morbiuswilters:

belgariontheking:

I like this point.  I can't feel bad for downloading something that's aired on TV or the internet (legally) or the radio for free.

Well, if you buy it legally after trying it out, sure.  Otherwise you are depriving the content creator of advertising revenue, so it's the same thing as not paying them. 

I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.  

belgariontheking:

I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.

Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying. 

morbiuswilters:

belgariontheking:

I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.

Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying.

That's true, until the networks start figuring out how to account for internet views in the advertising model, which is only a matter of time.

bstorer:

morbiuswilters:

belgariontheking:

I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.

Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying.

That's true, until the networks start figuring out how to account for internet views in the advertising model, which is only a matter of time.

 

This argument is about supporting a dying system. Pretty soon content providers will be able to make money directly from us without the need for third perties like T.V. companies or record labels. Hell Prince sold an online album for 2 bucks each i think and made tons of money caz he made so much more money from each album sale than he would from more sales and less per sale by going though a recording company.

Third parties will never dissapear but it will evolve soon into something more accessible...

dlikhten:

This argument is about supporting a dying system. Pretty soon content providers will be able to make money directly from us without the need for third perties like T.V. companies or record labels. Hell Prince sold an online album for 2 bucks each i think and made tons of money caz he made so much more money from each album sale than he would from more sales and less per sale by going though a recording company.

 

Prince's success does not imply the pending death of record labels.  Prince is an established artist.  How would this have worked if nobody's ever heard of the band?  Don't forget that a record company needs to do far more than put music on CDs and MP3s.  They have to market the artist.  That's part of the reason new bands get crappy contracts with recording companies.  Without a track record or name recognition, it's essentially a crap shoot.

Also, don't discount these large companies.  They have more power than you or I, and they'll find niches to continue.  In fact, they'll likely use that power to turn those niches into ravines, and then charge you money to use their bridges.

morbiuswilters:

Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying. 

But if I'm watching over the air anyways, how are they going to know that I'm watching and thus count me into the advertising revenues.  You could say that watching OTA is stealing advertising revenue.

In addition, what about radio?  They air the songs for free, and they can't tell that I'm listening, unless I call them up and tell them I am to win some prize.  What's the difference if I hear it on the radio or hear it on my computer?

 

EDIT:  just saw that you said "Theoretically"  ... I think that makes the whole argument moot on both sides anyway. 

bstorer:

dlikhten:

This argument is about supporting a dying system. Pretty soon content providers will be able to make money directly from us without the need for third perties like T.V. companies or record labels. Hell Prince sold an online album for 2 bucks each i think and made tons of money caz he made so much more money from each album sale than he would from more sales and less per sale by going though a recording company.

 

Prince's success does not imply the pending death of record labels.  Prince is an established artist.  How would this have worked if nobody's ever heard of the band?  Don't forget that a record company needs to do far more than put music on CDs and MP3s.  They have to market the artist.  That's part of the reason new bands get crappy contracts with recording companies.  Without a track record or name recognition, it's essentially a crap shoot.

Also, don't discount these large companies.  They have more power than you or I, and they'll find niches to continue.  In fact, they'll likely use that power to turn those niches into ravines, and then charge you money to use their bridges.

 

Not questioninig their power. Their power is why we have the DMCA and such...

HOWEVER think about it. It costs 20 bucks to buy an album of artist X. Why the fuck would I pay that much for an artist I never heard of. I am not inclined to try anything out for fear of wasting 20 bucks. And maybe that will be a week before I get sick of just listeneining to it...

Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great? Well its ok I can live without 2 bucks. 10 records now is what, 200 dollars? Maybe 150 depending on how new the band is and where you buy it. Thats a week's worth of food spent on some music I can't even rip to my MP3 without worrying about the f-ing recording companies.

dlikhten:

Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great?

