Electronics & Computers Deals here!
Digital music: Time for the music download industry to step up.........
Time for the music download industry to step up.........
by mark04276 - 3/28/07 5:13 AMI recently started purchasing songs from the Internet from a legitimate site. The music industry has said for years that they are being ripped off from people downloading/sharing mp3 without paying. Fair enough, but isnt that what they are doing to thoose who buy their music?
I dont mind paying $.88 for a song that is new and no older than 5 years, but shouldnt the price go down as the song gets older and older. Eighty-eight cents for Nickleback's "Rockstar" is worth it, considering I will probally hear it on the radio more than I will play it on my computer. However eighty-eight cents for Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" that I would like to have in my collection but will hardly ever play on a regular basis isnt worth it.
And another thing that I have noticed, not all tracks are available to download of the same album. Usually this is the best song on the album or an exclusive song from where you are buying the song. You can only get the song if you buy the whole album. Isnt this the whole purpose of buying tracks?
I am not really asking questions here, just speaking my mind and wondering, are they really being fair to us?
Since when was the music industry fair?
by TreknologyNet - 3/31/07 4:14 AM In reply to: Time for the music download industry to step up......... by mark04276I'm not prepared to pay even $0.88 for an inferior product. The market was flogged CDs over vinyl because of space saving, yet even older products on CD are regularly deleted so that if you miss the window of opportunity to purchase, you can't track down that elusive song after the event.
It is high time that the music industry was made accountable to the creative talents that drive it, and the audience that feeds it.
My sentiments exactly.
by btljooz - 3/31/07 12:39 PM In reply to: Since when was the music industry fair? by TreknologyNetI haven't bought music from anyone but indies since 1997. I REFUSE to download ANY "media" from the net!!! I want a CD, DVD or VHS in my warm little hand for MY money. 
Why pay for a 'download' when if the device it's downloaded to crashes or is destroyed, etc. (...losing all those co$tly 'download$') WILL FORCE one to RE-BUY ALL of the collection on said device ...IF one can even FIND all of their original collection to begin with?????? 
No thanks. NOT that route for me!!!
I take care of all my media so I will not likely have to RE-Buy it AGAIN. I choose NOT to support the RIAA -OR- any of the "artists" that belong to it!!!!! I will continue this stance until the RIAA backs down and treats its artists AND us...the PAYING CONSUMER ...(that are the ones who pad the RIAA pocket$) with RE$PECT!!!
Can understand your way of thinking but......
by mark04276 - 4/2/07 3:28 AM In reply to: My sentiments exactly. by btljooz1. Everybody likes to have something in their hands for their money.. no arguement there.
2. From the previous post, inferior product? Ok, I am not saying the wma format is better than mp3, but to the naked ear over a laptop speaker or even on any player, I cant tell the difference.
3. If device crashes.... I do back up on regular basis to more than one media. What if you have a fire or a burgular?
4. Costly? Nothing can be more costly than buying a cd that has 6 out of 11 songs on it that are good or that you want. Six newly released songs cost $5.28 to download and a recently released cd can cost anywhere from $9 to $16 to buy.
5. Choosing not to support the RIAA or the artist that belong to it, is all fine and dandy but I like music that is well known, played on the radio and everyone knows the words to. (besides CCR)
6. I dont even own a cd player (outside of my laptop) or even a home entertainment center any more. I used to buy CDs all the time, but I found myself not playing them cause it was an inconvience. I had to get up, find the cd I wanted, pick the right track for the song I wanted and then do it all over if I wanted to listen to another song of a differnet artist. Now, I have a program (media monkey) that I type the name of the song or artist or whatever and it is playing. I can add 20 songs to the playlist in the same time it took me to get the cd out and play 1 song. Another advantage, I can take my whole music collection with me witout carrying a 100 cds along with me.
7. Those of you that referenced the p2pnet sites. Well I do alot with my computer and research alot too, but didnt even know about the boycott thing till you posted the links. Good luck with that. Never mind its April.
8. I not here saying what I do is right and what you do is wrong. I just seam to think there should be a remedy that everybody could be happy with.
REad this:
by btljooz - 3/31/07 12:18 PM In reply to: Time for the music download industry to step up......... by mark04276http://p2pnet.net/story/11498
When done reading that article and all it's posts, go through the site's archives and educate yourselves even further. 
Here's a BETTER one:
by btljooz - 3/31/07 12:20 PM In reply to: REad this: by btljoozhttp://www.p2pnet.net/story/11427
Like I said before, you can learn a LOT from this site if you sift through it's archives
I don't think an MP3 is worth even 50 cents
by savagesteve13 - 4/5/07 3:44 AM In reply to: Time for the music download industry to step up......... by mark04276They should offer full uncompressed downloads of digital music. If I'm going to cough up cash for a song, I want a full 25 megabyte lossless download, then I can make my own MP3 at whatever bit rate I feel I need before putting it on a portable player.
Music Industry has never being fair and it is time to pay us
by epastrana - 4/12/07 11:47 AM In reply to: Time for the music download industry to step up......... by mark04276Did the Music Industry complained during the 80's when I bought tons and tons of vinyl, cassette singles and even, 45 rpm vinyl? Of course not! They were madly happy as hell. Do you think that on those years could the Music Industry lower their prices? Ha-ha-ha!!!.........well, it is time to pay us back!
Sharing, not sharing, downloading or not, buying or not, keep it or not.....WE CONTROL NOW!
I would buy a song if the cost could be less than 50 cents. If you put AFFORDABLE music all over the world, you could see the difference. 99 cents for a song, perhaps gets them a half a million downloads (this is just an example). Think about putting the same song at an affordable price; let's say 49 cents. Downloads would amazingly multiply and now, please do the math. Getting perhaps 2 songs for a dollar, could be the answer to all these conflicts but as I said before, RIAA and all the Music Industry don't have mercy for anyone so, good luck guys and let us control this (and everybody will keep sharing songs).
If by the other hand, there is the slightest change that RIAA and the Music Industry could be humble enough and admit that they reacted late to technology and their future keeps narrowing on them, MAYBE everybody could some day obtain a fair deal.
I can check
by traustirunar - 5/3/07 8:57 PM In reply to: Time for the music download industry to step up......... by mark04276I have Urge. If you don't have it I can check to
see what they have for 3 or 4 artists. I pay $9.95
a month. Pandora is nice for internet radio and is
free. I just found mercora as well. Don't forget
that many aritsts make a video out of their best
songs. Dailymotion has reasonable sound quality
for music videos.
-Stephen
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
