thebadtrip Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Since there's a great thread with the discussion regarding current prices on CDs, etc... I'd like to know from you guys if you would pay for music downloads. Being them mp3s or lossless formats. Would you buy music online if it was cheaper and CD-quality? I voted I'd pay around 1 dollar for a track. But of course I would also pay 1.20-1.50. It usually depends on HOW many tracks you want to get sometimes.. But let's say if you're willing to download a whole album it would cost around 99 cents per track, or the album would have discount, etc.. Also notice that the artwork would be available in high quality if clients wanted to download and print out their own CD covers, etc. That could help music industry I believe. Not sure if the current buyers would like NOT having the actual CD with cover, printing, etc.. You know collectors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elysium Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I think you miss one for me even more important question. Would you like to to be able to choose between various formats and also shipping of real CD's for reasonable prices online? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormion Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I only buy cds. I want to be a collector and can't be one with download files, even if cds are fucking expensive. Also I don't like dfiles and even if I wanted to I couldn't dload a thing with a 56k modem.After all I don't have internet this period so... Anyway I vote for buy the cd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebadtrip Posted December 27, 2005 Author Share Posted December 27, 2005 I think you miss one for me even more important question. Would you like to to be able to choose between various formats and also shipping of real CD's for reasonable prices online? 404664[/snapback] You're right.. But hopefully people will read your suggestion and express themselves. That would make CDs cheaper and labels more profitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinos Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I buy CDs and would buy more if they were cheaper. No paid downloads, ever. At that point I prefer illegal methods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebadtrip Posted December 27, 2005 Author Share Posted December 27, 2005 Right now I would either buy vinyl or lossless downloadeable formats. Since I want the records to play at gigs or listen at home... But I don't see much glamour on having the actual original CD. For example. I bought the new Ticon CD... shipped to my brother in Ireland. He ripped the CD (.wav) and sent me a copy of the CD after sending the .wav through DC++ So.. Im interested in the music if it's just for listening and interested in a record.. if it's for playing at gigs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebadtrip Posted December 27, 2005 Author Share Posted December 27, 2005 I buy CDs and would buy more if they were cheaper. No paid downloads, ever. At that point I prefer illegal methods. 404674[/snapback] You get MP3s... with quality loss. For DJs, I wouldn't recommend. Even if most people say the difference isn't much noticeable for most listeners in front of a well equalized and potent set of speakers! As I said.. artists make a living out of that. If you want to make money out of their work.. you should as well pay them for providing you the tools to do your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxx Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 i only buy cds,thats the way i like it ..... only OG´s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaySatanicHippie Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I totally love the paid-download idea, the only thing missing is a comprehensive hub that has everythinmg electronic. Beatport is cool, but they accept only credit card, that sucks, if they had paypal or something like it Id be in heaven!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebadtrip Posted December 27, 2005 Author Share Posted December 27, 2005 I totally love the paid-download idea, the only thing missing is a comprehensive hub that has everythinmg electronic. Beatport is cool, but they accept only credit card, that sucks, if they had paypal or something like it Id be in heaven!! 404693[/snapback] Agreed. A e-music store within each label's website. Lossless downloadeable music files. Accepting Paypal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinos Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I'm just not paying for what I can get for free. If artists only released tracks for download, I wouldn't buy anything. I want a physical disc and cover if I am to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaft Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I much prefer buying the physical disc as opposed to downloading the release. Of course there are times when the release isn't available or is download only, so there is no other choice but downloading - but for me the whole package of cellaphane, jewel case, artwork and CD is much more appetising than a digital file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Journey Man Project Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 for sure Cinos is right... the only reason I pay for my cd's is so I get something... a booklet, and a disc... why would I pay for a computer file? there is a simple answer: pirace is wrong. No arguments. It is wrong. there is no excuse, if you don't have the cash, then shove it, you cannot have the music. If I don't have rthe cash, then I miss out on dinner, I cannot steal it, just like music. Just because it is there does not make it righ... and the excuse of using it as samples is the biggest load of shit since shit first came out of an arse hole... saikosounds has 4 minutes samples that are 100% all you need. paying for downloads is fine in my opinion, if you are happy with it go for it, I can see the cost benefits, and also the excellent idea of only getting the music you like, not 9 tracks for 1 song... but all in all I like a package, and hence why I always buy... never downloaded 1 illegal track... unless you count dj mixes, then yes I have done it, but never use a P2P shitty thing... end rhanht Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisk Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 pirace is wrong. No arguments. It is wrong. there is no excuse, if you don't have the cash, then shove it, you cannot have the music. If I don't have rthe cash, then I miss out on dinner, I cannot steal it, just like music. 404813[/snapback] No, the difference is that you can copy music on a computer. Imagine we could do the same thing with food? No more starvation, anywhere there is a computer. But you would be wagging your finger telling the hungry poor that they are in the wrong. I'd buy really good single tracks in wave format, but I'd much rather get them for free with the artist's blessing. Free music as promotion is a tool that few are yet exploring but I hope to see more of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Journey Man Project Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 No, the difference is that you can . But you would be wagging your finger telling the hungry poor that they are in the wrong. 