Downloading music

[suzieq]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

I am still looking forward to hearing the new album!

For free right?

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by suzieq

For free right?

I'm hoping to buy it. I love looking at all those CD booklets, especially the artwork. Or I will get it the way I get almost all of my music - Download it from a site where it is LEGAL & FREE!

[melon]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

Download it from a site where it is LEGAL & FREE!

No such thing.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

[ricgough]

Originally Posted by melon

No such thing.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

There are sites which legally stream content for a nominal subscription fee and ad- exposure.

I remember a certain web-based Rock radio station streaming Bat 3 for free with Meat's blessing, though as soon as you make a copy of it you are infringing copyright.

There is a market out there for someone to fulfil the role of the traditional D.J led radio station. Offer artists a reasonable depth of exposure for no initial cost to the end-user - but if you want your own copy you have to buy it to take it wherever you go and play anytime, at your own will for years to come. You-tube could potentially do that if used well - Why doesn't Meat have his own channel with high quality, carefully controlled content and "red pony" everything else???

I and others have probably used file-sharing in this way in the past - download stuff for free, listen to it once or twice and if you like it, buy a hard-copy from the store to keep forever - delete what you don't like. I can't honestly say my usage of digital media is any way different from recording tracks/ sets/features from the radio or friends collections in the 70's and 80's. I believe the WWW is getting a lot of the blame which should be going towards the increasing "mcdonaldization" and commoditisation of mainstream media. It is controlled by a few "barons" with increasing control.

Again, it is personal responsibiliby. Buy the stuff you like and turn Napsta/piratebay type sites into an asset for artists rather than a threat then they would probably still be available to use legally. At least that way the content you heard for free would be dictated by record buying communities and individuals rather than style-nazi's at record companies and media controllers.

Free to air media is increasingly limited by cultural fascists - those with monopolies who can manipulate the press and keep a lot of a lot of vacuous crap on the air with a soap-opera in the press. There is no room for creativity anymore and the "Simon Cowells" of this world dominate the mainstream. That is as much of the reason for the depression of the industry nowadays as illegal downloads. If something truly innovative ever got the chance to go viral then there would always be the desire for people to own it for themselves, and there would always be commercial opportunity for the artist through genuine sales, advertising, touring, endorsements etc....

Okay, it might not be traditional, but the commercial opportunity is potentially as great as it ever was, just not through traditional record sales. It is of course always easier for artists to attack copyright theft rather than the barons, but people have been ripping off their mates' album collections since the invention of the hi-fi through tape-dubbing and recording tape from vinyl....

There was a whole industry relating to bootleg CD's which is no longer an issue. They are traded for free amongst fans and I find it hard to believe affect official release sales in any way at-all nowadays.

It is largely a question of "adapt or die" but obviously intellectual property needs to have the same level of protection it had in the days of diverse radio stations with individual D.J. playlists and twin-deck cassette recorders.

Some have embraced this new digital era and have done well. Others haven't and complain about it.

I'm sorry, the situation is the same for everyone. You offer high quality content in the right place for the right price with the right strategy then you will make money. That simple.

It is a simple fact that there was almost as many million-selling singles in the 1990's (the years of "truly free internet") in the U.K as the 1970's. In the last 2 years, there have been 10 million-selling singles as opposed to only 15 in the whole of the 2000's. The market is still there if you can tap into it, thouh it is probably a harder sell for an artist like Meat due to demographic considerations and industry bias - and yes, age-discrimination comes into it, but Meat's target audience is much better financially estabshed and has higher spending potential than those appealing to a younger demographic - especially in times of immensely high youth unemployment. I'd say that if the product is right then in purely financial terms then Meat should be able to compete with anyone in terms of Album sales and concert tickets - IF the product is right - and I'd be going for quality over quantity right now.

[melon]

Yes but she said "download" which you have just said once its copied its illegal

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by ricgough

There are sites which legally stream content for a nominal fee and ad- exposure.

I remember a certain web-based Rock radio station streaming Bat 3 for free with Meat's blessing, though as soon as you make a copy of it you are infringing copyright.

