Should music be free?

[AShadeOfClear]

I will not pay $16 for a CD. Maybe this is because I am poor or cheap, or both, but I consider buying a cd at that price to be more of a crime than downloading or copying it. Of course, I'm not saying that I actually do any of this.

Personally, I don't feel music shoudl be paid for. The personal satisfaction of creating and having an audience for an artists music shoudl be enough reason to create music. Home recording has become more mainstream and more affordable. I have some recording equipment myself, and so I know this. I think that paying an artist for his or her music encourages the creation of new music that is not up to quality and allows no-talents to thrive.

I feel differently about films because they are costly to produce. Books as well, because I believe some motivation is necessary to bring ideas to paper.

Of course, I would be willing to compromise and maybe spend no more than $2. But, then, does this just become an issue of economics? Meaning, I won't buy it at $16 because its not worth it to me - but other people will. If i remember correctly, the industry sets the price at the level where it can make the most money -- not too low as to lose money, but not too high as to draw away too many consumers. In that case what i just said is meaningless?

Feel free to share your opinions and to flame me.

 

[axelfox]

if they make music for a living, they'll have to stop making music and do something else to survive, wouldn't they?

Artist deserve some compensation.

 

[LordMaul]

No, just cheaper.

Until then, I consider it free.

Oh, and SOME music should be free. I mean, if I want some mix of a almost unknown trance song played in a rave 5 years ago with 100 people, I don't think it should be a problem to get a copy off Kazaa or something.

 

[loup garou]

I think you're just cheap.

I have a simple system. I download music to see if I like it. If I like it, I buy it. I prefer to support those artists whose music I enjoy. I understand that they only receive a fraction of what I'm paying, but $15 isn't that big of a deal to me. I would love for music to be cheaper (although I think your idea of free music is asinine), but I don't see it happening without a serious change in the way the music industry works today.

 

[bugsysiegel]

I don't think it should be free, but I agree the $16 for a CD is a friggin crime.

I think the artists should get paid for their work. I'm more than happy to give some of money in exchange for the pleasentness of being able to enjoy some tunage that they produce for my listening pleasure. It's the thieves at the record company that are crying the loudest about pirating, and they are the ones responsible for most of the cost of a CD.

Lower the price of a CD to an affordable level, and people would be more willing to pay for them. I know I would.

 

[Paulson]

Get rid of the RIAA, and you will find the solution...

I really wish there were companies that supported artists, but wouldn't legally own the rights to the music other people create.

I find that concept stupid right from the beginning.

 

[UberNeuman]

AShadeOfClear - if you went to receive your weekly paycheck and they didn't have it how would you feel?

 

[LeStEr]

I dont think it should be free and I agree with the price people pay for music today. 16$ I admit is a little high but how much lower could they go and still give the artists the $$ they deserve? Maybe if people wernt so obsessed with screwing the system of everything today we would be able to get things cheaper.........

 

[tcsenter]

Personally, I don't feel music shoudl be paid for. The personal satisfaction of creating and having an audience for an artists music shoudl be enough reason to create music. Home recording has become more mainstream and more affordable. I have some recording equipment myself, and so I know this. I think that paying an artist for his or her music encourages the creation of new music that is not up to quality and allows no-talents to thrive.

I agree 100%. Personally, I believe everything should be free. The personal satisfaction of being part of the creation of anything, whatever you do, should be payment enough. If you build cars, the satisfaction of contributing to the creation of that car should be more than enough to pay your bills. If you develop software or are a network admin, the satisfaction of your contribution to your company and society should be more than enough compensation.

When you go to buy a house, just write the owner a big fat personal check in the amount of 150,000 thank you's. When you go to the grocery store, just hand them Monopoly money.

Everyone should work for free....except for me of course.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: LeStEr
I dont think it should be free and I agree with the price people pay for music today. 16$ I admit is a little high but how much lower could they go and still give the artists the $$ they deserve? Maybe if people wernt so obsessed with screwing the system of everything today we would be able to get things cheaper.........

But you are also leaving out the GREED of the RIAA and their inherent stupidity.

 

[StattlichPassat]

I love being one of the first ones to post in a thread that will potentially last for weeks. 😀

First paragraph- if MP3s never even came around, I don't think anyone would think twice about the price: ~$15 is what music costs. What if someone could start bootlegging, I dunno, hamburgers. "Hey! Three bucks is an outrage! We demand free meat!"

