Price discrimination comes to restaurants

For some reason there is something in me that inherently rejects the idea of "renting" music from a company. I don't know why it matters (it's not like the bits are different), but owning the music is a much more satisfying model for me.

In my defense about "stealing" music online, there is so much crappy music out there, and I am a picky music lover, so I like to hear it before I buy it. More than a few artists, some of whom are favorites of mine, don't have every song from their new albums online for previewing, so downloading "shared" music is a way that I can preview it before paying for it. Low quality? You don't deserve my money for putting out crap. I'm only going to listen to it a few times anyways. High quality? Here's my money! It'll be marked on my I-tunes as a favorite, and will be part of the regular playlist!

Everyone has a different philosophy on the subject. Other than that, I am just about the most honest person you'll ever meet.

As (somewhat of) a musician and performer myself, I like the idea of paying what you think the music is worth. That's my next strategy for my music release. It's a step up from giving it away. :)

Sorry about the off-topicness.

LostKause said:
As (somewhat of) a musician and performer myself, I like the idea of paying what you think the music is worth. That's my next strategy for my music release. It's a step up from giving it away. :)

As someone who spent more than a few years with music as his only source of income, I hate that idea. I hate that music has become so devalued. I hate that it's essentially a commodity at this point.

In my defense about "stealing" music online, there is so much crappy music out there, and I am a picky music lover, so I like to hear it before I buy it.

This is such a touchy subject and everyone has an opinion. I'm old school. I believe you don't take something that's for sale without paying...even if you 'give it back' in whatever capacity.

I think there's a lost 'art' there too. I can name more than a few songs that I love because I bought a cassette and just played the whole thing over and over. That weird third song on side two that grew on me over time. The one that in today's world, I never even listen to because I never had to buy it as part of the package deal. I miss that.

But that's the old guy in me longing for the 'good old days' - and I get that to a large degree.

As an artist I think its crap in the way it's changed how you have to write for instant gratification. If someone doesn't like it immediately, you don't get the sale. The old way of packaging songs (no a la carte) I think gave the artist more control over their product and how it was presented to the customer. Now bands can just spit out songs and hope something sticks. I think in the long run it creates more crap floting around for the customer to wade through.

I dunno, everyone's different. The one thing I'll never subscribe to is the idea that I can take something because I don't agree with how it's being sold - even if I plan on giving it back or paying for it later. You want it - ev en to sample it - and the only option the seller offers is to buy it, then you buy it or you don't have it. If artists really wanted you to sample their music and pay for what you like, they'd offer it that way.

^What he said. I don't think it's at all kosher (moral, whatever) to intentionally subvert the sales model of the product, especially by riding a high horse about how good it is or isn't or any of the other lame excuses (the record company already has a million dollars, I wouldn't pay for it anyway, so I'm not depriving them of income, etc. etc.) I hear.

There are a lot of crappy roller coasters out there. Next time I'm going to walk up to the gate of the park and say, "I just want to take one spin on your signature ride. If it's any good, I'll come back and pay for a full ticket. If not I'll just walk away." Guess what? Life doesn't work that way.

I can at least respect someone who says, "You know what? I want something. I don't want to pay for it. There's no way for them to enforce it. So I steal it." That person might be a thief, but at least they are honest with themselves.

</rant>

+1

My iTunes bill every month will show I spend a ton on music. Having said that I blame record companies and the RIAA for the state of music today and I don't begrudge anyone who doest support the model. But support artists by seeing concerts and buying merchandise!

I'm just waiting for amazon apple or google to put an end to the old guard of record companies. And for goodness sake someone ashould do away with the RIAA.

The RIAA is doing a pretty handy job doing away with themselves.

Seriously, Travis - if you want to hear music before you decide whether or not you like it, listen to it on Pandora first. :)

I have been using Zune Pass for my MP3 music, but I've decided to sell my Zune and switch to Napster, because they have an Android app, and I'd rather just carry one device for everything. Napster is $10/month ($5 if you don't use the mobile app) for unlimited song streaming and downloads (the downloads are DRM'd so you won't be able to listen to them if you stop paying, but you can also buy songs or albums outright if you like them.

Tekwardo said:
...and I don't begrudge anyone who doest support the model.

I wouldn't either. But to not support it means to not buy into it. You don't still get to enjoy the product on your own terms. If enough people agree, the terms will change - and they have.

Perhaps I should have said take down the system instead.

Everyone has a different philosophy on the subject.

