CD format getting abandoned by major labels in 2012?

[YtseBitsySpider]

Like people sneaking onto the bus or subway.

[AcidLameLTE]

Hahaha, good one ehra. I've got another good one:

Next time I want to buy clothes, I'm going to refuse to pay until I try them on and make sure I like them. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wouldn't that be mad? Ohhhhh man.

[ehra]

I'd download the subway if I could.

[AcidLameLTE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

[ZBomber]

Next time I have to take a shit I'm not gonna do it because I didn't pay for it.

[Dark Castle]

I'm a try and buy.  If I don't like it, I delete it and remove it, if I like it I put it on my list to buy, and I've boughten a lot off of that list.  As I am a cd freak.

[Nick]

Hahaha, good one ehra. I've got another good one:

Next time I want to buy clothes, I'm going to refuse to pay until I try them on and make sure I like them. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wouldn't that be mad? Ohhhhh man.

Yeah, except stores LET you do that. Just like many artists allow you to sample their music, perhaps even listen to a whole album before buying it.

[ariich]

Hahaha, good one ehra. I've got another good one:

Next time I want to buy clothes, I'm going to refuse to pay until I try them on and make sure I like them. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wouldn't that be mad? Ohhhhh man.

Yeah, except stores LET you do that. Just like many artists allow you to sample their music, perhaps even listen to a whole album before buying it.

Bingo.

[Zook]

Nickowned

[ehra]

It took a whole three posts for the crappy, non-applicable counter arguments/justifications to start. I'm impressed.

[Nick]

Hahaha, good one ehra. I've got another good one:

Next time I want to buy clothes, I'm going to refuse to pay until I try them on and make sure I like them. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wouldn't that be mad? Ohhhhh man.

Yeah, except stores LET you do that. Just like many artists allow you to sample their music, perhaps even listen to a whole album before buying it.

Bingo.

To further the point, walk out of the store with a pair of sport pants, and when a nice officer says hello tell him you were going to play a game of football, and if you liked the pants you would come back and pay for them.

[ariich]

It took a whole three posts for the crappy, non-applicable counter arguments/justifications to start. I'm impressed.

I have to say, it surprises me that people don't get that the creative industries are nothing like the manufacturing industries.

[ZBomber]

Hahaha, good one ehra. I've got another good one:

Next time I want to buy clothes, I'm going to refuse to pay until I try them on and make sure I like them. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wouldn't that be mad? Ohhhhh man.

Yeah, except stores LET you do that. Just like many artists allow you to sample their music, perhaps even listen to a whole album before buying it.

Bingo.

Guys, I'm pretty sure that Harry was kidding. 

[ariich]

NO HARRY IS SERIOUS ABOUT EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME

[ehra]

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic in that he was attempting (very poorly) to show how my concert comparison was bad. Could be wrong.

It took a whole three posts for the crappy, non-applicable counter arguments/justifications to start. I'm impressed.

I have to say, it surprises me that people don't get that the creative industries are nothing like the manufacturing industries.

I think the closest thing I've seen to a convincing argument for why pirating should be ok was something along the lines of information should be free and that no idea is truly original and so no one should be able to monetize or own it. An interesting thought, but the fact is that our society/economy is sort of build around the ownership of "ideas" and adopting that sort of approach has implications that go far beyond being able to get music for free.

[Zook]

I don't have a problem with downloading music because in the case of Disturbed's latest album, I felt robbed, so I'm going to continue "trying on my clothes" before I buy them.

[faemir]

Hahaha, good one ehra. I've got another good one:

Next time I want to buy clothes, I'm going to refuse to pay until I try them on and make sure I like them. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wouldn't that be mad? Ohhhhh man.

Yeah, except stores LET you do that. Just like many artists allow you to sample their music, perhaps even listen to a whole album before buying it.

Bingo.

Speaking purely for myself. That's not good enough. I've had music I've listened to for years as a broke student, then I got a job and bought over 200 CDs. If I had "sampled" a couple of songs, that wouldn't have happened. All that matters in the end is that the artists get the money, and as has already been said many a time, pirates are some of the biggest spenders. And i'm in that group. Those who wouldn't buy it anyway are completely irrelevant. Those who according to you, should totally use spotify because it's so amazing and earns the bands/labels millions of pou- oh wait no, forget that bit. I'm not justifying piracy as an absolute moral, I'm justifying why I use it, and the music industry is better off because of how I use it.

The other argument, whether Piracy is stealing, is a pathetic argument that has already been legislated in pretty much every country around the world as different, and if you listen to any intelligent, reasonable person (including content creators...Notch etc.), they will agree, despite being emotionally and montarily involved. Then again, that's the popularity fallacy, so scratch that. The fact that you keep on ignoring how they are different, despite my several rather shoddily explainations, shows a lack of willingness to accept the facts. Really. Just go google "piracy is not stealing", and you'll find a plethora of far better worded explanations for why it is not. And no, just in case you had forgotten, me saying "piracy is not stealing", is not me saying "piracy is not stealing so it's A-okay folks!".

But just once more for fun.

- Stealing is taking something that is not yours, and depriving someone else of it. Copyright infringement is copying something.
- Both are illegal, but one is a criminal offence, the other is a civil dispute (in the UK anyway)
- Both are morally dodgy
- 2000000000000 copies of Yellow Submarine are stolen - there is a DIRECT, EXACT loss to the rightful owners.
- 2000000000000 copies of Yellow Submarine are downloaded from the internet - there is a mish-mash of people who (LOTS) don't give a fuck, (SOME) people who try-to-buy, and (SOME) people who might possibly buy it if they couldnt pirate it.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

The similarity? The stealer/pirate gets something for nothing.

The difference? The economic implications are considerably different, as can be seen when the numbers are extrapolated very highly as I did just above.


I'm done with this thread, the ignorance (of facts), blindness (to reality), and stupidity (of reasoning) in this thread is pathetic, and I would expect better from a forum of music listeners.

[Nick]

I'm done with this thread, the ignorance (of facts), blindness (to reality), and stupidity (of reasoning) in this thread is pathetic, and I would expect better from a forum of music listeners.

There is no need for that.

Also, speaking from an accounting standpoint, a copyright is an intangible asset with financial value. Stealing or diluting that asset does result in a direct and somewhat exact loss to the copyright holder or holders.

[ehra]

I'm still waiting for a valid argument to my concert comparison. You know, since it's so ignorant and stupid and stuff. Shouldn't take long.

[7StringedBeast]

Faemir, under your argument you are saying that most people just download stuff just for the hell of it and that they don't even care either way.  I think that can't be true at all.  Why would you download something if you weren't interested in hearing it at all?  If there was no way to download, these people would have to buy the album to hear the whole album.

Downloading off the internet is basically a passive way of stealing from the people who made that music.  You are robbing them of their right to get paid for their efforts.  It also definitely takes away from amount of CDs that are actually sold. 

I know some people will actually buy more because they download, but I believe those types are a minority.

[jsem]

Might as well put this thread in P/R now. It's turned into an argument about Intellectual Property.

[Nekov]

Hahaha, good one ehra. I've got another good one:

Next time I want to buy clothes, I'm going to refuse to pay until I try them on and make sure I like them. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wouldn't that be mad? Ohhhhh man.

Yeah, except stores LET you do that. Just like many artists allow you to sample their music, perhaps even listen to a whole album before buying it.

This is a good point, but most of the stores that let you do that don't have a lot of the music we all like.

Let me share my point of view. I don't live in Europe or the US so a lot of records are not edited here so in order to get them I would have to order them from Amazon, Ebay, etc. This means that the price will be either dollars or euros and on top of that there are also shipping and handling charges. It all sums up to an amount of money that is way beyond reasonable for me to pay. I do make exceptions with bands I like a lot but if I wanted to buy every CD that I like I wouldn't have any money left. I admit I download music illegally, but is only because of the reasons stated above. If I could get the records at good prices I would gladly buy them, but unfortunately it's not the case.

[AcidLameLTE]

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic in that he was attempting (very poorly) to show how my concert comparison was bad. Could be wrong.

That was pretty much it, yeah

[ariich]

Dan, your last sentence in that post is hilariously ironic.

Downloading off the internet is basically a passive way of stealing from the people who made that music.  You are robbing them of their right to get paid for their efforts.  It also definitely takes away from amount of CDs that are actually sold. 

I know some people will actually buy more because they download, but I believe those types are a minority.

These exactly. But for some reason this argument is obviously completely ignorant, and production of CDs is basically the same as making a toaster - all of the economic value is purely in the physical product. Yep, makes complete sense.

[Zantera]

I don't really get why it's so "obvious" that downloading leads to worse record-sales.
Sure there are people who won't buy something if they can get it for free, but what about all the thousands/millions of people who download something to check it out, and then buy the entire discography by the band?

[Dark Castle]

I don't really get why it's so "obvious" that downloading leads to worse record-sales.
Sure there are people who won't buy something if they can get it for free, but what about all the thousands/millions of people who download something to check it out, and then buy the entire discography by the band?

Also Faemir posted studies showing this ^

[kirksnosehair]

I don't think it's too hard to connect the dots between illegal downloads and the decline of the music business.  For every "study" that gets posted to rationalize downloading as something that helps the music business, the fact is, well, here are the facts: https://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/

[kirksnosehair]

Summarizing the problem in one quick paragraph from that CNN thing I posted above:

Now just 44% of U.S. Internet users and 64% of Americans who buy digital music think that that music is worth paying for, according to Forrester. The volume of unauthorized downloads continues to represent about 90% of the market, according to online download tracker BigChampagne Media Measurement.

[ariich]

I don't really get why it's so "obvious" that downloading leads to worse record-sales.
Sure there are people who won't buy something if they can get it for free, but what about all the thousands/millions of people who download something to check it out, and then buy the entire discography by the band?

Indeed but that aspect is also the case for legal streaming. Even more so in fact, as streaming is not the same as actually owning the digital files, and so there is even more incentive to go and buy something if you like it. With downloading, unless you really love it it's very easy to just stick with the mp3s you took. But at least the streaming actually provides some money to the industry - Spotify paid £65m (around $100m) in licence fees in 2010, which is why they are making losses at the moment. It'll be interesting to see what the numbers are like in their 2011 financial statements when they come around.

But Jimmy, you did kind of answer your own question. Sure plenty of downloaders still buy plenty of music as well, but there are also many who don't. Ergo there is bound to be some loss of sales, even though it is admittedly reduced by the people who end up buying more as a result of try-before-you-buy. But again, this happens through streaming services as well, and so there is no real reason or justification for people to illegally download anymore.

[ehra]

I don't really get why it's so "obvious" that downloading leads to worse record-sales.
Sure there are people who won't buy something if they can get it for free, but what about all the thousands/millions of people who download something to check it out, and then buy the entire discography by the band?

Those are great reasons for why artists/labels should allow people to hear their music for free before buying, but if they decide to stick with outdated, rapidly failing business practices then I feel that's their decision and we should respect it. They won't make it easy to sample their product when it's so easy to be drowned in the legions of bands competing for peoples' money and time, they can and should deal with the consequences.


I've never really had much of an issue with pirating itself; like was mentioned earlier, just about everyone here does it one way or another regardless of their stance. It's kind of funny that people attempting to justify it upset me far more than the act itself. The person/people putting out the product only want it to be available to and enjoyed by people who pay for it. You're taking it without paying and enjoying it against their wishes. Regardless of your reasoning or the ultimate affect on the products' sales, I feel it's still wrong. If they want it to be available for free then they can gladly provide free downloads on their site. Even something as simple as saying "hey, I'm ok with you guys torrenting the shit out of this" if they don't want to pay for the bandwidth costs of people downloading their product from their site and possibly not paying anything. But until that official sanction is actually given, it should be off limits.

[kirksnosehair]

And an interesting anecdotal story from me:  About two months ago I was in the mall with my 16 year old nephew.  We were shopping for some stuff for his father (my brother) for his birthday.  At one point, I said to him, "Hey, let's stop in this music store here, there are a couple of CDs I want to buy."

He looks at me like this:   

Then he said something I won't ever forget:  "Why in the world would you buy music when it's free all over the internet?"

My nephew is part of the "Napster generation" who have grown up with "free" music.  It's a big problem for the music business to overcome. 

[Zook]

And an interesting anecdotal story from me:  About two months ago I was in the mall with my 16 year old nephew.  We were shopping for some stuff for his father (my brother) for his birthday.  At one point, I said to him, "Hey, let's stop in this music store here, there are a couple of CDs I want to buy."

He looks at me like this:   

Then he said something I won't ever forget:  "Why in the world would you buy music when it's free all over the internet?"

My nephew is part of the "Napster generation" who have grown up with "free" music.  It's a big problem for the music business to overcome. 

My brother is kinda like that now. As for me, I will always buy the CDs of bands I really like, but I wont waste my money on blind purchases anymore.

[Dark Castle]

I think you guys would be surprised by how many kids there are these days who are extremely passionate about cd's or even records.  :L

[Zantera]

Well, as I mentioned earlier, my own reason, or one of the biggest reasons that I think Piracy can have good effects, is that I can't even get my hands on some albums, even if I'm willing to pay 5 times the cost.
Some aren't even available through import, and some are out of print (with no plans on getting printed again), so it's either 1. Never get to hear the music at all, or 2. Download it now, and then buy it later if/when it becomes available.
I think in this case it isn't as "bad", because I think that many of the bands would understand a scenario like that, and I'm not saying that it happens a lot, but I've come across some albums where this is the case. (sadly)

As for the other part, streaming and particularly Spotify are among the things I hate the most, Spotify especially, which would qualify as one of the worst things about this world.
I honestly don't care much for what music has become, or at least the kind of status it has today, I'm not much for the whole MP3-thing, I prefer to have my music physically, but again that sorta contradicts the fact that I have a lot of my music (or well all of it) on my computer as well.
I don't know, it's hard to explain, but I'm very much an album-person, and I dislike Spotify and similar services because they decrease music to the level where people listen to some songs and skip the rest.
I also would never support Spotify with cash, seeing as very very very little of the cash actually goes to the artist, I'd much rather buy their CD's, T-shirts and hell, I'd even pay their parking tickets if it was possible, just no damn Spotify.

[kirksnosehair]

I think you guys would be surprised by how many kids there are these days who are extremely passionate about cd's or even records.  :L

But the data says otherwise:
https://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/