why i am still going to download mp3s illegally

free, instant, convenient, and unlimited supply/availability is pretty hard to compete with imo

i was willing to forgo the free!

also: http://digital.othermusic.com/search/index.php?KEYWORD=roisin+murphy

you have done the right thing. be sure to revive this thread if you end up buying the CD.

what i'm going to do is revive this thread every time i try to buy an album online and fail

yeah, there's loads of stuff i can't find to buy. deleted records, for example. but then again, there's a shedload of stuff i can't find on soulseek, either.

someone tell me where i can buy sorceror "white magic" online

i don't get it. why not buy the cd?

what the fuck do i need the cd for?

i want an mp3, delivered to me, right now

http://www.junodownload.com/ppps/products/1265494-02.htm

thank you, i will purchase

expensive because of the exchange rate but available.

on the regular juno site, they only have mp3 samples listed, with no link to the mp3 purchase site

he doesn't even have a link to buy it on mp3 on his own site, the jerk

what the fuck do i need the cd for?

i want an mp3, delivered to me, right now

-- cutty, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:14 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

sounds better.

weighs more

takes up too much space in small flat.

i mean one doesn't but lots do.

i don't want cds either. records, yes. mp3s yes. cds, no.

the reason that one guy that hit it and quit it would buy a cd over an mp3 has no bearing on why i, as a consumer, cannot purchase the new roisin murphy album, choosing whatever format i prefer to own

which, by the way, sounds great right now

I could not find 3% milk at the store. This is an outrage.

have people been stealing a lot of milk lately?

the reason that one guy that hit it and quit it would buy a cd over an mp3 has no bearing on why i, as a consumer, cannot purchase milk, choosing whatever format i prefer to own

that format exists, if i take it for free, which i just did. where is the free milk, bitch?

I've been passing a pint between my friends. It's kind of disgusting.

xpost

i mean, think about the cows

recording industry, i spent thousands of dollars on CDs and records from 2003 - 2006. let's just consider these next few years an overdue buy-back.

someone tell me where i can buy sorceror "white magic" online.

It's available on eMusic now.

even better, thank you, fellow member of the bar

is emusic legit?

I"ve always bought used product whenever possible until filesharing became popular. The only people who make money on used stuff are distributors--not the artists, not the copyright holders, etc.

emusic has been legit 4evas

My pleasure. There was a recent 17 Dots blog post on the disc.

Sorcerer

not to sound snobbish, but you all really think mp3s are worth paying for???

if vinyl / cds didn't exist i probably would, but as it is i can't imagine spending real life $cash$ on mp3s

babedad do you care about music or just fetishization of spurious consumption.

Also, no blood for oil

only reason I could think for buying a CD over higher-bitrate MP3s/AACs is resale if it sucks - but if I'm paying $2-3 less for the album, that more than covers what I can get at a used CD shop.

Still wary of buying regular iTunes tracks - it may be my imagination but I can hear a difference in the sound when I burn to a CD and play them on the road.

I could not find 3% milk at the store. This is an outrage.

-- Curt1s Stephens, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:25 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

you couldn't find whole milk at the store? srsly?

whole milk isn't 100%?

j/k

Still wary of buying regular iTunes tracks - it may be my imagination but I can hear a difference in the sound when I burn to a CD and play them on the road.

not your imagination, 128k AAC files suuuck.

amazon.mp3 = GODSEND

Whole milk is 3-4%. I demand 3% exactly.

are the amazon mp3s of higher quality than itunes or what?

Yeah, 256.

word? what's the speed like, etc.? basically since the oink thing i've bought a few albums off itunes, but is it worth it to register at amazon and download their player and whatever?

by download their player i mean download their download program.

Is 100% milk truly lossless?

why am i going to download feces into my workplace toilet??

I just paid tons of money to download a chunk of the LTM catalog from iTunes Plus. iTunes Plus files are 256k AAC files with no DMR.

Hey look at what else you can buy on iTunes Plus!

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=264128767&s=143441

Why would I download it when I bought it?

Keep me in furs and diamonds.

i can't see roisin murphy on emusic myself ????

sorceror is on emusic, not my homegirl roisin

I understand illegally downloading albums that aren't available anywhere, but if the only reason for downloading a new album is that you can't be arsed to walk to record store to buy the CD (which you can then turn to MP3s, if that's your preferred format), that's a pretty weak argument. It's not like Roisin Murphy is a multi-million selling megastar who doesn't need record sales at all.

I think the basic rule is, if the album is available and the artist is someone who might actually need the record sales to make a living, then it's very hard to morally justify not buying it.

I guess one argument against that is that the artist sees very little of the record's sale price. If you want to support them, you're better off buying merchandise or seeing them live.

I dunno, for example a lot Finnish rappers complain about downloading, not because they're mouthpieces for the big business, but because they're on small indie labels that actually provide them with a good percentage of the sales, or they own the label themselves.

Plus they're often even selling their records on a 5-10 euros lower price than the big labels, so I feel that if I have any respect for their work, I should buy the record.

Roisin Murphy is on EMI.

the businessmen, in their suits and ties, sexually harrassing the interns.

Is she? Okay, I guess it's a bit different then. Still, it seems the "artists get little money for record sales" argument is used much more by the downloaders than the artists themselves. Sure, their percentage could and should be higher, but somehow I doubt it's totally meaningless to them. And there are a lot of artists who don't/can't put out merchandise nor gig live.

(x-post)

major label marketing must partly create the conditions that enable her to tour, no?

What conditions? You mean her being popular at all, or something more specific?

