{{POLL}} Is downloading music good for the industry?

[djheater]

Members of the music community I know personally are divided and pretty fvcking emotional about the issue. I'd like to be able to discuss it in a reasonable way.

I contend that downloading music is good for the music industry. The music indutry's attempt to hold on to the 1994 paradigm of CD, tape sales is misguided, and ultimately futile. Consumers want and will have music downloads by the cheapest means possbile. I support music for a fair price but the market needs to seek its own level there.

PLEASE discuss.

 

[DurocShark]

I agree. We've reached a new paradigm and the big publishers need to adjust and adapt, not fight.

 

[K1052]

No, but suing the pants off everyone in sight is not the solution.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: K1052
No, but suing the pants of everyone in sight is not the solution.

Why is it not good?

 

[Doboji]

It's bad for the industry... but thats too gawdamn bad... it's pandora's box.

 

[whattaguy]

It's good when the downloads are paid for, but bad if they aren't.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: K1052
No, but suing the pants of everyone in sight is not the solution.

Why is it not good?

It is illegal (assuming free downloads) and the company/artist gets no compensation.

Figuring out a way to digitally distribute music (securely) would cut out a lot of overhead and make music available at reasonable prices that would be attractive to consumers.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: whattaguy
It's good when the downloads are paid for, but bad if they aren't.

That's not true. It's either good or bad. The majority of consumers will choose the easiest course of action, which has NOT historically been legal downloads, though it's moving in that direction. There are still going to be thieves, (like shoplifters) but the industry is not at this point embracing the change and making it easier. The old CD pricing model is not viable and they STILL haven't adapted to it.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: K1052
No, but suing the pants of everyone in sight is not the solution.

Why is it not good?

It is illegal (assuming free downloads) and the company/artist gets no compensation.

Figuring out a way to digitally distribute music (securely) would cut out a lot of overhead and make music available at reasonable prices that would be attractive to consumers.

The EXISTENCE of downloads (even illegal) is the ONLY thing that will force the corporations to change, unfortunately. They will move to feed off the money.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: K1052
No, but suing the pants of everyone in sight is not the solution.

Why is it not good?

It is illegal (assuming free downloads) and the company/artist gets no compensation.

Figuring out a way to digitally distribute music (securely) would cut out a lot of overhead and make music available at reasonable prices that would be attractive to consumers.

The EXISTENCE of downloads (even illegal) is the ONLY thing that will force the corporations to change, unfortunately. They will move to feed off the money.

Then it would be more correct to say that downloading is good for the consumers, not the industry (who's goal it is to make the most money possible).

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: K1052
No, but suing the pants of everyone in sight is not the solution.

Why is it not good?

It is illegal (assuming free downloads) and the company/artist gets no compensation.

Figuring out a way to digitally distribute music (securely) would cut out a lot of overhead and make music available at reasonable prices that would be attractive to consumers.

The EXISTENCE of downloads (even illegal) is the ONLY thing that will force the corporations to change, unfortunately. They will move to feed off the money.

Then it would be more correct to say that downloading is good for the consumers, not the industry (who's goal it is to make the most money possible).

By forcing the industry to adapt to the consumers needs the consumers are exerting more control. What gets BOUGHT and SOLD will be only what consumers want to hear. In the previous market Record Companies and Walmart exerted a great degree of control over what was available to consumers to buy.

The production costs on mp3 creation and deployment are minimal as opposed to CD's. Artists can choose to be self-published with far less burden than previously, where they were beholden to the record company who produced the CD.

 

[yllus]

Speaking only for myself, I buy a lot more music now that I'm able to download MP3s first and demo the tracks. My rule is, if I like >= 3 songs on the CD I go buy it. CDs aren't that expensive.

Downloading MP3s is legal in my country anyways.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: djheater
By forcing the industry to adapt to the consumers needs the consumers are exerting more control. What gets BOUGHT and SOLD will be only what consumers want to hear. In the previous market Record Companies and Walmart exerted a great degree of control over what was available to consumers to buy.

The production costs on mp3 creation and deployment are minimal as opposed to CD's. Artists can choose to be self-published with far less burden than previously, where they were beholden to the record company who produced the CD.

A secure structure would have to be put in place for digital distribution to be effective. That takes time, money, and cooperation between the music companies. It is a hard thing to do, hiring lawyers and suing is more expedient in their view.


Have to go for a while, be back later.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Well, for "pop music" it's mostly crap that won't be listened to several years from now, so companies don't like downloading of that music since they need to make money now. Besides, record labels make money on CDs. Thus the outrageous prices.

Band make money via concerts! REAL bands will always have an audience!!!! Bands simply should not care and they should be in it for the music. F Metallica. need to get that in there.

I am a fan of the concept of distributing concert bootlegs by the community for free, much like how Phish has done.

FACT:
Prince makes more money on CD sales selling 50,000 CDs on his own than Madonna herself makes on CD sales selling 1 million records. Prince cought onto this along time ago. He was a slave. Not no more.

Anyways, support the bands, not the record labels. Go see a show. Enjoy music hte way it's meant to be heard.

 

[ggnl]

It's not good for the music industry. They are losing money due to music piracy, there's no arguing that.

It is good for the music community. More people are getting exposed to more diverse music. They are getting a chance to hear music other than that shoved down our throats by the music/radio industry.

Music community > music industry; therefore, downloading is good.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I agree. We've reached a new paradigm and the big publishers need to adjust and adapt, not fight.

Hahhahaah. Downloading is good for the music industry. it's bad for record labels. Simple as that.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: djheater
Members of the music community I know personally are divided and pretty fvcking emotional about the issue. I'd like to be able to discuss it in a reasonable way.

I contend that downloading music is good for the music industry. The music indutry's attempt to hold on to the 1994 paradigm of CD, tape sales is misguided, and ultimately futile. Consumers want and will have music downloads by the cheapest means possbile. I support music for a fair price but the market needs to seek its own level there.

PLEASE discuss.

it is good IMO because its gets teh music out their faster and to more people, because of napster and teh like I now Know hundreds of more bands then i did before, and because of that have purchased more CDs then i woudl have,

There is a large group of people, myself included that use downloading musid as a demo of the CD, im not gonna go shell out 15-20$ for a CD if it sucks, so I download it give it a listen, if I like it i go buy it, if i dont I delete it from my comp, win win situation

also the music industry needs to STOP basing sales figures off thoes in the mid-late 1990s, 1 of the main reason music sales are "DOWN" is because we dont have bands like Britney Spears, NSync, Backstreet boys, P-diddy and such selling releaseing an albm every 6 months and selling hundreds of millions of them

thats the biggert reason sales look like they are down, because they are baseing the numbers off a spike in the charts,

Napster didnt kill the music industry SH!TTY music did

the pop revolution died, get over it adn move on

1 more thing, its not the artists that are complaining, with the exception of metallica and napster most dont voice a strong opinion, its the damn record labels that bitch, because they made only 3.5 billion and not 4 billion $ this year

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: yllus
Speaking only for myself, I buy a lot more music now that I'm able to download MP3s first and demo the tracks. My rule is, if I like >= 3 songs on the CD I go buy it. CDs aren't that expensive.

Downloading MP3s is legal in my country anyways.

Ohhhhh Canada ......

- M4H