The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, today I saw that Newsround program... you know, the one on the BBC in between the kids programs. Well anyway, it had this thing about the music industry and HMV having a scheme for people to download songs legally for a monthly fee. For this fee you can listen to a certain number of songs (like stream them, you can’t download/save them), 'rent' a certain number (you get them for a month I think) and download properly a certain number of songs (5 I think it was) to burn to a CD.
Anyway, I was thinking about this. Who will actually do it? I mean, many people download free MP3s. But you can actually get free MP3s legally from a fair few sites. Some bands / labels official websites have free MP3s for download, which is totally legal. And why do people use MP3s anyway? I for one use them to check out a band so I don’t waste money buying their CD before I know what they sound like. Sure, I may listen to an MP3 song, enjoy it, and never get the bands CD. But if a track really blows me away, I will usually make the effort to buy the real deal. Why? To support the band. If I really like a band, I want to support them, I want to have the real CD, I want the band to succeed. And I’m sure there are a fair few more out there like me, who use MP3s primarily to check out bands / artists to see if its worthwhile getting a CD by them.
But I also know that many people do just download MP3s and don’t get the CDs. Certain bands (GreenDay did it with Warning I believe...) have released whole albums over the internet before the CD is even released. And it’s not illegal, because the band did it. This is probably harming the music industry, but a lot of bands just want to be heard and enjoyed, so they have no problem with free MP3s. Of course there are also plenty of other groups who are concerned (Metallica for instance sued Napster) and obviously the record company execs are going to be very worried.
But going back to my original question, who is actually going to pay for this privilege of getting MP3s? Someone like me who uses MP3s to check out bands certainly won’t, if I really like the band I’ll try to get their CD. People who want to download whole CDs etc. aren’t likely to, as they won’t be able to download enough tracks permanently or afford them all. So basically it’s the few people who feel guilty about getting free MP3s from an industry that pretty much screws over everyone from the fans to the bands. There’s a band called Fugazi who charge about $10 for all their albums. That’s about £6-7. And they are actually a popular band. They remain pretty underground, but they are popular. They could charge a lot more. If they were on a major record label the label would be squeezing as much profit from the band as possible at the expense of fans.
So is the music industry going to fail to ever make a profit from MP3s? Whenever they sue the proverbial underwear off one download service (ie. Napster, Audio Galaxy) another one will pop up soon enough. And when many bands support free MP3s there’s little the industry can do. But there is one problem. While you’re not funding the music industry if you’re getting your free MP3s, you’re also not funding the artist who makes the music. And while the prospect of your little sister getting Britney Spears songs without funding her may sound welcoming, if you actually like the artist, you may not feel so good about it.
I don’t see MP3s as causing the downfall of artists making a living out of music. In fact it actually helps spread the word. You can recommend a band to a friend who lives miles away from you and transfer the song in minutes over the internet. So, while I don’t see MP3s making the music industry redundant, or making them a big fat wad of cash, they do have good and bad points for both bands and their fans.
So next time you are downloading a Counting Crows (for Rasta), Linkin Park (for Jericho), Far (for MWA) or Mandy Moore (*sigh*, for Cooky) song for free, maybe you’ll think about it in a different light...
Anyway, I was thinking about this. Who will actually do it? I mean, many people download free MP3s. But you can actually get free MP3s legally from a fair few sites. Some bands / labels official websites have free MP3s for download, which is totally legal. And why do people use MP3s anyway? I for one use them to check out a band so I don’t waste money buying their CD before I know what they sound like. Sure, I may listen to an MP3 song, enjoy it, and never get the bands CD. But if a track really blows me away, I will usually make the effort to buy the real deal. Why? To support the band. If I really like a band, I want to support them, I want to have the real CD, I want the band to succeed. And I’m sure there are a fair few more out there like me, who use MP3s primarily to check out bands / artists to see if its worthwhile getting a CD by them.
But I also know that many people do just download MP3s and don’t get the CDs. Certain bands (GreenDay did it with Warning I believe...) have released whole albums over the internet before the CD is even released. And it’s not illegal, because the band did it. This is probably harming the music industry, but a lot of bands just want to be heard and enjoyed, so they have no problem with free MP3s. Of course there are also plenty of other groups who are concerned (Metallica for instance sued Napster) and obviously the record company execs are going to be very worried.
But going back to my original question, who is actually going to pay for this privilege of getting MP3s? Someone like me who uses MP3s to check out bands certainly won’t, if I really like the band I’ll try to get their CD. People who want to download whole CDs etc. aren’t likely to, as they won’t be able to download enough tracks permanently or afford them all. So basically it’s the few people who feel guilty about getting free MP3s from an industry that pretty much screws over everyone from the fans to the bands. There’s a band called Fugazi who charge about $10 for all their albums. That’s about £6-7. And they are actually a popular band. They remain pretty underground, but they are popular. They could charge a lot more. If they were on a major record label the label would be squeezing as much profit from the band as possible at the expense of fans.