I think everyone can put out merchandise.

by paying for P&A i guess -- it's difficult coz with her on the strength of work she's done, she could probably sustain some presence. how a new act builds profile without that -- obviously inefficient and rigged -- machine, i dunno.

Anyway, I'm not saying the current system has some doesn't have major flaws, but I would like to see at least some artists make a living out of making music, so unless we suddenly move into a socialist society where everything is shared collectively (which would be my ideal solution), it's kinda pretentious to say downloading doesn't affect musicians' living in any way.

What about buying a used CD Tuomas?

If you buy used CDs, then it's very easy to rationalize downloading.

Enrique - how emerging acts build profile without marketing machines is the fascinating and encouraging heart of the whole internet music revolution, no? We build up artists' profiles in a small way right here on ILM. As long as there are big traditional marketing machines in place, then they will swing the biggest punch, yes, but a world where they die off for lack of financial support? That's where it becomes really interesting.

it's kinda pretentious to say downloading doesn't affect musicians' living in any way.

I'm inclined to agree, if we're talking about the short-term at least. Though the sums on better exposure for independent artists via mp3 sharing vs lost revenue are not the clearest.

Do you remember when Garth Crooks tried to stop second-hand CD sales?

Brooks! Not Crooks!

(Garth Crooks trying to stop second-hand CD sales would have been totally awesome)

Then someone told Garth that it was totally legal to sell used product.

It's also, contrary to all the warning labels, totally legal to sell promo CDs.

it's kinda pretentious to say downloading doesn't affect musicians' living in any way.

I'm inclined to agree, if we're talking about the short-term at least. Though the sums on better exposure for independent artists via mp3 sharing vs lost revenue are not the clearest.

I think the way most non-major acts work today is, they put a few songs from their latest album on their Myspace or whatever, or put snippets of every song there. I think that's a decent enough compromise between getting exposure and giving people the incentive to actually buy the record.

Enrique - how emerging acts build profile without marketing machines is the fascinating and encouraging heart of the whole internet music revolution, no?

it's definitely fascinating...

We build up artists' profiles in a small way right here on ILM. As long as there are big traditional marketing machines in place, then they will swing the biggest punch, yes, but a world where they die off for lack of financial support? That's where it becomes really interesting.

it's definitely interesting too -- the kind of profile-building that happens here can't pay anyone's rent though. and i dunno which acts which are 'internet phenomena' have achieved that without being major label acts through and through.

possibly the music industry is going through something akin to what happened in movies a long time ago, though it's more complicated and completely different too... um...

Dandy - buying a used copy does support the artist indirectly because it reduces the number of copies in circulation by one, thereby hitting the supply-demand ratio and supporting the price of the new copies. In the simplest scenario, if someone goes into a second-hand record store and can't find the CD they wanted because you just bought the only copy, they are mroe likely to then buy a new copy in the shop down the road. Your purchase of that used copy drove that sale.

And if you think that sounds too abstruse, think how unlikely it is that a purchase of a new CD (of which, say, the artists' royalty cut is nominally £1.21) actually leads to £1.21 in their bank balance. Shops order in batches, so do distributors. The real way it works is that your purchase might occasionally be the tipping point for a new order and a cascading windfall, but most of the time the situation is more akin to the complexity of second-hand sale.

True, but that assumption relies on the availability of that title at any given time, which is further complicated by a dynamic number or static number. In other words, the same CD could get sold/resold many times over or there could be many copies of that title available used at any given time. It may only reduce the number of copies in circulation temporarily and that also assumes that subsitution won't occur. I'd argue that subsitution continues to be a strong element of the purchasing decision given that no brickandmortar store can stock the literally hundreds of thousands of titles available.

I'm not saying that used CDs don't hurt artists--they do. But it's not an even enforcement of copyright principles to allow used CD sales to continue.

It's only directly analogous if the original owner makes a copy of the CD before selling it on, though.

And I think we can assume that the practice of ripping CDs before selling is rampant.

Anyway, I assume only a small minority of records are resold, and even then it's usually just one person getting the record from another person who originally bought it, instead of 1000 people getting it from one guy who bought it, as with downloading, I think used CDs are a highly marginal problem compared to downloading as it comes to the artist's profits.

WHERE CAN I DOWNLOAD MP3 OF FINNISH RAPPAS

anyway the more you persist that i should be walking to the store or ordering a cd online to be shipped to me, the more the record industry dies

Certainly, but I hope you don't think you're on a morally high ground doing so.

Roisin Murphy's new album is available on the UK iTunes Store. I've no idea why it isn't there in your country, to be honest.

because geographical constraints still exist in a world where technology has advanced that they should not

Are you American? Cos the CD was released in the US two weeks ago, so that really would make no sense.

i am american, and the major "mp3 outlets" i mentioned at the top of this thread do not carry it.

i'm wondering why are people taking me to task on this?

like i'm asking too much to be able to buy a digital album legitimately?

Yeah, I really don't get why it wouldn't be on US iTunes. Maybe it's just a mistake, seeing as EMI are more in bed with Apple than any other company.

Used CDs are indeed a relatively marginal problem in practice, but they set up the mindset that it's okay to remove the proceeds from the producers. Once you allow that intellectual property can be unrestrictively resold, the argument for protection weakens significantly. This is aggravated further by OOP titles and the gross profit in that arena.

We're not criticizing that. I think you should be able to buy it digitally. I was criticizing the fact you seemed to say that this is enough of a justification to download it illegally instead of going to the record store.

