Comparing Online Music Stores: Benefits & Drawbacks

[Dagenais]

So, what's your take on these recent releases of online music stores?

They certainly aren't new. They existed way before iTunes Music Store, but that was before the RIAA started becoming prosecuting Nazis.



What's your take on them.

Will they stop illegal downloads?

Or will they be a fad soon to end, when people aren't willing to pay 99 cents for a 3 minute song when they can have a good Snickers bar instead?

Popular stores include Wal-mart, iTunes, Microsoft, Napster/Roxio, and BuyMusic.com

 

[The_Professional]

Will this stop illegal downloads? No

Will this help promote a more secure, private, anonymous p2p program in the future? YES

 

[Loren Booda]

I notice the term "illegal downloads." If I prosecute someone for stealing my car, am I too a Nazi?

 

[Dagenais]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
I notice the term "illegal downloads." If I prosecute someone for stealing my car, am I too a Nazi?

Illogical comparison.

First-off, the RIAA indiscriminately chooses who to prosecute in court.

The Cops arrest anyone they see stealing a car.

Huge difference.

The RIAA goes after those under 18, and over 65 to put a scare in people.

The cops arrests anyone of any age.

The RIAA wants money.

The Cops are doing their job and protecting us.

A car thief may have firearms or any other weapon ready, and are probable of being drunk/high off alcohol or drugs. Quite a few of them have the intent to flee when caught.

A kid is armed with KaZaa, a mouse, and maybe a nice set of speakers.

I can tell the differences and I'm not even anti-RIAA. In fact, I buy from the iTMS.

Let me ask you something to conclude my reply to your comparison.

Would you rather have your a song. Or let's say:

Would you rather have a music CD stolen, or your car?

Would you rather a felon of Grand Theft Auto be arrested, or a 12-year old clicking his mouse?

 

[dduardo]

1. 99c is still too expensive
2. I can't play the songs everywhere
3. What happens ten or twenty years down the road when my hard drive crashes and I lose all of the copy protection certificates to play the songs? How do I get my music back, especially if the company went under.

 

[Loren Booda]

If I were a used car dealer and someone stole $1000 worth of my cars, or I was a musician and someone stole $1000 worth of my music, what is the difference? Leave it to established law, not the victims, to discriminate between minors and adults, and value of theft.

The children today who are taught that it's OK to pilfer music are thus inculcated to become the hardcore thieves of tomorrow that you describe.

I pay for my music. If you saw youths constantly shoplifting from your family store, would you not take action? Since I was arrested as a minor for shoplifting, I never did it again.

My point is, theft is wrong, whether you steal from a multinational corporation or a blind man's hat. It's popularity just further erodes society.

The RIAA, like all of us, relies on the authority of the justice system to enforce the law, and to determine its fair application. Once the word gets out that such downloading is illegal and potentially punishable, it might not be such a big issue.

 

[dduardo]

Loren Booda, I think you fail to see what is really going on.

Lets put it this way - say some physicists come up with a way to replicate cars almost instantaneously for mere pennies. Car dealerships and manufacturers will probable be outraged and try to make this technology illegal. But what people fail to understand is that this is capitalism at its finest. Technology is what drives our society and creates fortunes. When a new technology is created, the markets must react and change accordingly. What we have now is this great technology called the internet which has effectively made music distribution obsolete, and now the RIAA and some musicians are complaining because their old model of making money doesn't work. There is nothing wrong with downloading music, it is how consumers in a capitalistic society tell the music industry that they must change or else face extinction. In the end I think this new technology will remove the middle man (RIAA) and force musicians to perform more live shows and produce better music. Isn't this what everyone wants? I trust the invisible hand will guide us towards the right path.

 

[Dagenais]

If I were a used car dealer and someone stole $1000 worth of my cars, or I was a musician and someone stole $1000 worth of my music, what is the difference? Leave it to established law, not the victims, to discriminate between minors and adults, and value of theft.

Musicians don't lose that much of what's being downloaded off the internet.

It's the record labels that do.

Musicians make more than enough in music videos, live concerts and full CD Sales.

That's why they really aren't the ones complaining.

$1000 worth of a car is what? A nice stereo system. $1000 worth of music is...how many songs? About 60 CDs?

The children today who are taught that it's OK to pilfer music are thus inculcated to become the hardcore thieves of tomorrow that you describe.

The "thieves always small" theory is the most illogical theory I think ever written or said.

Using common sense, it just doesn't work out.

So, you're going to be a hard-core crook now? You shop lifted, thus you'll be a hardcore thief of tomorrow!

You know what makes that theory even more crappy? It means that we're going to have millions upon millions of hardcore thieves soon, because according to that theory "big time crooks start small."

That's great. Absolutely fantastic theory.

So, I guess tomorrow the same amount of cars will be jacked, as songs downloaded.

I pay for my music. If you saw youths constantly shoplifting from your family store, would you not take action

What is he stealing?

If he was candy, I'd tell him to never do it again or I'd call his parents.

I'd certainly wouldn't prosecute a kid or some feeble old man like the RIAA in order to make 10 million instead of 8.

The RIAA, like all of us, relies on the authority of the justice system to enforce the law, and to determine its fair application.

The RIAA is a lot different from us.


If record companies truly want us to start buying $15, $19 CDs, then start making things we'll buy.

Stop making CDs with 1 good song, and charging $19.

1. 99c is still too expensive

Wal-mart's store sells songs for 75 cents.

They are all the "clean" or edited versions of music though.

2. I can't play the songs everywhere

Yeah, I know.

