Neil Young sez: "Piracy is the new radio."

[chris harris]

I agree that you can't stop someone from illegally copying music files and giving them to their friends. But iTunes and Spotify have proven conclusively that if you provide a method that's legal, affordable, and significantly more convenient than piracy, MILLIONS OF CONSUMERS will choose it over piracy. That's what the future looks like.

[ubertar]

Yes, all of the options I mentioned allow you to hear music for free.
No one is trying to prevent you from giving away your music for free. My band makes 320kbps mp3s of our music available for free.

What is the point you're trying to make again? Nobody here is trying to make an argument against your right to offer your music for free.

I never said or implied anyone was trying to take away my ability to offer my music for free, so I have no idea why you keep bringing that up.

My question was, if you don't let people hear the music before buying it, why would they buy it? You've answered that, finally... you DO let them hear it before they buy it.

I get what you're saying about iTunes Match, and while it's a good idea, and some people will go for it, a lot of people won't. It's not going to stop people from downloading music illegally. It may reduce it, but to what extent remains to be seen. I'm skeptical.

[chris harris]

It's been a long, long time since music piracy has been in the news regularly. It's already on the decline. And for a technology based activity, decline is a deviation from the norm. It still exists. But legal, inexpensive, and convenient alternatives have definitely had an impact already.

[ubertar]

How do you know it's on the decline? Maybe it's not in the news because it's no longer news. I'm not saying you're wrong-- just asking how you know, or are you just guessing? If it's true, it may also be because a lot of people have given up and put out their stuff for free and hope for people to pay for it. You said yourself you give out high quality mp3s for free. There's no need to steal something if someone gives it away. How much does that factor in, I wonder.

[chris harris]

http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-co ... fy-110928/

This poll was specific to music consumers in Sweden. I don't have any results for the US except for my direct experience with LOTS of friends and peers in my own music community, most of whom are in the sweet spot age demographic of the average music piracy advocate. It's definitely having an effect.

[ubertar]

When people have seen how you can stream my new record free on bandcamp, they've asked me, "Why will people buy it if they can hear it for free?". There's a point there. But at the same time, why would they buy it if they couldn't hear it free? That's the whole problem here. The way things are now, people have the choice to pay for something or not. They can have it regardless, although maybe not the same quality. The Spotify and iMatch models give people a new way to voluntarily pay, but it still requires volunteers... they'd be able to get the music in other ways, and some people will choose that path instead. I don't see a comprehensive solution.

[ubertar]

http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-co ... fy-110928/

This poll was specific to music consumers in Sweden. I don't have any results for the US except for my direct experience with LOTS of friends and peers in my own music community, most of whom are in the sweet spot age demographic of the average music piracy advocate. It's definitely having an effect.

That's encouraging. But what is the quality? Have they made improvements to streaming audio?
Personally I have no interest in carrying around a music device, so this isn't for me.

[chris harris]

I think that's what everyone here has been trying to say. There won't ever be a comprehensive solution. But the solutions coming around now are proving that if you think differently, and provide an option that is superior to piracy, and is a good value, millions of consumers will choose it.

[chris harris]

That's encouraging. But what is the quality? Have they made improvements to streaming audio?

The quality is fine. It's better than most satellite radio stations.
The compression isn't preventing me from enjoying the music.

Personally I have no interest in carrying around a music device, so this isn't for me.

Comments like these are what baffle me, and expose your fundamental misunderstanding of these technologies. You don't have to "carry around" anything to enjoy Spotify. You can listen on the same computer you use to listen to bandcamp. And the stereo that you connect your turntable, CD player, R2R, cassette deck, or radio receiver to?? You can also connect your "mobile" device to that! Just because it's called a "mobile" device doesn't mean that earbuds are surgically attached to your ears when you buy one. I have one sitting right beside my turntable. It never moves from there. I have another one in the glovebox of my van. It stays put.

[Jeff White]

Ubertar, for $5/month you have access on the computer to Spotify's entire library commercial-free. No iDevice needed. You choose to shuffle or listen to full albums or whatever. And the sound quality is solid. I have an old Powerbook hooked up to my 1976 Pioneer receiver now streaming Spotify over the hi-fi.

http://www.spotify.com/us/about/what/

Jeff

[ubertar]

And the sound quality is solid.

Not on these speakers it isn't!

I only listen to stuff on the computer to check it out. The real listening is done on the stereo. I'm just speaking for myself here.

edit: got it that you can hook it up to a stereo. But this still stands:

I don't know what they have in their library, but I've got tons and tons of stuff to listen to already-- I don't see what I'd need that for. Again, just speaking for myself.

[ubertar]

Whoa-- damn. Just looked into how to get your music on spotify, and it turns out you have to go through an aggregator, like CD Baby. I only looked at CD Baby, but they want you to PAY $50/album to post your stuff. Fuck that. Are any of these aggregators free? These companies couldn't exist without artists' content, but they expect artists to pay for the privilege for these guys to take a cut?

[chris harris]

If you've got tons of stuff to listen to, and you don't need anymore, then why are you interested in this discussion again?

[ubertar]

If you've got tons of stuff to listen to, and you don't need anymore, then why are you interested in this discussion again?

1. I'm a musician.
2. I'm interested in what's going on in the world.
3. I don't have to defend my right to have and express my opinions. No one is forcing you to respond.
4. I'm still waiting for the "Sorry, I got carried away"... I guess you're just going to double down instead.

[chris harris]

Spotify wouldn't exist, and couldn't be cost effective for consumers if they had to have enough administrative staff to manage relationships with each of the MILLIONS of artists who choose to distribute their music that way. It's called "distribution" and it's not new to digital music. They manage your access to the DOZENS of digital retailers out there. I would much prefer to pay a small fee to Tunecore versus trying to do my own accounting with dozens of retailers. Same with physical. Artists and labels aren't going to every record store in the world counting records and collecting checks.

For fuck's sake. Haters gonna hate. Be my guest!
Offering your bandcamp page doesn't cost you much (except that now it does). But your level of exposure is pitiful compared to having your songs available on EVERY digital retailer.