If , in fact, there was really a choice like this, in which
BUYING was a real option, it would be that simple.

“I can’t afford to buy 25, 35, 45 or 50 CD’s a month. ”

Most people can’t.
But they don’t have the choice to truly BUY a single, digitally,
if they want to. Only a locked down ‘rental’. Don’t try to tell
me a digital ‘purchase’ is anything but a glorified rental.

“I can afford $10-$15 a month every month for access to music. ”

A lot of people can.
But, notice how ‘well’ the retooled Napster did
People want to be able to be free to use something they paid for
in whatever way they wish. But not giving them a way to do that
‘legitimatey’ , they will do it in .. other ways.
Don’t give the customer what they want, they’ll get it elsewhere.
You can’t sue them into doing what you want.
You can’t bully them.
Eventually, the CUSTOMER will win.

Other than P2P i want to pay the least amount of money to have access to a wide variety of music on demand.

I can’t afford to buy 25, 35, 45 or 50 CD’s a month.

I can afford $10-$15 a month every month for access to music.

it’s the same price as sattellitte radio but in sattellitte radio I don’t
get to choose the song on demand. talk, sports etc that comes with sattellitte radio doesn’t concern me.

sageadvisors@gmail.com (an extra gmail only used for posting/reg.)

That’s another problem, Mr. Bond.
Proving your innocence.
The suits have shown, precious few can AFFORD to take
to the courts to prove they have a right to those copies,
prove their legitimacy, prove their innocence.
With the cartel execs claiming that purchasers don’t have a
legal right to even a backup copy, it’s easy to see why so
many are confused as to what’s right, what’s wrong, and
what’s legal. None of those ‘twain’s’ necessarily meet.

Doesn’t this finally expose the lie. The people making these statements have never loved music or had any interest in it. Perhaps even in their prime music buying years between 16 and 25.

I’ve got my own vinyl from 30 years ago that I still listen to and like. I listen to some music that was recorded 50 years ago and some that was composed 200 years ago. How can they say that music has a shelf life and should just disappear after that? Apart from anything else it’s just bad business. They’re sitting on a gold mine of back catalogue that is just waiting for a cost effective way of releasing it. And I don’t mean yet another greatest hits album.

Just imagine for a moment a legal AllOfMp3 site that sold every piece of music ever recorded. Want to bet that wouldn’t make money?

There’s an interesting point in one of the other comments. How do you prove you legally obtained all the MP3 files you have? Especially as that seems to be a valid defense in the USA even if you do then offer to share them on P2P.

“I built collections of music in the past on cassette tapes and CD’s and sure I like having my favourite artists as a part of my permanent collection but after i have spent money on them and I tire of listening to them on a daily basis they sit and collect dust. ”

I have a good collection too. I can listen to it anywhere. On my
PC, on my home stereo, in my car, on my MP3 player.
I can copy it to any format I want, for my personal use on any
device. That’s owning.

“I would rather pay a small fee every month and know I can listen on demand to thousands of songs and they are there to re-download when the need arises. i can keep up with new releases without having to “buy” them and get tired of them after 2 day’s. I can delete them without regretting a $12-$15 purchase. ”

That’s not bad.
However, there’s usually a limit to what devices ( or how many )
your ‘rental’ allows for personal use. For many, that’s overly
restrictive.
So then you mention ‘buying’ as a seperate option.
Well, the RIAA is making sure that there is no difference.
They insist that you do not ‘buy’ ANY of their ‘product’
It’s licensed, not bought, even though ads for CD’s and DVD’s
scream at you OWN it .. BUY it … the Cartel says that’s not so.
So …
The difference is not between renting and buying,
The difference is between renting and LICENSING.
The restrictions inposed make the difference between the two
.. ahem .. options negligible.

If BUYING meant no restrictions, then cheap ‘rental’ would make
better sense.

Then there’s the whole competition thing. You know, the REAL reason
behind all this.
Control.

No one but big label signed ‘artists’ ( scratch that, very few of
those deserve that title, I will henceforth call them .. Acts ),
no one but label signed Acts have easy cheap access to the
Radio, or mainstream Video exposure, even though the unsigned
outnumber them .. outnumber them GREATLY.
The unsigned have no access through YEARS of payola, and various ‘other’ means
used by the E-cartels to close doors to any exposure for anything
not owned or controlled by THEM.

