Iriver Questions !!!

[KoichCPA]

Jordy is pretty gay about this tbh.

 

[Goreripper]

The whole thing about CD prices is bullshit though. CD prices haven't actually gone up all that much compared to the prices of other stuff. Five to six years ago, CDs were about $25 - 27 on average; now they're $27 - 30. That's a $2 - 5 increase in five or six years. That's fuck all.

As for downloading, whether it's actually hurting the "industry" that much is probably a moot point, but it's certainly hurting artists. Artists lose sales when downloaders steal their music, when their sales drop, they get canned by their label and pretty soon they're back on Shit Street where they started. Megastars hardly feel this, but smaller artists like Tania and Dungeon sure do. If you download something to try it before you buy it, fine. But a growing majority of people who used to buy CDs are now just downloading songs to listen to on iPods and have no intention of ever buying CDs again. I talk to people like this online all the time. They are arseholes, and they don't care.

 

[phlogiston]

...Artists lose sales when downloaders steal their music, when their sales drop...

This is the bit that I generally can't agree with. Artist lose sales when somebody downloads their music WHEN ORDINARILY THEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT.

Not every download equals a lost sale, but when people spout out about how it's ruining the industry that's how they count it. I just can't buy into that line of thinking.

 

[MeKaChrOme]

The whole thing about CD prices is bullshit though. CD prices haven't actually gone up all that much compared to the prices of other stuff. Five to six years ago, CDs were about $25 - 27 on average; now they're $27 - 30. That's a $2 - 5 increase in five or six years. That's fuck all.

I agree, it's not a huge increase... But it's a lot easier to download shit then it was a few years ago... So on one hand you have small increases in price, but huge decreases in the difficulty of downloading.... Increasing prices just makes it more likely that people will download and not buy anything, even if the increases are relatively small.

I guess it depends a lot on whether people actually care about the artist they are ripping off. If you know it is detrimental to the artist (which means you'll hear less music from them in the future coz rthey have no money), then you are less likely to just download shit without buying the CDs. People are less likely to care about the industry, and are more likely to care about their favourite artist.... But as has been mentioned, a lot of people still don't give a shit

 

[Goreripper]

Artist lose sales when somebody downloads their music WHEN ORDINARILY THEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT.

That's what I was getting at. Sorry if it was vague. The thing is that your average Joe Public seems to think that every musical artist out there becomes a millionaire rock star as soon as they release something, so it doesn't hurt if you download their stuff for free.

I've used this argument before, but when you go to buy clothes, you can't walk out of the shop without paying for them because you want to try them out first. You can't take a car home for the weekend before you buy it. Why should you be allowed to do the same with a musical piece? When I was a kid, if you wanted to know what a band's new single sounded like, you listened to it in the shop. If you didn't like it, you didn't buy it. Now, people are downloading entire albums and still not buying them whether they like them or not. I work with a guy who does this. He never buys CDs, but he has a collection to rival anyone on this board. That's just fucking wrong. It's like walking into a CD store and stealing everything you see.

 

[phlogiston]

I agree with all of that.

And I'll admit, I'm a little bit guilty of downloading and not buying it if I like it too. I'm not going to try and weasle that into being "right" or "moral" or anything like that. But I *am* saying that it's not hurting the industry all that much because I wouldn't have bought 99% of them in the first place. That 1% I'll get around to as soon as I get back into the cash, I promise. As well as some of those who I wouldn't have bought, but really like.

 

[phlogiston]

Actually, what would be even better would be a well stocked online store where I could legitimately download stuff that I wanted to download (as opposed to what I was told I could download. I don't want today's top hits.) for something along the lines of AU$5 an album.

If downloaded album were that price then I'd be getting all of my music that way. $5 is worth an experiment.

 

[MeKaChrOme]

Yeah but even if it was that cheap people would still simply go the free way....

Agree with what Brian was saying though. The internet is like a free shop....

Phloggy, there are websites going around which supposedly allow you to download individual tracks off albums for relatively cheap prices. Can't remember any of them, and I don't trust em, but they did have metal stuff when I stumbled across em.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I agree with Gore.

I was never compaining about the prices of cds going up, I was saying they need to come down. Look at DVDs, you can generally get any DVD you want for under $20 these days, except new releases, that sometimes only take a few weeks to get under $20 to $25 anyway.

I get that not everything people download will be something they would have bought, but I think downloading makes the line between what you would and wouldn't have bought move. These days, people are pickier about what they would have bought, because they didn't have to buy. If the download option wasn't there, your opinion on whether you would have bought it or not may be different.

 

[The Amazer]

I never download albums. I rarely even download single songs. I spend probably $90 a fortnight on CDs and that's the only music I listen to. I used to download mp3s like a jackrabbit, but these days I'm over it. I need the album. I buy the album if I need it.

 

[Spiff]

What about downloading albums of artists who are deceased? It's not like they're being ripped off or their livelihoods ruined by lack of sales.

 

[Goreripper]

Actually, what would be even better would be a well stocked online store where I could legitimately download stuff that I wanted to download (as opposed to what I was told I could download. I don't want today's top hits.) for something along the lines of AU$5 an album.

If downloaded album were that price then I'd be getting all of my music that way. $5 is worth an experiment.

Have you tried www.metaltracks.com ?

 

[phlogiston]

No, no I haven't, but it looks very interesting. It's still US$10 an album though, which is still a bit above my price point for untested stuff. But it's bookmarked for if I find something that I want and can't get it anywhere else.

 

[Spiff]

Once we get something like Virgin have in the UK it should be good. Mark raves about it. Ten quid a month for unlimited downloads or something, you just can't burn or trade em. Sounds alright to me.

