Psst ... get cheap music here

[Tns]

i don't mind paying for music ,at a good price and no drm. drm is easy to remove with utilities on the internet. a digital loop back also works yes, no/virtually no quality loss.

 

[DJ...]

It limits what you can play, where you can play it etc etc etc...

As did buying a cd in the 90's. The license agreement when you purchase a cd limits where you can play it. The DRM merely enforces that!

How does it limit what you can play?

 

[Nick333]

As did buying a cd in the 90's. The license agreement when you purchase a cd limits where you can play it. The DRM merely enforces that!

How does it limit what you can play?

Ja, and before the phonograph you had to buy sheet music and play it yourself. Bring back the good old days.

 

[CathJ]

As did buying a cd in the 90's. The license agreement when you purchase a cd limits where you can play it. The DRM merely enforces that!

How does it limit what you can play?

Well, if I buy music from iTunes I can play it on my PC or on my iPod. I can't play it in my car cd player on the way to work.

If my iPod breaks, and I decide to replace it a Zune instead, I can't use any of the music I bought from iTunes.

Now I suspect you'll say that this is the same with the change from tapes to CD - if your tape player breaks and you replace it with a CD player, you won't be able to use your old tapes... but the analogy doesn't work. In that case there's a difference between an old format, and a new format; here, there's a difference between many competing current formats. Think less of tape vs cd, and more of, if you buy a Ford you can only use Shell petrol; or if you use Caltex you can only drive on certain roads.

 

[DJ...]

It used to be that artists toured and preformed to make a living. Not that I don't sympathise, but I don't see the fact that a few artists make a living purely off a business model that is doomed means we should put the breaks on the natural evolution of the delivery system of what for most artists is mainly advertising.
If you want people to pay for music give them an incentive to pay that doesn't include the majority of the profits going to record companies and distributors.

I dont want to put the brakes on the internet being an additional delivery system and in turn, revenue stream for me - not at all - in fact the opposite.

My arguement is - what is stopping you (not an accusation, merely a hypothetical) from distributing my music freely via P2P without a DRM? Your integrity? I am not questioning your integrity per say, merely the integrity of a select few who create the illegal trade of music.

I agree that if the DRM limits you to being able to play the track on a portable device or make a backup then it is probably legally wrong, more than just plain frustrating and a rip-off.

You ask for an incentive to pay for music!!!??? WTF? Is the music itself not an incentive? Maybe I am missing your point here but I dont see why there should be an incentive for you to PAY? Thats like saying give me an incetive to buy a movie, art, or a packet of chewing gum.

BTW - I do tour and perform - I have performed locally and internationally but you cannot subsidize a living on performace only - the real revenue generator is music sales for the smaller artist like myself.

 

[DJ...]

Well, if I buy music from iTunes I can play it on my PC or on my iPod. I can't play it in my car cd player on the way to work.

If my iPod breaks, and I decide to replace it a Zune instead, I can't use any of the music I bought from iTunes.

Now I suspect you'll say that this is the same with the change from tapes to CD - if your tape player breaks and you replace it with a CD player, you won't be able to use your old tapes... but the analogy doesn't work. In that case there's a difference between an old format, and a new format; here, there's a difference between many competing current formats. Think less of tape vs cd, and more of, if you buy a Ford you can only use Shell petrol; or if you use Caltex you can only drive on certain roads.

The license is there for a good reason - to protect the profits of the record company. OK, maybe not a good reason I agree that the licensing is ridiculous - but thats law that needs to change then - argue then thats it is constitutionally illegal. I will back you on that! I am merely pointing out that it is nothing new.

I just wanted to point out that DRM does protect me as an artist, even though it is more about protecting the profits of the record companies. I cant tell you what the solution should be because I cant think of anything that protects the artist, consumer and record companies. Remember, as a DJ I am a major consumer too - I spend close on on R1000.00 per month to keep my collection of music up to date. But I buy vinyl and cd.

 

[xrapidx]

I just wanted to point out that DRM does protect me as an artist, even though it is more about protecting the profits of the record companies. I cant tell you what the solution should be because I cant think of anything that protects the artist, consumer and record companies. Remember, as a DJ I am a major consumer too - I spend close on on R1000.00 per month to keep my collection of music up to date. But I buy vinyl and cd.

Well, if I'm paying for access to music and it can only play on my PC its pointless... so I will remove it - furthermore, do you know how many real artists are against DRM?

 

[DJ...]

Well, if I'm paying for access to music and it can only play on my PC its pointless... so I will remove it

If you read my previous posts you will notice that I am also against DRM in its current form.

furthermore, do you know how many real artists are against DRM?

Real artists?? What is the insinuation here

 

[xrapidx]

If you read my previous posts you will notice that I am also against DRM in its current form.

Yes - but DRM isn't there to protect the artist.

Real artists?? What is the insinuation here

LOL... no insinuation - just bad use of the word

 

[Nick333]

I dont want to put the brakes on the internet being an additional delivery system and in turn, revenue stream for me - not at all - in fact the opposite.

