Internet wins, Music industry gives up and puts 25 million free songs up for download

[bell110]

In the same twisted way that i have more respect for some of the Taliban than I do for non-violent Christians...because they actually live by their beliefs enough to die for them, which most Christmas/Easter-Christians would never have the balls or integrity to do...I can respect that honesty^ and prefer it to these ****s that act like they're revolutionary rogue saviours working against big corporations to try and save the world by downloading all 3 Lord of the Rings movies and Blink 182's entire discography.


It's all about hiding behind internet anonymity and the intangible nature of music.
Yes, you can't download a car, or food, or all sorts of things that cost a Hell of a lot less to produce than most of the movies/music that gets stolen.

It reminds me of Holly's thread from long ago that the Gestapo shut down, "If you were 100% guaranteed, no matter what, that you were invisible and there was absolutely no way in the universe no matter what that you'd be caught, would you rape women?"

Everyone says "No way, Sicko! "
But the fact is, tons of people would, TONS, and I have a feeling that most of the ones who would, are the ones who get off on illegally downloading stuff.

You take downloading music way too seriously. This sounds more like self-projection than an objective view on downloaders.

I was on the anti-download side during the whole napster thing. I understand all your points. But, I gave in and started downloading. I must say, it's vastly improved my music collection. I've been introduced to bands that I never would have heard of from conventional radio or tv.

Copying music is about as much a crime as speeding. Yes, it's technically against the law, but no one cares.

Copying music and movies has been around since the recordable tape. That's probably why it's not taking seriously. It's not going away. Might as well go with the flow and find a way to capitalize off it. It's the American way.

 

[Figs]

You take downloading music way too seriously. This sounds more like self-projection than an objective view on downloaders.

I was on the anti-download side during the whole napster thing. I understand all your points. But, I gave in and started downloading. I must say, it's vastly improved my music collection. I've been introduced to bands that I never would have heard of from conventional radio or tv.

Copying music is about as much a crime as speeding. Yes, it's technically against the law, but no one cares.

Copying music and movies has been around since the recordable tape. That's probably why it's not taking seriously. It's not going away. Might as well go with the flow and find a way to capitalize off it. It's the American way.

I think the bands and the companies care. I think cops still care about speeding as well as the people who have been in accidents because of people who don't understand why their are speed limits to begin with.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Screw the RIAA. I don't care if the whole thing burns to the ground and I don't hear a new song again.

 

[JP]

Downloading is nice and all.. but Still not as good as CD quality tracks.

 

[Mr. Credible]

well, this is really good news. sure, artists more than likely won't be making as much money off of their music, but they shouldn't have been making that much in the first place... not for putting out a cd with one or two decent tracks and ten craptastic ones, the lyrics or music for which they didn't even write or play.

maybe this will persuade artists not to suck, and then people will pay to go see their live shows and buy their merchandise, so they can make a little money.

 

[JP]

well, this is really good news. sure, artists more than likely won't be making as much money off of their music, but they shouldn't have been making that much in the first place... not for putting out a cd with one or two decent tracks and ten craptastic ones, the lyrics or music for which they didn't even write or play.

maybe this will persuade artists not to suck, and then people will pay to go see their live shows and buy their merchandise, so they can make a little money.

Well, it's mostly record companies that will suffer. Most artists make their money from touring.

 

[Kmack]

Wow, sux for the industry

Downloading is nice and all.. but Still not as good as CD quality tracks.

hear hear!

 

[bell110]

I think the bands and the companies care. I think cops still care about speeding as well as the people who have been in accidents because of people who don't understand why their are speed limits to begin with.

Some bands care, some don't. And it's the polices job to care. Besides, they speed themselves. Accidents are usually cause be carelessness rather the speeding. When I say people don't care, I'm talking about people going 5 or 10 mph over.

 

[Mr. Credible]

Well, it's mostly record companies that will suffer. Most artists make their money from touring.

yeah, but this way, theoretically, record companies won't be paying artists as much, because they know off the bat that their music won't be selling near as much as it did before. so they'll be saving tons of money that way.

and please, record companies suffer?

they'll still be making millions upon millions of dollars a year. they'll all just have to settle for that $47 million dollar mansion instead of the $82 million dollar one... poor babies.

 

[Ghostvirus]

You take downloading music way too seriously. This sounds more like self-projection than an objective view on downloaders.

I was on the anti-download side during the whole napster thing. I understand all your points. But, I gave in and started downloading. I must say, it's vastly improved my music collection. I've been introduced to bands that I never would have heard of from conventional radio or tv.

Copying music is about as much a crime as speeding. Yes, it's technically against the law, but no one cares.

