Poll: Do you download MP3's from P2P Networks?

[Capt Crunch]

Usenet or sweetFM. SweetFM is pretty nice because last.fm is generally pretty good about song choice, and SweetFM will automatically download any song you listen to, tag it, add album art, and put it in a playlist for you. It even will ignore the song if you already have it.

[kingtj]

I was a musician before, in two different bands, plus worked on some electronic dance type stuff on my own. What I decided is it's a lot like striving to become a pro sports athlete, if your goal involves "making good money" at it. Sure, a *few* individuals manage to do it -- but the vast majority of even "very good" artists wind up not getting recognized and/or not getting paid much for their effort.

The *only* sane reason to create music is because you ENJOY it. The whole process of creating something that other people get enjoyment out of is pretty rewarding, in and of itself, I think. Money is something that may, or may not come automatically, as you do something you love doing....

Therefore, I have no guilt at all about downloading MP3s. I've also bought hundreds of music CDs over the years, and gone to my share of concerts - so I've contributed a fair share of money to the "music industry". (I just bought Butterfly Boucher's latest album off iTunes, in fact - because I thought several of their older songs were really good, iTunes reviewers were giving it rave reviews overall, and honestly - it's obscure enough, you can't easily find it to download for free.)

But all in all, artists should either A) be happy they're getting exposure and listeners at all, even if it's just someone downloading a "pirate" copy of a song or album they put out, or B) if they already HAVE so much exposure, they no longer really value it, then they're made PLENTY of money off their work already, and I probably need my $10-15 more than they need it.

Originally Posted by monkey86

have before when i was younger now being a musician i never will!

[Mac In School]

I used to. Now that Apple and Amazon have made it affordable and easy to get the songs I want, I'm more than happy to pay for them.

[flakes8]

Archive.org !!!! Live Music Archive !!!!

[Chimpy]

Sure do. Before anyone cries "PIRATE!" I do hope you all know that there are plenty of fantastic repositories of free music on the net. The Internet Archive alone is an amazing treasure trove of stuff.

[jaredwaynef]

I've enjoyed reading this thread a lot. I'm majoring in Recording Industry and one of my required courses is called American Media. It's a really interesting course where we discuss the history and social impact of the mass media... Anywhoozle, we had a lecture on P2P sites the other day. A couple of times on here I read people saying once artists start charging reasonable prices for their content, then they will start legally downloading it. This is funny because of the 99 cents one pays for a song, only roughly 12 cents goes to the artist, 30 cents at BEST (i.e. multi-million dollar guaranteed artists). So you really can't blame the artists for charging too much, in fact, Apple take 1/3 of the 99 cent value of a song.
The questions that come into existence here are generally, "What is a person's creative content really valued at? And aren't we devaluing this art (because it is an art form) by demanding no charge?" Understandably, people often consider the music to be a catharsis for the artist, so that should be enough, right? So what do you think? If making clothes is a catharsis for a person (i.e. fashion designers) should those clothes be free, too? Same thing goes for creating/making food... So personally, I don't believe that argument really applies.
Personally, I think artists should enjoy the exposure they get from things like P2P sites, and if they are good enough, people will generate revenue by buying merchandise, tickets, etc. That money from those things generally gross higher than most CDs/digital downloads.
Just spouting random things I've learned about the music industry... I can't vouch for other media outlets (tv, movies, etc.), but the topic itself is really fun to discuss. Hope this is at least interesting (and comprehendible) to read.

[mgilks]

I always used to, but i don't anymore. Seeing as I don't really need to... & I like iTunes

[iphonefreakz]

Yes, Regularly i always download everything.

[lasdulcig]

I love music, it is my life. And I usually download mp3's from Kazaa. And everyone?

[ZbHRP]

Originally Posted by lasdulcig

I love music, it is my life. And I usually download mp3's from Kazaa. And everyone?

.. uses Ut.. nah

I don't.. well back then I used KAZAA (wha?) because I was too poor to buy music.

Now that I can.. I buy from iTunes. :P

[ManuelGnR]

I don't want to pay money for just a .mp3. I do buy cd's regularly, I like it way better. And it's even cheaper by the way, if you want a whole album..

99 cents per song looks cheap but in fact it isn't.

[nza]

Amazon's MP3 stores. MP3's play on anything, they're 100% DRM free, and usually cheaper than iTunes. I can't find a reason why anyone would use iTunes Music Store TBQH.

[EssentialParado]

Originally Posted by lasdulcig

I love music, it is my life. And I usually download mp3's from Kazaa.

Don't you think, if someone proclaimed to love music, they'd want to support the artists and encourage the creation of more music?

Originally Posted by nza

Amazon's MP3 stores. MP3's play on anything, they're 100% DRM free, and usually cheaper than iTunes.

I'm pretty sure that iTunes music is completely free of DRM now. I personally haven't seen much difference in prices between iTunes and Amazon MP3s, but that could just be with me being in the UK.