There is a market out there for someone to fulfil the role of the old radio station. Offer artists a reasonable depth of exposure for no initial cost to the end-user, but if you want your own copy you have to buy it to play anytime, at your own will for years to come.

I and otheres have probably used filesharing in this way in the past - download stuff for free, listen to it once or twice and if you like it, buy a hars copy from the store to keep forever.

Again, it is personal responsibiliby. Buy the stuff you like and turn Napsta/piratebay type sites into an asset for artists rather than a threat then they would probably still be available to use legally. At least that way the content you heard for free would be dictated by record buying communities and individuals rather than style nazi's at record companies and media controllers.

Free to air media is increasingly limited by cultural fascists. there is no room for creativity anymore and the Simon Cowells of this world dominate them. That is as much of the reason for the depression of the industry nowadays as illegal downloads. If something truly innovative ever got the chance to go viral then there would always be the desire for people to own it for themselves, and there would always be commercial opportunity for the artist through advertising, touring etc....

Okay, it might not be traditional, but the commercial opportunity is potentially as great as it ever was, just not through traditional record sales.

It is largely a question of "adapt or die" but obviously intellectual property needs to have the same level of protection it had in the days of diverse radio stations with individual D.J. playlists and twin-deck cassette recorders.

I've been saying this for awhile, but many have the same old school mentality and it will only limit them IMO.

I know it's hard to compare music to other forms of business, but look at Google. They sell everything at a loss because they know that it will be made up for with other content that compliments it.

Digital media is everything now, and (un)fortunately easy to get for free. In the past someone would say, "I'll burn you a copy" or "I'll make you a tape". But that required effort from the other person and you would often say "This is too much time to wait, I want it now."

Now, you're friend is the internet and he's always there for you. If you embrace the internet you can make money. If you start fighting it, you will lose your shirt.

Are we off topic? I'm not really sure.

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by melon

No such thing.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

There is such a thing. I use it all of the time. It is called Freegal and it is sponsored by Sony Music. I access it thru my local library. You can only download 3 songs per week. It truly is free and it is legal. They have lots of great music old & new

[The Flying Mouse]

Moved from the debate thread.
What was once off topic is now on topic.

[melon]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Moved from the debate thread.
What was once off topic is now on topic.

Thanknyou

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

[The Flying Mouse]

I'm certainly sceptical that there are sites you can download commercial music for free
I don't agree with the philosophy that downloading increases sales for an artist. There are plenty of ways of sampling an artist music without downloading.
But we've been through this before

I think this pic is rather good though

[BostonAngel]

Here is the link to the info for the Freegal sight: http://www.freegalmusic.com/homes/aboutus
Based on this current bit of info from the site, it sounds as if it is now owned by a private company and possibly no longer associated with Sony.

[melon]

If I want music, I buy it, with money. If I can't afford it then I just wait until I have money. If I'm in a position where there is no money coming in, I do something about it. Not complain.

In my opinion, "freegal" will suffer a similar fate to limewire, either in the short or longterm.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

Here is the link to the info for the Freegal sight: http://www.freegalmusic.com/homes/aboutus
Based on this current bit of info from the site, it sounds as if it is now owned by a private company and possibly no longer associated with Sony.

Interesting concept, but I doubt the record companies (or artist for that matter) are happy. I'm amazed they are allowed to do this. How long has the site been going for?

It's a little like librarys being allowed to photopy books and give them away. I don't think publishing houses would have much sympathy with the idea

But I don't think it's a big contender in the downloading world, where one can burn a full album in a couple on minutes.

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Interesting concept, but I doubt the record companies (or artist for that matter) are happy. I'm amazed they are allowed to do this. How long has the site been going for?

It's a little like librarys being allowed to photopy books and give them away. I don't think publishing houses would have much sympathy with the idea

But I don't think it's a big contender in the downloading world, where one can burn a full album in a couple on minutes.

I have known about it and have been using it for almost 2 years now. yes, there is a limit of 3 songs per week. Over time, you can download an entire album. When you are unemployed & money is always tight it is a great way to get new music. And I love that it is LEGAL and free! I am going to do further research the next time I go to the library to find out if it is still in fact sponsored by Sony Music. Obviously Sony was sympathetic.
Just did some further research and found out that Sony Music is still in fact a sponsor for the site! Probably why they have Meat's albums on there.

