Pirating music..Is it really affecting your decision to purchase?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
HIM

HIM

Sicc OG
#1
Sep 27, 2002
4,648
1,156
113
41
#1
Honestly, downloading music in general isnt bad and doesnt always affect the artist financially...it only affects the artist when you download an album that you would have purchased had the download not been available...then they are losing money...thats not the case in all downloading situations..

For example...I downloaded the newest Kanye album...My download doesnt affect his sales because I would not have purchased the album regardless...so he doesnt lose out in this situation..in fact, he might actually win because although I didnt buy his music, I am aware of his music and sometimes that is the 2nd best thing to not buying it..

I will admit that downloading has affected my decision to purchase an album or not...The list below are albums that I would have purchased but because the album leaked and I had gotten so used to playing the leak in the ipod that I eventually said "I might as well not buy the album now" when it eventually dropped..

Brotha lynch - DAAM
Tech N9ne - Seepage
Bone Thugs - Uni5(which was weak)
Twista - Perfect Storm(still might buy it)
X-Raided(his latest two)

I will honestly say that downloading being available affected my decision to not purchase these albums....therefore these artists missed out on money..

What albums dropped this year you would have purchased had a leak/downloading not been available?
 
HIM

HIM

Sicc OG
#5
Sep 27, 2002
4,648
1,156
113
41
#5
niguardian said:
if its worth it ill buy it
Click to expand...
I usually try to support my fav artists like the ones mentioned above, especially underground artist...but it just didnt happen this year....I think the only album I purchased this year was Sade's album....
 
L

Lu_

Sicc OG
#6
Jun 14, 2005
1,693
997
113
#6
Here's an article I read years ago about this issue

Music pirates are also biggest spenders on legal downloads

LONDON - People who illegally share music on the internet are also the biggest spenders on legal music downloads, spending four-and-a-half times more than average music fans, according to new research.

The study, by music industry research company The Leading Question, revealed that regular downloaders of illegal music spend an average of £5.52 on legal music whereas other music fans spend an average of £1.27.

Paul Brindley, director of The Leading Question, said: "Research clearly shows that music fans who break piracy laws are highly valuable customers.

"There's a myth that all illegal downloaders are mercenaries hell-bent on breaking the law in pursuit of free music. In reality, hardcore fans 'are extremely enthusiastic' about paid-for services, as long as they are suitably compelling."

The research also suggests that instead of taking legal action against illegal downloaders, the music industry should work harder to entice consumers to use legal alternatives.

Music trade body, the British Phonographic Industry, has secured settlements worth several thousands of pounds from more than 90 people, who have been caught sharing illegally downloaded tracks over the internet from file-sharing sites like Limewire and BitTorrent.

BPI spokesman Matt Philips said: "It's encouraging that many illegal file sharers are starting to use legal services."

Since internet music downloads first surfaced in 1999, music sales have fallen by 25%, with record companies giants such as EMI and Sony BMG attributing the fall to illegal music downloads.

The Leading Question research follows another recent report by the International Federation of Phonographic Industries, which said that the growth of legitimate downloads was being pushed by the threat of lawsuits. It said 180m tracks had been downloaded globally between January and the end of June.

Downloads are now included in the official charts and has had the affect of keeping singles in the charts for longer, most recently seen with James Blunt and his single 'You're Beautiful', which had a seven-week climb to the number one spot rather than entering high and then quickly falling out.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bullet...sic-pirates-biggest-spenders-legal-downloads/
 
pyromanaic414

pyromanaic414

Sikk OG
#8
Aug 20, 2006
4,225
1,106
113
FLA
#8
i used to listened to all mainstream rap shit when i used to buy albums, then i started downloading and realized how shitty it was. so there probably are a lot of albums i would have bought that i didnt, but i usually buy albums i really like. so yes and no.
 
AKAZIE

AKAZIE

Sicc OG
#10
Sep 17, 2007
5,143
152
0
45
#10
if i like what i hear when i download it, i will eventually buy the cd later, i still wanna keep hope alive for CD's? Nowadays the last thing i wanna do is buy a garbage ass cd that i didn't pre-listen to. When CD's are finished and never used again. Thats the day im officially giving up on music because the internet virus has been kicked into full effect.
 
