 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
2 edits | Justification? I can understand the outrage of paying $15+ for a CD with one good song. That tactic led to the huge rap boom as the artists and record labels played it up big time. It enraged me and led to me downloading a CD before buying it because I had 50 or so CDs that were utterly crap aside from the released single.
However, that is no longer the case. There are a myriad of ways to purchase legal music, all of them now DRM free. So what is the justification for downloading music illegally when you can get a song for $.99 and the whole CD for $9.99 or less ... DRM free? |
|
| said by Matt:So what is the justification for downloading music illegally when you can get a song for $.99 and the whole CD for $9.99 or less ... DRM free? Did you forget what its like being college poor?
Plus you will always people unwilling to actually save and pay for what they want! |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:I can understand the outrage of paying $15+ for a CD with one good song. That tactic led to the huge rap boom as the artists and record labels played it up big time. It enraged me and led to me downloading a CD before buying it because I had 50 or so CDs that were utterly crap aside from the released single. However, that is no longer the case. There are a myriad of ways to purchase legal music, all of them now DRM free. So what is the justification for downloading music illegally when you can get a song for $.99 and the whole CD for $9.99 or less ... DRM free? Its all about money now. Why spend money on music when you can get it for free? Why buy that game when you can get it for free? There is no real justification for it now other than being too damn cheap. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Nightfall:There is no real justification for it now other than being too damn cheap. Or a thief.  |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:However, that is no longer the case. There are a myriad of ways to purchase legal music, all of them now DRM free. So what is the justification for downloading music illegally when you can get a song for $.99 and the whole CD for $9.99 or less ... DRM free? The RIAA screwed themselves on this one. They took so long to allow the sale of DRM free music online at a reasonable price that they were beat out handily by their sole competitor in that area: P2P. I remember looking forward to going to the record store every week and buying 2 or 3 new cassettes (and later CD's). New release tuesday and the occasional midnight madness sale was a special occasion (I still remember the midnight sale for Metallica, Snoop Dogg's first album and a million other artists). It was so much a part of the culture that I didn't give a second thought to dropping my hard earned cash for a shiny new disc, even if it meant I got the occasional dud.
But record companies took their typical response to new technology ("Call the lawyers! Let's sue the pants off of the bastards!") and in doing so missed an opportunity from which P2P has seen unprecedented success. I could understand this happening once, but this happens every time some advancement in technology comes about. Radio, 8 track, cassette, CD's, internet. Each medium has been mistreated and feared by the RIAA and each brought great success once finally adopted. Ever hear the saying "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"?
The **AA's never realized that they can't drive the market, they can only react to it. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | I think you're missing the point. The RIAA did miss the market, and they're still missing the market. The price of songs is still too high.
I just finished playing Star Ocean: The Last Hope, which took me 78 hours to complete and cost $60. For a price of 76 cents per hour, I got interactivity, video, and music. Instead, I could have watched The Dark Knight, which cost around $30 on blu-ray, which provides 10 hrs (movie + special features) of video and music (but no interactivity) at $3/hr. Or, I could listen to RIAA hit singles, which provide new entertainment at 99 cents for a four minute song, at a total price of $15/hr.
Why would I ever want to buy music, or even movies, for that matter, when games provide a far better deal? With each level of entertainment, you're paying more and getting less. Star Ocean even includes hours worth of music performed by a symphony orchestra - whereas I could instead have spent my money on similar quality music that has no visuals or interactivity and costs 20 times more.
I don't buy music because I don't value it at 99 cents per song, and they will have to lower the price considerably before I reconsider. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by quintin3265:I think you're missing the point. The RIAA did miss the market, and they're still missing the market. The price of songs is still too high.I just finished playing Star Ocean: The Last Hope, which took me 78 hours to complete and cost $60. For a price of 76 cents per hour, I got interactivity, video, and music. Instead, I could have watched The Dark Knight, which cost around $30 on blu-ray, which provides 10 hrs (movie + special features) of video and music (but no interactivity) at $3/hr. Or, I could listen to RIAA hit singles, which provide new entertainment at 99 cents for a four minute song, at a total price of $15/hr. Why would I ever want to buy music, or even movies, for that matter, when games provide a far better deal? With each level of entertainment, you're paying more and getting less. Star Ocean even includes hours worth of music performed by a symphony orchestra - whereas I could instead have spent my money on similar quality music that has no visuals or interactivity and costs 20 times more. I don't buy music because I don't value it at 99 cents per song, and they will have to lower the price considerably before I reconsider. Choosing not to buy is fine by me.
Choosing not to buy but download anyway is not.
Boycotting has been around for a long time, and in this case, the people who are speaking out with their wallets are not doing so with their downloading activities. Imagine how much REAL progress would have been made if people stopped buying, but also downloading at the same time. The RIAA and MPAA would have caved. Instead, you have people who believe they can (and will) save money by not spending on these products and downloading at will. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| It seems to me that, if you buy the RIAA's argument, boycotting without downloading is the same as boycotting with downloading, because either way the RIAA receives no money (according to them). I'm confused as to why you say there would be any difference in effect if people stopped downloading.
Anyway, this argument over how much damage is actually caused by downloading has been hashed out enough here and everywhere. I don't really care about what happens to the RIAA because their prices are still too high. Maybe other people value music at $15/hr, but I certainly won't pay that much. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by quintin3265:It seems to me that, if you buy the RIAA's argument, boycotting without downloading is the same as boycotting with downloading, because either way the RIAA receives no money (according to them). I'm confused as to why you say there would be any difference in effect if people stopped downloading. Anyway, this argument over how much damage is actually caused by downloading has been hashed out enough here and everywhere. I don't really care about what happens to the RIAA because their prices are still too high. Maybe other people value music at $15/hr, but I certainly won't pay that much. Its very simple.
If no one is buying or downloading, the RIAA would have seen that there is no activity going on with their products. As it is today, the RIAA can claim copyright infringement due to the fact that a lot of their product is being distributed illegally over P2P networks. Their product does have a demand attached to it and as it stands, if the product is free, its in heavy demand.
I suppose the whole argument that the music industry hasn't put anything out that is worth a damn in the last year really isn't accurate. If that was the case, no one would be downloading at all.
As it stands today, the RIAA sees the demand and is willing to do what it takes to squash that free delivery method. Its obvious that there is a pretty good amount of monetary damage going on here. As you said, it has been hashed out enough here and everywhere.
The point is simply this. Consumers should be boycotting the RIAA. They shouldn't be saying they are boycotting them, but downloading freely. A boycott the right way means to be not purchasing or using any of their products at all. The whole "Robin Hood" mentality really doesn't help matters. |
|
|
|
| reply to quintin3265
Too high? $1 is too high for a song?
What do you think is a good price? Or perhaps they should pay you to download a song?
Head for the soup kitchen. Maybe they'll play the song while you get some free grub. |
|
