Weezer's Pinkerton only $0.00 on Demonoid store!

[flicker]

i dont rip them.

vinyl is my preferred way to listen to music.

if i want it portable, i download it. but i still wont pay for it.

[andrew13]

i can hear a huge difference between 128, 192, and 256. it all depends on your speakers and headphones. i try to download or rip in 256 or 320. also, i'm sure you should know that soundscan is total bullshit. they don't count websites like interpunk, indy stores like gallery of sound in NEPA, or cds shold at shows. for a punk album, 1300 at bestbuy, FYE, and those sort of retailers sounds like a lot. i'd say 90% of the sales would be live, online, or indy retailers. for that sort of music it's mostly sold live.

[kellyjanice]

If I am downloading music it is for one of 2 reasons

1.) I have already bought the music either vinyl or cd (I have had hundreds of cd's stolen from me some of which I have replaced already and had stolen again but that is a long story) and I don't think I should have to buy it again

or

2.) I like the music enough to listen to it but not enough to buy it. if I couldn't find it to download I would go with out and not really care

either way the band label etc is not missing out on any money what so ever

just like andrew13 I have spent a ton of money in cd's and vinyl even after the hundreds of cd's I have had stolen I still have well over 500 and I have plenty of vinyl as well... is what I am doing legally wrong, yes it is, do I feel I am a bad person or actually ripping someone off, not at all. I am a merch lover I will buy pins, shirts, stickers and anything else a band puts out if I like them and every time a band I like comes to town I will go see their show. Bands and labels (major and indie alike) have gotten way more of my hard earned money that I would even like to admit.

[scottheisel]

i can hear a huge difference between 128, 192, and 256. it all depends on your speakers and headphones. i try to download or rip in 256 or 320. also, i'm sure you should know that soundscan is total bullshit. they don't count websites like interpunk, indy stores like gallery of sound in NEPA, or cds shold at shows. for a punk album, 1300 at bestbuy, FYE, and those sort of retailers sounds like a lot. i'd say 90% of the sales would be live, online, or indy retailers. for that sort of music it's mostly sold live.

You're incorrect. Interpunk and Smartpunk both report to SoundScan. Also, most bands on indie labels report their venue sales to SoundScan, as well, assuming their label is set up to support it.

[kirbypuckett]

Flicker, I bet $100 I could play you your favorite song by your favorite band in 128kbps, 192kbps and 256kbps and you couldn't tell the difference.

I say this every time this debate comes up.

If we performed a blind test, you would fail, fail, fail.

Maximum PC did a great test 3 or so years ago where they tested different bitrates on a very nice sample group. They had the soccer mom, the audiophile, the college student, you get the point... They tested different kbps along w/ different headphones and speakers. A variety of music was also used in the test.

I think the soccer mom had the best results, which they chalked up to lucky guesswork.

128kbps is pretty and you can tell the differences in things you know well, but on a blind test you're more than likely still going to fail.

[kirbypuckett]

Fuck, man. Stop illegal downloading. It's one of the most selfish things someone can do in regards to music.

It's not going to stop, the music industry has to change its old ways.

[xfedaykinx]

Help Computer! Stop all the downloading!!

scrabbablleebladdssccrrabbarrar

[Guest conoley]

What other sort of product out there can you openly say is at a poorer quality and still have people buy?

Seriously? Fail.

Milwaukee's Best Light costs less than Sam Adams. A Kia costs less than a Mercedes. Organic mixed greens cost more than iceberg lettuce. cloths from AE cost less than clothes from Calvin Klein.

Is that enough?

I pay $20/month for 75 downloads from emusic. What I don't get - cd, jewel case, lyrics - I don't pay for. I'm happy with that.

[kirbypuckett]

What other sort of product out there can you openly say is at a poorer quality and still have people buy?

Seriously? Fail.

