TV stations) and SRP music walk off with a tidy sum of money [added to which the owner of the IP of the material will receive royalties from PRS through their UK publisher every time the song is played].

All well and good, you say: so what?

After the announcement of the prosecution of The Pirate Bay, an interview with the record-producer Pete Waterman aired on network TV news in the UK. This was the man who in the '80s brought you Bananarama, Dead or Alive, Kylie Minogue, Rick Astley etc - all pop acts who have topped the charts in the UK, US, Europe, Australia, pretty much anywhere records are sold. What kind of stuck in my craw was the way he was bleating on about the cheek of people in the UK who download music for nothing bringing about the demise of the record industry; surely the people who are ripping off recording artists are the same ones who are contributing funds to the BBC radio and TV stations that helped (in a considerable way) to make Pete Waterman, and others like him, as successful as he became?

I realise that this issue of state-funded broadcasting doesn't apply everywhere, but the UK is not an insignificant record market and I feel it is more than a little crass to be lectured by the likes of Pete Waterman about the iniquity of internet piracy when he has had his career bolstered by a nation of listeners who have no real say about what they listen to on the BBC radio and TV channels that they are paying for.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-28-2012, 01:12 AM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by kettles View Post
Google says in the UK - yes, in the USA - no.
The I applaud the UK and other such countries who have such a scheme. The US really needs to get on board with that, particularly considering the size of the music-buying... I mean, music-listening public.

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:05 PM
BacteriumFendYoke's Avatar
BacteriumFendYoke BacteriumFendYoke is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,939
Default Re: Buying music

I release my own music for free. That's a choice that I am happy to have.

It actually amazes me now that it is even possible to get hold of something for free that many years ago would have cost money regardless of how it is distributed.

The main issue I have is the inflation that record companies put on their product. I can go into a local store and buy DVDs for 3. Just yesterday, I bought Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil', 'Full Metal Jacket', 'Philadelphia' and the latest 'Rambo' (just for kicks). Sum total? 16. That averages 4 a film. That's four pounds for sound, for video, etc (and often higher-quality sound). CDs were being sold in the same shop. Some were two for ten pounds (fine) but the majority were at the 9 and even up to 25.

Having spent some time studying the music industry, it frustrates me that record companies think that is acceptable. Very little goes back to the artist. What has happened is that people now have the option to pay nothing or pay a vastly inflated price. If CDs were actually priced fairly - and more went to the artist - then record companies wouldn't be in this position and instead of large piracy amongst adults with disposable incomes, the piracy would be more limited.

Record companies were very slow to adapt to a changing marketplace. Had CDs been available for just a few pounds in the late 90s then piracy would never have taken off online. Quite simply, they never saw it coming and have been paying every day since then for their lack of foresight. The writing was on the wall and they just didn't read it. It wouldn't have been easy to change things but the business model was the same business model that had been run some twenty years previously - when the only 'outside' distribution was radio and low-quality cassette tapes.

Now iTunes is selling songs for what I consider to be just about the top-end of fair. I'm now happy to pay a little for the convenience of downloading, Apple (and indeed Amazon) have a good model going that gives you a viable alternative to piracy if you don't own huge amounts of cash. The price is still a little high but we've seen that the industry is starting to adapt. Is it too late? Possibly.

When Radiohead released 'In Rainbows' in 2007 with no fixed price attached, the average price was not 'free'. The average price was 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Reception for citation). That tells me that the public think this is the fair price. I would largely agree with that analysis. The real crime here is how little goes back to the artist and it would be more than possible for all bands to make more money by avoiding those channels if they could. The difficulty is, of course, advertising your name and that's just about the only thing record companies are good for now that their distribution model has been largely surplanted.
__________________
Give Me The Tea and Nobody Gets Hurt
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:31 PM
Bad Tempered Clavier's Avatar
Bad Tempered Clavier Bad Tempered Clavier is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by BacteriumFendYoke View Post
CDs were being sold in the same shop. Some were two for ten pounds (fine) but the majority were at the 9 and even up to 25 [. . . ] Record companies were very slow to adapt to a changing marketplace. Had CDs been available for just a few pounds in the late 90s then piracy would never have taken off online.
I'm betting that was HMV, right? I don't know how they and their like are still going when you compare their prices to Amazon/Play etc.

Something that occurs to me about CDs: if someone I like produces an album I will invariably get the CD copy, rather than going to iTunes etc for it, for the higher-quality sound. This is fine if the CD has been produced and mastered by someone who knows what they're doing - but a great deal of modern pop music has been mastered so that the audio is at maximum possible loudness. These records that are too loud have effectively removed any dynamic nuance from the finished product and even have clipped and distorted audio; the practical upshot of this is an album that sounds like a mushy wall of noise and not much else.

This over-compression of the audio has been going on for a while and despite a recent movement to do away with this practice I'd be interested to see any research on how many people are put off buying CDs etc because they feel that the product itself - not the actual written music - is not worth paying for.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:48 PM
BacteriumFendYoke's Avatar
BacteriumFendYoke BacteriumFendYoke is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,939
Default Re: Buying music

It was HMV (Bluewater, if you're interested) and their margins are lower on DVDs, I accept that. I'm actually very happy to pay more for FLAC and if higher quality physical records were available, the same would apply.

