downloading music

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by nate

I recommend the sites where you buy the track rather than steal it. If you're into artists who like to give their work away, I've found that their websites are pretty good places to look.

Now, if you really _must_ steal music/software/porn, I recommend manning up and going into a place that sells the physical object and try the ol' five-finger discount. I suppose you could also try breaking into the houses of the MANY people BESIDES the "artist" who make their living from the sale of music (like me, for example) and seeing if you can maybe pilfer some coin from them.

Downloading music illegally has resulted in me being many more CDs and LPs. As a matter of fact, I bought six CDs at Shake-It today, and I have nearly 3,000 CDs in my collection right now. Without illegal downloads, I wouldn't have heard of half the bands I currently listen to.

But hey, if you want to say downloading 80GB of music is the same as breaking and entering, go ahead and report me to the cops even though the music industry has practically robbed me with their ridiculous prices and ****ty product.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by OldRightHander

When I do download music, which is rare, I always get the whole album and I pay for it. Am I an old fashioned oddball?

I'm in the stone age with you. I still buy CDs but I'm thinking more and more that that's stupid. First of all each CD probably only has 3 songs that I really want to listen to. Maybe these more educated folks can help us out of the stone age...

I don't own an Ipod because I don't need to wear my music everywhere I go but I would like to make my own CDs and I know my computer can do it. So here's my question for those in the know:

Where would you suggest I go to download songs with the intent of transferring them to a CD-R? I-tunes? I'm looking for a site with a lot of music choice and I'll pay for each song. I'm not really into the commitment of monthly payments but maybe I'll have to.

[Razor Shines]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I'm in the stone age with you. I still buy CDs but I'm thinking more and more that that's stupid. First of all each CD probably only has 3 songs that I really want to listen to. Maybe these more educated folks can help us out of the stone age...

I don't own an Ipod because I don't need to wear my music everywhere I go but I would like to make my own CDs and I know my computer can do it. So here's my question for those in the know:

Where would you suggest I go to download songs with the intent of transferring them to a CD-R? I-tunes? I'm looking for a site with a lot of music choice and I'll pay for each song. I'm not really into the commitment of monthly payments but maybe I'll have to.

Well you're not able to burn the music to a CD with most sites that you pay for monthly, so that probably wouldn't be the best option. iTunes would probably be the best place for you.

Although should consider getting an mp3 player. Even if you're not interested in 'wearing your music', I find it's much easier to listen to my mp3 player in the car than listening to CDs in the car. You can either dig through a giant CD case or scroll through all of your music with hand held device. If your current car stereo isn't mp3 player ready, you can buy a car stereo with an AUX jack for around $70 at Wal-Mart and they're easy to install.

[nate]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Downloading music illegally has resulted in me being many more CDs and LPs. As a matter of fact, I bought six CDs at Shake-It today, and I have nearly 3,000 CDs in my collection right now. Without illegal downloads, I wouldn't have heard of half the bands I currently listen to.

You're listening to more bands for the same reason you steal music: because the internet makes it easy. Why didn't you just steal a bunch of CDs today instead? It's the same thing.

But hey, if you want to say downloading 80GB of music is the same as breaking and entering, go ahead and report me to the cops even though the music industry has practically robbed me with their ridiculous prices and ****ty product.

Not liking the music industry doesn't make it OK to steal.

No one forced you to waste money on bad music, that's your choice.

Yet you're the one with 3000 CDs and 80 GB of music.

The devaluation of music/art/intellectual property continues.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by OldRightHander

When I do download music, which is rare, I always get the whole album and I pay for it. Am I an old fashioned oddball?

How are you going to stimulate the economy that way?

[MrCinatit]

I use Napster, paying the monthly fee. If I like the song enough to pay for it and download it, then there I go.

[The Baumer]

The way people get music is changing. I'm sure when they introduced recordable cassettes and people started recording songs off the radio a lot of people lost jobs/money. But music still exists and the world keeps going on. The old way of selling music is what is dying, not music itself.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by nate

You're listening to more bands for the same reason you steal music: because the internet makes it easy. Why didn't you just steal a bunch of CDs today instead? It's the same thing.

Not liking the music industry doesn't make it OK to steal.

I agree that not liking the music industry doesn't make it OK to steal. If I were around in the 1800s, I probably wouldn't have liked the fact that women couldn't vote. That doesn't mean it's OK to not let women vote either.