This was great for the big names, then came P2P.
The UNSIGNED could be seen and heard, side by side with the big
guns.
For a while anyway.
Once they litigate easy p2p out of existence, all that will be left
are your .. ‘rental’ services, owned and operated by the e-cartels.
How many unsigned acts do you think will have access to those ?

I know there are more than a few musicians that read here so,
how many of you have your stuff available through Itunes ?
How many have TRIED to get your stuff heard through the
corporate offerings ?

Control, not cash is behind this.
Easy to see since there is NO PROOF THAT THE CARTELS SUFFER
ANY LOSS BY P2P ALONE.
No … proof.

“The concept of paying for something that “disappears” when you stop paying is not new. ”

No, it’s not, but there is usually a more permanent alternative ..
a REAL more permanent alternative.
Show me the BUY alternative with no restrictions.
Where is it ?
If I “buy” the CD but can get sued for copying to my PC ?
that’s good ?

Now, before you start with the “they only get sued for sharing”
lie ……

I have 25 cd’s for example.
I rip them to my PC for use in my home.
I never ran or ever have used any P2P app.
The RIAA get my IP by mistake ( ask the people who had no
computer that got sued, it happens ).
What are my options ?
They have no real proof, yet, they will bankrupt me if I fight.
They will demand my HDD.
They will find music there.
Look at the lists of songs they accuse folks of sharing …
The list always includes at least one song of each Genre.
Guess what .. that GUARANTEES that they will find at LEAST
one of those songs on my drive. Legally put there through fair use
but, still self incriminating. They will keep me in court till I
break, emotionally and financially, or just settle.

Just like most of their sue ‘em all victims.

Where’s my Buy option ?
It does not exist.

So ..
Renting does not allow me to have the freedom to listen to music
the way I choose.
‘Buying’ does not allow me those freedoms either.

No choice.
Artificial .. the illusion of choice.

Either way .. a really raw deal.

Where doesn’t public domain fit in this picture? It is after all the reason that copyright was allowed in the first place was with the understanding that when that time ran out for protection it reverted to public domain. Long before these ever reach that time limit, either they will exist no more or the equipment you now play them on will have changed several times resulting in music that won’t play. It is for certain that the guard dog DRM will never quit watching over the product, even after it reaches public domain.

The music industry is going to have a hard time convincing me, part of Joe Public, that the money is well spent. I could understand it if it had some sort of tangible, physical, product that I could hold. But buying 1’s and 0’s? That’s like buying vaporware, here today gone tomorrow, and it doesn’t exactly fit my definition for a product as I can’t hold it, touch it or see it directly.

Do you mean registration so your name / nick appears beside your post? If so, it’s in the left-hand column, under ‘Make a donation’.

Cheers!

If i were to buy all music i wanted to give a listen on demand to it would cost me at least $100 a month, maybe more. Most of that music I would listen to a few times then move on. it’s not like I can resell a digital file legally.

Why build a collection I can “own” and end up with money spent on “product” I don’t use on a regular basis? What happen’s if my CD collection get’s lost or stolen or scratched or broken? What if my hard drive self destructs or a portable player bites the dust?

I would rather pay a small fee every month and know I can listen on demand to thousands of songs and they are there to re-download when the need arises. i can keep up with new releases without having to “buy” them and get tired of them after 2 day’s. I can delete them without regretting a $12-$15 purchase.

All my old favourites are there whenever the mood may strike.

The concept of paying for something that “disappears” when you stop paying is not new.

I look at it this way, i don’t buy alcohol much, or cig’s at all, street drugs at all, lottery tickets at all, resturaunt meals much, movie thetre tickets much etc.

of all the things you can waste money on and end up with nothing
when you stop paying “renting’ music is no worse a deal than anything else.

sageadvisors@gmail.com

I would rather “rent” access to music and enjoy while I can for the lowest price possibble. Although claims are made in canada that P2p downloading (not uploading) is LEGAL for personal use i feel more comfortable paying a small price for my music. I enjoy it and feel better about it. i have a limited income and i can’t afford to pay .99 a song if i want to listen to new releases as they come out, especially if my intrest in the artist is marginal and i won’t relisten to it for months or years down the road.

The thing I don’t understand is how much people focous on “renting” as if offerring it as an option ALONGSIDE buying means you can only rent. You can RENT, BUY or do BOTH.

Why does Apple refuse to OFFER BOTH options?

I feel as a consumer having BOTH options available to me lets me CHOOSE! Apple doesn’t let you choose.

sageadvisors@gmail.com

p.s. where is the log in button for posting comments?