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?

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.