I just think the industry has been slow to adapt and are now suffering. I call arrogance.
__________________
Give Me The Tea and Nobody Gets Hurt
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:56 PM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by BacteriumFendYoke View Post
I just think the industry has been slow to adapt and are now suffering. I call arrogance.
They have been slow, although adjusting pricing for example wouldn't keep most people from downloading illegally or re-distributing those files. They're not doing it because music is too expensive, they will do it even if the songs were .29 instead of .99 or 1.29. It's just their mentality. It's the same reason people take the little soaps and shampoo from their hotel room. It's just what they do, it's not because they won't spend a few bucks at the store. *

I'm not sure the labels were so arrogant as they were in denial about something as obvious and do-able as distributing digital music themselves. I think most labels have adapted in the last 4 or 5 years, but it was already too late. They could have maintained a better hold on their own product if they'd been in on the ground floor. Some of the labels got what they deserved, but others were dragged down with them. None of it had to happen this way, or this soon.

I suspect labels will exist mostly to administrate 'catalog' recordings as opposed to marketing new artists and their music. As for the people who've been laid-off, and there are many more to come, I'm sure they'll become consultants and liaisons for digital distributors, which will become more crucial as artists try to market their music with firm release dates, and promotion from the various sites. The online sellers will essentially become the new labels, and the music business game will start all over - how to get 'in' with those sellers and other music sites, for the best promotion & exposure. Why get exposure and promote music? So that the artists can make money! If they don't, that process will eventually shrink, our choices for new music will also shrink, and there'll be no blaming a 'label' for that. It'll all be on the hands of those who think music should be free.

Bermuda


* BTW, I should know...

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-28-2012, 10:12 PM
BacteriumFendYoke's Avatar
BacteriumFendYoke BacteriumFendYoke is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,939
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
They have been slow, although adjusting pricing for example wouldn't keep most people from downloading illegally or re-distributing those files. They're not doing it because music is too expensive, they will do it even if the songs were .29 instead of .99 or 1.29. It's just their mentality.
I'm not so sure. In my view, the mentality started because the cost was too high.

With 'hotel' analogy, those items are items that we often need and items that we take opportunistically. They are physically offered and they are taken. With digital music, the process actually takes more and you have to actively seek the product. It's too late now to speculate too hard on the issue - it simply doesn't matter right now because it's already happened - but I really do hold the record companies to account here for their own demise.

When the first Mp3 player was introduced to market around 1998 (if my memory serves me) the record companies actively tried to sue the makers. They saw it as a threat to their business model and rightly so. What they should have done at that point is (especially after the judgement in court went against them) tried to offer digital distribution right then and there at a fair price. Unfortunately for them, that didn't happen for a few years and they have lost hold of the distribution industry to Apple and Amazon. You're absolutely right, record companies have changed now to digital distribution systems but they are now working below somebody else - their digital distributor - rather than being at the top of that tree themselves; which they would have been if they had actually have engaged with the new technology than trying to criminalise it!

All that Apple did with the iPod and iTunes are things that could have been done by a record company, or a record company with a partnership deal. I will cry no tears for them. They made a big mistake.
__________________
Give Me The Tea and Nobody Gets Hurt
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-29-2012, 05:24 AM
Lunar Satellite Brian's Avatar
Lunar Satellite Brian Lunar Satellite Brian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 435
Default Re: Buying music

Depends on the band.

Metric supports pirating music, so I steal their music most of the time.

King Crimson strongly opposes pirating music. So I buy most of their music.

Makes sense right?
__________________
Musicz
Youtube
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:05 AM
BassDriver's Avatar
BassDriver BassDriver is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 726
Default Re: Buying music

What do you think about this documentary?
RiP!: A Remix Manifesto

http://vimeo.com/17822690
__________________
Check out some of my drumming on my youtube channel:http://www.youtube.com/user/Drumosity
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:53 AM
RollingStone000's Avatar
RollingStone000 RollingStone000 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: What do you care, you're not my mom.
Posts: 655
Default Re: Buying music

So I've spent a fair amount of time on tech forums and sites lately, and several months back the topic of pirating media (movies, tv shows, games, not so much music but it factors as well) was a regularly discussed issue. From a legal/copyright aspect, there ultimately needs "permissions chain" in a sense; proof that a copy was paid for. Plain and simple, stupid, but simple. Even if you bought the CD, technically, ripping it is illegal; this is more applicable to video content as DVD ripping software isn't legally sold stateside, I think they may have gotten so late to the game that ripping music was already widespread. But in a hypothetical context the feds could kick down your door and prosecute you and you would definitely lose.

Although I've kind of got a slight issue with where the conversation has gone. I hate to sound like a jackass or Debbie downer, but CD sales have fallen completely flat so I'm not sure why it's being mentioned as much as it is (I still buy CDs by the way). I mean purchasing is predominantly done via online stores or streaming services. Actually, the push is more towards streaming music nowadays with services like Spotify and Rdio, etc. continuously growing. Which is why I think CD prices haven't really gone down any further. Record companies make more money off of music when it's being streaming. The artists on the other hand are being robbed.