(xx-post)

I dunno, for example a lot Finnish rappers

TuoPåc

tuomas do they even have an mp3 codec on amigas?

Amigas?

i'm wondering why are people taking me to task on this?

because yr acting like a big fucking baby throwing his toys out of the pram. yeah it sucks that legal downloads are a bit shit, but lots of things in life sucks, most people just deal. sure you can deal by going to slsk or whatever, i don't fucking care and i'm sure no one else really does (except maybe roisin) - whining about it endlessly and deluding yrself that you're some sort of hero standing up to THE MAN is just fucking tedious though. and complaining that taking 2 minutes to buy a (fantastic, well worth the money) cd online or even to haul yr lazy fat ass down to a shop is beyond you - lol. basically, yr coming off like a trust fund kid stamping their foot and throwing a tantrum b/c daddy's cut off their rent. this isn't about the morality or otherwise of illegal downloading, this is about you being a lazy, spoilt twat with an unbelievable sense of self-entitlement

Ogg Vorbis?

i don't agree lex. the demographic of someone in their underpants, in their bedroom, who wants to purchase a major label release instantly, doesn't only consist of me. also your vitriol is annoying.

also, approaching the whole situation with the the intent of giving money to "THE MAN" isn't really standing up to him, is it? i just wanted to hear it.

I want some pie for dessert tonight, but I don't feel like driving all the way to the store right now. I'll just steal it out of the neighbors' fridge. Because, you know, my sense of entitlement is more important than anything else.

WHEN THEY MAKE PIE AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD DIGITALLY WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT

lots of shitty metaphors in this thread

i don't agree lex. the demographic of someone in their underpants, in their bedroom, who wants to purchase a major label release instantly, doesn't only consist of me.

But you can order it instantly in your underpants, by buying it at an online record store. If all these people can't actually wait for the few days it takes for the CD to drop to their mailbox, then I'd say the problem is in them, not the system.

The problem may me with them, but if the system is unable to address a logistical problem, then there is a problem with the system as well

so basically ur saying it's like cutty wants a car but doesn't wanna walk down to the dealership!!!!! spoilt car thief!!!!!!!!!!!!##@!

I don't think I would consider instant gratification a "logistical problem" tho.

Nah, I actually feels cutty's pain. But usually I just order the damn thing from Amazon and find something else to listen to in the meantime.

The legit way cannot compete in price with illegal downloads

It therefore either has the choice to compete on everything else, or it can stick head in sand and blame consumer (rightly or wrongly)

Instant gratification is a logistical problem if instant gratification is obtainable by other means

That would make Jon's cake metaphor valid then: it's a question of instant gratification vs. morality.

Thank you Tuomas, that was exactly my point.

Then the industry should either console itself with some time on the moral high ground, or overcome the instant gratification logistical problem

Uh-oh - "morality".

Tuomas the point of the thread was that cutty wanted to do that, tried to do that, and failed. So he was then forced, as so many of us are, into a life of crime -- a decadent orgy, in fact, of sonic gratification, that the law would blanch to contemplate.

Tracer, you make me laugh with your decadent orgy imagery.

people, your milk and pie metaphors are really not cutting it

there is no widespread theft of milk and pie and my local corner deli is open 24 hours

The main difference is that stealing pies is much more difficult. If it'd be just as easy as downloading, would you do it?

For heaven's sake folks, stealing pies is a zero-sum game, stealing music is not.

I dunno, for example a lot Finnish bakers complain about pie-eating

Actually I think Cutty is quite right to get annoyed by this, given that:

a) it is the internet, you shouldn't have to wait 2-3 days for a CD to arrive, especially if you aren't particularly bothered about owning a physical CD.

b) so really it's the fault of the people distributing the music, who are perfectly capable of doing so, and doing so at high quality.

c) so they've actually taken a decision that the Roisin Murphy album isn't of sufficiently high priority to distribute online.

d) if they people who are going to be making most of the money off the album don't care enough about it to offer it for download, the chances are they don't care enough to market it properly. So Roisin Murphy is probably going to lose out no matter how good her album is.

e) if the people selling it don't give enough of a shit to make it easily accessible when such things are perfectly possible, why should any consumer give enough of a shit to buy it physically and give them more money?

f) I'm probably going to download the Roisin album, illegally.

g) At the end of the day Roisin's the undeserving loser here but she's probably making a tidy sum from The Time Is Now still being used at the beginning of every football match on Sky Sports so I'm sure she'll live.

f) and g) are not particularly constructive, really.

(Yes I'm aware I'm conflating the record company with the people actually selling the record here but the principle is the same.)

I think everyone agrees he has the right to get annoyed and that the album should be available online, what we disagreed about is that this should automatically give him the right download it illegally.

I don't think he said it was a right. He's just explaining why he will do it.

Fair enough. Still, I think the world is in a sad state if people can't be bothered enough to go to the nearest record store.

my detractors will disagree and find fault with whatever i post, it's ok

Yes, clearly you're a victim here.

What if it's not in the record store? Look, if it's not on iTunes what makes you think it's going to be in a record shop in New York or Helsinki?

Order it by mail. If you can't do that either, then I guess it's okay to download it.

as far as i know lex called me a baby, a trust fund whatever, spoiled, yeah i'm a fucking victim trying to discuss the state of the music industry and i get names thrown at me

Also stealing music off the internet is brilliant and everyone does it, including myself and most of the people getting on their moral high horse about it. Can we just all admit that we're bad people and move on? I'm sure worse things happen in the world.