Okay, first of all, I'm unable to find any source claiming Prince released an album for $2.  Do you have a link for this?  I know he covermounted his latest album in the UK, and that he gave away copies of Musicology to concert goers.  But I see nothing about a $2 album.  The reason it matters is this: $2 is fine to sell an album from your own website, that you pressed and ship.  But when you start tying in a third party website with ratings and stuff, now you're back to the same thing.  You're still just trading Columbia Records for Amazon and iTunes, and those guys still gotta get their cut.  Sure, you're probably still charging less, but you're also not getting the same amount of marketing.  I know it seems like a great deal for you, but what about for everyone else involved?

dlikhten:

HOWEVER think about it. It costs 20 bucks to buy an album of artist X. Why the fuck would I pay that much for an artist I never heard of. I am not inclined to try anything out for fear of wasting 20 bucks. And maybe that will be a week before I get sick of just listeneining to it...

Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great? Well its ok I can live without 2 bucks.

I would rather give $20 in support of a single artist I like rather than $2 to a bunch of mediocre artists in addition to the one I like.  That's why I download a few songs illegally first.  I justify it morally because I will buy the album if I like it and delete the downloaded tracks if I don't.

 

dlikhten:

10 records now is what, 200 dollars? Maybe 150 depending on how new the band is and where you buy it. Thats a week's worth of food spent on some music I can't even rip to my MP3 without worrying about the f-ing recording companies.

I don't know where the hell you are buying records, but I rarely pay more than $7 for a CD.  I primarily use Amazon marketplace and their CD club thingy.  Of course, I've paid $100 for a CD that has been out-of-production for a few years and is very hard to get, but it was worth it to me.  Also, you can rip your CDs to any format imaginable without fear of legal consequences so long as you don't give the files away.  I've been doing this for over a decade and it's completely legal.

bstorer:

dlikhten:

Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great?

Okay, first of all, I'm unable to find any source claiming Prince released an album for $2.  Do you have a link for this?  I know he covermounted his latest album in the UK, and that he gave away copies of Musicology to concert goers.  But I see nothing about a $2 album.  The reason it matters is this: $2 is fine to sell an album from your own website, that you pressed and ship.  But when you start tying in a third party website with ratings and stuff, now you're back to the same thing.  You're still just trading Columbia Records for Amazon and iTunes, and those guys still gotta get their cut.  Sure, you're probably still charging less, but you're also not getting the same amount of marketing.  I know it seems like a great deal for you, but what about for everyone else involved?

Yeah, I find this to be quite questionable too.  I know Radiohead did something similar by allowing people to pay whatever they thought was fair and NIN is planning to do the same.  Prince is the guy who sued his own fans over sites that used photos of him because he believes photos of him are his own intellectual property.  I doubt he would release an album over the Internetz.

morbiuswilters:

I know Radiohead did something similar by allowing people to pay whatever they thought was fair and NIN is planning to do the same.

I know NIN gave away some of their new music away for free and are charging for the rest.  I hadn't heard that it was going to be a pay-what-you-want system, but I haven't really been up on my NIN in, like, eight years.

And again, these are high-profile artists with huge, established fan bases.  How does this scale down to a band like, say, Hey Rosetta!?  And they're not even complete unknowns.

morbiuswilters:

I don't know where the hell you are buying records, but I rarely pay more than $7 for a CD.  I primarily use Amazon marketplace and their CD club thingy.  Of course, I've paid $100 for a CD that has been out-of-production for a few years and is very hard to get, but it was worth it to me.  Also, you can rip your CDs to any format imaginable without fear of legal consequences so long as you don't give the files away.  I've been doing this for over a decade and it's completely legal.

I thought he was referring to the DRM crap that some people are putting on CDs these days.  I think it was when I bought a foofighters CD that I first experienced this.  I could only rip it into wma and it wouldn't import into itunes.  The valiant effort of the record companies to alienate me as a music listener has lost them a foofighters customer.  Thank you, I'll download my foofighters now.   