Philosophy is one thing. But, the law is another. And, simply, you are stealing if you download music where the artist (more properly, copyright owner) has not granted permission for you to do that. If you don't like the way music is sold, don't buy it, buy less of it, or do what I did and move to a model where you never buy it. And, I get why some folks want to "own" the bits, but I'm not that guy. Renting is cool with me.

More generally---and Travis, this isn't about you, it's really general---I'm annoyed that people equate "nothing prevents me from doing it" with "it's perfectly okay."

Back in the day, there was a great way to listen to music before you decided whether or not to buy it. It was called radio. :)

Brian Noble said:
I'm annoyed that people equate "nothing prevents me from doing it" with "it's perfectly okay."

I couldn't agree more.

Philosophy is one thing. But, the law is another. And, simply, you are stealing if you download music where the artist (more properly, copyright owner) has not granted permission for you to do that.

I agree 100%...and even more so when it comes to this particular topic. Seriously, I hate the attitude so many have towards music these days.

But with that said, what if the law sucks balls? I don't believe it does in this case, but the 'buck the system' in me understands and respects the idea that I don't care what the hell the law says if a law is stupid. Blindly following stupidity doesn't get us anywhere or change anything.

In this case, the way to buck the system is what I said earlier - just quit buying and things will change. But I hate the idea of hiding behind 'it's the law' to justify why something stupid is the way it is.

Weird inner battle sort of thing. :)

I totally understand where you are coming from, Noble, however, the record companies of the old days, and a lot of the bands too, have shot themselves in the foot here. I always take the high road in every part of my life, with exception to this, always. In this situation, my conscious doesn't bother me.

Most bands only get about ¢10 per entire album sold, after the record companies pay themselves back for promotion, musician development, recording fees, artwork, photo shoots, ect. It's not how it used to be. Musicians that I am close personal friends with have unknowingly entered themselves into contractual virtual enslavement agreements to record executives, blinded by their excitement of "making it".

Sometimes I can't hear it before I buy it, and then I feel ripped off when I buy a sucky album. Nowadays, there is a way to bypass being ripped off. I can listen to it before I buy it, whether I "borrowed" it from an online "friend", or listen to it some other way.

Let me say that I do get to hear most albums online legally before buying it legally.

RatherGoodBear said:
Back in the day, there was a great way to listen to music before you decided whether or not to buy it. It was called radio. :)

Radio, someone still loves you.

I'm definitely in the pay for it crowd. If you don't like the system, don't put money into it, but don't steal it either. It's not that I'm sympathetic to assholes like Lars, I'm sympathetic to anyone who creates some form of media, and expects to be paid for it. As an author and software developer, that's important to me.

I tend to buy music because it's like a soundtrack to my life. I want to always have that MP3, even if Rhapsody, Zune Pass or whatever goes away. Plus I'm too particular about what I like, so there's little benefit to the subscriptions for me. XM is my discovery mechanism though, so I'm paying for that as well.

Raven-Phile said:
Seriously, Travis - if you want to hear music before you decide whether or not you like it, listen to it on Pandora first. :)

I don't know what I'd do without Pandora.

You'd use Slacker? ;-)

Thanks Jeff, now I have Queen stuck in my head. :)

A large part of the problem has been the system (AKA record companies and the RIAA) stubbornly refusing to change with the times. There's always been crappy music, but listeners today are clearly demanding ways to only get what they like and not pay for the crap. Some of the system has adjusted by way of offering ways to preview the music before you buy, and others haven't. I suspect the ones that haven't will either be forced to change or be faced with having more of their music ripped off.

I do believe that in general, people are willing to pay for the music they like and ok with not owning stuff they don't like. They're just waiting for the industry to get better at allowing them to do so. Trying to place things like DRM on purchased music, or even attempting to prevent CDs from being ripped onto a hard drive is not going to win the industry any favors from anyone.

Tekwardo said:
You'd use Slacker? ;-)

Tried it, and found that there was far too much edited/de-cussed music on there for my liking. Or maybe that was Grooveshark. Regardless, Pandora has my heart. It's just a shame their mobile app is so horrendously buggy on my HTC Hero. The Boxee Pandora app, on the other hand, is pure awesome.

Lord Gonchar said:
But with that said, what if the law sucks balls? I don't believe it does in this case, but the 'buck the system' in me understands and respects the idea that I don't care what the hell the law says if a law is stupid. Blindly following stupidity doesn't get us anywhere or change anything.

In this case, the way to buck the system is what I said earlier - just quit buying and things will change. But I hate the idea of hiding behind 'it's the law' to justify why something stupid is the way it is.

This is almost word for word the pro-pot smoking position we had during that discussion however long ago it was.