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I think this pic is rather good though

You use comic sans, your argument is invalid.

[JennaG]

Originally Posted by melon

If I want music, I buy it, with money. If I can't afford it then I just wait until I have money. If I'm in a position where there is no money coming in, I do something about it. Not complain.

In my opinion, "freegal" will suffer a similar fate to limewire, either in the short or longterm.

I agree with you. I have been unemployed in the past and I know what it's like when money is tight but regardless of whether this 'freegal' thing is legal or not, to me it wouldn't feel morally right to be downloading music that artists have put a lot of time and effort into creating. If I can't afford to buy it, then I can't have it, it's as simple as that and I accept it.

I can't believe that record companies allow this to happen to be honest. It's one thing to allow a couple of tracks per artist to be downloaded but to allow every track on an album to be downloaded? They may as well tell the artists not to bother promoting their albums to fans and just tell everyone to go and get a library card and get the album for free.

[djfierce]

Consumer attitude of entitlement to music makes me sick, these sites are technically legal, but they use current loopholes in entertainment laws, because of national boundaries and the international community failing to get it together in acknowledging music laws that shouldn't just apply to where the record label and artist are based or the publisher has the license. Yet these leeches think they are doing a service to music fans by just taking and putting it out there for anyone.

I saw someone post on facebook the other day that itunes was too expensive and was forcing people to download or stream music for free. That's just rubbish. I remember paying £2.99 for a single cd when i was younger, now to buy a single you're looking at 69-99p of which the artist receives approx 10p depending on their deal with the label.Albums used to be around £13 now sells for £6ish of which the artist recieves approx £2.What about the band that has to split it 5 ways? I know money is tight for everyone these days, but artists deserve the respect of having their product bought and not stolen. Music enriches our lives so can't we at least show some love to the artists and musicians that pour their money, time, love and commitment into making something that can make your day a little brighter.

This is one of the main reasons why there is so much shitty pop formula driven music out there atm, record labels are playing the numbers game now more than ever to generate sales, it has also caused the emergence of the just plain evil contract known as 360 which takes half of everything artists make. It's obscene but its not just the record labels we have to thank for that, its the fans who think music should be made available to them, that they are entitled to hear their favourite artist without paying a penny or as little as possible. It's hard as hell for new bands and artists to get started for this very reason.

[ricgough]

Originally Posted by melon

Yes but she said "download" which you have just said once its copied its illegal

That is technical semantics. In order to stream something you still have to download it.

If you are copying music frm the internet to avoid paying for the product you use then I think that is morally wrong even where it isn't technically illegal via certain loopholes etc. It is freeloading and damages artists. Morally it is theft.

If an artist/record company allows content to be free, or licenced to commercial organisations such as radio, T.V. or other web-based providers then it can be beneficial to all parties - certainly in terms of exposure for the artist driving sales as has always been the case. The internet is just another media channel in this respect.

[ricgough]

Originally Posted by djfierce

Consumer attitude of entitlement to music makes me sick, these sites are technically legal, but they use current loopholes in entertainment laws, because of national boundaries and the international community failing to get it together in acknowledging music laws that shouldn't just apply to where the record label and artist are based or the publisher has the license. Yet these leeches think they are doing a service to music fans by just taking and putting it out there for anyone.

I saw someone post on facebook the other day that itunes was too expensive and was forcing people to download or stream music for free. That's just rubbish. I remember paying £2.99 for a single cd when i was younger, now to buy a single you're looking at 69-99p of which the artist receives approx 10p depending on their deal with the label.Albums used to be around £13 now sells for £6ish of which the artist recieves approx £2.What about the band that has to split it 5 ways? I know money is tight for everyone these days, but artists deserve the respect of having their product bought and not stolen. Music enriches our lives so can't we at least show some love to the artists and musicians that pour their money, time, love and commitment into making something that can make your day a little brighter.

This is one of the main reasons why there is so much shitty pop formula driven music out there atm, record labels are playing the numbers game now more than ever to generate sales, it has also caused the emergence of the just plain evil contract known as 360 which takes half of everything artists make. It's obscene but its not just the record labels we have to thank for that, its the fans who think music should be made available to them, that they are entitled to hear their favourite artist without paying a penny or as little as possible. It's hard as hell for new bands and artists to get started for this very reason.

