Downloading Myth

I have no idea where that money goes. I think it may only apply to Music CDRs and not data CDRs. Data CDRs are pretty damn cheap these days, so I don't know how much money would actually be collected these days at $.07 each in some cases.

The companies that make Data CDRs (which is just about all of the same ones that make Music CDRs) kind of suckerpunched the whole CDR movement. Add that to the downloading problem and lack of CD singles and it has created a monster.

 

The question is whether they buy fewer CDs than they would have purchased without access to file-swapping or CD burning.


I can only go to myself. I download a lot music now, and I buy MUCH more now than before. Why? Because now I know there is many good albums that I would not know of if I haven't downloaded the music.
So MP3 for me have cost me MORE money and the record labels should be happy with this.

 

Agree that it costs money to make a recording. That's called added value. It's at the crux of why recorded music should not be distributed to listeners for free. Disagree that bands who don't have a lot of expenses should charge less for CD's. Videos and advertising are supposed to increase sales. Last time I looked they charge admission to concerts. The recording supports the concert tour, not the other way around. So there's no reason alternative bands shouldn't charge as much for their CD's as Madonna. Then again, some don't.

 

When all those end-of-the-years lists are published on a bizzillion websites, I go through them and start downloading tracks from Kazaa, or check out samples on Amazon. I bought a number of great records thanks to file sharing.

 

Exactly Ron. I guess people see what they want to see.

 

Does downloading cut into CD sales? I think the answer is "it depends." For people like us -- collectors/heavy consumers of music -- I'm sure that downloading leads to many sales by exposing us to unfamiliar artists.

But, of course, we're not representative of the general population (as the buy one CD every 15 weeks data shows). Teenagers and young adults traditionally buy far more albums than old fogeys like ourselves, and they -- who have less money to spend, easy access to computers, and little appreciation for intellectual property rights -- are probably more likely to see their purchasing options as either "buy a CD from Artist X" or "download Artist X's album for free and use the money to buy a DVD/new pants/video game." I know anecdotally that a lot of them choose the second option.

So from a business standpoint, the question for the record companies is, Does the increase in purchases from Group A outweigh the loss of sales from Group B? I have yet to see a study that adequately answers this. Certainly I support (from a legal standpoint) their right to limit downloading, as they own the material and they're entirely within their right to protect their property. But they'd be smart to keep an open mind to the possibility that file sharing does have some benefits for them, just as some hip-hop labels now intentionally leak advance copies of an album to bootleggers in order to build interest on the street in their artist.

 

I am not even going to go here.....

ooppss...

 

Spinal Tap and Kingsmen bass player Harry Shearer had a nice piece in the NYT Week in Review section two weeks ago arguing that record companies are chasing the wrong market demographically. They should be making records for people who have disposable income.

 

But, here is the big question. And this goes for anyone that downloads: If you downloaded a record by a new or artist, or even an established artist you didn't want to take a risk on with a new CD purchase, do you DELETE the files or do you keep them even if you decided not to make a purchase.

Most people who download, do it because they can. There are countless resources out there to sample most new releases. A few snippets on Amazon, the artist's website, a free download promotion etc. They download these tracks just to have them. I have a friend that has discs upon discs of downloaded MP3s of crap that I KNOW he doesn't listen to (actually, he has really bad taste in music) just because it was on a newsgroup (the original Napster).

 

In the US, it only applies to the "music" CD-Rs. Data CD-Rs for computers are exepmt from the tax.

 

Again, this is very true. The companies just can't seem to break out of their business model and old-line of thinking. They hire twentysomethings who don't have a clue as to what their parent's generation wants. The music scene is so fractured nowadays, they can't even figure out what their own generation wants. The older guys who run things don't have a clue and don't care.

 

It seems to me that the ones who benifit most from file downloading are those with high speed connections, which means your average college student.

