The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Even with Napster going all legal allegedly soon, it's not really the end of illegal MP3 trading is it? Napster was just one trading tool, the most popular one. Trading via other tools will still commence, it's just the way it is. It's spread like wildfire, no-one can stop it now. At least then if Napster of all of them goes legal, the record companies will be somewhat happy and will work with Napster rather than rally against it. Downloadable music has undoubtedly become very popular in a short space of time, and if you can't beat them you join 'em. It's the only way to go.
Now as to whether music should be free to share. It's yes and no. If Metallica don't want to give away their music for free that's fine, and if U2 do want to give their music away that's good too!
It doesn't take a genius to know that artists and labels whose careers are solely based on music need to make their money, and if their art is being given away free and without consent then they'll be making nothing, which in turn means no incentive to keep on making music or no way to pay those bills etc and that's the clear reason why music should be paid for. They're giving us product, and we're paying for it. It's exchange. We wouldn't like it if artists stole money from our pockets.
On the other hand, bands like U2 don't really care as long as they get their music across lately. Granted if they weren't so rich already they'd be singing a different tune, but they've reached a status where they can say "Ok, we're mega-rich, we can give some stuff away for free". New bands have nothing much to lose as they want their presence to be known more than their wallets at the start; it's mainly bands inbetween who will have a gripe about it and that's understandable.
Then again, who likes to cram their hard disk with lots of small-to-big files of music? I'm sure there's some, but the way I personally see it is that music on MP3 doesn't touch CD's or whatever, firstly because even though the actual sound quality is virtually similar, MP3's aren't really tangible (let's forget about portable MP3 players for the moment). I and many others like their music in a tangible format! Granted, I download a reasonable ammount of MP3's, but I don't cram my hard-drive to the brim with them - I write them to a CD and be done with it. Singles are overly expensive at £3.99, whereas an album is £12.99 or less. No, I'm not a cheap skate, but it's the pure principle of it all.
Many music fans are record collectors, they buy the whole package; the CD, the artwork - the officialness of it. A true purchase, a dedication to the artist. Whether they like the record or not is indifferent, but sampling MP3's helps you make an informed choice eh? If I heard an MP3 of a bad song I was curious about, it'd help me steer of that decision while a good one would have the opposite effect; that's one good thing about free music; the complete good-quality online listening post aspect of it. Try before you buy really; isn't that what most MP3 traders use it for, though sometimes people just hunt for the odd song from an album they don't want to buy, but seriously what can you do? Even with no Napster, there'll be some other way always.
I'd love to buy original music CD's, but they're too expensive for my budget. I have to make money the hard way. No jobs suit me and I don't get any pocket money, so downloading them is the only way. I want to be able to play music more than just on my computer, so I burn them to a CD, leaving my hard drive free from virus-clad MP3 files.
Then again, there are pirates who burn CD's and MD's of illegal MP3's, and sell them off. But you can't blame free music on the net, as that has happened regardless even before the advent of MP3's, that aspect isn't the focal point of this topic. I only write MP3s on CD not for business, but because I enjoy the music. Music is too expensive - full stop.
Music though isn't a thing that can be free or not free. It's just music. When I recall "Wannabe" by The Spice Girls in my head, it can't be drilled out of my head, I can't be arrested for it. It's hard, and that's probably a bad example, but it is one! When I whistle something I made up, that's mine and it's free, I can do what I want with it; sell it (you wanna buy?), I'm losing focus now. Basically I think it's good that music is available online now regardless of the fee, as it is quite convenient. I hope those who don't want their music to be free, and those who do, get their way. Illegal MP3 trading will always be rife and hard to monitor unfortunately, but atleast sites like Emusic, iCrunch and now Napster are offering legal pay alternatives so you're putting money in your artists pockets and getting legal music, no need to buy the CD. But illegal MP3 trading also can benefit the sales of tangible mediums.
Free is good, and pay is good. For distribution to exist and be successful, common sense dictates you need a bit of both, or you're never going to hear music in the first place, and never get the chance to buy it.
Thanks for reading.
Firebalt.
Now as to whether music should be free to share. It's yes and no. If Metallica don't want to give away their music for free that's fine, and if U2 do want to give their music away that's good too!
It doesn't take a genius to know that artists and labels whose careers are solely based on music need to make their money, and if their art is being given away free and without consent then they'll be making nothing, which in turn means no incentive to keep on making music or no way to pay those bills etc and that's the clear reason why music should be paid for. They're giving us product, and we're paying for it. It's exchange. We wouldn't like it if artists stole money from our pockets.
On the other hand, bands like U2 don't really care as long as they get their music across lately. Granted if they weren't so rich already they'd be singing a different tune, but they've reached a status where they can say "Ok, we're mega-rich, we can give some stuff away for free". New bands have nothing much to lose as they want their presence to be known more than their wallets at the start; it's mainly bands inbetween who will have a gripe about it and that's understandable.
