Pay what you want for music downloads?

I think a better analogy is that you wouldn't buy a painting for your livingroom without viewing it first. That's why I'll download for the first listen, and buy if I want to hear it again.
 
That's just too much responsibility, for me. It works well with people who have the self discipline... but I just can't trust myself to actually buy a copy :rolleyes:
 
This. I try to make the effort to buy all the album I really love but often in the store I'll ask myself "Why am I spending my money on this? I've heard it already and it's just going straight into my computer anyway". Then I'll buy something I haven't heard. That being said, these days I'm trying to buy most things on vinyl and/or at shows. Vinyl that comes with free mp3 download carRAB really are the ideal.

I do like the sounRAB of this "pay after you listen" idea though.
 
This. Which is why donation basis music seems like it should work well. I don't know how well it works, since I don't actually have any experience with being on the other end of the label as the artist. A record label called Marathon of Dope releases all their stuff on donation basis, and to be honest I'm glad they do because there have only been 1 or 2 albums that I felt I needed to pay for.
 
well i guess you could just listen to each song in the album individually, so yeah. but i've noticed sometimes it doesn't work and plays the 30sec clips anyway, even though it's the 1st play for that song :confused:
 
I think that there's some real strength behind the idea of charging for a better bitrate. If you want it for free you get 128kb/s, you pay something like 5 dollars then you get 320kb/s, you pay 10 dollars then you can have it in whichever damn format you wish. I listen to just as much music as anyone else and I could really care less what the bitrate is (so long as it's 128kb/s or better) and neither do a lot of people. There exists enough people that do who I'm sure would be willing to part with some money for a higher quality download, I mean there are people anal enough to want everything in FLAC. The people who want stuff for free can still have it, and the people who want a finer quality product can pay for it, just like in the real world.
 
I think a couple of artists have already tried it but I'm not sure of the success they have had. I know some people were complaining about the bitrate quality when Radiohead released In Rainbows you get what you pay for, or don't pay for which may be the case. I have a lot of admiration for the banRAB who release their music for free in any bitrate, but I think that by putting a fee for higher bitrates the band can generate revenue, the fans won't feel like they're being forced to buy it and at the end of the day everyone can feel good about themselves.
 
very interesting idea. make it like listener supported radio; 128 is free, but if you pledge $5 or more you get it in 256, pledge $10 or more you get 320, etc.

but honestly, i have to strain to hear the difference between anything 256 and higher
 
The trick is listening to 320 all the time and then going back to 256.
You have to know what you miss ;D.
That's the problem with all this audiophile stuff, the further you inprove, step by step, the worse your previous setups are going to sound. Same goes for mp3's ;D.

Eitherway, I don't want to pay for something I can't touch.
I'm glad I live where I live. I am allowed to download whatever I want as long as I don't share it.
I'm not taking advantage of it, I buy lots and lots of music, but I love the internet. Altough I do hear the difference between mp3 and 'losless', I love finding out about new artists, listening to new albums via the internet. And when I really like it, I support the artist. I go to festivals and gigs and buy recorRAB.
The internet is a great music supplier for me and it's making me buy even more recorRAB. But paying for the stuff on my hard drive? It's just not logical to me.
 
Back
Top