Originally Posted by nza

I can't find a reason why anyone would use iTunes Music Store TBQH.

Easier to browse and buy music, larger selection of music, a better file format, and 'Genius' recommendations. I know that I could quite easily use Amazon for music, but I certainly have good reasons for using iTunes.

[be-b0p]

Originally Posted by needthephone

No its theft pure and simple.

If you could go into your local corner store which you knew was un attended and steal some goods from it?

Well if you would go on keep downloading but if you wouldn't think if its really that differant

It's the same thing, I don't care how you try and justify it as the evil record companies exploiting the poor artist etc. It is stealing something which you had no hand in creating.

Just because everyone does it does not make it right.

I am not at all religious and do not believe in god in case I'm accused of being " holy than though"

Those guys from Pirate Bay should rot in jail

It will kill the industry which is what i worry about which perhaps explains the poor quality of music around today.

your ignorance is outstanding, but i guess its the generational divide.
TRUE artists dont care if you download their music, because they want
their art to be appreciated. Yes, this is actually true. I've even asked my
favorite bands if they mind if I download their music, and most of the time their reaction is "**** no!" i go to their shows and i buy their records and 7"s, but the majority of my music comes from mp3 blogs/megaupload/mediafire/rapidshare.

i do support the independent labels, but **** the major ones for feeding us **** like nsync and backstreet boys IN THE RECORD COMPANIES HEYDAY and justin timberlake and that dumbass kanye, now. its their own fault.
SEXY BACK? seriously? those ****ers should be the ones rotting in jail.
the poor quality of music is the poor quality of major labels that dont understand music as conceptual art.

[EssentialParado]

Originally Posted by be-b0p

TRUE artists dont care if you download their music

I think it's fine if the particular types of music and artists you listen to are happy for you to not pay for their music, and it's good you try to support them in other ways, but not all artists are able to constantly tour with live concerts or make enough money from selling merchandise … very, very many artists rely on the sales of their music as their income. After working in the music industry, exclusively with independent labels and musicians, I know the opinion of hundreds of artists, and I know for a fact how rare it is that an artist will be happy for their music to be stolen. Don't get me wrong, some artists are fine with it, but they're very rare, and almost always very small artists who aren't expecting to make a career from their music. That has a negative effect because they will often not go on to create as much music as those who are making their music as a full-time career – and those are the artists who need people to support them in buying their music. I personally know artists with thousands of fans and do a lot of live shows, but they're also barely making a living. So a musician or band to you could look like they're rich and doing well, it might not be that way, especially with indie bands. Only the top 1% of artists can consider themselves "rich", the rest just want to make a normal living from it, but they rely on their fans continuing to buy their music.

I really don't see how there's any legitimate excuse for not buying music… If you think the artists don't care if you don't pay for their music, why are they selling it? They could easily be giving it away freely, and there are artists who do this and experiment with other business models… But if they're selling it, then they are asking you to buy it. There's not a single artist in the world who wants to be famous and successful but at the same time have to work a part-time job in an electronics store so they can feed their family.

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by Nermal

If I like a song, I'll usually download it. If I like several songs from the same artist, I'll usually buy their CD. And occasionally I buy singles (usually to get videos that I can't find to download!)

It's incredible to look back on this post of mine from 2003 and see how much things have changed. I have an entire bookshelf filled with licensed music and movies now! Add the stuff from iTunes (which didn't exist back then) and my collection is bigger now than I every would have imagined.

[drewsof07]

Originally Posted by jaredwaynef

Apple takes 1/3 of the 99 cent value of a song.

Source? I was under the impression that they hardly made anything from the actual sale of music. The main reason for iTunes (now) is to support the iPod which we know brings in TONS of revenue.

I tend to get most of my music from friends. They have amassed >30gb each of tunes on their Macs and we use an app called "Mojo" to swap songs on the local network. Most of their music comes from ripped CD's, Amazon downloads, and a few iTunes singles. I have super-slow internet at home, so if I ever download anything, it is the free "single of the week" on iTunes.

[EssentialParado]

Originally Posted by drewsof07

Source? I was under the impression that they hardly made anything from the actual sale of music. The main reason for iTunes (now) is to support the iPod which we know brings in TONS of revenue.

You are correct, Apple don't really make anything from iTunes. They don't take 1/3, but they do take 30% – Same for sales on both the app store and the music store. The 30% goes toward server space, bandwidth, upkeep of iTunes, and the credit card processing fee. I also believe there's some sales tax in there as well for certain countries.

[FOXEO]

I believe that a disproportionately high number of people download music in place of paying for it, and that they typically misrepresent how much they do so.

