5 ms·

You aren't being forced to by any music at all I'm pretty sure.

Igglyboo 12y ago
If you want to download a song legally and the only option is a $10 album then yes you are being forced to spend $10 for a song. We can argue the semantics of the word "forced" all day but I'm pretty sure everyone understood what he meant.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  force: coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence. The seller is perfectly in the right to charge you $10 to buy an album as a whole, take it or leave it. You don't have the right to download a song illegally since you think the price is too high, sorry.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > The seller is perfectly in the right to I could cure cancer and be "perfectly in the right" to only sell it for millions of dollars to the ultra-rich, but that doesn't meant it's not a shitty thing to do.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      You are seriously comparing an artist wanting you to buy their album as a whole vs. piecemeal to curing cancer?
      - pyre 12y ago
        Is it difficult to see that they are both examples of actions that that might be within legal rights, but that others can debate the morality / 'dick-ishness' of? Does anyone really think that I feel Garth Brooks' move is akin to actually withholding a cure for cancer?
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        I just find it a bit laughable that you think this is 'dickish'. It is his artwork, he is free to say you can only buy the whole album for $9.99, or nothing at all. You argument is that Hollywood is also 'dickish' because you can't pay $0.50 to watch only the last 15 minutes of a movie in the theater.
        pyre 12y ago
        I don't think that it's "dick-ish," but obviously some people do. I'm arguing against the appeal to "well it's his right." Whether something is moral / dish-ish / whatever is divorced from whether they have a legal right to do it.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        Why isn't it his right? Are you OK with your boss paying you 1/10th of your salary random months because he can get away with it? Just because you can easily get away with not paying what he's asking doesn't mean you should be legally entitled to do so.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  Eh, I think it's a point worth making. Nobody's forcing you to pay $10 for a song any more than Apple's forcing to spend $3000 on a spare Mac Pro enclosure to use as a desktop trashcan. Just as Apple can choose to sell parts of albums but not parts of computers, other companies are perfectly welcome to only sell whole albums. There are other nice songs/trashcans available in other stores under different terms, if that's a priority.
- slantyyz 12y ago
  Well, remember there are two sides of the equation here. Buyer and seller. Neither side wants to be forced to do anything they don't want to. In this particular case, Garth Brooks doesn't want to be forced to sell singles if he thinks albums are bodies of work that should be sold as a set.
- hamburglar 12y ago
  Everyone in this subthread needs to go click on an album at GhostTunes.com and then discover that they do in fact sell individual tracks. Just because they say they want to emphasize album sales doesn't mean they're "forcing" anything.
  - Timetime 12y ago
    This is just a PR stunt the website was made using a $60 Wordpress theme attached to a music distributor. http://themeforest.net/item/keronchong-band-music-event-woocommerce-theme/6461791 http://themeforest.net/item/keronchong-band-music-event-wooc... Every single add banner on the Ghostunes site directs to his own album. When you google Ghostunes the url directs straight https://www.ghosttunes.com/garth-brooks/ https://www.ghosttunes.com/garth-brooks/ He's even the sites featured artist. Why he only spend $60 on making this website if it was meant to be better than iTunes?
deveac 12y ago
Forced in the sense that if you walk into a grocery store for a quart of milk, they refuse to sell it to you unless you also purchase some carrots, a container of yogurt, a sack of nuts, some table salt, a wooden spoon, a bottle of vinegar, and a pack of tooth picks as well. That model is broken and the alternatives are numerous and successful because they make more sense. Singles on iTunes, Spotify, piracy...all better than paying a lot of money for content you don't want. We're seeing the same pressure applied to cable TV in the US, where consumers are tired of having no choice but to pay for content they do not want. Increasingly, they have a choices and are exercising them.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  Or, more like you are complaining to the store manage that you only want to buy one egg for .01c vs a carton. But they don't sell individual eggs and you unfortunately are out of luck.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    I just go to the place that'll sells me the one egg. I can get my egg anywhere. Same with music.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      Except for Garth Brooks Farm Fresh eggs.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        The market, for which, isn't that large.
- krapp 12y ago
  That only makes sense if you consider the different songs on an album as completely unrelated items. It's more like you walk into a bookstore, pick up a anthology, then tear out everything except the parts you want to read, and insist on only paying for those pages. Yes - they can be distributed separately, and sometimes are, and I would agree that it would be better for the consumer to be able to pick and choose, but they were produced as part of a set, a single work. If that's the way they want to distribute it then it's not 'force' because you happen not to like most of it - it's their decision to make and yours to take or leave. It's not unfair. edit: I should not have jumped on 'force' the way I did... it's clearly derailed the thread a bit.

