Is $.99 per song enough to convince you not to use a file sharing service?

[AgPete]

I don't know if anyone here ever used Napster or any of the other popular file sharing servers but the music industry has finally initiated a program that allows you to download songs at a decent price. Most are $.99 each and it appears that many of the big name artists and their songs are available. I was curious if you're a current file share user, would this be enough to cause you to legally download files?


Click here for link:
The 10-10-220 of File-Sharing
Ninety-nine cents for all your songs at Apple's new music store.

[henry296]

I don't use a file sharing service or download music, but 99 cents seems reasonable I might download some songs for that price.

Todd

[John Galt]

A lot of it has to do with convenience of billing. If there is a cumbersome interface to download each song and bill, then it would be a pain. Also, they would have to have a really BIG selection to satisfy my musical tastes.

[mrskippy]

I think the nice thing here is that ..

1.) There is no subscription. MusicNet, pressplay, MusicNow, and Rhapsody all charge a monthly fee and than extra for burns.

2.) The songs are all 99 cents and all burnable.

3.) You can get a taste of music before buying.

4.) It allows you to build a compilation CD of songs you like for less than the cost of a CD with only one or two songs you like.

5.) You get the highest-quality digital file, free of viruses and not cut off by someone who didn't know how to rip.

I think that there is a future for online music and it will revolutize the way we buy music. The key will be how the services are packaged.

While the recording industry would make a killing by selling Kazaa for $49.99/year for all the music you can eat, I don't think we'll ever see that.

My guess is that you'll probably see companies start to offer more burns and perhaps at a more affordable rate. I also think you'll see them allow you to keep what you download after your subscription ends. But the music will remain tethered unless you pay for the burns.

Apple has the right idea. Listen.com had the right idea with 49 cent burns.

CD burning is the key. Portability is the key. The industry is starting to figure this out and adjust accordingly.

As for the free for all services, look for the industry to start prosecuting the larger traders (the ones with thousands of songs available) to the full extent.

[Ksyrup]

Well, I want entire albums, not just particular songs (except in rare instances), so while I don't have a problem with paying for the songs, if the album has 14 tracks, why would I download it for $14 and not get artwork and a case for it?

The band VAST is just about to put a new website online from which he (the band is really just one guy, Jon Crosby) is suuposedly going to release 7 online CDs over the next 1.5 years, with at least 1 additional CD being released in stores. I'll gladly pay for internet-only releases like this, and I hope more artists follow suit. But, paying what will end up being full price (or more) for an album without everything I would normally get if I bought the CD in-store, doesn't sound too appealing.

I think song purchasing like this is meant for people who buy those stupid "#1 hits of the past 6 months" compilations. The industry is still missing out on true music fans who just want music from their favorite artits, the artists the record companies are either dropping from their labels or holding hostage under contracts yet won't let release anything because it won't be an instant million CD seller. But at least they're doing something to recoginze the internet as a viable distribution medium.

[korme]

Nope, sorry. Tonight alone I probably downloaded 25 songs just from me talking about bands with one of my girl (soon to be not just) friends. I could not imagine paying $25 dollars to hear sample new music.. not in todays age..

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by John Galt
A lot of it has to do with convenience of billing. If there is a cumbersome interface to download each song and bill, then it would be a pain. Also, they would have to have a really BIG selection to satisfy my musical tastes.

Apparently MusicNet and AOL may eventually be able to do this. You would download and burn throughout the month. At the end of the month you would be for the music automatically with your AOL bill.

My understanding is the industry wants to be able to do something like this. The key here of course is security and not running into any billing errors (credit card fraud, bad CC info, over limit, etc.)

I figure what the companies will do when it comes down to it, is make it like telephone service. So much per month, unlimited d/l and streams to your PC, a certain number of burns and a fee for each add'l burn. Those extra burns will get billed and paid at the end of the month.