Just my personal opinion on the OP. So I currently pay for the majority of the stuff I have: streaming music (via Rdio); anything that I actually want, I'll go out and buy (weather online or to an actual store). But when it comes to something that I can't access, I'll willingly download it for example something like Passion Pit's "Sleepyhead". Catchy tune, I like it, the kids love it, it puts asses in the seats, but I've also heard a fair amount of their stuff and I'm not a big fan. I found that out by downloading their stuff illegally (this was before I had Rdio). Had I done it in the form of the old model, I would've wasted money. Conversely, The Allman Brothers' "Eat a Peach" album; I had that on CD when I was in high school (lost it), ended up downloading it (one of my first .mp3 purchases, from Amazon). Then a couple of years later I was at a Best Buy and saw a double disc version and bought that (it had an additional live album). And about three months ago I bought it on vinyl, just to have it. Oh yeah, and then there's YouTube...
__________________
"This message was paid for by the Committee to Re-invade Vietnam" - Jack Donaghy; 30 Rock
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:11 AM
BacteriumFendYoke's Avatar
BacteriumFendYoke BacteriumFendYoke is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,939
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Satellite Brian View Post
King Crimson strongly opposes pirating music. So I buy most of their music.

Makes sense right?
The big difference with King Crimson is that they have their own label - Discipline Global Mobile. That money goes directly back to the artist rather than some indefinable pit. In this modern World I think all bands really need to do their own distribution now. Radiohead have been doing it (to varying degrees), King Crimson do it, Trent Reznor does it. More money goes to the artists and the records are sold at a fairer price.
__________________
Give Me The Tea and Nobody Gets Hurt
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:46 AM
bermuda's Avatar
bermuda bermuda is offline
Drummerworld Pro Drummer - Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,379
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by BacteriumFendYoke View Post
The big difference with King Crimson is that they have their own label - Discipline Global Mobile. That money goes directly back to the artist rather than some indefinable pit.
It's not up to the 'fans' to decide who is most or least eligible to tolerate illegal downloads. If a band has their own label or not, they still make nothing if a track is downloaded or distributed that should have been paid for.

If an artist specifically says they want their stuff distributed for free, I suppose that's their prerogative. I fail to see what if anything that accomplishes. Perhaps it generates interest in paying for a concert ticket, but it certainly doesn't generate music sales.

Bermuda
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:03 AM
BacteriumFendYoke's Avatar
BacteriumFendYoke BacteriumFendYoke is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,939
Default Re: Buying music

I didn't say that I agreed with Brian's view of the matter.

All I'm saying is that the best model in the near future is for artists to own the rights to their own work and distribute it themselves. That is what the digital domain has allowed us to do. There are plenty of independent vinyl pressing facilities that will press for relatively little money (I was looking at it as a means to distribute some of my material - which is still unreleased). If you want to offer a physical product, you can offer limited runs of vinyl at a relatively high cost, you can offer standard Mp3 format and you can offer a higher-quality lossless format like FLAC at a slightly higher price. None of this is new, to my knowledge this has been around since at least 2007. I've even bought a few vinyl records based on this principle.

I've even seen bands in the last few years turning it all on its head and releasing the stems from their own projects for fans to send back in. These remixes have then been sold as separate products by the band.

There's no lack of innovation in the music sector and there are plenty of ways of making money. I still hold by my assertion though that record companies set their physical prices far too high and did not embrace the digital age quickly enough.

The bands asking for their music to be distributed freely are making an artistic choice. The Gnu Public Licence is much the same in my eyes - it can as much be an artistic choice as the music itself.
__________________
Give Me The Tea and Nobody Gets Hurt
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-02-2012, 05:16 PM
Lunar Satellite Brian's Avatar
Lunar Satellite Brian Lunar Satellite Brian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 435
Default Re: Buying music

Quote:
Originally Posted by BacteriumFendYoke View Post
The big difference with King Crimson is that they have their own label - Discipline Global Mobile. That money goes directly back to the artist rather than some indefinable pit. In this modern World I think all bands really need to do their own distribution now. Radiohead have been doing it (to varying degrees), King Crimson do it, Trent Reznor does it. More money goes to the artists and the records are sold at a fairer price.
That's a good point.

The reason I chose Metric was because they also own record label, all of their sales go directly back to them but they still support free music. So keep that in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bermuda View Post

If an artist specifically says they want their stuff distributed for free, I suppose that's their prerogative. I fail to see what if anything that accomplishes. Perhaps it generates interest in paying for a concert ticket, but it certainly doesn't generate music sales.

Bermuda
I think it does generate music sales. Personally, I've downloaded all of Metrics albums for free, their new album coming out I intend to buy, why?
Because they are being so welcoming to, not just to the people that buy their music, but to ANYONE who likes their music. I would like to give them some money for that, and I think a lot of people who wouldn't pay for their music will too.

I think the thing that doesn't generate music sales is bands that that don't support pirating music, because it's not like that's going to stop their music from getting pirated anyways.
__________________
Musicz
Youtube
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com