If you want to download a song legally and the only option is a $10 album then yes you are being forced to spend $10 for a song. We can argue the semantics of the word "forced" all day but I'm pretty sure everyone understood what he meant.

res0nat0r 12y ago
force: coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence. The seller is perfectly in the right to charge you $10 to buy an album as a whole, take it or leave it. You don't have the right to download a song illegally since you think the price is too high, sorry.
- pyre 12y ago
  > The seller is perfectly in the right to I could cure cancer and be "perfectly in the right" to only sell it for millions of dollars to the ultra-rich, but that doesn't meant it's not a shitty thing to do.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    You are seriously comparing an artist wanting you to buy their album as a whole vs. piecemeal to curing cancer?
    - pyre 12y ago
      Is it difficult to see that they are both examples of actions that that might be within legal rights, but that others can debate the morality / 'dick-ishness' of? Does anyone really think that I feel Garth Brooks' move is akin to actually withholding a cure for cancer?
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        I just find it a bit laughable that you think this is 'dickish'. It is his artwork, he is free to say you can only buy the whole album for $9.99, or nothing at all. You argument is that Hollywood is also 'dickish' because you can't pay $0.50 to watch only the last 15 minutes of a movie in the theater.
        pyre 12y ago
        I don't think that it's "dick-ish," but obviously some people do. I'm arguing against the appeal to "well it's his right." Whether something is moral / dish-ish / whatever is divorced from whether they have a legal right to do it.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        Why isn't it his right? Are you OK with your boss paying you 1/10th of your salary random months because he can get away with it? Just because you can easily get away with not paying what he's asking doesn't mean you should be legally entitled to do so.
wlesieutre 12y ago
Eh, I think it's a point worth making. Nobody's forcing you to pay $10 for a song any more than Apple's forcing to spend $3000 on a spare Mac Pro enclosure to use as a desktop trashcan. Just as Apple can choose to sell parts of albums but not parts of computers, other companies are perfectly welcome to only sell whole albums. There are other nice songs/trashcans available in other stores under different terms, if that's a priority.
slantyyz 12y ago
Well, remember there are two sides of the equation here. Buyer and seller. Neither side wants to be forced to do anything they don't want to. In this particular case, Garth Brooks doesn't want to be forced to sell singles if he thinks albums are bodies of work that should be sold as a set.
hamburglar 12y ago
Everyone in this subthread needs to go click on an album at GhostTunes.com and then discover that they do in fact sell individual tracks. Just because they say they want to emphasize album sales doesn't mean they're "forcing" anything.
- Timetime 12y ago
  This is just a PR stunt the website was made using a $60 Wordpress theme attached to a music distributor. http://themeforest.net/item/keronchong-band-music-event-woocommerce-theme/6461791 http://themeforest.net/item/keronchong-band-music-event-wooc... Every single add banner on the Ghostunes site directs to his own album. When you google Ghostunes the url directs straight https://www.ghosttunes.com/garth-brooks/ https://www.ghosttunes.com/garth-brooks/ He's even the sites featured artist. Why he only spend $60 on making this website if it was meant to be better than iTunes?

deveac 12y ago

Forced in the sense that if you walk into a grocery store for a quart of milk, they refuse to sell it to you unless you also purchase some carrots, a container of yogurt, a sack of nuts, some table salt, a wooden spoon, a bottle of vinegar, and a pack of tooth picks as well. That model is broken and the alternatives are numerous and successful because they make more sense. Singles on iTunes, Spotify, piracy...all better than paying a lot of money for content you don't want. We're seeing the same pressure applied to cable TV in the US, where consumers are tired of having no choice but to pay for content they do not want. Increasingly, they have a choices and are exercising them.

res0nat0r 12y ago
Or, more like you are complaining to the store manage that you only want to buy one egg for .01c vs a carton. But they don't sell individual eggs and you unfortunately are out of luck.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  I just go to the place that'll sells me the one egg. I can get my egg anywhere. Same with music.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Except for Garth Brooks Farm Fresh eggs.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      The market, for which, isn't that large.
krapp 12y ago
That only makes sense if you consider the different songs on an album as completely unrelated items. It's more like you walk into a bookstore, pick up a anthology, then tear out everything except the parts you want to read, and insist on only paying for those pages. Yes - they can be distributed separately, and sometimes are, and I would agree that it would be better for the consumer to be able to pick and choose, but they were produced as part of a set, a single work. If that's the way they want to distribute it then it's not 'force' because you happen not to like most of it - it's their decision to make and yours to take or leave. It's not unfair. edit: I should not have jumped on 'force' the way I did... it's clearly derailed the thread a bit.