7 ms·

Basically, instead of implementing a carrot for not pirating music, the RIAA wants a bigger stick. It would be far easier for them to just implement a carrot.

by younata 14y ago

Basically, instead of implementing a carrot for not pirating music, the RIAA wants a bigger stick. It would be far easier for them to just implement a carrot. Make it fucking easy for me to pay for music that I can enjoy whenever I want to, on whatever device I like.

skymt 14y ago
What's the problem with iTunes, or Amazon MP3? Instant downloads, DRM-free, reasonably high bitrate, standard formats. Seems to meet your requirements.
- tolos 14y ago
  Eating lunch at work right now, I'm not sure how to search for music on iTunes. It appears I can search on the Apple website, which might give me a result (found "Modest Mouse;" did not find "Black Sabbath" or "FFF" -- looking for music), but it keeps asking me to download iTunes, which I can't do at work. (Do I need iTunes to buy music from Apple?). Amazon MP3 does actually have one album by FFF, but if I click on the artist link, it keeps me on the current page showing results by relevance -- which are not very relevant to my search, I might add. So here's why I don't buy music online, in order of importance -- 1) lack of selection 2) unknown information about the bitrate. I don't see any information about this; I have a strong preference for v0, but I'll accept 320 or FLAC if I have to. 3) poor user experience. To be fair, however, I doubt my reasons apply to the majority of the population. In the meantime, I will continue to spend my music money elsewhere.
  - RobAtticus 14y ago
    Regarding bitrate for Amazon, it looks like they do variable bitrate that targets ~256kbps (I believe this the same as v0)[1]. Also, while lacking in selection, Google Play Music has become an attractive alternative for me for music. Can stream from a browser, or download to my PC. Works and syncs across all my Android devices wonderfully. Bitrate is 320kbps for purchased music, and you upload up to 20,000 of your own tracks. I think the user experience is one of the better ones. Also, they usually have sales every week where a bunch of albums are $3.99 (this week appears to be only down to 6.99, but still). [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200389400 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=...
- lukev 14y ago
  And, it's worth noting, it has largely worked. Used to be that just about everyone I knew pirated music. Now, in my circle of acquaintances, its only a couple techno-anarchists and some kids who couldn't afford it otherwise. I doubt they hurt the RIAA's bottom line much.
  - tokenizer 14y ago
    We'd do it anyway. I'd be bootlegging and sharing bootlegged music if it was the 80s. Why? Because I'm dirt poor and can't justify paying for such high level things. I still want it though. You can definitely make the argument that I'm stealing from them, I'll give you that, but I'd never buy it in the first place so I don't see how my copying something disrupts their bottom line so much.
    - vecinu 14y ago
      You've raised an interesting issue. If you never intend to buy said item in the first place because you can't afford it or whatever, how are you hurting the business in question? As long as you are not sharing the product and consuming it solely for yourself, then nothing in the world is changing, you are just using a product.
      - dwiel 14y ago
        If anything you are only helping them with this action (despite what they think of it). You might listen to more libre music if commercial music wasn't available for free. You pay them with your attention. You will still be recommending commercial music to friends, boosting thier youtube/lastfm playcount, etc.
      - alan_cx 14y ago
        Hang on, this is not an interesting issue, is the core point of the whole debate. Have people missed it? Its been the same since all the bleating went on about fake designer labels in the 80's. You are not likely to buy a fake Le Whatever t-shirt if you can afford the real thing. Who buys fake Rolexes? Its not the millionaires who buy the originals is it? If you are a rich person with fake designer labels, you look like a prat. There for, mostly, no loss. The whole thing is basically a lie. There is very little actual loss due to piracy. Look, most people spend all their money each month. If not spend, then allocate. Which means they have a finite amount to spend. So, if they have to buy that which they down load for free, that means they don't buy something else. Maybe the would just do with out. Often with music it ends up not mattering. I mean, out of 100 CD's how many would you listen to regularly? How many never? What about those who have "illegal" downloads? Most of it you never listen too, right? I could go on. So, the assumption that these industry Muppets make that all the recordings they see downloaded represents lost money is utterly ridiculous. And they must know that. And here is why: Music faces massive competition for our finite funds. We spend less in percentage terms because now there is so much more to spend our money on than there was back in the 90's, 80', 70's, and so on. As the decades went by, the competition increased and the music industry got squeezed out, and that is a huge problem. They see there isn't really much they can really do about it, so what we have now is the final desperate tactic of blaming their former customers who chose to spend more of their money else where. Ooooo, bit of a rant? Sorry... I think I stand by all that. Makes sense to me any way.
- sp332 14y ago
  Selection is much better than it used to be, but there's a lot of stuff not on there. Can't buy Rebecca & Fiona's single "Luminary Ones" (in the USA).
- younata 14y ago
  Selection. I tried to buy some Def Leppard the other day. Couldn't find any.
  - leviathant 14y ago
    You're probably well aware of this, but that's the fault of the label, rather than Apple or Amazon. The band is actually re-recording their entire catalog in order to sell music online and get a fair cut. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/def-leppard-re-recording-forgeries-of-old-hits-20120703 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/def-leppard-re-record... Interesting/depressing. Good insight into who really steals from artists.
    - sp332 14y ago
      Yes, this conversation is about the RIAA, not individual bands.
- spindritf 14y ago
  Not available in large parts of the world. But yeah, otherwise great. Amazon even offers rss feeds for various categories.
- m3mnoch 14y ago
  except for pricepoint. can you imagine buying songs for $0.25 apiece? or even $0.10! take the digital sales learnings from initiatives like the humble bundle and steam sales and $0.99 ebooks and just apply them. i mean, with marginal costs being approximately zero, drop the prices by 4x and sell 10x. better yet, let me subscribe to a service i love and give me EVERYTHING! imagine the chaos if the riaa got into the delivery business and rolled out a spotify clone -- but, globally. with their entire catalog. cats and dogs would indeed start living together. m3mnoch.

