Question/Poll: Would you buy CD's if it was setup like this? Please read and respond!

RaiderJ

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2001
7,582
1
76
I personally don't buy CD's anymore, at least ones that would support the RIAA. I don't consider myself a thief for copying CD's for my own use, whether onto MP3's or otherwise, and I'll be damned if I support a company who does.

Anyway, with CD prices the way they are, I just can't afford them. This leaves me with the choice of finding alternatives to finding new music. Websites such as www.mp3.com and those like it are a nice alternative.

But what if there was another option? One that mainstream artists could benefit from as well? What do you think of this idea? Post any changes or additions to it as well. Spread the idea! Who knows, maybe some company would pick it up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, take some brick and mortar store such as Barnes and Noble. Set them up computer systems with lots of high quality music files in MP3, WAV, or some other format. Don't copy protect them.

Next, with the large base of music files, let people have listening stations, similiar to what there is now. Allow people to listen to the music files the store has on hand. Let them select songs that they like.

Take those songs they have chosen, and make their way to a CD booth (or whatever you want to call it). Here they can take their songs, and have them put onto a blank CD.

Take the blank CD up to the cashier counter, and pay for it. Go home, and listen/copy/etc your new CD.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for costs, if you had to pay $5 for the CD, which would cover the cost of the blank disc and the store's cost of the equipment, and $1 for each song, which went to the artist, would you pay? You would still be paying about $20 a disc, but for music that you like. I know prices are negotiable, and maybe changes such as different priced songs, etc, could be changed.

What do you think? Would you buy more music if it were like this? Please, I know the RIAA would never go for this, so don't post telling me that.
 

Jhill

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,187
3
0
Wouldn't work. Less money out of your pocket means less money out of the artists and the riaas pocket.
 

Frosty3799

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2000
3,795
0
0
i sitll prefer downloading legal music from artists that allow bootlegging, such as dave matthews band does with their live shows... along with a handful of other bands
 

Hoeboy

Banned
Apr 20, 2000
3,517
0
0
wouldn't work because they would no longer be able to track album sales. and artists have to make EVERY ONE of their songs good and God forbids that they can do that.
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
and artists have to make EVERY ONE of their songs good and God forbids that they can do that.
You make it sound like it's so easy.
rolleye.gif
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
no i wouldn't. i would much rather do the burning myself (thus avoiding any unnecessary fees), and pay for the music at about 5 bucks for an album.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,806
1,988
126
If the artists got at least $.60 (60%) of the money for the song, then yes. Screw the RIAA.

Yes, I purchase my music.
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
If the artists got at least $.60 (60%) of the money for the song, then yes. Screw the RIAA.
So the label should foot the bill to record the album and distribute it, but then only make back 40% of the sales?

I don't like the labels as much as the next guy, but be a little realistic.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,806
1,988
126
Originally posted by: pulse8
If the artists got at least $.60 (60%) of the money for the song, then yes. Screw the RIAA.
So the label should foot the bill to record the album and distribute it, but then only make back 40% of the sales?

I don't like the labels as much as the next guy, but be a little realistic.

I'm not in the recording industry, so I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem like the distribution costs for the company over the internet would be that bad. Less than it is for CDs anyway. Recording is expensive, but without the artist, you don't make any money. They (and, if applicable, the songwriters) do the real work.

Like I said, I'm not in the industry, there may be things that I don't know about here.
 

BigJohnKC

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2001
2,448
1
0
Most popular music is suck these days, so I don't buy any more. I feel myself getting older...
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
Recording is expensive, but without the artist, you don't make any money. They (and, if applicable, the songwriters) do the real work.
It doesn't matter who does all the real work. The label is putting out money and needs to see some in return. It's a business just like anything else.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,806
1,988
126
Originally posted by: pulse8
Recording is expensive, but without the artist, you don't make any money. They (and, if applicable, the songwriters) do the real work.
It doesn't matter who does all the real work. The label is putting out money and needs to see some in return. It's a business just like anything else.


Yeah, I mean, I know that it's a business, and it needs money, but since this entire thing is hypothetical, it isn't a big leap to imagine giving the artists a little more money for their hard work.

Like I said, I pay for my CDs. I'm not on a quest against the recording industry or anything like that. I just like the idea of the artists getting paid better.


 

dude

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 1999
3,192
0
71
I actually wouldn't mind buying music over the internet. I be less likely to buy it if I have to go to a store or wait in lines to do this.

Also, if these online music download sites allow you to just buy music, I'd commit to it. Unfortunately, they also require a subscription service fee which allows you X amount of downloads a month at X bitrates. Then, to top it off, most of these sites do not allow you to burn these to disks!
 

dude

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 1999
3,192
0
71
I'm not agains the music industry and them making a profit, but I am highly against the music industry trying to strong-arm the artists and consumers!
 

royaldank

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2001
5,440
0
0
Anyone here used one of the CD copying kiosks they have in Austraila? From what I read, you just walk into a store with the machine, pop in your disc, pay $5 or $10, and it will copy it in about 5 - 10 minutes to a blank disc.

As for buying music, I buy what I like and support bands that I like. If there is a CD with 1 or 2 songs I like (which rarely happens), there is no way I'd throw down my money. The American public needs to realize that their money can do a lot of talking. If everyone quit buying them, they'd have to lower the price. If everyone quit paying $500/family to go see an NBA or baseball game, then they'd have to charge less or fold and develop a cheaper league. Don't pay $10 to go to the theater and they will have to charge less or make a better product. Too bad this couldn't happen b/c there are always plenty of people to blow money on whatever they want. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad for people to pay these prices, but if everyone upset at music really stopped buying music, something would have to give.
 

mikebb

Senior member
May 21, 2001
452
0
76
Record companies wouldn't go for it, because they love making you shell out $16-18 for a CD with maybe 2 or 3 decent tracks on it. So under your plan they'd only be making money off of good music, and not off all that filler bullsh!t that makes up at least 75% of music released on albums. Why do you think they killed off the single?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
I thought about this about 5 years ago or longer. I thought it was a great idea at the time but not anymore. When I buy a cd with some band I'm always very pleased to find songs on the cd that arent very popular but are great all the same.

When I have money and some artist that I like gives out a cd I usualy buy the cd.