KrazeeRDM

KrazeeRDM

Sicc OG
#14
Nov 7, 2006
7,383
36
0
39
#14
i think it helps. if the artist wants people to buy there shit then dont make wack music plain and simple. i dl everything before i pick it up and thank god i do cause i'd be stuck with some shitty cd's and stuck without some great cd's.
 
rambo187

rambo187

Sicc OG
#15
Jan 25, 2009
1,613
597
113
#15
yes and no its to many albums out to cop all of them so im supporting artist which i know and like and dl all those which im not sure about or are not known to me and when i like album them im coping cd only im not paying for digital dl
 
ayo4yayo

ayo4yayo

Sicc OG
#16
Jul 25, 2007
4,989
2,060
113
45
#16
I download it first to see if its good enough to buy, put it on my Ipod and slap it on the way to rasputins but then when I park im like "WTF am I gonna buy it for, I already have it right here!"
 
niguardian

niguardian

Sicc OG
#17
Aug 6, 2008
10,132
195
0
39
#17
i think artists arent really puttin their all into the music and consumers arent really tryna break bread, dont know who started it but we're at a messican standoff

consumer: "If u make shit worth buyin we'll buy it"

artist: "if u buy shit worth makin we'll make it"


nobody wants to give in
 
ayo4yayo

ayo4yayo

Sicc OG
#18
Jul 25, 2007
4,989
2,060
113
45
#18
niguardian said:
i think artists arent really puttin their all into the music and consumers arent really tryna break bread, dont know who started it but we're at a messican standoff

consumer: "If u make shit worth buyin we'll buy it"

artist: "if u buy shit worth makin we'll make it"


nobody wants to give in
Click to expand...
Not only that but we in a recession. Gotta make some cut backs.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#19
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#19
pyromanaic414 said:
i used to listened to all mainstream rap shit when i used to buy albums, then i started downloading and realized how shitty it was. so there probably are a lot of albums i would have bought that i didnt, but i usually buy albums i really like. so yes and no.
Click to expand...
One thing that's overlooked IMO is that the whole experience of listening to music has changed drastically. I remember the days I would get a new tape, start playing it and just listen carefully to the whole thing, only skipping tracks that were absolutely awful (which was rare those days anyway). Skipping tracks is harder after all when the format is tape. This allowed one to really get into the music as you were more or less forced to listen to it carefully; a lot of albums that I initially thought were garbage have grown up on me tremendously this way. Once the format changed to CD, it was easier to only listen to the tracks you liked after the first listen, but still, you couldn't afford to buy 20 CDs a weeks so you still ended up listening carefully to them. It was the beginning of the "3-good tracks / 17 filler" trend though.

These days, however, it is a completely different thing, as you can download the music at a rate about one thousand times faster than you can listen to it, and the next song is just a click away in the playlist. So the attention span of the listeners has decreased greatly, and in the same time the artists have to fight for it harder and harder, the end result being more and more watered down music, and tons of it, as artists are trying to make up for the loss of per-album revenue by increasing the volume of material they put out, which only makes matters worse...

In terms of hurting the artists, I admit I have downloaded probably thousands of albums that just ended up archived somewhere and that I never listened to even once. Have I hurt the artist by doing so? Probably no. But I admit I have downloaded a lot of albums I have listened to a lot and I would have otherwise bought but I never did, so in those cases it definitely hurt them.

There is a way out of the whole mess that will also make music better, but it will have to involve pretty much dissolving the industry as it exists now and it is to start paying the artists per time listened to. Imagine that you have access to all music that has ever been released and you pay a fixed rate per minute of music listened to (and it has to be reasonable so that people buy into the idea) and then it goes to the artist you listened to according to how much you listened to them. The technology to do that exists these days. This way you reward quality over quantity, and if it is done without the whole promotion machinery that's in place right now, you may actually end up rewarding innovation and creativity too. Not going to happen as it would be the end of the majors if it did, but in an ideal world that's how I would set it up. Because right now, downloading music illegally is ripping off artists, but in the same time when you buy a CD you aren't ever going to listen to again because it's so bad, you get ripped off too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom