why paying for movies/games/audios?

[McLaren]

but that local indie band who play great innovative music will never have a chance, because people don't like to pay for their work. that awesome DJ who produces great tunes is going to watch their work go down the pan because kids with thousand-dollar computers and expensive cable internet connections simply take their music without paying.

I kinda agree with everything you wrote seuss, except for this statement. In fact, it is because of all this free file sharing that these unknown artists are getting their fame. that local indie band will most likely stay a local indie band without the free publicity of p2p. I've worked along side plenty of local bands to realize that most of them don't want to be a local band anymore. they want more for their music and fans. many local bands encourage the downloading of their music, even to the point where some upload their music themselves. so they lose a little money in the beginning, but gain far more notoriety through p2p and in the end, sell more albums. I see this as pure benefit, with absolutely no downside.

case in point... I just downloaded some great songs from a group in Venezuela... Vene-fucking-zuela. when in the hell would I get a chance to go to Venezuela and find the actual town where this band is playing, never gonna happen, I can't afford to go to every town in every country searching for songs I like. does that mean that the only people who should benefit from this amazing music, are the people who live in a 20 mile radius from the band? that doesn't sound so great. I can't imagine spending countless hours producing music for an audience of four. I would think, being any sort of artist, that one would want the largest audience that they can accumulate.

so anyway, after downloading their songs, I searched and searched to find a site that sells their cds... and I bought two, one for me and one for my mom.

so without sounding like a jerk here, I now ask you dr. seuss... did I hurt or help this band?

 

[alasdairm]

specific examples don't really progress the discussion because one example of a band that got helped by one incident of copying doesn't somehow finally settle the argument. if i can come up with two specific examples of a dj or a band who had to give up because of copying, does that mean it's not ok again?



alasdair

 

[Infinite Jest]

I differ slightly from Alasdairm when I say that I don't mind people downloading songs, if they then turn around and buy the CD, or support the artist otherwise, if they like the music. And if you don't like the music, presumably you'd delete it so it wasn't taking up space on your hard drive, right?

Going to the original question of this thread, which was WHY pay for music/movies when you don't have to:

1. Better quality music: listening to a CD on my stereo > listening to an MP3 on my computer.
2. Liner art/notes/lyrics: available with CD, not (usually) with downloaded MP3.
3. Limited space on my HD. (I would bet anything you like that no-one reading this has a hard drive big enough to hold all the music that my girlfriend and I own - mine's 80gb and it can't even hold all my CDs, never mind her CDs or the hundreds of LPs we own).
4. Better quality video, and more importantly, subtitles on commercial DVDs that aren't there on downloaded files. I have a lot of trouble hearing all the dialogue without subtitles.
5. Watching a DVD on my TV > watching an AVI on my PC.
6. If I like music etc, I want to support the artist/creator.

Those seem like 6 reasonably good reasons to me

 

[alasdairm]

^ thanks for those points. i think this is a good segue to some discussion of ways in which new models could work practically.

I differ slightly from Alasdairm when I say that I don't mind people downloading songs, if they then turn around and buy the CD, or support the artist otherwise, if they like the music.

right - sadly, the cynic in me says there are people who trot out this argument to excuse their copying but don't do it in practice or use one incident to escuse hundreds of incidents of copying.

alasdair

 

[McLaren]

specific examples don't really progress the discussion because one example of a band that got helped by one incident of copying doesn't somehow finally settle the argument. if i can come up with two specific examples of a dj or a band who had to give up because of copying, does that mean it's not ok again?

very good, very good

I just wanted to know if seuss thought if I was hurting or helping that one band. that is only one example, obviously. because I don't feel like posting every single time I have done this. if you really need more, I can supply you with about 40 artists that I have purchased albums from after checking out their music through file sharing, like many other file sharers do.

[Edited to keep the peace - THR!]

I never inclined that my statement was to "somehow finally settle the argument." I only gave one example, so relax a little on this issue.

I find it egregious that I must pay $15 for two good songs and ten garbage filler songs. everything in this world can be 'test driven' before you buy it, except music, movies, and software. surprise, surprise... what are the most popularly traded files? music, movies, and software. maybe if people were given a better opportunity to test drive these mediums first, there would be no need for this blatant disreguard for people's intellectual properties. you wouldn't buy a $30000 car just because you wanted the tires, would you? well maybe you would, but I won't. I refuse to pay for 12 songs when all I wanted were two songs.

 

[alasdairm]

i think the music industry middlemen are the problem and have been screwing people for years. i think they're hugely overcompensated for what they do.

looks like we agree...



alasdair

 

[Infinite Jest]

I find it egregious that I must pay $15 for two good songs and ten garbage filler songs.