by younata 14y ago

skymt 14y ago

What's the problem with iTunes, or Amazon MP3? Instant downloads, DRM-free, reasonably high bitrate, standard formats. Seems to meet your requirements.

tolos 14y ago
Eating lunch at work right now, I'm not sure how to search for music on iTunes. It appears I can search on the Apple website, which might give me a result (found "Modest Mouse;" did not find "Black Sabbath" or "FFF" -- looking for music), but it keeps asking me to download iTunes, which I can't do at work. (Do I need iTunes to buy music from Apple?). Amazon MP3 does actually have one album by FFF, but if I click on the artist link, it keeps me on the current page showing results by relevance -- which are not very relevant to my search, I might add. So here's why I don't buy music online, in order of importance -- 1) lack of selection 2) unknown information about the bitrate. I don't see any information about this; I have a strong preference for v0, but I'll accept 320 or FLAC if I have to. 3) poor user experience. To be fair, however, I doubt my reasons apply to the majority of the population. In the meantime, I will continue to spend my music money elsewhere.
- RobAtticus 14y ago
  Regarding bitrate for Amazon, it looks like they do variable bitrate that targets ~256kbps (I believe this the same as v0)[1]. Also, while lacking in selection, Google Play Music has become an attractive alternative for me for music. Can stream from a browser, or download to my PC. Works and syncs across all my Android devices wonderfully. Bitrate is 320kbps for purchased music, and you upload up to 20,000 of your own tracks. I think the user experience is one of the better ones. Also, they usually have sales every week where a bunch of albums are $3.99 (this week appears to be only down to 6.99, but still). [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200389400 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=...
lukev 14y ago
And, it's worth noting, it has largely worked. Used to be that just about everyone I knew pirated music. Now, in my circle of acquaintances, its only a couple techno-anarchists and some kids who couldn't afford it otherwise. I doubt they hurt the RIAA's bottom line much.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  We'd do it anyway. I'd be bootlegging and sharing bootlegged music if it was the 80s. Why? Because I'm dirt poor and can't justify paying for such high level things. I still want it though. You can definitely make the argument that I'm stealing from them, I'll give you that, but I'd never buy it in the first place so I don't see how my copying something disrupts their bottom line so much.
  - vecinu 14y ago
    You've raised an interesting issue. If you never intend to buy said item in the first place because you can't afford it or whatever, how are you hurting the business in question? As long as you are not sharing the product and consuming it solely for yourself, then nothing in the world is changing, you are just using a product.
    - dwiel 14y ago
      If anything you are only helping them with this action (despite what they think of it). You might listen to more libre music if commercial music wasn't available for free. You pay them with your attention. You will still be recommending commercial music to friends, boosting thier youtube/lastfm playcount, etc.
    - alan_cx 14y ago
      Hang on, this is not an interesting issue, is the core point of the whole debate. Have people missed it? Its been the same since all the bleating went on about fake designer labels in the 80's. You are not likely to buy a fake Le Whatever t-shirt if you can afford the real thing. Who buys fake Rolexes? Its not the millionaires who buy the originals is it? If you are a rich person with fake designer labels, you look like a prat. There for, mostly, no loss. The whole thing is basically a lie. There is very little actual loss due to piracy. Look, most people spend all their money each month. If not spend, then allocate. Which means they have a finite amount to spend. So, if they have to buy that which they down load for free, that means they don't buy something else. Maybe the would just do with out. Often with music it ends up not mattering. I mean, out of 100 CD's how many would you listen to regularly? How many never? What about those who have "illegal" downloads? Most of it you never listen too, right? I could go on. So, the assumption that these industry Muppets make that all the recordings they see downloaded represents lost money is utterly ridiculous. And they must know that. And here is why: Music faces massive competition for our finite funds. We spend less in percentage terms because now there is so much more to spend our money on than there was back in the 90's, 80', 70's, and so on. As the decades went by, the competition increased and the music industry got squeezed out, and that is a huge problem. They see there isn't really much they can really do about it, so what we have now is the final desperate tactic of blaming their former customers who chose to spend more of their money else where. Ooooo, bit of a rant? Sorry... I think I stand by all that. Makes sense to me any way.
sp332 14y ago
Selection is much better than it used to be, but there's a lot of stuff not on there. Can't buy Rebecca & Fiona's single "Luminary Ones" (in the USA).
younata 14y ago
Selection. I tried to buy some Def Leppard the other day. Couldn't find any.
- leviathant 14y ago
  You're probably well aware of this, but that's the fault of the label, rather than Apple or Amazon. The band is actually re-recording their entire catalog in order to sell music online and get a fair cut. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/def-leppard-re-recording-forgeries-of-old-hits-20120703 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/def-leppard-re-record... Interesting/depressing. Good insight into who really steals from artists.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Yes, this conversation is about the RIAA, not individual bands.
spindritf 14y ago
Not available in large parts of the world. But yeah, otherwise great. Amazon even offers rss feeds for various categories.
m3mnoch 14y ago
except for pricepoint. can you imagine buying songs for $0.25 apiece? or even $0.10! take the digital sales learnings from initiatives like the humble bundle and steam sales and $0.99 ebooks and just apply them. i mean, with marginal costs being approximately zero, drop the prices by 4x and sell 10x. better yet, let me subscribe to a service i love and give me EVERYTHING! imagine the chaos if the riaa got into the delivery business and rolled out a spotify clone -- but, globally. with their entire catalog. cats and dogs would indeed start living together. m3mnoch.