File swappers buy more music --

This is very true, I do that all the time, I sample online, then buy in the store. Mp3s are never as clear as the actual cd, and I'm wierd like that.

 

thats the argument i've been trying to get across to people for years!

i'll download a couple of songs by a band, if i like it enough, i'll go and buy the whole thing, if i don't like them, then there's no loss (except time i spose)

and if i do download a lot of songs by a single band it's only 'cos i like them, but not enough to actually spend money on them. so it's not like their loosing money through it 'cos i wouldn't by their cd anyway

IMO file sharing in this way helps out a lot of band. it's just the broadband w**kers who download hundreds of songs a day that ruin it

Tom

 

I think the key ismusic-lovers buy more music, when they file share.

The average 12 year old downloading mp3s of whatever, isn't going to buy any CDs, why bother?

I have friend that aren't music lovers per se, but they still have thousands of .mp3s, haven't bought a CD in their life(believe it or not!)

If you like music, then for sure you are more likely to buy more CDs, because having free file-sharing of music, allows you to hear new artists and stuff, and once you hear one or two songs you might be hooked, then you go out and buy their albums..etc.

 

I have seen the future, and it is iTunes.

 

I agree with that. I've bought probably 20 cd's in the past 2 months, mostly second hand off Amazon.com. I really like having the actual CD; having a case full of burned CD's that all look the same really bothers me. The album and disc art makes it worth it to me, as does having the true product instead of a song that has been digitally encoded, compressed, and then uncompressed and made analog again.

 

I really should get that update..... and they should offer it outside the US.

But still, finally some statistics saying what people have been saying for years. I know that I, at least, have bought some albums that I wouldn't have bought had I not downloaded some tracks first - from Cave In to Natalie Imbruglia.

 

I don't agree with this and I'll tell you why. I'm a Jr. High music teacher and I talk to kids all the time about file sharing and how many CD's they buy. They tell me that they don't buy any CD's anymore, they just download and burn what they want. They can't tell any difference in the sound quality of there hip-hop stuff and it's free and they just don't care. A huge part of the music CD industry is teenagers spending their allowance on CD's. File sharing and CD burning has put a huge dent in the teenage CD buying market. True, people like you and me who listen to music with a more critical ear would rather get the uncompressed original because we are going to listen to it for a long time. Kids get tired of their CD's in about a week or two and want something else. File sharing gives them exactly what they want FREE CD's... Anybody who thinks you can educate people into paying for something they can get for free is kidding himself or herself.

 

Word up, oh wise GreyBeard. Although I love burning CD's for free and don't care if it's not exactly perfect sounding even. I think the industry will eventually have to accept this new tide and adjust to it somehow. We may have entered a new era in music where the playing field is more level and bands will have to find other avenues besides record sales to make money. It's going to be interesting.

 

Here's a comprimise...

Ripping your own CDs onto your computer!


Idk, I'm torn between the two...I like free stuff, cuz I have basses to take care of and the music industry has sooooo much $$$ already, but I hate ripping bands off, especially the less "popular" ones.

I also d/l songs as a preview for buying CDs too.

 

Im probobly going to be hated for saying this... First off I not gona lie to you, I download music before I buy the CD to see what I like, but the music industrys argument is that a "Copyrighted" peice of material belongs to the person who owns the copyright. They dont want anyone to beable to in essense test/(Steal) their product before you have take money out of your pocket and put it in theirs.

Now for this example of KoRn being used they have a major problem. They have tons of fans who would buy their next album regardless of what others say about the quality, unless they hear it themselves. So as people were "testing" this album they simply decided to not buy it in turn causing KoRn to loose alot of money they could have otherwise earned (which I'm not arguing).

Obviously nothing above is based on anything, I haven't researched or anything like that, only had to deal with copyrighted material in the past.

 

I agree with Greybard and WR. I don't think the average person spends time searching out mp3s on the net so they can sample the music and then buy it. They want to download the music they heard on the radio just yesterday, for free.

 

Radio stations have to pay to play the music. I forget how they are charged, I think it is by the minute or somthing, or per song played.. but they have to pay for it. Same thing about recording TV shows... not supposed to do it with out "expressed permission from so and so." The artists just want to be paid.