Copying music and movies has been around since the recordable tape. That's probably why it's not taking seriously. It's not going away. Might as well go with the flow and find a way to capitalize off it. It's the American way.

I have a friend who is against illegal downloads, & the other day I was riding with him in his car, & I noticed a burned copy of Back In Black. So I decided to tease him about. Here is what followed:

Me: *gasp* I am telling. You have an illegally copy of music.

Friend: It is another friends of mine. He just makes back up copies for himself so it is cool. He doesn't give them to anyone else.

Me: Well that is still technically illegal.

Friends: No it isn't. He burned it before it became illegal.

Me:

I feel that, that is how a lot of people view this. That copying music didn't become illegal until Lars stood p, & start talking sh**. WRONG!

 

[Avangarde]

This reminds me of when Trent Reznor intentionally allowed one of the latest Nine Inch Nails albums to be illegally downloaded as a way of spiting the label, although I thought interscope records was his label . It should be noted that the album was ***** but I bought it anyway

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Yeah, there will be limited ads that users will have to put up with. It's sad that it has come to this, but really at least they have tried to make a positive out of it. If the bands still make money from this then I guess everyone is a winner.

Indeed it is sad,it's impossible to put a cap on music downloads. It's like they are trying to controll it before it gets any worse..or the next big thing comes out.

 

[Deep Thinkin'!]

Yeah, there will be limited ads that users will have to put up with. It's sad that it has come to this, but really at least they have tried to make a positive out of it. If the bands still make money from this then I guess everyone is a winner.

If they are popular enough, people will pay to see them preform. Buying songs isn't the only thing that keeps music artists alive. Their popularity makes TV channels want them, movies, etc... people will pay for THEM. They may not be as rich as the past, but they'll still be in tabloids as rich people.

 

[Fran]

I miss Napster

 

[knowsbleed]

Awww...http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23128509-5014239,00.html

 

[lazur]

Fixing this would be simple, actually.

1) Embed proprietary software in all music from this point forward.
2) Only allow partial songs to be downloaded for free over the internet. For example, you can download 75% of a new song for free at an 'official' website (aka a website owned/operated by the music industry).
3) In order to get the remainder of the song, you have to pay for it. So, if the song is 4 minutes long, you can download the first 3 minutes for free, but you must buy the last minute for a dollar amount (say 99 cents).
4) The first and last parts of the song are set up with unique signatures, which will only work together. Let's say you download the first part of a new song and it has an encrpyted signature of 128A59L. That signature will only work with ONE other signature assigned to the last part of the song - say 129Z13T. Someone else may download the same first part of the song you have, but it would have a different signature entirely and would only work with another unique signature.
5) New storage media (CD's) are produced since each song must have embedded software and encryption in order to make both parts of the song work together. This embedded software and the data of the song could only be read by the correct media and hardware. It's otherwise incompatible. This means that the CD's you currently have sitting on your desk wouldn't work for this new type of data.
6) New drives and other hardware must also be manufactured in order to work with the data (songs). You cannot record this new data to old media types and you cannot play the new media with old hardware, as in each scenario the data, media and hardware would be incompatible. This means you'd have to replace your CD drives in your computer, car and elsewhere in order to play back the music.
7) New MP3 players and other storage devices could not store this new data type. This means you'd have to go out and buy another specially made iPod or other MP3 player, which has different connection interfaces than the ones now available.
8) Attempting to independently 'upload' any part of the song anywhere on the internet won't work because the software contained in the song detects the internet connection (and the upload) and shuts it off. This could also generate some kind of a ticket that is sent to the media company which contains your IP address and other user information (since registration at some point would be required).
9) This requires the full cooperation of all media players on the market, who themselves would be legally obligated to provide it.

This would be a very expensive proposition considering that the music industry would have to produce not only the music, but also the media types and hardware required to play back the music.

But it could be done.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Fixing this would be simple, actually.

1) Embed proprietary software in all music from this point forward.
2) Only allow partial songs to be downloaded for free over the internet. For example, you can download 75% of a new song for free at an 'official' website (aka a website owned/operated by the music industry).
3) In order to get the remainder of the song, you have to pay for it. So, if the song is 4 minutes long, you can download the first 3 minutes for free, but you must buy the last minute for a dollar amount (say 99 cents).
4) The first and last parts of the song are set up with unique signatures, which will only work together. Let's say you download the first part of a new song and it has an encrpyted signature of 128A59L. That signature will only work with ONE other signature assigned to the last part of the song - say 129Z13T. Someone else may download the same first part of the song you have, but it would have a different signature entirely and would only work with another unique signature.
5) New storage media (CD's) are produced since each song must have embedded software and encryption in order to make both parts of the song work together.
6) New drives and other hardware must be produced to work with the data (songs). You cannot record this new data to old media types and you cannot play the new media with old hardware, as in each scenario the data, media and hardware would be incompatible.
7) Attempting to independently 'upload' any part of the song anywhere on the internet won't work because the software contained in the song detects the internet connection (and the upload) and shuts it off. This could also generate some kind of a ticket that is sent to the media company which contains your IP address and other user information (since registration at some point would be required).
8) This requires the full cooperation of all media players on the market, who themselves would be legally obligated to provide it.