I agree with you on this one. But there are solutions:

iTunes or eMusic (buy individual songs, not whole albums).
Pandora.com (create a radio station based around specific artists or songs)
last.fm (create a profile, and listen to radio stations similar to the artists in your profile).
Normal radio/TV

Or even illegally downloading music, then deleting it if you don't like it, and buying it if you do.

 

[SA]

I find it egregious that I must pay $15 for two good songs and ten garbage filler songs. everything in this world can be 'test driven' before you buy it, except music, movies, and software. surprise, surprise... what are the most popularly traded files? music, movies, and software. maybe if people were given a better opportunity to test drive these mediums first, there would be no need for this blatant disreguard for people's intellectual properties. you wouldn't buy a $30000 car just because you wanted the tires, would you? well maybe you would, but I won't. I refuse to pay for 12 songs when all I wanted were two songs.

You can "test drive" most software these days (30 day trial).

Films? How can you test drive a film (more than a trailer, I assume) without watching the whole thing? Perhaps longer trailers should be offered, like the first fifteen minutes? Sort of like the first three chapters of a new book that is sometimes offered at the end of some books to wet your appetite.

Music? Here too test drives are offered in the form of samples. In real-world stores, you can test drive the whole album as much as you want. Well, at least here you can; I don't know about your neighbourhood. If you don't have that ability, perhaps it's something the stores in your area should address (tell them to get with the times, you know). As far as online samples go, those on sites like Amazon should be made longer to give a better idea. Streaming entire songs as samples is wonderful, save for the fact that it's so easy to rip that stream, so it's no different to putting up a free download link.

One thing I agree with you on is the way the music industry has set up the sales of albums, forcing us to buy lots and lots of filler material. I agree that this architechture needs to be redrawn.

 

[McLaren]

You can "test drive" most software these days (30 day trial).

you're definitely correct there, but not all software comes with a trial. the most expensive and useful software that I personally buy are operating systems. any software you purchase at a brick and mortar store is paid for upfront, before you open the package, where is the trial period for that software? once you open it, it's yours, there is no returning opened software. I must have missed the 30 day trial period for winXP. hmmm, no trial period for Age of Empires 3 either, nor Homeworld 2, nor Empire Earth 2, nor Glory of the Roman Empire which, in fact, is a faulty piece of $40 software that I can not return. that's right, the game is completely inoperable. who's fault is that? mine apparently. according to best buy, it's my fault the manufacturer left a bug in the game. sure, they offered a replacement of the same game. great, so I get the same bugged game, just in a new box!

Films? How can you test drive a film (more than a trailer, I assume) without watching the whole thing? Perhaps longer trailers should be offered, like the first fifteen minutes? Sort of like the first three chapters of a new book that is sometimes offered at the end of some books to wet your appetite.

that's exactly what I want! if I could go online and watch the first 15 minutes of any movie, I guarantee I would be seeing twice as many movies. just like music, I refuse to pay $10 for a movie after watching a 30 second tv clip. but after watching a 15 minute clip, if I like what I'm seeing and I'm being drawn into the movie, then it stops after 15 minutes... I wouldn't be able to take it. I'd have to get to the theater to see the rest.

Music? Here too test drives are offered in the form of samples. In real-world stores, you can test drive the whole album as much as you want. Well, at least here you can; I don't know about your neighbourhood. If you don't have that ability, perhaps it's something the stores in your area should address (tell them to get with the times, you know). As far as online samples go, those on sites like Amazon should be made longer to give a better idea. Streaming entire songs as samples is wonderful, save for the fact that it's so easy to rip that stream, so it's no different to putting up a free download link.

online samples are an atrocious assault on my auditory senses. if you can determine whether you like a song or not just by listening to online samples, that is amazing. I'd rather someone sing it to me than try to listen to Amazon's horrible samples. and of course, don't sample entire songs, that defeats the purpose of sampling it. but a crappy sounding tiny clip is just worthless. first make the clip about one minute long, make it so you can hear some of the song with the chorus. second, increase the bitrate. give me some quality so I can actually hear the music and make a decision.

as far as brick and mortar stores go, only one allows you to open any cd and listen to it in the store, and you have to be a member of their club to do this. it's not available to everyone. so again, I have to pay more money just to sample the cd before I decide to buy it. I'm getting so tired of paying for something just so I can pay for it again.


theres an endless array of ideas that can be implemented to better serve the public. it seems there are entities that only want to stifle the new technologies of today, instead of embracing them and using them to produce a better product and get it to the people. with today's web, I should be able to go online, sample and dl any song, album, or movie that I want... paying for it of course. the only reason this is not possible, is because of the money hungry pigs of the RIAA and MPAA. not because of the artists, actors, writers, etc.

