DRM-free...?? No waii

[zircon]

Actually, that's very true. CD Baby recently started selling MP3 downloads of CDs. I didn't think it would be successful given how they already distribute through iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, Payplay, etc. Yet I've been getting MP3 sales through CD Baby's site routinely now. Go figure.

[Penfold]

Actually, that's very true. CD Baby recently started selling MP3 downloads of CDs. I didn't think it would be successful given how they already distribute through iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, Payplay, etc. Yet I've been getting MP3 sales through CD Baby's site routinely now. Go figure.

Speaking of CD Baby, I really enjoyed their flavor when doing the Zircon/SGX "triple threat" deal you guys had, so I know I'll be doing business when them again shortly (decently quick shipping from them too, since Portland isn't too far away either).

[Imagist]

I think one of the biggest things to note here, besides the lack of DRM, is that Amazon isn't going cheapo or terribly greedy on this deal. Not only is the song price not fixed at a minimum of $.99 (or $9.99 for an album) like iTunes, but that $.99 (or $.89 as the case seems to be with quite a sizeable portion of the library, or much much less, down to $7-8 or God knows how little for an album) will net you the sort of higher-quality files you'd have to pay an extra $.30 for on iTunes. It's really a steal, and since there is apparently much more freedom for the artists and labels to set their own prices, they could feasibly go even cheaper. Or, conversely, artists who know everyone downloads only that one good single from their album could simply up the price on it a few cents, possibly lower the prices of the "filler" songs on the album, and thus wind up making the sort of money for their better songs that they ought to be making in the first place with sales of single CDs rather than making nothing near as much as they should from those masterpieces because Apple refuses to allow flexible prices.

If there's a digital market out ther already that's doing as much for both creators and consumers as Amazon's system potentially could, I don't know about it.

[Fishy]

I used to be guilty of torrenting, but I hate doing it now. I really enjoy having the whole package in my hand, especially when you get fun extras, like the "making of" DVD i got with Systematic Chaos. Once you know about the real trouble even some succesful artists go through because they're being screwed by any combination of labels and illegal downloads, you would have to be very selfish to still download stuff illegally, for example:

Oh sure, because I'm paying to download music from here.

Oh wait. No I'm not.

Wow, you really think stuff through before you obnoxiously blurt it out.

[Bahamut]

ITT Metatron proves himself to be a retard.

That said, I can't say I find the idea of purchasing music online all that appealing, unless it was made dirt cheap. I tend to prefer buying CDs if I buy my music, since I know all too well of the peril of hard drive failure.

[Airwalker]

I think having a variety of online music stores is beneficial, in that it creates competition and allows for more consumer choices even if the terms and prices may be very similar. Though, I do wish there was a better, central way of finding downloadable music from different sites. Find the best price or terms of use/quality. And perhaps even small stores, like from individual musicians could get traffic and customers.

[Moseph]

That said, I can't say I find the idea of purchasing music online all that appealing, unless it was made dirt cheap. I tend to prefer buying CDs if I buy my music, since I know all too well of the peril of hard drive failure.

I'm waiting to jump onto the downloaded music bandwagon until these places start offering FLAC/WAV files. There's no way I'm going to pay CD prices for reduced-quality files that don't transcode well. I'd much rather wait the 3-10 days for shipping, rip the thing myself, and do my own encoding.

EDIT: Also, what are all those people who downloaded 128kbps files several years ago going to do with them? Re-buy them at 256kbps? What happens to the 256kbps files when the next bump in quality comes? The technology changes so much faster than it does with the physical media.

[Airwalker]

EDIT: Also, what are all those people who downloaded 128kbps files several years ago going to do with them? Re-buy them at 256kbps? The technology changes so much faster than it does with the physical media.

I've never been able to tell the difference between the same song in 128kbps and 256kpbs.

[Moseph]

I've never been able to tell the difference between the same song in 128kbps and 256kpbs.

In my experience, it has a lot to do with hardware. I can't tell much of a difference between 128kbps mp3/ogg and CD-quality on my computer's lousy integrated sound card, but the difference is painfully clear on my portable mp3 player.

As bitrate goes up, my objection is less about quality and more about being tied to a specific format. I prefer to have the raw audio data so I can do whatever I want with it.

[Fritz the Cat]

ITT Metatron proves himself to be a retard.

...says the guy who thinks paying for his downloads makes him 'special'. OH TEH IRONEE.

[The Coop]

Firstly...

Anyway, I see no reason for Amazon to not try this. Amazon offers a lot that can be ordered as it is, but as we've all seen, downloading music is a rather popular shopping venue these days. Sure you can go elsewhere to get your tunes, but saying there's no need for Amazon to offer music downloads is like saying there's no need for them to sell used games because of sites like eBay, Yahoo Auctions, Half.com and them already existing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. By allowing people to sell their used games there, Amazon brought in a new market, expanded their services for regular customers, and gave folks another place to look for older games. So really, I can understand Amazon not wanting to watch as their customers browse off to some other place for downloadable music. Why only offer physical CDs, when you can offer customers a choice... and bring in new potential revenue with that choice?

There's no such thing as too many on-line choices for stuff like this, so I see no reason for them to not at least try. I mean hell, it's their dime. Whether it sinks or floats will depend on Amazon and how they handle it.

[Bahamut]

...says the guy who thinks paying for his downloads makes him 'special'. OH TEH IRONEE.

I never said it makes me special or anything of the like. Keep continuing on your path of idiocy.

I probably download more music than all of OCR - I know in all my years of undergrad, I have never found someone with more music than I do, and this was even while being part of the i2hub team, where I found plenty of people with 200+ GB of music. However, I do know it's theft, and I don't try to justify it. I try to support the artists I like by buying their music since otherwise the music wouldn't even be there, but of course financially I can't afford to buy all the music I enjoy in one fell swoop.

