Abrazo said:

I feel you, word for word.

ian said:

hmmm ... that's not actually the way I do it ... but now, come to think of it, I have had some funny looks in the past.

When I buy a CD I have a one-track rule. If I love one track enough to keep the CD, I'll keep it. If I can't find one good track, I'll take it back. Been doing it for years. Sometimes the shop assistant will ask why I'm returning the CD - I'll just tell the truth. Mostly I'll say "because I don't like it". Sometimes I've gotten funny looks, but I didn't realise other people don't do this. I kinda thought it was a normal thing to do, cos you're right - how can you like something unless you've heard it? Anyway, I've never been refused a refund, not ever. Stunned looks, yes. Refund no.

I think everyone should be doing this.

x

Raspberry said:

Wow, that's wild...

Most larger stores will not accept returns of opened media like CDs and DVDs, due to licensing restrictions and such.

File Sharing... it's not quite as black and white as it appears,
as everyone's stated, there are pros and cons on both sides.

Pros:

It's free
You can use it to sample new artists/albums to see if you wanna buy.
You can download tracks that you would not otherwise have access to.

Cons:
It's free (the artist isn't getting paid)
You can download music without having to buy the album.

The problem is INTENT.
As Prince put it, there are Music Lovers and Music Consumers.

File Sharing in the hands of Music Lovers is actually beneficial to
the artist. They will always buy an album if they like it, and use
file sharing as a way of 'trying before buying'. They are also the
sort of people who have probably already got everything their
favorite artist has officially released, so the mp3 files they
download are outtakes/live versions/dj mixes etc. These do
not affect the artist financially as they cannot be legitimately
purchased anyway (whether said artist would 'want' you to
have these things is a different issue). So for Music Lovers, it's
great... the fans get what they want and nobody loses out.

File Sharing in the hands of Music Consumers is a very different
story. They hear a song on the radio (or wherever) and instead
of choosing whether they like it enough to buy it, they simply
download it for free. In the past maybe one their friends might
have bought a song and then they would have taped it off them.
Now no-one needs to buy the track in the first place, as they
can download it for free off the net. Some of these people are
quite proud of the fact that "they haven't bought an album for
years". If the artist wanted to give it away they would have
done. This is the growing problem that both artists and record
companies are shit-scared of... and it's a lot more prevelant
than any of us would like to admit.

The big problem is... how can we seperate or legislate between
the two? If the answer is "We can't", then free file sharing will
have to stop, or it may threaten the existance of the music
industry as we know it. Overly dramatic?... maybe, but look at
the singles chart. Unlike the US, the UK the singles chart is
created soley on 'actual sales'. Single sales have dropped so
drastically that they are seriously considering having to include
airplay into the equation to save the chart from extinction.
.

Raspberry said:

Hmmm... £15 for one song that you like is not really a good deal

However I take your point about returning stuff. I do that with videogames - if it is shit, it goes back to the shop next day and I get my £40 back. Shops like GAME have a 10-day no quible return policy.

That all said, I tend to make more better-informed purchases now thanks to MP3 downloads. I get exposed to music I'd normally walk right past in the record store, and I get to test drive an album to see if it is worth a purchase.

I don't really have time for going into stores all the time to return stuff... I'd rather just buy stuff that I know I'll like. I rarely make impulse purchases nowadays. Not all record stores have understanding returns policies, and sometimes I'm just too busy to return it anyway.

BorisFishpaw said:

What a great post!

BorisFishpaw said:

That is indeed true, but... since most "music lovers" also hate the current state of the music industry with its approach of seeing music as nothing else than a product that can be sold, what would be so bad about it if the masses of "music consumers" cause the decline of this system that so many "real" artists and "music lovers" despise so much? Leaving aside the moral of the argument, iwould it really be a bad thing if file-sharing causes the "system" to break down? If it breaks dwon , then the industry will be forced to change it in order to survive.

ian said:

Yes, very true ... I've discovered lots of new artists this way. But my CD purchasing has also cut right back. I perhaps only actually buy around 10 or 20 new CDs a year. That's a huge reduction from the 10-20 CDs a month I used to buy.

Come to think of it, I wonder whether file sharing has also had a detrimental affect on artists like Prince. Music fans are getting for more exposure to a huge range of artists now, rather than what the media decides to promote. We're able to be far more discerning now, if we want to be ... just a thought.

i have no issues with stealing all the free shit i can get my hands on.

Abrazo said:

Ahhh, now that's the $64,000,000 question.
Can the music industry survive that change, and will that change
be better or worse for the artists and the music lovers? A lot of
the current state of music in the industry is caused by the
general decline in sales over the last decade. Music is losing it's
central role in culture when people are growing up, it's just not
as important to as many people as it used to be. The record
companies have seen this coming, that's why all there energy
is spent chasing the quick return of 'maufactured artists'. There's
little incentive to plow time and money into the longevity of
artists when they see their ever diminishing returns making it
less and less financially viable. They're basically in a "We gotta
make as much money NOW while we still can!" mentality.
The current problem with file sharing has just accelerated the
problem to breaking point.
[This message was edited Thu Sep 18 8:55:52 PDT 2003 by BorisFishpaw]

BorisFishpaw said:

I think it is the 64 BILLION dollar question. I agree that the current way the industry works is largely decided by executives who are just in it to get rich QUICK, so they go for inexperienced, fame and money hungry crap artists who are more than willing to let themselves be abused fin exchange for a quick buck. The ones who suffer from that are the music lovers and the real artists who indeed need time, dedication and more promotion to keep their heads above the water in these sticky times for the music industry. So, as long as the current problem with filesahring continues the executives will continue with their mismanagement (lets not forget the financial scandals at Vivendi Universal and the problems of AOL Time Warner), and even if it is solved one can expect that they will not change their ways. I believe that their bully practices of sueing people who download files isn't going to solve the problem, in stead it will only make it worse. So, the demise of the industry is at hand and it will break down, unless some kind of miracle happens, which is more than unlikeley. The industry will not survive what is yet to come and the first ones suffering from it will be the musiclovers and the real artists. however when these groups can come together and form their own new system, the future may look very bright for both of them. And the music consumers and record company executives? They will lose.