Fair comment, but it has always been a numbers game due to the cost of hard-copy manufacture, which is now largely taken out of the equasion. Back then you had the factory and shipping costs as well - which ramped the up front costs meaning a greater quantity had to be sold to break even - hence 13 quid as opposed to 6 on download. as fewer people buy hard copies then effectively the manufacturing cost per unit effectively goes up due to less economy of scale on that particular format surely?

It isn't always as black and white as it may seem.

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by djfierce

Consumer attitude of entitlement to music makes me sick, these sites are technically legal, but they use current loopholes in entertainment laws, because of national boundaries and the international community failing to get it together in acknowledging music laws that shouldn't just apply to where the record label and artist are based or the publisher has the license. Yet these leeches think they are doing a service to music fans by just taking and putting it out there for anyone.

I saw someone post on facebook the other day that itunes was too expensive and was forcing people to download or stream music for free. That's just rubbish. I remember paying £2.99 for a single cd when i was younger, now to buy a single you're looking at 69-99p of which the artist receives approx 10p depending on their deal with the label.Albums used to be around £13 now sells for £6ish of which the artist recieves approx £2.What about the band that has to split it 5 ways? I know money is tight for everyone these days, but artists deserve the respect of having their product bought and not stolen. Music enriches our lives so can't we at least show some love to the artists and musicians that pour their money, time, love and commitment into making something that can make your day a little brighter.

This is one of the main reasons why there is so much shitty pop formula driven music out there atm, record labels are playing the numbers game now more than ever to generate sales, it has also caused the emergence of the just plain evil contract known as 360 which takes half of everything artists make. It's obscene but its not just the record labels we have to thank for that, its the fans who think music should be made available to them, that they are entitled to hear their favourite artist without paying a penny or as little as possible. It's hard as hell for new bands and artists to get started for this very reason.

One of the best posts i've ever read, agree 100% with everything you say.

[djfierce]

Originally Posted by ricgough

Fair comment, but it has always been a numbers game due to the cost of hard-copy manufacture, which is now largely taken out of the equasion. Back then you had the factory and shipping costs as well - which ramped the up front costs meaning a greater quantity had to be sold to break even - hence 13 quid as opposed to 6 on download. as fewer people buy hard copies then effectively the manufacturing cost per unit effectively goes up due to less economy of scale on that particular format.

I record, produce and distribute bands/artists. I know full well what the costs are. Yes the hard copy costs are not so big, but there seems to be a misunderstanding that digital releasing is super cheap, it isn't, it's cheaper yes, but that's reflected in the cheaper price of the product. However that theory doesn't work when you can buy the cd at the same price also, cds spend very little time these days at full price before being cut down to almost half their price, the shop doesn't take that hit, the label does and in turn the artist does. Cd volume sales are not as bad as the public perceive them to be or are being led to believe, the revenue from them is, it's a big difference. That's what's hurting the presence of the physical product, fans know that even with big artists, they just have to wait maybe less than a month, bam the cd is reduced or thrown in a multibuy offer. As popular as Adele's album was, only 3 weeks after it's release, you could buy it from HMV at £6 that's £1.99 less than the download price.
So while i agree in part with the costs are less argument it's not entirely the case accross the board.

But my main point for comparison of prices was the perception of cost from the consumer standpoint being that the current prices are too high when in fact from a consumer point of view it is much cheaper than it ever was to purchase an album or single :0) which should be great, because it should mean that more people are buying music, but because of these sites it means the opposite, people feel more entitled to music now than they ever have, it's a shame.

[ricgough]

Originally Posted by JennaG

I agree with you. I have been unemployed in the past and I know what it's like when money is tight but regardless of whether this 'freegal' thing is legal or not, to me it wouldn't feel morally right to be downloading music that artists have put a lot of time and effort into creating. If I can't afford to buy it, then I can't have it, it's as simple as that and I accept it.