404838[/snapback] No, but somebody would have to do the copying, and surely somebody would be expected to receive something in return, unless they invented a machine that copies the food in 0 seconds... you have taken me out of context completely... music is art, art takes time, effort and passion... you do not make good music in 30 minutes... if I wasto put in effort to make something, I would, like 99.9% of te human race, expect something in return... nothing much, but maybe at least $1.00 for every person who downloads it... if the artits wants to give it for free that is their choice, but it is not up to use to steal for free... just as giving the food to the poor is not stealing, but if they rioted and smashed into shops, then yes, I'd wag my finger and say it is wrong, but if I could replicated all the food in my house then I'd give it to the poor... there is a big difference between giving and stealing. Just as it is my choice if, I do not give the man the 50 cents I found at the bus stop, or maybe I will because I got it for free so I do not lose anything... it's a pretty simple concept. Stealing is wrong, giving is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisk Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 It's obviously not simple if thousands have been debating this same subject for years now. What makes this debate complex is that the file itself that represents the art of the musician is effortless to duplicate. Current downloading habits are a result of changing technology... wasn't there an old Goa track by the name of Mutate & Survive? That's what people have got to do. All this moral crusader bullshit is really quite irrelevant imho. No amount of righteous indignation is going to reverse the flow... what cannot be copied as easily is the experience of seeing the musician perform their art live - that cannot be replicated or "stolen", should you wish to use that exact term. The money was never in the canned tunes anyway - have you any idea what some artists get paid to play for an hour? No one's starving if they want to work, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsyGoatDelic Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I only buy original cds/vinyl... but since nothing of today's music is my cup of tea I never buy cds at full price... so I get them (old stuff I like) on second hand shops for ridicules prices Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Journey Man Project Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 my morals make me who I am, so to say my morals are ridiculous is an insult... it is not self righteous, I just think it is wrong to pirate music... if you do it, as do many people I know, then good on you, I don;t and I don;t believe in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 +rls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euchkuh Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I would never buy tracks as individuals, its so stupid I prefer downloading. However, I looove buying cd's cuz I luv to collect them. unfortunetely, sometimes they're too expensive so d/loading is required Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAMbenjy Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 download & buy cd's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delars Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 i buy as mush as my budget allows me to, but i do prefer to spend it on oldskool releases. i do download however, can't say no ! i'm weak but i don't care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agia_igoumeni Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 i buy only 3/4 cd a year (for example this year i bought the nu albums midimiliz,kattoo,FSOL & some old second hand spiral trax & KYUSS cdz.. so my vote goes for Always download illegal mp3 for free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elysium Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Imagine we could do the same thing with food? No more starvation, anywhere there is a computer. But you would be wagging your finger telling the hungry poor that they are in the wrong. 404838[/snapback] I do not see music as a nessesarity to survive in life. Food is.. So the comparison is a bit off i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 It's obviously not simple if thousands have been debating this same subject for years now. What makes this debate complex is that the file itself that represents the art of the musician is effortless to duplicate. Current downloading habits are a result of changing technology... wasn't there an old Goa track by the name of Mutate & Survive? That's what people have got to do. All this moral crusader bullshit is really quite irrelevant imho. No amount of righteous indignation is going to reverse the flow... what cannot be copied as easily is the experience of seeing the musician perform their art live - that cannot be replicated or "stolen", should you wish to use that exact term. The money was never in the canned tunes anyway - have you any idea what some artists get paid to play for an hour? No one's starving if they want to work, that's for sure. 404883[/snapback] Basilisk, I find your arguements a bit silly and constitute a rather desperate attempt to justify what you know at heart is wrong. Let me approach what you have written in two points. (1) The essense of your arguement seems to be that illegally downloading music is okay because it is possible. And because you feel that people will not listen to criticism, then all this 'moral crusading' is useless. You can call it 'moral crusading' if you want, Basilisk, but you are definitely stealing from the artists and it is natural that many of us choose to speak against it and urge other members on these forums to pay for their tunes. Even if just one person chooses to change their behaviour it is worth it. Furthermore, I would ask you not to worry whether others continue to cheat artists of their rightful dues, just make sure YOU are not part of the problem. Only a selfish twat will sit back and rationalise that because it is inevitable that some people will steal, it is therefore okay for me to do it. (2) You then try to further justify your arguement by saying that 'the money was never in the canned tunes anyway'. Plus you seem to indicate that because artists get paid huge money to play live, then revenue from music sales is either (1) not needed because they are raking it in from live performance and/or (2) it is so little compared to live music money that it is of little importance. This is completely irrelevant, Baslisk. One can steal from the rich, one can steal from the poor. In fact, because many of these artists derive so little money from CD sales, this should be an added incentive to obtain the music legally since a few extra hundred sales can make more of a difference to these artists and labels. Baslisk, your faulty self-serving arguements are bereft of any logic or common sense whatsoever and smack of selfish dishonesty. Pedro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.