Abrazo said:

I agree, unless something dramatic happens, the days of the
large record companies are numbered. Music will become a
more indie and underground thing, there will no longer be the
money to have 'big stars' in the music industry (which there
really haven't been since the 80's anyway). Record Stores
will also be on the way out as a viable business, there's
probably room for one, maybe two major highstreet music
retailers, but no more.

Here's a scary fact for you...
If things progress as they are, within the next two years
(possibly less) the major highstreet music retailers will
change the focus of their stores. At the moment we have
the big chains with large music departments at the front of
their stores, and DVD, Video and Games departments further
back. This will change, and DVD will become the main focus.
The DVD departments will expand to over 50% of the shop
floor space and Music will be relegated to second position.
This will mean reductions in music range availability and
promotion. DVD is a growing market, CD is in decline.
.

As a DJ, I have really struggled with this issue. About a year and a half ago, I was ready to hang up my headphones, and find another hobby. Vinyl records are too expensive, upwards of $16-$20cdn for one single track(with a few remixes of the one song) the days of being a part of record pools are over for DJ's just starting out. As a club DJ, I never really have the opportunity to play what I want, within reason, I am paid to play what people want to hear(usually top 40 dance). I purchased a CD player with pitch control, and packed up my turntables. Most of what I play now, is CD format, I even play mixes, of DJ mixes, if you get what I am saying... The question is, is this wrong?
Dj's for the longest time were targeted by record labels(record pools) to try out new singles to see if they were dance floor friendly,they were given the tracks for free, or at a very low cost, then the DJ would fill out a critique and respond to the label with likes, and dislikes. In todays society where there are so many different styles of electronic music, and new hits pumped out everyday, is file sharing such a bad thing? I can download a CD every week, with the newest releases from a wide scope of musical charts,(nothing that I would listen to at home) and keep my dance floor pumpin all night. Todays house heads are informed, particular, and very very knowledgeable. But, clubbers are constantly coming up to the booth and asking me what the artist is, the track etc... This obviously generates sales. Sometimes I feel guilty for what I do, other times, I don't think twice because I feel it is like free promotion for the artist, like radio play without the royalties, bypassing the rcord label as the middle man. File sharing also gives me the opportunity to share exclusive remixes with other DJ's across the continent, with the push of a button. It places the DJ in a role that has never had to be questioned before. And now that the DJ has become a household name, and with public access so easy, will the role of a Club Dj one day be redundant?

BorisFishpaw said:

That is already happening indeed; DVD's, video games are a growing market, but even these markets are slowing down in growth. With the arrival of super fast broad band internet the DVD market will collapse afterwards. Copy control technologies and law suits will not stop that either. Music wil be the first to lose out. Filesharing will remain the only option for much of the music out there. Or... the real artists and what remains of the music industry will go to www.eff.org for example and take some of their ideas onhow to legally share files with right holders getting paid.

Concerning the 'big stars'. I am not sure if that phenomnea will ever really dissapear. The people always want some famous person to gaze at, to talk about etc... You say there haven't been any since the 80's. To a certain extent I agree, but take for example Robby Williams. In Europe he can be considered a super star (Americans still don't want him). His songs, performance and looks make him a super star like those who came before him. So I am not sure if that will ever dissapear.

However when the industry really breaks down, it will not have the money anymore to make somebody a superstar. Then perhabs, there will only be the net, the network promotion effect of the internet, and the new ways of making money by artists by e.g. collaborating with filesharing services, or distributing and selling their music themselves, which many already are doing and more and more will surely follow. The times to come will be very interesting.

Moxy said:

DJ's are important for promotion. The internet only works by way of interactivity, meaning the more people interact/ communicate / share files, the more promotion there will be for the artists, and the bigger the chance that more people will take out their wallet and purchase them some music they really like/ want. Internet does mean free promotion, just like DJ's offer free promotion.

All artists need to do is offer their music, at a reasonable price, with good customer service, excellent deliviry and no more frival law suits. Prince e.g. is well on his way. His problem tho'is that he still thinks too much as a record company executive and sues his fans, offers much too little music for too much money, often only under condition of joining for a yearly fee, with bad customer service and delivery. If he changes that he will be just fine.

Artists need to be free to sell their music themselves via the internet. That's what Prince saw early on and he saw it well. The second step however is to let the internet/ the people that interact on the net, do the free promotion and let them guide you to your site, have them purchase your stuff. Offer them something special, don't screw them around and you win.

DVD's are next.

It's the same digital media problem--just waiting for enough bandwidth and storage to make it happen. Already people are getting first-run movies off of Usenet and burning them in VCD format. But then even movies can become more Indie, as shooting and editing are well within the grasp and budget of the common man now.

It's a brave new world up ahead...