So is the music industry going to fail to ever make a profit from MP3s? Whenever they sue the proverbial underwear off one download service (ie. Napster, Audio Galaxy) another one will pop up soon enough. And when many bands support free MP3s there’s little the industry can do. But there is one problem. While you’re not funding the music industry if you’re getting your free MP3s, you’re also not funding the artist who makes the music. And while the prospect of your little sister getting Britney Spears songs without funding her may sound welcoming, if you actually like the artist, you may not feel so good about it.
I don’t see MP3s as causing the downfall of artists making a living out of music. In fact it actually helps spread the word. You can recommend a band to a friend who lives miles away from you and transfer the song in minutes over the internet. So, while I don’t see MP3s making the music industry redundant, or making them a big fat wad of cash, they do have good and bad points for both bands and their fans.
So next time you are downloading a Counting Crows (for Rasta), Linkin Park (for Jericho), Far (for MWA) or Mandy Moore (*sigh*, for Cooky) song for free, maybe you’ll think about it in a different light...
Page:
i would not do that. there are many sites you can download from, like napster, they just haven't been found yet. they aren't mp3's just music, and you can download vidoes, images, and many other things. there are others that you only pay a small monthly fee for, and you can download all you want...
Mr Ripper wrote:
> as has probably also been said before, record compaines don't charge
> £15 for an album, it's the stores that sell them that do that.
> record companies probably sell the albums to the likes of woolworths
> for around £8.
The answer...? Where possible buy CDs direct from the record label. Most independant labels do this. Certain labels I know of in the UK I can get albums from for around £5-£8. Sure, if the label is based in the US you're probably gonna have to fork out shipping, but it'll probably still be cheaper than say, HMV.
> as has probably also been said before, record compaines don't charge
> £15 for an album, it's the stores that sell them that do that.
> record companies probably sell the albums to the likes of woolworths
> for around £8.
The answer...? Where possible buy CDs direct from the record label. Most independant labels do this. Certain labels I know of in the UK I can get albums from for around £5-£8. Sure, if the label is based in the US you're probably gonna have to fork out shipping, but it'll probably still be cheaper than say, HMV.
Cooky, not all the artists are millionaires, but I think that the artists that lose out most from MP3s are in fact those that can afford to (ie. the Millionaires) and those that gain are the small time bands. I mean there are plenty of bands who I have heard through MP3s whose albums I am trying to get a hold of now. The established artists can afford it if not every single one of their fans doesn't go out to buy their CD and it's only the established artists who can afford to sue the MP3 distribution programs (ie. Metallica with Napster). If you are an up and coming band you want to get the word out however possible, the losers are 'big' bands (who should probably give something back to their fans anyway, after all it's only because of them these artists can afford their big houses, fast cars, drug habits, private jets, whatever...) and the record labels...
As for the actually point of the post.
A pay scheme for MP3's is completely pointless.
Why pay to listen to a mp3/song temporally, when you could just download the song from somewhere else for free, and keep it on your computer. The other problem with that scheme is that it's banking on people having a decent enough connection to be able to stream the music. I'm using a 33.3k modem, and I dunno if that'd be good enough for a decent quality stream.
It's a pointless n stupid idea.
Most people if they like an artist will go out and buy an album if they really like band/singer. I don't honestly think MP3's are that bad for the music industry!
Just look at the artists. They're all millionaires!
:)
A pay scheme for MP3's is completely pointless.
Why pay to listen to a mp3/song temporally, when you could just download the song from somewhere else for free, and keep it on your computer. The other problem with that scheme is that it's banking on people having a decent enough connection to be able to stream the music. I'm using a 33.3k modem, and I dunno if that'd be good enough for a decent quality stream.
It's a pointless n stupid idea.
Most people if they like an artist will go out and buy an album if they really like band/singer. I don't honestly think MP3's are that bad for the music industry!
Just look at the artists. They're all millionaires!
:)
Or†ega wrote:
> Aye, Jessica Simpson is much fitter than Mandy Moore. Although Mandy
> Moore is still pretty fit.
Pahh! Your all BLIND! BLIND I tell ya! JS is no way near as good lookin' as MM!
:)
> Aye, Jessica Simpson is much fitter than Mandy Moore. Although Mandy
> Moore is still pretty fit.
Pahh! Your all BLIND! BLIND I tell ya! JS is no way near as good lookin' as MM!
:)
Monkey_With_Attitude wrote:
> Firstly, well done Cooky...Many Moore is fit. When I first saw her I
> was like :-O! Then I had to go to the bathroom.
She's a good singer n actress too!
:)
> Firstly, well done Cooky...Many Moore is fit. When I first saw her I
> was like :-O! Then I had to go to the bathroom.
She's a good singer n actress too!
:)
Sibs wrote:
> So next time you are downloading a Counting Crows (for Rasta)
:-D
> So next time you are downloading a Counting Crows (for Rasta)
:-D
Bah, just leave me to be happy with my ill-informed opinion ;-)
Still, if people can get perfectly good quality music as easily as this for free, why pay for a CD/service?
Still, if people can get perfectly good quality music as easily as this for free, why pay for a CD/service?
as has probably also been said before, record compaines don't charge £15 for an album, it's the stores that sell them that do that. record companies probably sell the albums to the likes of woolworths for around £8.
As has been said before, if they didn't want people to download MP3s and burn them onto albums rather than buying them, they shouldn't charge £15 for an album.
Page: