i don't understand why everyone keeps discussing what the "solution" is. why is a "solution" necessary? i'm 100% okay with record companies dying completely. recording a decent sounding album yourself is not particularly difficult or expensive, if you really want to get it done. if anything, the absence of corporate finance will weed out all the artists who don't have the passion or dedication to raise and invest a few grand into making an album. that would be the end of the soulja boys, keshas, and other label-created artists, which is surely a good thing. ticket prices can still pay for touring if anyone cares about your band, and even if you're starving on tour, i'm pretty sure anyone who gives a shit about music, making music, and being in a band would jump at the opportunity to play shows living off MD's dollar menu. artists getting money for their work is great and everything, but it's not necessary; people who love music are going to keep making it even if they have to pay for it all themselves with no hope of reimbursement.
I download a lot of albums for free but honestly its normally to play them a few times to see if they are worth buying. I dont really see the point of buying digital music and I have heard horror stories of it getting lost and itunes asking you to buy it again. I just buy cds and lps cause you get your money's worth but I rarely buy something on a whim (there are exceptions though).
Just to clear this up, it's not stealing. Not by the common sense connotation of the word, and not by the Supreme Court's stance. It's infringement, sure, but it isn't stealing.
Can you point me to something to clarify this? I'm not familiar with the Supreme Court's stance on people downloading content illegally. I understand that in some cases copyright infringement is a better term, but when people go online and download material without paying for it, I don't see how that's any different than walking into a store and putting a CD in your jacket and walking out. I think to define it otherwise would actually put more of a strain on the "common sense " definition.
I don't use Spotify (or any other similar service) because:
a) The interfaces are all inferior to Winamp, and I'll only use the best application to sort, rate, tag, enqueue, and play my music
b) When the service eventally goes out of business, there goes all of my content
I realize I'm in a very small percentage of people who want what I want. I don't care about top singles, or music videos, or anything like that. I want all of my albums in front of me, sorted, manipulated, and displayed in whatever manner I personally deem necessary.
If they want my business (and they probably don't), they'd market to me. When they want my business, they will market to me. I can wait, it's not like Spotify (or any other service) offers anything superior except for being "legal".
I work full-time; I have money. Money isn't the issue. Sell me a better product than I can steal, and I will pay. Charge me for an inferior product, and you won't see my business. Apply this model to movies, television, and a ton of other digital content.
I don't really get this. In a traditional model, it makes sense that if you don't like a product, you wouldn't pay for it. That makes sense. You would find somewhere/someone else that you think is more deserving of your money presumably. Why then, do you believe you should have unlimited access to content that you decided you won't pay for? If they don't deserve your money, you don't "deserve" their product. It shouldn't work both ways. And yes, things like Spotify and Rdio, as well as others, would be legitimate ways to consume this media, because whether it's through ads or subscriptions you are paying for access to it.
I think people have grown up recently believing they are entitled to music, movies, tv shows, etc., and are irked by the notion that they should pay for it. My question is, when did we start to think that we have this "right" to a product that somebody created, and that because we think they are charging too much for it (which can be a legitimate qualm, but a different argument) or it's too inconvenient to go out and get it, that we can just have it without paying for it it. I think it is an ethical issue and it requires people to think about what kind of person they are, or want to be. I think of myself as a good person who conducts myself in an ethical matter. I can't think of myself that way knowing I choose to steal something rather than paying for it. I used to download stuff (honestly, I think most people have at some point), but I realized that I was being hypocritical and inconsistent and made a change in my behavior. Does it cost more? Obviously. But why should we be entitled to all these things for free in the first place?