the new way to stop file-sharing

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

Seriously. If this was the last year of new music coming out ever. All the record companies shut down and new music ceased, would you ever run out of stuff to listen to?

I'm not saying I want music to stop, but either way, I think I'll be entertained for about another 50 years or so, judging by the amount of music I'v listened to in the last 5.

Goat · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:50 am

noodles wrote:

He's saying that people will pay for music if they like it

And I'm saying that's not true in most cases, ignoring the essential wrongs of doing that which have been argued above.

noodles · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:41 am

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

He's saying that people will pay for music if they like it

And I'm saying that's not true in most cases

proof? so far the only unbiased study on this i've seen says there's no correlation between illegal downloading and buying music

Goat · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:57 pm

noodles wrote:

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

He's saying that people will pay for music if they like it

And I'm saying that's not true in most cases

proof? so far the only unbiased study on this i've seen says there's no correlation between illegal downloading and buying music

"In most cases" - as you said, hard to see a correlation but I can't believe the majority of downloaders rush out and buy a CD if they liked the download, surely most just stick with the MP3s.

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

That's what you are assuming based on how you do or would act. Buying CD's has always been something I enjoy doing, so i'll never stop.

Eternal Idol · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:24 pm

Zad wrote:

Eternal Idol wrote:

Make good music and people will pay for it. It's as simple as that. Downloaders aren't, and never will, hurt quality music. The RIAA is crying over people not shelling out hard-earned money on their newest, manufactured fads of the week. Sure, the girl who sings "Umbrella" is pleasant to look at, but nobody with any taste is going to pay to listen to that garbage. Britney's Spears last album was pretty much a flop, because everyone knows how much of a talentless hack she really is, and they just downloaded that one song the clubs were playing. Those kind of acts are the ones getting hurt by downloading, not the people making music solely for the sake of making music.

Of course, it doesn't matter that Britney's last album was a definate step away from the obvious stuff, and that she was (for her) experimenting musically, and that's why the new album flopped, because she didn't live up to what people expected. She could have released the greatest album of music ever released, and the same would have happened. Yet enough people bought her album for her to keep going as an artist, and you can't tell me the same happens for every metal musician, for it simply isn't true. People download Metal expecting to be surprised, and when it doesn't live up to it they move on, and that money that could've gone towards the album and ultimately the next (possible masterpiece) is gone. You cannot justify downloading by pretending that people only download non-metal. Lies. People buy Rihanna, else how is she top of the charts? People don't buy Metal.

Metal has always been undeground. Metallica is the only mainstream metal band, period. And the fact that plenty of people did in fact pay for Radiohead's newest album when they had the option not to do so supports my argument. People paid for it, and the actual album is moving pretty briskly, even after it was released on the internet.

I also don't see very many metal specific distros closing up shop due to lack of sales. People are probably buying more metal albums now than ever before, considering you can actually find anything you happen to be looking for these days. Plenty of people are buying Metal albums, and I'd would argue that peoplr sampling shit through downloading is actually helping business, not hurting it. The RIAA is hurting due to archaic business practices and an unwillingness to embrace new technologies. Why can't people go to Sony music's website, for example, and pay them directly to download something? Because it's a beauracy full of stuffy old men who can't grasp what their target audiences want in terms of media accesibility and vesatility. They want to be able to transfer their CD's to their IPods, their cellphones, etc. etc. and the record labels are telling them they can't do that with something they paid for. It's ridiculous. Digital Rights Management is going to be the death of the record labels, not the kid with a soulseek account. The RIAA is it's own worst enemy at this point.

noodles · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:38 am

why the fuck wont relapse offer their shit in itunes plus

so lame

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

Relapse is not offering their stuff because they are more interested in keeping local heavy metal record stores open.

noodles · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:21 am

they have stuff on itunes, but its got DRM on it and is 128 kbps

Mike · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:59 pm

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

He's saying that people will pay for music if they like it

And I'm saying that's not true in most cases

proof? so far the only unbiased study on this i've seen says there's no correlation between illegal downloading and buying music

"In most cases" - as you said, hard to see a correlation but I can't believe the majority of downloaders rush out and buy a CD if they liked the download, surely most just stick with the MP3s.

