Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: OT : Paid downloads vs purchases & bonus tracks/material

Expand Messages
  • devjonazure
    Personally, I don t think music downloads will ever catch on as a profitable venture, due to 1) who wants to pay for something that can easily be deleted, and
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Personally, I don't think music downloads will ever catch on as a profitable
      venture, due to 1) who wants to pay for something that can easily be deleted,
      and you have to listen to on your comp? (unless you just burn to cd anyway)
      and 2) the quality of mp3 is so low that any real music lover would never be
      content with it anyway.

      --- In HybridUK@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Duval" <propellerheadcase@h...>
      wrote:
      > Paid downloads won't replace CD, of that I think you can be pretty
      > certain. Let's face it, what medium do many MP3s end up on, either
      > as MP3s or as audio. Paid downloads do fulfill a very important
      > function, if for nothing else to act as mediation between the extreme
      > (and immoral) stance of bodies like the RIAA and the extreme (and
      > illegal) stance of the file-sharers.
      >
      > I'd rather own a CD, too. But I'd rather pay 0.50c for a 160+ MP3
      > than $34.95 for an entire CD of which I only want one track.
      > Likewise I'd rather pay for an MP3 than buy vinyl that I have no need
      > for, nor ability to play. OK, I DO NEED the tracks on the vinyl, but
      > NOT ON vinyl. I STILL can't get the Jedi Knights Mix of Model
      > 500 'The Flow' on unmixed CD :-(
      >
      > The small dance labels are doing themselves a disservice by not
      > making tracks available on CD (CD is cheaper to produce than vinyl),
      > so this is another possibility (MP3 is cheaper than CD).
      >
      > The paid download process will also help to level this hotly debated
      > bonus material playing field.
      >
      > The only thing I would say is that if payment is to be per track the
      > process better be flawless (and therefore probably third party) - no
      > more downloading 320kbps hip-pop/R'n'B only to find it's a rip of a
      > radio recording (not digital) and goddamn K Slay is doing his atonal
      > hollering shout-out BS over the top (I DJ weddings - sue me).
      >
      > I STILL want a CD or GOOD MP3 of Balligomingo 'Purify' (Gabriel &
      > Dresden Remix) - my CD only has the edit :-(
    • Phil Stewart
      ... To respond to point 1, I would be willing to pay for smething I might accidently end up deleting (knowing me, that s more than possible), as long as the
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, devjonazure wrote:
        > Personally, I don't think music downloads will ever catch on as a
        > profitable venture, due to 1) who wants to pay for something that can
        > easily be deleted, and you have to listen to on your comp? (unless you
        > just burn to cd anyway) and 2) the quality of mp3 is so low that any
        > real music lover would never be content with it anyway.

        To respond to point 1, I would be willing to pay for smething I might
        accidently end up deleting (knowing me, that's more than possible), as
        long as the price was sufficiently low, and the track was sufficiently
        rare. I wouldn't object to having to shell out another 50p, *maybe* as far
        as a pound. Any more than that, and I would have to think twice, but then
        any more than that and I probably wouldn't have bought it in the first
        place.

        To respond to point 2, there is nothing wrong with the quality of mp3 at a
        sufficiently high bitrate encoded with a sufficiently good encoder. For
        me, 192kbps lame encoded mp3 is easily adequate, and the amount of loss is
        negligible. Failing that, 256kbps mp3 will beat 256kbps mp2, and 256kbps
        mp2 is widely considered to be of broadcast standard. So I guess, as a
        real music lover (if I can classify myself as such), I *would* be content
        with something ultra-rare that was well encoded, rather then having to put
        up with either a sh*te copy that's been encoded using a sock, or worse
        still no copy at all.

        --
        From Phil
      • Andy Grundman
        The correct way to handle this kind of thing is to tie your purchased files to a user account, so you can come back to the website and download all the files
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          The correct way to handle this kind of thing is to tie your purchased
          files to a user account, so you can come back to the website and
          download all the files you've ever purchased if you happen to lose the
          file. Amazon does this for their "digital downloads" area.

          -Andy

          Phil Stewart wrote:

          > On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, devjonazure wrote:
          >
          >>Personally, I don't think music downloads will ever catch on as a
          >>profitable venture, due to 1) who wants to pay for something that can
          >>easily be deleted, and you have to listen to on your comp? (unless you
          >>just burn to cd anyway) and 2) the quality of mp3 is so low that any
          >>real music lover would never be content with it anyway.
          >
          >
          > To respond to point 1, I would be willing to pay for smething I might
          > accidently end up deleting (knowing me, that's more than possible), as
          > long as the price was sufficiently low, and the track was sufficiently
          > rare. I wouldn't object to having to shell out another 50p, *maybe* as far
          > as a pound. Any more than that, and I would have to think twice, but then
          > any more than that and I probably wouldn't have bought it in the first
          > place.
          >
          > To respond to point 2, there is nothing wrong with the quality of mp3 at a
          > sufficiently high bitrate encoded with a sufficiently good encoder. For
          > me, 192kbps lame encoded mp3 is easily adequate, and the amount of loss is
          > negligible. Failing that, 256kbps mp3 will beat 256kbps mp2, and 256kbps
          > mp2 is widely considered to be of broadcast standard. So I guess, as a
          > real music lover (if I can classify myself as such), I *would* be content
          > with something ultra-rare that was well encoded, rather then having to put
          > up with either a sh*te copy that's been encoded using a sock, or worse
          > still no copy at all.
          >
          > --
          >>From Phil
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.