[Arek the Absolute]

dude metatron change your sig it is huge

ps haha bahamut +1

also

...or I could just keep using Limewire and not pay anything...

wow what a douchebag

[Ferret]

You know, when a CD costs $10-$15 and there's only one song on it (fucking singles), it's times like that that I seriously consider paying for the download.

Then I realize someone else already has and I can find it on a filesharing network free of charge. Which isn't to say I won't buy music, but if I'm going to get something it must be worth the purchase.

[Antipode]

Personally I have absolutely no problem with myself or others downloading music. In fact I would absolutely LOVE it if people would download mine. But that's different - I don't rely on my music for income, I just want people to listen. As for downloading en masse, I think it's great for experimentation (download an album by this artist, one by that) and can actually really help artists get discovered. Personally I would never buy a cd unless I was familiar with the artist or had heard the music before somewhere and liked it. But by the time you're really into an artist, particularly one that isn't successful or well-known, you owe it to them to buy some music just because that's the best way to show you appreciate it and would like more. Another great way to discover artists is to go to a friend's place with a big USB stick - give them like a four gig sampler set. Give them a big variety, and they can pick and choose. In repayment, they do the same for you. This is also a surprising amount of fun. Kind of like trading records.

Now as to this amazon service, I'm all for it. More music services can't hurt. Personally I'd rather buy from this new one than the iTunes store, incidentally, simply because I just don't want to have to go through the hassle of running each song I buy through my DRM stripper like I do with everything I buy from them. Really though, as other people have been saying, there are lots of other DRM-free music stores online, so why do we really need another?

Incidentally, do any of you know the rate iTunes pays artists at? How much would an artist make per dollar/per song using the iTunes store specifically?

[Magewout]

EDIT: Also, what are all those people who downloaded 128kbps files several years ago going to do with them? Re-buy them at 256kbps? What happens to the 256kbps files when the next bump in quality comes? The technology changes so much faster than it does with the physical media.

Some stores offer the option to redownload the song with a better quality, if you pay them a little extra (like $0.10).

[Ciel]

My policy is basically to purchase my favorite albums and download the rest. I listen to new releases through torrents, and then the next time I go out and see the album in a store, I buy it. Or order the CD online if it's more obscure.

[Fritz the Cat]

And I'll remind you all that so far, you've been the only ones tossing around the insults. If you're an example of moral superiority, you have absolutely no idea how happy I am to be nothing like you.

[Bahamut]

And I'll remind you all that so far, you've been the only ones tossing around the insults. If you're an example of moral superiority, you have absolutely no idea how happy I am to be nothing like you.

And you trolled the thread since your first post in the thread. I'm tempted to just ban you for your sheer brazenness & stupidity.

If you knew any better, you'd know that actively encouraging piracy of music is strongly frowned upon on a community of musicians, who make their living off of the performance & sale of their music, and your comments are only meant to offend. I'm sure any of the other moderators would warn/tempban you for this. I just chose to indulge in entertainment for this insult to the video game rearrangement community.

You stepped out of line, and I called you out on it. Your usage of logical fallacies to justify your argument didn't help you any either.

[Alpine Flame]

And I'll remind you all that so far, you've been the only ones tossing around the insults. If you're an example of moral superiority, you have absolutely no idea how happy I am to be nothing like you.

First off, a positive note. Your sig, although obnoxoiusly huge, is very nice.

Although, you have done nothing but be a complete douchebag since you been here. It may seem outdated to morally superior types such as yourself, but if you don't have something constructive to say, please don't say it.

[Drack]

Why is piracy brought up whenever the discussion is about labels and the middleman screwing artists?

Piracy screws artists MORE than greedy middlemen.

[Nec5]

Why is piracy brought up whenever the discussion is about labels and the middleman screwing artists?

Piracy screws artists MORE than greedy middlemen.

which may or may not be better than the old days of the consumer getting screwed.

[Kusabi]

which may or may not be better than the old days of the consumer getting screwed.

The old days of the consumers getting screwed? That's still happening! lol

So instead of just screwing the buyers of stuff, the distributors now decide to start screwing the suppliers as well.

All in a days work, I guess.

[zircon]

Considering the price of music has gone DOWN throughout the last 30 years or so, not even considering inflation, I'd say it's a better time than ever to be a music consumer. Not to mention all the free net radio stations, streaming sites, dropcards, trial offers... music is practically worthless these days when it comes to the average listener, because it's SO easy to get (even legally).

[Dyne]

The old days of the consumers getting screwed? That's still happening! lol

So instead of just screwing the buyers of stuff, the distributors now decide to start screwing the suppliers as well.

All in a days work, I guess.

I suppose if you really think about it, if the industry, middlemen, buyers and suppliers are screwing the consumers, and the consumers are screwing themselves, then really, only the industry is winning, because it all flows downstream.

Also, zircon's right. Going from 8-track, to vinyl, to tape, to CD, prices really have come down. Still, if you like an artist, but don't have the money for the CD, I have only one suggestion for you: GET A JOB AND BUY IT.

People seem to think mass screwage justifies piracy. I think not. If anything, piracy really does have an impact on the consumers themselves. Look, for example, at the prices to get into a movie at a movie theater. Locally, in my area, it's at least $9 for a regular showing after the specified matinee time. And that's JUST the ticket for the movie. Snack bar prices are outrageous. For what I pay for just a large popcorn, candy and a large soda at the theater, I could buy myself a decent steak dinner at a regular diner.

The point is, piracy hurts the artist and consumer alike. It doesn't really hurt the industry because they get paid no matter what, they just bitch because their bottom line wasn't that extra dollar that would've thrown it over the billion dollar mark.