That's been my point in this entire discussion. Teenagers ( who make up the majority of the music downloading/sales ) don't buy CD's. They illegally download because it is free and they have not been caught yet. Plain and simple. I have yet to meet a teenager or really anyone who has downloaded a CD and liked it so much that they had to go and ask mommy and daddy to go out and buy a physical copy of it. Even if the young person is working, they have such limited funds that there is no way they're going to part with $12 to $18 on music. So, Adveser if that is your approach then good for you. However, your approach is not the norm of the majoirity.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:16 am

Raven wrote:

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

He's saying that people will pay for music if they like it

And I'm saying that's not true in most cases

proof? so far the only unbiased study on this i've seen says there's no correlation between illegal downloading and buying music

"In most cases" - as you said, hard to see a correlation but I can't believe the majority of downloaders rush out and buy a CD if they liked the download, surely most just stick with the MP3s.

That's been my point in this entire discussion. Teenagers ( who make up the majority of the music downloading/sales ) don't buy CD's. They illegally download because it is free and they have not been caught yet. Plain and simple. I have yet to meet a teenager or really anyone who has downloaded a CD and liked it so much that they had to go and ask mommy and daddy to go out and buy a physical copy of it. Even if the young person is working, they have such limited funds that there is no way they're going to part with $12 to $18 on music. So, Adveser if that is your approach then good for you. However, your approach is not the norm of the majoirity.

So you propose that teenagers with or without jobs could not afford the albums and most likely will not buy them, am I correct?

So if they were never going to afford or buy the album or be able to have their parents buy the album they aren't affecting record sales in any way. If anything, the bands are developing a following that may buy their albums when they get older.

heatseeker · **Posted:** Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:04 am

Raven wrote:

I have yet to meet a teenager or really anyone who has downloaded a CD and liked it so much that they had to go and ask mommy and daddy to go out and buy a physical copy of it.

I did that :lol:

But yeah, most of my friends either download music for free or if they do pay for it, they use iTunes. Quite a few just own CD's from their favorite bands.

Mike · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:20 am

traptunderice wrote:

So if they were never going to afford or buy the album or be able to have their parents buy the album they aren't affecting record sales in any way. If anything, the bands are developing a following that may buy their albums when they get older.

That's absolute fantasy!!

If you've always been able to get something for free please tell me what motivates you later to pay for it? The only way one would ever pay for it is when the ability to steal the music for free no longer exists.

noodles · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:53 am

Raven wrote:

The only way one would ever pay for it is when the ability to steal the music for free no longer exists.

And it will always exist

uh oh!

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

Raven wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

So if they were never going to afford or buy the album or be able to have their parents buy the album they aren't affecting record sales in any way. If anything, the bands are developing a following that may buy their albums when they get older.

That's absolute fantasy!!

If you've always been able to get something for free please tell me what motivates you later to pay for it? The only way one would ever pay for it is when the ability to steal the music for free no longer exists.

What motivates people to pay for music? Let's see. There's better sound quality and the integrity of the mp3 files. There's the respect for the artists themselves. There's morality in general, I think stealing is wrong and think deserving musicians should be paid for their work. There's also a certain loyalty to the recrd labels I respect that have signed some killer musicians. I would like them to continue signing new acts. These are a few of the reasons I pay for the music I like. MP3's are a temporary solution to a temporary money problem. Metal albums don't stay in print forever, MP3's are merely insurance against purchasing shit albums and making sure I have the ability to hear a great album if I never get the chance. Not every album is going to be available indefinitely. You have to download it while someone has it uploaded and the links they provide are still valid.

I'll say again. Not every album can be found online for free. I bought a copy of Dungeon's One Step Beyond and the CD got damaged. After numerous attempts to find the album, no dice. Looks like I'm going to buy a second copy of it, which I don't mind so much because I think it is a masterpiece. I know you disagree, but I think you are entitled to the right to have a working and playable album after you buy it, you shouldn't have to buy something a second or third time because of the limitations of the media it was written on.

This is why DRM is going to kill commercial MP3's. As soon as people start having Hard Drives with hundreds of dollars worth of Mp3's die on them and people crying foul when they are told "you don't have the right to back up files, regardless of what the law says" people are going to be pissed and they will find the alternative to getting ripped off.

Once you buy an album, it is for life as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of grey areas in that, such as buying vinyl for 1.00 and then downloading it for "archival purposes" I mean, I don't think that is wrong, but it isn't exactly 100% right either.

noodles · **Posted:** Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:59 am

noodles wrote:

Raven wrote:

The only way one would ever pay for it is when the ability to steal the music for free no longer exists.

