Leaked or Pirated media = less cost for media?

[Kane52630]

ever since the whole napster thing a decade ago ive been noticing that cost for cd's are lower than 10 years ago, now i can get a CD from walmart for less than $10. So does that mean movies will go that same route and video games too?
its just something i thought about today

 

[Majic Walrus]

ever since the whole napster thing a decade ago ive been noticing that cost for cd's are lower than 10 years ago, now i can get a CD from walmart for less than $10. So does that mean movies will go that same route and video games too?
its just something i thought about today

I think that the reason for the general decline in the apparent costs of these things has more to do with the kind of CDs that you are buying and also the improvement of technology.

 

[black_dust]

And mostly because you can now download mp3s of the albums you like, over the last 10 years leagal mp3 downloads have sky-rocketed.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

And mostly because you can now download mp3s of the albums you like, over the last 10 years leagal mp3 downloads have sky-rocketed.

Yeah, they're competing with the ease of downloading and also that you can just download the good songs of an album instead of paying $10-15 for a CD that really only has 2-4 good songs.

As for movies and video games. Movies are already pretty cheap, if you buy it when it first comes out, it's only about $15 that or year six months to a year and it'll be $5-10. Most major video games won't go down in price, the production costs are too high. With movies you've got the box office revenue and music you get the touring money, video games only have one source of revenue, retail sales, so it'll also be around $40-60

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[BlackLantern]

Wait - people still pay for music?

Hahahahahaha.

if you like a particular artist or film, you should have no problem paying for it....

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[BlackLantern]

You're right. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek there.

But the fact of the matter is - I have 22,000 songs on my hard-drive. There are albums I've downloaded that I haven't even gotten around to listening to yet. I'm constantly seeking out good music and sharing it with the people around me. I've introduced friends to artists, bought merchandise, physical deluxe-edition vinyls, posters, and concert tickets. It's this kind of immediate accessibility that launches so many careers. But I could never have done that at $0.99 per song via iTunes. I just don't have $22,000 sitting around to spend on music: I'm twenty-one, for God's sake.

The truth is - I love music way too much to play by the rules all the time. If I had to pay for everything, I wouldn't be able to listen to much music at all. So I have to ask myself... "Would the artist rather me download their stuff, give it a listen, and perhaps become a devoted follower... Or would they rather me never hear it at all?" I hope the answer would be the former.

I'll admit - it's a touchy subject, and we're in a strange new territory. This is an unprecedented time in entertainment. The idea of 'creative ownership' is being called into question, and nobody's quite sure where things are headed. But if I love an artist's work - they will get my money. That's the only way music will stay alive.

But in the future, I think songs will serve as advertisements for live shows and the artist's "brand". The flow of free information is increasing exponentially; there's no stopping it. There are no easy answers. But for me, at least - the lure of instantly-accessible, free opportunities to listen to new artists is too much to resist. I love music of all kinds, and the only way I'm financially able to continue finding it is through bittorrents and burnt mixes from friends.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt I'm alone on this one.

That has got to be the most selfish and egotistical statement I have ever read....by this thinking, I would be in the right stealing a car because I love cars way too much....or walking into my local comic store and emptying the walls because I love comics....

If you can't afford something, you do without....that's how it is....

 

[Reptile]

I never pirate anything unless I have owned it in the past, that way I know I have still payed for what I"m downloading

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[Kable24]

But look at 10 years ago when you paid $15.99 for a cd you got almost 20 songs. Now you pay $10 for a cd and get maybe 11 songs.

 

[BlackLantern]

I don't think that analogy totally works. A car is a car, sir. If I take someone's car, they have no car.

But let's say my friend could make an exact copy of said car. Then he'd still have the car. What's going on isn't theft - it's replication. And we need new ways of defining digital information. It isn't exactly property (like a car), is it?

I don't think the above statement was selfish and/or egotistical at all - just the way it is.

Copyrighted material is property....it just isn't tangible....this is where a lot of people have the disconnect and think it's ok to pirate music

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[BlackLantern]

I understand copyright. I just don't agree with its strictures in this case. I think its rules are antiquated and unsustainable.

We disagree, sir. Maybe I'm wrong on this one. Who knows? I just have a hard time treating 'sharing' like 'theft'.

just because you don't agree with a law doesn't make it ok to break the law....I agree with you...business models and copyright stricture do need changing...but as the law stands now, it's illegal

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[amazingfantasy15]

You're right. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek there.

But the fact of the matter is - I have 22,000 songs on my hard-drive. There are albums I've downloaded that I haven't even gotten around to listening to yet. I'm constantly seeking out good music and sharing it with the people around me. I've introduced friends to artists, bought merchandise, physical deluxe-edition vinyls, posters, and concert tickets. It's this kind of immediate accessibility that launches so many careers. But I could never have done that at $0.99 per song via iTunes. I just don't have $22,000 sitting around to spend on music: I'm twenty-one, for God's sake.

The truth is - I love music way too much to play by the rules all the time. If I had to pay for everything, I wouldn't be able to listen to much music at all. So I have to ask myself... "Would the artist rather me download their stuff, give it a listen, and perhaps become a devoted follower... Or would they rather me never hear it at all?" I hope the answer would be the former.

I'll admit - it's a touchy subject, and we're in a strange new territory. This is an unprecedented time in entertainment. The idea of 'creative ownership' is being called into question, and nobody's quite sure where things are headed. But if I love an artist's work - they will get my money. That's the only way music will stay alive.

But in the future, I think songs will serve as advertisements for live shows and the artist's "brand". The flow of free information is increasing exponentially; there's no stopping it. There are no easy answers. But for me, at least - the lure of instantly-accessible, free opportunities to listen to new artists is too much to resist. I love music of all kinds, and the only way I'm financially able to continue finding it is through bittorrents and burnt mixes from friends.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt I'm alone on this one.

I like how this whole post is about your love of music and justifying downloading music to find new bands to like, however, early on you say you haven't even listened to some of this music yet.

 

[PyroChamber]

With me, I just get songs that I like, because really when was the last time there was a CD where literally all the songs were good?

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[Addendum]

But look at 10 years ago when you paid $15.99 for a cd you got almost 20 songs. Now you pay $10 for a cd and get maybe 11 songs.

Depends on the genre.

 

[PLAS]

I wonder what does the Arcade Fire think about illegal downloading

 

[thedeadite]

I see the future of "albums" to be the "pay what you can" model. A person can download the album for whatever they feel they want to pay for it (including nothing at all). Tangible copies will also be available for those who would like them. There's an independent label I know that is already following this model, and didn't Radiohead do something like this as well with one of their recent releases?

Many bands (dare I say most), that are not mega-stars, realize that the money they end up seeing from record sales is minuscule at best. As digital music becomes even more of the "norm", major labels are going to have a harder time ripping artists off for their work and these bands are going to release it themselves, or on independent labels.

You need to ask yourself, for new band (not metallica popular), what's worse, someone downloading their album for free (taking a couple cents, or even a fraction of a cent from them) finding out about them and going to a concert/buying merch (which the band will actually make money from), or the major label that's taking their "art", making it THEIR property and taking nearly all the profits from the sales?

 

[ComicChick]

With me, I just get songs that I like, because really when was the last time there was a CD where literally all the songs were good?

it's been a very long time. i do own some cd's that i have no problems listening to from track 1 to end without skipping, but that is a rare thing these days