 

[Mark]

Yeah, Virgin Digital (and Napster, et al) is a great way of listening to albums before you buy them. The fact you can get new CDs here for under a tenner helps, too (or buy a full download for about £6).

 

[Stonewall]

I agree with Gore.

I was never compaining about the prices of cds going up, I was saying they need to come down. Look at DVDs, you can generally get any DVD you want for under $20 these days, except new releases, that sometimes only take a few weeks to get under $20 to $25 anyway.

I get that not everything people download will be something they would have bought, but I think downloading makes the line between what you would and wouldn't have bought move. These days, people are pickier about what they would have bought, because they didn't have to buy. If the download option wasn't there, your opinion on whether you would have bought it or not may be different.

Both very fair points, especially about the dvds, just wait a bit and you will get it cheap.

What is the point of downloading an album you wouldn't buy? Is it only a little bit good, do you only like half the songs?

The artists have a right to your money based upon whether you listen to their songs, not whether you are prepared to pay to listen to their songs.

They have a product they are selling and we are either stealing or buying, I guess it depends how much of a wanker you are.

Back in the radio days before downloading I used to have a rule that if I liked 3 songs from an album I would buy it, I guess that was generally the amount of singles that would be released. This was before I was in to much metal admittedly, which is harder to impossible to hear on the radio, but I always had a similar thing with mp3s, only downloading 2-3 songs per album and then buying it when money permitted.

These days i can't be fucked downloading songs, so more often than not I will go out on a limb and buy an album by a band I like without having heard anything off it. This has never resulted in a regretted purchase. Chances are if you like the music an artist makes you will continue to do so.


Basically to sum up... If you think you are not hurting artists or the industry by only downloading albums (albums, not individual songs here and there, which is a completely different story) that you ORDINARILY WOULDN"T HAVE BOUGHT ANYWAY then you have absolutely no business downloading that album, whether it is Britney Spears or Dungeon or Justin Timberlake or Maiden.

If you download and fully intend to buy or a legit copy is unobtainable, that's fine. If you don't intend to buy, just delete it, there's a good chap.

 

[MeKaChrOme]

That Virgin UK thing sounds interesting, you'd reckon it would at least given incentive for people to pay some money for the album... But what exactly stops a person who has bought it from burning or trading it? Is it just like buying a physical copy - the honour system kinda thing?

 

[phlogiston]

I'm probably going to regret this, seeing as I told myself I wasn't going to get any more involved, but what the hey.

What is the point of downloading an album you wouldn't buy? Is it only a little bit good, do you only like half the songs?

It's a chance to hear new music. Like you say, depending on what you listen to, you can't do it on the radio. I'm a conservative spender. If I have a choice of getting something that I might not like and not getting anything at all, then I'll end up with nothing. I've always been like that.

They have a product they are selling and we are either stealing or buying, I guess it depends how much of a wanker you are.

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There's a difference.

Basically to sum up... If you think you are not hurting artists or the industry by only downloading albums (albums, not individual songs here and there, which is a completely different story) that you ORDINARILY WOULDN"T HAVE BOUGHT ANYWAY then you have absolutely no business downloading that album, whether it is Britney Spears or Dungeon or Justin Timberlake or Maiden.

How does me not giving them money that I wouldn't give them anyway hurt them? In fact, I've bought albums from Sentenced, Liz Phair, Testament and a number of others purely because I've downloaded and liked their stuff. If I had as much disposable income as I used to then there'd be a whole lot more, too. (And yes, I'm aware that that's a cop-out argument.)

 

[Stonewall]

That point about it not being stealing but copyright infringement was a little smart-arsed, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean. Is it like walking into a shop and taking something off the shelf isn't stealing, but shoplifting?

I don't think there is anything wrong with checking out new music before you buy it, and don't really have anything against downloading songs to do so. But there is a difference between downloading a few tracks from an album and downloading the whole thing. Hell, it is more exciting too that if once you have the money to buy the album you will still be hearing some new stuff. It gives some actual incentive to buy the album beyond just belatedley doing the right thing.


And about hurting artists Phloggy, I didn't say it was hurting them if you are downloading music you wouldn't otherwise have bought. My point was that if you believe that it is ok to own pirate copies of albums because it isn't one you would have ordinarily bought and thus won't hurt the artist financially, then you have no business possessing that album. You shouldn't have it.

 

[phlogiston]

That point about it not being stealing but copyright infringement was a little smart-arsed, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean. Is it like walking into a shop and taking something off the shelf isn't stealing, but shoplifting?

No, shoplifting is a type of stealing. Downloading music is not stealing because no-one is actually deprived of anything. If I steal your CD collection, then you have no more CDs. If I copy your CD collection, you still have your CDs and I haven't stolen anything. I *have* infringed copyright. That's the scenario we're talking about here.

People call that splitting hairs, but I don't see it. To me they are entirely different things.

Accuse me of breaching copyright, and I'll cop it.

But there is a difference between downloading a few tracks from an album and downloading the whole thing.

I hear this all the time, and I'm genuinely interested in the answer to the following question: Why? Is it less against the law? How many is OK?

And about hurting artists Phloggy, I didn't say it was hurting them if you are downloading music you wouldn't otherwise have bought. My point was that if you believe that it is ok to own pirate copies of albums because it isn't one you would have ordinarily bought and thus won't hurt the artist financially, then you have no business possessing that album. You shouldn't have it.

Ah, I agree with this. I don't think that it's OK that I've got pirated albums. I know it's wrong. I don't argue that it's wrong.

I just don't agree with the whole "it's downloaders that are killing the industry", and the type of tactics and statistics that the industry uses to try and back up these claims.