And it will always exist

uh oh!

to add to this point: oh shi-

noodles wrote:

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

He's saying that people will pay for music if they like it

And I'm saying that's not true in most cases

proof? so far the only unbiased study on this i've seen says there's no correlation between illegal downloading and buying music

a quote from that article:

Quote:

Yet it has been difficult to quantify the damage supposedly wreaked by downloading. In mid-2007, economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee, from Harvard, and Koleman Strumpf, from the University of Kansas, published the results of their study analyzing the effect of file sharing on retail music sales in the U.S. They found no correlation between the two. "While downloads occur on a vast scale," they wrote, "most users are likely individuals who in the absence of file sharing would not have bought the music they downloaded." Another study published around the same time, however, found there was, in fact, a positive impact on retail sales, at least in Canada: University of London researchers Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz reported that the more people downloaded songs from P2P networks, the more CDs they bought. "Roughly half of all P2P tracks were downloaded because individuals wanted to hear songs before buying them or because they wanted to avoid purchasing the whole bundle of songs on the associated CDs, and roughly one-quarter were downloaded because they were not available for purchase."

so now I guess its downloading doesn't hurt music: 2, downloading hurts music: 0

also lol @ this:

Quote:

(c) in a way, making fun of them, finding a way to say, 'That's not cool—that's anything but cool.' If you had people who the young people respect in this industry—Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Shia LaBeouf—if these guys did public service announcements that said, 'Don't steal, stealing's not cool,' I think you can go a long way toward stopping this."

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:45 am

Noodles just explained my argument for me.

And if Shia LeBouf told me to stop downloading albums I would. :rolleyes:

@Raven about growing up to be fans that will buy albums: if kids can't get to hear the music they can't afford when they're young, they definitely aren't going to pick up metal and start listening to it when they're thirty so what is their to lose.

Goat · **Posted:** Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:13 am

noodles wrote:

a quote from that article:

Quote:

Yet it has been difficult to quantify the damage supposedly wreaked by downloading. In mid-2007, economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee, from Harvard, and Koleman Strumpf, from the University of Kansas, published the results of their study analyzing the effect of file sharing on retail music sales in the U.S. They found no correlation between the two. "While downloads occur on a vast scale," they wrote, "most users are likely individuals who in the absence of file sharing would not have bought the music they downloaded." Another study published around the same time, however, found there was, in fact, a positive impact on retail sales, at least in Canada: University of London researchers Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz reported that the more people downloaded songs from P2P networks, the more CDs they bought. "Roughly half of all P2P tracks were downloaded because individuals wanted to hear songs before buying them or because they wanted to avoid purchasing the whole bundle of songs on the associated CDs, and roughly one-quarter were downloaded because they were not available for purchase."

so now I guess its downloading doesn't hurt music: 2, downloading hurts music: 0

Not at all. That article states than only half was to check out music - I'm sure all the people polled are going to answer honestly, of course. And, with respect, Jeff, that's just Canada.

noodles · **Posted:** Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:40 am

Zad wrote:

noodles wrote:

a quote from that article:

Quote:

Yet it has been difficult to quantify the damage supposedly wreaked by downloading. In mid-2007, economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee, from Harvard, and Koleman Strumpf, from the University of Kansas, published the results of their study analyzing the effect of file sharing on retail music sales in the U.S. They found no correlation between the two. "While downloads occur on a vast scale," they wrote, "most users are likely individuals who in the absence of file sharing would not have bought the music they downloaded." Another study published around the same time, however, found there was, in fact, a positive impact on retail sales, at least in Canada: University of London researchers Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz reported that the more people downloaded songs from P2P networks, the more CDs they bought. "Roughly half of all P2P tracks were downloaded because individuals wanted to hear songs before buying them or because they wanted to avoid purchasing the whole bundle of songs on the associated CDs, and roughly one-quarter were downloaded because they were not available for purchase."

so now I guess its downloading doesn't hurt music: 2, downloading hurts music: 0

Not at all. That article states than only half was to check out music - I'm sure all the people polled are going to answer honestly, of course. And, with respect, Jeff, that's just Canada.

AND IT WAS WOMEN DOING THE STUDY

Mike · **Posted:** Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:44 am

traptunderice wrote:

Noodles just explained my argument for me.

And if Shia LeBouf told me to stop downloading albums I would. :rolleyes:

@Raven about growing up to be fans that will buy albums: if kids can't get to hear the music they can't afford when they're young, they definitely aren't going to pick up metal and start listening to it when they're thirty so what is their to lose.

So, that gives them the right to steal it then?

You people are ridiculous.

Metal Reviews

the new way to stop file-sharing

Who is online