My arguement is - what is stopping you (not an accusation, merely a hypothetical) from distributing my music freely via P2P without a DRM? Your integrity? I am not questioning your integrity per say, merely the integrity of a select few who create the illegal trade of music.

Not even DRM stops people from distributing music freely. What it does do is discourage people from paying for it. The select few who trade in music are barely an issue. Its the vast majority of people who exchange music freely that is.

You ask for an incentive to pay for music!!!??? WTF? Is the music itself not an incentive? Maybe I am missing your point here but I dont see why there should be an incentive for you to PAY? Thats like saying give me an incetive to buy a movie, art, or a packet of chewing gum.

Its a lot like saying give me an incentive to buy a movie, not much like saying the same for art and nothing like a packet of chewing gum. The point is that as far as intellectual property goes its method of distribution that has evolved in away that favours the consumer, which is not surprising because the new technology has been developed by the consumer. It short circuits the traditional model of production and distribution which has always favoured record companies and distributors usually to the detriment of the artist and the consumer.
The present consumer driven model has huge potential for artists that are willing to adapt and are willing to break away from the old slave/master model.
The fact is that music will be distributed for free. DRM has and will continue to be broken. You cant arrest everyone and the few that do get caught and prosecuted wont be enough to discourage the hundreds of millions who are "pirating" music. So adapt or die.

Personally I don't listen to many artists with DJ in their name, but I'm willing to bet that the stuff you produce as an amateur is way better than anything you'll produce with the pressures and demands of a record company concerned with sales looming over you. As for you right to make millions: I don't really give a ****.

[/QUOTE]BTW - I do tour and perform - I have performed locally and internationally but you cannot subsidize a living on performace only - the real revenue generator is music sales for the smaller artist like myself.[/QUOTE]

See above.

 

[DJ...]

As for you right to make millions: I don't really give a ****.

You are going to have to point me to a post where I even remotely suggested this? Dont turn this into a slinging match, you seem inelligent and up for a good debate - dont put words in my mouth (or words in my posts if thats more apprpriate.) I do however have a right to charge for a product that I spent money and time creating.

What would your ideal solution be then? A solution that is viable for the artist, consumer and record companies.

 

[DJ...]

@Nick: I still dont understand why you need to be incentivised to pay for music or movies? Do you want it for free or what kind of incentive are you looking for? And it is exactly the same as asking for an incentive for any other product, because that is exactly what it is. My product is music! Dentyne's product is chewing gum. If you dont need an incentive to purchase chewig gum, then why do you need one to purchase music or movies for that matter?

 

[rwenzori]

You ask for an incentive to pay for music!!!??? WTF? Is the music itself not an incentive? Maybe I am missing your point here but I dont see why there should be an incentive for you to PAY? Thats like saying give me an incetive to buy a movie, art, or a packet of chewing gum.

The reality of the digital world is that most music is available for nothing. You might not like it, but it is true. Many people ( maybe even including me ) are happy to pay a bit for music, but not at R10 per song that is encoded at a crap bitrate and playable only on my PC, until I move to a new PC or trade it in for a Mac. Most songs are worth maybe 50cents or so to me. If there is no incentive ( like a cheap price ) well I'll stick to the zero-price option.

The other thing you should consider, setting aside moral huffing and thinking purely business-like, is that tolerating a lot of free distribution is good marketing and likely to increase your overall sales.

 

[rwenzori]

@Nick: I still dont understand why you need to be incentivised to pay for music or movies? Do you want it for free or what kind of incentive are you looking for? And it is exactly the same as asking for an incentive for any other product, because that is exactly what it is. My product is music! Dentyne's product is chewing gum. If you dont need an incentive to purchase chewig gum, then why do you need one to purchase music or movies for that matter?

On a point of order, if you steal chewing gum you are guilty of theft and get locked up possibly. Downloading a song for personal and private use is for the most part perfectly permissible in terms of our law - not even illegal. Thanks, I'll take a copy of your song.

 

[Nick333]

You are going to have to point me to a post where I even remotely suggested this? Dont turn this into a slinging match, you seem inelligent and up for a good debate - dont put words in my mouth (or words in my posts if thats more apprpriate.) I do however have a right to charge for a product that I spent money and time creating.

Ja, ok. My point is that I do believe you have the right to make a reasonable living. With that in mind the music industry should change to a point where the price of music is in line with that end. I'm not willing to pay to make you, your manager, the record company, the distributer and musica all stinking rich.

What would your ideal solution be then? A solution that is viable for the artist, consumer and record companies.

Well first off do away with record company or at least reduce its role drastically. Then adopt the attitude that recorded music is an advertising medium and perhaps reduce your expectations of revenues to a level of covering your cost to produce. Then with that in mind take advantage of the internet as a mass communications medium and get on to face book et al and create a demand. A link in your sig to a site where I could hear what you have to offer and download it if I like it would be a good start. Then get out there and preform.

 

[Nick333]

@Nick: I still dont understand why you need to be incentivised to pay for music or movies? Do you want it for free or what kind of incentive are you looking for? And it is exactly the same as asking for an incentive for any other product, because that is exactly what it is. My product is music! Dentyne's product is chewing gum. If you dont need an incentive to purchase chewig gum, then why do you need one to purchase music or movies for that matter?

