We will pay for music if you leave us alone
Ever since I interviewed the RIAA and wrote a column detailing the true nature of that horrible organization, I've kept myself abreast of all the news that shapes our understanding of piracy and anything that surrounds it.
And after reading an article in ArsTechnica earlier today where it cites a survey, which suggests that "people aged 14 to 24 still love their music and are willing to pay for it--but only on their own terms," I was excited to see what would happen next.
According to the survey by British Music Rights -- an organization that represents the music industry -- 80 percent of P2P users said they would gladly pay for a file-sharing service that allows them to download DRM-free songs as often as they'd like for a flat rate per month.
And although you may have expected British Music Rights to condemn the results of this study as more proof that we're living in a world of foolhardy pirates, the organization was actually quite happy with the outcome.
"The music industry should draw great optimism from this groundbreaking survey," said Feargal Sharkey, head of BMR. "First and foremost, it is quite clear that this young and tech-savvy demographic is as crazy about and engaged with music as any previous generation. Contrary to popular belief, they are also prepared to pay for it, too. But only if offered the services they want."
Is it really possible that someone on the other side of the fence has finally seen the writing on the wall and realized that we're more than happy to pay for music and give artists the money they deserve as long as we're treated with the same respect?
I simply can't believe it took this long for these dolts to figure it out.
As I've said numerous times before, the vast majority if people who pirate music or movies really don't do it for the sheer act of stealing, but do so because the current offerings available to them simply don't offer what they're looking for.
Try as they might, organizations that represent the music industry can't indict individuals for stealing music for no good reason. Do people steal music? Sure. But if given the right outlet to download music legally, I sincerely doubt the issue would be such a big one like it is today.
Let's face it -- we want to be able to download music from the service of our choosing at a price that's not ridiculously high. $0.99 for one track off an album? Are you kidding me? It may have worked when the labels were forced to put those tracks onto physical media, but today, it's a matter of recording it and shipping it off.
And lest you forget, we also want to be able to download DRM-free music so we can take that song and bring it with us wherever we would like to go. We did that with CDs, why can't we do that with a track off iTunes?
For some reason, we have created an environment that hates ownership and would rather see you lease property at a premium instead of own it at a reasonable price. And if you ask me, that's unacceptable.
Look, I'm not asking for much, just the opportunity to say that I own what I paid for and to be offered the courtesy to be trusted. Is that really too much to ask?
For more on what Don is up to, follow him on Twitter by clicking here!>
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.






They need to lower their prices, get rid of the DRM (which most consumers HATE with a passion, because it keeps them from using their legally bought stuff AS THEY WISH TO USE IT), and start getting real about their business, making more good music instead of promoting more Britney Spears crap.
Flash forward to today and only iTunes is a satisfactory answer. The record companies have made virtually no attempt to embrace the digital world that everyone else did some time ago. All they've done is whinge.
By the way, was that THE Feargal Sharkey of Undertones fame?
And the fat cats will have to learn to get by on a little less money. :-) Also, remember that kids that down load thousands of songs usually do not listen to thousands of songs. They just have them. :-) I know several that like to boast how many gigabytes of songs they have. They almost never listen to any of them, How could they. If they did nothing but listen to music 18 hours a day, it would take them years to listen to each song only once. LOL
Yea, the have the song, but until you hear it, its only electronic ones and zeros. :-)
en
i'm all for this subscription model if it happens. Maybe then no-one'll be getting screwed over.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to write, arrange, practice, record, pay musicians, pay the studio, fixes, overdubs, mix and master a single song that you would want to buy for .99 cents? How about getting that song exposure so that people would even know that it existed... .99 cents? Do you want to buy every song that is on an album... no? Well, that song you don't want went through the same creation process outline above. By the way, the people who created the song don't get .99 cents. Apple takes a nice chunk of it.
If you want anybody to take you seriously do your homework completely.
Plus, shouldn't the price come down after it's been out for a while? At least Hollywood has realized this. New release DVDs might be $15-20 but after they've been out for a few months, they often fall to the $5-10 range. CDs stay the same price no matter how old they are. Why? And they rarely go on sale. When they do, it's typically just 10-15% off, which comes to $1 or $2 cheaper. DVDs can go on sale for up to 50% off sometimes. But overall, it's just a ripoff to me to be forced to pay for 10 things I don't want just so I can have 1 thing I do want.
Do your homework and leave us alone...
Go after gas prices... it's a better use of your time...
Please try Amazonmp3.com music downloads. Not as many choices as iTunes (yet), but ALWAYS DRM free and reasonably priced compared to iTunes.
Back in the days of CDs, I bought maybe 3 or 4 per year - at the top end. That's what $50 or a little over $4 a month? Now I budget myself $15 a month but lately I've been spending about $20 a month. That's a 500% increase for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And I only listen to music about the half the time because I enjoy podcasts so much.
Yep, I'm digging AmazonMP3. The store is easy to use and the selection is as good or better (IMO) than iTunes, not to mention no DRM. If you compare non-DRM to non-DRM selections it's not even close.
Now if we could only get the movie and TV industry to the same point ...
- by Goodman.seth June 18, 2008 11:37 PM PDT
- Did anyone notice that Amazon (as licensed by the labels) has started selling their "big name act" Madonna for $3.99, DRM free? This pricing issue has a lot more to do with inter-corporate battles between Apple and the labels than it does with consumer expectations. Everyone's simply afraid of giving Apple too much power, hence why the labels (save for EMI) are now licensing all their content DRM free EXCEPT to Apple. As much as everyone wants to paint this as an "us vs. them" issue, there are many, many more factors that come into play that cannot simply turn on a dime when consumers say they want a new price scheme. Others have mentioned the cost of producing quality recordings (trust me I work in a studio in LA, I know the kind of money that gets spent). Of course we all want it cheaper, and it will eventually fall, but I personally never thought for one second that a SINGLE bit torrent user did it because of their rejection of fair market value. Come on. People download it because it's FREE, ain't no beating that, the hell with this new british survey.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)