Milwaukee's Best Light costs less than Sam Adams. A Kia costs less than a Mercedes. Organic mixed greens cost more than iceberg lettuce. cloths from AE cost less than clothes from Calvin Klein.

Is that enough?

I pay $20/month for 75 downloads from emusic. What I don't get - cd, jewel case, lyrics - I don't pay for. I'm happy with that.

That's a pretty good deal, especially since eMusic is DRM free.

[Guest conoley]

Emusic is great.

[ps]

Emusic is great.

[scottheisel]

Fuck, man. Stop illegal downloading. It's one of the most selfish things someone can do in regards to music.

It's not going to stop, the music industry has to change its old ways.

Why would an industry change its ways to accommodate thieves?

[andywax]

Emusic is great.

Why would an industry change its ways to accommodate thieves?

Two great points.

I fucking hate threads like this because neither side will be persuaded to change their ideals.

[ps]

It's not going to stop, the music industry has to change its old ways.

Why would an industry change its ways to accommodate thieves?

I'm not picking sides (nor speaking for Virgil), but, Virgil changed his approach to selling music and he is doing better than ever now.

[scottheisel]

Why would an industry change its ways to accommodate thieves?

I'm not picking sides (nor speaking for Virgil), but, Virgil changed his approach to selling music and he is doing better than ever now.

He didn't so much change his approach as just start selling vinyl more. He still makes CDs, too; he merely found a new way to supplement his income. Not to mention he's catering to a very niche market; a major label could switch over to all-vinyl/digital and they'd be out of business in a month.

[Guest conoley]

It's not going to stop, the music industry has to change its old ways.

Why would an industry change its ways to accommodate thieves?

The number of people downloading music is indicative of a larger problem within the music industry and the ways in which it markets and distributes its product. A problem larger than a people stealing music because they can.

Perhaps a better way to phrase the question is, "Why would an industry change its ways to accommodate those it has lost as customers?

The answer would be, to win them back. Industries of all sorts have to adjust to meet the changing demands of their customers. The music industry failed to do that for a long time, and its hostile response to those lost customers has alienated even more people.

[kirbypuckett]

It's not going to stop, the music industry has to change its old ways.

Why would an industry change its ways to accommodate thieves?

Scott, you're an intelligent guy, but that question isn't.

The industry obviously shouldn't cater to thieves, but like Ben said below these people aren't "thieves" per say, but "lost customers."

A lot of people seriously see no need to pay for music and those numbers grow each year as does the technology to support them.

Let's look at the brief history of illegally downloading music.

MP3s are created and a small niche on the Internet is in love with them. I myself hosted along w/ some friends a few very popular MP3 websites back in the day and we averaged about 3,000 hits per day -- which back in our youth we thought was a HUGE deal.

The first MP3 players are released, they're expensive and slow to catch on, but have their market.

Broadband Internet becomes cheaper and the popular choice for ISPs.

Napster is released and people go crazy! Download MP3s is a brilliant way to obtain new music and coupled w/ affordable CD burners a viable way to manage your music collection.

The RIAA shuts Napster down. A million clones pop up.

Labels begin adding DRM to their CDs, some are cracked so easily (The Sharpee Method) that most people laugh.

Apple releases the iPod, MP3s are here to stay.

Napster comes back as a pay service. DRM'd MP3s, can't put them on all portable players, they expire, etc... EPIC FAIL.

The iTunes Music Store launched, finally a quality all around place to purchase MP3s on the web.

Bittorent, the easiest and most efficient way to obtain large files on the Internet and it gains popularity all of the time.

Amazon, iTunes, and other stores begin to offer DRM free MP3s.

Ok, so that's a brief synopsis and I'm obviously missing a lot of details, but all the music industry has tried to down since the invention of the MP3 is make it harder for paying customers to listen to their music. No matter what anti-piracy technology they come up with the tech savvy will circumvent it in a matter of hours.

