quote:Originally posted by pH: You know, I will be really happy when it is possible for me to purchase a ringtone version of any song I can legally download, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
And I would pay far, far out the ass for such a possibility. I mean, seeing as I pay $2.49 a ringtone plus $.01 a kilobite for these less-than-thirty-second clips now, I think it's pretty clear that I would have no problem paying for more of them.
-pH
Your service provider makes you pay per kilobyte to download? Even during unlimited NW minutes? That stinks! Who are you with? Verizon doesn't do that, it just uses minutes if you download during the day. There's no charge above the cost of the ringtone if you download during NW minutes.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
You guys are going to get a huge kick out of this.
A guy who was the head of a department at a particular label came to school today for a sort of question and answer. Someone asked what his thoughts were on the changing nature of the industry, downloads, and the like.
He said that he thought that the ability to make music more portable and the ability to buy individual songs legally off the Internet was making music more disposable and cheapening the art form. Oh, and eventually, people will be willing to pay higher prices because offering songs and albums for cheap also cheapens the art form. He said something about how it used to be that if someone listened to music, it was only in his home or his car, if he had a cassette player.
It seems to me that the ability to listen to music anywhere makes it even more intertwined in one's life. It makes music even MORE important. I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I am incapable of exercising or taking walks without listening to music. And one CD isn't going to cut it for me. I need hundreds of tracks to shuffle.
Awesome! I cheapen the musical art by making it an integral part of my life. Forgive me, O music gods, for I have worshipped you on the false altar of the jogging path at the park. I have failed to keep thine music sacred within the shrines of my dwelling and my automobile. I am a terrible sinner.
posted
After all, if I pay .99/song from I tunes, and I burn myself a CD with 15 songs on it then I paid 14.85 for the CD. Almost what I paid at the store, for a CD when I still bought them. Only difference is that the CD I burned will be exclusively songs that I know I like, rather than some songs I like and some that I always skip over.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I acquire something without depriving anybody of anything,
But you're begging the question with the conclusion that you aren't depriving them of anything. For example, there are mechanical royalties (an automatic right to make such a performance for a payment amount that is set by law or regulation) due for public performances of certain works. Are you depriving the authors of those royalties if you make a public performance without paying the mechanical royalty?
Let's suppose that I like a song and wish to perform it in public.
If I want to perform it enough that I'm willing to pay for it, I have two choices. One, I perform and pay. Two, I perform but don't pay. In this case, I am depriving the copyright holder if I don't pay.
But let's suppose that it's not worth it for me to pay the royalty. In this case, I have two choices. One, I don't play and I don't pay. Two, I play but I still don't pay. In this case, I am not depriving the copyright holder of their fees by playing, since I wouldn't pay anyway.
The same thing applies to unauthorized downloaded music. If OSC talks about an album in his column that I'm interested in but not willing to pay for (yet), no artist is deprived of anything if I download the album and check it out. In fact, I'm more likely to pay for once I check it out than if I weren't able to do so. But if I download an album instead of paying for it, then the I am depriving the artists money they would otherwise get.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Yeah, he seemed like a pretty cool guy until that point. Then I was all... have you SPOKEN with anyone under thirty about this subject?
-pH
If I were to argue that the digital medium cheapens music, I wouldn't talk about availability as a factor. I think he was seeing volume as a diminishing attention to any one album, but people are listening more overall too, so the attention and time we take listening is higher.
I would instead argue that its things like the marketing culture and the record companies who will try to produce more music, and sell more, thus -possibly- diluting the product in the process. The digital media could certainly wreck the Beatles era "album" concept, thus cheapening or defeating one whole aspect of popular musical form. But one could argue that the day of the concept album was already passed, and most hip-hop and alot of other popular music is not very focused on the sound of an album anymore, since some artists only really invest their energy in a few tracks that will play on the radio.
Maybe that's too cynical, but he might be right about this for the wrong reasons. pH, your talking about music that has already been produced, thus can't be cheapened in a fundamental way. However the music that WILL be produced will be produced with a new market in mind, thus there will be changes. Some good, maybe some bad as well.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
have you SPOKEN with anyone under thirty about this subject?