Would it be OK to order the album or CD by post, and listen to an illegally downloaded version in the meantime? While exposing myself to an inanimate object named "FLippit"?

tuomas please give him your ok

Though to be honest I don't think any particular record can be considered an absolutely necessary commodity which everyone should have the right to obtain. There's enough music available for everyone to make everyone happy enough, even if they can't get some particular LP.

(xxx-post)

"Sorry, the album you requested is out of stock, would you prefer 'Pan Pipes Play The Music of Mozert' instead?"

Mozart, even.

Also it isn't about who does and does not have 'the right' to obtain something, it is the internet, it is perfectly possible to make every album ever made available for legal download.

I waited several months for the new Amerie album to be released in the U.S. I was patient as I saw the release date delayed once, then delayed again, then delayed a third time. At some point it disappeared from the release calendar altogether, at which point I said "OK fuck it" and fired up Limewire. Ironically, part of the reason I wanted to pay for it was to show support for an artist whose label treats her like shit, to let them know that she does have an audience, etc.

http://www.7digital.com/artists/roisin-murphy/overpowered-(3)/

?

duh, html parser.

just copy/paste the whole line in your address bar, ok?

ha for $16 for i ain't copy pastin shit

actually it's probably more than $16 these days

It's $16.51.

Would it be OK to order the album or CD by post, and listen to an illegally downloaded version in the meantime? While exposing myself to an inanimate object named "FLippit"?

Recently, I knew I was gonna buy the new PJ Harvey record (on vinyl) on payday, which was about a week away. I also knew that my record player would still be broken then & that I would illegally download it to actually listen to it. But still I waited that whole week, till I'd bought the thing, to do so. (Not out of some sense of 'morality' either, though I couldn't say what it was out of.)

i'm wondering why are people taking me to task on this?

because yr acting like a big fucking baby throwing his toys out of the pram. yeah it sucks that legal downloads are a bit shit, but lots of things in life sucks, most people just deal. sure you can deal by going to slsk or whatever, i don't fucking care and i'm sure no one else really does (except maybe roisin) - whining about it endlessly and deluding yrself that you're some sort of hero standing up to THE MAN is just fucking tedious though. and complaining that taking 2 minutes to buy a (fantastic, well worth the money) cd online or even to haul yr lazy fat ass down to a shop is beyond you - lol. basically, yr coming off like a trust fund kid stamping their foot and throwing a tantrum b/c daddy's cut off their rent. this isn't about the morality or otherwise of illegal downloading, this is about you being a lazy, spoilt twat with an unbelievable sense of self-entitlement

-- lex pretend, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 12:15 (3 hours ago) Link

I wish there was a bot that would insert words to this effect into every downloading debate everywhere, internet or otherwise.

there usually is

his comments really had no application to me at all in this discussion

Used CDs are indeed a relatively marginal problem in practice, but they set up the mindset that it's okay to remove the proceeds from the producers. Once you allow that intellectual property can be unrestrictively resold, the argument for protection weakens significantly. This is aggravated further by OOP titles and the gross profit in that arena.

-- Dandy Don Weiner, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:59 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

A lot of the problem (in my extremely non-lawyerly opinion) boils down to the fact that IP-related laws have generally been drafted with heavy consideration toward what's practical for money-making purposes at the time but then get treated subsequently as though they're descended from some platonic ideal. So the used CD issue didn't get fully dealt with because it was never enough of a problem for the industry's bottom line (though I'm sure some tried), but now all of the sudden there are infinitely replicable digital files and the used CD issue has set a problematic precedent.

But you could argue that you're buying "usage rights" to the music on a CD and that you can resell those rights (in CD form) to someone else - assuming you haven't copied the CD, you've transferred your rights. Hence used CD sales are not really "unrestrictive," whereas mp3 sharing is.

I still like having CDs so I will continue buying them. I tend to go used but will go new for particular releases.

are the amazon mp3s of higher quality than itunes or what?

-- J0rdan S., Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:34 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Yeah, 256.

-- If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:37 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I'm pretty sure that 256 mp3 beats 128 AAC but this is a bit of an oranges to tangerines comparison. Also, there's iTunes+

If all these people can't actually wait for the few days it takes for the CD to drop to their mailbox, then I'd say the problem is in them, not the system.

NO IT IS NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM.

Hey Tuomas, lex, etc. The deal here is that there is a model that record companies claim to accept, offer some goods on, and make a reasonable profit on -- maybe even greater than that made on a physical album. What cutty is saying is that the demand exists for this album to be legally downloaded. Not that he's a lazy asshole, or that he wants to be catered to. Only that:

A.) The legitimate market is there and wants to pay cash
B.) They are losing sales because the alternative, illegitimate market is giving him most of what he wants, minus the paying

Trust fund kids do the "wah wah, I want this now." He is saying "Well, I fucking have this now, and you didn't get your money. What are you going to do about it?"

its almost clementine season !!!!!!!!!

why is it 'moral' to buy cds?

My supposed problem is best described as "I would like to listen to this album." My solution is to go to my computer, which is my 21st century music purchasing system, and downloading said music. If the industry wants to be a part of this interaction, perhaps they would do well to offer me that music.

I bought some clementines the other week but they were sour and disgusting. I should have waited for the proper season instead of getting greedy and going for dodgy pre-release versions.

i have downloaded mp3s illegally. now i'd like to download them immorally. please advise.

"The Industry" is actually a huge fucking mess of different companies and rights holders and whatnot, so it's not like "The Industry" can just snap a finger and instantly make every album ever recorded available at a click by any means you want in any format.