Hmmmm, if the companies stop marketing so much music to this demographic, they may not download so much. In other words, all they have to do is dry up the market. The indie labels will take the slack. They don't mind the downloading phenomenon as much, and in fact, encourage it. Problem is, they all also risk losing future customers.

 

Do you have any facts to back up this statement? I never heard of indie labels encouraging people to download their music. What labels are you specifically talking about?

 

I used to keep that stuff on CD-Rs, but I haven't touched them in years now. I went through a couple discs recently (looking for a Beatles boot I had downloaded) and found that most of the stuff I had downloaded was purchased by now. The unpurchased stuff was music that I felt was ok, but nothing I would buy. It's on a CD-R, but I don't and won't listen to it. It went in the trash.

So is anybody really losing out? The stuff is on a CD and nobody is listening to it. Would this guy have bought the album? Probably not. The record company hasn't LOST a dollar (and the artist hasn't lost a penny).

 

Excellent point, but I am assuming most of us on this forum have rather large music collections. Does that mean if you had a record you bought 5 years ago and never listen to it, you shouldn't have had to pay for it? Of course you should have.

BOB

 

When you decide you don't want that record you bought 5 years ago, you can take it to a used store and sell it or trade it in for something else. Somebody else pays the record store for it... no money going to the label or artist.

Now the guy who doesn't listen to those MP3 files anymore can't do anything with it. It's like cassette copies you made of a friend's LP. No record store will take it. You never paid for the stuff, your friend did.

(Playing the devil's advocate here...)

 

1) It has been said that the small indie labels like the publicity the music on their label gets from file downloading. It's cheap. Nothing beter than word of mouth.

2) There is a little forum rule about requiring someone to back uo their claims. Believe it or not, it's there. It's about the same as badgering.

3) Not everyone in the world is so dogmatic about law. That's why we have a court system.

4) I'm not getting into another pissing match with you. I remember the last two threads on this issue.

5) You have legal training, you do the legwork. I seem to recall you lecturing me on looking for facts...

6) I sese the Gorts are now reviewing and revising the forum rules on debating, badgering, baiting, threadcrapping, ect...

 

False, there's no such rule. As long as the person is being polite, we have no problem with someone asking another member to back up their claims. If you don't want to back them up, just say so. At that point both parties are expected to let the matter drop.

Also false. There is no such "review" under way.

Grant - the rest of your post directed at Mike was rude, and appeared to be no more than an attempt into baiting him into a fight. If you don't want to talk to him, then don't talk to him. No need to try and get in the last word.

jeff

 

Thank you for the clarification HZ. I will adhere to the spirit and the letter of the rules.

 

My post was worded poorly, but it seems that everytime I make a post Mike pops up. I wasn't attempting to bait him, I was avoiding being baited by HIM!

I ask only that Mike reserve trying people on the witness stand, not in this forum!

 

Grant, Mike was being perfectly reasonable:

 

Are all members required to qualify their statements? I'm not trying to make this a major issue, but is this poster required to back up this:

My point is, if everyone were required to back up thier posts with evidence, there would be no forum. A forum is here for opinions. An opinion shouldn't have to be defended. Not that I have an objection to it, it's the principle of it, and the history i've had with the person doing the asking.

 

If someone asks the original poster to show the facts and the poster has them to offer then everyone comes out the wiser. If nobody asks then it's a non-issue, don't you think?

 

I have to go to work, but why make it an issue? OK, how about if everyone who presents an opinion gets asked to back it up. Isn't that why A/B debates are banned?

 

No, that's not why they're banned.

Grant, get over this. It's perfectly reasonable to ask someone where they got their information. It can turn into badgering, but that's not usually the case. And it wasn't here. Mike asked you in ONE post where you heard your information. You came off the rails way too quickly.

I'd like to also remind you that if you feel someone IS badgering/baiting/attacking you, contact a moderator. Grant, I KNOW I've asked you to come to a mod instead of posting your frustration in public at least 50 times.

Jeff