Really? If it's not cooked right or doesn't taste right, I ask them to take it back. If I simply try something new and don't like it, then I chalk it up to experience and know not to order it again.
So, when you go see a movie and you don't like it, you ask for your money back (oh wait, you've probably already downloaded it). When you go to a play and you're not that entertained, do you ask for your money back? What about when you pay a cover to see a band and they don't put on a good show, do you ask them for a refund? How about a cover at a bar and it's just not your kind of place, do you ask them for your money back? In many instances, there is an inherent risk when you purchase items or make a transaction of money for services.
A : practical Most books aren't sealed in plastic. You get to read a bit at the bookstore to see if you want to buy it. Smart music companies should encourage this. Release loads of low quality samples of product approved for download and encourage people to buy the full quality product after maximum exposure. B : discussion point How long should the copyright be? The point of the copyright is to encourage productive creativity with an exclusive period. The copyright is there for the benefit of the social order. How long does the social order benefit from that? The current law is crazy long. Personally, I don't think society has an interest beyond 5 years, ten at most. The product will likely be disposable or functionally obsolete by then.
RM95... but thats not the point.... in this case you don't have to take the risk if you can try before you buy. In the other cases, you have to take a chance, but as long as music is available online, you dont have to take the chance. As far as movies go, I dont take the chance...I wait till they come out on DVD and go rent them...then I know whether or not I want to buy.. Plays and food...you just have to take the chacne you will like it.
The record labels are in the business to make money. They just want to do it on copletely their own terms, their terms being screw the artist and the customer for all it is worth. I for one am not going to be screwed any more. I bought ~400 LPs in high school and college, with the benefit of only listening to one or two tracks on the radio (if the band was actually played on the radio). I have already bought my fair share of duds. That game is now over. Until the record companies change their business models to more consumer friendly terms, I will try before I buy via mp3s and I will only buy major label CDs used, with very few exceptions (like being price < $10). All I got to say is "expect more". The internet has changed the record companies' business model; they know it but they just don't want to admit. The way that music can be packaged, distributed, and promoted is in the early stages on a brave new frontier. The record companies can embrace this new frontier or fight it. I am not holding my breath for the former.
I don't download music myself, but I think the RIAA and ClearChannel are two of the worst things to ever happen to music. Anything that pisses them off is A-OK in my book.
If you're going to twist examples to attempt to fit this particular scenario (i.e. square pegs into round holes), then fine, I will, too. Would you buy a car without test driving it first? If you bought it unseen or without a test, and it sucks ass, would you just "chalk that up to a learning experience"? Also, when you walk into an ice cream store, do you ask for a taste of a particular flavor before buying? Is that wrong? That's why Baskin Robbins has those little spoons, y'know.
Well, I'm citing examples of things that are related to buying music (i.e. entertainment and/or pleasure activities). Music, movies, eating out at restaurants, going to plays, etc. are all similar endeavors (i.e. not square peg into round hole). When you buy a book and read it, do you take it back to Barnes and Noble demanding a refund if you don't like it? Of course not. This is the same. If you can't afford to buy a CD or you don't want to take the risk based on one song, tough ****, IMO. I have no sympathy for anyone who gets in trouble for this. You're stealing music that artists and record companies deserve to be compensated for. BTW, I'm sure Baskin Robbins would have a problem if you went in everyday and sampled without buying (plus, a little spoon is different from a whole cone), however, to address the point you're trying to make, I honestly don't have a problem with downloading songs if an artist makes it clear that he has no problem with you downloading them. The car example isn't a good one either. They allow test driving because it helps sell the car. While there are some people who buy cds after downloading a couple of songs, I'd be willing to bet that there are more who download songs and never buy the cds.