I would rather buy a CD which has been mastered by professionals to sound a particular way and then rip electronic versions in a format/quality of my choosing as opposed to buying an electronic format/quality of someone else's choosing and backing them up on a CD.

i looooove clementines

dan, your personal preference is fine. but this isn't a cd vs. mp3 quality debate.

kazaa

I would rather buy a CD which has been mastered by professionals to sound a particular way and then rip electronic versions in a format/quality of my choosing as opposed to buying an electronic format/quality of someone else's choosing and backing them up on a CD.

-- HI DERE, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:40 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

waht about a lossless version

like itunes plus

why is it 'moral' to buy cds?

Or rather why is it immoral not to pay for music?

1) Because it's moral to pay money for products that are not intended to be free.

2) Because it's moral to follow laws that serve a reasonable purpose and don't run contrary to morality

3) Because it's moral to support the people who produce something you want and use (not only the artists but the labels and distributors and others who helped make it possible)

lolsless

I know, cutty. I hear your complaint; my answer to it is "fuck purchasing an mp3, I'm sticking with CDs".

waht about a lossless version

I'd still rather buy a CD and rip a lower-quality version of my choosing.

lex's post had a lol in it but he was definitely lolsless

1a) assuming they're not necessities that are being kept from a person in need by prohibitively high pricing or something like that

by the time my student loans and credit card debt are paid off and i could afford to buy music again we'll all be accessing the itunes store from the microchips in our head

the drums sound weird and crap in that rip though. god i fucking hate low-quality mp3s, why do people do them? still?

i don't think i've actually heard a decent quality version of this song which is REALLY ANNOYING.

-- lex pretend, Sunday, June 24, 2007 4:38 PM (4 months ago)

iTunes plus doesn't offer lossless.

emusic >>>>>> itunes

morality is a total downer dudes - clementines are better!

<quote>1a) assuming they're not necessities that are being kept from a person in need by prohibitively high pricing or something like that</quote>
Haha in other words it's an entitlement after all! "I'm happy to pay so long as I set the terms" I agree with everyone who has posted on this thread, except about the Clementines (you probably just bought from the wrong source), and the people who don't know what they're talking about

Make that [ ]

on a related note, i wish iTunes-LAME didn't suck so bad. i switched to high-quality AAC just cos it was so annoying.

Guys, does this post help in any way? I know I already linked to it on the OiNK thread, but I've read it a couple of times by now (the comment section too, pretty important), and it's quite relevant to all of this too:

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

nothing helps oink is gone and its not yet clementine season ;_;

International clementines are, even though they're probably more expensive and a little lossless, available all year round. You're talking about California clementines.

http://kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net/img/vrbsmp3.jpg

DAN PERRY RIGHT NOW

shape up stanm

ok :-)

xxpost: OggVorbis looks happier, but he has no feet!

thx

the record biz needs to take cues from the movie industry on retailing. you can walk into any shitty gas station in the country and find DVDs for 9.99. why is this not true of cds as well? if i'm getting a candy bar and i saw a single i liked for 1.99 or a comp for 7.99, maybe i'd buy it. but now i don't even have that option.

hollywood has done pretty well at making movies a ubiquitous, impulse-buy object and the music industry should and could do the same. if people aren't buying your product, make it more attractive! i mean fuck, if ford can do it...

hahahahahaha I was a big OggVorbis whore for YEARS

Gff - you can't do that? Loads of garages in this country have a CD rack, even if they're only selling ancient reggae, happy hardcore and soft rock compilations.

in Peru there are loads of cheap CDs in stores everywhere! Of course, they're all pirated...

but yeah, American gas stations and convenience stores are light on the CDs.

considering im going to pay 11.99 for the 12" of ONE roisin murphy song i wouldn't feel to guilty about downloading it

overpriced ass singles market

hahahahahaha I was a big OggVorbis whore for YEARS

-- HI DERE, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:09 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

yea me too until I got an iPod

^^^^^^ true

if i could get away with it, and wasn't lactose intolerant, i would steal milk and anything else that wasn't nailed down.

DAN N JON GAY 4 VORBIS

I still use QCD as my default mp3 player when I'm not scrobbling.

This some nerd handkerchief code shit

lololololol

DRM is like trying to nail down milk.

Gff - you can't do that? Loads of garages in this country have a CD rack, even if they're only selling ancient reggae, happy hardcore and soft rock compilations.

well yeah, this is true here too. the point is you can get 'real' movies anywhere, so why you can't get 'real' CDs in the same spots? not that i wouldn't recommend picking up an ancient reggae, happy hardcore or soft rock comp over 'memory's almost full' or whatever

My supposed problem is best described as "I would like to listen to this album." My solution is to go to my computer, which is my 21st century music purchasing system, and downloading said music. If the industry wants to be a part of this interaction, perhaps they would do well to offer me that music.

-- mh, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 4:36 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

jesus, everybody downloads illegally but you just sound like a complete cock here.

most of those selections of dvds are pretty lame to be fair. there is a parallel argument going on in movieland where you can get movies otherwise oop on dvds from the far east for pennies. given that movies disappear from screens completely in a way that records don't disappear even from 2nd hand record shops, it feels pretty legit to me. d/ling new movies is a different thing. there was a silly article somewhere saying "if it does kill the blockbusters, great", but the blockbusters do kind of fund everything else and keep the ecosystem going. the idea that the digital camera/editing and internet interface is somehow going to render proper movies irrelevant is kind of dumm.

