Post subject: Arguments FOR internet file sharing?
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:27 am
Got Some
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:16 am Posts: 1863
im writing a paper and i need some good opinions/view points on this. if you know of any old threads that deal with this, link me and i'll love you forever. or just give your own opinion here. id love to hear it. im desperate. im out of fresh, original thought.
i put this in "Other Bands" because it deals with music, maybe it should be in General, if it does...sue me.
This is a study from early last year (geez, it feels weird to say that) that shows it would take 5,000 downloads of an album to affect one legal sale of a CD.
The reason for the drop in revenue, according to the study is the 1990s. In the 90s, kids had more disposable income, adults were converting their records and tapes to CDs, and hip-hop was a cultural force, fresh and exciting to most people's ears. Today, kids's money goes to DVDs and video games too, hip-hop is not so fresh anymore, and adults have fully converted their collections.
This is a semi-long read about how the record industry has changed from being run by people who live music to bean counters, essentially. There's also a nice section about sales in the Internet era that you might want to look at.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:56 pm Posts: 19957 Location: Jenny Lewis' funbags
kudos the hero wrote:
godeatgod wrote:
Cerebrosus wrote:
I know that I for one buy a lot more music since I started downloading music.
For reals.
i know for fact that if i haven't been downloading all these albums, i would have been buying most of them
exactly. before i got into downloading albums it took my 10 years to build a collection of about 100 cds, mostly nirvana, soundgarden, pearl jam and other stuff that was big at the time. since internet downloading got big a few years that collection has grown to 400 (granted i do have a bit more disposable income, but not much more) and im willing to bet i wouldnt have bought 80% of those albums if i hadnt discovered it online. I also know that i have friends who download shitloads of music and never pay a cent so i guess it kinda works out. at least i try to do my part
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:31 pm Posts: 10340 Location: Norway Gender: Male
Cerebrosus wrote:
I know that I for one buy a lot more music since I started downloading music.
Me too. It's easier to download a track or two and listen to them at home than going down to a record-store and listen to it there. And you get to check out bands that hasn't got a record-deal yet.
_________________ A simple prop to occupy my time.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:23 am Posts: 458 Location: NC
I used to download music (not entire albums though), but now I just download some of their live shows (bit torrents) and then go out and buy their cds. I think downloading their concerts are 10x better than downloading studio albums. I'm NOT for file sharing, if it is studio albums being downloaded. That just my opinion though!
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:27 am Posts: 1690 Location: panis et circensis
Garden of Stone wrote:
Cerebrosus wrote:
I know that I for one buy a lot more music since I started downloading music.
Me too. It's easier to download a track or two and listen to them at home than going down to a record-store and listen to it there. And you get to check out bands that hasn't got a record-deal yet.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm Posts: 14534 Location: Mesa,AZ
Here's the REAL reason they hate file sharing:
Since I started downloading music, the majority of my music purchases (which have greatly increased) have been shifted from major-label releases to no-name record labels. I now have a medium to discover artists that can't make it through the clear channel/RIAA radio monopoly. It's about market control more than anything else.
_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
the truth of the matter is, for each and everyone of you who says, ill dl a song, listen to it, then buy the album, there are 1000 who will only download the song and say fuck buying the album
the truth of the matter is, for each and everyone of you who says, ill dl a song, listen to it, then buy the album, there are 1000 who will only download the song and say fuck buying the album
So? It takes 5,000 downloads of an album to negatively affect ONE sale. Even if 1% of those illegal downloaders buy an album, it's still a 50:1 ratio.
Downloading is not the problem. It's too-high pricing and too much emphasis on units sold instead of making quality albums.
the truth of the matter is, for each and everyone of you who says, ill dl a song, listen to it, then buy the album, there are 1000 who will only download the song and say fuck buying the album
So? It takes 5,000 downloads of an album to negatively affect ONE sale. Even if 1% of those illegal downloaders buy an album, it's still a 50:1 ratio.
Downloading is not the problem. It's too-high pricing and too much emphasis on units sold instead of making quality albums.
im not going to argue with you on the points of why people download songs, cause i agree with em, but no matter how you slice it, youre still taking money from the record company (band) when you download
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm Posts: 14534 Location: Mesa,AZ
Peeps wrote:
The Sheck wrote:
Peeps wrote:
the truth of the matter is, for each and everyone of you who says, ill dl a song, listen to it, then buy the album, there are 1000 who will only download the song and say fuck buying the album
So? It takes 5,000 downloads of an album to negatively affect ONE sale. Even if 1% of those illegal downloaders buy an album, it's still a 50:1 ratio.
Downloading is not the problem. It's too-high pricing and too much emphasis on units sold instead of making quality albums.
im not going to argue with you on the points of why people download songs, cause i agree with em, but no matter how you slice it, youre still taking money from the record company (band) when you download
How are you taking money from them if you're not buying the album anyways? It's free advertising. That's why the conglomerate record companies hate it so much.
_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
Since I started downloading music, the majority of my music purchases (which have greatly increased) have been shifted from major-label releases to no-name record labels. I now have a medium to discover artists that can't make it through the clear channel/RIAA radio monopoly. It's about market control more than anything else.
great point
heres another..now you dont have to get raped in the ass by spending 20 bucks to buy a cd with one good song..it makes the artists put out better product..
it also helped bring the price of cds down to about 10-15 bucks from over 20..that helps people actually afford cds they want to buy
i at one time felt sorry for these artists but then i saw some shitty rappers on mtv with like 30 cars all of witch were about $50k+, mansions, etc..
_________________ bitches I like em brainless
guns I like em stainless steel
I want the fuckin fortune like the wheel
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum