An idea for controlling the pirate market...

[Assorted]

Me and a classmate of mine were discussing on how the RIAA could possibly control the world of illegal music and videos, and to relax some of the outrageous laws regarding CD rips...

Would it seem to be fair/feasible if they allowed the free but controlled distribution of 32 kbps mono MP3 music and very low-res videos - basically handicapped content? There's bound to be illegal content everywhere at all times, and the government can never control that without doing more harm to legitimate listeners like us.


A lot of people download (often illegal) music just for the sake of it, including one-third of the people I talk to in my school. These people without money or those who just cannot justify buying music torrent these things illegally anyway. If they had an option of doing it legitimately, wouldn't the pirate market be much more discouraged? If they really like the album, then they might go out and buy it.

 

[rxc]

So your idea is to give people a taste (crappy quality) and hope they go buy the album? I think they'd do more good lowering the prices of albums.

 

[Assorted]

Not really, it's to discourage illegal sites and unauthorized distributors releasing entire albums and other TV shows/games to the internet masses. People would be much less inclined to go to those sites if they know they can - legally but limited in quantity and quality - get the music.

 

[pne]

wouldn't work for me. The problem is that my generation grew up with music being free (or at least readily downloaded through p2p programs). This concept is already ingrained into our heads. Now, many years later they want to start charging for mp3's, that just doesn't click.

 

[omegaman]

Most people I know would probably be happy listening to 32kbps.

 

[Akathisia]

free.napster is very similar to your idea - pick your album (from a decent selection), listen to it up to 3 times (low-quality), then buy it (or just hit up demonoid).

 

[MonolithTMA]

Most people I know who "share" music are in the habit of downloading an album, and if they like it, going out and buying it on their medium of choice. Of course, many don't do that.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

It's an interesting idea, but I doubt the RIAA would buy it. Free music will always be free music to most people, regardless of quality, and thus the chances of such people actually purchasing an album afterwards are quite low; especially considering the fact that the majority of the population prefers to download only the select songs they like from an album, rather than the whole thing.

 

[rxc]

If the album was cheap enough ($5 or less) I would have no problem buying it for even one song.

 

[GAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pne /img/forum/go_quote.gif wouldn't work for me. The problem is that my generation grew up with music being free (or at least readily downloaded through p2p programs). This concept is already ingrained into our heads. Now, many years later they want to start charging for mp3's, that just doesn't click.

You didn't grow up with free music, you grew up with the idea that not paying for it was OK. I'm not attacking you, just correcting you. Indeed many people believe music is free because they can get it for free.

What we need is a quantum shift in the way music is distributed and received.

There is no way to prevent digital music from being distributed. Any plan or attempt to do so is folly. Any copy protection will be broken, and any other methods will be circumvented.

I think eventually the record companies will realize this an change their tactics. They'll simply charge more for other things. $1000 concert tickets, excessive radio play rights, and so-on.

I can see both sides of this issue. As a prime example, though in a different medium, my book has been ripped by someone and is available on many free book download sites (all illegal). In theory this has cost me tens of thousands of dollars while costing the publishers 100s of thousands of dollars. From what I can gather, As many copies have been illegally downloaded as were legally purchased. Piracy has literally cost me say, the cost of a new car (a small one). Meanwhile I go into Borders and see my book at full retail - $44.99. I wouldn't pay that much for it! Amazon has it for $29.69, which is a lot better, but damn! Know how much I get per book? About $2.

This brings me to my main problem - the record companies are the ones getting screwed the most. I would be willing to bet that there is a similar scale with music. Say the CD sells for $15 - maybe the band gets $1 of that. (Anyone know the correct numbers?).

Meanwhile I watch my nieces use iTunes. They download individual songs and pay for them. They don't want the album - they want the song. $1-2 is worth it for them and they get instant gratification.

The problem is corporate greed. If you're selling MP3s, or hell even flac, your distribution costs are pretty damn small. Price accordingly and I'll bet they'd sell more. If the CD is $15 in the store, sell it to me .flac for $5. I'd buy.

GAD

 

[luckypictures]

Switch back to vinyl.

It's a bitch to digitize well.

 

[MonolithTMA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can see both sides of this issue. As a prime example, though in a different medium, my book has been ripped by someone and is available on many free book download sites (all illegal). In theory this has cost me tens of thousands of dollars while costing the publishers 100s of thousands of dollars. From what I can gather, As many copies have been illegally downloaded as were legally purchased. Piracy has literally cost me say, the cost of a new car (a small one). Meanwhile I go into Borders and see my book at full retail - $44.99. I wouldn't pay that much for it! Amazon has it for $29.69, which is a lot better, but damn! Know how much I get per book? About $2.

You've received some very high praise in those Amazon reviews. Nice! I could have used it when taking my networking classes.

That's my problem with publishing for all media. The company gets 99.9% of the money and the artist, who put in the bulk of the work, gets the remaining .1%.

Some people justify their free downloads because of that and support the artists through concert tickets and merchandise, of which artists get a much higher cut.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... This brings me to my main problem - the record companies are the ones getting screwed the most. I would be willing to bet that there is a similar scale with music. Say the CD sells for $15 - maybe the band gets $1 of that. (Anyone know the correct numbers?) ... GAD

Record companies are definitly not the ones being screwed over the most from piracy. They're certainly affected by it, but any money lost from illegal downloading is taken straight from the paychecks of the artists they license; so it is the musicians, in fact, who are feeling the most effects from piracy.

 

[ken36]

This will sort itself out over time.

 

[jesselussier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonolithTMA /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most people I know who "share" music are in the habit of downloading an album, and if they like it, going out and buying it on their medium of choice.

Ditto. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that record sales actually were steadily increasing as Napster's popularity increased (from 1999 - 2001?). Then after it was shut down there was a slow and steady decline in record sales. I know that correlation is not causation, but it's still something to think about. We'll see what happens as more music companies sell mp3's that aren't DRM'd.

Also, I believe that bands make most of there revenue through concerts (Rolling Stones banked $80 plus million on their last tour), so I don't think that piracy hurts them as most would believe. After all if more people are listening to your music, them more would go see you perform, right?

As a side note, it's the music companies who started ripping off their customers first. I think a lot of people don't know or forget about that point. When was it, maybe 10 years ago? CD's were like $20 each. The major lables essentially admitted to getting together and collectively jacking up prices. When it went to court and was finally settled a few years later the record companies said they would give everyone partial refunds...as long as you kept your original receipts and sent them back into the company. Yeah right. What goes around comes around I guess.

I'm not saying that piracy is right, I'm just saying. (I've only ever downloaded one album off the internet, and the band offered it free to fans. )