I couldn't find "Big Night" on thepiratebay, so I'm against download movies at the moment

everybody downloads illegally

I think it's better to think that everybody (well, not everybody, but for sake of argument) downloads. Whether it's illegal or not has to do with economics and convenience. There will always be people who complain about a fair price, availability, etc. but when it comes down to it, a lot of people will pay for convenience.

I used to have some of the same albums as my roommates, but I had a copy because it was convenient for me to have. I probably bought it new because tracking down a used copy would have taken more time. I hate to get all Jeff Goldblum-in-Jurassic Park doing pseudoscientific bullshit with "nature finds a way," but people will find a way to get music they want.

Any music industry should be trying to figure out how to profit on the way music gets from point A to point B, not criticizing the route.

actually, economics, convenience, and what country you're in... copyright laws be iffy in some places

Thank you Rhino for not stocking the Joy Division reissues in any fucking store on the planet! I change my mind, cutty was right!

i want my sheet music.

God I would pirate classical scores in a HEARTBEAT.

Thank you Rhino for not stocking the Joy Division reissues in any fucking store on the planet! I change my mind, cutty was right!

Huh? I own a store and I have 'em. It's not Rhino's job to stock stores, I don't think--they press them and it's the store's job to buy them if it thinks it can sell a few. Or am I missing something?

I was being a smart-ass, I know its not Rhino's fault. Unless they are the ones that should keep store owners aware that they are out. I'm just frustrated because I can't find any store within twenty miles or so that has 'em.

a++ to am0n's tuomas zings itt

emusic >>>>>> itunes

-- am0n, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 16:51 (5 hours ago) Link

How is this true? I was under the impression that emusic mp3s are DRM'd out. Plus, no matter how much I want to/will pay to download more than 75 tracks in a month, I can't?

i don't think that is the case re: DRM

Dr., none of that is true. Songs on eMusic are DRM free. You can get 90 songs a month, and freely add ''booster packs'' that allow you to get many more (up to 150 more downloads a month, I think).

Also, some subscribers were recently given the option to further upgrade their plans. I now get 200 songs a month for $50. There were also plans for 100 and 300 downloads a month (it's $75/month for the 300 plan).

DEAR ILLEGAL FILESHARING COMMUNITY

Libble Invites AVAILABLE CLICK LINK TO FIND OUT MORE

BYE

i want my sheet music.

-- Steve Shasta, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:55 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

you can't have it! IMSLP public domain sheet music archive sued into submission by Universal because a small fraction of the hosted scores were in fact 'owned', so now no one can have anything

http://johnsonsrambler.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/ue-v-imslp-more-coverage/

I should immediately apologize for the hyperbole -- UE didn't sue, they only threatened to, and IMSLP responded by pulling their own plug out of fear, but... anyway it's been a bad month

http://www.analogartsensemble.net/2007/10/brief-summary-of-imslp-shutdown.html

regarding emusic -- i get a hundred songs a month for $20. somehow i am a 'connoisseur.' best deal on the site -- magical power mako's music from heaven. 1 track album, 50 minutes long!

Yeah. Mine is the Connoisseur 200 plan.

300 emusic downloads! i'm THERE

emusic isn't highest quality (I think) but it's a pretty good deal! I have the 50 song plan, I think

I would resubscribe to emusic if they'd roll over leftover downloads.

I would resubscribe to emusic if they'd roll over leftover downloads.

-- milo z, Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:57 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

THIS is a bitching idea. Somebody get Cingular on the case

they totally used to do that if i remember correctly.

OK follow-up queries:

1.) is emusic one of those stupid things where they nuke your mp3's if you cancel your membership?

2.) what is this connoisseur membership such-and-such?

they're mp3s

I would resubscribe to emusic if they'd roll over leftover downloads.

i'm usually counting down my next download entitlement from about six days after i get it

counting down "to"

emusic doesn't have rollover downloads but every time I've forgotten to use up mine, I've written them and they've restored them. That's effectively rollover downloads with a little bit of hassle (though it would be better without any hassle blah blah blah)

fyi the milk thing wasn't a metaphor, it was a retarded joke

if i stop going to publix will they nuke my milk?

I only listen to milk in .mod format

2.) what is this connoisseur membership such-and-such?

It's an enhanced subscription plan that eMusic offered to (at least some) existing customers at the time it made some broader changes to its subscription plans (eMusic was lowering the number of downloads available under each plan, so the per song cost of a download went from .27 to .30, which is still a tremendous value).

But as you see with other comments above, eMusic is very customer-friendly. I'd bet that eMusic would let you sign up for a Connoisseur plan as a new member, if you ask about it.

I bought a yearly sub and for something like $180 for the year I get 50 songs a month.

I easily go thru the lot before my month's up, like Jim does.

I have foound the only real drawback to emusic is a lot of the majors wont touch it, and being in Australia sometimes means some tracks/bands I cant have even when they are there.

I love it though, it has been a fucking godsend to me.

I subscribed a while back at 90/$20 and it's great.

My experience is like Trayce's. I have to restrain myself from using all 200 downloads just after they refresh, so that I have some for discs that arrive later. For instance, I'm down to 47 downloads this month already, with about two weeks to go before they refresh, and luckily I saved enough so that I can grab Burial's new disc when it's released on Nov. 6, plus a few odds-and-ends or items that have lingered on my "Saved for Later" list.

Trayce is also right that major labels aren't on eMusic. But (a) that's why eMusic found its niche with independent artists and labels, which is great for fans like me, and (b) eMusic is apparently negotiating to make at some of the music on the major labels available on eMusic. According to the article, eMusic hopes to stock at least some big-label tracks by Christmas (although eMusic is sticking to its niche market, and would only offer "releases that cater to its core audience of people aged 25 and up").

i've never found myself especially fussed by the lack of major stuff on emusic - i've got enough in my wish list to keep me going for the next year at least and that's if nothing new was to be added to it....

