What's the difference between recording off the radio or the internet??? (1 Viewer)

[Rachael B]

I didn't name Sony but I had them in mind in an earlier comment. In the end file sharers get 2nd rate media...I'm not so sure it's much better than mediocre cassettes, maybe worse??? Now that folks have all gotten too adept at recording, they want the game to be over.

There's a little short on the front of the Life Section of 2-day's USA Today about a new copy-guard. It will be put on Anthony Hamilton's new album COMIN' FROM WHERE I'M FROM.

"Buyers can transfer tracks to their PC and many portable devices, and burn three copies to a CD. Consumers also can forward a web link that will allow friends to download CD tracks for 10 days..."

The discription is too vague for me to comprendo completo... I wouldn't buy this album though. I don't want media that runs out of "transfers"...? Sounds like it might/will? Anybody have a link to a webpage on this subject????

 

[JayMacey]

There's a HUGE difference.

1) Quality. There's a HUGE difference in the bitrates of FM quality & the almost cd quality (& can be cd quality) of downloading.
2) The artist and songwriters get paid for each time their work is played on the radio (yes, its pennies per play, but all the same.
3) Often times, the intros of songs are cut out or "turned down" so dee jays can introduce them or talk about this or that.
4) MILLIONS of dollars goes into choosing & promoting a song that best represents the artist and the album (& is also the most mass-appealing). ANY song can be found on the internet.

You wrote:
We all pay the R.I.A.A. a fee/levy/pseudo-tax for blank media, don't we. I know Canadians pay more than Americans. What we put on it and where we get it ought to be nobody else's business, up to an extent...

I really don't see much difference between recording radio and file-sharing. Either way you end up with RECORDED media

 

[Lew Crippen]

The RIAA already has control of what you hear and how you hear it via radio......Clear Channel.

Perhaps you can explain the relationship between Clear Channel and the RIAA, Chet. It is not clear to me.

Besides, I have a ton of choices here that have nothing to do with Clear Channel: jazz (more than one), various pop/rock station with nothing to do with Clear Channel, classical, C&W (Texas, natch), and many, many more. Oh, and NPR.

But then, perhaps ‘Big D’ is just more culturally advanced than your neck of the woods, which appears to offer no choice.

 

[MickeS]

Let's say I haven't downloaded any "illegal" songs for several weeks. I also haven't bought any CDs during this period.

Let's say I did download a few songs "illegally" the week before that. I also happened to buy a CD during that week.

When did the artists lose money, when I was downloading or when I wasn't?

Stop calling it "stealing" when there is in fact no loss whatsoever anywhere, except the potential loss of revenue, which is non-existent since I wouldn't have bought CDs anyway! I wonder how the RIAA calculate these "losses", do they count one download of an album track as -11.99 dollars? In that case, I'd say their "losses" due to illegal downloading are hugely exaggerated...

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are cases where there is a real loss of potential revenue, if I want to go out and buy a CD but find it online anyway. All I'm saying is that the figures are NOWHERE near what the industry is claiming. Does anyone seriously think that a guy with 3000 individual album songs MP3 on his harddrive would have bought 3000 CDs to get those songs if he hadn't ben able to download them? He would have bought 3 of them and probably never even heard of the others...

It is a problem, but don't blow it out of proportion.

 

[Brian Perry]

Does anyone seriously think that a guy with 3000 individual album songs MP3 on his harddrive would have bought 3000 CDs to get those songs if he hadn't ben able to download them? He would have bought 3 of them and probably never even heard of the others...

You can also look at it this way:

I own about 800 CDs, for which I've probably paid over $10,000. On those 800 CDs, let's say there are 3,000 songs I like and listen to occasionally. If I would have obtained those songs for free, wouldn't you say the recording industry was cheated out of $10,000? (And by recording industry, I mean artists, producers, studios, retailers, clerks, etc.)

For the kids who haven't started purchasing music yet, it sets them up for a rude awakening ("you mean I have to PAY for this?").

 

[Justin Lane]

I own about 800 CDs, for which I've probably paid over $10,000. On those 800 CDs, let's say there are 3,000 songs I like and listen to occasionally. If I would have obtained those songs for free, wouldn't you say the recording industry was cheated out of $10,000? (And by recording industry, I mean artists, producers, studios, retailers, clerks, etc.)

You are very very far from average. Most people buy a CD or two a month if that. They will buy the CDs of their favorite artists, and probably pass on those they would never buy the disc in the first place and be content in listening on the radio or downloading for a song or two. You are what is considered a music fan and perfer to own full albums in a copy you can hold in your hands. I am the same way, but in no way do I consider myself the norm in my music buying purchases.

The major problem if the industry that has not been brought up enough is the maturity of the CD format. Almost every classic album is available on CD and has been for some time. The middle aged individuals with large amounts of disposable income for music, already own all of their favorite albums in a format that does not wear out over time. Many of these classic acts are no longer putting out music, hence listening habits have become locked in on established catalog favorites. The key to generating new sales is through support of acts that have cross generational appeal, beyond the current crop of one hit wonders, and over-commercialized crapola.

This is where Hi-res and surround sound music have a chance to gain ground, but to date, the efforts to sell these new formats (DVD-A/SACD) by the labels has been almost laughable.