I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.   

morbiuswilters:

Yeah, I find this to be quite questionable too.  I know Radiohead did something similar by allowing people to pay whatever they thought was fair and NIN is planning to do the same.  Prince is the guy who sued his own fans over sites that used photos of him because he believes photos of him are his own intellectual property.  I doubt he would release an album over the Internetz.

 

Damn I can't remember the name of the site for free music... Ill give it when I get home. It lets artists publish songs under GPL-like license. You can donate to artists, and they take a fixed fee of like 50 cents or something like that. Also artists get a share of revenue from advertising depending on how much they were downloaded i think. Love that service and I found a few good artists that way.

belgariontheking:

I thought he was referring to the DRM crap that some people are putting on CDs these days.  I think it was when I bought a foofighters CD that I first experienced this.  I could only rip it into wma and it wouldn't import into itunes.  The valiant effort of the record companies to alienate me as a music listener has lost them a foofighters customer.  Thank you, I'll download my foofighters now.   

I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.   

 

Thats what most are saying... Its so difficult to deal with this DMCA shit that people would rather do it illegally caz its easier, less headake, more portable, and cheaper all at the same time, and no quality loss! Usually illegal methods saccrifice something, but for music you only gain.

belgariontheking:

I think it was when I bought a foofighters CD that I first experienced this.  I could only rip it into wma and it wouldn't import into itunes.

If I recall correctly, that was the copy-protection that could be defeated by holding down Shift when inserting it into your computer.

dlikhten:

Thats what most are saying... Its so difficult to deal with this DMCA shit that people would rather do it illegally caz its easier, less headake, more portable, and cheaper all at the same time, and no quality loss! Usually illegal methods saccrifice something, but for music you only gain.

Except for being, y'know, illegal...

bstorer:

If I recall correctly, that was the copy-protection that could be defeated by holding down Shift when inserting it into your computer.

Alternatively one could use a liveUSB distro or a full blown install (mp3c is nice if you don't mind the ncurses interface).

belgariontheking:

I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.

There's two types of copy protection on audio CDs - one is defeated by disabling autorun/autplay (or by holding shift when you insert the CD), the other one is defeated by using a black permanent marker to cover the second TOC on the CD, which confuses many CD-ROM drives (most CDs with this kind of protection have a distinct ring near the outer edge, you just need to cover 1-2 cm of the outer part of the ring - you'll lose access to the data track, but there isn't really anything you'd want there anyway).

ender:

belgariontheking:

I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.

There's two types of copy protection on audio CDs - one is defeated by disabling autorun/autplay (or by holding shift when you insert the CD), the other one is defeated by using a black permanent marker to cover the second TOC on the CD, which confuses many CD-ROM drives (most CDs with this kind of protection have a distinct ring near the outer edge, you just need to cover 1-2 cm of the outer part of the ring - you'll lose access to the data track, but there isn't really anything you'd want there anyway).

Very Informative, and makes sense because the rip wouldn't fail until it was finishing the last track.  I'm unsure whether I want to try it and risk never playing the CD again.

dlikhten:

Damn I can't remember the name of the site for free music

Did you mean: Jamendo

belgariontheking:

Very Informative, and makes sense because the rip wouldn't fail until it was finishing the last track.  I'm unsure whether I want to try it and risk never playing the CD again.

If the ring is clearly visible, and you never go on it's inner side, the rip will not fail, and all tracks will play fine. If you're not careful enough, you can always carefully wipe the CD with alcohol and retry.

ender:

belgariontheking:

Very Informative, and makes sense because the rip wouldn't fail until it was finishing the last track.  I'm unsure whether I want to try it and risk never playing the CD again.

If the ring is clearly visible, and you never go on it's inner side, the rip will not fail, and all tracks will play fine. If you're not careful enough, you can always carefully wipe the CD with alcohol and retry.

I dunno... still sounds iffy.  You better rip the contents of the CD first, just to be on the saf-- oh, right.

I find it quite interesting how this thread turned around. Wouldn't the current topic of this thread be worth its own?