Me too. I can't seem to get my "Saved for Later" list under 80, but some of those are discs that I sorta-kinda want, and keep close at hand in case I have extra downloads available just before I refresh (which never seems to happen). But I'd still welcome some select major-label items on eMusic, which seems to be what they're considering.

"We don't want to stick any Beyonce or Jaz-Z or Pussycat Dolls on the site," he said. "I don't think it will change our style. It will allow us to change what we have."

(whew...?) this is a job for sfj an assassin

LOL. Well, if it makes SFJ feel better, there's plenty of roots reggae, jazz and "world music" on eMusic, too, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the rhythmless indie rock.

yeah i know, theyre some putamayo ass motherfuckers but it's no less irksome. i was planning on cancelling anyway but i'll see how the catalog beefs up and decide, if the vp in charge of bonerkilling there can keep his mouth shut between now and then.

i'm on the 30 a month plan anyway, i'm getting reamed

i'm on the 30 a month plan anyway, i'm getting reamed.

I think the higher subscription plans -- e.g., 90 downloads a month -- crank out to less cost per download.

Anyone remember back when emusic used to have all-you-could-download plans? I remember signing up for about a couple weeks back in 1999 and then immediately dropping it for some reason.

if emusic added major labels- or indies partly owned by majors (sub pop, etc.) i would probably renew my subscription.

I justified my initial emusic subscription by getting all the neu! stuff, and it's been great ever since. I'm much more willing to grab albums on a whim, and I don't feel like an idiot for doing so if the stuff sucks. If you know how to dig, there's some great bizarro stuff hidden on there too.

If you know how to dig, there's some great bizarro stuff hidden on there too.

Very true. Bizarro and obscure and often great.

do they really not rollover downloads anymore? i remember waiting for my downloads to renew if i had 8 downloads left at the end of the month but wanted a 12 song album or whatever.

they also have good random major rap, namely koch, like i would never buy a dj khaled album (or a jim jones christmas album) but i might consider downloading it from emusic.

and by major rap i mean, rap stars usually on major labels putting out side stuff on koch, or koch artists that are still upper-level rap stars.

Back to the point of the original post regarding finding major label releases in download form:

Barring a hefty price/track increase, I've given up on eMusic getting any major label support. And I refuse to use iTunes because of the DRM'd AAC format, not out of any strict principle but mere practicality: AAC formatted tracks are incompatible with my xBox 360 Media Centers in my living room and bedroom. I've basically been buying and ripping major label releases in CD form (got the Roisin Murphy last week from Amazon) or downloading them illegally.

This Amazon mp3 store is EXACTLY what I've been waiting for. 256kbps rips, no DRM, and did anyone look at the prices? They're definitely cheaper than iTunes, sometimes dramatically so:

The Wall in iTunes Plus format is $25.74.
The Wall from Amazon mp3 is $8.99.

There is a slight advantage in quality from the 256kbps AAC, but not enough to justify that price.

As far as illegal downloading is concerned, it seems to me that the labels would be all about selling albums in that Amazon DRM-free format if they thought they could trust consumers not to make them available illegally. By illegally downloading the album, you may have helped push back the day it will be available digitally in a DRM-free format.

I know that I'm giving the industry WAY more credit than it deserves there, but I also have the sneaking suspicion that even if music prices were drastically cut, too many music fans would still file share. They've convinced themselves that it's entirely ethical (labels rob the artists, go to shows and buy merchandise instead, etc.). If prices were cut, wouldn't that further shrink the crumbs left over for the artist, thereby increasing the animosity downloaders feel toward the labels? Radiohead took the labels out of the equation entirely, yet people still downloaded the album for free. (Granted the band allowed this, but still I think there's a point to be made there.)

To borrow from one of the bad metaphors above, as long as the pie is freely available, would downloaders EVER feel ethically compelled to pay for it?

I just read this OTM reply to that demonbaby article:

Well written article but this new era is just the tables of power and accountability being switched from the corporations to the consumers.

All we've proven is that consumers are just as greedy and incapable of being trusted with keeping the balance as corporations.

We got a million excuses for why artists should give away their music and find ANOTHER way to make an honest living.

Whining that it's the labels that made us do it is super-childish.

Whether the labels are the monsters and we're just the ungrateful parasites, both scenarios give the artists the short end of the deal.

Forget about all the corporate travesties, price gouging, blah blah blah, just ask yourself whether the current relationship between consumer and artist/musician is financially and respectfully better than it was in the past, before downloading/filesharing etc.

Does the future look bright and rosey for artists in the mainstream now that they have to craft songs that make for great ringtones and catchy commercials if they want to make a career out of their talent?

Rationlize all you want but there's no way artists are as proportionally better off as WE are with our i-pods and our happy dappy file-swapping.

The shit is officially lopsided, but not to worry. All the yelling will subside and in a decade or so no one will remember what it used to be like.

A funny side note is that the only artists still in a SOLID position to transition into this faceless generation of music consumers are the ones lucky enough to have established themselves in the past eras when people cared about pictures, album covers and liner notes.

Most mp3s tend to sound like crap. They're ok if you can't find the record any other way or your unfamiliar with the band and just want to check them out.

bunch of mental midgets on this thread

i'm still totally baffled at lex' response to cutty on this thread. practically every discussion about filesharing/downloading has revolved around 'why don't the labels actually take this shit on board rather than freaking out', and cutty's initial post is nothing more than a real example of why ppl are saying this.

he never came back to apologize, either.

he never came back to apologize, either.