Its not the same thing at, all chewing gum can't be digitally copied and distributed at zero cost.

As a for instance: In the classical music industry no one makes very much money off record sales at all. As a result its virtually impossible to get a record deal at all. Very many classical musicians have recordings of performances available for download on their websites and they make a living touring and performing. Very, very few get much reward beyond, making a reasonable living doing something they love.

And quite frankly the level of commitment their art requires is way beyond anything the vast majority of modern musicians have.

 

[DJ...]

The reality of the digital world is that most music is available for nothing. You might not like it, but it is true. Many people ( maybe even including me ) are happy to pay a bit for music, but not at R10 per song that is encoded at a crap bitrate and playable only on my PC, until I move to a new PC or trade it in for a Mac. Most songs are worth maybe 50cents or so to me. If there is no incentive ( like a cheap price ) well I'll stick to the zero-price option.

The other thing you should consider, setting aside moral huffing and thinking purely business-like, is that tolerating a lot of free distribution is good marketing and likely to increase your overall sales.

Price as an incentive applies to all products. It is unfortunate that I dont set the prices, because I back you on that. If price is inhibitive then there will be no choice but to make the offering more suitable. How on earth do you compete with free though? You cant really - even if the encoding is better, the average listener cannot tell the difference between an mp3 encoded at 256kbps or a 96Khz WAV. Free will always win!

On marketing: I successfully employ this tactic. 1 month before any major release I freely distribute a remix of the song that will be released. It is released to a select group of individuals who have the right to distribute that remix as they choose. It creates a stir from a marketing perspective and the original mix and various other mixes do much better than they did without this 'guerilla' 360 tactic (it goes through various other channels). But this is done on my terms, which is to an extent controllable. When the original song is released, I lose revenue if my fanbase choose to download for free because someone ripped the track and shared it. If I relied solely on production as my only source of income I would struggle. As much as it inhibites your purchasing of the music, it inhibites my willingness to focus on what I love - music production.

 

[Peter_J]

On marketing: I successfully employ this tactic.

My experience in this regard with shareware I mentioned elsewhere thus:

I made my living for 2 years writing and selling shareware via the net. My software was extensively pirated, as evidenced by numerous "valid" serial numbers appearing in crack/serial databases and lists and sites. Initially I was angered, but I came to understand that the more pirate copies were distributed, the more the software became known and used, and the more sales I made.

 

[DJ...]

Ja, ok. My point is that I do believe you have the right to make a reasonable living. With that in mind the music industry should change to a point where the price of music is in line with that end. I'm not willing to pay to make you, your manager, the record company, the distributer and musica all stinking rich.

Agreed. Music is drastically overpriced.

Well first off do away with record company or at least reduce its role drastically.

Not viable at all. Most artists dont have the legal expertise to draw up distribution contracts with the re-sellers. Nor do they have the sales ability to sell 1million cd's to them or negotiate conditions of sale. Same applies for digital distribution. Nor the marketing skills/budget because online marketing is only one tool

Then adopt the attitude that recorded music is an advertising medium and perhaps reduce your expectations of revenues to a level of covering your cost to produce. Then with that in mind take advantage of the internet as a mass communications medium and get on to face book et al and create a demand. A link in your sig to a site where I could hear what you have to offer and download it if I like it would be a good start. Then get out there and preform.

Not viable - the majority of music today is written by people with no performance skills. Introverts who cannot sing. They sell the track to a label who assigns a performer to sing it in the studio and then awefully on stage. Many artists dont want to perform live too - for me I can only do it once a month.

See the labels are a neccesary evil at the end of the day. Distribution through one channel is not a viable business model, and the labels facilitate the entire process of marketing, distribution, licensing for compilations, sales, accounting etc. I would require a team of skilled people to perform their function for me - in other words I would need to become a record label to take the record label out of the equation. The economys of scale mean that they can do it for much cheaper than I can. The problem here is they charge the consumer too much for their role - I am guessing that for everyone, price is the major factor in their gripes about buying music.

 

[CathJ]

Price as an incentive applies to all products. It is unfortunate that I dont set the prices, because I back you on that. If price is inhibitive then there will be no choice but to make the offering more suitable. How on earth do you compete with free though? You cant really - even if the encoding is better, the average listener cannot tell the difference between an mp3 encoded at 256kbps or a 96Khz WAV. Free will always win!

Free will often win, but not always. I agree it's difficult to quantify how many people would rather pay a bit for a song, thus rewarding the artist, rather than download it illegally, but it's not an insignificant number. Put it this way: I'd rather download a song free from the artists website, than buy it at a small cost; but I'd rather buy it at a small cost than buy it at a big cost; and buying it a big cost versus downloading it illegally are equally unattractive.

The problem is that DRM as it is doesn't help anyone. It doesn't protect the artist, or the distributors, since it's so easily broken; and it hurts consumers. As you've said, the trick is to come up with something that helps all parties involved. There are therefore 3 choices, not just two: DRM-as-is; ideal-DRM; and no DRM. I'm just not sure if ideal-DRM exists.