The people that are stealing music are not going to go back to paying for it. "Why pay for something I can get for free?" It's too easy and for the most part you get a better quality product (no DRM, plays on any player, unlimited burns and listens, etc.).

The music industry needs to change somehow if they want to gain their customers back. I don't know how, but if they think the "thieves" are just going to be sitting at their computers and one day go "Oh, I think I'll start paying for music now" they're out of their minds.

[thomas]

Flicker, I bet $100 I could play you your favorite song by your favorite band in 128kbps, 192kbps and 256kbps and you couldn't tell the difference.

I say this every time this debate comes up.

If we performed a blind test, you would fail, fail, fail.

Maximum PC did a great test 3 or so years ago where they tested different bitrates on a very nice sample group. They had the soccer mom, the audiophile, the college student, you get the point... They tested different kbps along w/ different headphones and speakers. A variety of music was also used in the test.

I think the soccer mom had the best results, which they chalked up to lucky guesswork.

128kbps is pretty and you can tell the differences in things you know well, but on a blind test you're more than likely still going to fail.

320 is easy to tell in a blind test too, since it is usually louder.

[dante3000]

On an entirely unrelated topic something about this came up when I was interviewing the Weakerthans. I believe it was Stephen who mentioned that it was odd that kids were singing along to songs off the new album before it was released. He knew that it was due to downloading and it made him feel odd. He was happy kids were into the music and that they were coming to shows. However, he made a point that liking the music and going to see the band doesn't pay for the recording of the record. The label (Anti/Epitaph) makes their money back from album sales and even if the band plays to 10,000 kids a night if they don't see any albums the label won't recoup and isn't likely to continue supporting a band that doesn't sell.

He wasn't against downloading but it's an interesting point. The whole, "I see the band and go to shows" is a great way to support a band but not a good way to support their recording. Until all bands can record their own music, cheaply and effectively (and unlike bitrate, there's no debate that you can tell the difference between a poorly recorded album and one done well), someone is going to have to pay for that.

As for downloading, I don't do it. I'm not "against" it, I just don't really care for the idea. It is disposable and worthless as just a download, to me. I lost nearly 500 songs on my old computer that I had illegally downloaded and I didn't even bat an eye. If I lost 50 records you'd better believe I'd kill someone. I like having music that means something to me, even if it's just some odd physical attachment to consumerism.

[kirbypuckett]

I like that post Dante.

A lot of my friends use that excuse to justify there reason for never paying for music.

I have no problem with folks who download music, I do it quite a bit myself (What had a freeleech recently, what do you expect?), but I also buy as much music as my wallet allows me to. It kind of upsets me that I'm one of the few people I know (outside of this message board) that still purchases music religiously.

[benchwarmer]

yea, well said Dante.

[chunkrock]

I also buy as much music as my wallet allows me. But I love the fact that I can download an album and listen to it a bunch of times to see if it holds up for me and I will buy it. I own a lot of music but I also have a lot of downloaded music, most of which I fully intend on buying when I can. I live in a small town and we don't get a lot of the music I enjoy or don't have here (that will change soon as we're finally getting an hmv) so whenever I go to toronto I go crazy and buy music or dvds.

One point that I never see being raised is the fact that there is a big market for used cds I bet the people here (Scott, hate to attack you but I'm using you as an example) still buy a lot of used cds and albums (I do it too) which the band doesn't get a single cent from (from the resale anyway). You may say they saw the money the first time, which is true. However, if this is an album you really love and were intending to buy anyway and you found used for half the price technically you're paying for the album but the only person seeing a profit is the person that sold the album. So in a way isn't that almost as bad?

I'm not trying to start a fight I'm just trying to come up with a new point in the debate.

[bouncingsoles123]

One thing I don't understand is why when you order a CD online and have to wait for it in the mail why you can't download it right away?

That annoys me.

Hopefully Amazon MP3 will adjust to this.

[andrew13]

I'm not picking sides (nor speaking for Virgil), but, Virgil changed his approach to selling music and he is doing better than ever now.