[Cmpolcher]

Originally Posted by jaredwaynef

I've enjoyed reading this thread a lot. I'm majoring in Recording Industry and one of my required courses is called American Media. It's a really interesting course where we discuss the history and social impact of the mass media... Anywhoozle, we had a lecture on P2P sites the other day. A couple of times on here I read people saying once artists start charging reasonable prices for their content, then they will start legally downloading it. This is funny because of the 99 cents one pays for a song, only roughly 12 cents goes to the artist, 30 cents at BEST (i.e. multi-million dollar guaranteed artists). So you really can't blame the artists for charging too much, in fact, Apple take 1/3 of the 99 cent value of a song.
The questions that come into existence here are generally, "What is a person's creative content really valued at? And aren't we devaluing this art (because it is an art form) by demanding no charge?" Understandably, people often consider the music to be a catharsis for the artist, so that should be enough, right? So what do you think? If making clothes is a catharsis for a person (i.e. fashion designers) should those clothes be free, too? Same thing goes for creating/making food... So personally, I don't believe that argument really applies.

That's also assuming The artist is even getting the 12 cents. With the 360 deals (a labels way of making up for lost sales essentially to cut expenses and increase income) which artists now typically have labels will negotiate a percentage as low as five percent to twenty five percent. Of EVERYTHING concerts, merchandise and sales. Artist earn very little from digital downloads. Especially when people don't even purchase the whole album. They get paid typically for only 10 songs even if there is more on the album (could be less or more depending on negotiation but average is 10). So artists in the end can easily be loosing 70% of all the revenue from managers the label publishers everyone who is apart of the 360 deal.

Now for p2p. Fun Fact: people who use p2p software are 60% more likely to buy the physical copy. So in essence people who use itunes are screwing artists over more than people who use p2p networks.
But feel free to disagree The music industry is slowly going down and there needs to be change.

[mac-ho]

No.

[stab244]

Nope... There are programs that let you download MP3s off of YouTube. So much more useful.

[doctorweb]

^^^
hey hey !
used to quite alot, but not so much anymore - Mainly 'cause I don't need to. I buy most of my music and that's the way I like it.

[ViViDboarder]

Originally Posted by jaredwaynef

I've enjoyed reading this thread a lot. I'm majoring in Recording Industry and one of my required courses is called American Media. It's a really interesting course where we discuss the history and social impact of the mass media... Anywhoozle, we had a lecture on P2P sites the other day. A couple of times on here I read people saying once artists start charging reasonable prices for their content, then they will start legally downloading it. This is funny because of the 99 cents one pays for a song, only roughly 12 cents goes to the artist, 30 cents at BEST (i.e. multi-million dollar guaranteed artists). So you really can't blame the artists for charging too much, in fact, Apple take 1/3 of the 99 cent value of a song.
The questions that come into existence here are generally, "What is a person's creative content really valued at? And aren't we devaluing this art (because it is an art form) by demanding no charge?" Understandably, people often consider the music to be a catharsis for the artist, so that should be enough, right? So what do you think? If making clothes is a catharsis for a person (i.e. fashion designers) should those clothes be free, too? Same thing goes for creating/making food... So personally, I don't believe that argument really applies.
Personally, I think artists should enjoy the exposure they get from things like P2P sites, and if they are good enough, people will generate revenue by buying merchandise, tickets, etc. That money from those things generally gross higher than most CDs/digital downloads.
Just spouting random things I've learned about the music industry... I can't vouch for other media outlets (tv, movies, etc.), but the topic itself is really fun to discuss. Hope this is at least interesting (and comprehendible) to read.

The current form of content distribution is not working. Evident by the reason for this kind of arguement...

There are lots of bands who release their music either for free or at reasonable prices independently. When you have too many people taking a cut of the cost of something so small you really drive up the prices.

Right now a band could buy a cheap comptuer and soem software and do their own recordings, and plublish their songs as .mp3's on their own website. Content distribution is so simple now being an indenpendent artist is beyond easy. Cut out the record companies as the middle men and you have a much lower cost.

If a musician wants to go with a label so be it. If they want to get all the money they earn and want to get people to put up the money for the artists themselves, they need to distribute independently. Sure, submit it to iTunes. If it's true that Apple is taking $.33 out of every song purchase that means the artists could sell the songs on their website too for $.66 and make the same amount of money.

The music industry has changed. Anyone can produce music and anyone can distribute it. People want their media digitally and place the value on supporting the artists and not the labels.

The record company sees their revenue declines as a problem with the consumers but really they are the problem. It was one thing when people needed record companies to record and distribute Vynl or CD's but that day has come and gone. The Record Companies are living in the stone age and the artists need to embrace the new forms of media that exist. You see some bands doing this already such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails. Same with other smaller bands such as Bomb The Music Industry and Brad Sucks.

Someone needs to tell the RIAA to wake up and realize that their funeral has come and gone. It must have been fun exploiting artists like that, but now the there are better ways for people to express their creativity. Easier ways to distribute and advertise your songs. Internet radio like Pandora are incredible ways for indi artists to be discovered and when they are, new found fans will happily download all the songs they want from the artists (donations even if offered for free) and they will go see them in person the next time they are in town. This is the current direction of the industry and it should be adapted to and not resisted.