This would be a very expensive proposition considering that the music industry would have to produce not only the music, but also the media types and hardware required to play back the music.

But it could be done.

^ sounds simple to me.

 

[jaguarr]

Fixing this would be simple, actually.

1) Embed proprietary software in all music from this point forward.
2) Only allow partial songs to be downloaded for free over the internet. For example, you can download 75% of a new song for free at an 'official' website (aka a website owned/operated by the music industry).
3) In order to get the remainder of the song, you have to pay for it. So, if the song is 4 minutes long, you can download the first 3 minutes for free, but you must buy the last minute for a dollar amount (say 99 cents).
4) The first and last parts of the song are set up with unique signatures, which will only work together. Let's say you download the first part of a new song and it has an encrpyted signature of 128A59L. That signature will only work with ONE other signature assigned to the last part of the song - say 129Z13T. Someone else may download the same first part of the song you have, but it would have a different signature entirely and would only work with another unique signature.
5) New storage media (CD's) are produced since each song must have embedded software and encryption in order to make both parts of the song work together. This embedded software and the data of the song could only be read by the correct media and hardware. It's otherwise incompatible. This means that the CD's you currently have sitting on your desk wouldn't work for this new type of data.
6) New drives and other hardware must also be manufactured in order to work with the data (songs). You cannot record this new data to old media types and you cannot play the new media with old hardware, as in each scenario the data, media and hardware would be incompatible. This means you'd have to replace your CD drives in your computer, car and elsewhere in order to play back the music.
7) New MP3 players and other storage devices could not store this new data type. This means you'd have to go out and buy another specially made iPod or other MP3 player, which has different connection interfaces than the ones now available.
8) Attempting to independently 'upload' any part of the song anywhere on the internet won't work because the software contained in the song detects the internet connection (and the upload) and shuts it off. This could also generate some kind of a ticket that is sent to the media company which contains your IP address and other user information (since registration at some point would be required).
9) This requires the full cooperation of all media players on the market, who themselves would be legally obligated to provide it.

This would be a very expensive proposition considering that the music industry would have to produce not only the music, but also the media types and hardware required to play back the music.

But it could be done.

Very, VERY expensive (as in the ROI would be non-existent and possibly just bleed the wallets of the people financing it) and the hackers and file-sharers would nearly immediately find a way around it anyway.

jag

 

[knowsbleed]

Very VERY expensive for the consumers (new hardware and media) AND for the hardware manufacturers as well.

 

[jaguarr]

Very VERY expensive for the consumers (new hardware and media) AND for the hardware manufacturers as well.

That as well. It would be essentially punishing regular consumers for the sins of a few by charging them exorbitant amounts for their music and the hardware to play it on. It would effectively kill the music business because people would either stop buying that stuff altogether or join the legions of hackers and filesharers that get it for free.

jag

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Everyone just start your own bands.
That's Mike Watt's advice, "Buy a bass. Start a band."

 

[knowsbleed]

Cover bands galore...

I'd cover the Rambo cartoon theme song.

~RamboooOOooo and the Forces of FreeeedooooOOooomm!!~

 

[jaguarr]

Everyone just start your own bands.
That's Mike Watt's advice, "Buy a bass. Start a band."

And the band known as Skunk Butthole shall rise up and conquer the intarwebs!!!!!!

jag

 

[lazur]

Very, VERY expensive (as in the ROI would be non-existent and possibly just bleed the wallets of the people financing it) and the hackers and file-sharers would nearly immediately find a way around it anyway.

jag

Not necessarily. If you require your users to sign in to some type of account in order to play back the music they've purchased, you can authenticate and, to a large degree, control access to said music.

Think about how everything's wireless nowadays. The hardware the company provides for a car audio system, for example, can easily be made to send/receive wireless signals. The system could be set up so that you'd have to dial into somewhere and enter your pin number in order to sign in and allow music playback on that particular piece of hardware.

That's probably a little extreme, but I do tend to believe that the measures to which hackers will go in order to infiltrate something are never as extreme as the measures - sometimes criminal - to which corporations (and the governments of the world) will go in order to protect it.

 

[Themanofbat]

Buy Vinyl!!!