I tried sending my brother "Every Morning", a song I paid for from iTunes Music Store. I sent it through MSN Messenger.

He couldn't play it because it was protected.

I asked Apple.com about it at the discussions board. They said I couldn't just send my songs to "anybody,"

I told him he was my brother, and not just "anybody."

They then deleted the thread.

Big help.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'll shed my in-proper perspective on the subject. I listen to music non stop when I'm on the computer and I'm doing so right now. If I like a band I'll get the CD. But if I wasn't downloading the music I'd be listening to the radio. When the radio plays a commerical or the television does I switch the channel. Or if I don't I'll often make fun and critize the poor marketing the commercial has done or logically pound into my brain specifcally not to buy the product.

In generaly the radio stations in the small town where I live play poor music amongst other things. Plus musicians today are putting into there songs. "Then I hit the town with my friends and I didn't see her again." and repeating the lyrics. I've watched some popular videos and said "hey that was great." and then downloaded it and without the video it was litterally maybe 20 seconds of lyrics repeated over and over again. Pink's song I forget the name and the one by Missy Elliot pass that dutch are good examples.

I'f I was rolling in cash maybe I'd be more leniant to purchase all the music I listen to. But not when I'm in school. Plus a lot of muscians are understanding and appreciate downloading. They just say if you like what you hear do us a favor and buy our music.

Thats my perspective anyway. I'd have to agree from a standpoint of ethics its probably wrong to download. But I'm a good person in general. In fact I think I'm going to buy Disturbed's new song when it comes out I think. :)

Also to anyone who read that I'm not being defensive or anything I'm just talking. Not trying to offend anyone or anything just trying to give the other side.

 

[Dagenais]

I'f I was rolling in cash maybe I'd be more leniant to purchase all the music I listen to. But not when I'm in school. Plus a lot of muscians are understanding and appreciate downloading. They just say if you like what you hear do us a favor and buy our music.

Exactly.

It's mostly the Record Labels and RIAA complaining because they lose the most money.

I buy good songs off ITMS and CDs from proven artists like 2Pac.

But too many times I've bought crap with 1 good song on a 15 dollar CD.

 

[Loren Booda]

Music Stores vs

Such capitalistic reciprocity is poor justification for a social movement, and a destructive example for the next generation.

With whom do most musicians side - record labels or the computer criminals - if illegal downloads are harmless to them?

Basically, if one can argue that information is public property, so would be the work the most innovative, revolutionary and productive artists throughout the centuries - from here on, fair game to plunder.

(I agree that CD's are overpriced, but so are many "material" items.)

 

[Dagenais]

The majority of music fans probably hear a song on the radio or MTV, then download it.

They are the fans, and musicians should always side with them.

The RIAA isn't buying their music.

At least the fans are listening to it, purchasing tickets etc.

 

[dduardo]

" Such capitalistic reciprocity is poor justification for a social movement, and a destructive example for the next generation."

So should society stop inovating because it might violate someone's intellectual property?

"With whom do most musicians side - record labels or the computer criminals - if illegal downloads are harmless to them?"

That is a loaded question. You have no idea what the majority of musicians think about downloading.

"Basically, if one can argue that information is public property, so would be the work the most innovative, revolutionary and productive artists throughout the centuries - from here on, fair game to plunder."

Have you heard about the open source revolution? Have you heard about linux? It isn't about "plundering" people's ideas, it is about working together and spreading thought to create wonderful things.

"A story is told about an orphan.
A boy who belonged to no one.
But the boy was not alone.
He had friends.
He grew fast.
And everyone who worked with him, worked better.
Because the boy who belonged to no one had been adopted, by the world

Linux is working
The future is open
IBM"

Musicians will always be able to make money off their skills. You can't take the music out of musicians. The only thing that is changing is the way they present their skills to the public.

 

[Dagenais]

"A story is told about an orphan.
A boy who belonged to no one.
But the boy was not alone.
He had friends.
He grew fast.
And everyone who worked with him, worked better.
Because the boy who belonged to no one had been adopted, by the world

Linux is working
The future is open
IBM"

Not that there is anything wrong with Windows.

 

[wimms]

You can listen roughly 10 CDs per day. at $15 that's $150 per day if you hate listening all the same round and round.

There are millions unique CDs published. To even get slightest glimpse of what exists you'd need to listen nonstop for thousands of years. Paying for each CD $15? no thanks. There's too much music in the world, and too little money.

Musicians almost never get rich from CD sales. Thats a moot. CD sales work purely as marketing channel, main money comes from concerts.
Musicians don't really care if you buy their CD or not. They don't see the money. What they care is if there are millions who like their music and are willing to pay for concert tickets. For that to be possible, more people would have to have ever HEARD their music.

Once it was damn expensive to produce a CD. Then record labels had point, they financed poor musicians, and collected their spent money. Many CDs never made money, so labels had high losses also to cover. But now, every damn student can produce a CD without spending fortune, and record labels have degraded to merely DISTRIBUTION channel. By me, they could ignite themselves. I absolutely hate every single CD shop, such a stupid place to seek for a new music to listen. And I refuse to pay for such a crappy service.

http://www.magnatune.com/info/why

I hope they'll do well. Who needs a printed overpriced CD when you can download and burn it yourself?

Originally posted by kenikov
Will they stop illegal downloads?

Downloads cannot be stopped. Downloads can only be made legal. Its about time.

I personaly would like to pay monthly fee to have right to download and listen to ANY music I like at mp3 quality. If I love something, I'd go for buying highest quality download directly from authors. Or even just pay for a certificate that you have payed for this music and by all means need not to feel guilty.