On everything else, I've always been taught that there is nothing in life that is free. This technically goes for music too, but MP3s, CD burners and P2P programs are so rampant, there's nothing anyone can really do to stop it. There's always a workaround in the digital world we live in. We consumers outnumber artists by millions to one ratios, so it's easy to spread blame out on these immense scales to where everybody can't be punished. I feel guilty when I talk to my Dad about it, as he doesn't think downloading songs and making CDs is right, but that's about it. If the RIAA tells me to personally stop, I probably will. I can see it as a wrong and I can see it as a right. On the right side, artists and groups have never seen such heightened name awareness in history- look at concert sales tickets (hey, another great way for them to earn revenue) and MTV/magazine spots (hey, more!). I know concerts are selling out more these days than they ever have been before. Idiots like Eminem and Metallica need to quit their bitching and realize that record sales aren't everything- concerts and media promos from enhanced name awareness, in part thanks to MP3 distribution, pay just as well. Some of it is greed as well I suppose ("So Lars, instead of raking in millions upon millions of dollars, you'd only earn millions of dollars now..."), but I'm not condoning anyone's due success. People are paid their worth in popularity, whether it be good (Dave Matthews Band) or not (Eminem).

I personally have 20GB of music on my hard disk, but if anything, I'm buying MORE CDs now than I have before because of it. I have a really nice audio system where I can tell the difference between MP3 files and a CD. If I like something that I hear a lot and I have the money for it, I'll go out and buy it. My CD collection easily tripled after I started getting into MP3s more, and likewise, music more as well.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
I don't think it should be free, but I agree the $16 for a CD is a friggin crime.

I think the artists should get paid for their work. I'm more than happy to give some of money in exchange for the pleasentness of being able to enjoy some tunage that they produce for my listening pleasure. It's the thieves at the record company that are crying the loudest about pirating, and they are the ones responsible for most of the cost of a CD.

Lower the price of a CD to an affordable level, and people would be more willing to pay for them. I know I would.

I say cut out some middle-men and lower the average price to 10 bucks. That would make me buy even more. What is the point of record companies and agents anyway? Can't an artist just hand over her tracks to a CD-producing company and then Best Buy (or other, whatever) distribution picks it up from there? I think they're too many greedy middle-men. That's the reason for the high cost of CDs.

 

[AShadeOfClear]

So I have been thinking about creation of music more as a hobby than as a profession. I suppose you are right, artists need to be compensated. I hadn't considered that being a musician is a full time job. But yes, I suppose there could be expenses as well, like hiring other musicians, and the time spent in a studio.

What portion of the price of a CD does the artist get, I hear its very low.

 

[UberNeuman]

But you are also leaving out the GREED of the RIAA and their inherent stupidity.

Very true...

The RIAA destroyed Napster and if they had gotten behind it and made it a low cost service they'd be making money now, instead of chasing after everyother download program till the end of time... RIAA will never beat the people who don't want to pay, and they could have made money... The greed of RIAA is its downfall....

 

[poopaskoopa]

Originally posted by: AShadeOfClear
I will not pay $16 for a CD. Maybe this is because I am poor or cheap, or both.

So you know.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: AShadeOfClear
I will not pay $16 for a CD. Maybe this is because I am poor or cheap, or both, but I consider buying a cd at that price to be more of a crime than downloading or copying it. Of course, I'm not saying that I actually do any of this... <SNIP>

I just ran this through Bablefish - from RANT to ENGLISH. Here's how it turned out translated:

Originally posted by: AShadeOfClear
I'm too f*cking cheap to pay for music, so I need an excuse to convince myself stealing is OK

 

[Deeko]

Music should not be free. It is the artist's living, if they weren't making money, they wouldn't do it. And you don't have to pay $16 for a CD you dolt lol where are you shopping? Places like Circuit City and Best Buy all have CD's for like $12 when they come out, and then they go up to like $13 or $14 after a few months.

 

[tcsenter]

Idiots like Eminem and Metallica need to quit their bitching and realize that record sales aren't everything- concerts and media promos from enhanced name awareness, in part thanks to MP3 distribution, pay just as well.