And in order to prevent fraud, they could do some kind of credit check (not the major credit bureau kind necessarily, but one through the DMA) or set a credit limit of some type.

Quite simply ... my sources tell me some type of billing is already in the works.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
Nope, sorry. Tonight alone I probably downloaded 25 songs just from me talking about bands with one of my girl (soon to be not just) friends. I could not imagine paying $25 dollars to hear sample new music.. not in todays age..

25 songs is two CDs ... so that is $12.50 a CD. That ain't bad. Of course ... you were sampling. And that's why I think the subscription (tethered download and streams) will always have a part. Sample those 25 songs, with thousands of others before ponying up the $$$.

Well, I want entire albums, not just particular songs (except in rare instances), so while I don't have a problem with paying for the songs, if the album has 14 tracks, why would I download it for $14 and not get artwork and a case for it?

Well if you really, really like an artist than you buy the CD, because chances are you'll like the whole CD.

Of course, this is a good time to say OK, whole CDs are $9.99 regardless of if its 10 tracks or 14 tracks.

The band VAST is just about to put a new website online from which he (the band is really just one guy, Jon Crosby) is suuposedly going to release 7 online CDs over the next 1.5 years, with at least 1 additional CD being released in stores. I'll gladly pay for internet-only releases like this, and I hope more artists follow suit. But, paying what will end up being full price (or more) for an album without everything I would normally get if I bought the CD in-store, doesn't sound too appealing.

Ice T put his recent album onto Kazaa (through Altnet). Believe he's charging $4.99 for the entire CD.

He doesn't have a record contract and is his own distributor.

This is where the industry will be going in the coming years. And I think you'll see more artists doing this, because they get almost the entire cut, with the online service getting a percentage.

I think song purchasing like this is meant for people who buy those stupid "#1 hits of the past 6 months" compilations. The industry is still missing out on true music fans who just want music from their favorite artits, the artists the record companies are either dropping from their labels or holding hostage under contracts yet won't let release anything because it won't be an instant million CD seller. But at least they're doing something to recoginze the internet as a viable distribution medium.

Actually I think the ability to burn 60s favorites, 70s favorites, 80s favorites, etc. is compelling. Or a compliation with favorite movie songs.

Also, there are artists who will have one or two songs I like with the rest I can't stand. Put a bunch together and you've got a compiled album for a small fraction what you'd pay to buy all the CDs to get a few songs.

[Blade6119]

Thats why i love kazaa...any song i want i can get in mere minutes...for free...why pay?...i havent bought CDs in years, as my comp. had a burner, and i have tons of blank CDs...and i can put on them my favorite songs, not have to switch between CDs to hear select songs....just the music industry trying to retake all the lost $...A lot of them don't need it, and the ones that do arent likely to be on Kazaa so you have to buy their cds...works well in my mind....

[sterlingice]

See- I think anyone who says they would pay is full of it.

Really, unless there are no free services, who in the heck would pay? This is from the same society that thinks stealing is wrong but stealing music isnt? Unless the RIAA or whoever successfully shuts down every service from Napster to Kazaa to IRC channels and keeps new ones from filling the void, this kind of service will never work.

SI

[tucker342]

Why pay $.99 when you can get it for free? I wouldn't pay $.99 to download music, I would probably just stop, which is probably the music industries goal in the first place. It doesn't really effect me cause I don't download music very often.

[mrskippy]

Actually with Kazaa or any file sharing service you run a serious risk of viruses. You also must deal with spyware. Not to forget that it is stealing.

I mean would you walk into Wal-Mart tomorrow and steal a shirt? Into Foot Locker and take a pair of shoes? Into your card shop and take a pack of Topps?

No, you wouldn't.

Or if some guy came to your house and offered you a free, new big screen and home entertainment center or anything else you wanted ... would you take it? Even if it might be stolen goods.

No, you wouldn't

Taking copyrighted work from a filing sharing service is stealing.

To put it another way.