No, but you CAN preview the book by reading a bit of it. After all, B&N has an area where people can sit and read books and magazines that haven't been paid for. Also, if you go online, Amazon has preview pages for books where you can read a few pages, too. Ah, but if you sample one flavor, it's not going to change. Chocolate will still taste like chocolate. Vanilla like vanilla. Therefore, you won't need to sample more than once (in theory). If Baskin Robbins comes out with SUPER DUPER ULTRA chocolate, though, then yes, I'll want a sample to see if and how it's different from normal chocolate. Much like I'll want to see how Radiohead changed their tune with their new crappy musical direction (techno beats and the like). I don't download the whole album and decide if I like it; just a few songs will suffice for me (mainly the popular ones that people rave about in thorough Amazon reviews). I'm still supporting the artist, though, by buying CDs I LIKE. I just "try before I buy." No longer will I beef up the sales numbers of crap acts who don't deserve my hard-earned cash. Think of it as one man doing his part to get rid of all the crap in music today by NOT buying into the hype (but rather using samples and research instead).
And I'd be somewhat OK with that if I was convinced that most people who download songs do the same exact thing. You can also go sample music at cdnow.com (and amazon, I believe).
Would you buy a car without test driving it first? If you bought it unseen or without a test, and it sucks ass, would you just "chalk that up to a learning experience"? Also, when you walk into an ice cream store, do you ask for a taste of a particular flavor before buying? Is that wrong? That's why Baskin Robbins has those little spoons, y'know. Of course, the difference is that in both of these cases, you're doing it with the permission of the owner of the product. You don't just go test drive a car without asking. You don't go through the ice cream vat without asking.
You just said earlier that you downloaded Hail to the Thief in it's entirety, only to decide you didn't like it and wouldn't purchase it.
politics. i just finished reading this excerpt from clarkhoward.com. There was a story in the New York Times about the music industry and how it’s suffering from a massive decline in CDs. As a result, the music industry is going to make examples out of college students who are downloading large quantities of music for free. The industry has actually filed suit against individual students, starting with four students at three different colleges. They are not charging the students criminally, but they’re clearly trying to break them financially. The suits seek $150,000 for each file copied. One Maryland student who was not charged told the Times how he’d set up the system at his school and estimated the downloads would cost him $98 billion if he were charged. Clark has felt all along that downloading music without paying for it is stealing. But he’s also had contempt for the five major music labels for manipulating the market and jacking up CD prices beyond belief. As it turns out, the people who ultimately lose out in this scenario are the artists who write and perform the music. Courts shouldn’t force teenagers to pay ungodly amounts of money. Instead, the industry should come up with creative forms of music at a reasonable price that people would be willing to pay. But as more and more teens get addicted to downloading music, it’s going to be harder and harder to get them to pay for it. Something else has to happen. sorry the article is kinda old, but damn. i was just looking at the numbers. "fivilous lawsuits" in medical malpractice cases are unacceptable , but this is different... right? yeah. right. what is "frivilous"?
Uh, I never said that. Check out what I wrote again: When I said "likewise," I was inferring that I downloaded HALF of Hail to the Thief, much like I did with Finding Nemo. Sorry if you didn't get that. I understand what you're getting at, Major, but as RM95 pointed out, you CAN sample songs through CDNow and Amazon (just not the whole song ). Does the music industry (i.e. the "owners") allow that? It seems they do. Do I like to use that function? Sometimes, but I prefer to listen to the whole song. A happy medium would be to be able to listen to the whole song, but at a much-less-than-CD quality clip. I think that would satisfy me, the research-happy consumer, and the record company, who wants my business. The question is, though: Is there enough bandwidth and server space to allow this to happen?
I don't know, I just think the RIAA is barking up the wrong tree. Starting in about 1998, the quality of mainstream music started going downhill like a freight train. It's a lot easier to blame downloading than it is to look in the mirror and fix the problem. Personally, I think CD buyers are saving their cash and being more selective, I know I am. Or perhaps they're waiting for someone to come along and turn everything upside down like say Nirvana in 1992. Call me crazy but I just don't think bands like Sugar Ray or Good Charlotte are going to revolutionize the music industry any time soon...
