A simple solution to the MP3 file sharing debate (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Ulmer]

Why would i even consider signing up for a service that offered lower quality tracks when i can already get any song i want for free at the click of a mouse?

That is the moral question isn't it.

 

[Graeme Clark]

To someone's earlier point about the price of c.d's being ok, well I totally disagree. If you look at the amount of profit taken from each album sold after artist are paid and the cost of making, its horendous.

You can say this about so many things sold today that it isn't even funny. Yet people continue to moan and complain about the price of CDs like they were spending their life's savings on a few discs.

If a CD is really good, one that you continue to listen to for the rest of your life, one where almost every song is worth listening to countless times, then I'd say that $15 is more than a reasonable price. Better than going to movies, better than a DVD. You can take that disc wherever you go if you want, listen to it at home, on the bus, at work (if your job permits), in the car. You can listen to it 5 times a day if you want to, all for the measly price of $15. For a CD like that, I'd probably be willing to be up to $30.

The problem is, that most CDs are NOT like that, and that's why you all complain about them being overpriced. But if a CD only has 1 really good song on it... is that $5 you saved really going to make you feel that much better? How about 2 good songs for $10?

That's where you just need to be a little more selective. Spend your money wisely on product that you know you'll like so that you don't get burned quite as much. It's still going to happen, and it's still going to sting, but you'll always have other CDs to turn to that aren't.

 

[George See]

Doesn't work IMHO. How are you going to limit it? even if you set up a legal file sharing network with nothing but low quality files you still have to find a way to shut down the current ones. If I were an artist I am not too sure i'd want someones first impression of my music to be a substanderd quality recording. I don't really buy into the record companys saying that file sharing hurts their sales all that much. I think 99% of the time people who download a CD would never actually buy the CD anyway. So the record companys aren't really losing anything...because either way that person wouldn't buy the CD. Or maybee I have too much faith in people, personally i'm A collector I love the real thing I love the album art and the Liner notes etc..

 

[Marc Colella]

Lower CD prices and release CDs worth listening to.

If not, R.I.P. recording industry.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I think the problem is that we are, IMO of course, at a pretty remarkable low as far as music goes creatively. When the only intriguing thing out there is a white rapper, the music industry is in real trouble (just kidding). Stuck without the recourse of admitting that their 'artists' are not considered worthwhile by their core audience, they are forced to find a scapegoat, which MP3s and file sharing make easy targets. If this same creative lull existed when cassette tapes were launched, I'm sure they would have the same level of finger pointing. They even begun this same process, but the threat never materialized and they let the issue die.

I would have to wonder if they would have let MP3s and file sharing exist unmolested if they had a creatively rich set of artists with popular appeal that continued to bring people into the stores. I think they would.

On your suggestion, it would be an excellent one. But the cat is out of the bag and I think it would have been impossible to keep the bag closed. As 96 kbps MP3s proliferated, enterprising coders would have developed rippers and file sharing programs that didn't have such limits. As an example, Kazaa has or had a limit on MP3s (128 kbps). One popular alternative, WinMX, offered higher quality samples (320 kbps). Just replace the number with 96 kbps and it would be the same.

 

[BrianB]

release CDs worth listening to.

Guess it all depends what you listen to. There's no shortage of new CDs I'm desperate to get & can't afford (because there's just too many, not because they're too expensive ).

 

[Marc Colella]

One thing to consider, and someone correct me if I'm wrong...

weren't CD sales dropping pretty consistently even before MP3s and high-speed internet became popular?

I have an old issue of Stereophile (1996) I was perusing through the other day, and there was a discussion on the steady decline of music sales.
MP3's and P2P sharing became popular in '99, so are MP3's really the culprit here?

 

[Greg_Y]

Guess it all depends what you listen to. There's no shortage of new CDs I'm desperate to get & can't afford (because there's just too many).

You're not the only one. There's alot of good stuff out there that I'll never get to listen to. I have a pretty sizeable collection already and I'm *always* jonesing for new tunes.

 

[Graeme Clark]

There's a reason there's so many of those compilation discs out there.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Stuck without the recourse of admitting that their 'artists' are not considered worthwhile by their core audience, they are forced to find a scapegoat

If the music was all that bad, why the hell are people downloading it, or making a fuss about not being able to download it? It is precisely because there is MASSIVE demand for current music that people are upset when they think they can't get it for free off the net. It has nothing to do with whether it's good or not, its about being able to get it free with no repercussions.

MP3s have become the warez of the noncomputer geek world. Instead of hoarding a whole bunch of kracked applications a guy will never use, they collect MP3s, and I'm sure half the reward is just getting something for free.

 

[Andy Olivera]

...they collect MP3s, and I'm sure half the reward is just getting something for free.

Or they may want to further the distribution of the files. Personally, I've got over 1600 files in my shared directory(mostly MP3s) and more than 95% of them are ripped from my own CDs. I do believe in paying an artist for their work(and I actually do it!), but I don't see the harm in sharing what I have with others. It's my way of being a nice guy and I believe it helps the artists(especially the more obscure ones). At the same time, I'm giving the RIAA the finger, which is also a worthy cause.

 

[Alex Spindler]

If the music was all that bad, why the hell are people downloading it, or making a fuss about not being able to download it? It is precisely because there is MASSIVE demand for current music that people are upset when they think they can't get it for free off the net.

I think the problem is that it is so shallow that it doesn't generate enough lasting interest to make someone wish they owned the 'hardcopy' version. This is especially true if the full album is loaded with filler that fully exposes the one-hit-wonder nature of the band or artist.