Anyway, the point I was making is that I own more CDs because I 'stole' the music first. That's why I listen to more bands--not simply because the internet made it easier. If I don't like the music, I delete it, and if I like it, I buy it. Napster pretty much changed my life in that way. What difference does it make if I download the music and then buy it instead of the other way around?

Music is art. Would you buy a painting without having seen it? I want to hear the music before I pay for it. What's so wrong in that? Shouldn't the seller want her/his customers to be satisfied? If not, then that's a very dishonest business imo.

The industry has changed, and it's time for adjustments to be made. Instead of record companies relying so heavily on record sales, maybe they should put more focus on tours and merchandise.

[*BaseClogger*]

How music has been recorded and sold has greatly changed over the last 100 years. Perhaps it is time the record companies adapted? I love albums, but people aren't willing to buy them anymore. They either buy singles on iTunes or download albums for free. And selling songs for 99 cents on iTunes has proven to not be profitable. I think it is time the record companies developed a hybrid of sorts, smaller than an album but more profitable than a single...

[Razor Shines]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I agree that not liking the music industry doesn't make it OK to steal. If I were around in the 1800s, I probably wouldn't have liked the fact that women couldn't vote. That doesn't mean it's OK to not let women vote either.

Oh, I see. You're an activist. And here I thought you were just downloading music illegally because you didn't want to pay for it.

[nate]

Originally Posted by The Baumer

The way people get music is changing. I'm sure when they introduced recordable cassettes and people started recording songs off the radio a lot of people lost jobs/money. But music still exists and the world keeps going on. The old way of selling music is what is dying, not music itself.

The technology used to steal doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

I wasn't arguing that music was dying.

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by nate

I wasn't arguing that music was dying.

Music isn't dying, sure. But is the music industry dying?

[nate]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I agree that not liking the music industry doesn't make it OK to steal. If I were around in the 1800s, I probably wouldn't have liked the fact that women couldn't vote. That doesn't mean it's OK to not let women vote either.

Bad analogy. We're talking about theft, not civil rights.

Anyway, the point I was making is that I own more CDs because I 'stole' the music first. That's why I listen to more bands--not simply because the internet made it easier. If I don't like the music, I delete it, and if I like it, I buy it. Napster pretty much changed my life in that way. What difference does it make if I download the music and then buy it instead of the other way around?

I think this is just justification for stealing.

Music is art. Would you buy a painting without having seen it?I want to hear the music before I pay for it.

I guess I wonder why anyone would buy anything they hadn't heard in the first place and be surprised if they didn't like it in the second.

Anyhow, consider:

*Listening to internet/terrestrial radio
*Going to the band's web/MySpace/Facebook/last.fm/iMeem/etc. site and listening to a preview

What's so wrong in that? Shouldn't the seller want her/his customers to be satisfied? If not, then that's a very dishonest business imo.

I've always had the uncanny ability to know if I'm going to like a song after hearing about thirty seconds of it. Sometimes, even less. When I hear a bit of a tune I like, I can Shazam it, find out what it is and buy it. If I don't like it, it's a buck...sometimes less. I can't imagine a scenario where I'd buy something I didn't know I liked. I mean, I've always let the song tell me to buy it by hearing it first. I've never bought a track I hadn't heard before.

This where the "new way" excels. The "album" is no longer the vehicle for sales.

The industry has changed, and it's time for adjustments to be made. Instead of record companies relying so heavily on record sales, maybe they should put more focus on tours and merchandise.

They've done this for years.

Tthe "record companies" aren't the only ones hurt by you stealing their music. The indy artists, the producers, the songwriters, the sole proprietor, the self-publishing author, the one-man shareware author, etc are the ones who _need_ and are hurt the most by people who steal their intellectual property.

[nate]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

How music has been recorded and sold has greatly changed over the last 100 years. Perhaps it is time the record companies adapted? I love albums, but people aren't willing to buy them anymore.

I think even record companies realize this.

They either buy singles on iTunes or download albums for free. And selling songs for 99 cents on iTunes has proven to not be profitable.

It's incredibly profitable.

I think it is time the record companies developed a hybrid of sorts, smaller than an album but more profitable than a single...

I think this is why you see a lot of music sellers selling songs.

[nate]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Music isn't dying, sure. But is the music industry dying?

The way intellectual property is made, marketed and sold has changed and is always in a state of change.