I can't believe that record companies allow this to happen to be honest. It's one thing to allow a couple of tracks per artist to be downloaded but to allow every track on an album to be downloaded? They may as well tell the artists not to bother promoting their albums to fans and just tell everyone to go and get a library card and get the album for free.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it has been said that nowadays, new albums for many artists are seen as loss-leaders in order to sell tours. I guess there are cases where this will be true - albums at best break even and the real money is made on live shows.

Loss leaders are a well established marketing strategy in other industries - why not in music?

Of course it has to be the artists choice to adopt that business model, it cannot be forced on him by unscrupulous websites and people, but the existence of this strategy does muddy the waters sometimes when it comes to making generalised statements on the issue.

[ricgough]

Originally Posted by djfierce

I record, produce and distribute bands/artists. I know full well what the costs are. Yes the hard copy costs are not so big, but there seems to be a misunderstanding that digital releasing is super cheap, it isn't, it's cheaper yes, but that's reflected in the cheaper price of the product. However that theory doesn't work when you can buy the cd at the same price also, cds spend very little time these days at full price before being cut down to almost half their price, the shop doesn't take that hit, the label does and in turn the artist does. Cd volume sales are not as bad as the public perceive them to be or are being led to believe, the revenue from them is, it's a big difference. That's what's hurting the presence of the physical product, fans know that even with big artists, they just have to wait maybe less than a month, bam the cd is reduced or thrown in a multibuy offer. As popular as Adele's album was, only 3 weeks after it's release, you could buy it from HMV at £6 that's £1.99 less than the download price.
So while i agree in part with the costs are less argument it's not entirely the case accross the board.

But my main point for comparison of prices was the perception of cost from the consumer standpoint being that the current prices are too high when in fact from a consumer point of view it is much cheaper than it ever was to purchase an album or single :0) which should be great, because it should mean that more people are buying music, but because of these sites it means the opposite, people feel more entitled to music now than they ever have, it's a shame.

I agree with you that on the whole, music has become cheaper to buy - probably cheaper in real terms than it has ever been and the "too expensive" argument to justify ripping off copyright is utter nonsense. I do still feel that copyright has always been infringed via cassette though - I think the major difference is that it was done in a localised way - at least someone of a group of friends would have to buy it then mates would copy/ share and lend - if you really wanted something you would buy it though - borrowing and copying albums was usually artists you were less familiar with and wouldn't spend the cash upfront in the first place if it wasn't for the fact you'd heard a friend's copy or on the radio for free first. Also, the copy was never the same sound quality as the original. With the technology available now one person can obtain the work and potentially share it with millions for free, with no loss of quality thus seriously affecting sales.

The stats do suggest it is still possible to sell a million copies of a song though. 10 artists have in the last 2 years in the U.K. - that's about 1 in 50 in the entire population that have actually parted with cash for it.

When I was broke, I bought a lot of second hand C.D.'s and Vinyl from boot-sales, record conventions etc....

Should that be seen as copyright theft also? I know legally it is fine, but when a disc is re-sold, another person gets use of it with no cash going to the artist. Can;t help back-catalogue sales, but then often new back-catalogue discs are as cheap as buying secondhand nowadays.

[djfierce]

The quality thing is the biggest issue, i remember recording stuff off the radio onto cassette or copying someone elses onto cassette. But the quality was never great so if it was a band i really like then i had no other option but to buy it so yea the copyright infringement was always there but was more tolerable because the poor quality of copies drove sales anyway leaving those who had copies probably wouldnt have bought the real thing anyway. The like for like quality of sharing a file causes problems with the sales because people feel why should they buy it when they get the exact same quality for free.

The current problems are caused by two factors, the consumer not reliasing or caring the impact they have and the industry not reacting early enough possibly even back as far as when cd burners came about. The industry was complacent, they thought that people actually would notice and care about the lesser quality of the mp3 compared to cd, thinking the whole download era would be very short. Huge misjudgment to say the very least. The irony is that Vinyl sales are rising and even approaching the popularity of the cd, problem is now it's more expensive to press vinyl than ever.

p.s i think we agree lol even to the point where i may have said exactly the same as you, apologies, i don't exist on forums very well anymore ;0)

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

You use comic sans, your argument is invalid.

If I ever find out who put it together, i'll pass your argument along