He didn't so much change his approach as just start selling vinyl more. He still makes CDs, too; he merely found a new way to supplement his income. Not to mention he's catering to a very niche market; a major label could switch over to all-vinyl/digital and they'd be out of business in a month.

he gives away a lot of the albums for the first 200 to download them too. did that with ghost buffalo and i think he did it with lemuria too.

[flicker]

Flicker, I bet $100 I could play you your favorite song by your favorite band in 128kbps, 192kbps and 256kbps and you couldn't tell the difference.

I say this every time this debate comes up.

If we performed a blind test, you would fail, fail, fail.

Maximum PC did a great test 3 or so years ago where they tested different bitrates on a very nice sample group. They had the soccer mom, the audiophile, the college student, you get the point... They tested different kbps along w/ different headphones and speakers. A variety of music was also used in the test.

I think the soccer mom had the best results, which they chalked up to lucky guesswork.

again. i will take that challenge.

Notice that in that group, they are all "average" people. Where is the person that has passion for music that listens to digital media of varying bitrates for hours everday? Where is the Music Tech major that understands what a bit rate actually is? They were not picked to be involved in the test, and until they are, dont assume that my answers are going to be any where near similar to those of a soccer mom or average college student. I am way above the average college student in terms of time spent listening to music and knowledge of some of the technical aspects.

and another thing, when we talk about how difficult it is to tell the difference in bitrates, what type of music are we talking about? If you're going to use a song by a 3 member punk band, yeah its going to be difficult to distinguish, thats simply because the frequency range used is fairly limited no matter what bitrate you use. But if you were to listen to a classical album, or anything with strings or horns, the difference is almost immediately apparent between 128kbps and 320+. This is because the frequency ranges are exponentially greater than those of a punk band. At 128 you're going to hear possible clipping, compression and/or aliasing.

What other sort of product out there can you openly say is at a poorer quality and still have people buy?

Seriously? Fail.

Milwaukee's Best Light costs less than Sam Adams. A Kia costs less than a Mercedes. Organic mixed greens cost more than iceberg lettuce. cloths from AE cost less than clothes from Calvin Klein.

Is that enough?

I pay $20/month for 75 downloads from emusic. What I don't get - cd, jewel case, lyrics - I don't pay for. I'm happy with that.

ummm....your counterexample is not even analogous....

the reason a Kia and a Mercedes cost different amounts is because they are not the same product. Your example is like saying punk records should always cost less than some other genre...its a stupid counterexample and really not at all thought out. Why do apples cost less than oranges? Its a completely subjective argument also. ...god there are so many things wrong with it.

With music, there exists it in its "purest" form, the master. This then gets dumbed down from there. its not like there is Sam Adams and then they just add gallons of water to it and sell it in bottles. (that would be a closer analogy). And if they did, why should i accept this shoddy quality product?

Are you also opposed to the use of 180g vinyl?

if a record came out on 180g+ and something ultra thin, (and assume they cost the same) which would you buy?

Just because there are more albums pressed on that super thin vinyl does not mean that this is an acceptable way for us to get all of our music. Labels are just pushing the consumer to see how crappy and cost efficient they can make the sound and still have people buy. And that, to me is unacceptable. I will do everything i can to make sure that the quality of audio samples stays truest to its original master. Maybe one day i will boycott paying for vinyl that isnt 180g, but for right now, the worst thing to happen to music is the popularity of low bitrate mp3s, and the people who buy them and think the are music fans.

why does it seem like i am the only person here who cares about the quality of music being sold to me? i thought this was a music messageboard...

whatever though, pay for your shitty mp3s, but the fact that you are spending your money on these inferior audio files makes me loose a ton of respect for you as a music listener.

tl;dr?

-are people who pay for low bitrate mp3s, in a sense, supporting aural propaganda? just buy what they are selling and shut your mouth.