 

Hmmm...I use the internet to sample music and get stuff that I just simply wouldn't be able to get otherwise. For instance, I'm buying Depeche Mode - Violator, Dave Gahan - Paper Monsters, Victor Wooten - A Show of Hands, Jaco - Punk Jazz, Al Di Meola - Flesh on Flesh, Remy Shand - The Way I Feel, and Al Di Meola/Stanley Clarke/Jean-Luc Ponty - Rite of Strings as soon as my next paycheck comes in. Note that that's after I bought Martin L Gore - Counterfeit² and Jaco's anthology three days ago. By the end of summer, I will have spent more money on CDs than in my entire life previous -- why? Because they're too damn expensive and I couldn't afford them on allowance alone. File sharing is very important to me -- without it, I would never have gotten into blues, jazz, or anything other than angsty Our Lady Peace. When I just want one or two songs from an album, am I supposed to shell out $25 CAD for a song and all the rest, IMO, is crap? There's no bloody way that's happening. I already have all of The Way I Feel, A Show of Hands, Punk Jazz, and Rite of Strings all in mp3. I've got most of Violator, half of flesh on flesh, and I had almost all of the tracks from Counterfeit² and Jaco's anthology. So why am I buying these? Because I want to support the artist. Without file sharing, I would never have even considered buying these albums. Without file sharing, I wouldn't be playing bass today because I wouldn't have heard "U Ain't Got No Groove" or "Me & My Bass Guitar" a year ago, and I would have just given up because I didn't hear something where the bass, frankly, kicked ass and wanted to stick with it. File sharing kicks ass, and supports artists. The main reason, say, Metallica's sales haven't been massive (besides the fact that they've sucked for a decade, but frankly, that's just my opinion) is because they made such a huge fuss over file sharing and people are boycotting the album just to spite the bastards. They need to loosen up so the poles up their arses can fall out and realize how much file sharing can help them if they just embrace it.

 

I own probably a good 75% of the 400 songs on my playlist. Most of the time I buy a CD of a band I like. Most of the "illegal" songs that I have are singles of CD's I wouldn't buy just for that song. There are a couple bands that I have a large number of songs that I don't own.

SOAD - Steal This Album
In Flames - (11 songs from them, dont own any CD's)
Alice in Chains - 6 songs, don't own any

I do want to get a couple of the AIC CD's anyway.

The RIAA can try to sue me if they want, but they won't find a whole lot on my playlist.

 

Do you work for free ? If not, then taking others work without payment rendered is stealing.

 

For the consumer, radio broadcasts have been free since the beginning. People always treat new media with the methods they learned with the old media (McLuhan). It's sort of all we know, until the new medium is well established. So, when a song is "broadcast" on the net, I don't have any problem "taping" it, because it's just what I used to do w/ my radio and the RIAA never came after me (is radio taping legal?). File sharing is much more convenient because I don't have to wait for the dj, so I sorta see Kazaa like a really cool searchable radio, and radio is always free.

The real problem for the RIAA is that they have lost their connection w/ the hardware end of the consumer music industry. With records, tapes, and cds their job was to manufacture and distribute a commodity that is only usable on specific equipment. Big companies, like Sony, really benefit from market synergy created by delivering content w/ a new gadget (walkman, cd, etc.).

In a digital age, treating music as a hardware specific commodity is misguided, but this is all the RIAA knows how to do. They are not in the computer business, and they do not understand music as dataflow. What is the RIAA supposed to do w/ their great monopolistic commodity distribution network if everybody buys music over the phone wire? They have been investing in trucks that bring records/cds to Kmart for the last 60 years, and the digital media network caught them completely unaware.

What would music be like today if Columbia had decided to invest in fiber optic networks in 1983?

 

Exactly, music has always been software. The recording industry created the hardware end of it and now that part has deserted them.

 

Those artists aren't going to be hurt by downloading mp3's anyway, for the most part. Plus, bands make hardly any money from record sales. So what does it matter if they're not selling any records if they can make more money by touring (if this whole argument is about money, which is really what it comes down to.)

Just this punk kid's $.02

Pat