Then again, who likes to cram their hard disk with lots of small-to-big files of music? I'm sure there's some, but the way I personally see it is that music on MP3 doesn't touch CD's or whatever, firstly because even though the actual sound quality is virtually similar, MP3's aren't really tangible (let's forget about portable MP3 players for the moment). I and many others like their music in a tangible format! Granted, I download a reasonable ammount of MP3's, but I don't cram my hard-drive to the brim with them - I write them to a CD and be done with it. Singles are overly expensive at £3.99, whereas an album is £12.99 or less. No, I'm not a cheap skate, but it's the pure principle of it all.
Many music fans are record collectors, they buy the whole package; the CD, the artwork - the officialness of it. A true purchase, a dedication to the artist. Whether they like the record or not is indifferent, but sampling MP3's helps you make an informed choice eh? If I heard an MP3 of a bad song I was curious about, it'd help me steer of that decision while a good one would have the opposite effect; that's one good thing about free music; the complete good-quality online listening post aspect of it. Try before you buy really; isn't that what most MP3 traders use it for, though sometimes people just hunt for the odd song from an album they don't want to buy, but seriously what can you do? Even with no Napster, there'll be some other way always.
I'd love to buy original music CD's, but they're too expensive for my budget. I have to make money the hard way. No jobs suit me and I don't get any pocket money, so downloading them is the only way. I want to be able to play music more than just on my computer, so I burn them to a CD, leaving my hard drive free from virus-clad MP3 files.
Then again, there are pirates who burn CD's and MD's of illegal MP3's, and sell them off. But you can't blame free music on the net, as that has happened regardless even before the advent of MP3's, that aspect isn't the focal point of this topic. I only write MP3s on CD not for business, but because I enjoy the music. Music is too expensive - full stop.
Music though isn't a thing that can be free or not free. It's just music. When I recall "Wannabe" by The Spice Girls in my head, it can't be drilled out of my head, I can't be arrested for it. It's hard, and that's probably a bad example, but it is one! When I whistle something I made up, that's mine and it's free, I can do what I want with it; sell it (you wanna buy?), I'm losing focus now. Basically I think it's good that music is available online now regardless of the fee, as it is quite convenient. I hope those who don't want their music to be free, and those who do, get their way. Illegal MP3 trading will always be rife and hard to monitor unfortunately, but atleast sites like Emusic, iCrunch and now Napster are offering legal pay alternatives so you're putting money in your artists pockets and getting legal music, no need to buy the CD. But illegal MP3 trading also can benefit the sales of tangible mediums.
Free is good, and pay is good. For distribution to exist and be successful, common sense dictates you need a bit of both, or you're never going to hear music in the first place, and never get the chance to buy it.
Thanks for reading.
Firebalt.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Even with Napster going all legal allegedly soon, it's not really the end of illegal MP3 trading is it? Napster was just one trading tool, the most popular one. Trading via other tools will still commence, it's just the way it is. It's spread like wildfire, no-one can stop it now. At least then if Napster of all of them goes legal, the record companies will be somewhat happy and will work with Napster rather than rally against it. Downloadable music has undoubtedly become very popular in a short space of time, and if you can't beat them you join 'em. It's the only way to go.
Now as to whether music should be free to share. It's yes and no. If Metallica don't want to give away their music for free that's fine, and if U2 do want to give their music away that's good too!
It doesn't take a genius to know that artists and labels whose careers are solely based on music need to make their money, and if their art is being given away free and without consent then they'll be making nothing, which in turn means no incentive to keep on making music or no way to pay those bills etc and that's the clear reason why music should be paid for. They're giving us product, and we're paying for it. It's exchange. We wouldn't like it if artists stole money from our pockets.
On the other hand, bands like U2 don't really care as long as they get their music across lately. Granted if they weren't so rich already they'd be singing a different tune, but they've reached a status where they can say "Ok, we're mega-rich, we can give some stuff away for free". New bands have nothing much to lose as they want their presence to be known more than their wallets at the start; it's mainly bands inbetween who will have a gripe about it and that's understandable.
Then again, who likes to cram their hard disk with lots of small-to-big files of music? I'm sure there's some, but the way I personally see it is that music on MP3 doesn't touch CD's or whatever, firstly because even though the actual sound quality is virtually similar, MP3's aren't really tangible (let's forget about portable MP3 players for the moment). I and many others like their music in a tangible format! Granted, I download a reasonable ammount of MP3's, but I don't cram my hard-drive to the brim with them - I write them to a CD and be done with it. Singles are overly expensive at £3.99, whereas an album is £12.99 or less. No, I'm not a cheap skate, but it's the pure principle of it all.
Many music fans are record collectors, they buy the whole package; the CD, the artwork - the officialness of it. A true purchase, a dedication to the artist. Whether they like the record or not is indifferent, but sampling MP3's helps you make an informed choice eh? If I heard an MP3 of a bad song I was curious about, it'd help me steer of that decision while a good one would have the opposite effect; that's one good thing about free music; the complete good-quality online listening post aspect of it. Try before you buy really; isn't that what most MP3 traders use it for, though sometimes people just hunt for the odd song from an album they don't want to buy, but seriously what can you do? Even with no Napster, there'll be some other way always.