 

[Coolio]

again, (hypothetically) you write a story. somebody copies it, attributes it to themselves and sells it for a million dollars and publicly basks in the fame . truthfully, how would you feel?

Consider myself uncompetitive for letting them sell it better?
Or maybe just go on with my life.

 

[anhalonium9]

hey coolio, alasdaim. make nice nice. no, but really is a good discussion and good to hear different view point, like i said before, i have a lot of musician friend and i've started to ask them what they think about the morality of file sharing. basically b/c of this discussion. i wanna know wha t the artist (the little guys, not the stars) feel or think about this. i'll let you know,

meanwhile, i have to attend to the slaves.

 

[anhalonium9]

i have a printer that prints on special printable CDR. i'm gonna put this image on all the CDs i burn from now on. thanks mclaren.

 

[alasdairm]

Consider myself uncompetitive for letting them sell it better?
Or maybe just go on with my life.

i have no way of knowing whether or not this is a case of "well, you would say that, wouldn't you" but i'll take your words at face value. if you deal with it that well, i hope it happens



alasdair

 

[McLaren]

i have a printer that prints on special printable CDR. i'm gonna put this image on all the CDs i burn from now on. thanks mclaren.

you are welcome... here is another one:

 

[thujone]

im an artist, and i would personally be THRILLED if i saw my artwork on someones PC desktop, EVEN if they stole it. this is me pesronally--again--but i dont feel like people making art should be making it for the purposes of money, that defeats the purpose of ART.

music, in my opinion, is art. if an artist is making music for a living and they cant get live gigs/whatnot to pay the bills, then they need to pick a new career path. no one said it was easy. being a successful artist is extremely glamorous and so it should a highly sought-after, difficult to acquire job.

the way music WORKS is changing--there is less money to be made off of CDs in general now. the marketplace is different than it has ever been, and IMO this is just evidence of an evolution of the art-form.

I read up to this post then stopped reading because I came to the conclusion that this thread was created to outline that elektra is a communist. having said that, i completely agree with the above statement because the music industry is filled with people who are totally talentless and people who actually DO have a lot of talent are often just local legends masquerading as music teachers and the like. It's because they're in it for the music, not for the money. Those people making all the multi-platinum records are in it for the money. They're selling an image, and the music itself is often secondary. So they can kiss my ass, I'll download their garbage music to my heart's content. When I hear an artist who I recognize really has talent, and they actually use most of their talent on the entire length of an album rather than having one marketable tune on the LP while the rest is shit, I go out and buy the disc. Oddly enough, most of the really talented musicians are so hard to find on filesharing programs dominated by Eminem and Britney Spears that I generally have no option BUT to buy the CD.

 

[anhalonium9]

I read up to this post then stopped reading because I came to the conclusion that this thread was created to outline that elektra is a communist. having said that, i completely agree with the above statement because the music industry is filled with people who are totally talentless and people who actually DO have a lot of talent are often just local legends masquerading as music teachers and the like. It's because they're in it for the music, not for the money. Those people making all the multi-platinum records are in it for the money. They're selling an image, and the music itself is often secondary. So they can kiss my ass, I'll download their garbage music to my heart's content. When I hear an artist who I recognize really has talent, and they actually use most of their talent on the entire length of an album rather than having one marketable tune on the LP while the rest is shit, I go out and buy the disc. Oddly enough, most of the really talented musicians are so hard to find on filesharing programs dominated by Eminem and Britney Spears that I generally have no option BUT to buy the CD.

absynth is the bomb,,,

 

[dr seuss]

so anyway, after downloading their songs, I searched and searched to find a site that sells their cds... and I bought two, one for me and one for my mom.

so without sounding like a jerk here, I now ask you dr. seuss... did I hurt or help this band?

helped! specificity aside...

like i said before - one of the very best aspects of the internet as a medium is that you can try-before-buy. and like i said before - one of the other great aspects of the internet as a medium is that there are lots of stores which sell CDs cheaply and host sizeable samples for each track.

but the fact remains - the vast majority of people who download their music never buy the CDs of artists whose work they enjoy. between this thread and the thread in Non-Electronic Music Discussion, that much is patently clear. so whilst the exposure argument is often utilised (and i'm not casting doubt on your particular example! ), as alasdairm said previously - most of the time, someone is lying. and that someone is usually the person who thinks they're sticking it to the man by downloading some obscure artist's work.