Concerts have one purpose, to promote record sales. Most acts break-even on concerts, if not go a little in the hole, hoping to promote album sales and make up the difference.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: AShadeOfClear
I will not pay $16 for a CD. Maybe this is because I am poor or cheap, or both, but I consider buying a cd at that price to be more of a crime than downloading or copying it. Of course, I'm not saying that I actually do any of this... <SNIP>

I just ran this through Bablefish - from RANT to ENGLISH. Here's how it turned out translated:

Originally posted by: AShadeOfClear
I'm too f*cking cheap to pay for music, so I need an excuse to convince myself stealing is OK

Strange, my translator came up with <<"untranslatable - extreme self-righteousness">> when I tried to run your post through.

😀

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Strange, my translator came up with <<"untranslatable - extreme self-righteousness">> when I tried to run your post through.
😀

Self-righteousness? Nah, I've stated my opinion about P2P clients a number of times. And I quote:

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
I use Kazaa myself. I know its wrong. I'm not going to jade myself into thinking what I'm doing is somehow "right" or "ok."

 

[AShadeOfClear]

I'm too f*cking cheap to pay for music,

Correct

so I need an excuse to convince myself stealing is OK

I did not start this thread to seek acceptance or make myself feel better. I'm actually interested in what people have to say about it.
I have no moral qualms about this issue. Call me a bad person, but I just don't.

I think if pirating should become more rampant, the industry will adapt in some way to survive. Perhaps by lowering prices. So it doesn't bother me.

Actually I don't know -- Does pirating encourage prices to be raised or lowered?

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: AShadeOfClear
I think if pirating should become more rampant, the industry will adapt in some way to survive. Perhaps by lowering prices. So it doesn't bother me.

Woohoo, somebody that's honest. 🙂 I take back my comment.

 

[Harvey]

Do you expect your favorite performers to get up in the morning and flip burgers all day, just to run home and jam in their garages with web cams rolling to entertain you all night, all for no pay?

Do you have any idea how much work is involved in getting good enough to compete on the highest levels of music?

Do you have a clue about what it costs to produce not only the disks, themselves, but the recordings, including the cost of the equipment and studio space, the artwork, the promotion, and all the other jobs involved in getting one song, or one album noticed, let alone sold?

Great idea, until the musicians, and everyone involved in the business of presenting their art, starve to death... MORON! :|

 

[Nefrodite]

if you were atleast partially honest you would send the 16 dollars directly to the artist everytime you download an album. but your not, your just bending your brain about to justify your theft. as most pirates do. XXX company is "bad" so i won't support this artist. its better for me to steal their work then support XXX company even if i deprive the artist what they are due.


be honest, your just a lowly thief.


if you really had a gripe with the music companies and had real morals, you'd stop buying and using their music, and go read a book, or help a kid, or donate your time to charity or something. but wait, your just a slob aren't you.


and 16 dollars? you can easily get em for 11.99 at frys when they first come out or at target etc, or any other store with sales/advertises. you and your false arguements.


btw you can make the exact same arguement for any intellectual/actual property. why should i buy this book from barnes and nobles when they are a mega corp squishing the local mom and pop bookstore markets like bugs. ok, i like this book, i think i'll check for tags, shove it down my pants and walk out. its "justified".

but you'd have to do a little leg work for that example. stealing music/media is so much easier, so much harder to get caught. so its so so much easier to justify..even if the reasons are basically the same for shoplifting.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: apoppin
Strange, my translator came up with <<"untranslatable - extreme self-righteousness">> when I tried to run your post through.
😀

Self-righteousness? Nah, I've stated my opinion about P2P clients a number of times. And I quote:

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
I use Kazaa myself. I know its wrong. I'm not going to jade myself into thinking what I'm doing is somehow "right" or "ok."

I can see yours and other comments after this one . . . however:

D/L'ing music is not necessarily "stealing". It certainly can be and often is. However, it may be related to "previewing" - much as the radio is a promotional tool. The inflexible and extreme views of the RIAA would have you believe you are "stealing" when you d/l a song just as the extreme advertising relates drug use to supporting terrorism.

If the RIAA had more sense and less greed couple with a need to control, their industry would be flourishing instead of "down" as it deserves to be now.

I don't d/l music over the net - I have way too much music that I am previewing right now (well over 200 albums, now) that I "legally" obtained from a free trial of Emusic (included with my HP burner).

However, I am NOT going to buy an entire album of "junk" just for one song that I like - eventually the recording industry may get the message (but I am not hopeful). I do buy CDs although I generally have to wait till my record club gets them for "my" price of around $7.00 each.