J

 

[kevin_tomb]

another point: Can I burn copies of my own CDs ??..for my own personal use? Whats the difference if I own the CD of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON and I make a copy of it, or I download a MP3 of it? I already paid for it right?
Now im totally agianst making profit off downloaded mucic. That is totally wrong. But downloading something that I would have NEVER bought anyways....hmmm....to be honest Ive hardly ever downloaded anything. DIAL UP makes it nearly impossible. How about the RECORD COMPANY free downloads on some music sites? Are they okay to download? That is with permission of the record company.

 

[Chris*Liberti]

I see it the same way. I listen to extreme alternative music that gets no radio play (when is the last time you heard Built to SPill, Yo La Tengo, or Sonic Youth on the radio) and I use the internet to determine if I will or will not buy an album. If I like the songs (I usually download 2-3 from the album I am considering to purchase) then I buy the album and if I don't I delete the songs off of my computer and don't buy the album. I currently have close to 500 CDs, 1000 LPs, and 10 each of DVD-A and SACD so I do buy a lot of albums. The thing that bugs me is that the record companies expect me to pay $16 for something that probably costs $5 with royalties and everything else. Why should the record company prophet when they are the ones that have the least affect on the final outcome of the music?

 

[MickeS]

Yes, IF you had intended to purchase those in the first place. I have no doubt in my mind that a small percentage of the downloaders cheat the record company of large potential profits.

I also have no doubt that some people who perhaps buys 10 CDs a year will maybe buy only 1 or none if he can find those online. BUT, he will most likely ALSO download 290 other CDs that he had no intention of buying. The real loss is thus $120, not $3600, but I'm sure the industry will say they "lost" $3600 on him.

Then there's the other group which downloads 3000 songs they never would have paid for, goe out and buys 2 albums from artists they never would have heard of otherwise. How does the record industry measure that? I'm sure they say they lost $36,000 on him ($12/CD), when in fact they MADE $24. It's a pretty cheap promotion in this case.

My point is, that it's NOT stealing (even though the media has been tricked into using this term too now), and the numbers the record industry are throwing around are extremely imprecise. This doesn't make illegal downloading right! However, when the RIAA are acting like it's the end of their industry and legislators are agreeing to invade our privacy based on false pretenses, I get a bit upset.

 

[John-Miles]

Well I know I used to download, but i dont anymore, of course i just ordered a single layer sacd, so im shortly going to have to go online to download the mp3's to put on my ipod, is this download illegal? i think not

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

I don't believe that the industry is fighting to get specific monies from offenders as much as they are fighting to change a culture of internet music-sharing. MickeS, I see your point, but I think you're looking at this entirely the wrong way. It's not about recouping losses for every song. It's about getting music consumers off the internet and into record stores, where the artists make their real money.

As for the argument that we should be able to use the internet as a giant "listening" station, a sort of "try-before-you-buy" system, I have to say that's kind of crap for a number of reasons:

For one, record stores have listening stations out the yin-yang these days. Barnes and Noble even gives you the option of listening to selections from every single album in the store, and that is clearly the wave of the future. You want to hear? Go to the record store. You want to hear indie music? Find an indie record store that will let you listen; most of them are happy to do so. Can't listen? Ask around. The HTF, for one, is a great place for recommendations; I have bought several CDs, unheard, based on members' suggestions. No losers so far.

Two, most artists (myself included) have samples on their websites, in my case, lo-fi excerpts from songs. This is more than sufficient to determine if you like something enough to buy it. I remember getting one-minute excerpts from every song on Kansas' last CD and being thrilled to have them.

Three, where is it written that you have a right to never regret a music purchase? I have plenty of CDs that were big let-downs. You do your research, you pay your money, and you take your chance. Same thing with a book, DVD, theatre ticket, etc. Sometimes it doesn't work out. Sometimes it works out amazingly better than you'd hoped.

The problem, to my mind, isn't as much the individual purchases as the shift in music-consumer culture. This is a change the internet has wrought that I don't like. Just because the internet makes it so you can do something does not necessarily mean it should be done. Dammit, I made my album with my own heart and mind and voice and hands. You want it, you can plunk down $10 for it.

www.hammusic.com/andrew

 

[Mike Broadman]

Those Barnes & Nobles listening stations only play the first 20 seconds or so of a track. I've tried to use them to preview classical CDs and it just ain't no good.

Your point about the culture of music is valid. I think it's interesting and necessary to think about why this is so. I personally enjoy paying for music, as I feel I'm doing my part to help the art. Why do so many not feel this way? Why is there such a lack of connection between artist and audience?

The RIAA and its supporters act as if they are assuming the position that it's because people are crooks. I think it has more to do with the way the major labels present music (or rather, hide it in favor of visuals and cross-marketing).

Note: none of this is in support of illegal downloading. I'm more interested in thinking about and discussing the state of things than simply picking a side and arguing for it.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I also have no doubt that some people who perhaps buys 10 CDs a year will maybe buy only 1 or none if he can find those online. BUT, he will most likely ALSO download 290 other CDs that he had no intention of buying. The real loss is thus $120, not $3600, but I'm sure the industry will say they "lost" $3600 on him.

(emphasis mine)
Perhaps you can explain the justification for downloading CDs that he never intended to buy. To me, a very small case can be made for sampling with an intent to buy, although I agree with Andrew that there are plenty of places to listen to the music before you buy, without downloading, but there can be none for downloading with no intent to buy.