I find it egregious that I must pay $15 for two good songs and ten garbage filler songs.

this argument has been covered before, ad nauseum... and covered more competently by silly alien and alsdairm - but i will ask once more - have you ever bought a CD, got home, been mildly disappointed, and forgotten about it... only to start listening a few months later, start slowly getting into it, and realised it's one of your favourite albums of all time?

i know i have.

and it saddens me that 'growers' like that are a thing of the past for a lot of people. imho it can only contribute to the further homogenisation of music into an instantly-palatable mass of sound-bitten shit...

it tickles me pink when people justify downloading by saying 'oh, most music is mass-marketed commercial shit these days'. they don't seem to realise whilst on one hand downloading contributes to the closure independent labels and distributors, forcing artists to other careers to make a living, it also strengthens the appeal of A&R idiots who search for an instantly-marketable, sure-fire hit single. way to go!

everything in this world can be 'test driven' before you buy it, except music, movies, and software.

you can test-drive a sculpture?

a souffle?

man, i need to start shopping where you shop! seriously, music, software and movies can all be stolen from the comfort of your own home, and with very little risk of prosecution. that's the basis of it, don't you think - or is it just a happy coincidence?

after all... you can test-drive music. simply click on the little realplayer logo next to the track listings... or alternatively, do what the whole world used to do - ask your local record store if you can listen to an album! i can't think of a single music shop that doesn't allow people to try before buying anyway and hey - if you buy the CD you can return it if you don't like it. amazing!

you wouldn't buy a $30000 car just because you wanted the tires, would you? well maybe you would, but I won't.

no. but of course we're talking about subjectivity.

it is your opinion that there are only '2' good songs on any CD.

it is my opinion that you obviously download shitty CDs :D

furthermore, if i see a Porsche for £30,000 which has ugly wheels on it, i don't steal that Porsche from the dealership on the basis that i don't like the wheels and therefore i shouldn't pay for the car.

I refuse to pay for 12 songs when all I wanted were two songs.

in all seriousness, when grown-ups purchase something it is usually an act of compromise. unless you're seriously wealthy, most people weigh up a prospective purchase. 'ok, so the house is in a bad neighbourhood, but it's got a huge pool!'. 'ok, the porsche has bad tyres, but for $30k it's still an investment!'. 'I don't really want mayo, but that turkey looks really good!'. and sometimes, shock horror, 'i might not like every track on the album but i'm willing to buy it anyway, and hey - maybe in 2 months time i'll love those other 10 tracks!'.

seriously tho man i agree with the points raised against the likes of the RIAA and the major labels. they do fuck people over. there are problems in the music industry. they have been treating fans like criminal idiots. they have been fucking over artists and bands.

but they're not representative of all music. and crucially, they're not the ones who get hurt by downloading.

 

[psychetool]

Alls I know is that I have a lot more money leftover for drugs.

 

[dr seuss]

p.s. McLaren i know we largely agree - and i don't mean to sound bitchy in the above post. i recognise that you do purchase music to support artists you like and you do make some valid points.

the one common theme i have noticed is that everyone is quite happy to condemn the major labels and their approach to the business of selling music, and the RIAA... which is instructive!

 

[SA]

in all seriousness, when grown-ups purchase something it is usually an act of compromise. unless you're seriously wealthy, most people weigh up a prospective purchase. 'ok, so the house is in a bad neighbourhood, but it's got a huge pool!'. 'ok, the porsche has bad tyres, but for $30k it's still an investment!'. 'I don't really want mayo, but that turkey looks really good!'. and sometimes, shock horror, 'i might not like every track on the album but i'm willing to buy it anyway, and hey - maybe in 2 months time i'll love those other 10 tracks!'.

I didn't think about this when I too wrote: "One thing I agree with you on is the way the music industry has set up the sales of albums, forcing us to buy lots and lots of filler material. I agree that this architechture needs to be redrawn."

I didn't think about the fact that we accept to see paintings we won't enjoy as well as those that we will when we pay for admission to the Hermitage or the Louvre; we accept to live through parts of the trip we'll enjoy as well as those we won't when we buy that airplane ticket; we accept to sit through the whole film, knowing full well that there will be good parts and bad; and we should therefore either accept to live through all the tracks on an album, or agree to raise the same ruckus about those other snippets of life that we don't enjoy. Since the latter won't happen, we should accept the former just as we accept everything else.

Thanks to dr seuss for highlighting this.