I was surprised to see his post in the first place, now that you mention it. I thought Lex had "retired" from ILX.

FAKE LEX

well considering the verbal (textual) diarrhea he flung at me, he obviously could not contain himself

practically every discussion about filesharing/downloading has revolved around 'why don't the labels actually take this shit on board rather than freaking out'

Aren't the "all-you-can-eat" subscription services like Rhapsody, Urge, and Zune basically the labels attempting exactly that? $20 a month for all the music you want, but you have to stay subscribed to keep listening. What kills the idea for me is the incompatibility of the various DRM schemes.

Would a subscription service be successful if it did provided all of the following, or is Steve Jobs correct that consumers want to own the music?

- Reasonable price (say $20/month)
- Unlimited access to a vast selection of artists
- Compatibility with all/most playback devices
- High quality file encoding
- Listening privileges revoked upon cancellation of contract (implying some form of DRM on the track)

there is no way that i would pay some company $20 every month for the rest of my life just to keep listening to my music, and i can't imagine many people disagreeing

OTM.

What happens if, like I did earlier this year, you lose your internet connection for a couple months? POOF! There goes your music collection.

amazon.com and emusic are the only companies that have one fucking clue
I'm glad I never spent any money on the iTunes store
now if they would just figure it out re: video

I'm glad I never spent any money on the iTunes store.

I don't like iTunes just because it's kind of an uninviting place. To me, the difference between iTunes and eMusic is the difference between a big warehouse (where there's a lot of inventory, but no-one to help you or get you excited about the products), and a small retailer (where they have less items, but stock interesting stuff the warehouse ignores and make a real effort to get customers excited about its products and to develop long-lasting customer support).

Aren't the "all-you-can-eat" subscription services like Rhapsody, Urge, and Zune basically the labels attempting exactly that? $20 a month for all the music you want, but you have to stay subscribed to keep listening. What kills the idea for me is the incompatibility of the various DRM schemes.

exactly--you have to continue to pay to hear the music? fuck that, i'd rather pay (more) for the cd and at least own the music (also, re: drm, in a format i have complete control over). cutty is suggesting the labels start offering high-quality, drm-free stuff in an instantly accessible way WITH NO OTHER STRINGS ATTACHED, i.e. the model stays the same as it is with CDs now, minus the wait for store to open/have it in stock etc. why labels are seemingly so utterly incapable of understanding this concept is beyond me.

They are (finally!) starting to do just that. Amazon doesn't support all the labels yet, but the mp3 store hopefully will be successful enough that the others come eventually. Whether imports will be immediately available for download (the Roisin Murphy album is an import in the U.S.) is another question.

The notion that the majority of filesharers (not referring to anyone replying on this thread) will abandon their p2p networks and come back in droves to purchase music priced at $7 - $10 an album strikes me as a pipe dream.

paying for downloads seems weird, if i'm really interested in something i'll buy the cd, otherwise i just download of soulseek or whatever.

how is the emusic type model doing, is this pay service thing on its way out?

It's apparently doing v. well.

emusic has a lot of good things (good things they didn't have when I had a subscription several years ago), but they're still a subsciption service. boo dat.

cripes, i just tried to check out emusic, as far as i can tell you cant even look at what they have to offer without subscribing?!?!? wtf is up with that? given that they don't claim to have a full selection of most stuff, surely i should get to dig around through their selections before i decide to plop down my hard earned cash?

perhaps i'm stupidly doing something wrong? if not, it's a terrible way to run a website!

fwiw i totally pay beatport good money to download stuff, cause they have a good selection, a good interface, and the stuff they have tends to be obscure/rare enough that i cant download it via ssx.

re: the morals of it all: the cats out of the bag, pandora's box has been opened, and there's no going back. why would someone pay for something when they can get it for free? for every person on this thread claiming high moral ground, there's about 10,000,000 people saying screw it and downloading music for free. it's human nature! i recon the only way to get around this is to have an "internet music tax", say $5-10 a month, in return for an internet repository containing high quality rips of every piece of music ever made, for free use by anyone who's paid the monthly tax - with the funds recieved distributed to whoever gets downloaded each month.

do we still not have a solid metaphor for this kind of theft?

i can't really understand the 'loss' to the record industry or artists in my case, because, even if i were unable to download their music for free, i still wouldn't pay for it; i can't afford it. i appreciate that i shouldn't have the privilege that paying customers have (hearing the music), but what's the difference between me hearing it and not hearing it if the industry isn't going to profit from me either way?

isn't there some kind of other, indirect value in my exposure it? is it obscurely but ultimately in their interest for me to hear it regardless? i do occasionally pay to see concerts and, if the music is good, i might recommend it to friends who have the resources to pay for the records.

i think of it more like sneaking into a museum without paying and taking photos of the exhibits.

http://www.emusic.com/browse/all.html

will let you browse, search etc.

i think illegal downloading's pretty great. there's a big difference in whether you're downloading to hear or downloading to own, and it's the best way i've found for hearing music, and foreshadowed like ninety nine percent of things i've bought in the past five years. i still don't have super-guilt, rightly or wrongly, if i've got a whole lp somewhere on a tape that i downloaded, in the same way as i wouldn't about someone having taped me a record saying 'hear this', and having ended up buying something else by the group instead of upgrading to a legitimate copy. ehh. downloading's pretty great, anyway.