I'd love to buy original music CD's, but they're too expensive for my budget. I have to make money the hard way. No jobs suit me and I don't get any pocket money, so downloading them is the only way. I want to be able to play music more than just on my computer, so I burn them to a CD, leaving my hard drive free from virus-clad MP3 files.
Then again, there are pirates who burn CD's and MD's of illegal MP3's, and sell them off. But you can't blame free music on the net, as that has happened regardless even before the advent of MP3's, that aspect isn't the focal point of this topic. I only write MP3s on CD not for business, but because I enjoy the music. Music is too expensive - full stop.
Music though isn't a thing that can be free or not free. It's just music. When I recall "Wannabe" by The Spice Girls in my head, it can't be drilled out of my head, I can't be arrested for it. It's hard, and that's probably a bad example, but it is one! When I whistle something I made up, that's mine and it's free, I can do what I want with it; sell it (you wanna buy?), I'm losing focus now. Basically I think it's good that music is available online now regardless of the fee, as it is quite convenient. I hope those who don't want their music to be free, and those who do, get their way. Illegal MP3 trading will always be rife and hard to monitor unfortunately, but atleast sites like Emusic, iCrunch and now Napster are offering legal pay alternatives so you're putting money in your artists pockets and getting legal music, no need to buy the CD. But illegal MP3 trading also can benefit the sales of tangible mediums.
Free is good, and pay is good. For distribution to exist and be successful, common sense dictates you need a bit of both, or you're never going to hear music in the first place, and never get the chance to buy it.
Thanks for reading.
Firebalt.
Now as to whether music should be free to share. It's yes and no. If Metallica don't want to give away their music for free that's fine, and if U2 do want to give their music away that's good too!
It doesn't take a genius to know that artists and labels whose careers are solely based on music need to make their money, and if their art is being given away free and without consent then they'll be making nothing, which in turn means no incentive to keep on making music or no way to pay those bills etc and that's the clear reason why music should be paid for. They're giving us product, and we're paying for it. It's exchange. We wouldn't like it if artists stole money from our pockets.
On the other hand, bands like U2 don't really care as long as they get their music across lately. Granted if they weren't so rich already they'd be singing a different tune, but they've reached a status where they can say "Ok, we're mega-rich, we can give some stuff away for free". New bands have nothing much to lose as they want their presence to be known more than their wallets at the start; it's mainly bands inbetween who will have a gripe about it and that's understandable.
Then again, who likes to cram their hard disk with lots of small-to-big files of music? I'm sure there's some, but the way I personally see it is that music on MP3 doesn't touch CD's or whatever, firstly because even though the actual sound quality is virtually similar, MP3's aren't really tangible (let's forget about portable MP3 players for the moment). I and many others like their music in a tangible format! Granted, I download a reasonable ammount of MP3's, but I don't cram my hard-drive to the brim with them - I write them to a CD and be done with it. Singles are overly expensive at £3.99, whereas an album is £12.99 or less. No, I'm not a cheap skate, but it's the pure principle of it all.
Many music fans are record collectors, they buy the whole package; the CD, the artwork - the officialness of it. A true purchase, a dedication to the artist. Whether they like the record or not is indifferent, but sampling MP3's helps you make an informed choice eh? If I heard an MP3 of a bad song I was curious about, it'd help me steer of that decision while a good one would have the opposite effect; that's one good thing about free music; the complete good-quality online listening post aspect of it. Try before you buy really; isn't that what most MP3 traders use it for, though sometimes people just hunt for the odd song from an album they don't want to buy, but seriously what can you do? Even with no Napster, there'll be some other way always.
I'd love to buy original music CD's, but they're too expensive for my budget. I have to make money the hard way. No jobs suit me and I don't get any pocket money, so downloading them is the only way. I want to be able to play music more than just on my computer, so I burn them to a CD, leaving my hard drive free from virus-clad MP3 files.
Then again, there are pirates who burn CD's and MD's of illegal MP3's, and sell them off. But you can't blame free music on the net, as that has happened regardless even before the advent of MP3's, that aspect isn't the focal point of this topic. I only write MP3s on CD not for business, but because I enjoy the music. Music is too expensive - full stop.
Music though isn't a thing that can be free or not free. It's just music. When I recall "Wannabe" by The Spice Girls in my head, it can't be drilled out of my head, I can't be arrested for it. It's hard, and that's probably a bad example, but it is one! When I whistle something I made up, that's mine and it's free, I can do what I want with it; sell it (you wanna buy?), I'm losing focus now. Basically I think it's good that music is available online now regardless of the fee, as it is quite convenient. I hope those who don't want their music to be free, and those who do, get their way. Illegal MP3 trading will always be rife and hard to monitor unfortunately, but atleast sites like Emusic, iCrunch and now Napster are offering legal pay alternatives so you're putting money in your artists pockets and getting legal music, no need to buy the CD. But illegal MP3 trading also can benefit the sales of tangible mediums.
Free is good, and pay is good. For distribution to exist and be successful, common sense dictates you need a bit of both, or you're never going to hear music in the first place, and never get the chance to buy it.
Thanks for reading.
Firebalt.