If someone put FOF 4 or TCY on Kazaa, complete with the registration info and everything ... would you download it?

I'd rather pay than have the guilt of being a thief.

[TLK]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Actually with Kazaa or any file sharing service you run a serious risk of viruses. You also must deal with spyware. Not to forget that it is stealing.

I mean would you walk into Wal-Mart tomorrow and steal a shirt? Into Foot Locker and take a pair of shoes? Into your card shop and take a pack of Topps?

No, you wouldn't.

Or if some guy came to your house and offered you a free, new big screen and home entertainment center or anything else you wanted ... would you take it? Even if it might be stolen goods.

No, you wouldn't

Taking copyrighted work from a filing sharing service is stealing.

To put it another way.

If someone put FOF 4 or TCY on Kazaa, complete with the registration info and everything ... would you download it?

I'd rather pay than have the guilt of being a thief.

To me, it's a little different when it comes to music. I guess try before you buy, or the equivalent of a demo with a computer game. I can honestly say, the last 10 or so cd's I have purchsed has been because I was able to listen to some of the stuff before through Kazaa. I guess it's a moral issue, but I have no problem with it.

TLK

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by TheLionKing
To me, it's a little different when it comes to music. I guess try before you buy, or the equivalent of a demo with a computer game. I can honestly say, the last 10 or so cd's I have purchsed has been because I was able to listen to some of the stuff before through Kazaa. I guess it's a moral issue, but I have no problem with it.

TLK

The thing is many Web sites offer WMA, Real, or other encrypted file of new songs in order to demo before you buy. Many times they have a 30-day limit, just like shareware or demo software.

[mrskippy]

And to me this (a full Eminem album) is worth it for the $9.99:

http://store.liquid.com/en_US_USD/catalog/album.jhtml;jsessionid=XB52ZFB4JO2QGQON5WOCFEQ?id=35821&_requestid=214082

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by tucker342
Why pay $.99 when you can get it for free?

Because some people have integrity and do not like to be thieves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Because some people have integrity and do not like to be thieves.

And that's what the whole thing comes down to.

[Abe Sargent]

Reasons why you might want to pay the $0.99 per song:

1). You have ethical issues with owning copyrighted material that you did not purchase.

2). You have a monitored connection to the Internet that prosecutes MP3 downloads.

3). You have a connection to the Internet where the provider, in an effort to eliminate pressure on the bandwidth, has instituted software than bans downloads of MP3 or P2P programs.


My college room, for example, falls under number three. You can't use any of the major P2P programs to d/l MP3s, and if you get some scrub program, it still take over 24 hours to d/l one song! However, if you can click a link, without using any software other then your browser, you're fine. So I can d/l a song off MP3.com, for example, in five minutes.

The $0.99 song might be a browser oriented thing - thus a legitmate reason to use it.



-Anxiety

[andy m]

i have no idea, i am too busy buying $3 7" singles and $7 12" LP's. vinyl, DIY or die.

[stkelly52]

Something else that I noticed, as best I can tell, it is only available in the ACC format. According to the website, you need a Mac to use the player. I also wonder if the player will be able to play MP3s so that I can mix the songs that I have already ripped from my CDs.

[Blackadar]

$.99 is a little steep - there needs to be a discount plan. There's no reason to pay $15 for 15 songs.

[cuervo72]

I'm not so sure I'd do it either, I'd probably just stop, except for songs I really like. I don't think I've bought anything by a recent artist since...well, I guess my last CD's were Beatles '1', and Space Ghost's 'Surf & Turf' (not exactly new artists ). And before that Metallica's 'Reload'. Ok, we did buy some Wiggles CD's for the car last week....

But anyway, the only time I listen to music is here at work, and if I had to give up mp3's I'd either not listen, or listen to Launch. How about this question - if you had to pay $.99 a song to KEEP mp3's you already have (but don't have on cd - I download a lot of songs I have but am to lazy to convert), would you do it? For the vast number of songs I wouldn't.