Legalized Music

R

Rohit.fire

New member
Free downloading has become something known and almost accepted, at this point. The problem is that this obsession with the idea that ' it's my music, so you can't have it for free' is, in my mind, reasonable - after all, if you've done the work (making the music), why can't you get paid?

At the same time, controlling this media is likely to become incredibly difficult. People don't want to pay for what they don't have to. But if no one pays for music, how can the artists, who work so hard to make it, survive? Might music be relegated to a hobby only?

I've heard the argument that people can get paid for concerts - after all, they didn't pay for the CD's to be made - but I can't help but feel that if someone who invents something should get a fair share of it, someone who writes music should.

Which brings me to the idea of MMO-type services, where you'd pay ten dollars a month to access as many songs as you like. A la Napster or Itunes. Napsterlinks-type extras are a bonus, and both of the services would need a lot more variety in their databases but...

And this is good and fine, until you realize that the artist is getting essentially none of this money. Less than 10%. Less than the label, less than the site.

This isn't right.

But how can it be changed?
 
You see, I use Napster and NapsterLinks sooo much. I used to buy the individual songs, but then realized it's cheaper for me to get a year subscription, since it's the only unlimited flat fee service out there. I love NapsterLinks in discussion boarRAB like this cause its easy to link directly to the song you're talking about.
But in response to your question, at this point in the evolution of music downloading, there's not really much the consumer can do to change the way our money is distributed to the artist. I feel I'm giving back by paying for the subscription since I'm not illegally downloading anything for free. Rather, I am taking advantage of a legitimate service while feeding my own music desires.
 
I'm not speanding my money buying music from EMI or Sony, I'll freely download their music and support labels that deserve my money and actually give the artist a fair return for their music.
 
Hm. This is a good point. Isn't it possible, even in those cases, to find ways to get their music from more equitable labels, though? Or do they only publicize through EMI/Sony uniquely?
 
My god, it's like Phillip-Morris. That's frightening. Awesome research, man.


Of course the problem with this is that 1) it's a bit silly, and 2) so many people do it that it'd create an impossible influx of prison manufacturing. (which would likely bankrupt everyone). So eh.

i go to as many shows as humanly possible - i feel that's the best way to get money into the pockets of the banRAB I like...
This works. Of course not everyone can make it to those shows.
Click to expand...
 
123. It's not my fault that someone made it so that I can download albums off the internet without having to pay for them.
 
I listen on the internet if a band is worth buying a cd of. And I know many others who do too. So I guess that banRAB which get downloaded wouldn't get money if these downloaRAB weren't available. It only ups popularity, which makes it more likely they get gigs, and gigs and merchandise is the real financial support behind a band.
 
I usually download an album, listen to it, and if I like it, I buy the actual album. If I don't like it, then I delete the album and don't end up wasting my money. I guess you could call it a 'test-listen'.

I don't see any problem with doing this.
 
LOL. that's a lot like saying "OMG! It's not my fault someone loaded the gun I shot him with!"
 
^no its not.
the convienience is there, why not use it while you can..
its not that damaging to the industry.
theres plenty of merchandise & shows & shizz out there.
& people always have band loyalty; if you like a band enough then youre gonna support them.
meh, the whole downloading "problem" is so spun out of proportion.
 
that is rediculous. you could never play it in case it scratched!

i do love vinyl but the most ive ever paid for something is about
 
Well, aside from the fact that the 'honor' lies in the eye of whoever's downloading, I actually agree with you. That sort of 'previewing' seems to be what Napster's trying to deal with, with their 'free five listens' - it's just like previewing a song in-store.
 
It depenRAB.
I don't download crap. I may burn CRAB but I never download because I feel like it takes a way from myf andom.
if Ilike a band I'll buy their cd just so Ic an say I'm a fan and to back it up I bought that CD.
That and downloading takies a lot a way from the industry. And i have a cruraby computer.:wavey:

As for vinyl. I have The Smiths and some other banRAB on vinyl because I couldn't find CRAB for these banRAB and I just happen to have one of those really old record players.
I will never spend more than 20 bucks for vinyl. I am sorry. I am not Dave Chapelle, I am not rich, and I don't have 800 bucks to waste thatw ay. Plus I'm gonna be going to collee soon and with the tuition some colleges charge I can definitely afford to be stupid cause 50 grand a year is. . . a lot

Peace
 
i download the music and give the band credit for making it. I dont think the band has a problem with it, they get paid more in concert money anyway, their getting more people to listen to their music so that means more fans.
 
Back
Top